User talk:Paul.mott

Nice work![edit]

		The WikiCookie
		You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. Paul.mott (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul.mott, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Paul.mott! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Paul.mott, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please complete the student training, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Materials
Subject-specific handouts available on wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Group Project Page[edit]

Paul, criminal profiling is good for me. Do you have an article in mind? Bansheend (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul,

I think your page is just as good as anyone else's to use, especially because you're the one that has reached out. I don't really have any special preference toward any certain topic, so I would be open to whatever topic someone in the group has interest in.

Timbreid542 (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys,

I am open to whatever topic as well. I am majoring in criminal justice as well as psychology, so some of the things Paul mentioned sounded interesting to me too. Brittany.paulus (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, folks. Our assignment is due Friday, so we kind of need to decide on an article soon. Anything in particular? Paul.mott (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissistic Personality Disorder is thoroughly covered, and I haven't yet done a literature search, but I'm also exploring the fact that - at least from several online groups I'm in - empaths and highly sensitive persons - people who are supersensitive to or (controversially) can directly sense emotions - are favorite targets of theirs. I know one friend who is a licensed counselor said this is (mis-)labeled as sensory processing disorder. The article currently on Wikipedia needs work (See Highly Sensitive Person), but I don't know if this is too controversial or not. My therapist, a psychologist, seems to take it as valid and at face value. Paul.mott (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I have with doing something like Highly Sensitive Person, is that I'm afraid we won't be able to come up with enough sources or information for a good article. I was looking through the list that Dr. Council had on blackboard and I thought Media Psychology might be interesting. I also thought of Correctional Psychology, Criminal Psychology, or Criminal Profiling, all of which do not have very well developed articles. Any thoughts? Brittany.paulus (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Profiling sounds interesting. HSP (for short) came up with about 616 Google Scholar results, not all by Elaine Aron. But if that's too risky, I'd say profiling as first choice, and Correctional Psychology as second. Criminal Psychology sounds like it will overlap with Forensic Psychology, more than profiling - although the two are synonymous. I will only be able to work on this until class tomorrow morning. I have an appointment at 4 today, and at 3 tomorrow, and about 1.5 hrs of buses for both. Kathleen and Tim? Paul.mott (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else looked at the existing article for criminal profiling (offender profiling)? I was looking at it again, and there is quite a bit of info on it but there is a warning banner saying there are some issues with the article. Do we think there is enough to change/add that it would be a good choice for this assignment? If we want to pick something else, I would be fine do HSP for our first choice since Paul says there should be enough info for it and correctional psychology as our second choice. Maybe we should as Dr. Council's opinion? Brittany.paulus (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like profiling gets first vote. Anyone object or have a better idea? For second choice, I leave it to you three. HSP is a personal project, so I'm going to do the research anyway. Paul.mott (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remember: we each have to turn this in.

If we can get a consensus by 11am, I'd appreciate it. Paul.mott (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Let's say correctional psychology as second choice. Brittany.paulus (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2015 (UTD)

Do other group members have a preference for second choice, or disagree with profiling as a first choice?Paul.mott (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't been getting any updates from your page even though I marked it as "watched". Those choices seem alright to me. So 1st Profiling, 2nd correctional psych? Timbreid542 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving Dr. Council's feedback, I took a look at "Offender Profiling," and it seems to focus on profiles of offenders after a crime has been committed. I noticed a mix of pop culture references and history, but it seems to ignore the behavior profiling as, for example, practiced by the FBI. I do know that law enforcement generally looks at motive, means, and opportunity, but understanding how a suspect thinks and the types of individuals most likely to commit an offense play a role in deterring crime and in pursuit and capture of suspects. Defining terms will be a critical part of this project if we pursue profiling, and if that topic is approved. Paul.mott (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to check the hyperlinked references, and about half of them are not working - "page not found" errors. The talk page for Offender profiling shows some of the changes and merges made, but I still see a lot missing. Also, multiple other articles are related. If we go with profiling, we may have our hands full of reviewing, clarifying, and "clean up" of the various overlaps. Paul.mott (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we would need to try and combine all the similar articles. I think if we are going with profiling, we could start a new page tilted criminal profiling that focuses on the psychology of profiling suspects. Brittany.paulus (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to remove the redirect, and watch out that we do not duplicate content from those other articles. Paul.mott (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I browsed through "Offender Profiling" and it may be easier in some ways. I also skimmed through the various Wiki Project Groups that have an interest in it, and we can potentially make a big difference. Pros: we won't be starting from square one; some research done gives us an idea of how people have looked at the subject matter; editing an existing article saves us from building a new structure... Cons: we have to edit without upsetting; we need to modify our writing styles to match; figuring out what to add, what to supplement, and what to change may be chalkengomg challenging. I think it's doable, but we all need to agree, and commit as a group. Paul.mott (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with offender profiling. Brittany.paulus (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Offender profiling as a topic[edit]

I looked at Offender profiling, which is a redirect from Criminal profiling. You're right, there is a banner indicating that there are multiple issues with this article. However, the date on the banner is August, 2013. There are many entries since then. Banners go up, but they don't always come down after problems have been corrected. I have not had time to read the article, so I can't tell you whether the problems have been fixed. My guess is that this article could still stand some improvement, and since this is a popular topic, improving it would be a great project. This will not be as straightforward as expanding a stub, however. I suggest that you all read Offender profiling carefully, and determine whether it needs enough improvement that it will make an appropriate project for this class. I'll read through this myself and try to help you out in determining whether this should be your final choice. J.R. Council (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the existing article on offender profiling, I've come to the following conclusions:

The article is long, but it is poorly organized, needs more citations, and is missing important information. I know a couple of articles which are not cited and could add to the article. Happy to send them your way.
Taking on this article will not be easy. In contrast to expanding a stub, you'll need to intervene in multiple places, and this needs to be done "surgically." You can't just replace whole sections with a rewrite. (Bad Wikipedia etiquette.)
If you take this on, you should definitely take advantage of Ian's @Ian (Wiki Ed): expertise. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say about this topic.

J.R. Council (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Group: do we still want to take this topic? As I understand Dr. Council, he is looking at correctimg "Offender Profiling," not (re)creating "Criminal Profiling.* Paul.mott (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think recreating Criminal Profiling is an option, if the same material is in the Offender profiling article.J.R. Council (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that the article states that there are a number of terms that refer to the same thing. If Offender profiling is a commonly accepted term, then just stick with that. When people search on Criminal profiling, they'll be taken to the Offender profiling article. J.R. Council (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me if we stick with offender profiling or not. I would definitely be alright with switching to correctional psychology, which is just a stub article. Just depends on what the rest of the group wants to do. Brittany.paulus (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, if we don't hear from the other two by tomorrow evening or Wednesday morning, I am comfortable with whatever you think the best choice is. I am kind of leaning away from offender profiling more now that we know it might prove to be more difficult than we originally thought. Brittany.paulus (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to take on the offender profiling article, it's definitely an article that could use the attention. When approaching it, here are a few things to bear in mind:

The first thing to think about is coverage. What are the most important issues when it comes to offender profiling? Are they covered, and if so, are they covered in a proportionate way?
The second thing to think about is balance. What topics are given disproportionate coverage? More than a third of the article is given over to "notable profilers". Is that really a balanced coverage? That section should probably be trimmed substantially.
- I noticed that several of the notable profilers covered there have very short articles - maybe some of the content might be moved over to those articles.
The third thing is coherence. Does the way things are covered make sense? Does the sequence of things make sense? Is it logical? Does it help understanding?
Finally, the lead section - it's supposed to summarize the major points of the article. It doesn't, and you shouldn't worry about it yet, but once you've made your improvements to the article you should re-write the lead.

Hope this helps. If it isn't clear in some way, or if I can help more otherwise, let me know. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile![edit]

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at my talk page. Happy Editing! ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

Your addition to Criminal profiling has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Copy-paste from http://america.pink/offender-profiling_3301778.html —Wasell^(T) 19:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dang! There was indeed a copyright violation, but it's america.pink that is copying Wikipedia without proper attributions. Sorry about the confusion. I'll reinstate your edit immediately! Once again, I'm really, really sorry! —Wasell^(T) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]