User talk:Cullen328/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Graduated Ownership

Hi Jim,

Many thanks for your message - it makes perfect sense and I fully appreciate why not every new idea can be posted as an article.

However, there may be a point where such new idea becomes worthy of inclusion, or sufficiently 'notable'.

Would that point be reached where there is evidence of a discussion about the merits of the idea in the public domain, and reference to such discussion would then be a 'reliable source'?

Look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Nigel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turner1234 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Turner1234. Yes, Nigel, if the topic receives significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources, then it will be considered notable and eligible for an article. Every case requires independent judgment. For a topic pertaining to housing policy in the UK, these should be sources like major national newspapers or magazines, or serious journals specializing in public policy or housing policy, or books written by housing policy experts. A "local interest" story in your hometown newspaper would not be enough, in my opinion, to establish notability. Strictly speaking, discussion in the "public domain" does not establish notability, but rather discussion in reliable published sources. Each reliable source needs to be judged in context, so good sources for pop culture or sports topics may be different from good sources for housing policy issues or science topics. The overriding characteristics of reliable sources are professional editorial control, and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Really?

Thank you for your kind words in response to my message to the Signpost. You can't mean me, the one found guilty of battleground behaviour by the arbitration committee. (They didn't tell me why, btw.) Today it's two years that my friend Andy was almost banned because he helped me by uncollapsing an infobox (very short version, more here, the question is at the bottom). I should have read this essay before dealing with arbitration, - bottom line: avoid if you can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that you are a friendly and productive editor, Gerda Arendt, and I hold you in high regard. I know nothing about the arbitration case, but if it had anything to do with infoboxes, then these are my thoughts: I think that every editor who is a strong advocate of infoboxes should be topic banned from anything having to do with infoboxes. I also think that any editor who is a strong opponent of infoboxes should be topic banned from anything having to do with infoboxes. I feel the same way about people who debate endlessly about whether it out to be "the Beatles" or "The Beatles", the spelling of yogurt vs. yoghurt, the Israel/Palestine issue, Gamergate, Balkan nationalism, and so on and on and on. Topic ban all dedicated advocates, and let neutral encyclopedists make the decisions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The case was (only) called infoboxes, it was requested for reverts of added infoboxes, - that was new, not what the arbs had heard all these years, so they tried to pacify the situation the old way: by banning one editor. It happened on 28 August, and I remember how I sick I was. (The edit cited was not even adding an infobox, it only looked like it. Repeating: it was only called infoboxes. The edit was to help me, - look at Peter Planyavsky, on the talk the perfect example of endless pettiness, matching The Beatles. Imagine a Wikipedia where I had simply added an infobox to an article I created, and nobody interferred, imagine!) I said they would still have to deal with me, so they had to restrict me, very easy, I have not edit warred once, did you know? There is no justice, and how would you fix that by topic bans? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic bans in cases like these remove editors who care much more about "the issue" than about improving the encyclopedia. There is only one Wikipedia encyclopedia, but there are millions of "issues", both grand and small. Wikipedia is not a venue for "seeking justice", and all such efforts damage the encyclopedia. Nothing can be fixed only by topic bans. It is only a first step. But when disruptive POV pushers are topic banned, it creates a space for neutral editors to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. - Please understand that I am not here to seek justice, - you remember the spiral of justice with its 1510 message. But when injustice got so bad that an editor was threatened to be banned because he uncollapsed an infobox for me, I had to do something, and I take the bad reputation with pride, see my user page ;) - He wasn't banned after all, but honoured by our founder, and hardly ever deals with the lowlands of infoboxes anymore, working for accessibility on a higher level. A reverted infobox means reduced accessibility, - why would anybody want that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are optional. Period. Full stop. If consensus develops that infoboxes are preferred or deprecated, then we can implement that consensus. Until then, they are optional. Accordingly, since the matter has long been contentious, and the infobox warriors on both sides have made countless edits rehashing the same extreme foolishness countless times, then every single infobox warrior on both sides of the issue should be topic banned. forever. Period. Problem solved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I normally stop at two comments, but please listen. You are right. They are optional. I agree. I don't put them in articles of others without asking. But if I choose the option to have one, as I did on Peter Planyavsky, why all this reverting and discussing? That is the question? That was the question raised several times (I counted 59, including some that were never more than a suggestion on the talk) which led to the case (only) called infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sunday thought: yes, an infobox is optional, so is a ramp for the handicapped. Working on the great commandment ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In the United States where I live, handicap accessibility including ramps where needed, is mandatory, not optional in new construction or major remodels. People do not object or argue endlessly about wheelchair ramps as they do about infoboxes. They just provide the ramps where needed, as required by the building code. It is the endless arguing and repeated restating of the same point over and over again and refusal to drop the stick regarding infoboxes that is disruptive behavior. I simply do not understand why otherwise productive editors behave this way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Do they? Where? I believe it's over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is really and truly over, then warm thanks to the arbs and administrators who put it to an end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank administrator Drmies, here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that very recent discusssion shows that the "great infobox battles" are not over. So sad to learn that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps read to the end, or listen to an arb, and take courage, - do not fear is my latest, a work in progress, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I need no courage in this matter, as I have never once battled about an infobox. And yet, to my dismay, my talk page has been transformed into an infobox debate society. I fear that Courcelles will be disappointed, but perhaps that is the lot of an arb. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I need courage (see my talk), and to go, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Feeling better, it wasn't as bad as I expected, and I found a merciful soul, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back, Gerda Arendt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Still in hospital, on a slow connection, and will need patience, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I had cataract surgery while you were gone. I wish you a complete and speedy recovery. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy not possible;) - wish you the same, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

response

User_talk:Earflaps#Goose_Lake_International_Music_Festival Earflaps (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC) @Cullen328:

I am being accused of tendentious editing

Please see HERE. As far as I know, I am following all Wikipedia procedures.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, VictoriaGrayson. Clearly, you need to win consensus among the other editors on that talk page in order to add new material like this to a high visibility article that many people (though not I) care about deeply. Do not exaggerate or overstate what your sources say, work calmly toward consensus, and all should be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

E-cat business

Frankly, I am shocked that you can't see the obvious. If you read the press release (which is from a reputable press release agency) and the journal article, you will see that the article not only contains other information than the press release, it also specifically refers to talks they had with the company executives. One is not a copy of the other, it is a confirmation. The reason I used the press release was because it also had a significant piece of information that the journal article didn't which I considered significant to include.

Furthermore, the journal is a product of a large news company. This is what they say about themselves: "Who We Are: The Business Journals are the premier media solutions platform for companies strategically targeting business decision makers. We deliver a total business audience of over 10 million people via our 42 websites, 64 publications and over 700 annual industry leading events. Our media products provide comprehensive coverage of business news from a local, regional and national perspective. We have more people, publications and websites covering our nation’s business than any other business media organization." (http://www.bizjournals.com/about-us/)

Lastly, I noticed that someone on the web libeled Tom Darden, saying that this business was merely a scam. Unfortunately, Darden is an extremely wealthy investor who has a very strong reputation as an environmentalist and innovative business investor. He has employed scientists to examine the device before he bought the rights to it, so clearly he believes in its potential. The fact that he is throwing serious money at it to see if it can be made into a stable enough product so as to be commercialized is VERY significant. (In fact, they are running continuous tests on a 1 MW E-cat system for a year, with about 6 months to go. I also saw an interview with Rossi in which he said they were learning things about how to better control the process. How this will turn out is not a forgone conclusion, but it seems promising, although of course that can't be said yet.)

Somehow you don't see this business and its effort is significant? To me, NOT reporting this effort is irresponsible. Industrial Heat LLC is also beginning to file patents (since it owns E-cat rights). This is also significant, and this section links Rossi with IH LLC, which is otherwise not explained in the patent information.

So, how can you justify NOT including the information I tried to post? From what I see, what you and the others say makes no sense. (That is, it does make sense, but it simply doesn't apply here.) It looks to me like you either haven't read the information I gave, or properly checked out the sources. Robert92107 (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's Darden's bio on http://sovereignscapital.com/project/tom-darden/ : Tom Darden is the Chief Executive Officer of Cherokee, an environmentally focused investment firm. Cherokee utilizes both private equity and internal venture capital to generate social, environmental and economic returns. Cherokee Ventures began investing in startup and venture-stage companies in 1984 and has since completed more than 70 investments, using internal capital. Cherokee Funds made its first brownfield investment in 1990 and has since raised five private equity funds focused on brownfield remediation: $50 million in 1996, $250 million in 1999, $620 million in 2003, $200 million in 2005 and $1.24 billion in 2006. From 1981 to 1983, he was a consultant with Bain & Company in Boston. Mr. Darden serves on the Board of Governors of the Research Triangle Institute as well as the boards of Crown Financial Ministries, Shaw University and the Environmental Defense Fund. Mr. Darden earned a Masters in Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina, a Juris Doctor from Yale Law School and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of North Carolina, where he was a Morehead Scholar. He and his wife, Jody, have three grown children. Robert92107 (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I will consistently oppose any promotional content whatsoever regarding Rossi's E-Cat, which I really and truly believe to be a scam and a con game. I believe that Darden has wasted his money and his investors' money. Do you really think I care whether he has two, three or four children, and so on? And all that stuff about how rich he is? No, I don't. Not in the slightest. But that is not the main point. What matters is what the highest quality reliable sources say, not a local business journal admittedly repeating a press release.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the claims about the E-Cat are true, then it will revolutionize the world economy. And Wikipedia will document that in abundance as the indisputable evidence pours in, as coal, oil and natural gas companies fold up shop, people stop selling solar panels and wind generators, and as Rossi is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics plus every medal, award and acclammation imaginable. All of that will be documented in an abundance of the highest quality reliable sources. If I am correct, none of that will happen, and the E-Cat will be just another anecdote in the long history of con games.

In the mean time, I will oppose any and all promotional edits to Wikipedia regarding the E-Cat until the very highest reliable sources worldwide cover it in detail. Nobel Prize, anyone? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the obvious. The investment and commercialization section is not about IF IT WORKS OR DOESN'T ... it is about investments in the technology. YOUR BIAS is affecting your judgement. IF THEY CAN'T GET IT WORKING, then that will be reported as well. IF THEY DO, that will be reported as well. However, news of either sort will come out in the future. Right now, this is significant news about someone making significant investment in the system. THAT is what is being reported, and what you are refusing to post. In other words, you are happy to report inconclusive reports about if it works, but not willing to post entirely accurate news about investment and ownership information about the system. Don't you see that this makes no sense? You are clearly showing bias here, and as a result the article is not current and accurate about the system. Robert92107 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The word "commercialization" is an obvious attempt to imply that this scam or self-delusion is legitimate. You will need to produce vastly better sources than that press release and its repeat in a local business journal to get me to agree with any edits that imply or hint in any way that E-Cat works. If a major, respected peer reviewed physics journal says it is legitimate, followed by major stories in the world's leading newspapers, then I will happily reconsider. Until then, I remain opposed and will not be budged. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ina Garten

I'm afraid per WP:BRD, it is when the editor who made the change is reverted that that editor, in this case you, go to the talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I will do so then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Energy Catalyzer. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy Macon. I have made a statement there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse question

Hi Jim,

Yeah I haven't added any citations. I totally forgot. I will add reliable sources and other references. Can you give suggestions on improving the content and the way the it is worded ? thanks for the quick reply though !

Valharmorgulis (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Valharmorgulis. Since I am not a programmer, I do not feel competent to comment on the content. I do understand the need for sources, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh ok. No problem. Thanks for helping though ! Valharmorgulis (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops?

Is there a reason why you deleted my answer and replaced it with your own here?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/680793354 I'm sure there was some mistake here. Edit conflicts are funny like that. Could you perhaps restore it? Thanks! Jayron32 03:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Jayron32 03:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jayron32. All I did was write an answer and save it. I didn't consciously either see or delete anything that you wrote. Let me see if I can find what you wrote and restore it. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It's all good. The software's "edit conflict" resolution thing sometimes screws up. --Jayron32 14:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Integrating articles into a WikiProject's recognized content

Hello, I am working on several articles for the WP:REPCONGO WikiProject. The first is Loandjili and the second is .cg. I would like them to be on the WikiProject's recognized content, and have added the tags (please see how I did it) that I believe should move them to their appropriate places. However, they don't seem to show up, and I can't edit the Template Box. Any advice? Thanks, Fritzmann2002 (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fritzmann2002. Can you please provide a link to the place where you think that the "recognized content" should "show up"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The talk pages of both articles show that both are associated with WikiProject Africa and WikiProject Congo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, Yes, however on the WP:REPCONGO section "Recognized Content," which lists all of the articles and their importance, they are still listed under the ??? importance rather than Low- or Mid- Fritzmann2002 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

How to change my "talk" link to say something else?

Hi, I've noticed that you and some of the other editors have a phrase like, "Let's discuss it" "Chat" or "Roar" in place of the boring "talk" link. Can you tell me how to change the "talk" in my signature into a different word, but still take people to my talk page when they click it? Thanks, White Arabian mare (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare White Arabian mare (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello White Arabian mare. Please take a look at WP:CUSTOMSIG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim! White Arabian mare (Neigh) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Neigh? I should have guessed, White Arabian mare. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, ha ha. Most of my edits are to horse, dog or rabbit articles.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 01:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I chimed in there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hello sir, i have gone through your profile and am looking forward to becoming such a wonderful editor like you sir. althouhg am new here but with time i believe i will. Thanks and have a wonderful time ahead John roger1 (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, John roger1. My unconscious game plan when I started editing Wikipedia back in 2009 was to make at least a few productive edits almost every day, always making improving the encyclopedia my #1 priority. I have skipped a few days since then, but edit at least a bit on most days. I include assisting new editors as a significant part of my efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Accordingly, feel free to ask me questions about editing Wikipedia at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Article submission declined, due to insertion of " Marathi " in parts.

@Cullen328: Thanks for your reply.

This is with reference to the discussion : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Article_submission_declined.2C_due_to_insertion_of_.22_Marathi_.22_in_parts.

I agree with Wikipedia guidelines- that article should be written in English and if passage from other language is used - it's accurate translation must be given.

As for the copyright violations of my grandfathers consent: If Grandfather was alive, he would certainly give me his consent. Regarding this, I have my grandfather's family' consent. If I were violating his rights, he wouldn't have given his Biography to all the family members to freely use it.

You said : " If your grandfather was notable, then you must write your draft article in English, in your own words, summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about him. "

About " Notability " and " verifiability " I read the guidelines. But, I don't seem to understand it in this case.

The verifiable sources are the people of my town,and the Religious priests and Nuns and Bishop with whom he worked. But could that be counted ?

Next, I have the certificate of Papal Blessings with my grandfathers name written on it. Further, I have the certificate of honor given by Pope paul VI viz. " Pro Ecclesia Et Pontifice. "

Could this be counted as reliable source ?

Then , there are websites created by my town folks, where they have acknowledged My grandfather, among the "icons of the town"- for their notable deeds.

Further, there is an article published by East Indian Community, which is to my grandfather's credit : http://www.east-indians.com/beiaeibassein.html

This is all I have , to begin with.

Could this be counted for reliability ? Saumiguel (talk)Saumiguel 04:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Saumiguel. I have answered your various questions at the Teahouse. It is a good idea to ask questions only once here on Wikipedia, unless a few days have gone by since posting your question. I am a volunteer, and have been sleeping and working overtime at my paying job since you posted your questions here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328. I am extremely sorry for this. Please forgive me, if it disturbed you. I am a newbie on Wikipedia, and I just posted my reply in two places- just in case, you miss it.I had no idea ! But now, I got it! I'll only post my questions and replies in one place viz. Teahouse. I thank you, for answering my questions at tea house. Pardon me ! once again.Saumiguel(talk)Saumiguel 12:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Dinklage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Dinklage. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's me again

Hi Cullen, I hope you are well, I've come for more of your sage wisdom over GSL. I feel as though you've always had a way of resolving things diplomatically, something I still struggle with, and so forgive me if I trouble you once more on this subject. I'm not asking you to officially advocate anywhere, one way or the other. I simply want to know what you feel is best. The gun show loophole title is currently on the administrative notice board over the NPOV title issue again. I know what WP:POLICY dictates but of course there are always those that see things differently. Am I wrong, or, out of line with my convictions on this matter, in thinking that the GSL title should stand? If not, how will I know when it's possibly time to concede, if necessary? Many thanks, and well wishes. Darknipples (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Darknipples. I have been following the ongoing debate about the article name. Not to say that I read every word with bated breath, as there is definitely a TLDR factor at work here. But as the article is on my watch list, I look in on the discussion from time to time. I was actually tempted to comment in favor of the current name a few days ago, but the discussion was so unwieldy and confusing that I refrained. I do not blame you for that, and I understand what you said at ANI about CRUSH, or civil POV pushing. I think that you can take heart and take encouragement from the fact that a highly regarded and level headed administrator, Dennis Brown, agreed with your analysis of the situation. I agree with you that Gun show loophole is the best name for the article. And there seems to be consensus for that name, despite determined dissent by a few.

All that being said, I encourage you to keep in mind that the article's title is less important than the article's content. Redirects make it sure that readers who search for alternate titles will get to the right article easily. Therefore, it is far better to have a neutral, well-referenced, comprehensive encyclopedia article at the "wrong" title than a poorly written and poorly referenced shambles of an article at the "right" title.

I think you have done excellent work on this article and I have previously commended your photo contributions there, as I know you recall. You have the abilities and the temperament to make great contributions to this encyclopedia. The following comment is not a criticism but rather a friendly observation. This encyclopedia is far more than a single article and I encourage you to think more broadly. I truly hope that my comments are of some value to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe you to be right, Cullen. I can't thank you enough. I will see it through, and even if I'm disappointed by the results, I will certainly keep your wise words in mind, and never let anything keep me from getting to listen to people like you, people that make WP such as it is, wonderful... Darknipples (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If you stand firm with a level head, anchoring your arguments in policies and guidelines, always keeping the best interests of the encyclopedia foremost in your mind, then I predict that you will prevail, Darknipples. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

First time user ...trying very hard to abide by all the guidelines

Hi. I am new on Wikipedia and am trying very hard to abide by all the guidelines. Would you be so kind as to look over the page I have been developing and perhaps give me your comments and insight. I would like to submit the page soon. I am sure that when the page goes "live", others will be eager to contribute. This evening I have had to reword some sections because of copyright issues, and I believe everything is in accordance with Wikipedia principles now.

My page on MICHAEL LAUCKE is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox

Thank you so much in advance for your kind response.

Merci!

Natalie Desautels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie.Desautels (talk • contribs) 07:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Natalie.Desautuels. In my opinion, your current draft is WAY too promotional. It needs a dramatic and radical rewrite to remove all promotional, advertising type language in Wikipedia's voice. This is an encyclopedia article, not a brochure for the guitarist. Every word of praise must be cited to a reliable source. Please read WP:NPOV and write neutrally at all times. Your article also has links to external sites, which should be formatted instead as inline references. The link showing that he studied under Segovia is a link to a scanned and annotated newspaper article. This is a copyright violation which must go. We can't link to copyrighted material hosted on a site that violates copyright. Just cite the newspaper article instead. You have lots of instances of ALL CAPS. Convert these to upper and lower case. It seems that there is excessive unreferenced detail. I recommend dramatic reduction of details, and any that remain must be properly cited to reliable sources. I will be happy to take a closer look once you have addressed these issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sheila Cameron (artist)

Hello, Cullen. Thanks for your great work at the Teahouse; you're one of my role models there.
I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinfandel Advocates and Producers about living in California wine country, and wondered whether you might also be interested in participating in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheila Cameron (artist), which involves an article about a visual artist who also lives in wine country near where ZAP is headquartered. I am the creator of the article, and this is the first time an article I created has been nominated for deletion. So far only the nominator and I are participating. I don't think it will be possible for the two of us to reach consensus, as they are adamant that a higher standard for notability than stated in Wikipedia policy must be met, and I see no reason to ignore the policy just because one user disagrees with it. Your contribution to the conversation — no matter which way you vote — would be appreciated. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello GrammarFascist. I am a strong advocate for using special notability guidelines when applicable, instead of relying on a GNG based argument to keep an article. This results in more consistent quality standards, in my opinion. For artists, the guideline can be found at WP:NARTIST. In all honesty, I do not believe that this artist's current accomplishments meet that threshold. I will refrain from commenting at the AfD at this time. I wish you well and thank you for your input at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Cullen. I am going by the statement "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability" (the general notability guideline or GNG) at the page you linked to, though I respect your position, and your decision not to involve yourself in this particular AfD discussion. Thank you for your response. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that the coverage is significant enough for her to qualify under the GNG, GrammarFascist. The Guardian item is brief overall and mentions her only in passing, focusing on the website. That is typical of other "Free Katie" sources - a passing mention, and a quote or two. And then there is the coverage in The Union, which is typical local newspaper coverage of a home town artist. Where are the lengthy critiques of her work by respected critics? A Facebook challenge is not a reliable source, and the article doesn't even say the critic responded. I am sorry, but I am not seeing the depth of coverage of her as a person that I expect for a biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Facebook was not used as a source in the article, I'm perfectly well aware it is not a reliable source. While it's true the article dated 24 September 2013 does not mention Saltz's response, context strongly suggests that is simply because the article was published before he responded; the later-published article cited does quote his response. In any case, I appreciate your evaluating the article, even if I disagree with your opinion of the artist's notability. See you at the Teahouse! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 15:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleted article Krai album

I'm working with the COI user who originally submitted the now-deleted article. Honestly I mainly plan to simply rebuild the article from scratch, but I thought there might be sources, at least, in the deleted version that I could use. Do be aware that the reason the article was deleted was that it apparently contained copyright-violating material. I'm not sure how much of a pain it would be for you to strip out everything but the references (and maybe userbox if any) versus just userfying the deleted article like you usually do in these situations. If it's too much bother, don't worry about it; I have found three good in-depth reviews of the album in reliable sources, so retrieving other sources will not "make or break" the new version. Thanks in advance! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, GrammarFascist. I looked at the current draft and I do not think that there is any doubt that this album is notable, based on serious, in depth reviews in several publications including the NYT. Thanks for working to rebuild the article. You will need the help of an administrator to restore the references from the previously deleted article, and I am just a plain vanilla editor, not an administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what happens when I have too many tabs open: the above message was meant for DESiegel, who is an administrator, and apparently makes a habit of recovering deleted articles for people — he has a nice message about it on his user page. (Though, having found a wealth of sources since, I think I'll just let the old version go.) Ah well, making mistakes keeps me humble. And in the meantime you have kindly evaluated the draft for me, thank you! I was quite relieved to find such good sources for this article, after having first checked for another the COI user was hoping to have written and finding not even one usable source (just a handful of brief mentions). Thanks again, sorry for the confusion, and see you at the Teahouse. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That is perfectly OK, GrammarFascist. There are far worse fates here on Wikipedia than being accidentally being mistaken for DESiegel. He is an excellent administrator, but even more so, an outstanding editor and Teahouse collaborator. Feel not bad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Why thank you, Cullen328. I have just looked at the deleted versions of Krai album, GrammarFascist. It doesn't cite any of the useful sources that Cullen mentions above. (Not in any of the deleted revisions.) In fact, it had no inline citations at all, nor any external links, not even to an official site nor a primary source. It included a track listing, and wiki links to Pitchfork, Krai (край), Radio Moscow, Tom Vek, and Dirty Projectors. If you really want I will email you a copy, trusting you not to reinstate copyright violations, but frankly I don't think that anything there is worth the bother. DES ^(talk) 13:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said, DESiegel, I wasn't going to bother you with retrieving the deleted article due to having found such a wealth of sources on my own for rebuilding a Krai (album) article from scratch. Thanks for peeking at it anyway (and trusting me not to insert copyvio) but I had already concluded nothing in the old version was likely to be "worth the bother." I don't know anything about your record as an administrator yet, but I do appreciate your work at the Teahouse, where you are indeed an outstanding collaborator. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 13:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

How to protect against libel-slander attacks?

Help is needed I do not understand the Wikipedia maze, but I was advised to submit my issue as a question/situation to the Tea House page. I did so twice and it does not look like it was accepted. This is regarding the assigned Ticket#2015092410025385 from Wikimedia Support Team (Quality items) <info-en-q@wikimedia.org

In question format, how do you protect against a competitor that commits libel-slander against you and then builds another page for self-advertisement for the purpose of promoting their page on Wikipedia as well as advertise for search engines?

I put a picture summary report together with a small amount of historical background – please click to view summary report: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf

I have identified tag teaming efforts of editor Nefariousski in latest Impact Self-Defense attack against Model Mugging. In her edit comments she is loaded with hypocritical contradictions such as COI, biographies of living persons (BLP), lack of editing balance, failure of editing in a NPOV, disregard to consensus for disputes, using an unreliable source to make libel-slanderous statements. And she is involved in a campaign to promote a competitor, Impact Self-Defense.

Nefariousski-Impact tag team planned to link the Wikipedia ESD page to a derogatory Model Mugging Wikipedia page highlighting a tabloid source written with accusation heading, “controversy”.

Impact also wrote a promotional page and pasted it into Nefariousski’s Sandbox where it has remained. They are getting around Wikipedia rules against self-promotion and using Wikipedia for increasing search engine ranking by keeping their page in the sandbox status - FIRST PAGE on search results for "Empowerment Self-Defense".

PLEASE CLICK the pdf link as evidence to view images in summary report of her COI campaign promoting Impact Self-Defense - again: http://modelmugging.org/history/impact-self-defense-wikipedia-attack.pdf

Is this "nefarious" behavior? Should she be blocked and all her edits scrutinized? Does Wikipedia see a problem with hypocritical editor(s) attacking others for self-promotion of themselves or associates?

Thank you for your assistance: (Wikiipedia-posting (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: this was also posted at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#How_to_protect_against_libel-slander_attacks_from_competitor.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Wikiipedia-posting. There is no need to post something at the Teahouse, and then post the same thing here. Accusations of slander and libel are very serious, and require rock solid evidence. I see no evidence. Please reconsider your confrontational attitude. It will win you few friends and allies here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Cullen328,

I apologize for offending your processes on Teahouse. I was advised to go to the Teahouse from the Wikimedia Support Team, and it looks like I misunderstood the angle of approach and the platform for the Teahouse.

Please realize I do not understand the Wikipedia maze. Also, I do not want to contribute to Wikipedia, but we were being attacked with accusations of vindictive tabloid rumors from over 25 years ago that has brought me to an attempt to learn a new language. I tried emails and the talk page and only the attacker commented. I was wondering why this person was so insistently obsessed with pushing inaccuracies. Then I saw their sandbox page, so I put the slides together to show a COI as to why his insistent interest in the attack on us. It could be said that I am doing the same by attacking back. I also tried emails to the Wikipedia info address and finally got a response advising me to go to the Teahouse. Overall, we never asked to be on Wikipedia.

Please accept my apology for not understanding the guidance I was given, and for offending your Teahouse processes.Wikiipedia-posting (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Cullen328, but I sometimes take a look at discussions here. It seems to me that you have to go out and get your side of the story published, because the version that is in the literature is unfriendly to you. If you cannot get your story published, then there's nothing that Wikipedia can do. Wikipedia is merely a summary of published accounts about a topic. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, Binksternet. It seems that the dispute hinges in large part on a 1990 Mother Jones article, which I was just trying to look at on my smart phone. As I had cataract surgery recently, it is tough for me to read very tiny print, so I will pull it up on a full sized monitor. Generally reliable sources will sometimes comment on rumors. We need to be very careful to avoid repeating rumors as if they were facts. In your opinion, does the MJ article fully substantiate the claims? Now, I will go read it myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wikiipedia-posting. In my opinion, the 1990 article by Camille Peri in Mother Jones should be used with extreme caution. The article is filled with qualifiers like "dark rumors", "murky past", "legend", "whispers and rumor campaigns", and "persistent rumors". Wikipedia cannot present rumors as facts, or even imply that rumors are true. It is difficult to separate the facts from the rumors in an article such as this. If the article is being used to criticize the Model Mugging program, then it is also worth noting that the article is also critical of the MM critics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carly Fiorina. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi, thanks for your all dedication to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. You are doing great work. Thanks.-- Human3015TALK  00:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Human3015. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Help creating a page

Hi Jim, I am trying to add information to a page I created for Riki Turofsky, however, when I add information in, it is always rejected. The content that is up on her page now is not all correct and Wikipedia keeps deleting my changes. It is very frustrating and I am working with Riki to get this page up and running with all the correct info she has provided me with. Would you be able to help me out please? Thanks, Larissa ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larissagaudet (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Larissgaudet. The changes you were attempting to make appeared to make the page less neutral: one of Wikipedia's core policies is having a neutral point of view. What you are attempting to add appears promotional (see WP:SOAP.) Furthermore, it sounds as if you are, formally or informally, working for this individual concerning the article. If this is the case, the guideline WP:Conflict of interest should be useful. It is required that you disclose your connection on the article's Talk page. It is also recommended that you do not edit the article directly, but this is not compulsory, although it is compulsory that you conform to the neutral point of view. Thanks, --Rubbish computer 23:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Award 4 U

• 
  2015 Erasmus Prize
  Awardd to the Wikipedia community collectively

Vjmlhds (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Vjmlhds. This award is a great honor to all of us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Japanese rock garden

Hello Jim. My name is Hugh. Thank you for your response to my question. As a complete beginner, I appreciate your help. I am not a scholar in the subject of Japanese rock gardens, but it seems to me that, if what Wybe Kuitert asserts is true, then referring to these gardens as zen gardens is misleading. They might commonly be known as such, but that is not a good reason to continue the misnaming, especially as the people who created them were not zen adepts, but artists and gardeners as far as I can gather. But, before I make any changes, I would like to make sure that I know exactly what I am talking about. As I have at least two other jobs on right now, it might take a while, so please bear with me. Regards, HughH Hector Sinclair (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Hugh. As I said at the Teahouse, I am in general agreement with you about the name. I encourage you to improve the article. You do not need to be a scholar or an expert to do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Jackie Ryan

Hi Jim, thanks for the edit. Point taken on the subjectivity .. Alanryanlimerickireland (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Alanryanlimerickireland. Let me know after you have revised the article and I will take another look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I commented there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aloysius Stepinac

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aloysius Stepinac. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I commented there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Thanks Cullen328 I removed the copyrighted sections from my article and re-submitted Mjavajunky73 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to do a much better job of it, Mjavajunky73. The first sentence of the "Mission" section is taken from this copyrighted website. Everything must be written in your own words, except for brief, clearly indicated quotations with a reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I also see material taken directly from this copyrighted website, Mjavajunky73. Please read WP:COPYVIO. We are very serious about copyright issues. If you can't root out all the copyright violations, it would be best to start fresh with a blank slate, and write everything in your own words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anna Politkovskaya. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I already commented there on October 18. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Actual semitic people page

hey jim if I can call you that I was thinking we like show the history of the Semitic peoples and like it would say Semitic peoples a potriat of a couple assyrians ethopians arabs and jews you know and itll say the the religions etc cause the semitic people page I saw its just talking about the language not the actual people you know we have one for Slavs and for Iranian people's you know like Persians kurds afghans so why not a semitic peoples page? ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, ArabAmazigh12. Of course, you are free to improve and expand Semitic people, as long as you do so in compliance with policies and guidelines, using high quality academic sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey jim so should I make a separate page or Just work on the one we have? cause like I said its mainly bout the languages and I don't wanna mess that page up don't wanna get in trouble....ThanksArabAmazigh12 (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a separate article, Semitic languages. The other article should be primarily about the broad family of ethnic groups, though language is an important aspect of ethnicity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Questionable reference Teahouse question

Hi Jim, Thanks for welcoming me to the Teahouse and for your informative reply to my question. I've read the pages you provided about link rot and identifying reliable sources for medical articles.

It's fascinating! Following my Teahouse question, Fuhghettaboutit revised the Reference 4 link, making it point to a an archived version of what should have been at the now web-ad site. This seemed like a fine thing to do, but then RedPenOfDoom deleted References 2, 3 & 4 and added a refimprove box.

The resulting page is better, in that links to the web-ad page are gone, but the work Fuhghettaboutit had done in finding an archived version of meaningful information is also gone.

After I invent a new user name to be more anonymous, I will return to this page and try to improve it further. I'm amazed at how fast things move here! I've learned a lot just by looking at what was done in response to my question. Any feedback you have will be welcomed. Thanks again! SVCDuval (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello SVCDuval. The work that Fuhghettaboutit did is still present in the edit history of the article. I suggest that you open a discussion on the talk page of that article, and invite those two editors to comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, SwisterTwister. I appreciate the kindness. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/San Francisco

Hey Cullen328, bit of a late notice, but if you have time tommorow afternoon or evening, let me know and we can plan a meeting. All the best, Taketa (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Taketa. Are you talking about Thursday or Friday? What do you have in mind? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that either people could drop by the office on Friday after 13:00 or we can go for dinner in the evening. All the best, Taketa (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Taketa, I am sorry that a combination of work and family obligations prevent me from visiting downtown San Francisco on Friday afternoon. That is probably the worst possible time for a trip from the Napa Valley where I live, and back again. The traffic is brutal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, thanks for the willingness to come. Too bad it does not work out this time. I am sure there will be future posibilities in a few years. If I am still a steward then, I will be sure to think of you and next time inform you in time so we can pklan better. All the best, Taketa (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Jay Ward Productions

You are invited to have a look at Jay Ward Productions. A lot of editing since the AfD was closed on 2 August. Would you care to have a look? Thanks. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sam Sailor. I took a brief look. The most obvious shortcoming is the lack of references in the article. The coverage in reliable sources is available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hey, Jim, I just noticed this comment on my talk page User talk:Liz#Sticking up for the Teahouse gang that I hope you will look over. I've noticed that most question answerers, unless they have been hosts for a while, do not greet new editors with a Welcome, but that you do so consistently and which I know I had to learn and remember to do. I think editors that are new helping out at the Teahouse go right to the question and if it is on one of the big 3 topics--Why did my article get deleted?, Why did this mean editor revert me? and especially, How can I write an article about my company/myself/my friend?--, they just go right to the brutal truth which is usually, "You shouldn't even be thinking of writing this article!"

The editor of this note, Checkingfax, didn't name any particular hosts who were too blunt, just sharing that sometimes the Teahouse isn't as welcoming as it strives to me. I'm sure this is an issue we all could work at getting better at. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. I share your concern and see at least one very "bitey" comment just recently, from a host who is usually quite helpful. A couple of weeks ago, I left a message for one particularly brusque host but haven't seen much change in their demeanor. I guess that I try to lead by example, and am reluctant to chastise other hosts unless the conduct is really egregious. I believe that a few friendly words of welcome and encouragement to our guests can help ease the sting of rejection when that is necessary, and perhaps help to encourage people to try again. You can count on my support for any group effort to upgrade the friendliness of the Teahouse. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, Jim, I think that hosts are usually great with arcane questions about editing practice or codes or templates. It's just the continual flow of new editors unhappy about article deletions wears on hosts and they start being brusque because they answer this question several times a day.

I wish there was an easier answer than, "You have a conflict-of-interest" or "Read all of these policies and get back to us when you are done." The fact is that Wikipedia deletion policy, while harsh, is necessary. And I don't know if there is a pleasant and friendly way to get that point aross. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)