User talk:Cullen328/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Happy New Year!

Thanks for the best wishes! Allow me to return the favor!

Amaury (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Amaury (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Amaury. Is it really true that you edited as "Donald Duck" in 2010? Bold move! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I was also a troublemaker, you could say, back then if you also had a look at my block log. Not anymore, though. :) Amaury (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof, then, that redemption exists. Thank you for coming around, Amaury. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jim!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Jim, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 05:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Thanks for the introductory Norwegian lesson, Sam Sailor. I suspect that things get a lot harder, very quickly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

be happy

Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you a Happy New Year! This message celebrates the season, promotes good cheer, and hopefully makes your day a little brighter. So please spread cheer by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be a good friend, someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, or just some random person.
(click for sound

Thanks, MichaelQSchmidt. Let's hope that all movies released in 2016 will be great works of cinematic art, with no flops, nothing in bad taste, not a single exploitative film, and all releases get Oscars and no Razzies are given out. Also, that all Wikipedia editors collaborate in peace and harmony. A guy can hope, right? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy 2016!!!

Happy New Year Cullen! I really enjoyed your greeting. Thank you, you are responsible for my first smile on the last day of the year, and receiving it from somebody as commited to the project as yourself was an extra bonus . It was also interesting to find out that Wiki-gnomes have been around for so long. You have my very best wishes for 2016!! --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Crystallized Carbon

Thanks, Crystallizedcarbon. You are a very valuable mineral. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I still need to be shaped and polished --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thank you for your support and wishes, returned with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. I would love to hear the tolling. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

To hear a soft sound, Click on bells, and then on burla ;) - The year had a good start with a comic opera full of wisdom as the first TFA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cullen328!

Happy New Year!

Cullen328,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, Davey2010. Are the other 2009 Daveys still editing? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope I killed them all , I have a new policy now tho - Anyone who creates "Davey2011, 12 etc etc ... or even has the name "Davey" will now get shot .... There is however a slight flaw to that plan ... I'm not entirely sure how it's going to work at the moment , –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

My son is (mostly inactive) Amcandave. I hope that will not whip you into an assassin's frenzy, Davey2010. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope his name doesn't have a y on the end , but even if It did I like you so he could choose "Davey" if he wanted :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

RfA Nomination?

Hi Cullen328, given the response at your poll I think the outcome is going to be a nomination - although a nomination by myself would not carry much clout, I thought I'd do what I did for BethNaught and ask if you would be willing to run at this time? -- samtar ^whisper 11:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there are those whose nominations would carry more weight than my own, and it wouldn't surprise me if they offered too, but I just wanted to say that I would be more than happy to nominate you for adminship. Feel free to drop me an email if/when you decide to run. Sam Walton (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I just came here for the exact same thing. I really wish that this time, you should run. Since the last couple of years, multiple editors have asked you to run and you were always intelligent enough to decline those request sensibly but this time... Please... I remember when MelanieN was dragged, kicking and screaming, to the point of asking for a mop, do you want us to take the same method. ;) Jim Carter 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I have first dibs on Cullen! 0;-D For a long time he and I had a kind of a friendly dare regarding RfA, "I will if you will". I tried to call him on it at the beginning of this year, when I passed RfA, but he was not ready at that time for personal reasons; instead he continued his outstanding work at the Teahouse. If he is willing to think about it now, I am more than ready to help drag him to adminship (with or without the kicking and screaming). Come on in, Cullen, the water's fine. You'd be a shoo-in at RfA. And it doesn't have to be any more work than you want it to be. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't often vote at RfA anymore, because I have more important reasons to raise my blood pressure, but I'm adding myself to the list of people who, without equivocation, say that you'd make a perfect admin. Your temperament and attitude and the way you treat people makes you uniquely suited for adminship, and it would suit you very well. --Jayron32 18:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Samtar, Samwalton9, Jim Carter, MelanieN and Jayron32, I am gratified by your words of encouragement. I am having a relatively minor surgical procedure tomorrow and will think about all of this during my recovery, and will discuss it with my wife. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, hope it goes well and we'll see you back here before you know it -- samtar ^whisper 09:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Best of luck on your procedure and wishing you a speedy recovery! Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Good luck, prayers for you and your family! And take some time off. We'll see you when you're up and about again. Looking forward to your RFA --Jayron32 13:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Update My surgery went well yesterday, and the pain is minor, so I am doing a little Wikipedia editing instead of taking opioids. Thanks to everyone for your supportive remarks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Take care! I archived the prayers for my health, you can have a few. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words, Gerda. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hope you are well soon. In the meantime, dropping off some tea for you and D. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful to hear from you, Rosiestep. Tea has healing properties. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my late best New Year wishes, User:Cullen328. I hope your year has started out nice :-) Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that if you decide to run up for adminship, you've got my full support. Why? Because I appreciate your experience, knowledge, sense of judgement, and as far as I am concerned, you stand in a good reputation within the Wikipedia Community. Well, I think your family has a say to this and you should listen them more than any one of us ;-) *hehehe* I wish you the best upcoming year! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Habib Ali al-Jifri

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Habib Ali al-Jifri. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Cullen. You asked for opinions at the poll page for RfA, and so far all the responses have been 9–10/10 (I gave a 10/10). I have prepared a nomination statement, so if you want me to nominate you, just let me know. You might also want a co-nom. Biblioworm 20:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I could co-nom, Biblioworm: does that mean agreeing with the nom statement, or does a separate statement have to be made? Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I see it needs a statement: I could start drafting this if you want me to co-nom. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I am grateful to both of you, but I need a bit more time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but if you ran sometime soon you might be the very first candidate to run under the reforms that were passed (and unanimously upheld in the subsequent close review) just a few days ago. Some new benefits are: (1) Because of wider advertising, there will likely be a broader range of opinions from more community members, instead of just a small, self-selected group; (2) Editors can now ask only two questions each (with relevant followups permitted), so there are no more long lists of boilerplate questions; (3) The discretionary range has now been expanded to 65-75%; before this reform, a person who finished at 71% would be an extreme borderline case, but now they would actually be in the upper end of the discretionary range. Therefore, there is now a much better chance of passing for those candidates who would have previously been considered borderline. I hope you will take these things into account when making your decision. Also, Happy (somewhat belated) New Year! :) Biblioworm 23:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that those are fine reforms, Biblioworm, and it is good news that they went through. However, my own decision will be based on off-Wikipedia, real life factors. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Excellent work on Ben Ezra Synagogue. Thanks for caring. Geewhiz (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Geewhiz. I was motivated to work on it after finishing a biography of geniza scholar Marina Rustow. What do you think of that article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
	10 to 31 January 2016 Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comments at AE

Hi, I saw your support for indefinite banning of me at the AE, after we exchanged comments on EdJohnston's TALK. You pointed to my WikiLawyering as reason, but I believe that was in relationship the AE. May I ask which of my edits on the page, or discussion of the page, makes you think I should be banned. Or is it that you just do not believe new editors should be allowed to edit in areas that have established history of being contentious? I would appreciate the feedback. Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

More correctly, I supported a six month topic ban. I stated my thinking there and see no point in repeating it here in detail, except to say that it is your behavior that concerns me, rather than the fact that your account is new. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You stated you had no interaction with me, and defined my edits with a perjoritive. Indeed you are not editing the articles and our only prior exchange was on a TALK page regarding the AE, which presumably brought you the the AE itself. The AE is about editorship, it is not circular to the AE itself (what I am saying on the AE), we should agree that the AE noticeboard is separate and unique. So I think it fair to ask you what specific edits or conduct on the ARTICLES give you rise to suggest at the AE that a fellow editor should be topic ban for half a year? Here is what the AE is regarding, and I am simply not see your concerns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid#Use_of_Primary_sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid#Removal_of_MEDRS_sourced_claim

Cullen, I do appreciate your remarks on the AE, but without any specificity and your admitted lack of familiarity with the topic and my edits, I must say your advocating for a half year ban, comes across as harsh. So it should be reasonable to ask what edits are your concern. I am unclear if you have read them, and I certainly believe I am following proper from. I hope you will clarify your remarks, and if have not read my edits, to say that clearly. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be under the completely mistaken notion, Mystery Wolff, that it is somehow improper for an editor such as I to express an opinion about the behavior of an editor such as you without studying their article contributions. If you think that, you are in error. I am perfectly able and welcome to express my opinion at AE based on my reading of your conduct on administrator's talk pages, your own talk page, and AE itself. Or anywhere on Wikipedia. I have no interest whatsoever in delving into the details of the e-cigarette article content. What interests me is assisting new editors who show potential of developing into productive encyclopedia editors; and sadly sometimes, supporting sanctions against editors who conduct themselves in a tendentious, argumentative, disruptive fashion. This is a collaborative project. It is not a battleground. So, my advice to you is to abandon the argumentative attitude you have displayed to date, and adopt a collaborative attitude. I have nothing more to say to you, unless I see a major attitude change on your part. Please take my recommendation to heart. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not mistaken on what you can comment on, I understand that. Which is why I asked about what about my actual edits do you have a concern with. This was the nature of the AE you picked, the purpose. Was it my expectation that you would have taken the time to looks at the edits, certainly. If not what are you commenting on after all, a grading of an explanation of why I do not think the AE is appropriate, which is necessarily a dispute. Were you to look at the Articles you would find a different picture than your impression. When contributing to Wikipedia, I think its important for you to see BRD, because the process of creative tension is something you should embrace, as WP does. The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus. It can sometimes be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. Care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see any reversion as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. Discuss is something I did here with you. I am patient. Good day Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cullen328!

Happy New Year!

Cullen328,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, Peppy Paneer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello C. Thanks again for the card. I wanted to let you know that it needs a |} to complete it. Otherwise any reply winds up getting absorbed into the card. Here is the before and after of what happened on my talk page. Let me say again that the pic and card are wonderful. New Year cheers to you. MarnetteD|Talk 23:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tech tip, MarnetteD. I never claimed to be a skilled coder. Glad you like it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I just realised this myself. Glad to see you're on to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are welcome. I'm only so-so at coding but I made this mistake a couple years ago so that is why I'm on the lookout for it. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You have attracted an imitator! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Unneccessary are misspelled two. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for 'Authority control' information (at Teahouse)

Greetings Cullen328  – Thanks for your 16:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Teahouse explanation about Authority control (archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 432#Russian cuisine). At Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day I've written up a new tip for February 15, Using the Authority control tag that includes much of your answer. Thanks so much. Regards,  JoeHebda  talk  20:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am honored, JoeHebda. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jim and JoeHebda I stumbled around for a while trying to add information to the {{authority control}} template on a biographical Wikipedia article back in November. I first saw Authority Control in the raw on The Commons and tried to replicate it on Wikipedia to no avail. Then I discovered you populate the Authority Control template on Wikipedia by adding Authority Control Items on Wikidata for each Authority Control parameter (assuming they do not already exist). If they already exist at Wikidata all you have to do is add {{authority control}} template to the bottom of the Wikipedia article, but above the Categories. Wikipedia will then pull the data (or maybe Wikidata pushes it) from Wikidata. To add items to Wikidata the easiest way is to click on the Wikidata item link on the lefthand toolbar of each Wikipedia page. If the article is new you will have to go to Wikidata and create the item for the page, then you can add the Authority Control items to the Wikidata page for the Wikipedia article. Finding Authority Control values for articles is tedious and must be done one by one. One of the values has to be specially formatted after finding it: You have to put some slashes between the values to make it render properly. Let me know if I can clarify any of this. It is not documented as far as I know. Cheers! PS: On The Common's, Authority Control values have to be inserted one-by-one manually in to the template. I have added 949 items or instances to Wikidata. A few have been reverted, like saying that a human lives on the planet earth (turns out only physical objects can reside on the planet earth over there). The Authority Control template also has a Talk page where comments or questions can be broached but they can be a bit stuffy over in the Template namespace. Being forward looking I now add an Authority Control template to each page I edit because I sense more parameters will be added. The concept was IIRC pioneered by German Wikipedia and rolled out from there. Ping me back. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up to post at the Teahouse

Hi Cullen,

Wasn't sure where to leave a message so here's an entry on your talk page.

I have posted a follow-up to the discussion at the Teahouse. --JamesPoulson (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for your informative essay on Arnnon Geshuri. Best, Mootros (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind remarks, Mootros. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy 2016

Hi Cullen. Many thanks for your your New Year wishes, and a very happy one to you too! Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

GA page:

I think since wolfdog and Peter238 by and large took over the editing of the General American accent page (compared to say how it was, a year ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_American&oldid=642910000) there's been more negativity towards the accent. Pitting it against other regional american accents. None of the other North American accent pages have this, and I feel like it isn't neutral, and there deliberetly trying to sabotage the page and cause bitterness towards people that speak either like or near GA. Can I please get your view on this? thank you Zimmyzalman (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You're being dishonest. The vast majority of my edits were to the phonology section. Plus, talking to you on the GA talk page is literally like talking to a wall. Peter238 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if that was the case. I just noticed you two were editing the most int he past year. If it wasn't you, then I apoloigize for that. Zimmyzalman (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Cullen, can we pleaee talk about this when get the chance? thank you Zimmyzalman (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am completely unfamiliar with this issue and you have not asked me any specific questions, Zimmyzalman. It is a mystery to me why this discussion is taking place on my talk page. The article's talk page is the proper place to discuss such matters in a collaborative fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I was recommended to you on mIRC #wikipedia-en-help (teaehouse). I was told by Peter it was like I was talking to a brick wall. I personally feel that there's added negativity on the GA page that isn't there on other North American reginaal accents talk pages. That GA speakers think there better then everyone else/etc. Theres' always been a couple things like the stephen colbert part or that sometimes GA is preferred over other accents. Those have been in that article for years. But there's been more added in recent times. And I feel this will create bitterness and negativity towards GA speakers. And some people maker their living by their voice. Weither that be actors, nerwscaster, people that do commenrcials, radio talk shows/etc. I feel like this isn't neutral when it isn't discussed on other NA pages. GA speakers aren'[t the only region in the US with bias towards other regional accents. But I don't think everyone in any region is prejudice either. I just feel the added negativity compared to other North american accent pages is not neutral. This is something that is very serious to me. SOme people make their livlehood on the way they speak. it's what put's bread on the table/etc. Zimmyzalman (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing to add other than what other editors have said on the article's talk page, Zimmyzalman. That is the best place to make your case. I would caution you against engaging in any disruptive editing behavior. Thank you.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

relax and recharge
... you were recipient no. 721 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the reminder, Gerda Arendt. You are very kind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't be, kind I mean. Did you see Falstaff (under the peace bell above, the TFA for 1 January, the beginning of a new time)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Happy New Year! Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 15:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Miss Bono. I am happy to see you here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings/Inquiry for Chef Naomi Pomeroy

Greetings, Cullen328! I hope 2016 has been a happy year for you.

I've been working on an article, and I truly value the editing/revision process. I've used the LiveChat and TeaHouse features of Wikipedia for assistance and have received solid assistance. I'm running across a bit of difficulty with what might be inconsistent feedback. More specifically, I have used an accepted article for Chef Jose Garces as a guide for my contribution for Chef Naomi Pomeroy. I have received a couple of rejections for my Pomeroy draft. The first rejection noted that I had established Pomeroy's notability but had used a promotional tone (link to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naomi_Pomeroy). I really valued hearing this feedback and removed promotional language (I have also removed the name of Pomeroy's restaurants to avoid promotional tone there). I resubmitted the article with a more neutral tone; I have been rejected again due to my inability to establish Pomeroy's notability with sources. My references are more in number and similar in style/genre/medium to those used for the Jose Garces article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Garces

I think the tone is rather similar in both the Pomeroy and Garces pieces, but I do welcome additional feedback on this concern.

I feel as if I'm receiving conflicting information from the editing process. My tone isn't mentioned in the second editor's commentary; however, notability is. Notability was not a concern mentioned by the first editor. Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated. I really want to write a strong article. Please let me know what questions you may have. I thank you for your time and consideration.

As a side note, One of my areas of research is gender bias for women as chefs/culinary industry. It seems that women are often regarded as cooks and men are more recognized as chefs. In short, this makes it more difficult for women to establish their professional culinary credibility and accomplishments. I have sources and a working annotated bibliography from a recent project on this matter.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to learn more about the editing process and the opportunity to provide a presence for the article. Wikipedia is a great digital community for writers.

With much appreciation, MagdalenaKillion (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MagdalenaKillion. Thank you for your kind words. Here are a few points for you to consider:

It is a mistake in my view to compare your draft article to Jose Garces, which I consider to be a mediocre article, and which is rated "Start class". If you look at Talk: Jose Garces, the only comment there is "This article reads like a poorly written advertisement for Garces rather than an encyclopedic article. I corrected some of the grammar but am not familiar enough with him to write the rest." I see no evidence that the Garces article was "accepted" in any meaningful sense as it was written in 2009 before the Articles for Creation review process even existed. My guess is that someone just wrote the darmed thing and plunked it into the encyclopedia without review. It is important for you to understand that the existence of mediocre articles does not justify the creation of new mediocre articles. We ought to either improve or delete those older articles.

As for the idea of excluding the names of restaurants associated with chefs, I disagree completely. That is like writing the biography of an author or director and not mentioning their books or movies. We do not write advertising copy for the restaurants or link to their websites in the body of the article, but of course they should be mentioned.

You should never expect consistency when two different volunteers review a draft or an article. When I offer a review, I will often notice five or six shortcomings of various degrees of severity. I will focus my comments on the "deal killers". If the topic is not notable or if the draft is a complete copyright violation, then there is no point in quibbling about grammar or formatting. It is not at all surprising that various reviewers will focus on different aspects of the draft.

The thing that jumps out at me is an unusual quirk of your formatting. You have coupled the URL links to the access date. Access date is a relatively minor aspect of the reference. These really ought to be linked to the title of the article. So, I suggest that you move the access date outside the square bracket and move the title inside the bracket. There are many ways to format acceptable references. I use "fill in the blanks" templates for consistency.

I understand your point about women in the culinary industry, but with Julia Child and Alice Waters as role models, the opportunities are there, I think. Wikipedia definitely needs to do a better job with biographies of notable women, and I commend you for helping. My latest biography of a woman is Marina Rustow. The only contribution I recall making to a biography of a woman chef is that I took the portrait photo of Cindy Pawlcyn. That article, by the way, needs a lot of work. Yours is already better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Cullen328. I was getting a bit discouraged; your comments are very helpful and clarify many of my questions. I really appreciate the details you've provided; I now know how to move forward and strengthen the draft of the article. I was concerned about that names of the restaurants, and I thank you for your thoughts about those.

By the way, that's really exciting about your taking the portrait photo of Cindy Pawlcyn. I cant want to learn more about her work. I'll be revising my article for Chef Pomeroy and resubmit for additional consideration; I definitely appreciate your guidance/advice regarding formatting and retrieval dates.

With much appreciation, MagdalenaKillion (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Cindy has been a very successful chef here in the Napa Valley for 32 years. She is a local legend. It was a pleasure to have her as a teacher for even a few hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328, I just noticed my terrible typo. I intended "I cant wait to learn more about her [Chef Pawlcyn's] work." I apologize for any confusion. Happy Editing!MagdalenaKillion (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That is what I thought you meant, so no problem at all, MagdalenaKillion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Tea House needs eyes

Hi Cullen. Since you are a host at the Tea House, I'd suggest manually archiving this question from yesterday and subsequent comments (titled My submission keeps getting rejected). After 10 years on Wikipedia I'm quite used to boorish behaviour, but I don't think one of the respondent's comments there would make a newbie feel very comfortable about editing WP, especially a woman newbie. I've already answered the person who had posed the original question on their talk page. So they won't be missing anything. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Voceditenore. Sorry to be slow to respond. My "Wikipedia editing" time has been limited today. Although I share your concern about the comments in the diff, I am not personally comfortable with archiving this ahead of schedule. I did, however, leave a comment on the talk page of the experienced editor. They blew me off, and another editor as well. So, we will have to keep a close eye, and do our best to enforce a friendly, welcoming attitude by experienced editors at the Teahouse. Thank you for pointing this out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Cullen. I can see your point about early archiving, and as it is, there have been so many questions since then that I doubt if very any new posters will even see it. Yes, the TH does need more eyes now. It's a far cry from when it first started. Several of us who tried to answer questions when it launched were actually told to stay away because we weren't officially approved "hosts". I suspect quite a few helpful and highly experienced editors were permanently put off by that. But now, it seems to have swung somewhat to the other extreme with some comments/participants that can only be described as trolling. It would be a pity to see it get any worse. Voceditenore (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mobile editing

I saw your post on mobile device editing. I have tried editing using a couple of different iPads and when typing text into the edit box there is about a half second pause needed between key presses. Do you know if this is a problem with iPads in general or of maybe I am doing something dumb? This is very frustrating and the number of typos this causes makes editing away from the computer a pain. I do not have the problem using an Android phone but small leads to its own problems. Any ideas from your experience would be great. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 23:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jbhunley. I do not have any knowledge of this specific problem but have heard general griping about mobile editing using Apple products. As I am not an Apple user, my suggestions may be of little use. If you are using Wikipedia's mobile site, I suggest trying the desktop site. If using VisualEditor, try old fashioned wikicode editing. Can you use a variety of browsers on an iPad? I use Chrome on my Android phone. When my phone gets sluggish and unresponsive, sometimes shutting it off and restarting it works wonders.

For some reason, I have few problems with the small screen size. I happen to be using my phone right now, sitting by my very big screen TV, which is turned off. The phone is about ten inches from my eyes and the TV about ten feet away. The two screens appear to be the same size when I hold the phone right below the TV, just as the Moon appears to be exactly the same size as the Sun. If some politician or celebrity I do not like appears on the TV, I can create an instant "eclipse" with my phone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have used Chrome, Safari and Dolphin on iPad 4 and Pro and always get the same results. I guess if others are complaining about editing from iDevices is must be a general problem. I might give the phone more of a try, seems a shame to be able to do everything from an iPad but edit Wikipedia though. Have a great New Year! Jbh^Talk 19:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

WMF has 15 paid staff working on mobile access. Maybe one of those genius coders could assist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will check with them to see if there is a fix. Jbh^Talk 20:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI I figured out that syntax highlighting seems to be what causes the slowdown on iDevices. I assume WikiEd would do so as well. Jbh^Talk 22:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

George Meany Plaza

Hi, at some point I put in that this exists. Later others put in info about the dedication ceremony and those present. This was hard to source and as a result the entire thing was cut by you . What would it take to get back at least the existence? Well, it would just take putting it back but I am not inclined to do that, especially to the work of a senior editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlemath (talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

For what little it is worth, here is the entry for the square on the web site of the municipality of Jerusalem https://www.jerusalem.muni.il/City/Streetnames/Pages/Street.aspx?streetSemel=6008 Gentlemath (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Gentlemath. That content was removed during a rigorous Good Article review about six months ago. Personally, I have no problem at all if you want to add it back in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

No hello!

Could you help out Fr Mark Sahady, a new editor? Thanks! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for bringing this matter to my attention, MurderByDeadcopy. I have left a message on the editor's talk page. In my mind, there is often a balance required between friendliness and firmness. I try hard to walk that line properly, but always appreciate the input of editors like you who criticize our cold welcomes. If I could have done better, please let me know. And please also know that I appreciate the observations of good faith contributors such as you. Gentle hint: Please consider adopting a friendlier user name. I understand your intention. Others may not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually came to you because I thought you could help them more than me with their situation. That's a compliment. As a general rule, I don't leave comments on editor's pages whom I don't like!

As for my name, I picked it because I thought it was funny. It's a take off of one of my favorite movies Murder by Death! All my comedy buddies caught onto it immediately so I just figured everyone else would too! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, MurderByDeadcopy. As for your user name, I made an entirely optional suggestion, and you are free to use the name that you like. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Image upload from Wikimedia

Hi Jim,

Thank you for answering my query on Teahouse. I did exactly as directed but the link uploads the old version, not the new one that I added. Please see my Draft article and notice that I tried twice with the same result. YOur assistance would be appreciated. Also, please let me know if you see anything else that might be improved in order for the article to be approved asap. THANKS! WendyGaw54 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gaw54. When I look at your draft, I see one of the three images in the category you linked to displayed in the draft. So what, precisely, is the problem? If you are trying to add a Wikimedia category to the article (which includes three separate images), then that will not work. You can only add specific images, and one of those images is already in your draft. So, please be very precise about what the problem is, because I am simply not seeing it at this time.

On another page, I see you complaining that you have not received a response to your question in one hour. Please be aware that this is an entirely volunteer project that now struggles to maintain five million articles. Our volunteers need time off to sleep, work for a living, prepare and eat meals, talk to their family members, go to doctor's appointments, pull weeds in their gardens, goof around on Facebook, see exhibits at art museums, and watch sporting events. And so on. Expecting a one hour response is unrealistic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Gaw54, it often happens that when a new version of an image is uploaded onto the same page/file, it takes several minutes before that change is actually reflected on live usage of the image. The key is just to wait 15 minutes or so. You might try clearing your cache or etc., but usually it's just a matter of waiting until the MediaWiki servers catch up (which they seem to have now, in the case of the image you are using). Again, patience is the key on Wikipedia, as Cullen mentioned above. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. I apologize for jumping the gun. Since the instructions say to wait more than a minute or two, I thought that perhaps my inquiry had fallen into the internet Bermuda triangle. I am still having trouble with linking to the correct image from Wikimedia. When I click on the new image, the old image comes up on the page. They both seem to have the same link information. Gaw54 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered that cleaning my cache indeed solved the problem. Thanks for that suggestion. I have published a number of articles in hard copy but I'm new to this process; this is just my second article. I didn't mean to come across as complaining. I am just trying to understand the various mechanisms and channels for dealing with different issues. Once I get the hang of this I hope to become more active in editing and creating articles. Gaw54 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad that mystery was solved; thanks for letting us know, that's good information for us as well. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is best for me to refrain from this particular discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Nigeria Writing Contest

Hello Cullen328, and happy Wikipedia @ 15. This is to notify you of Wiki Loves Nigeria Writing Contest organized by the Wikimedia User Group Nigeria to commiserate the 15th anniversary of Wikipedia. The contest will start on 28 January 2016 and end on 29 February 2016. Please help to suggest articles on notable Nigeria-related topic here and if you like to be part of the jury, add your name here. Thanks for your participation. Warm regards Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your essay on Arnnon Geshuri

Hello Cullen328, and thank you for your essay on Arnnon Geshuri. I believe you played a key role in the community understanding more about our new trustee. I'm not a very prolific editor of Wikipedia, but I am quite the active reader. My internet history tells me I browse hundreds of articles a week, and I would be very disappointed if the leadership of this invaluable website was hindering its advancement in any way. I use Wikipedia for knowledge, curiosity, and entertainment (can you believe I stumbled upon a page with a link to "cow feces" and that link for me was purple!?) I believe you have acted in the best interest of the community (and readers!) and for that I salute you. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What he said. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mr Ernie and Writegeist. I do appreciate your comments, though I am deeply saddened by the disfunction at the WMF board. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Crikey, Jim. Did you read this yet? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was sudden, wasn't it Checkingfax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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) 04:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I take no joy in the demise of another man... usually!

		The Half Barnstar
		For instigating the removal of Arnnon Geshuri from the WMF. You get the left half for your essay about him. Fæ gets the right half for creating the vote of no-confidence. You two have really helped restore my faith in Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Chris troutman. I have to say that I take no pleasure from any of this. I feel only sadness but some hope going forward. And Fæ deserves the credit for bringing this to light, in a comment at The Signpost. I simply looked into the matter and presented information in an easily readable form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I concur with all the above positive comments from others re this case. I particularly liked your characterisation of Geshuri's "management-speak" response before he left. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

As you were one of the editors, Ericoides, who gave me encouragement and support way back in 2009 when I was getting started, your comment means an awful lot to me. As a matter of fact, I think it was a question from you that motivated me to embark on a major expansion of Harry Yount, one of my favorite projects. Thank you so much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd quite forgetten about Yount but looking through your archive I find that this was in relation to James Eccles edits in 2010 – my gosh! How time flies! Hope you're well, Ericoides (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Eccles and Yount hung out together on the upper slopes of the Grand Teton but things went awry due to rebellious mules running away with most of the mountainteering gear. A pity, Ericoides. I am doing well enough after successful surgical procedures for cataracts, glaucoma and skin cancer last year. I hope you are also well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Darya Safai

Hi, thank you for helping me out a bit. I tried to improve the draft a bit. One suggestion for improvement was to add person infobox. Can you help me out with this? I don't know where to startStannieke (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Stannieke. Please read Template:Infobox person. Then copy the template and paste it at the top of your article. Then fill in the blanks. Only the fields where you add infornation will display. The others will remain hidden. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Thank you for the information. Can you take a look once to the draft if you have some time? Do you think I can resubmit it now? Or do yo think it needs more improvement? ThanksStannieke (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russell Wilson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russell Wilson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome, Peacemaker67. I took a serious look at your contributions to this encyclopedia, your temperament, and your understanding of our policies and guidelines. You earned my support, and I was happy to give it. Congratulations! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Significant coverage

Hi, sorry to bother you but I can't get the ask question button to work for the teahouse despite signing. Can you please tell me where it says that significant coverage from one reliable source is at least two long paragraphs as I read it in a policy or guideline and I can't find it now unless its been removed. ThanksAtlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Atlantic306, and happy to help. I am not aware of that two paragraph requirement. "Significant coverage" is defined in the General notability guideline (GNG) as:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

The shortcut is WP:SIGCOV. Hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll study it.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Film video for profile

Cullen328, hopefully I am doing this right. I do not usually leave messages. I will provide the youtube link (or try to) of this film documentary. T Heart (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (/youtu.be/LMYAcDuuWgs)

Hello, Imasku. I see no evidence on YouTube that this is an official, approved video with appropriate copyright clearances. Accordingly, I do not see how it is acceptable for a Wikipedia link at this time. Wikipedia is very strict about potential copyright violations and this policy simply isn't negotiable. It is incumbent on you to prove that there are no copyright issues with this video before linking to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Documentary is owned by the man that shot it Christopher Darton, Blues Harp Productions and Gary Kendall owner of the band in question. They tried to get the necessary copyrights to release it as a full film and could not raise the $50,000 required. Therefore, they chose to release it instead as a youtube video. However, what does not change they are both the owners of the documentary. T Heart (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What you explain above is precisely why the video cannot be linked to on Wikipedia, Imasku. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)