User talk:Postcrypto

Phone Counseling Research
Hi Steve. After reading the phone counseling article, I was upset that it made no mention of the growing trend of licensed therapists working over the phone. There is a substantial body of research devoted to the efficacy of phone counseling and the link I added included a summation of some of that research. Here is an excerpt from that site, www.coherencecounseling.com. "There have been many studies on telephone therapy over the past 15 years. A recent study in the Journal of Counseling and Development showed that people are generally more satisfied with phone counseling than face-to-face counseling. A much higher percentage (93% for telephone compared to 63% for face-to-face) said they would seek counseling again. It also found that more than half (58%) of people who had experienced both phone and in-person counseling preferred phone. Click here to read about that study. "Other studies found that people who are experiencing depression were less likely to drop out of telephone therapy and consistently showed improved mood. Click here to read about one of the depression studies." There also some information of the benefits and disadvantages of phone counseling as compared to in-person counseling. I would like to page to offer some of the information found on coherencecounseling.com, because at present it seems lacking. Please respond. Postcrypto (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Postcrypto, thanks for your work on telephone counseling. Please see my comments on the article's talk page.  In the future, if you want to contact me, use my talk page or the article talk page, both of which I am watching. I typically do not watch other user's pages unless I have left them a message.  I am watching your page now, so feel free to respond here.


 * In a nutshell, I strongly object to the use of coherencecounseling.com as a source. It does not satisfy the criteria for reliable sources, and because it is your private practitioner website, there are potential conflict of interest issues and repeated attempts to re-add it to articles could result in it being interpreted as spam.  There is some good content on that site, but you should cite the sources you used to develop that content rather than the site itself. Steve CarlsonTalk 22:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve. I completely understand your concern for use of coherencecounseling.com. Currently, however, the advantages and disadvantages sections have only one citation between them. I have been unable to find a qualitative analysis studying the experiences of telephone therapists and clients. In the absence of such a resource, would it not strengthen the article to have those rather subjective sections citing an experienced telephone therapist? They currently read as though they were written by a non-expert.


 * You'd think so, but the standard for citable sources on wikipedia is WP:RS, which clearly specifies that a source needs to be a reliable, third-party, published source. This is to ensure that our sources undergo some form of fact checking and peer review so we can reasonably rely on the information therein.  Unfortunately, a private website is neither reliable nor published.  I'm not accusing you of this, but it would be very easy for someone to get a website and write a whole bunch of POV, cite it as a source and thereby introduce a whole bunch of wrong information to wikipedia.  So that's why we have to draw the line, even though your intentions may be noble enough.  I appreciate your willingness to dialog about this.  I think we can still make this article shine without the reference.  I agree that the prose is sort of choppy and not very professional, but we can clean it up to make it sound better, and I'm sure the sources are out there somewhere.  Do you have access to a journal database like PsycINFO? Steve CarlsonTalk 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look some more. If I don't find anything, it is currently better than it was.Postcrypto (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:ColorCoc4Web.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:ColorCoc4Web.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 22:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cryptozoology
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed as they could be considered to be vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best place to bring that up would be on the talk page for cryptozoology. In order to meet WP:V a book needs to be findable somehow, and a movement or system of thought also has to be findable. If both are so new as to not appear anywhere yet, it is probably best to wait until others can find some proof that the book and philosophy exist before adding that information again, or else it is likely to be considered WP:OR by somebody and removed. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 20:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ColorCoc4Web.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:ColorCoc4Web.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Neuroleptic Deletions
I've responded to your query at User_talk:MeekMark. MeekMark (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User:KBlott (talk) made some helpful suggestions at User_talk:MeekMark; look at those; and I'd say try Kblott's suggesion of expanding the stub, or my original suggestion of placing in the atypical_antipsychotic article, and consider both our suggestions on the wording, placement, and sources used. Thanks for soliciting suggestions! MeekMark (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)