User talk:Cullen328/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Please comment on Talk:The Sins of the Cities of the Plain

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Sins of the Cities of the Plain. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Amba Shepherd Wiki Page

Thank you for your advice Cullen328. In fairness I was attempting to do the right thing and edit first before requesting the deletion but my edits were reverted twice. Its really disconcerting when someone that you do not know has decided that their description of you & your work (your biography) is more correct than your own description. Moreso I feel like my edits were met with a level of hostility not warranted, given that no conversation about adding or re-editing my corrections was initiated or my reasoning to adjust acknowledged. I have no need to promote myself on wiki I have a great website and socials for that. I do require however all information about me here to be correct. If I provide a detailed summary of reasons behind all the changes I require would this suffice in having the edits stay? Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASMGMT (talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ASMGMT. Many Wikipedia editors are aggressive in rejecting input from the subjects of Wikipedia articles. This attitude originates from the clear fact that notable people for understandable human reasons all too often try to transform neutral encyclopedia articles into promotional puff pieces. I am more receptive than most editors, perhaps, to input by article subjects, but I am not a pushover. Any proposed edits you suggest must be backed by references to coverage in reliable, independent sources. Such coverage is the bread and butter of building a Wikipedia article. Post on the article's talk page and feel free to ask questions here on my talk page at any time. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Was it you who tried to add "you’ve heard her vocals grace the sovereign main stage of every festival across the globe" followed by a long list of name dropping? If so, please be aware that no experienced Wikipedia editor will allow such overtly promotional content to remain on this encyclopedia. This is not LinkedIn or Facebook or Twitter. You and your PR team have no control over the content of our article about you, although your good faith suggestions are welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

HI there Cullen328 Thank you for your notes above. Yes I understand that the edits have come across as inappropriate or overtly promotional. In actual fact the long list of name dropping is just the list of people I have worked with and my correct biography. You might not like the language used, however it's very concise and factual. Having said that I am here to learn what is and what is not appropriate here in order to improve my page. Further more the edits we made were also to correct my full discography again fully factual. Could you tell me what kind of reliable independant sources you would require in order to edit my bio and discog to correctly reflect my full work? For example I could list all of the iTunes or beatport links of my releases? Thank you again. User talk:ASMGMT

ASMGMT, if you really think that "you’ve heard her vocals grace the sovereign main stage of every festival across the globe" is a factual statement, then you should not be editing Wikipedia. There is no way under the sun that such an outlandish claim is factual. You need to declare your conflict of interest on the article talk page and I suggest on your currently blank user page as well. You need to propose specific improvements cited to independent reliable sources on the article talk page. iTunes and beatport are not independent sources because they sell your music. Why do you think that a neutral encyclopedia article should reflect your full work? That is what your own website is for. A well written encyclopedia article describes a selection of your most notable work; that which has been discussed in depth by independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

HI there Cullen328 Thank you for your comments & thoughts. Whether you personally feel that my bio is factually correct or not is of no interest or relevance to me or to wikipedia. There is no need to communicate with me in a patronising and mocking tone. You would be well advised to take your own advice and adopt a neutral tone yourself in matters of assisting editors & editing articles. I was not referring specifically to the first line of my bio, but the long list of artists I have worked with as concise and factual (which you quite inappropriately refer to as name dropping). A bio in the real world is not supposed to be a boring piece of statistical info a bio is supposed to be an interesting story to engage readers. I have politely asked for assistance to edit this real life bio in such a way that makes it appropriate and also up to date & as complete as possible for wikipedia. I have made it quite clear from the outset who I am and what my goals are. I have fully disclosed in all my contact here on this talk page and during editing the page exactly who I am and while I understand the comments about a perceived conflict of interest, my tone and communication style and willingness to learn and try to understand clearly indicates that I do not wish to self promote but to get the facts straight & to abide by the principles here. You ask why I think a wikipedia article should reflect my full work? According to the Wikipedia site notes Wikipedia is allowed to be edited by anyone and articles on living persons that are incomplete or incorrect are encouraged to be updated - so that is why. If you actually have any useful comments or advice I am open to discussing further but otherwise please refrain from making any further insults about me, my work/bio/discog, my position editing here or my right to be editing at all.

ASMGMT, thank you for your kind words. I will continue to support Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and will continue to watch the article you are working on to be sure that you comply with those standards. Your failure to achknowledge that content like "you’ve heard her vocals grace the sovereign main stage of every festival across the globe" is utterly inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article speaks volumes. I encourage you to reconsider your approach. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please help

Hi Cullen328! Thank you for the opportunity that through the Teahouse I can write to you. I am new here and I am working on an article. This is a 6 years old article that was not properly sourced, however, I found more than 40 secondary sources that I have now built in. My problem is that almost no one controls what I am doing, and I should like kindly ask you, that if your time allows, just take a glance to the article and tell me your advises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme My other problem is that this tag "Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" proved to be useless for reaching the sources of the 1960-1980 decades, especially the sources of the past communist countries in East Europe where most of the libraries very poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! [[1]] page 65 [[2]] p.2 [[3]] p.23 [[4]] p.1 [[5]] p.289 [[6]] p.5 [[7]] p.2 [[8]] p.353 [[9]] p.35 [[10]] p.1 [[11]] p.46 [[12]] p.75 [[13]] p.63 [[14]] p.84 [[15]] p.64 [[16]] p.1 [[17]] p.48 [[18]] p.317 [[19]] p.196 [[20]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[21]] p.1 [[22]] p.1 [[23]] p.48 [[24]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. Would you kindly investigate the improved article, is my work now sufficient? I saw your contributions, so any proposal or any suggestion would be highly appreciated! Thanks for reading this message, sincerely yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Medicinal Plants In Australia

Hi Cullen, a while back (Archive 435 of the Teahouse) I asked about an entry for a book series. You were encouraging.

My first attempt is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ringpicker/Medicinal_Plants_In_Australia

I would love comment/criticism, I realise I have to resize the thumbnails, but haven't worked that one out yet! Ringpicker (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, Ringpicker. The main problem with your draft is that it discusses the Australian plants far more than it discusses the actual books. An article about a book or series of books should concentrate on the books. That may include information about the author, the publisher, the publication history, sales figures, awards won, and especially the critical reception. In depth reviews should be cited and summarized. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thanks for the reply. I was (sort of) advised to stay away from reviews and references in the text as that started to head towards product advertising. I assume you mean some sort of review/reference quote or quotes in each volume section. Thanks for the feedback Ringpicker (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not know who advised you to avoid citing reviews published in reliable sources by qualified book reviewers, Ringpicker. Please read our notability guideline for books, where published reviews are mentioned as one important element of the notability of a book. In my experience, book reviews are the main building blocks, in most cases, for writing Wikipedia articles about contemporary books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Cullen (or may I call you Jim (my name is Tony Young)). Thanks for pointing me to that, I think it qualifies under 1 and 4 as it has been peer reviewed by the Australian National Herbarium, Economic Botany and the Chicago Botanic Gardens amongst others, and from royalty details under intellectual rights we know it is in Universities in Australia. I have done additions to the general Overview and Volume 4. How is it looking? I will add book info no. of pages, etc next. (hope I am not taking up too much of your time). Thanks again 01:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringpicker (talk • contribs)

Hello World

Hi Jim. Apologies for cyber bombing your user page.

It seems that these pages are intended as profiles / homepages , and yours is a well thought out example.

I guess for those a bit shy of the limelight, one could just list their interest areas here.

Is there any mechanism for users to exchange private information one to one?

Wiki seems to be a paradigm shift, reminds me of a SF book where everyone became telepathic overnight and the profound effect on civilisation.
I worked for a large organisation once, and you learned from others mistakes never to put anything in an email that you wouldn't want to world to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salbayeng (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Salbayeng. No apologies needed, because my talk page is an open forum for people of good faith interested in Wikipedia.

As for the "limelight", I have conducted myself as a semi-public figure my entire adult life, though I am far from famous and do not actively seek publicity. Most Wikipedia editors seek a higher degree of privacy than I do, and that is perfectly OK. You can construct your own user page as you see fit, disclosing what you wish. I strongly recommend disclosing any conflicts of interest, but anything else is up to you.

As for private communication, I have the email function enabled, although as you point out, email is not 100% secure. I conduct 98% of my written communication about Wikipedia openly here on this site, or in public Facebook discussions. I do socialize with a few other editors from time to time. I limit ongoing private communication to matters of personal privacy and opposing harassment. If anyone contacts me privately, I suggest taking the conversation public.

Wikipedia is a great accomplishment and I am proud to have been heavily involved with it for over six years. I know its strengths and understand at least some of its weaknesses. It is not science fiction. It is, instead, a triumph of worldwide 21st century human cooperation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Arthur Street School

Hi Jim, thanks for your great feedback on Arthur Street School, and I will keep developing the article in the sandbox before making it publically visible. I really appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, martin. Cargill208 (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vladimir Putin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I commented there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator

Re [28]. You have, however, put your statement in the bit marked "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators". So you might perhaps wish to move it, to save someone else the trouble William M. Connolley (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also consider filing an RFA and making the "not" superfluous? Unless there are some skeletons in your closet I don't know about, I'd be willing to nominate you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of encouragement, Spartaz. The factors that have prevented me from pursuing administratorship thusfar have nothing to do with Wikipedia itself, but are private, "real world" considerations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if your circumstances change look me up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Response to your comment on my talk page

At your request, I read BRD. I notice that it says, among other things, "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)." The version I reverted to was the status quo ante. Also, I have made a request on the talk page that the people who are mass-deleting offer a rationale for the mass deletion. Since you were one of those people, perhaps you might go to the talk page and explain. It seems to me that that would be in keeping with BRD. Not the original Jack Bruce (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not the original Jack Bruce, I removed poorly sourced, hagiographic content that violates due weight. This is not a LaRouche promotional website. You are the one conducting a slow motion edit war against several experienced editors. Please reconsider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Dear Culleen, I wanted to thank you for paying attention to the matter I brought up in the Teahouse/dispute resolution board regarding the term "conviction" in the Eminata Group page. It has been a lonely and frustrating war as I am not familiar with the rules and vocabulary that are specific to Wikipedia and this one particular user was being unreasonable. Thank you very much for taking your time and understanding the matter at hand. Have a great day! Amvan2002 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft Robert naorem

Dear Jim thank u for your valuable feedback and support . I really wanted to publish this article and pls do help me out Rk1985 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rk1985. Please read and study Your first article, and follow its instructions to the letter. WP:PRIMER may also be useful to you, and be sure to comply 100% with WP:NPOV as mentioned at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 25 February 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, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

History of the Jews in New Zealand

Hi, Jim--I'm responding to your edit of History of the Jews in New Zealand. You said a sentence like "this deals with" as an opening sentence was non-wiki, "self referential." I never talk or write like that (I swear!). But I was taking someone's suggestion to use History of Jews in Australia as a guide for at least the section titles, and I think I used their (clunky, self referential) "deals with" as well! Anyway, thanks, because I will get it right. Eventually.Carolynimhoff (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well now

What's this, Cullen? You've been making "patently absurd" accusations? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It is always nice to have you visit my talk page, Drmies, even as a gentle bearer of bad news. In this case, however, I have to say that there are lots of my edits that somebody might consider "patently absurd".

Maybe it has something to do with declining memory associated with my approaching 64th birthday, but I do not remember the specific incident. If you could clue me in, I will try my best to withdraw and correct my absurdities. Thanks, pal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, I have no idea! All I saw was that diff; I did not plow any deeper, it seems unseemly. Ah, 64. Did you listen to the Writer's Almanac this morning? There was a poem there for us. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

About healing

The first step toward healing the Wikipedia community is for him to resign rather than apologize.

See "Lila, Jimmy, and the rest chose to keep the project and the Knight Foundation application and grant a secret until the projects were underway for six months, and even then this only came to light because it was leaked," Ashley Van Haeften, a UK-based Wikipedia editor who initiated last month's "no confidence" vote, told Ars in an e-mail exchange."[29]

See "Glenn describes a grim situation behind the doors of Wikimedia. His litany of reasons include “bad hirings, decisions in secret, dissembling and coverups about the processes that led to those decisions; refusal or inability to state a clear vision, let alone get buy-in or the involvement of staff/community in shaping that vision; restructuring the organization following these same broken processes,” but it’s “not just about an [Executive Director].”"[30]

If it is not just the Executive Director then who else is it? QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, QuackGuru. I have made my recent dissatisfaction with Jimbo's actions quite clear on his talk page, and believe that he should abandon his "trustee for life" pretense. I have certainly never argued that the problem was "just Lila". That being said, I do not consider myself expert enough on the details of WMF governance and its problems to offer highly detailed recommendations. I will support the general principles of transparency, maximum democratic representation for the worldwide volunteer editing community, addressing systemic biases, software development and implementation based on the needs of active editors before programmer career needs (though I respect the staffers), and respectful listening and cooperation. Our goal is creating encyclopedias and related educational content. That must come first. I believe that the board of trustees owes the volunteer community apologies and frank explanations. That is all I can say right now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm kinda glad I didn't get voted into that one. And I believe Cullen is right on the points that I know or feel anything about. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You claim "Our goal is creating encyclopedias and related educational content." This is not happening on Wikipedia because editors are intentionally replacing sourced text with OR, among other problems on articles I edit. I have caught experienced admins supporting OR. Now I am dealing with an editor deleting the most notable text in the article.

If you want to know more about the events you can read the Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) page. You will learn more reading that page than from Jimmy Wales. The Board is still not telling the whole story. Who at the Board is causing these long-term problems? Larry Sanger told us a long time ago who is the real problem. You can read the Larry Sanger page to find out what Sanger thinks. If you connect the dots it is more than apparent what is going on here. Lila Tretikov does not have the authority to keep the KE project a secret. Someone had to tell her to keep it a secret, I think.

The Board has no goal to create an accurate and reliable online encyclopedia. There goal is 15 more years of the same old same old. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Need help!

Hi Jim, I found you from the teahouse.I didn't know who to ask so I came here. I'm from Western Punjabi Wikipedia(pnb.wikipedia.org), Our administrator and the pioneer(user:Khalid Mahmood) recently passed away, he had made us a standard for our wiki. But now that he is gone, our new administrator(pnb:ورتنوالا:Abbas dhothar) is Copy-pasting complete articles from Urdu wikipedia. His articles contain heaps of words from Urdu(language), this is destroying our standard. I asked him to amend his articles but neither did he reply to me nor did he correct his articles. I request that you help me in this matter.

pnb:لسٹ نوبل انعام جیتو یہودی ==> ur:نوبل انعام یافتہ یہودی شخصیات کی فہرست
pnb:دیساں دی کچی دیسی پیداوار دے لحاظ نال لسٹ ==> ur:فہرست ممالک بلحاظ خام ملکی پیداوار
pnb:لسٹ مختلف بولیاں چ دیساں دے ناں (A–C) ==> ur:فہرست مختلف زبانوں میں ممالک کے نام (A–C)
pnb:مذہب بلحاظ دیس ==> ur:مذاہب بلحاظ ملک
pnb:ہر دیس دے پہلے تے دوجے وڈے شہردی لسٹ ==> ur:فہرست ہر ملک کا پہلا اور دوسرا بڑا شہر

If you open all these pages than it is quite obvious that they have been copy-pasted. Saanvel (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome and hello, Saanvel. First of all, I am very sorry that a leading figure of the Western Punjabi Wikipedia has died. I offer my sincere condolences to you and your colleagues. I do not think that I can help you with the specific issue, because my knowledge of south Asian languages is negligible. So, my comments are general and without linguistic expertise.

As a general rule, there is nothing wrong with translating an article from one language to another. If the languages are closely related or mutually intelligible, then a "copy and paste" transfer may be acceptable, subject to later copy editing. Perhaps Urdu/Hindi translations fall into that category. But as a native English speaker who knows only a few words and phrases in other languages, I feel confident in saying that no one would accept a cut and paste copy from any other language to English, without heavy editing in advance.

If you can comprehend the new content, then perhaps you can copy edit at least some of that material, rendering it in proper Western Punjabi, showing good faith. That may give you leverage in discussing the matter with the other editor. If not, you may wish to bring the governance issues to the attention of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sadly, they are now immersed in a leadership controversy of their own, so it may be difficult to get a prompt response. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for the prompt reply, I'll edit and correct what I can. And thank you very much for everything. Saanvel (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How to properly edit Wikipedia satisfying everybody

If I write something, they will say "not notable, give reliable source". When I give sources,they will say give more reliable sources. Then if I quote from the source, I will be accused of "copyright violations, use your own words". If I change the wordings, then I will be accused of synthesis of sources, original research". If I write some sourced content which is disliked by another editor, then I will be accused of POV pushing, even though everything was taken from a reliable source. Someone will say reliable non-English sources are allowed, while another will say "only English please". --Captain Spark (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Captain Spark. Reliable sources are the building blocks of the encyclopedia. We summarize what they say. Quotations are allowed but they must be brief, clearly indicated as quotes, and accurately referenced. We should not emphasize one POV but rather summarize the range of POVs, giving due weight to each. English sources are preferred when abundant but non-English sources are fine, especially for topics related to non-English speaking countries. This is a collaborative project and disagreements are routine. Work them out cooperatively, and try to achieve consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The saddest diff I have ever had to make on Wikipedia

Alas...

Also this.

What hath the world come to? –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 09:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@RedSoxFan274: Should we put the new names into WP right now? Check out WP:COMMONNAME -- do we have evidence that the new names have been commonly accepted and used by reliable sources, if we exclude news articles that report on the name changes itself?

If it were up to me, I would revert all of the edits that RedSoxFan274 just did, and wait and see whether the new names are commonly accepted. What do you folks think? —hike395 (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello RedSoxFan274. I agree with Hike395 here. It is too early, in my opinion, to abandon the old names. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lavdrim Muhaxheri. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement

Hi, I just saw that you're interested in making the Wikimedia movement more sustainable. I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta. I'd love to hear your ideas and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Band from Canada

Hello Jim. Can you help me to build a new page? I'm very new to this and there is a band that is from Canada that I would like to create a page on.

Livewire58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewire58 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Eh, Livewire58, I really liked Guess Who and Bachman Turner Overdrive, so cool. Start out by reading Your first article and show me your best three examples of significant coverage in this band in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica

Greetings Cullen328! I hope the year of Our Lord, twenty-hundred and sixteen, has started out well for you! :-) Anyway, I was wondering if I could have your opinion on the Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica article? I first started working with problems regarding WP:OR and various linking issues, but the quality of sources is what I am more concerned about now.

In brief, the article is a list of figures deemed the saints of the religious denomination. However, the article relies largely on two sources: 1) Wasserman, B. J. (2007) Current List of Saints, and 2) Wasserman, J., Wasserman, N. & Crowley, A. (2013) To Perfect This Feast: A Performance Commentary on the Gnostic Mass. The first one is a .pdf file / a list published by GnosticMass.org, a site run by two "clergymen" of the denomination. The second source, is no different; it has the same authors as the website, and it's a WP:PRIMARY source describing their own belief system. I hate to say this, because it appears so highly bureaucratic, but we'd need WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and at the moment the article has none. Therefore, I've been thinking about a couple of solutions:

1. To merge the article with Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica#Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. But do we really need to mention all the 75 "saints"? We would need sources that qualify for the merger as well.
2. To nominate the article for AfD. Do we really need an article to enlist 75 "saints" of a religious denomination, especially if there isn't any independent secondary sources to discuss the subject? Is the topic area WP:NOTABLE enough to merit its own article in that case?

Well, these are the options that I've been thinking of. The article has been created in April 2006 when passing a new article must have been a lot easier. I'd like to invite Stealthepiscopalian to join the discussion as well. What do you think? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jayaguru-Shishya. I believe that listing all 75 in the main article would be a poor idea, and share your concerns. Therefore, I support your proposal to take the article to AfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, Cullen328! I'll wait for a day or two for the reply of Stealthepiscopalian first (seems like we are the only active editors at the rather a low traffic article). Heh, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I've familiarized myself with the guidelines and I have Twinkle at my side now to help me :-D Actually, I have few other articles standing in the line for AfD: 1) Cumbia sonidera (an unsourced article written in so bad English that it's hard to make any sense out of it), 2) Grady Louis McMurtry (an article to which I ran through the very list of saints we're talking about right now; created in December 2004, and has been tagged completely unsourced ever since October 2009), and 3) Yamantaka (am article that has been tagged for not having any sources that would verify ever since December 2008).

Well, it is always nice to be learning new things! Thanks for your opinion, I'll try to get started with the first nomination process today :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Status update: Urgh, my AfD nomination for Cumbia sonidera got re-listed for the second time, but I'll proceed to nominate Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica after the first AfD discussion is over. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings again, Cullen328! I am glad to inform that the AfD nomination at Cumbia sonidera came to its closure, and the result was delete. I must say that I've learned a lot about the process along the way!

Anyway, as I first asked your opinion in this thread about Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica#Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica in January 26th, I feel I'd be ready now for the nomination. I invited Stealthepiscopalian to join the discussion both on your Talk Page[31], as well as at the article Talk Page[32], but he has not given a response. I hope you can contribute if you had the time! I'll probably do the nomination tomorrow, and I'll keep you informed! Please have a pleasant weekend! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Finally I got to nominate the article for AfD[33]. If you had time to have a look and leave a comment, that would be highly appreciated! Cheers and please have the best of the weekends! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I'd like to offer a counter toward the removal of this article. I feel that how little of an official sect might be, that it should have no bearing on the removal of an article accurately representing information about such sect. In reading the history of the discussion regarding the deletion of this article I see many factors being brought up that seem to have no grounds regarding the subject of removing it such as questioning why certain people are on the list. I'm afraid I don't see how that is relevant in making such a decision. Being that the grounds of deleting this article is simply on sources, I will make it a priority to update the sources to more qualified level such published works from noteworthy scholars. I will not remove Wasserman as a source considering Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source are "published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Wasserman is one of many authoritative individuals in relation to the subject of the Gnostic Mass and the Saints of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. D1s0b3y (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: @Cullen328, After going through the actual article I have found no unreliable sources on this page. When we consider the Wikipedia standard of Identifying Reliable Sources, I find no contradiction or unsuitable source at all. To comment only on some (as to not fill this page with repetitive information, Source 1 is Tau Apiryon, a Bishop of the Church itself and fully qualified to comment upon the central rite, The Gnostic Mass in which the saints are called. Source 2 is Hymenaeus Beta, the actual International head of the Ordo Templi Orientis of which the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is a part of. Source 3 is Aleister Crowley, the person who actually wrote the Gnostic Mass in which the saints are called. He also was the International Head of the Ordo Templi Orientis in which the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is a part of. Source 4 is Agape, which is the official and sanctioned news letter of the USA Grand Lodge of Ordo Templi Orientis. Source 5 is James Wasserman, also a Bishop of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica sited from his published work commenting on the Gnostic Mass. This particular citation is considered to be one of the most insightful and qualified commentaries ever made on the Gnostic Mass. I'm afraid if I list further that I may be simply beating a dead horse... The sources in this article are absolutely qualified, they meet the criteria of Wikipedia's reliable source as it is 1. properly cited to the piece of work itself 2. properly cites the creator of the content and 3. properly cites the publisher of the work. It goes even further as to assure the sources are qualified and even comprise a list of some of the most authoritative experts on the matter. I have supplied enough information above to allow you all to verify the sources are legit. comment added by D1s0b3y (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the only edits of D1s0b3y are the commentaries here concerning Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica.[34] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya. That is correct. I just signed up about an hour ago, glad to be on the team. If the only grounds for removing the article are independent sources then I must say the article either needs them added or needs to be rewritten with a more rounded approach. However, from my experience on Wikipedia, independent sources don't appear to be a make it or break it qualification for articles. D1s0b3y (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@D1s0b3y: (talk page stalker) You can't start a paragraph by saying you "just signed up about an hour ago" and then tell us what you think based on your "experience on Wikipedia". Independent and reliable sources have been necessary to make claims of notability for years as I've told aspiring editors like you over at WP:AFC. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Chris troutman. I'm not here to argue, nor is taking interest in a public discussion warrant name calling (just because there is a wiki link explain the name does not hide the fact of what it is, be better than that). I've used Wikipedia for years, I'm not sure why you equate singing up as a member the birth of my experience on the site. I am in total agreement with you that claims of notability requires a strong presence of independent sources. I don't disagree with you at all about that. I'll say it just once more that based on years of experience with Wikipedia, that independent sources don't seem to be a make it or break it qualification for articles on the site. Quite to the contrary, almost all the weight I've seen placed on sources are about qualified sources whereas independent sources are simply one form of many.

Name calling? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, name calling. You have misjudged me with your TPS tag (yes I know it's a humorous page and not taken seriously, as most other forms of name calling). I am involved in the root of this discussion which led me to speak by countering the points brought up. I'm interested in the fate of this page so I'm indulging in the discussion. I have no interest in you personally or any other who has commented. Up until now (which will be rectified shortly) I've spoken on point to the discussion of the fate of the this particular article. But I digress. Do you have any rebuttals to the substance of my previous post other than the ones already voiced? D1s0b3y (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Is it possible that the creation of human beings by a higher power, whatever that may be, could be proven by the fact that humans are the only species on this planet that are de-evolved? Every other species evolves depending on environment. Humans have the unlocked ability to use 100% of their brains but they only use 10 to 15 percent.

If you wanted to prove the existence of another hand in our development isnt it plausible, or even undeniable, that the fact a human does not use all of our cognitive abilities is proof that humans are not within the realm of nature on this planet?

Thank you for your consideration.

---

No worries. I'm actually an easy going guy. I assure you though that in stalking me or my content you will have accomplished a truly boring feat.  ;) Nice meeting you. D1s0b3y (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Concern

Hi there Cullen ~

I'm not active here anymore, so thought I'd drop by with a concern that perhaps you could weigh in on since you appear to have recently edited Jane O'Meara Sanders. The bit about her time at a 200-person college takes up essentially half of her bio. For reference, this well-rounded NYT piece gives the same information no more than 2 sentences. I would submit that WP's article is leaning heavily towards smear and in comparison, light on neutral, encyclopedic facts.

In this article, her time as president of the college receives no disclaimer at all, which is the norm, according to the articles I've surveyed. I wonder if the decision to feature heavily the negative aspects is due to the personal views of an editor here, as opposed to the actual relevance of this information and its weight in RS. Thanks for your time, petrarchan47คุก 00:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Petrarchan47. I share your concern about that article and tried to tone down the excessively negative coverage of her time at the college last month. It all creeped back in. I just removed the junk about Republicans speculating about fraud charges which I consider a BLP violation. I will try to keep a closer eye on the article and think about the best way to improve it and restore due weight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree the issue is with weight. Either the mention of her time at the college is whittled down to match other details of her life and career (2 sentences or so), or we defer to RS and copy them - as we should - by not mentioning it at all, and if we do, it is without the cherry picked character assination attempt. I am likely going to take this to Jimbo, as this is the second bio I've run across in the past month here (and I'm not here often) that was literally half criticsm. There is no easy way to address this, but even he should not want this site becoming an attack site to spread misinformation and propaganda. i will note that both were bios of women, though I won't attribute any meaning to that. Either way, it is very upsetting to see people being attacked here; Wikipedia is the very first result in a search for Jane Sanders or any person or topic. Thanks for your help, and for letting me vent. petrarchan47คุก 20:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the Biographies of living people noticeboard where editors interested in improving biographies hang out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Creating a page

Hello Cullen,

I have a question. So, there are two new football players in Bosnian national squad who do not have their pages. My question is, should I try to make them pages or wait until their national team debut. I've found a template for footballer's biography, it doesn't seem so hard.

Thanks! HenryChinaski91 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC) HenryChinaski91 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, HenryChinaski91. Sorry to be slow to respond. I have been very busy in recent days. Please read our notability guideline for footballers, which says, "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." Accordingly, I recommend that you draft the articles in your sandbox space or draft space, and then move them to the main space after the players have appeared in a fully professional game. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much for your time and your answer. HenryChinaski91 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

speedy deletion

Hi Jim, I am writing to you as i had my article deleted even when i provided references. The thing is, i have newspaper articles and physical evidence but there's no way or no one to help me out with this. Furthermore i have copies of the official documents from the governing bodies associated with it.

My question is, what is a independant geoscientist doing deleting pages that has nothing to do with his field of expertise.

Please let me know how i am able to fix this. if it is possible,i will email you all the necessary pictures/documents Much Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masha.Ukraina (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Masha.Ukraina. You should discuss the deletion with administrator Graeme Bartlett, who concluded that the article was a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Tendentious Editing on Dorothy Kilgallen‎

This has gone on for too long. I am about one more tendentious edit away from taking KathrynFauble to ANI and requesting a TBAN. Do you have any strong objection? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection whatsoever, Ad Orientem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I will post a final warning on Kathryn's talk page as well as the IP she has been using. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Changing company page

Hi Jim,

I guess I've just about broken every rule there is...I realised after reading up on your helpful sections. First, I am writing about a company. It is a company I am heavily involved with.

However, I am not attempting to alter anything in a biased way but rather add historical events to the page and also reflect a change of ownership that took place 7th of March 2016. All this is visible on the page I altered but I don't seem to be able to move the page. The company is Strunal CZ, as which now is called Strunal Schönbach s.r.o.

I found a help section which showed a simple way of moving the page. Brilliant I thought. Then I don't have to recreate a new page for the same company as it has only changed owners and name but still does exactly the same as before. All the staff are the same, location the same although there is a new logo.

Is there a way of changing the "name" of the page to reflect the current real name or does it have to be done "the hard way".

Thank you very much in advance for your help and assistance.

P.S. I've contacted the user that originally created the page but have as of yet not received a response.

Kind regards, J-P. Olsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by TherealJPO (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello TherealJPO. Please post your suggested changes at Talk:Strunal CZ, a.s., along with links to reliable sources that verify the information Leave me a note here and I will make the appropriate changes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Traditional Sports Of India

Traditional Sports Of India is about to be speedy deleted. You can help by contacting the newbie editor. I would like to have the information in Wikipedia, but there are several problems to be overcome. Please don't bite the newbies. But we do!--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dthomsen8. I see that the article has been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. As one of the most active Teahouse hosts, I try to keep "biting the newbies" to an absolute minimum. However, we have strong policy and legal reasons to delete copyright violations immediately. Someone who violated copyright out of ignorance may feel bitten if the violation gets deleted promptly but then on the other hand, they must learn this particular lesson if they are to have any hope of success as a Wikipedia editor. I do not know which newbie created the copyright infringing article, but if they asked me how to proceed, I would recommend that they read, study and follow the recommendations in Your first article, and I would try to offer that advice in a friendly, helpful way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So there is no way to provide the information in that article without doing a lot of research and writing a new article free of copyright problems? That is more than I have the energy and time to do. Thank you for your prompt response.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

DThomsen8, the content, except for a few brief cited quotations, needs to be written in the editor's own words. See WP:COPYVIO for a discussion of this issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peyton Manning

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peyton Manning. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

From one old guy to another

	Happy birthday
	From one old guy to another: happy birthday. Let's go and make some shit "free"--like healthcare and education. I'll pay my share for you if you pay your share for me. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Drmies. It is always nice to have a member of senior management stop by my little cubicle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Senior management indeed! Have a great day Cullen. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• So far, so good, boss. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Contested edit on Dorothy Kilgallen

Before I jump in on this one, what's your view of this edit? It's turning into a slow motion edit war. Unbelievably, I think I agree with Kathryn on this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I do not have a problem with that edit at first glance. I am busy with paying work in real life right now, so do not have time to look deeply. Thanks for letting me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not very active on here anymore myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence

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

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Missouri Country Music Hall of Fame

Hi, Jim,

Glad to meet you, and am grateful for your offer to help. Am attempting to submit my first effort at writing a Wikipedia article on "The Missouri Country Music Hall of Fame," which was declined for lack of notability. I understand Bradv's decision on that because -- inspite of the existing 28 references (now 30) -- I also thought it needed more. And, there were actually 70 online references to my article that I had hoped to cull from a review button afforded me during the Wikipedia editing process. That button is gone now, as is the access to those 70 references.

Am unable to recall exactly where I found that review button, but there were actually two of them, both designed to support me in making a better article. Do you by chance know which buttons I am referring to, and if so, would you please help me access them once again?

Also, is it possible, in your opinion, that the question of notability may have been impaccted by the fact that the MCMHF has been inactive since 2007 when its founder was diagnosed with cancer, to which he succumbed October 2015? And, would it matter that efforts are in the works to restart the Missouri Country Music Hall of Fame mission?

On its own merit, the attempt for the Wikipedia article is to validate the current inductees, who have earned the honor with their lifelong efforts, as well as to encourage the art of country music within the state of Missouri, where Branson has become the "Capital of Classic Country."

Would be open to your honest and direct input.

Thank you, Jim.

PS My first name is Marcia, but you can call me Pierce, or Canterbury, or Pierce Canterbury, if you would like. Thank you.Pierce Canterbury (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pierce Canterbury, also known as Marcia. It is the depth of coverage in high quality sources that establishes notability, not the number of sources. In other words, three or four solid sources are far better than 70 mediocre sources. Reviewers may find it suspicious that most of your references are not available online, and those that are available just mention the topic in passing, rather than devoting significant coverage to it. My own search for sources yielded nothing of substance. Have major newspapers in St. Louis or Kansas City covered this hall of fame in depth? Have major country music publications covered it in depth? Unless you can produce evidence of such coverage, then the topic is not notable in Wikipedia's terms.

I do not know anything about the missing button you mentioned. I have never heard of such a thing.

A period of inactivity does not affect notability. Once a topic such as an organization is notable, it remains notable even if it stops operations. Notability is not temporary. I hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please also be aware that Wikipedia does not exist to validate, encourage or honor anyone or anything. This is a neutral encyclopedia that summarizes what reliable sources say about notable topics. Experienced editors frown on any hint of promotionalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jim,

Thank you for your comments on neutrality, notability and references. So glad for your input, and assistance. I will probably do a little more research to see if I can fulfill the notability requirements, and then decide from there how to proceed. Guess I should ask what happens to declined articles that remain dormant for a time. If this is not possible now, would probably like to revisit this later depending on the future of the Hall of Fame...

Again, Jim, thank you for your help. It's been a pleasure.Pierce Canterbury (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jamalul Kiram III

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jamalul Kiram III. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Note

Hi Cullen,

I trust you're fine. I want to let you know that I have started cleaning up my articles. I'm currently working on Friday Okonofua. Can I remove the section on "fellowship" and "membership" since they are unsupported by reliable sources?. I removed this dead link and the contents supported by the source (although the source isn't dead as at the time I added it). I have also notify User:Irondome. Thank you. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 10:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Anything constructive you do to improve the articles you started is a good thing, Wikicology. My recent health problems appear less serious than I feared. Thanks for asking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)