User talk:Cullen328/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Richard Coons - new article help

Howdy Jim, I never put 2&2 together to figure out this was you. Am trying to put together an article on Richard Coons, and am amazed how much the years can erase one's fragile memory. Have received a number of Wikipedia warnings which I am trying to correct. The errors are as follows: [hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. (August 2017) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (August 2017)

Is there a minimum link requirement? I have linked from Robert Wood and Robert Clunie back to the page. Also, I tried to upload my own photo of him in front of a painting but Wikipedia rejects it (probably because of the painting behind him, which is his and we own the reproduction rights to in perpetuity). I will find another photograph. I would like to accomplish the same look created for Robert Wood

What's the best way to do that? Also, do you suggest I set up a Wikipedia user page at this early stage? I hope to do more. I think Wikipedia is a fantastic source. Wynne aka yosemite4— Preceding unsigned comment added by yosemite4 (talk • contribs)

References

Hello @Yosemite4:, I imagine Jim will be along shortly. However, just a note that Wikilinks look like my version on the right in this change, not like your version on the left. The one you added to Robert William Wood looks correct, although I don't have an opinion on if it is justified. MPS1992 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello yosemite4. Yes, Wynne, I think that you should create a Wikipedia user page and please disclose your conflict of interest there. For the benefit of other editors, I am disclosing that I have purchased books and a beautiful silkscreen print from your gallery, which I personally consider the best art gallery in the Eastern Sierra. I wrote most of the biography of Robert Clunie. You sell wonderful paintings by Clunie, Coons and other wonderful Sierra artists. You had a close relationship with Coons. Although I do not know you well, I consider you a friend and I hold you in high regard.

You have made a good start on your article and I am willing to help improve it. The article needs more references to reliable sources that are completely independent of Coons. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for artists, and plan additions to the article which show compliance with that guideline. I will copy edit the article and try to bring it into closer compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I will study the article and we can work together to improve it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328:. I created a draft of another article for John Fischer, the mountain, guide and rock climber who made the first traverse of the Palisade Crest from basically Contact Pass to Mt. Agassiz. Many tried to complete it, but it was almost 40 years later, when another party did it and wrote it up in The American Alpine Club Journal. As to the Coons article I am definitely a beginner at this, so your help is welcome and very appreciated, on my contributions.

One of the potential error messages is that there are many John Fischers. He is different in that he was climber. His brother was Michael Fischer, the executive director of the Sierra Club in San Francisco for many years. The link to that draft is here: [[1]]Yosemite4 (talk) 05:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If I could give you any advice as you start out, Yosemite4, it is that the three most important elements of a Wikipedia article are the quality of the sources, the quality of the sources and the quality of the sources. Your writing seems to include information based on your own personal experiences. Please read No original research, which is a core content policy here. All content more substantive than "the sky is usually blue" should be cited to a reliable published independent source. Yes, I know about the PSOM even though I climbed in the Palisades with the Sierra Club. And I own a copy of Michael Fisher's history of the Sierra Club. You need to build the case for notability based on the quality of the sources that you cite. We have no notability guideline for mountaineers, like we do for authors and artists. The General notability guideline applies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328:.

Coons article: All of the bio info, that sound like my words are the actual printed words of an oral historian named Laura Turner who did an oral history on Richard beginning in 1999 for Cal State Fullerton, The Lawrence de Graaf Center for Oral and Public History. She interviewed many people. Am trying to find the source via the university. I sourced her via a journal citation, when it should be an oral history.

John Fischer draft: By trade, I am a book publisher and author (non-fiction), and briefly interviewed John Fischer 3 years before he died. No one had any information on John. Part of my job is to do oral histories for my press, Spotted Dog Press. I have video interviews with all sorts of people. This was based on an interview and everything is catalogued. One of the references could be: Oral interview with John Fischer, Spotted Dog Press, Inc. Collection, Bishop, CA, 2007 (in the proper format). I have nothing to gain from publishing this. I just think with his mountaineering accomplishments, especially the Palisades Traverse, he needs to be noted. I noticed that there is no Wiki template for oral histories—they are a valid, recorded research document, in print or video transcribed to print. Yosemite4 05:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328:

Howdy Cullen, RE: Coons article/Oral History reference/citation Just communicated with the archivist at The Lawrence de Graaf Center for Oral and Public History and have the oral histories. They are archived at the center. Perhaps, if I could get some help writing a correct citation for the oral histories, that would be great. It is a big work and they are in the process of getting it all pulled together. However you want to work, let me know.

Here is my version of the oral history citation: Turner, Laura, G., Oral History #2802 1-9, 1999-2000; The Lawrence de Graaf Center for Oral and Public History, California State UniversityYosemite4 (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Creating a Homoeopathic repertory page

Dear Mr Jim Heaphy I was advised by Atsme to contact you about editing a page on 'Homoeopathic Repertory'. With my limited knowledge of wikipedia editing and with your guidance, I'm sure that we can create a page as per wikipedia policy. I'm also sure that this page will not alter the broad consensus of 'Homeopathy page'. I have few students who are pursuing post graduate degree in Homeopathic Repertory and they are enthusiastic to create the page.
The content of the page will be as follows

• History
• Classification of Repertories
• Details of Major Repertories and minor repertories
• Card Repertories (They are precursors to computer repertories. They are kept in museum nowadays. We have one in our institute)
• Computer repertories

It is obvious from the main heading that this page will not stake any medical claim. I would like to hear from you. Dr Kurian John Poruthukaren (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Drpjkurian. I have no interest in helping create a Homeopathic Repertory page, since Homeopathy is a pseudoscience and we already have a well developed article on that topic. If you choose to proceed, I suggest that you use resources published by the Wiki Education Foundation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Help with a grant proposal for MetaWiki

Greetings Jim (Cullen328) - Today User:Barbara (WVS) asked me here to help her as an advisor for a grant proposal to MetaWiki. This is way beyond my Wikipedia experience so I was wondering if you might be able to lend a hand. Or if you know of another editor who could contribute that would be great. Cheers, — n • (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello JoeHebda. I am sorry but I have no significant experience with grant writing and am not a librarian. Please take a look at "Category:Wikipedian librarians". Three very active librarian editors who may be able to offer a few words of advice are DGG, Diannaa and LadyofShalott. Good luck! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jim for the referrals. I will pass these along to Barbara & hopefully will help her. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Bernard Hollander

Please reconsider this deletion. The reported copyvio refers to an ad page (https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=9786138113881) for a book more recent than the article, with the contentious content probably taken from the article. Note also the statement on the page: "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online". The copyvio software sometimes work correctly, but may give some false positives. Thanks !! LHOON (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, LHOON and I apologize for the error. I have restored the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks! But the deletion notice is still there, and can be removed now. LHOON (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Another editor has taken care of that, LHOON. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, Benedict Arnold...

Well, that's the last time I subtly canvass you to AfD! EEng 15:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not remember pledging my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to you, EEng. Your list of virtues is long, but I do not think that subtlety is an entry there. Stop by any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Unsubtle... me? While we're exchanging secret handshakes, I hope you still have MX on your watchlist. There's trouble on the horizon and an incorruptible admin will be salutary. EEng 02:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I read that debate, EEng, and I will not comment on the substance since I may need to use my administrator's tools there. Contact me if you observe new disruption. Yes, it is on my watchlist, however, it is bloated so I often miss stuff. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Manny Pacquiao

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manny Pacquiao. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should start the WP:Singular they Appreciation Society?

Hi Jim aka Cullen328,
I was just looking at some notifications, and noticed that we both appear to be a potential members.
I must admit I use it in formal writing for work, where it seems to be sorta OK. ("Your correspondence of even date" - ewwww, I hate that - why can't they just say "the email you sent today"?)
Ya know what's really weird? - I was writing up a submission about the interaction of section 4(2) and the modules in section 1068 or some-such - and realised that in using words for the numbers one to nineteen, then numerals for 20 and on, I was following MOS:NUM.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Shirt58. I use the singular "they" in cases where I do not know the gender of the Wikipedia editor, or when I know that is their preference. It felt awkward at first, but it now feels right. As for business writing, I have been self-employed for 24 years and write concisely and directly to customers and potential customers. I have nobody to encourage me to write like a bureaucrat. I am lucky that way. Thanks for stopping by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved

Hi, Jim,

Concerning the section on Herbert B. Cohen:

I am a publised Visual Artist and Writer who work has been copywritten in the U.S. Library of Congress, a number of times. I did not realize that a family member could not update a section with historically accurate and documented information from verifiable, respected sources, such as PA Government sites and established newspapers.

My Grandfather had a long and deep career in Pennsylvania, and had signficiant impact. The section, as it stands, does not cover this history accurately.

Also, there is no valid reason for this reference and link to be at the top of the page: "For Sir Herbert Benjamin Cohen, 2nd baronet, see Cohen baronets." It has no relevance to my Grandfather historically at all, and is misleading. I do not know who put it there, but it is not accurate for it be there.

There is a deep, large archive of historical documents covering Herbert B. Cohen in the York County Heritage and Trust Museum. I was there last year and have copies of many of thse sources. (I was born and raised in York, PA).

Additionally, the link to "Noted York Family...," an article in The York Daily Record from 2007, is referenced in the section. That article contains error/omission. For example, it cites a tract from a history of the Cohens that is inaccurate. Donn Cohen, Herbert Cohen's son, attended Harvard Law School, not U. of Penn, as is documented at Harvard. So the Wikipedia reference, should mention this.

I would be happy to provide this historical documentation to you, if you or another contributor would be so kind as to update the section on my Grandfather so that is it accurate and represents the depth of his political and legal career.

There was some comment in the talk section with regard to plagiarism.

I do not plagiarize.

I have been the victim of IP Theft.

I am a published Artist and Writer. Originality is a top priority for me and I would have no problem submitting what I wrote about my Grandfather or about the LACE Museum to the Library of Congress. I am sure that the Copyright in my name would be approved.

Concerning the LACE Museum, Los Angeles Contemporary Exhibitions, which I had also edited yesterday: I received a "talk" message for which I would appreciate clarification.

I had no intention of adding to the section in order to self-promote, and I certainly am not going to post a page about myself on Wikipedia.

However, the current section on LACE is also not an accurate or thorough representation of that art historically important exhibition space.

A few points:

- It currently only mentions exhibits from 1999 onward, as examples, failing to cover more than two decades of art history, on exhibit at LACE, before 1999.

- It currently fails to mention major American Artists who influenced post-modernism, and were important to LACE, such as John Baldessari, et.al.

- My reason for covering the 3rd LACE Annuale, in 1988, was not to promote the fact that I was one of the artists in the show. In fact, in my post, I had cited all the artists in the show. Deconstructing media fictions is a central topic in post-modernism and at LACE. It is important, to art history, and to LACE, to show how ironic it was that Klik Magazine, in 1988, libeled that exhibition, i.e. created a media fiction, about it.

- I do not have to mention anything specific about my installation in that show, but it is important to cover that exhibition in 1988 and how it was portrayed, wrongly, in Klik.

Those are facts, well-documented facts.

Again, I do not plagiarize or defame and would find it offensive for anyone at Wikipedia to suggest that.

Unfortunately, I have been the victim of IP Theft and Libel.

In any case, I do have a right to add content to the LACE section, from verified sources, as long as it is not about my art specifically...

Please clarify.

Thank you,

Jane Rubin.

Hello Janefirst2000. Let me be frank with you, and let you know that you must conform to our policies and guidelines if you want to continue editing Wikipedia. Beginner errors will be forgiven but if you persist with your recent behavior, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits to LACE were completely unacceptable. Wikipedia is not the proper place for you to air your grievance and describe your 30 year old grudge about alleged errors in an art journal article. No matter what you say here, that material was defamatory. Experienced editors and administrators simply will not allow that type of content, and this is non-negotiable.

We have no way of verifying your credentials and experience, and your edits will be judged only on their compliance with our policies and guidelines. You have the right to add to your grandfather's article but the content you added was not compliant, was mostly unreferenced, and was hagiographic in tone. Please read, study and fully absorb the neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Your additions to date have violated that policy.

Your grandfather was a highly accomplished and indisputably notable man. You can help expand his biography, but only if the additions are neutral and properly referenced to reliable sources. Add Referencing for Beginners to your reading list.

Because there are two Herbert B. Cohens mentioned on Wikipedia, the note at the top of your grandfather's biography is an appropriate aid to readers who may be looking for information about the British baronet.

The Library of Congress is irrelevant to copyright and plagiarism issues on Wikipedia. Our policies are stricter than those of most other websites and stricter than required by law. The subject is complex but the very simple version is that you are not allowed to copy and paste content published anywhere else except for brief, properly attributed quotations. This is another matter that is non-negotiable.

As for the LACE article, neutral content about the history of that exhibition before 1994 can be added, but it would be giving undue weight to devote excessive attention to the 1988 exhibition. Abandon any plans to accuse a magazine of libel unless a court of law found them guilty of libel. If you try that, you will be blocked. We simply will not allow it. We consider your description of your personal experiences to be original research and another non-negotiable core content policy is that we do not allow original research. My sincere advice to you is to never use the word "libel" on Wikipedia again. It will not end well if you try it.

If you want to write about about Klik magazine and the 1988 LACE exhibition, then please be aware that there are countless publications, websites and blogs that may publish that material for you. But not Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a soapbox to right great wrongs.

On a minor point, please do not post the same lengthy content in multiple locations, please add to talk pages at the bottom rather than the top, and please sign your talk page posts with four tildes. A tilde is this character ~ Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I had no intention of re-posting what I had written on LACE.

Again, for the record, it was not to "air a grievance" or about my ego. It was about a much larger art historical issue, that many artists at LACE deal with., that of media fictions and ethical reporting.

But I fully understand what you are stating and will comply. I will not post any content about Klik.

I will submit that content to an art-focused publication, (not wikipedia). And I will submit it to the Library of Congress. There is nothing "alleged" about what I was saying. CalArts, LACE and the Curator of the show were fully aware of what occurred. My work was well documented both at CalArts and at LACE.

I have written art criticism for national magazines in the past, (Art issues and Artcoast,) when I was in LA, covering post-modernist shows.

I would recommend that the LACE section include exhibits before 1999. There is a great deal of contemporary art history not covered. I would be happy to compile several examples of exhibits to add.

Everything I had stated about my Grandfather has a verified source, either governmental or in a newspaper, and I can provide all source material/links as references.

Again, all writing by me is original, (although I did include an excerpt, from Arthur Lewis's HEX, which I fully credited to Arthur Lewis). I will not do that again, although the book and the trial it covers should be referenced on the section on my Grandfather.

Thanks for all the worthwhile information about the dos and do nots.

I will adhere to your policies.

Best regards,

68.198.169.190 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Nobel laureates

Hello, Cullen. Hope you will be doing fine. Aren't you was quick to close the AfD as Keep when concurrent AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swedish Nobel laureates in much improve form resulted in redirect per ATD-R. I think this should have been ended as Redirect because it duplicates the content and we should be consistent in every case. Can you reopen it and give it another go? Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

See these too. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Liberian Nobel laureates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Portuguese Nobel laureates. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Greenbörg. I was not aware of the other Nobel list debates when I closed List of Romanian Nobel laureates. To me, consensus seemed clear, and your nomination was not based on policies and guidelines, but rather on WP:LISTCRUFT, which is an essay that I do not believe enjoys broad consensus. I see no need to reopen the debate. I will not oppose redirecting this list article to the broader list article. Be bold. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"A 98% positive RfA is not a blot"

Recent RfA blots, showing scattered opposes

–EEng

Easy for you to say, mister 99%. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I had actually typed 99% but thought better and changed it before saving, Softlavender. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Marlon Brando

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Marlon Brando. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Please

Block the WP:DUCK. Nobody seems to be paying attention to the AIV or SPI reports. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Quinton Feldberg. I have no expertise in sockpuppet investigations, so I suggest that you be patient. I also suggest that you avoid reverting until there is agreement whether this editor is a sock, that you avoid reverting reports at ANI, and that you avoid repeating the same sock accusation over and over. None of that is constructive, in my view, even if you are correct about the sock. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Said editor passes the duck test 100% and behaves exactly like other socks. It shouldn't take a sockpuppet expert to realize that. Please look at the edits. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Quinton Feldberg, please note that WP:DUCK is an essay, and neither a policy nor a guideline. You were told at ANI to let the investigation play out, and I am telling you the same thing. Please go find something else productive to do in the mean time. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Told you! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Quinton Feldberg, an administrator with actual experience dealing with sockpuppets blocked that account. I have never claimed such expertise although I am very experienced in several other areas of the encyclopedia. Here is some friendly advice: You have a userbox saying you want to be an administrator some day. Remove that userbox and the overtly political ones as well. Then, stop bouncing around like a ping pong ball, and start conducting yourself in a more level headed fashion. Those steps will enhance your chances of becoming an administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Travis

Yes, all of User:Bwmoll3's copyright violations - thousands and thousands of them, see the copyvio listings page of 10+ pages of articles - damaged the encyclopedia. I'll check to see if anything can be salvaged and reinstated. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about the Teahouse

Greetings I am an new host on the teahouse and was wondering how long it should take for my profile to move from the host landing to host profile page. I've been waiting for 4 days now. Thanks Bobherry Talk Edits 04:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bobherry. You are the very last listing on the Host Profile page, since you are the newest host. I don't see anything out of the ordinary in how you are listed. Thanks for agreeing to help out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• What about those of us who like coffee instead? I've always felt like a second-class citizen. EEng 09:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You are not a second class citizen, EEng#s. You are special. Therefore, you can have a cup of coffee whenever you want it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, isn't that special. EEng 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Birth date and age

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Birth date and age. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

INTV

INTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) You recently deleted this article as A2. I recall it being in English when I reviewed it; can you please double-check the previous revisions? VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr. Several editors supported redirecting INTV to Intellivision before the Indonesian language text was added instead. Accordingly, I have recreated that redirect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

When I reviewed it, I saw the previous Indonesian language versions but the current version was in English and about a TV station. Can you please undelete the version with the history? VQuakr (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The only English language content that I could find was the following unreferenced fragment added to the redirect:

"inTV is also a new television network utilizing an exclusive technology that launches in November. It is part of the VMC platform that will offer a third option in television by providing a platform of hundreds of television stations that include some major network stations as well."

Several experienced editors have restored the redirect over a ten year period. If you believe that you can create a properly referenced encyclopedia article out of that fragment, then please go ahead, VQuakr. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Weird. I wonder if my browser started auto-translating or something. No, sounds like there isn't anything useful there. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Nickboariu/sandbox

Please reconsider this deletion. The reported (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://docs.decred.org/getting-started/constitution/, https://blockonomi.com/decred-guide/). This is my first time writing a wikipedia article and can assure you that I did not copy and paste content. However, the article is very technical in nature which makes it difficult to rephrase. I am hoping that the history is salvageable so that the page is not deleted in its entirety, but reverted to an earlier version without infringement. I would like more time to work on the page to make sure it meets the wikipedia's standards. It took a month to write but was deleted within a few hours, giving me to time to adjust the content. Many thanks! Nick Boariu 21:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboariu (talk • contribs)

Hello Nickboariu. I see that you have already reconstructed much of your draft. Please be aware that Wikipedia is very strict about copyright, and this is non-negotiable. Accusing me of being trigger happy is not useful. If you send me an email letting me know that you now understand our copyright policy, then I will email you a copy of the material I deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. That comment wasn't meant for you. I wrote it before I knew to look for a recourse on page deletions. Please understand that I was merely frustrated that I had no time to act before the deletion occurred. The amount of hours I put into reading, researching and writing felt like a big loss.

The creators of the content I am sourcing have explicitly been placed in the public domain, under the copyfree ISC License, which you can see from their GitHub (https://github.com/decred/dcrd#license) and their documentation (https://docs.decred.org/about/license/). I have re-read the wikipedia copyrights page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights) and the things to avoid guide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Things_to_avoid) to fully understand what constitutes violations, such as never copy/paste text. The content is highly technical, making it difficult to completely rewrite certain content, but I am up for the challenge and request that you please restore the page so that I may make the necessary changes to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. Many thanks Nick Boariu 23:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickboariu (talk • contribs) .

Hello Nickboariu. The licensing page you linked to includes the following language:

"Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."

That part in bold is not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. We do not include this type of copyright notice anywhere on Wikipedia, whether in articles or drafts. In any event, you should be building your article based primarily on summarizing what reliable sources completely independent of this venture have to say about it. If you spend a lot of time writing a draft article based on what this organization says about itself, then it will not be acceptable on Wikipedia, no matter the copyright status. Please explain to me why I should restore any of the content I deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328.

To your first point, the licensing policy you've referenced is for the software code. "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." I have not written any software code within the article.

The copyright licensing for the documentation is as follow: "dcrdocs is licensed under the copyfree ISC License".

Works under Copyfree's policy are considered and consistent with the definition of public domain.

The U.S. Copyright Office defines public domain as "the sum of works that are not copyrighted, i.e.

• that were not eligible for copyright in the first place, or
• whose copyright has expired, or

* that were released into the public domain by the copyright holder."

Wikipedia's policy on using content from other sources reads: "You can add any type of content if it has been made available by authors under an appropriate license"

Following this logic, I believe that the use of content from the source is compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements.

To your second point, I followed Wikipedia's guide on Writing Your First Article. My article was written as a summarization and I had provided many reliable and independent sources. Unless you can give me specific examples from my written work, I cannot counter this point further.

To your third point, the amount of time I spent writing the article is exactly why this article should be restored. The time was spent to adhere to Wikipedia's policy. If you look at the version history of the article you will see that I spent the time to refine the work, find better citations, and clarify the technical aspects of the written work. If you look at the sources, the only time I have cited work from the organization's content is for highly technical definitions. I have used about a dozen of other Wikipedia pages that are written on similar subjects as guides and they have all been approved. My written work may not be perfect, but I would like the chance to make it so. This is a volunteer organization. I have volunteered my time and energy to take part. I have made mistakes but I don't believe that Wikipedia is an organization built on shutting people's work out, especially when they are just beginning.

I wish that you would restore the content that was deleted because it would allow me to continue where I left off. Most importantly, it would allow me to see what part of the article violated Wikipedia's policies. I do not have any clarification on this because it was deleted before I had a chance to even review the errors.

The saved work I have is weeks old. I would rather not have to lose all that time. --Nick Boariu 05:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Nickboariu, I have explained to you why I do not believe that it is appropriate to restore this content to Wikipedia and have offered to email it to you if you sent me an email. You have not done so. I am not going to spend the time untangling appropriate and inappropriate content. My decision is final as far as my participation. If you believe that my interpretation is wrong, then you are free to find another administrator who will give you a more friendly hearing. I will not object to your good faith efforts in that regard. However, you must comply with our policies and guidelines in your attempts to write this article. I intend to recuse from any further administrative actions here, so please make no further requests of me regarding this matter. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm sorry we couldn't come to a resolution. I will take your advice and seek another admin regarding this matter. Thanks for your time. --Nick Boariu 06:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I could use your perspective

Hi, Jim,

I seem to have become entangled with a SPA over a trivial issue, and I'm hoping you might review his latest diff for potential violation of WP:BLP. I've lost perspective. He seems to have an agenda to embarrass the mother of the article's subject. Should his latest comments about 4 lawsuits against her be erased?

Thanks, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, his latest edits started with this diff. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Grand'mere Eugene. Since the other editor is not trying to insert anything embarrassing about the mother in the biography of her son, I am unconvinced that is the agenda. As for the LA court cases, the other editor states that the most recent case is probate of her son's estate. That is not a lawsuit against her and carries no negative connotations. However, that line of inquiry is definitely original research and should not be determinative. Of course, the correction in the New York Times wedding announcement is embarrassing, but anyone Googling the mother would find that easily. As to the core point, I see no real benefit of including the middle name, which seemingly she has adopted in the 21st century. My suggestion is to resolve the dispute by leaving out the middle name, which I do not believe adds encyclopedic value to the article. If the mother's name was "Jane Smith", perhaps a middle name would help clarify which one. The first and last name are quite distinctive in this case.

In closing, the son's story is a sad one, but I enjoyed reading about his talent. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies...

for whatever part I played that caused this. My intention was simply to draw attention to notability in order to defuse the memorial allegations. I also believe that per WP:NEXIST, it was as much the nom's responsibility (we are both NPRs) as it was mine & others to at least attempt to find more sources before the PROD, not to mention his knowing it would be challenged. Emotions apparently got in the way but to better understand where they stem, see this and this, and of course, the usual bad blood scenarios here and there. I was dismayed that there wasn't even an attempt at collaboration preceding the PROD and AfD in lieu of what felt like a bwahahaha I'm deleting that memorial. The resulting biography proves that good collaboration produces good results. Too bad it didn't begin that way. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Atsme, although there is no need for an apology. You did nothing that offended me. My observation was a general overview of the whole debate. I simply recommend that editors express their opinions at AfD (and in general) in a dispassionate, fact based way, recognizing that other editors acting in sincere good faith occupy a different place on the inclusionist/deletionist continuum. As a specific example, I do not think that the "poisoning the well" comment helped keep the article. But the final outcome seems almost certain to be a positive one. I will file the other matters in my memory bank. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roman Polanski

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roman Polanski. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Contesting the speedy

Hello Cullen328! You have speedy'd an article, which is fine, and for the first time in years I wanted to contest it. However all the current documentation say "push the big contest this entry" button, and no guide seem to link to the actual page the button should be inserting. But there is no button (feels like the Matrix is glitching again). Would you please direct me to the page the button would insert into? (You may also want to investigate why it's not there.) Thanks! --grin ✎ 07:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay update, I have found it, it wasn't easy. And it says I should discuss it with you first. :-) So there you are. Please undelete the page, as it was mistakenly nominated to speedy on the non-applicable Notability ground, while the article should have been satisfied the only speedy criteria (non) applicable: Credible claim of significance. A cursory search would provide you with plenty of results of the stuff under that trademark, mostly distributed by banggood or whatchamacallit. It is by no means different from, say, Quechua (brand); as well as the existence if the trademark is easily checked, so it's really not a question whether the thing actually exists. Notability is a different topic and outside the speedy jurisdiction. Thanks! --grin ✎ 10:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, grin. I deleted the article under A7, which has nothing to do with whether or not the company exists. Here is the language:

"This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant".

Yes, and the indication is that the brand does physically exists, can be found by searching (or in reality), is available by and from external sellers. Also, it is prudent to read on:

This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.

also

This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), software, or other creative works.

which specifically does not cover physical manufactured brands. And finally what I have referred you to:

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

and I hope you do not wish me to include all the already linked article here; please read it through, and realise that you seem to mix up notability and reliable sources with credible claim of significance. What you state is not A7, it's a RfD material. (Whereby I also would state that it has enough coverage to be notable, but that's quite outside of this problem circle.) --grin ✎ 16:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

All we know is that they manufacture small electronic accessories, have a registered trademark and sell products through online vendors. Please explain why the company is "important or significant", by linking to significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of this company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not about the company, it is about the brand, and its significance is its physical existence. Type in google and skip the first few items which are from the company itself, and the other 10+ pages of results are from various sources. Also if you want a photo of such stuff to prove that it's not an online-only webpage, it's easily done, but considering that I am no relation with the company whatsoever I'd prefer not to waste time on that.

Since the article in my opinion does not fit A7's criteria I would be glad if you'd undelete it and if you insist you may propose it for normal deletion process. Thanks for your help! --grin ✎ 16:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The article made no "credible claim of significance or importance" and was therefore properly deleted. You have several choices. You can write a new article that establishes notability and fully complies with policies and guidelines. Or, you can find another administrator who agrees with your interpretation and will restore it for you. Or. you can take the matter to Deletion review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The deleted article stated "The company was founded in 2015, and started distributing their products using a warehouse in the United States" and the article was categorized as "Chinese company" so your contention that the article was not about a company is incorrect, grin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

grin, I also urge you to reconsider your contention that the fact that something "physically exists" is a credible claim of significance and therefore an article about that thing is not eligible for speedy deletion. That is completely wrong, and large numbers of such articles are speedy deleted properly by administrators every single day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

As a completely neutral third party I've read the article in question, and the deletion was correct. Even if one were to accept the (unsourced) claim that In 2017 they are distributing Worldwide as a credible claim of significance, given that the article was pure spam sourced only to the company's own website and a trademark registry, it would be immediately deleted under WP:G11 even if you do succeed in persuading Cullen to restore it. "It physically exists" is not and never has been a claim of significance; I can provide indisputable reliable sourcing for each of the 8000 buses in London (each of which can be proven to have a demonstrable impact on the lives of thousands of people every week), but it doesn't mean Wikipedia wants an article on each of them. If you want Wikipedia to host an article, the onus is on you to demonstrate the topic's notability. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Cullen328:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 18:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Misgendering of non-binary subject

Hi, I'm pinging you because I suspect my post at WP:AIV is being ignored (as several that were filed after mine have been addressed). IP 217.51.1.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeatedly misgendered a non-binary BLP subject, Cassils (artist), and posted trans-antagonistic comments on their own talk page in response to my notices. I don't want to revert them again for fear of violating WP:3RR. Thanks for any help... Funcrunch (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Funcrunch. I have warned the IP for several obvious reasons and semi-protected the article for 72 hours. Please let me know if the disruption continues, and I will extend the protection. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting artist, by the way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Funcrunch (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

O I C U blocked 1 2

Mine had the number in front. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL, Dlohcierekim. "Your horoscope for today: You will get blocked for trying and failing to spam Wikipedia." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

al-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your explanation around disambiguation. Much appreciated! <3 SunnyBoi (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yum! Thank you, SunnyBoi. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congratulations!. Have a celebratory beverage! bonadea contributions talk 07:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bonadea. This is very good news for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no offense directed at you or intended.

My apologies if you took offense, but Anmccaff dragged you in to that discussion. My comments were in no way intended to reflect on your reputation. It was only Anmccaff, and John_from_Idegon for whom my comment was directed. They are the ones that tag-teamed the article with John_from_Idegon directing Anmccaff to the article from John_from_Idegon's talk page.[2] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody "drags" me anywhere, and I do not appreciate that implication. I edit with free will. I see no sign of "tag teaming" but rather efforts to protect the encyclopedia from undue weight and inaccuracies, C. W. Gilmore. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

There was no implication, I had made a comment about those two colluding on John of Idegon's TP and Anmccaff onto the Admin page, incorrectly claiming that I was speaking about all those other editors that have weighed in (including yourself). -That was all that was meant by "Anmccaff dragged you in". I appreciate your opinion on undue weight and my apology was in regards Anmccaff implying my comments were directed at you on the Admin page, this was not true. It was not directed at you and I would not make such a statement. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore, Please carefully consider the connotations of the word "dragged" when applied to a human being such as myself. It certainly implies force and coercion. As stated above, I am acting entirely of my own free will in this matter. Use words carefully. To repeat, you have offered zero evidence of any improper collusion or "tag teaming" by the other two editors. I recommend that you drop the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Vanguard America logo deletion

Hello there,

I was told that my issue has been sent to the administration board and to come here to discuss it.

Recently one of my uploads on the Commons has been deleted. I made a logo for Vanguard America in which I uploaded it to the page. I am a former member of Vanguard America of the Alabama Chapter. I am the one who designed the current website. I am the one who did create the new logo in which they use now.

Thanks, Echo — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoUSA (talk • contribs) 06:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss your concerns at WP:ANI, EchoUSA. Please do not return to my talk page. 06:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

EchoUSA ANI discussion

I see that I got back to the discussion late and it has been closed. I admit that I did not read to that part of their userpage, so gladly accept a trout for that oversight. I also do note that it was the very first thing that you had stated in the ANI post, so I'll add another trout to the first. If I accept more trout, I'll have to start a smokehouse... Blackmane (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I love smoked trout, Blackmane, so all is well in the world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Smoked trout rillete? Blackmane (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)