User talk:Shotwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Use this link to add a new discussion. If you leave me a message here, I will reply on this talk page unless you request otherwise.

Archives
/Archive 1

[edit] Somalian Articles

i agree there needs to be done more..

i probably won't have time to start any articles untill this wednesday but when i do have the time i will add and expand as much as i can and i appreciate the fact you want to help thanks! RoboRanks 22:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CSD warning template

Hey, looks like you just used a template to warn an editor that an article s/he created has been tagged for speedy deletion. Can you point me to that template? Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

¡Muchas gracias! | Mr. Darcy talk 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sources

there are 2 sources on the Giovanni DonCara page like you suggested, if you could take a moment to see if they have been done correctly...

cheers, Thelightside 15:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references, so I removed that reference. Also, could you please provide some more information about the book "Earth and Space"? My searches return that this is a children's book with no 2005 edition, so I perhaps I am finding the wrong book. shotwell 17:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Good call

Yeah, thanks. Those two! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoaxers

Thanks for your help re:capurt etc. maybe we can warn/ban all the members of that hoaxing crew as well: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --Rajah 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If this really is a hoax, I would guess that these are socks created for the purpose of perpetuating the hoax. I think the afd should play out before anyone gets a warning. If the article is real, these people have some remarkably specialized knowledge (given the complete absence in anything I've searched) and we've already bitten them a little. shotwell 19:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

{{db-vandalism}} says that vandalism speedily deletable. Wikipedia:Vandalism lists "Silly vandalism: Creating joke or hoax articles ...". As written, hoaxes fall under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion G3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hoaxes says hoax articles cannot be speedily deleted. However, I won't remove your speedy tag. shotwell 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lol

Why do you hate Mel? Resultant65 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removing categories

Please direct your attention to Resident (Second Life) instead of batch reverting all the edits. Signpostmarv 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We apparently wrote each other at the same time. I wrote on your talk page about this categorization scheme. shotwell 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed :-) Since both threads cover the same topic, and this one was started first, I suggest continuing it here. Or on Category talk:Second Life Residents. Whichever is more appropriate.

Signpostmarv 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain to me why categorizing people based on the games they play is a good idea? I'm sure that R. J. Rummel or Kurt Vonnegut may very well play this game, but I don't see why it is relevant. What if they publicize that they're avid Law & Order fans, shall we categorize them as such? This is indiscriminate information. I'm not even sure if this category should exist in the first place. shotwell 22:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a game
It is a valid category
1. Resident (Second Life) is a valid article
2. Categorising people under Second Life is not as appropriate as categorising them as a SL Resident. Doing so would make about as much sense as categorising a person under the religion they subscribe to as opposed to a category for people who subscribe to a religion.
3. Look at the definition of the term Resident on the Resident (Second Life) article
4. Look at the list of people I plan to be adding at sometime in the future.

While some people might not meet the definition of SL Residents, some people definately do- Anshe Chung, Peter Ludlow etc. So I'll admit I was perhaps a little over-zealous with running through the entire list.

Signpostmarv 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see that Anshe Chung may belong in this category because this person is notable for playing Second Life. Of the people you've added to this category, whose activities in Second Life are noteworthy? Are there more than one or two? Also, if you're going to add these categories, you at least need to write some supporting text. (For example, the Kurt Vonnegut article doesn't make a single mention of Second Life.) shotwell 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, if you find something that doesn't have supporting text in an article, you should go looking for it and add it instead of just removing it.

Signpostmarv 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:V. Category:Second Life Residents is a rather arbitrary category and there is no mention whatsoever in the biographies of these people. I thought it was some sort of strange vandalism until I realized the category was growing and that you'd just created it. shotwell 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:V yourself. If a person is on the list on Resident (Second Life), it's because they match the definition for one of the sections.

Signpostmarv 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I see that the editors there did a high quality job of tracking down references. At any rate, I've nominated the category for deletion and left a note on your talk page. shotwell 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence Lessig category

Hi, I just reverted your edit to Lawrence Lessig. I readded the category because while it isn't mentioned in the article about Lessig, it is both mentioned and sourced in the Resident (Second Life) article. Just figured I'd let you know. Thanks, Nihiltres 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iSilo

Your point makes sense, and all the more so since the SandalNET page was deleted by KissMyHuman, sorry for the problem, Patrick

Oh, there is certainly no need to be sorry. It happens to a lot of people... you were being bold. Feel free to contact me if you ever have a question. shotwell 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Paedophilia

Your recent edit to Paedophilia (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

AntiVandal bot! Ah! (I was undoing a cut-paste move on Pedophilia done by a vandal) shotwell 19:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reagan

But now there's no link to wikiquote anywhere on the page. In contrast, there is a link to Wikiversity, which yields nothing about Reagan.Ferrylodge 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that was my fault. I didn't think to replace that link. It should be fixed now. shotwell 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thank you. can you help further?

Thank you for your advise and removal of the email address. can you please help me to wikify my article about shyama chittar. she is my Mom and I want to preserve her profile online through this site. I request you not to delete any detail while changing the format. It has taken me lot of time to collect this detail and a lifetime for my Mom. I do not have any links on internet regarding her career or haven't found it as yet.

i wanted to put some contact info on this profile for our far away friends to get in touch with us. what can be done for same?

regards Kunal Chittar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kunal.chittar (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

It is very kind of you to write about your mother and contribute to wikipedia. You are also lucky to have a such an accomplished mother. There are some guidelines and policies that I'd like to point out.

Wikipedia is not a social networking site: Wikipedia should never be used as a means to stay in touch with friends or family.
Neutral point of view: All articles must be neutral.
Conflict of interest: We shouldn't write about people to whom we are closely related.

These policies mean that you should probably refrain from writing your mother's biography. I will cleanup, wikify, and expand on her biography so you don't have the need. In the meantime, I need you to tell me whether or not your mother satisfies any of the inclusion guidelines for musicians on wikipedia. Regards, shotwell 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics CotW

Hey Shotwell, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 00:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dpeterson

You can add this to your RfC if your want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StokerAce#DPeterson_and_Dr._Becker-Weidman Basically, someone claims, with some good evidence, that Dpeterson and Dr. Becker-Weidman are either one and the same or closely linked. StokerAce 02:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{spa}}

Please see WP:SPA. {{spa}} is intended for cases of vote-stacking during XfD's or similar situations. Other uses of the tag are discouraged. In particular, there is no reason to tag parties to mediation with this tag. shotwell 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is why in this instance it is perfectly accurate and warranted. However, the mediator can decide otherwise if that person so chooses. It really isn't your place to own the page. DPeterson^talk 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Own the page? I removed them once and you promptly reverted. shotwell 21:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, you do not own the page and should not have deleted other editor's additions...that is for the mediator. I continue to question your sincerity about the RfM process given these actions and comments and your comments on the Attachment Therapy article talk page. DPeterson^talk 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my implication. That's ok. What actions and comments have given you reason to question my sincerity? shotwell 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comment above that will direct you there. DPeterson^talk 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it has not. Please show me a comment I have made that would give you reason to question my sincerity. shotwell 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It was comments by Fain & now Sarner...sorry, Fain's comments sound like yours, I'd not noticed the signature, my apologies. DPeterson^talk 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Shotwell doesn't sound a bit like me! He's much calmer.Fainites 18:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unauthorized change in your RfM?

User SamDavidson altered your RfM on ACT/DDP/AT to include three additional articles. He did this before "agreeing" to the mediation at the last minute. Is this kosher? If not, how can it be brought to the attention of the Committee before a decision is taken? I for one did not agree to a smorgasbord mediation, but to the more narrowly focused one drawn up by you in the first place. Those who had agreed earlier have been sandbagged.

I am afraid that no one on the Mediation Committee will agree to be involved in such a mish-mash this request has become and when editors like SamDavidson act like this. Or worse, I fear any mediator who might agree to such a thing could be as bad (or inexperienced) as the ones who handled (and failed with) the previous attempts at mediation. Even if we get a good mediator, with the sandbagging of the Theraplay, Bowlby, and Adoption articles, I'm confident that certain editors will drag out the process ad nauseam, insisting upon complete resolution of all disputes on all pages, then claim success when the mediation is closed as fruitless. (They've done that before.) Larry Sarner 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I agree that those who signed up may not have had articles such as Adoption in mind. I moved SamDavidson's additions to the "additional issues to be mediated". Perhaps Sam can elaborate once mediation begins. If our case is accepted, the original request shouldn't matter too much anyhow. shotwell 12:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Theorem Proving

My felicitations on your proof of a non-trivial theorem after six months. I hope you publish. As a fellow mathematician (in my case, applied), I have an appreciation for both the intellectual effort involved and the satisfaction of achievement. Congratulations for discovering and showing something about the real world (presuming you are a Platonist, of course)! Larry Sarner 13:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! (Yes, a definite Platonist.) shotwell 23:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your summary on the talk page of Attachment Therapy

I think that is an excellent and concise summary; good advise too. Thanks! DPeterson^talk 15:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DPeterson actions on RfM

FYI, DPeterson has just:

1. Broken 3RR with this diff, despite your timely warning.

2. Immediately proceeded to file a Request for Page Protection on the RfM!

Can this get more bizarre?! Larry Sarner 23:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't get the links right to the diffs, but go to [[6]] and you'll see what's up. Larry Sarner 23:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

His request was declined. Ramdrake chimed in beforehand with a good observation. [[7]] What to do now about the 3RR violation? Still several hours before daylight Down Under. Larry Sarner 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole situation is bizarre and farcical. At first I was convinced that DPeterson was making a simple mistake in reading the page history, so I just reverted his reversion and explained. Then they started in with the bit about there being something else but continued to make wholesale reversions. Given that the committee has made it clear that we will not mediate that issue, I don't care if it's listed or not.

As for the 3RR violation, I am personally going to ignore it. I don't want to make this mediation request any more ridiculous (lest we scare off the potential mediators). I'm sure that Daniel will remove the issue and clarify if he thinks it's absolutely necessary; I doubt that DPeterson or JonesRD would revert again under such circumstances. shotwell 00:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AT Mediation

I made three reverts to remedy the deletion of my additions to the section on Additional items to be mediated, which is open to all to add...It's not your place to delete my additions. And it certainly is provocative when the subject of the material (Sarner and Mercer) delete the material. Given the coordination between you and Sarner, your deletions of my material are equally provocative. If you have a problem, you should seek the mediator's intervention. It is very strange that you would engage in such provocative behavior when you want to engage in mediation...certainly this is not supportive of such an effort. I suggest you leave my additions alone and let the mediator decide. DPeterson^talk 01:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You made four reverts.[8][9][10][11]. I simply restored the "additional issues" section to the list given by Daniel -- I didn't delete anything that wasn't already deleted by the mediation committee. A mediator did decide and you fail to recognize the fact despite being told multiple times.

You have yet to answer my question , instead you just keep insisting that Sarner is acting provocatively (this must be the 100th time you, JonesRD, RalphLender, SamDavidson, or JohnsonRon has said that precise thing). Finally, what coordination are you talking about? shotwell 01:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, only three in the 24 hr span. Yes, Sarner is acting provocatively....and the reversions of my additions by you and Sarner are also unhelpful for mediation and needlessly provocative. I suggest you leave my additions alone and let the mediator decide. DPeterson^talk 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel like checking timestamps, but if you simply waited for the 24 hour timespan to elapse then you violated the spirit of 3RR. Moreover, I have already told you that the mediator did decide. shotwell 03:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There were only three reinstatemetns of my addition, which is identical with the first one in that section. So, the mediator never looked at this new one. I do see why mercer, sarner, and friends object to it since is specifically addresses the mercer-sarner COI and financial interests in the conflict. I think we've exhausted this discussion, so if you want to continue it, please do so in some venue other than my talk page. I've said all that is necessary. DPeterson^talk 14:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LDS

Thats only your opinion, my opinion says this page in and of it self is bias… let me guess your LDS… whatever. Find delete my comments but don’t take me off the anit-mormon list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBOzzy (talk • contribs)

[edit] Arbitration:

Can you tell me how that is diff than mediation? This is really getting tedious. FatherTree 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. Arbitration produces binding decisions and it is not a voluntary process. Arbcom doesn't deal with content disputes. For example, they won't be remotely interested in resolving issues such as whether or not DDP is effective and evidence based, whether or not Becker-Weidman's studies make for valid citations, or whether or not attachment therapy is "dangerous and supported by the state" (something you've said in the past). Mediation is a voluntary process between willing and good-faith editors who are seeking a genuine compromise. See WP:ARBCOM and WP:DR for more information. shotwell 12:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiya,

You missed this one in your evidence. DPeterson didn't just sign the 68.66.160.228 IP's edits. He also signed one of the 66.238.xxx.xxx IP's edits that you noticed as being "in the New York area", as well. [12]. Feel free to add this - I added it but then figured it was better to pass it to you as it's your evidence section. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You've given an amazingly comprehensive analysis, by the way. Cheers, shotwell 04:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

Hey man, looks like you have gotten yourself into quite a mire. I was reading through the evidence and noticed that DPeterson and JonesRD seems to misunderstand what a meatpuppet is. DP keeps on repeating that he has been exonerated by a checkuser. Anyway, I thought that was interesting and thought someone should make them aware of the difference (Not me, I want no part of this mess). Anyway, Good luck with the case. Cheers --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. And yes, it is a thick mess. shotwell 18:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Strathairn

I will continue to delete the facts you've stolen from my site. I have the right to do so. As I stated before, my lawyers will contact you if this continues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs)

Shotwell, I agree that these legal threats and posturing from Andiweaves are preposterous. However, I do not believe that personal material about Strathairn can be taken from this website under WP:V. I have removed. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the claims raised by the user above, but are strictly because this website is not endorsed by Strathairn. Thus there is no way of verifying this personal information.--Mantanmoreland 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It was only a small bit of inconsequential material being supported by that website anyhow. Cheers, shotwell 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are any further legal threats from this user you should bring them to the attention of an administrator.--Mantanmoreland 14:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Attachment Therapy move

There is a query about this move request: see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. Anthony Appleyard 06:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Rutter

Just thought I'd let you know that I think your fact tag was inappropriate on this article. Since the statement tagged was "he would be more accurately characterized as the father of modern child psychiatry," it seems rather self-evident that it's an inference rather than a fact. However, I don't want to get into a quarrel with an old friend, so I've put in a reference to the book review; the inference in the opening is justified in part by this statement in the review's conclusion: "Most psychiatrists, whether they know it or not, directly or indirectly have learned from Michael Rutter." I hope our experiences with the like of DPeterson have not resulted in a footnote fetish where every clause of every sentence in every article needs to have a citation; the result will be uncommunicative, turgid prose. Larry Sarner 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Father of modern child psychiatry" is a rather strong claim. Seeing as how I know nothing of child psychiatry, I could not tell if someone was attempting to aggrandize Rutter's status or making a statement to which a majority of experts would assent. Has he actually been called the "father of child psychiatry" outside of wikipedia, or is this inference particular to the article? If the citation provided does indeed support the claim, it need not go on every clause of the sentence -- it can just go at the end. shotwell 05:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's particular to the article. The problem is, apparently, that one prominent person called him the "father" of child psychology when his entire career has been spent literally creating the field of child psychiatry. I doubt that anyone prominent in the field would dispute the appelation and the book review cited, which reviews a book with "modern child psychiatry" in the title and is a collection of Rutter's papers, underscores that. My concern is for Wikipedia, not Rutter. When something is as uncontroversial as this, can't an article writer just draw the obvious conclusion without having to make the case, or cite a source, in the article itself? If not, then Wikipedia articles inevitably become essays rather than encyclopedic entries. Britannica doesn't have to write that way. It serves no one very well. Larry Sarner 14:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Columbia Non-neutral Torus

Hi, I have responded to your comments at Talk:Columbia Non-neutral Torus. Bearian 15:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please re-register

Hello, Shotwell! You are receiving this notice because the Cleanup Taskforce has been inactive, as a result of this all active taskforce members are being asked to re-register.

For more information see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Not Dead Yet

If you do not re-register here within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the membership list (if you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just add you name back).

RJFJR 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy closed

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A glass of whisky

Have one on me.Fainites ^barley 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. I noticed the case, but decided to stay out of it. I guess the AMA wasn't such a great organization or even a necessary one after all. Best, Amerique^dialectics 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's relieving, to be sure. I don't, however, think it was the AMA's fault. The sock-farm survived two checkuser requests, several mediation attempts, and an RfC. DPeterson managed to trick quite a few experienced editors. shotwell 21:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] While you were away

[13] Fainites ^barley 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good news. I am sorry to say that I doubt we've seen the last of his shenanigans. shotwell (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh definitely not. Have you seen Psychology Wikia? Fainites ^barley 18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Cleanup Taskforce members who have been asked to re-register