User talk:Shotwell

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.

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)

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)

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)

Re: Good call

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

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)

Lol

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

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 oder 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)

1. It's not a game
2. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

{{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)

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)