User talk:Shellwake

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cat intelligence

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cat intelligence, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Relevant contents based on reliable sources should not be removed without first reaching consensus. Thank you. BigCat82 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cat intelligence, you may be blocked from editing. Please cease removing reliably sourced content. Coretheapple (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ephebophilia because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cease the WP:Disruptive editing. Wikipedia is no place for your personal opinion influencing its articles, which should be clear by my response here, here and here. Per WP:Verifiability, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. And with regard to psychological material, such as the type you are attempting to remove, we go by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS); in this case in particular, we are going by an expert in the relevant field. If his commentary was WP:Fringe, you'd have a point in attempting to remove the material, but his commentary is not WP:Fringe. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this. Thank you. I don't know whether or not you got my message but as I said. You are being BIASED. One expert is rediculous. Especially the fact that it is only based on an opinion no science involved. If you are going to write OPINIONS you need to get an expert from both sides. You clearly like young girls. This is extremely obvious by the way that you watch this page. I don't know what happened to you because of that but please it is not about justifying your personal interests. This is not a conquest. Try not to be biased please. Anyone would agree with that if I knew how to make my comment public. Shellwake (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not being biased. No, I don't like young girls, romantically or sexually anyway. I am female, as many at this site know, and I watch the Pedophilia, Hebephilia and Ephebophilia articles mainly to keep inaccuracy out of those articles and to make sure that pedophiles or other such pro adult-minor sex activists don't skew the content there. I suggest you read my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. If you still have doubt as to my motives after that, I don't know what else to tell you regarding my involvement with these articles. I am going by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on this topic, such as WP:Reliable sources. I told you when reverting you that the researcher's commentary is supported by various research. For starters, you can look at some of the expert commentary in the Hebephilia article, though hebephilia generally covers a younger age group (generally ages 11 to 14) and sexual attraction to that age group is considered abnormal in some contexts among researchers (such as sexual attraction to an 11 or 12-year-old girl, which are age ranges that border on pedophilia and are in the pedophilia age range when visible puberty is not a factor). In that article, you will see that researchers debate whether or not to call hebephilia a mental disorder since it involves girls who are pubescent/who have secondary sex characteristics. In the case of ephebophilia, it is dealing with ages 15-19 (people who are almost finished, or are finished, with puberty); for many people, especially girls, they are finished with puberty by ages 15-17. The majority of people are no longer going through puberty by age 17. And age 18, as you surely know, is a legal adult age in the vast majority of countries. So it's not odd that a 24-year-old man, for example, would find a 17-year-old girl (who is likely a fully biological adult, and may be a legal adult...depending on the country) sexually attractive. And like a part of the Characteristics section of the Ephebophilia article, sourced to other researchers relays, "Researchers state that hebephilia, erotic interest which centers on pubescents, has not come into widespread use, even among professionals who work with sex offenders, and may have been confused with the term ephebophilia, 'which denotes men who prefer adolescents around 15–19 years of age'. It is concluded that 'few would want to label erotic interest in late—or even mid—adolescents as a psychopathology, so the term hebephilia may have been ignored along with ephebophilia'." So to sum up, I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state (with WP:Due weight). I also go by science far more than I go by political correctness. I'm likely to add more WP:Reliable sources to the content you've objected to, since it is best to have that material sourced to more than just that one researcher.

On a side note: You need to cut out the personal attacks; this is per the WP:Personal attacks policy. And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Adult Marbled Cat.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:Adult Marbled Cat.jpeg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hello Shellwake,

I had to mark the two images that you uploaded, File:Adult Marbled Cat.jpeg and File:Pardofelis badia.jpg, for deletion. Since you asked for an explanation I thought I leave a note here instead of the normal templated "this image has been marked for deletion, message. Even though there was no notice on that page you must assume that everyone on the Internet is copyrighted under a license we cannot use unless there is an explicit notice otherwise. One of the images (which can be found here http://www.catsg.org/index.php?id=122) actually has a copyright notice in the lower right hand corner but that is actually not necessary. Images are copyrighted upon creation and a notice is not required (and hasn't been for decades). That is why you must always assume that images you find in a search engine are not ok to upload here.

Now there are exceptions to this rule. In order to be acceptable here the image must be under something we call a "free" license. This means that the image can be used or modified by anyone, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). In most cases these images are under something called the "Creative Commons" license. There are a few different CC licenses though and not all of them meet the standard we require. https://search.creativecommons.org/ actually provides a great search engine to look for these images. Just make sure that the two boxes underneath the search box are checked.

If you have any questions about this please let me know and sorry about the images you uploaded. --Majora (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That dogbite website

There is a clear consensus against you using that website. Don't use it again. If you want to seek consensus for adopting it as a reliable source, you can take that up at WP:RSN, the appropriate noticeboard. What you can NOT do is copy and paste 10k of content on a talk page--it marks you as a person who a. doesn't exactly know what they're doing and b. is closely affiliated with that organization. What you need to argue is that the organization has rigorous standards in reporting, has editorial or other oversight, and reports reliably. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i was on a mobile phone and don't see why you are too lazy to look at the sources. they use the freakin CDC as a source and link to it.i put a lot of information because i dont know what the hell you want? its all there. you're too lazy to read it and for all of this annoyance i will add addtional info from the page that you don't like for the victims and just link it directly to the sources they use. they are given a non profit status by the government. what more proof do i need? the source is reliable whether you like it or not and i know you don't because you keep deleting it and your profile says you are "owned by 2 dogs". clearly, that is why you are trying to prevent the spread of relevant, important information from a reliable source that can help victims like myself. i have nothing to do with them but if i worked for the cdc it would be irrelevant to the accuracy of the info as well. I just have other things to do off of the computer and someone that is too lazy to click on the sources on the page and needs me to do what i just did is hopeless. by the way. i dont even use facebook lol. figures that you would say that.cheer up and spend some time outside toots.

Speedy deletion nomination of Asclepias longifolia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Asclepias longifolia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]