User talk:Shotwell/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Ashes of Eden

Nicely done! I think you could go ahead and remove the cleanup tag. EdJohnston 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I am one step closer to fitting in at a Star Trek convention. shotwell 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

System Accident

Sounds good. I will review and vote later.Dudeman1st 05:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

'WARNING'

Please assume good faith and stop engaging in personal attacks and wp:uncivil behavior. Furthermore do not begin an edit war. All changes in Advocates for Children in Therapy should be listed on the talk page for discussion and comment and consensus building. The article as is represents a previously built consensus among divergent opinions. I have not added a warning message here, but if your behavior continues I will be foreced to do so. MarkWood 14:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks? What are you on about? shotwell 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Grading mathematics articles

First up, thanks for your contributions in grading mathematics articles. Could I request that you record the results of your work in the relevant section of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0? That way it prevents other editors from duplicating your efforts.

Many thanks, Tompw 14:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the above page, you'll see a navigation box, which has links to the dozen or so "Assessment pages". These each cover some major division of mathemetics. When grading an article, decide which area it belongs to. (Some articles could go under several categories... just pick the one you think is best). Go to the assessment page, use the example {{maths rating}} template at the top on the talk page of the article your grading. Then edit the "Assessment pages" to include the article you've just graded. Use other articles' entries to help you with wikicode etc.. Make sure you inlucde any comment you left. Hope this helps. Tompw 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Always happy to help :-) Tompw 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Collegian (Walla Walla College) merge proposal

Are there any other college newspapers which have pages, if not I would support a merge and redirect. Ansell 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have responded on your talk page. shotwell 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Importance of Functional Analysis

Sure, no problem. The importance ratings I give I only ever intended to be initial ones. Inevitably, the importance reflects my own mathematical knowledge and experience. In some areas (such as analysis or number theory), this is likely to lead to someone more familiar with the area coming along and correcting the results of my ignorance. I never mind people correcting my ratings, providing they give a good reason (like you did). :-) Tompw 11:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

'WARNING REGARDING GOOD FAITH'

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.

Your placing tags, comments, and related edits that now appear retailatory are probably a violation of Wikipedia policies, such as not personal attacks, NPOV, etc. Please stop. DPeterson^talk 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of these ridiculous warnings. I suggest that you carefully read the wikipedia guidelines before leaving another baseless warning on my talk page. Articles need references and that is that. If you're concerned with my motivations, please look at my contrib history. You'll see that I sputter around wikipedia around cleaning up articles. The ACT article led me to the others. I've also replied on your talk page. shotwell 17:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Wikipedia policy and procedures and practices. Consider this your 'SECOND WARNING'. If you disagree with me and continue, I'd urge you to bring this matter to the Mediation group as that would be more appropriate than your vandalizing pages. DPeterson^talk 17:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Asking for references does not constitute vandalism in any sense of the word. shotwell 17:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, putting the ^{[citation needed]} after nearly every other line, particularily when there are clear references and sources Template:Verifiable at the beginning, in, and/or at the end of each paragraph to support the material is considered vandalism. Please read the Wikipedia policy on this. DPeterson^talk 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the request for references on claims such as "this therapy is very effective", practice guidelines, and other similar things. These sorts of things deserve very good references demonstrating that they are representative of widely held beliefs in the psychological community. shotwell 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ACT

You seem to know more about Wikipedia than I do, so I thought I'd ask you this directly. It seems crazy that the ACT page has been written almost exclusively by anti-ACT people (those who call ACT a "fringe" group, or have specific disagreements with ACT members, as shown by the various links I posted on the ACT talk page). The resulting bias in the article is obvious (as you have noted). Is there a mechanism for bringing this situation to someone's attention, and perhaps getting these people excluded from editing the page? StokerAce 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are such mechanisms but they can sometimes take awhile. I've already made an rfc for this article, asked the mediation cabal for help, and brought the attachment therapy related pages to the attention of the psychology wikiproject. All of these problems would be fixed if there was more attention on these articles -- sometimes it just takes time.

As for excluding them from editing, I'm not really aware of the procedures. I don't think that such an attempt would go very far or be helpful. The fact that ACT opposes their specializations may suggest the possibility of a slight bias in their edits, but it also means that they can offer a unique point of view. However, I believe that those who have a direct and demonstrated personal interest in the article about ACT should probably voluntarily refrain themselves from making controversial edits.

The larger issue is that all of the "attachment" articles have a similar bias and we can't very well make a flood of rfcs or mediation requests on all the articles. Ironically, I feel that these bizarre warnings on my talk page will also help because they may perk the interest of other editors.

I have also responded on your talk page. shotwell 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. I'll keep watching these pages and contribute where I think I can be of use. One of the big problems is that the anti-ACT group does not seem to want to engage in a dialgue of any sort. They just repeat the same things over and over. It makes it hard to understand where they are coming from. StokerAce 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that I really appreciate your contributions. And yes, the lack of rational dialog is making this very difficult. shotwell 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As a Template:Sock puppet or Template:Meat puppet StokerAce's input is quite suspect. He may be one of the ACT editors who was banned from editing certain pages; or not. In any event, his labeling all who disagree with him as "Anti-ACT" is quite biased in and of itself. DPeterson^talk 01:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would have written it like this:

As a sock puppet or meat puppet,^{[citation needed]} StokerAce's input is quite suspect. He may be one of the ACT editors who was banned from editing certain pages; or not.^{[citation needed]} In any event, his labeling all who disagree with him as "Anti-ACT" is quite biased in and of itself.^{[citation needed]}

shotwell 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. As a sock puppet or meat puppet,(as defined by Wikipedia) StokerAce's input is quite suspect, in accordance with Wikipedia standards sock puppet. He may be one of the ACT editors who was banned from editing certain pages; or not. (compare his language with that of either Sarner or others) In any event, his labeling all who disagree with him as "Anti-ACT" is quite biased in and of itself (as described by Wikipedia's sock puppet) DPeterson^talk 15:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a sock puppet, meat puppet, or ACT editor. Just a moderately interested observer of these issues. And I don't label all who disagree with me as "Anti-ACT". But I do label those who have been calling ACT a "fringe" group as "Anti-ACT". Calling it a "fringe" group is clearly intended to be an insult. If someone wants to make substantive criticisms of ACT, that's fine. I'm sure there are legitimate criticims that can be made. But just calling it "fringe" with no evidence does not seem appropriate. StokerAce 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

They call everyone that and they also use the same ridiculous (and non-existant) {{sock puppet}} template to do it. It borders on comical. shotwell 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation over Advocates for Children in Therapy

You have been listed as an involved party in Advocates for Children in Therapy, and I have accepted the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07 Advocates for Children in Therapy. If you can please take a look at the case and let us hear your side, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Also, if you can provide a list of all users involved in the dispute, I will contact them. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy

What exactly do you have against the article? Nwwaew(My talk page) 15:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it makes broad claims concerning therapeutic efficacy and evidential basis in a manner that would suggest they are encyclopedic fact. I don't feel wikipedia should make such claims unless a very strong majority of psychologists would agree with them. We're not here to recommend one form of treatment over another and such a precedent could ultimately be dangerous. Although DDP is relatively harmless according to the APSAC, other forms of therapy may not be. Are we to claim other forms of therapy are effective because a very small number of papers have concluded this? Moreover, DDP is relatively unknown and under-studied. The editors of Child Maltreatment recently wrote:

"In our estimation, DDP still does not meet criteria as an evidence-based treatment, although

the published findings do raise hopes that DDP may be promising."

They go on to point out the deficiencies in the studies being used to reference the claims made in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. This is a highly credible source that is directly contradicting what Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy claims. Note that there is an incredibly vast difference between asserting "This is an evidence-based, effective therapy" and "Some studies have concluded that this therapy is effective." The editors that disagree with me seem to believe that any claim which finds its way into a book or peer-reviewed journal can be taken as scientific canon. Anyone involved with the academic hamster-wheel of publishing would immediately recognize the error in such reasoning.

DDP is intended to treat Reactive attachment disorder. This is a very serious and rare psychological disorder. In my mind, labelling DDP as "effective" and "evidence-based" is no different than labelling some experimental cancer treatment as effective and evidence based. Furthermore, the same Child Maltreatment article said:

"Although we did not discuss DDP in the report, it is worth considering, whether DDP is a concerning,

coercive, abusive attachment therapy or a promising, nonconcerning, and noncoercive treatment. We

hope it is the latter; however, it can be difficult to judge."

They aren't saying that the therapy is abusive, but they are not endorsing the therapy as being non-abusive either. As such, we cannot claim that this therapy satisfies APSAC guidelines because the very authors of those guidelines are not completely sure of the fact!

The proponents of DDP have come to conclusions that are in the scientific minority. I am not advocating against these conclusions and I believe that they belong in the article. My problem is that the conclusions are minority opinions and do not deserve to be treated as encyclopedic fact or scientific canon.

The reply to letters I am quoting can be found at http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/4/381. It is important to reiterate that this is likely the most credible source available to us regarding DDP. The authors are not, as DPeterson pointed out, disparaging DDP. They are, however, pointing out that a lot of research and investigation needs to be performed before it can be labelled as effective or evidence based.

The DDP article boils down to an endorsement of DDP and I'm not really sure we should we endorse any therapy whatsoever. We're here to present facts. Imagine if this article was about Ritalin. Ritalin is probably an effective treatment for ADHD and I suspect there is a vast library of research concluding the fact. Shall we go about endorsing Ritalin? Note the difference between the following claims:

"Ritalin is an evidence-based and effective treatment for ADHD."

"Ritalin is primarily used for the treatment of ADHD. A large amount of research has concluded that..."

I would also like to point out the large number of psychotherapy related articles that link to DDP or claim it is evidence-based. Even the Child abuse article makes this claim. Every one of these mentions was added by one of the editors involved in this dispute. This is suggestive of a large advertising campaign for DDP. It may seem bizarre that someone would advertise a therapeutic technique, but note that this therapy is practiced at a very limited number of treatment centers (maybe one) and its proponents stand to profit from a favourable impression of DDP.

Note that I have no interest in psychology and have never studied it before. I only stumbled across these articles because of the dispute at Advocates for Children in Therapy (which I was brought to by random page!). The "snake-oil claims" made in the DDP article led me to further research on the topic. I encourage anyone interested to follow the references and see for themselves. The matter at hand is quite clear to me and I suspect that it'd be clear to any reasonable person who investigated further.

This is an issue of encyclopedic and scientific integrity. I am not likely to change my opinions on these matters unless I am presented with a very solid and rational argument as to why I am wrong. shotwell 16:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the letter at Child Maltreatment was only written because Dr. Becker-Weidman, a proponent of DDP, wrote a letter to the journal. I feel it is important to put their letter in this context. DDP has received little or no professional attention aside from their response. shotwell 17:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you may be misrepresenting the article and the author's opinions. As I previously brought to your attention, the authors of the APSAC Task Force article stated, The authors of the report acknowledge in a recent article that they wrote the report before the peer-reveiwed publications were published and even state, '"In fact, the term dyadic developmental psychotherapy is not mentioed anywhere in the body of the Taks Force report. Dr. Becker-Weidman ius cited three times in the body of the report, noe of which refer to coercive techniques...Regarding the issue of empirical support, it is encourgain to see that outcome research on DDP was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal...We congratulate Dr. Becker-Weidman on this work and hope he will continue to expand these efforts..." and there is substantially more. (Child Maltreatment, 11,4, Nov 2006).' DPeterson^talk 17:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are taking scattered quotes from the letter and pasting them together as if they were part of the same statement. The vast majority of the letter is an explanation of why DDP should not be labelled as evidence-based. The letter even calls on Becker-Weidman to remove such claims from his website! If the editors of Child Maltreatment don't believe the claims belong on his website, then the claims certainly do not belong here on wikipedia.

Did you expect that I wouldn't read the article? Do you expect that nobody else will read the article? I don't understand the logical basis of your actions here. shotwell 17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: working with Sarner

I am not working with Sarner! I am being neutral in this, and plan to stay neutral. Nwwaew(My talk page) 20:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

All I see is that you and he have take identical stances, are using the same tactics and the same language. DPeterson^talk 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. Nwwaew, did you believe that I was accusing you of "working with Sarner? DPeterson, did you think I wrote Nwwaew's comment? shotwell 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not referring to Nwwaew. I was making an observation about you (Shotwell) and Sarner. I am sorry if my observation was confusing. DPeterson^talk 22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you responded to Nwwaew's comment, which is what had me confused. shotwell 22:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing my and other pages

Your actions may be construed as vandalism. At the least they are an act of bad faith. The Mediator involved in the case has labeled your act as unacceptable. "That was COMPLETELY unjustified. I think this shows that you will do almost anything to keep the article from the majority of editors. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy DPeterson^talk 01:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC) DPeterson^talk 01:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism? I was really hoping you would come up with a more substantial response. shotwell 01:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser request declined

Can you please remove the sockpuppet tags on those peoples pages? The CheckUser and Sockpuppet reports have been denied. Nwwaew(My talk page) 13:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. shotwell 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

ACT/Bowlby/DDP disputes

I admire your patience in your dealings with AWeidman et al. They seem to have a knack for avoiding a substantive discussion of the issues, though. Perhaps at some point it would be useful to take this up with a formal Wikipedia arbitration body? Since you are doing all the hard work on this, I'll leave the decision up to you, of course. Just a suggestion. StokerAce 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom doesn't generally resolve content disputes and we haven't really even scratched the surface of the dispute resolution process. If the debate continues in this fashion for much longer, I suppose we'll need to request formal mediation in order to facilitate some true discourse. I was previously inclined to go through the mediation cabal, but I think that if we reach mediation, we'll need some formal structure. I am of the opinion that we could all compromise on these issues without mediation because the dispute is dependent on misconceptions regarding guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV, as well as misconceptions about my position concerning the article. These things could be immediately resolved if a greater diversity of editors would take interest. I made an RfC and nobody commented, but I think this has to do with the ridiculously large debate on the talk page. I am at a loss when it comes to attracting neutral, yet knowledgeable editors to the disputed articles. shotwell 19:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the questions surrounding StokerAce, as I posted on my page, There are a large number of editors on these pages...it is just that no one agrees with you, which might lead you to reconsider your positions. JohnsonRon 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There are only six people who disagree with me and they're all specialized in Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy. It would be completely unreasonable for me to abandon reason on this basis. You must understand that I want to improve the articles. I can sympathize with your desire to protect DDP from being characterized as an abusive quack-psychology treatment. The only good way to do this is by writing a well-sourced neutral article. I actually think that the current revision of the DDP article makes the therapy seem like a snake-oil cure for Reactive attachment disorder. Reasonable people are highly suspicious when they're told, as fact, that some treatment is absolutely effective, evidence-based, grounded in theory, and compliant with every guideline known to psychology. These sorts of claims raise warning bells. Traditionally, well-established therapists and researchers don't assert such things so loudly. Well-established researchers offer their methods up for deep scrutiny and dutifully accept that scrutiny (if they have any integrity). Moreover, I would be seriously concerned with any treatment whose description essentially begins with "this therapy is not child abuse". To put it in a different context, imagine if you read an advertisement for some herbal supplement that said all of these things: "Our herbal supplement is an effective, evidence-based preventative for cancer! Our researchers derived this formula using well-established biological and chemical principles! This supplement won't kill you! Order some today!". shotwell 19:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. As I said, it's your call. In my view, there is room for compromise on both the ACT and Newmaker pages. We just need to make sure NPOV is followed. I only have a couple quibbles with the wording on those pages. DDP, on the other hand, is more problematic. The whole article seems like a marketing tool for a particular form of therapy, for which there is limited evidence. StokerAce 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the ACT and Candace Newmaker entries. I thought we were making pretty good progress on the Newmaker page for awhile. The thing about DDP is that claims about it have been inserted in a large number of articles. Try a google search restricted to the wikipedia domain and you'll see. This does suggest a marketing ploy, but I really think they believe those things about DDP and are acting in good-faith. shotwell 19:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It does appear that you and StokerAce/Sarner are acting as one. As mentioned elsewhere your making the same accusations that Sarner/StokerAce made; that Dr. Becker-Weidman = DPeterson is an example. It does raise questions about the extent to which you really are serious about compromise and recognizing consensus. JohnsonRon 19:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AMA Request

Hello Shotwell,

I've had a look at your Advocacy request and the associated articles and agree with your sentiments above that formal mediation would be the best option towards beginning to resolve these issues. I have no experience or background in developmental psychotherapy, but think I could assist in articulating your concerns in terms of WP policy. Have any significant changes occurred in anything since the AMA request was filed? Best,--Amerique ^dialectics 05:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Formal AMA Request

We already have a mediator involved in the case...let it proceed. It might help if you stated what you want, in specific language, on each of the pages you are disputing: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Bowlby, Candace Newmaker, and Advocates for Children in Therapy. This way everyone could see how this all fits together and address all the related points in one organized and integrated manner. DPeterson^talk 23:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also could you address the point raised on the Dyadic Developmental Psychotheray talk page:

I can see how a reader might wonder about how your personal views are influencing your suggestions and the tack you are taking.

I don't see where Dr. Hughes says that he engaged in "'very'" coercive techniques in the past. The material does say that the method is compliant with the APSAC guidelines and the APSAC report writers do acknowledge that they are 'not' saying the approach is coercive; this leads to compliance with the bulk of the guideline. It may be that your personal views cloud(or maybe bias is a better word?) your vision a bit on this and other related points.

DPeterson^talk 23:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Indeed, it appears all right now. I am grateful for your quick response. Dr Moshe 14:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to comment on my talk page User:JohnsonRonregarding the Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy article

I don't see it the way you do. The only "claims concerning efficacy, evidential basis, compliance, and theoretical grounding," have been yours (previously Mr. Sarner had similiar issues that appeared to be resolved). I think the article is appropriately referenced with legit sources that support the statements regarding the efficacy of the approach, it's evidence base (several peer reviewed pubs and 2 empirical studies), compliance, and many many references clearly showing the theoretical basis of the approach.JohnsonRon 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ending of AMA dispute

That's fine with me. I hope we can work together on another project. I certainly respect your thoughtfulness and precision. regards. DPeterson^talk 23:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ending the dispute is good. I will voice my support on the mediation page. JonesRD_talk 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Let me know if you ever need a hand or a sounding wall in anything. Best,--Amerique ^dialectics 02:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Somalia Page

this vandalisme of these editors who do not state why they edit is getting childish and redundant

there accounts should be locked

RoboRanks 00:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)RoboRanks

The Somalia Page

Mr. Shotwell, after all your great work here I can't understand why you insist on reposting the "Current Political Realities Map of Somalia" to the Somalia page. My friend I am not aware of how well you follow the Somali political saga but that map is way off base. While the graphics of the map ar very nice indeed and professionally done it is the features on the map that are wrong(in some instances which i will mention).

For starters:

1. There are no Somaliland troops stationed at the border with Ethiopia as your map shows, perhaps you were trying to picture the Somaliland troops stationed in Adiadeeye military base in Sool region of Somaliland? There are indeed some ten thousand Somaliland soldiers stationed in Adiadeeye in Sool, they are stationed there in case there is some spillover from the chaos and warfare in neigboring Somalia(in which different factions are now gearing up for major battles.) Somaliland and Ethiopia have good relations and trade flourishes between the two countries.

2. Why you painted areas of Somaliland as belonging to Puntland is another mystery? Besides Puntland's rethoric of having desings on areas of Somaliland they do not infact controll any parts of Somaliland.

3. Puntland as you have pictured it is a fantasy creation of some people in that region. Puntalnd consists of the Bari region, Nugaal region and upper Mudug region, thats it. From Gaalkacyo to the border with Kenya the Union of Islamic courts rule. (with the exception of Baidoa which you correctly featured in your map).

Please make some changes to your map which was besides these errors a really high quality piece of work.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Basketballplayer90000 (talk • contribs).

I didn't make the map, so I cannot comment on its accuracy. These sound like some very legitimate concerns and I think that you need to bring them up on the Somalia talk page. Do you have any references such as books, webpages, or news articles? shotwell 00:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Somaliland and Somalia: Maps that will clarify this issue:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Basketballplayer90000 (talk • contribs). shotwell 01:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So Somaliland and Puntland have made conflicting territorial claims, yes? It seems like the map represents the fact that Somaliland has also made a claim to those areas. I gather that you'd prefer the disputed area be colored as Somaliland, rather than Somaliland and Puntland? I will continue to read about the subject. shotwell 01:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/o/User_talk%7EShotwell_Archive_1_d535.html"

Category: User talk archives