User talk:Touretzky

Welcome!

Hello Touretzky, and

to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also
  Wikipedia:Topical index
  .

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Scientific director?

"David S. Touretzky is scientific director of the Computer Science Department and Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition at the Carnegie Mellon University." - Gopublic Transmedia[1] --AI 02:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for posting that quote with stating why. Since you apparently claim to be David Touretzky, what can you say about this quote that states that you are the scientific director? --AI 01:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the reference to the DeCSS case in the David S. Touretzky article. BTW, as I'm sure you are aware, if you want people to be sure you are David Touretzky, you just need to add a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Touretzky to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/addresses.html saying something like: "this is my Wikipedia account". ;-) JesseW 01:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion about linking from my address page. But I don't think anyone seriously questions my identity. -- Touretzky 04:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are set up so any tight connection between usernames and real people should not be necessary, so unless you are making edits that would only be acceptable if the real David Touretzky made them, it shouldn't be necessary. The only thing like that that comes to mind are if you wanted to add a picture or essay from your site to Wikipedia; someone would probably ask for such a link back as proof that the material was added legally. Otherwise, no worries. ;-) JesseW 05:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me, we could use a picture for the DST article. It would have to be licensed under the

GFDL though, which means anyone (and that means anyone) can use it for any purpose with minimial restrictions. --MarkSweep 05:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

There's a better picture of me on my home page, but I don't wish to license it under the GFDL. I wouldn't object to an unlicensed "fair use" by Wikipedia, though. -- Touretzky 17:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better. I've uploaded that instead and used it in the article. We'll sort out the "fair use" claim on the article talk page. --MarkSweep 18:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as you may have already seen for yourself, not everyone is acting reasonably all of the time, and online identity is a tricky concept in and of itself. Ultimately it doesn't matter who's behind each account, as long as they contribute in a constructive and civil manner. Thanks for your corrections, they are a welcome departure from the usual editing practices on this article. --MarkSweep 05:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload a photo to Wikipedia. For now I have used the photo from RFW. --AI 08:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If you would be up for it, I could swing by your office to take a GFDL-licensed photo sometime (I work in Baker Hall). Let me know if you'd be game. Take care. --Improv 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The participation of editors in articles of which they are the subjects is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia. The general feeling of the community is that autobiographical editing, derisively known as "vanity", is difficult to do properly. "Properly", in this context, means that the edits are based on verifiable sources, and conform to a neutral point of view. It is not impossible for a person to write an NPOV article about themselves that relies solely on external sources, and I am not accusing you of any improper edits (in truth, I haven't read over all of your contributions). However, my unsolicited advice to you is to avoid editing David S. Touretzky. If there are important errors or omissions, please let us know on the article talk page or by contacting other editors directly. There must be hundreds of topics other than yourself in which you are expert, and I urge you to contribute to (or create) articles on them instead. Wikipedia is a wonderful project and we need good editors to participate in order to make it a success. It'd be great if you were one. Thanks for contributing. -Willmcw 09:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

In this case, your contributions have been very helpful. What is strongly discouraged are those very common situations where people create vanity articles about themselves with not even an attempt at modesty. This is not one of those situations: the DST article was created by someone else and has seen edits that got important facts wrong, for whatever reasons. Thanks for setting us straight. Cheers, --MarkSweep✍ 09:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for keeping the article factually correct and NPOV. I would be perfectly happy to go through life without a Wikipedia biography, but acknowledging that this is not my decision to make, I sincerely appreciate your efforts. --Touretzky 14:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1952? I subjected 18 from the year you got your B.A. Of source, I should have tried 22. Closer to the truth, I would expect. -- Pinktulip 00:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You criticism is fair enough, but I imagine that I am not far off. My main goal was to add the "Living people" category onto the article, which, I hope, you do not also consider to be a wild guess. -- Pinktulip 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redacted violation of

]

Photo

Thanks for your recent message. The photograph was removed because it was an unfree image (i.e not released under a free licence) which was used to illustrate a subject where it would be perfectly feasible for a freely licensed image to be found or created.

Back in 2005 I note that you said:

"There's a better picture of me on my home page, but I don't wish to license it under the GFDL. I wouldn't object to an unlicensed "fair use" by Wikipedia, though."

I'm afraid this isn't satisfactory. For the article to have an image it will have to be released under a free licence by it's creator. Adambro (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs
  )
• Topic-banned :
  Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs
  )
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee,

]

Re : protest of topic ban

I'm just a clerk which is handling the grunt work for the case, and have no power to review your topic-ban. It would better for you to

]

Actually...

I haven't taken any formal action to appeal my ban yet. I've pointed out why the band is absurd, yes, but since the ArbCom has announced that "appeals" will not be considered before six months have passed from the initial arbitration, and must be in the form "here's why I am no longer a terrible editor that must be topic-banned as a first resort" instead of "here's why your decision to topic-ban me as a first resort was an incorrect decision," I'm not sure that "an appeal" is the procedure to go through. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Touretzky. A recent request for clarification about a arbitration case, "Scientology (1)", has been archived at

]

Requests for clarification don't generally lead to further action by the Committee - they're simply intended to help clarify why something was done or what exactly was meant by a given remedy. In your case, the main issue seems to have been why you were topic banned when you weren't active in the area for a while. The request was archived because no recent action had taken place on the request; the Arbitrators had responded to the request, and seeing no apparent further comments, it was placed onto the appropriate talk page for later reference. In summary, the view of the Arbitrators was that due to the intensely polarizing nature of the Scientology topic area, there were a wide number of editors in both pro- and anti-Scientology factions that were or had caused disruption to the area in the past. ArbCom was asked to handle this "battlefield" issue, and their solution was to restrict those editors who had or were presently contributing to the problem the topic area had become. As a result, many editors were topic banned, some of whom like yourself were not necessarily active at the time. This was done out of the interest of equality to all involved and is not intended to be punitive - rather, it is intended to allow the area to settle by removing the most aggressive editors and allowing others to enter the field, while giving those who are affected by the topic ban a chance to step back, see how things develop, and refamiliarize themselves with policies and guidelines. Your topic ban is remaining because it would be unfair to remove yours when many others would be remaining in place, and you stated yourself that you had not been active in the area, or in fact Wikipedia in general, for quite some time, thus rendering the issue somewhat moot. Again, more detailed responses can be read at the archived discussion.

If you feel as though your concerns were not adequately addressed, you are welcome to contact the Committee; I don't believe a politely worded question would be viewed as harassment, however the Committee did receive several similar requests to remove a topic ban from an inactive editor, all of which were denied for the same reasons yours was. Before contacting them, I would recommend you consider if it's really necessary to pursue this further; by your own admission, the topic ban will not adversely affect your editing, and it is not intended as a form of punishment. Continuing to ask about it when it's not going to affect you either way may be seen as trying to beat a dead horse. Should you wish to inquire further, however, I would recommend sending the ArbCom an email, with carefully reasoned explanations of why the topic ban is no longer necessary. It may also help to wait some time, at least a month or preferably two.

Sorry for the very long response, and for the delay in getting back to you (I've been out of the country), but I do hope this answers your questions. If not, however, feel free to let me know. I should respond rather sooner this time.

a/c) 00:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]