User talk:Cullen328/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Bob Shaheen

Hey, Cullen328, I respectfully reverted your undoing of my clarify tags at Bob Shaheen. Though the lead may be supported by sourced statements elsewhere, the lead is so thin that I really don't know what the subject is supposed to be, and/or why they are notable on their own. The various backs-and-forths between the people who want to turn him into an arms dealer/arms sympathizer or whatever, only pollutes the notability. If there's a way to clarify who this dude is, I'm all for it. I only happened upon the article because of my anti-vandalism work. I don't have a specific take (political or otherwise) on the subject. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cyphoidbomb. This BLP article, for some strange reason I can't fathom, has been subjected to ongoing bizarre editing I consider disruptive for quite some time. I believe that the man (now retired) is at least marginally notable for his role as "right hand man" and as senior executive in several of his business entities for an important figure (Khashoggi) in everything from the Iran-Contra scandal, arms dealing in the Middle East to real estate investment in Salt Lake City. Given that most of these events happened a quarter to a third of a century ago, I do not understand the intense interest in the article now. It seems likely to me (though unproven) that sock puppets, both pro and con, are trying to sway the article. I argued for keeping the article at an AfD about 2-1/2 years ago, and have been surprised at the ongoing attention it has received since then. Shaheen, after all, is over 80 years old, and no longer active in public affairs. Any help you can give is appreciated, but I don't see tagging as the solution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hiya, I've self-reverted. I still have a problem with the article as I can't really determine why the subject is notable, other than that he was, as you've said, a right-hand man to Khashoggi. I mean, even something like, "...is notable for being the president of Triad Corporation when it was the most profitable company in the world" would help. (I made that up, though.) I've looked at various sources including, but much of what I found was fluff, or passing mentions. Even this congressional report doesn't have anything of note. Now Khashoggi, that's an interesting dude. "Mr. Khashoggi has been linked to — but never convicted in — almost every major scandal of the late 20th century" Wow! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for your help

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me at the Teahouse regarding my worries about a fraudulent article about a "Daniell family" OhioJack (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but you deserve a barnstar for detecting this hoax and bringing it to the attention of experienced editors. I have reported it to WP:ANI and hope an administrator will take prompt attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for my barnstar! Regarding the article about this "family", would it be possible to block the IP addresses of the sockpuppets that seem to have created it in order to prevent them creating another hoax?--OhioJack (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

We need a more prolonged pattern of vandalism before blocking an IP address, OhioJack. That's because IP addresses are often shared by many people, and a single hoax by one person is not usually considered enough for a block. I am not an expert on such issues. Hopefully, an administrator with such experience will take a look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Schlossberg

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Schlossberg. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That IP

Editors who are only here to attack a religion get blocked, and I've blocked the IP telling him/her that further such edits (including the ones made to articles) will lead to further blocks. Let me know if you see any. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mutilations

Jim, may I seek your advise on something? I edited the page on "Neville Maxwell" to make it balanced and objective, and incorporated a host of unimpeachable sources. Yet, Zanhe, in a blatant violation of the WP:BLP policy, mass-deleted large portions of the writeup in order to preserve a flattering profile of Maxwell. His mutilations remove any pretense of objectivity. What can be done in this matter? I'll appreciate your advice. Mona.SHEPHERD (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Mona.SHEPHERD's edits had turned Neville Maxwell and Henderson Brooks–Bhagat Report into unabashed attack pages (see this and this). See Talk:Neville Maxwell#Blatant BLP violation for reasons why they were reverted by myself and another user. -Zanhe (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to repond, Mona.SHEPHERD and Zanhe. The proper place to discuss the details of any proposed changes to the article is at Talk:Neville Maxwell. I now have that article on my watch list. When I looked over the content added by Mona.SHEPHERD it sure looked to me to be an attempt to make Maxwell look as bad as possible. Particularly disturbing is misuse of sources. If someone says, "I used to think A, but now I realize that I was wrong and now I think B", it is completely wrong in my opinion to add that writer's opinions A to a Wikipedia article. They have repudiated those views. We don't need a "faux" presentation of both sides of a controversy, and we don't need simulated neutrality. And most of all, we do not need Wikipedia biographies of living people to be transformed into hit pieces. That is against policy, and I will do my best to ensure that it won't happen in this particular case. By the way, I have no opinion one way or the other about the 1962 war between India and China, except to recognize that wars are catastrophic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for your response, which is what one would expect from any fair-minded person. However, this Mona.SHEPHERD seems to live in a parallel universe where reason and logic do not exist. See his/her comment on Talk:Neville Maxwell. Sigh... -Zanhe (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing

I hope I am in the right place to ask questions.

I started editing for the first time this week. One "improvement" I would like to make in several articles is to vastly expand the "external sources" section to include a list of online review articles on the subject, and a list of websites where there are charts , illustrations and You tube videos that would enhance the material in the wiki article. My logic is - why try to duplicate on Wikipedia something that has been done very well elsewhere?

Is that an appropriate use of the External sources section? Is giving a short comment as to the value of the source as I see it compatible with Wikipedia policy?

The second question relates to judgments regarding organization and placement of various facts in an article. I'm looking at one where the introduction is massively long, and virtually everything in the intro is repeated later. Is it appropriate for me to delete 90% of the introduction just because I think it is a good idea? Or should I post my intention on the talk page and see if anyone objects?

I would appreciate any feedback.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by IiKkEe (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello liKkEe. Adding external links is fine, but they should be relevant, not for promotional purposes, and should otherwise comply with our guideline on external links. The introductory section of an article should summarize the entire contents, and the length of the lead should be proportional to the length of the entire article. One to six paragraphs is a good rule of thumb, but it is a matter of editorial judgment. Please see WP:LEAD for a fuller explanation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Need some flower ID help

IIRC, you know a bit about flowers. Could you lend some expertise at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Please_identify_yellow_flowering_plant. Thanks! --Jayron32 02:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32: You are right that I love flowers and post at least one of my flower photos on Facebook every day, along with its location, as I travel around Northern California on business and pleasure. This is my way of letting my friends know where I travel, and sharing a bit of beauty. But I am not an expert and usually rely on my Facebook friends for help identifying species. Thanks for remembering my interest in flowers, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it was the first person I thought of. Thanks for trying to help anyways... --Jayron32 03:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Individual Engagement Grant for Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship

Hey Cullen. I wanted to ask if you might give a read to this proposal currently under review; a small team of us want to put together a new space for mentorship that is more lightweight and easier for both mentors and learners to take on. You work a lot with new editors, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on it. If you're able, give it a read and let me know any comments you might have about it. We want to make sure this proposal fits the community's needs. If you like the idea, please feel free to leave your support under the Endorsements section. Take care, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Your experience will definitely be valuable to us! :) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy to support an excellent proposal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

FAC for Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

Hi, I've responded to your comments there. To sum it up, I've added information comparing the time of the first settlement of Fishing Creek to time of the first settlement of Pennsylvania (Which I think is irrelevant because the article makes no claims about when other creeks were inhabited). There is no information on when the headwaters of other creeks were inhabited (which again is not important because the article only discusses Fishing Creek), so I can't add anything there. Hopefully there is nothing now to stop you from supporting. Please respond. Thanks. --Jakob (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have made additional comments there, Jakec. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've replied there. And also, my apologies if my above comment sounded like a rant. BTW, is it possible notify you using pings or have you opted out of them? --Jakob (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Pings are fine, Jakec. I detected no rant above, and there is no need for an apology. But thanks anyway.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made the changes you suggested on the FAC page. --Jakob (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thank you for answering my question in the Tea House just now! I wondered if there was a delay in indexing photos. I've passed on the information to the student. Best regards! Michelev (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, Michelev. I encountered a very similar situation myself about a week ago, so that indexing delay at Commons is fresh in my mind. I don't know precisely how long the process takes, but my guess is more than a handful of hours but less than 24 hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

TerraCycle

Hi Cullen! If you aren't busy, could you please skim through TerraCycle and let me know what could be improved? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bananasoldier. I think that you have done a very thorough job, and the article is well-referenced and informative. My only comment is that I think that the current version may be somewhat overly detailed for a company of relatively small size. I recommend a round of editing to make things more concise. Otherwise, well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen! Thanks for your feedback. I wasn't sure what was sort of excess material and what was the essential material. However, I submitted it for DYK (5x expansion), so should I wait to condense it? :P Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, wait for a while, Bananasoldier. I understand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! Bananasoldier (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, also: What do you think about its structure? I notice that Apple Inc. and Microsoft have different structures in terms of subheadings, but I guess every article is unique. As in, there's no set in stone for the structure of company articles? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In general, I think that the structure is fine, although the section called "Corporate identity" may be a bit much. Companies vary so much that I don't think a standardized structure would work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! What can I do to fix the corporate identity? Bananasoldier (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have really specific suggestions, Bananasoldier, except to say that it seems a bit choppy to me, and some (but not all) the content may be a bit over-reliant on statements by the company's spokesman. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to work on it. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

How to create one of those banner/flags requesting editorial help for a page.

Greetings, Cullen. I've come across a page full of un-cited apparently personal observations and opinions, that is also not very well-written. However, it is a great subject and the author/contributors that have built it obviously care about it and have spent time on it. But it needs a lot of help. I think it might benefit by having one of those banners across it somewhere noting that it contains lots of stuff with no source-citations and that it really needs improvement. Something firm and clear but warm and friendly. But I don't know how to do it myself. If you want to take a look it's Mar Y Sol Pop Festival. Thanks for your help. 108.31.73.101 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at Template:Cleanup. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've looked through several of the Template:Cleanup pages, but honestly much of it is essentially unintelligible to me regarding clear instructions on how to accomplish my goal. While I might be able to insert a simple Cleanup banner, I am utterly confused with how to insert a slightly more complicated one - and especially with how to select the right one. It is clear that the article I refer to contains multiple issues, but is the Multiple Issues banner the best one to use? And how do I insert text such as this: "Several portions of this article are written more like personal observations or opinions and lack objective verification and source-citation; the article contains certain information that seems extraneous to a focused understanding of the subject; and there are numerous structural and grammatical weaknesses in the writing." Bmankin1 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Simply follow the format immediately after "Examples",Bmankin1, and insert your preferred language in the reason field. Add that revised template to the very beginning of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is my subject notable enough to be included

Dear Jim,

I apologise for the fact that there may be a number of this question following you. I have been lost and floundering around. David Biddulph has kindly pointed me in the right direction. I asked the question about my subjects notability last night and Vchimpanzee kindly said that my subject was OK but you might have a different view. I would be extremely grateful if you would look at last night's question and give me your views. If you do, where will I find your reply?

Many thanks, KeithKeithhmorris (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is my subject notable enough to be included

Dear Jim,

Thank you so much for your reply. I am delighted! I have to take a break for a day or two but how do I discuss it with you? Am I on the right track at the moment? Best wishes, KeithKeithhmorris (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that you draft your article on your sandbox page, Keithhmorris. Please refer to WP:PRIMER for good advice for new editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek FAC again

Hi,

Are there any further objections on the FAC? --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no objections, Jakec. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider supporting in that case? --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 11:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: ? --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 16:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I've never had anyone support an FAC of mine before. Thanks! --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jason Russell

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jason Russell. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

re your suggestion

It's not about what I'm doing, but what others are doing; what do I do to attract them? Good question, but it seems to have to do with being an easy target for getting me riled so they can pontificate on what a bad Wikipedian I supposedly am, without contributing anything to the discussion other than wiki-lawyering and denying that they should read the facts presented or the facts themselves; that CfD is entirely COI and "stalking" in origin, and was launched without any real guideline or convention to refer to.Skookum1 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I wish you well, Skookum1, but here's my observation: I have an attitude toward editing and a style of interaction with others that brings me great satisfaction and a minimum of conflict with other editors. You, on the other hand, have an attitude toward editing and a style of interaction with others that brings you grief and a maximum of conflict with other editors. Your continued claims that "It's not about what I'm doing" speaks volumes in a single phrase. As I said previously, I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Elon Musk

He is an investor in Solar City, Tesla, SpaceX, PayPal etc. He was also listed on Forbes 2014 Midas List of investors. http://www.forbes.com/video/3391084854001/ And other sources... http://www.crunchbase.com/person/elon-musk http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/21/zuckerberg-musk-invest-in-artificial-intelligence-company-vicarious/ http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-invest-in-vicarious-2014-3 Therefore investor should be added to occupation and i introduction titles.

The Tesla Motors section of his biography, it states "The company was co-founded by Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, JB Straubel, Ian Wright, and Musk." While this is correct it does not give the full picture and is misleading, as Musk was not part of the original team. Musk came in as after the original team was formed AND had incorporated the company in July 2003. He then became involved with the company in series A round of funding as a INVESTOR. Source: http://www.marketbusinessnews.com/tesla-motors/12064 I propose 'The company was cofoun.....Wright and Musk, however the company was incorporated by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in 2003 prior to Musk's involvement. Musk became involved with the company in 2004, as a Series A investor. Other Series A investments groups included.... '

I ask that 'inventor' is removed from occupation, this implies he is inventing on a day-to-day basis. This is hugely untrue. Its not a matter of providing a source that he does't, because there would never be, its the fact that the article has failed to provide ANY source or article that states he does, or even list an invention other than hyper loop. And even They did just mean hyper loop, which one mean it would be taken down from occupation anyway, Hypelroop has not been built, and all musk has done is conceptualise the project. You wouldn't say Leonardo da Vinci invented the helicopter, he conceptualised it. Therefore providing none can provide a list of multiple inventions, then 'inventor' should be taken of occupation, as should engineer, as there is no evidence of this also. I also think inventor should be taken off introduction titles as it is additional to 'conceptualised Hyperloop' and therefore implies he has inventor something other than conceptualising hyperloop, which is untrue and no one has provided any evidence of such a feat. it should therefore read 'Business Magnate and investor. Musk conceptualised the Hyperloop, a high speed...'

Thanks Dirac740 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The talk page of the article in question is the best place to discuss article content, not my talk page, Dirac740. It is not useful to repeat your arguments here as I have already read them there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi Cullen, even though we haven't properly met, I just wanted to send you some strawberries in honor of all the great work you've done around the site. Is there anything else I can offer? :) EmilyREditor (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I did have a question. Is it generally advisable not to retitle popular pages or FAs? EmilyREditor (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the berries, EmilyREditor. Pretty much by definition, a Featured Article will have a group of active editors who are interested in it. The same can be said for other popular pages. Changing the titles of such pages is likely to be highly controversial. Accordingly, I recommend a talk page discussion first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen! I will start a talk page discussion should I see a popular or featured article title that I feel needs changing. I guess that's best practice. And no problem about the berries. You deserved them as you are always very helpful and polite. Keep up the beyond fantastic work! :)

I did have another question, too. Is it generally advisable not to write edit summaries in all caps, such as "FIXING DON'T REVERT ME"? They could be seen as the online version of yelling or shouting, and rude.

I replied to your message on my talk page, too - if you'd like to check, feel free, but if you don't, no problem. EmilyREditor (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't write edit summaries in all caps, though I might occasionally capitalize one or two words for emphasis. I agree with your concerns, and believe that edit summaries are important and should be written carefully. On the other hand, it is a very informal communications channel, and a lenient attitude toward the quirks of other editors is wise. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I agree that it is important to stay cool (and welcome reverts of edits) and I am beginning to do that as well. Thanks again; you are a very wonderful help. EmilyREditor (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob Shaheen again

Hi Cullen. So I've asked for page protection at Bob Shaheen because of the various editors who appear to be spreading their political views through shady editing. I'm curious if you have any thoughts about what the next step should be. It seems a little odd that the IPs keep removing the fact that Khashoggi was an arms merchant. I'm kind of thinking about opening a RfC to see whether or not other editors think that fact belongs in the article. I'm still unsure how Bob Shaheen could be established as notable on his own, had it not been for his involvement with Khashoggi, who gained a reputation as an arms dealer. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As I've said previously, Cyphoidbomb, I am surprised by the pattern of editing of this article. There were only 37 edits in 2013, but 178 so far in 2014. I think that the article is less informative now than it was in 2011 when I worked on it. As for Khashoggi's business, of course he was an arms dealer though he had other interests. However, "reputed arms merchant, who was of Turkish descent", the current formulation, strikes me as a bit bizarre. What's up with "reputed" and why do we need to mention where Khashoggi's father was born in an article about Shaheen? It's all a mystery to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I take credit for "reputed arms merchant". When I started working on it, it looked to me that all the talk of "arms dealer" was an attempt at making Shaheen look bad for his association with Khashoggi. The pro-Shaheen kept removing any mention of the arms at all. That didn't seem reasonable, since Shaheen gained notability for being affiliated with Khashoggi. I thought that "reputed arms merchant" was a less pointed way to describe Khashoggi with the hope of appealing to both the pro and con-Shaheen people. In retrospect, a moot effort. I agree that "Turkish descent" doesn't have any value for the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Rondal

thanks for creating the article. i couldnt have done better. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Mercurywoodrose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Global MapAid

Dear Jim

In some exasperation I am writing to you, out of the blue, as I am seeking to create a wikipedia page for my charity called Global MapAid (www.globalmapaid.org)

I hope this is OK.

Our goal is to create maps that enable a better vision for sustainable job creation. This means simple vocational type jobs, good for school leavers. In my practical work in this domain, I have come across a huge lack of tangible and intangible vision, so the aim is to create maps to help put this right, maps of items such as vocational education, business mentoring and small credit and business grants. These maps will put the educationalists, governments, donors, philanthropists on the same page.

As director and founder of GMA, i am probably the last person who is appropriate to write an un-biased and factual entry of this NGO, although I could probably do give it a good shot. So I asked a friend of mine a woman called Jackie Hutchings who put up a sentence similar to this below:-

"Global MapAid “GMA” is a UK and US registered charity and social enterprise whose goal is to create maps concerning the solutions to unemployment poverty.

These maps give government donors, philanthropists and NGO’s an ability see clearly more clearly where and how to assist employment efforts that are sustainable, as well as coordinate joint efforts."

The page was up for a couple of days and then removed, without apparent good reason. In fact no reason was given at all, according to Jackie.

It may be that as we are relatively poor and our public profile is low, so we are not seen as worthy of a place in wikipedia, in which case the editors need to have the honesty and integrity and above all friendly demeanour, to state this kindly in words of one syllable so that there can be a discussion and we can put straight the situation to everyone's complete satisfaction.

I saw your photo and your descriptive page and wondered if you could help in any way. I am more than happy to send you more details of our work by email, to give you a fuller picture and also put you in contact with Jackie.

My sincere thanks

Rupert

Rupert Douglas-Bate rupertdouglas@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.48.183 (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Rupert. I am at work right now so don't have time to research the notability of your charity. Please read how we define reliable sources. Please also read WP:Company. The person who created the article would have received a formal notice on their Wikipedia talk page from the deleting administrator explaining the reasons for the deletion. An article that made a plausible claim of notability should have had a one week deletion debate, but if the article was unreferenced and overtly promotional, IG could be deleted more quickly. If you give me Jackie Hutchings' Wikipedia user name, I can research the matter further. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Catching up

I was slightly puzzled by the question at Teahouse relating to an email for having a page patrolled. Is this something we do universally now? It seems kinda spammy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

Welcome back, Rich Farmbrough. The notifications are opt-in, not universal and editors can opt for email, on Wikipedia or not at all. There are 8 types of notifications, including page review. See the Preferences tab, then Notifications. Hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems overly complicated for attracting new users - but then everything does to me. But very useful in certain special circumstances. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

I don't think this particular set of features is targeted at new users, Rich Farmbrough, but more at power users. I only ask for emails when I get a message on my talk page. This seems to be a rare case when a new user "customized" their settings and was a bit surprised at the results. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I have nothing set to email. I'm tempted to quickly create a dummy account to check if the settings do indeed default to off. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

The default settings are surprisingly promiscuous. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Vassula Ryden

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Vassula Ryden. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

GA

Hello Cullen! You said that you had several articles you'd like to promote to GA. Christine and I have decided on my GA Recruitment Centre page that I could help review one of your GA articles. Have you already nominated them? WooHoo! • Talk to me! 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Though it might seem strange, BrandonWu, I am a bit modest about nominating the articles I've started for GA. But I think that Vaillancourt Fountain is in pretty good shape, so I have nominated it. I look forward to hearing your opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vaillancourt Fountain

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vaillancourt Fountain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BrandonWu -- BrandonWu (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello there

Hi there, I am new to Wikipedia. I am from New Zealand and want to improve the articles on hiking tracks in New Zealand. I posted something in the 'Teahouse'. I see you are interested in the outdoors too. Did you know there is a hiking track in New Zealand that bears your name? Heaphy Track. Maybe one day you will be able to do it. Regards, Leon. 101.98.210.65 (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Leon. Yes, I am aware of the Heaphy Track. I first learned of it when my father-in-law, a stamp collector, gave me a New Zealand commemorative stamp featuring it. I have read about it a few times over the years. I think I may be a very distant relative of Charles Heaphy, but then again, we are all distant relatives, aren't we? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How to remove a cleanup banner on a page once all the cleanup has been done

I've just completed cleaning up a page, and no more work remains. How do I now remove the cleanup banner that someone else placed on the page? Thanks! Bmankin1 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bmankin1. If you are referring to Mar Y Sol Pop Festival, then I think that the issues have not been fully resolved. There are many unreferenced claims and a lot of the content seems to be original research. If it is another article, let me know which one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to Atlanta International Pop Festival (1970). Bmankin1 (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That's strange, Bmankin1, I don't see any cleanup banner on that article. Can you be more specific? By the way, you may be interested in Goose Lake International Music Festival which also took place in the summer of 1970. I attended that festival and expanded the article. I notice that several bands, including a couple of Michigan bands, played both festivals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The cleanup banner is in the References section. I'll check out the Goose Lake page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmankin1 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Aha. I removed that banner for you by editing the References section and removing the template that generated it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly. I didn't know how to do it. By the way, on the Goose Lake page, there is an external reference that requires a password to view ["Festival photos by Don C. Hanover III"]. Is that appropriate? I'd like to see those photos but can't (and don't want to install iCloud on my computer). Finally, given your interest in rock festivals, you may be interested in this article of mine: http://likethedew.com/2012/03/04/we-can-all-join-in-how-rock-festivals-helped-change-america/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmankin1 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I am contributing to the existing page of T'ang Haywen

Dear Jim, I hold the copyright on the work of the painter T'ang Haywen (1927-1991) and am preparing the catalogue raisonné of his work. Am registered at the A.D.A.G.P under the 203340 there is an exiting page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T'ang_Haywen - and I have contributed quite a bit to it under the name of Chinaparis How should I do to respect the rules of Wiki when I want to upload images and other docs on T'ang ?

Also I'd like to know how to control the placement of the images on the page, in order to have a better lay out thks in advance Chinaparis (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Chinaparis Monday 28 April, 2014

Hello Chinaparis. My time is limited now so let me start by saying that releasing images under a Creative Commons license is preferred although an alternative is available described in WP:NFCI. Please read those and give me your thoughts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Problem with redirect of page that I think was wrong

First of all, I hope that I am responding correctly to your reply (original topic at Teahouse = How do I deal with a page redirect that I disagree with?). I don't know if I should reply here or on the Teahouse page.

I did discuss the matter with Huon on his/her talk page. I received a reply that I am not satisfied with and replied there. Hopefully my reply was to the point, but I also know that I might not be objective or detached enough (it is my first Wikepedia page and I spent a lot of time trying to get it right). I would appreciate it if you would look at my reply and let me know whether I am handling this properly.

Regarding whether the topic is notable, I think it is. But then, I created the page, so that is not surprising. I actually began by updating the Yokneam topic and then came to the conclusion that the topic of the large concentration of high-tech R&D in a rural area is an anomaly that is important in and of itself. I also saw that it is related to factors that are outside the scope of the city itself.

As far as I know, most of the major startup ecosystems are in major cities and urban areas. Therefore, I think it is notable that what appears to be the second largest concentration of R&D companies in Israel is located in a rural area rather than in a major city like Jerusalem or Haifa. Many of the references and citations refer to "Yokneam" being the alternative high-tech center to Tel-Aviv. But it is not necessarily the city of Yokneam, but the entire area that somehow is able to sustain such a large R&D center.

Much of the content is currently on the Startup Village, Yokneam page is on the Yokneam page because I updated both pages concurrently and gathered a lot of the information from the city. I also updated the Megiddo Regional Council page, but it was not as easy for me to gather the information. Unless the Startup Village, Yokneam page exists as a separate entity, I don't think other people will add the information that I didn't already have or find. I think it is needed to serve as a magnet for information related to startup ecosystem that is not specifically tied to the city of Yokneam.

The name "Startup Village" is not a true project that was created as such under that name. It is the best title that I felt most accurately describes a startup ecosystem in a village-like environment without being more of a sentence than a title. The reference or citations all referred to specific items in the topic, they were not intended to cite the name "Startup Village".

The reason that I did not entitle the page "Startup Village" without ", Yokneam" is to differentiate it from the Startup Village page, which is about a specific project in India.

Finally, I don't know how to address the issues by myself. Even if I could, I'm not sure that I would have the time to do it (not to mention the frustration). I would appreciate any guidance that you can give me.

Unclefeet (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Unclefeet. Substantive discussion about whether a separate article should exist ought to take place on the talk page, where Huon has commented. We simply can't have an article about "Startup Village, Yokneam," unless reliable sources give significant coverage to that specific topic. To combine a variety of discussions about a variety of loosely related matters into such an article is synthesis and original research, neither of which are appropriate for Wikipedia. Therefore, you have to point out the sources that make the topic notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jim. I just completed a long reply there. The many hours that I spent writing and later rewriting my response indicate that I may be "suffering from a rookie syndrome" where it is hard to look objectively at my first serious attempt at Wikipedia editing.

I expect that Huon will reply and I will want to read what he has to say, but I think it best that I take a break from updating that topic. Hopefully someone else will pick up where I left off and turn it into a worthwhile topic that is appropriate for Wikipedia.

Please take a look at my response so that you can let me know if I should have done things differently. Unclefeet (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jodie Foster

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jodie Foster. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

When to remove statements from articles

I thought you misunderstood my question about removing information from articles and thought my question also applied to adding information from personal experience and that no sources for the information you added to Black Bear Diner existed. Now I see that your edit on Black Bear Diner was a good edit because Wikipedia only prohibits you from adding information you know there exists no source for but doesn't prohibit you from adding information you can't find a source for, with the exception of extremely simple original research like for example Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations, Wikipedia:Common knowledge, and Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source may not be needed. In fact, I didn't know that Julius Ceaser was Roman. It seems that it's harder for me to notice an edit being a good edit when somebody else makes one than when I make the same type of edit. For instance, I added in the sentence Until a consensus for the definition of tetration to real heights is reached, pentation can't even be defined to an integer exponent higher than 1 when it's base is not a whole number. to Pentation.

The reason I asked about removing from from articles based on personal experience is because doing so increases the reliability of Wikipedia unlike adding information based on personal experience which does the opposite. Unlike removing information, I agree with the Wikipedia:verifiability policy for the following reason:

People adding in unsourced information they believe to be true causes wrong information to be added in often enough that Wikipedia decided not to allow it. For instance, personal speculation added wrong information to the internet here. I think if the same person kept on editing Real number, adding in 0.999...≠1 over and over, even if they claimed a proof in the article by arguing that there exists a number system where there is one number for each integer followed by an infinite string of decimal digits, they would probably be so blocked from editing and it would turn out that they assumed there was only one number system and that that number system was called the real number system, when in reality, there is more than one number system, for example the hyperreal number system. Same if they kept on editing Evolution over and over to write that eyes didn't form from natural selection and instead God created them.

What if Wikipedia instead had a policy that somebody can only add unsourced information if they have a reason to believe they know it's true? I still think Wikipedia shouldn't allow people to add information based on their own speculation because people sometimes make a careless mistake of thinking they were very sure it was true when they weren't. That might cause a lot of people to have the frustration of knowing they actually have a legitimate reason to be extremely sure it's true and still not being allowed to add it in. When somebody's in that situation, I would suggest that the Wikipedia:Verifiability page settle the dispute by saying something like, 'I understand you're extremely sure it's true, however, we don't have the background information about the topic that you have that makes you extremely sure it's true. We're not magic so administrators will never be able to find a way to distinguish people like you from those who actually think they're very sure about a statement when they're not, and so will never be able to find a way to not block people like you but block people who think they're very sure about something when they're not.'

What if Wikipedia instead had a policy that somebody can add in a piece of information from their own speculation as long as they believe the following: 'Almost everybody knows that if I believe it, it's true and those people who don't believe what I added believe I'm lying rather than that I don't believe the truth'? I don't think Wikipedia should adopt that policy because enough people lie that in some cases, somebody would knowingly write something that's not true claiming they observed it for themself in the edit summary or vandalize Wikipedia in some other way and the administrators can't tell which people are lying to just block them and not the people who write something they really observed. Vandalism actually occurred here. On the other hand, I think people should be allowed to remove information based on personal experience.

I think the fifth piller about ignoring all rules in some cases is a good rule. Sometimes there gradually starts being more and more people starting to think Wikipedia should start working in a certain way. However, there is a problem; it could happen that lots of people want Wikipedia to make a change that they think it's so obvious that Wikipedia won't be willing to make a change of, so each one of them thinks there are fewer people wanting that change to get made than there actually are so they don't feel free to propose it, which is a problem. I was even threatened to be blocked because of making a proposal ~~in the 'Promotional articles' section here~~ here. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Blackbombchu. I resolved the problem at Black Bear Diner by adding a reference verifying that some locations serve beer and wine, and also adding a reference for a quotation about their decor. I don't think that Wikipedia should have a policy allowing any form of original research, but sometimes correcting an obvious error or an overly broad interpretation of a source may venture close to what some might call "original research". In my view, visiting a restaurant and verifying that they actually serve wine is on a whole different level than coming up with a new theory of the most important causes of World War I. Or a new mathematical "proof" that Einstein was wrong. The incident motivated me to find the source regarding the restaurant. But I still don't fully understand what factors actually started that war, and probably never will.

No editor should ever be threatened with a block for proposing a new policy, but if their advocacy in the face of consensus becomes disruptive, that may well be another matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about AFC

Hey again! Asking questions at the Teahouse is not working, since I can't submit my question for some reason...

So I'm sorry if I am disturbing you with questions, but I had another one. Must one be able to distinguish between a reliable source and an unreliable one in order or participate in Articles for Creation?

Thank you for your time. EmilyREditor (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem, EmilyREditor. Are you talking about submitting your own draft articles to AfC, or reviewing other editor's work? As a general rule, any active editor should always be evaluating the reliability of sources. Of course, experience helps, and specific examples are more useful than generalizations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question, I'm talking about reviewing another editor's work. EmilyREditor (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I will give my own opinion, realizing that some AfC regulars may disagree. I believe that an article accepted through AfC should demonstrate its notability convincingly. Because notability depends on significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, I believe that an AfC reviewer should have enough experience and ability to determine the reliability of a variety of sources in the majority of cases. Of course, there will always be borderline cases which can be debated on the merits. If a draft article has significant coverage in six sources, five of which are clearly reliable, then we don't need to worry too much about the sixth. But if the article only has two sources, then the reliability of both will be critical, since most editors expect multiple sources. I hope that my answer helps, but please be aware that I am not a regular AfC reviewer, though I am active at Articles for Deletion, where similar evaluations are made. I hope that my answer is useful to you, EmilyREditor Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen, I understand that you are not a regular AFC reviewer. I just thought you would know the answer to this question, as you have been around a while. Your answer helped very much. EmilyREditor (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: 14th Dalai Lama

Hi Cullen, Please see my reply to your recent comment on whether or not to include mention of the Shugden controversy in the talk page of that article. BTW I've been living with Tibetans in Asia since 1970, and happen to personally know people like Robert Thurman and Robert Barnett - so I am very familiar with their views. I have also been closely following the "controversy" over the spirit Shugden since the early 1970's - though I have absolutely no formal connection with any group pro or anti Shugden - and never have. I have also known a number of old Tibetans (some close freinds) who did this practice and listened to their stories and explanations about it - and also listened to a few Tibetans opposed to the practice. Way back on Usenet I once engaged directly with Kelsang Gyatso on the subject of Shugden in quite a friendly manner - though for some reason I was later 'rewarded' with a legal notice from the lawyers of the NKT threatening to sue me for libel. On the other side I have personally met the Dalai Lama on several occasions. On one occasion at a private talk he was giving to Tibetans in London the Dalai Lama personally called me up to the stage to thank me for engaging with Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and others. Another Geshe, Lobsang Gyatso the former founder and director of the Buddhist Dialectics College in Dharamsala who was murdered in 1997, apparently for his opposition to Shugden worship, also had some of the things I once wrote about the history of Shugden translated into Tibetan and circulated. Anyway I am very familiar with this whole subject and when I contribute about it on Wikipedia now find myself being criticised by people who have strong views on both sides of the issue - so I suspect I may be doing something right.
Regards, 11:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I would urge CFynn not to flaunt his unverifiable credentials.Heicth (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

CFynn, I think that Heicth just gave you some excellent advice. What matters here is accurately summarizing what the reliable sources say about a topic, rather than a side topic. And that must be based on a deep understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which comes from experience editing a wide range of articles in a neutral and productive fashion. That's the type of experience that counts here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been contributing to Wikipedia (as CFynn), Commons (as Cfynn), and several other Wikimedia projects since 2005 - especially articles related to Tibet, Bhutan, Tibetan Buddhism, and Himalayan languages - but other topics too. I think you'll find I've always tried to be neutral and productive. Since I use my real name it is also fairly easy to check out what I've done outside of Wikipedia. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

My editor review

User Ironholds suggested I approach you, describing you as both sensible and meticulous. The situation is, that after making a complaint at An/I that I was being harassed, I voluntarily agreed to seek an editor review of my contributions to Wikipedia. The review has been lengthy but now seems to have ground to a halt and I would like it to be closed, a request I made to Casliber here. He was a participant in the review process and we are looking for an uninvolved person to make a concluding statement and wind up the review. Although the articles are mostly biology-related, I do not think you would need to actually review any of my articles, but instead would weigh up the points made by the different participants and come to a conclusion. Would you be willing to undertake this task? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cwmhiraeth. I have spent quite a bit of time this evening reading the ANI thread and your editor review. For me, it was a depressing and grueling experience, so I can barely imagine how difficult the past five weeks must have been for you. For that, I am sorry. Now, I notice that you have closed the review yourself while I have been reading it. So I am not sure if you are expecting any further comment from me. The whole situation is difficult to digest, and please be aware that although I have a healthy layperson's interest in the biological sciences, I have no expertise there and almost never edit in that field. After I have had a chance to think further about this dispiriting spectacle, I would be willing to offer a few friendly suggestions to you. As for Ironholds recommendation that I am suited to the role, I guess I take that as a compliment, but I write things like biographies of photographers, artists and mountaineers, and also answer questions at the Teahouse. I completely lack the training to evaluate articles about molluscs or crocodilians. I know you weren't asking for that level of review from me but evaluating the seriousness of any errors you may have made calls for skills I don't really think I have. So, please let me know if you would be interested in my observations, which would be more in the area of editing behavior. Sorry to seem so indecisive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. After I contacted you, Jimfbleak helpfully brought the closure of the editor review up on An/I and JohnCD made a comment at the end of the review that I thought provided a good opportunity to bring it to a close. I would welcome any observations you would like to make because basically, I enjoy writing articles on organisms etc. and would like them to be as good as possible, and I absolutely don't want to be in dispute with other editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Input appreciated at 2012 Benghazi Attack

Input appreciated at 2012 Benghazi Attack.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello VictoriaGrayson. Please be a bit more specific about what you see as problems and how I might be of assistance. I usually stay away from articles about current political controversies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vaillancourt Fountain

The article Vaillancourt Fountain you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vaillancourt Fountain for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BrandonWu -- BrandonWu (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, BrandonWu. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)