User talk:Cullen328/Archive 17

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 15

New contributor introduction

Hello Jim,

My name is Jerry Cohen. I’m a new, aspiring contributor who is finding himself in need of a mentor. From what you have written about yourself, I can see my subject is most likely not part of your expertise however, I believe you still may be the perfect person to help me. You and I are about the same age and therefore have certain life experiences behind us the younger folk do not. Handling this definitely needs someone with a mature viewpoint. I’m totally open to criticism.

I’ve followed and deeply researched the subject of UFO’s for years. (Since 1967) I have a website that has been on-line since 1997. I never thought I’d be thinking of contributing to an encyclopedia.

The notion came about as I was referencing one of my cases to see what Wikipedia had to say about it. I was surprised to find that what was on the page was actually biased, poorly researched, and not accurate to the really thorough material I had gathered concerning same. I realized that from what I know as provable fact, I might be the perfect person in a position to possibly improve that particular page. Rjc1 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Rjc1. I can't be a formal mentor to you, as that is a very time-consuming process, and I am already mentoring another editor.

Rjc1. Of course, I understand. I realize I'm not doing this right yet. But I'm only writing this way for expedience at the moment . . .

Cullen328. I took a brief look at your website. What I will agree to do is try to answer any sincere question you have about editing Wikipedia.

Rjc1. Thank you, Jim

Cullen328. Although I claim no UFO expertise, I read several books on the topic in the 1970s and have a general understanding of the issues.

First of all, I highly recommend that you read WP:FRINGE. UFOs are considered a fringe topic, and you should be aware that we have many editors committed to ensuring that Wikipedia does not include any endorsement or advocacy of fringe views. This is not negotiable.

Rjc1. Nor do I expect it to be. I wouldn't ask this of you or myself.

Cullen328. Then, I recommend that you read WP:NPOV which restricts your ability to advance your specific point of view.

Rjc1. Yes, I've bookmarked this and am in the process of reading it. I am aware of the entire upper part of that page and have tailored my arguments with all of this in mind. I am now reading the parts I have not familiarized myself with as of yet. I have no intention of advancing _my_ specific point of view. This was an assumption on your part. The things I will be talking about are extremely specific . I can guarantee you will be surprised when you become aware of them.

Cullen328. Since you mention documents you have gathered, I recommend that you read WP:OR which explains that Wikipedia does not publish original research.

Rjc1. I am totally aware of that. What I am here to discuss is absolutely not my original research. Actually it is about someone else's "original research." I am here to defend status-quo. I will be able to address this when I am totally familiar with this medium. I have taken that completely into consideration before starting this conversation. I would not put any of us in that position.

Cullen328. What you claim to know as a "provable fact" has no place on Wikipedia,

Rjc1. First of all, it is not simply my "claim." I would think one must know what the fact is and where it is from before one can make a reasonable decision concerning same. If the dissenting fact(s) is (are) directly from the source the Wikipedia has referenced, that should be quite important and make a difference.

Cullen328. . . and will be removed on sight by other editors, including me. We summarize only what reliable sources say about a topic, and a self-published website such as yours is not a reliable source.

Rjc1. I believe I can prove beyond reasonable doubt any documented material at my site is totally reliable.

Cullen328. A good introduction to editing Wikipedia can be found at WP:PRIMER. You are welcome to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines,

Rjc1. I had no intention of editing anything before my case is examined by respected administrators and most agree with me. I am hoping the administrators will at least be willing to look at what I have found and not simply exclude it on a technicality, before examining same. Again, it is _not_ MY original research I am asking them to look at.

Cullen328. but this is not a website where advocacy of fringe topics is accepted. As a matter of fact, many editors will be quite aggressive in opposing that.

Rjc1. I can certainly understand this. The only thing I advocate is what the majority agree is accepted fact.

Cullen328. You alluded to a specific article where you see problems. Please mention the name of that article, and describe your concerns in more detail. I will be happy to review that article and give you my opinion about how it can be improved.

Rjc1. I'll be able to get to this as soon as I come to grips with becoming comfortable in this new (for me) medium. Otherwise I am at an incredible disadvantage. My argument is ready but there are a number of questions I still have to ask and a little practice to do first. Thanks for listening Jim. Respectfully, Rjc1 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

- - -

Rjc1, we don't publish original research by anyone, whether it is by you or someone who won the Nobel Prize for physics. We summarize what reliable, independent sources say about a topic.

Rjc1. That is not exactly accurate, and I'm not here to publish "original research." I plan to address that and the issue of reliability and how it is determined. This is obviously necessary for me to eventually be considered as reliable. But I still need some answers to a few more questions regarding the how the text editor works and communication in general. I can't begin without them.

Your self-published website will never be accepted as a reliable source here on Wikipedia, other than as a source for your own personal opinions. Period. Full stop. Please understand that administrators have no special powers whatsoever regarding content here on Wikipedia.

Rjc1. Jim, I am not asking anyone, anywhere to give a blanket O.K. to my entire website. However, please don't take this the wrong way. With absolutely no disrespect to you, who would I talk to that does has some powers regarding content problems within Wiki?

Administrators deal with technical matters including enforcing behavioral norms, but my opinion as an experienced editor on content matters is equal to that of any administrator. Our core content policies are not "technicalities" but are instead the very things that have enabled us to create the sixth most popular website in the world,

Rjc1. That is excellent. If you'll permit me, I'll come back to this later. I really need to ask those questions. Rjc1 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

far away the first when it comes to original content.

They are not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjc1. Jim, here are those questions. (about 12 altogether - a few at a time)

1) Was what I have edited so far readable and in an acceptable form?

2) To properly explain the need for a change on that page and to, down the line, possibly verify myself as an accurate, reliable authority on the subject, it is essential that whatever medium I write in will allow me to use html’s. Do normal talk pages permit this?

3) I noticed the sandbox. Is that a place I can go that will allow me to practice using Wiki’s text editor and then be able to see the finalized text that would appear on that talk page? i.e. I would like to put the code onto the page (htmls, etc.) and then be able to see the finished product appear, as the person on the other end would see it on his page. Can this be done?

3a) Will the reader be able to click on a link and automatically go to it? (yes/no) This is extremely important for my presentation. Rjc1 (talk)

1) You are interspersing or mingling your comments in with mine. That is not good practice, but I understand what you are trying to do. It is best in most cases to add new content below an older comment.

2)We use wikicode, not HTML. You can link to an exterior site on a talk page. Since we rely on summarizing reliable sources, "reliable" is a word that we use to evaluate sources not editors. Editors are evaluated other editors based on their adherence to policies and guidelines, and their behavior, not on their expertise or "reliability". In other words, I know almost nothing about the history of Arkansas. But if I find a book in a used bookstore, published by a university press, with plenty of information about a 19th century Arkansas senator, I can write a biography of that person by summarizing the reliable source, and other such sources I might find. It is the authors of the original sources who are reliable. I am a summarizer.

3) Your sandbox is for any experimentation that is for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia.

3a) If you format a link properly, a reader will be able to click on it. The links you add must comply with policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjc1

Jim,

Sorry, I didn’t realize the complication of simply talking to you as a new user. I apologize in advance for most-likely boring you with these most basic questions. Just trying to learn the medium here. I have created a Wiki account. I most likely need a specific order of things to do to set myself up here.

1) After I log-in and click “You have new messages” what am I supposed to see?

2) After I read what you have said, what exact steps to I take to talk to you?

3) I accidentally engaged “watch list" which I thought would help me follow our conversation. I seem to have other things on there I did not want. I simply wanted to follow our conversation. What should I do? Rjc1 (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

4) In "Editing User talk:Cullen328 (new section): What does clicking "Watch this page" accomplish?

Hello again Rjc1. I do not mind your questions. If you stick around, this will all become second nature very quickly.

Rjc1. Believe it or not, I've worked up to this point my entire life. I'm not going anywhere (except to break for family things like this A.M.) I'll stick around as long as you allow. If you'll permit . . I'll be continuing with my questions, but my son is coming over this morning with my autistic grandson. I'm not sure how much of this day is going to be absorbed by that. Going out to get food.

Cullen328 Let me try to help.

1) When you see "You have new messages", take a look at your own talk page. That is where messages of that type will appear.

2) The most common way to respond to a comment directed at you is to click.the "edit" option for that section, scroll to the bottom of the wikicode, and reply. Convention calls for progressively indenting each comment by starting with one colon ":" for the first reply, two "::" for the second, and so on. Never try to indent with blank spaces. That screws up the display.

3) Your watchlist is a list of pages you are monitoring. I wouldn't worry if the software has added your own pages to the list. That is normal.

4) Clicking "watch this page" simply adds any page that interests you to your watch list. You can click the icon again at any time to remove any page that doesn't interest you. The watch list displays the most recent changes to all those pages, and is a very useful tool for active editors. You can customize this tool in various ways, and edit it manually as well.

Hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. What you are saying is definitely helping.

5) What is the difference between Rjc1 User Talk (my user page) and Talk (my talk page)? How do I set them up? What is the function of each?

6) In using increasing colons, aren't we going to eventually run out of horizontal page space? (Going out with my family for the rest of the day.) Rjc1 (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

5) Your user page (now empty) is for describing yourself to other editors as a Wikipedia editor. If you write something on that page, your signature will change from red (which hints "newbie"), to blue. You can customize your signature like I do if you want. On your user page, you can mention how long you have been editing, your areas of interest, articles you've worked on, and the like. Some basic biographical information is OK if you want. But promotional material will probably be removed. Your talk page is for conversing with other editors. No "setup" is required for either, though some editors format their pages in a fancy fashion. That's optional.

6)Yes, if a conversation goes on long enough, the column gets narrow on the right side. At that point, you can reply with no colons and begin the numbering of the colons all over. Some editors insert an arrow to indicate that, but I don't even know the code for doing that. It is pretty clear in context.

Have a nice visit with your family. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The code for that cute little arrow is {{od}} or {{outdent}}. --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's try it. MelanieN, you see, is a good talk page stalker, not a bad one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

how to create personal biography

I thought to recreate my personal biography. I have an register account in wiki. i didnt find any options to create a biography. so am in need of full process of creating personal biography

Gary Anandasangaree (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gary Anandasangaree. Trying to write a Wikipedia biography of yourself is unwise, and will almost always lead to problems. If you truly believe that you are notable, then try the Articles for Creation process. You can write a brief profile of yourself on your own user page, talking about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. This should include no promotional material, and nothing that has been cut and pasted from any copyrighted source. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here. I am what we call a "talk page stalker", which means I read Cullen's talk page, and occasionally I chime in with a comment. Gary, I see that you did once create a "personal biography" here, on your userpage User:Gary Anandasangaree, but it got deleted. The reason it was deleted was that 1) it seemed to promote something, maybe a business or some such, and 2) it seemed to be copied from somewhere else. Those are both no-nos. If you want to start over, you can. Just click on the redlink User:Gary Anandasangaree, and start writing. But this time, don't copy from anywhere else, and don't promote anything. You could start slow by just typing "Hi, I'm Gary Anandasangaree" and click "save" just to see how it works. You can add to it as often as you like, just be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, don't post any personal information like your address, phone number or email (but if you've been around the internet for a while, you probably already know that). --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood). 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, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Israeli Salad page

As the article states, "Israeli Salad" is "similar" (COPY) of other salads in the region; absent any change in the Dish, why does Israeli rate its own version of the dish? Those countries mentioned have been around for thousands of years. Israel has been around for 60 years. If its "dish" and I use the term loosely here, is in fact a copy of existing dishes - and makes no alterations, then either the page should note in CLEAR TERMINOLOGY in the introductory salad that "Israeli Salad" is a direct copy of regional dishes, or perhaps the entire Israeli Salad page should be deleted. Several people have noted cultural appropriation; each of those edits has been reverted.

It is one thing to pick a neutral tone; it is another to publish misleading information. Israeli couscous for instance, is an Israeli invention (its crap, and a pale imitation) but thats besides the point - to have such a page is appropriate; but Israeli Salad? Come now. Whats next, trademark's and cultural heritage registrations for an ARAB dish?

Be serious. Please clearly indicate in whatever language you like, in the first section, that this dish is a direct copy and import from a staple dish in the region.

Anything short of this is disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.176.137 (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not editorialize within the body of a Wikipedia article. I have reverted your inappropriate addition to the article. Use the article talk page instead.

As to the substance of your argument, this particular salad cannot possibly be thousands of years old, since it is based on tomatoes which originated in America, and were unknown in Eurasian cuisines until well after the time of Columbus. All cuisines are interrelated and borrow from one another. The article already acknowledges the connections between Israeli and Arab versions. Greeks, Turks, Persians and Indians all have similar dishes. None are ancient, since all are based on tomatoes. Chopping raw tomatoes and cucumbers together is common and self evident to cooks worldwide, and while wonderful, is not exactly haute cuisine. Wikipedia is not the place to settle culinary scores or right great culinary wrongs. We can and should have several articles about similar dishes within the context of various ethnic cuisines. Please do not continue your argumentative style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Our article Tomato makes it clear that tomatoes were not cultivated in the Middle East until the mid-19th century. Coincidentally, though Jews have lived in what is now Israel since ancient times, significant Jewish resettlement of that area began in the mid-19th century. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

---

First I said the CULTURES are thousands of years old. Second tomatoes were introduced into Ottoman empire in the **seventeenth century**. So you're comparing a recent state STEALING a dish and claiming as its own, to several hundred years of cultural heritage of the region; this would be akin to the Americans claiming that Parmigiano Reggiano is in AMERICAN cheese. Third, your personal opinion on the simplicity of the dish is no more valid than stating that herbs de provencal is just a mixture - ** it is a signature mixture in the region **. Fourth, YEAH IT IS; your articles are supposed to be accurate - absent any change in the dish, its insulting to have attempts at clearly stating the dishes origin deleted. This country is less than 60 years old, the dish is identical - why not redirect to the Arab or Turkish equivalent? THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE, and further, there is _clearly_ a history of complaints regarding this abusive entry. If this is the level of expertise you contribute in your editing, its no wonder the articles on wikipedia suck so badly. NEVER give up substance for neutrality. Either mark it up properly, delete the article, or redirect it to the proper authentic version that the israeli version copies. This garbage about an Israeli version is _complete_ hokum. Next you'll tell me a BLT in Isreal is an Israeli BLT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.176.137 (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

--

Our article Tomato makes it clear that tomatoes were not cultivated in the Middle East until the mid-19th century. Coincidentally, though Jews have lived in what is now Israel since ancient times, significant Jewish resettlement of that area began in the mid-19th century. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Than this will be a lovely time to correct that article as well:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vDQTAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=history+of+plant+introduction+for+tomatoes&ots=XUritIdu2s&sig=bNExG1AfBEPOGYiXWpKvj-G9_5s#v=onepage&q&f=false

Tomatoes rank fourth among the leading world vegetables. In 2001, over 100 million metric tons were produced, with the 15 leading countries being (in descending order) China, US, India, **Turkey**, **Egypt**, Italy, Spain, Brazil, **Iran**, Mexico, **Greece**, Russia, Ukraine, Chile and Uzbekistan (FAO 20002, FIG 1.1)

ABSENT from that list of top tomato producing countries is...... Israel. PRESENT in that list is Egypt, Turkey, Iran. HMMM. Might that indicate who Arab/Turkish "salad" is a staple in their country?

http://books.google.com/books?id=1jE5k5qeKbgC&pg=PA32&dq=history+of++tomatoes+in+the+middle+east&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XsHEU-ShMoiRyASeqIKQCw&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20%20tomatoes%20in%20the%20middle%20east&f=false

As the tomato, like the potato, comes from the America's, it also has a short history in Near and Middle Eastern and North African cusine. Tomatoes were imported into the Ottoman Empire in the seventeenth centry and spread from Istanbul to many of its provinces. Tomatoes are now one of the main food exports of many Near and Middle Estern and North African Countries.

--

and I might add, if you are seriously arguing that tomatoes in a shephards salad _shouldn't_ be considered a staple of that region, then you must admit that _they cannot be an Israeli dish_.

Furthermore, your history itself specifically quotes Israeli's themselves indicating its a straight up copy.

Fix the article by redirecting to an Arab salad (which already exists), or explicitly make it clear that Israeli salad is _nothing more_ than a copy in the first paragraph.

Look I ain't telling you not to feature Israeli cuisine. But it should be _Israeli cuisine_ such as Israeli couscous. I'm not the only person thats complained about it. Sticking Israeli in front of Middle Eastern food is nothing more than a straight up theft; and by propogating this disinformation you are _not_ doing wikipedia or its readers a service.

You are tendentious, argumentative, and have a massive chip on your shoulder. Your capitalized shouting about "stealing" is as absurd as if somebody set out to picket American pizza parlors or Thai restaurants, accusing them of stealing. Then, we can picket all the French hamburger joints. Get a life. Someone fried a chicken before Americans did, after all. By the way, I didn't write the article about Israeli salad, so if you think my articles are bad, please critique the ones I've actually written, and list the ones you've written. If you have a better understanding of the dispersal of tomatoes around the world, then improve the article Tomato instead of bitching and moaning. And citing tomato production statistics in countries with populations FAR larger than Israel's is, well, absurd is the word that comes to mind. Or should we rename "Arab salad" to Chinese salad or American salad? Study some logic, please. Aggressive, tendentious editing will not be tolerated here, so rethink your approach, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The excellent source on the history of the tomato that you cited states that the tomato did not gain economic importance as a food product until the late 19th or early 20th century. The same source mentions that tomatoes are now an economically important crop in many countries, including Israel. You see, you can't get away with cherry-picking sources on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

adding my book to reference/further reading

Hi,

This is Eric Niderost, history teacher and writer at Chabot College, Hayward,, CA in the Bay Area. Don't mean to sound like a 'commercial" but I have a new book out SONNETS AND SUNSPOTS; "Dr Research" Baxter and the Bell Science Films published in may 2014. I would like to simply add my book to the further reading/reference sections of several wiki articles, but don't know how to do it--and I have tried. I need a "quick fix" if possible, because my book is out now--and there are at least a half-dozen articles that I could attach my book to-- Bell Laboratory Films, Dr Frank Baxter, and others. How do I do this? thanksBaxterfan88 (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Baxterfan88. This is a really bad idea, and I encourage you not to do it. This type of editing is considered spamming, and could possibly lead to a block on your account. Please familiarize yourself with our guideline on conflict of interest, and read WP:SELFCITE as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	kindly tell me me how i write article in wikipedia, how i add pic and how i publish it ??????? writer slubna khan (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Writer slubna khan. I recommend that you read the A Primer for beginners, which should answer most of your questions. Please feel free to ask more specific questions at The Teahouse, or right here on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Page Creation

Hello & thank you for your speedy response. Can you please create a page for Jalen Mcmillan? I am unsure how to create this page, and by now he is surely notable.

Once again, I can not thank you enough for your support & quick help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHoytink (talk • contribs) 07:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, DerekHoytink. Why do you think that I am interested in writing an article about this person? This is not an "edit on request" service. I have never heard of this person, but you obviously have. You state "by now he is surely notable" without furnishing a shred of evidence of his notability. What you need to realize is that experienced Wikipedia editors respond to evidence of notability, namely, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. So, go read and study our policies and guidelines. Links have been provided to you. Once you understand all that, modify your draft with all that in mind. Or abandon it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for responding to my question at the Teahouse. It seems that your reply was deleted (most likely by accident) by an editor named Sionk. So, I am not sure if it is even appropriate to reply to your reply, or if it is then where I should do so. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Cullen328, I've no idea what happened there. When I replied there was no other response to Marchjuly's question. Very bizarre! Sionk (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes things happen. If you have any comments on what I wrote, Marchjuly, please leave them here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

OK Cullen328. I'm not sure if you remember this, but awhile back this question was asked at the Teahouse. The editor (Alla Bozarth) was talking about the article Philadelphia Eleven. When I asked Ms. Bozarth if she one of the persons mentioned in the article she freely replied that she was. So in my reply to her question, I informed her that this could be seen as a conflict of interest and possibly led other editors to question her neutrality. I gave her a few Wikilinks where should could find more detailed information on "editing with a conflict of interest", etc. and that was the end of the discussion. I added the article to my watchlist and have been checking on it ever since.

Ms. Bozarth has continued editing the article even though she didn't declare her conflict of interest on the article's talk page, but since most of her edits did not seem disruptive to me I figured it was no big deal. Also, up until recently, she had been pretty much the only person working on the article. Recently, however, others have started working on it as well. One editor in particular, named "Scholarwise", has made 14 edits to the article over the past few days; In fact, the only edits made by this person on Wikpedia have been to the "Philadelphia Eleven" article. This, of course, might be just a coincidence, but the writing style and edit sums seem quite similar to those of Ms. Bozarth. In addition, the edit sums for diffs such as this and this make me concerned that this person may be trying to push a certain point of view and may also be closely connected to some of the people mentioned in the article. Furthermore, it seems like the references added by "Scholarwise" to support the edits they have made are for books/interviews/websites written, given or created by Ms. Bozwarth.

Now, personally, I don't believe any of this is being done in bad faith; it just seems like somebody eagerly wants their story (or the story of somebody they know well) to be told "correctly". However, no matter how good their intentions may be, it does seem like an attempt, at least to me, to lead the article in a particular direction: a direction which seems to be based more on original research (personal experiences) and primary sources than upon verifiable secondary sources. I may be completely wrong on all this (which is why I'm sort of reluctant to post on the article's talk page, etc.), but it does seem a little out of the ordinary to me. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read through the above mess. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page, Marchjuly, and I do not even need to look at your links as I remember the Teahouse question, and I read the article, the talk page and the user page at that time. I agree with you that the person(s) in question are acting mostly in good faith, but also with a trace of self-promotionalism. I have not reviewed the recent edits, because it is almost my bedtime. But even more so because the way you have framed your question, and my other observations of your editing, convince me that you are reporting accurately and are committed to this encyclopedia and its policies and guidelines.

So, there is no easy answer in a case like this. You have to ask yourself how much work you are prepared to do to straighten the situation out. Sometimes, I have said to myself, hey, the article in question is low visibility, the problems are relatively minor, I lack topic expertise, there are over 4.5 million articles. Let it slide. But on the other hand, this could be a perfect opportunity for you to assert yourself, explain policy, and if necessary, enforce policy.

You are an editor with "clue", if you know what I mean. If you want to take this on, I guess that I recommend you do so boldly. Go through that article and remove all the assertions that are not properly referenced. Explain why on the talk page, linking to relevant policies and guidelines. Invite article talk page discussion on the editor talk pages. Do not mention sockpuppet concerns until and unless you are prepared to file a formal sockpuppet report. Engage the other person with the goal of improving the encyclopedia, not bickering. And feel free to ask me other questions if you do choose. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and kind words. Rushing in loaded for bear with guns blazing is typically not my style. The article in question is definitely a low visibility one, and I am certainly no expert on the subject matter so letting it slide is definitely an attractive option. You've given me quite a few things to think about. Thanks again for the input

- Marchjuly (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope it didn't seem like I was accusing you of doing something improper Sionk. That certainly wasn't my intention. I figured it was really just some kind of glitch. I just wasn't sure if it was proper for me to re-add Cullen's reply to my Teahouse question and then reply there.- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. The article in question certainly has problems. There's certainly a bit of POV pushing, for example the first two lengthy paragraphs of the "Background" which could be cut to a couple of sentences. I would also be very concerned about the biography of Bozarth, which is very lengthy and completely unreferenced, definitely falling well short of what is required for a BLP.

Overall though, the subject is clearly very notable and there are an abundance of news and book sources about the subject. It just needs steering and cajoling towards being an excellent article. Sionk (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Photos for an article

Jim, Thanks for the note, I do not have the understanding to upload the two photos I have, can you help?ChrisMarkDrew (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello ChrisMarkDrew. Did you take these photos? If not, who did, and when? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim, yes I did take the photos, from your suggestion above I have managed to go to Commons and have the two photos loaded into Commons. I am not quite sure how I can add the photos to the page that shows the trees I am wishing to enhance Melicope micrococca one of the files I have load to Commons is called Melicope_micrococca_in_flower.jpg ChrisMarkDrew (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The file page on Commons for each of your photos will have a menu bar that will produce the wikicode for adding the photo to an article. Simply copy that code and paste it into the wikicode for the appropriate Wikipedia article. Usually, it is best to add it as the first line of code for the appropriate section of the article. The process is very similar to commenting here on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim, thanks so much for your help, I was able to add the photo and you gave me the confidence to go ahead. regards ChrisChrisMarkDrew (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello ChrisMarkDrew. I reduced the size of the image. Your photo has some unneeded grey space on the left and above. I suggest you crop that away and upload a cleaner version. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim, will do , good suggestions ChrisMarkDrew (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the encyclopedia, ChrisMarkDrew. Be bold, and please keep editing. Feel free to ask questions at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are so amazing, an inspiration to all new users!

Dathus ^{Talk 14:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)}

Thank you, Dathus. I enjoy helping out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cory Gardner

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cory Gardner. 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, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Non-notability of primary schools

Hello Jim,

On 2 July you wrote “our well-established presumption is that primary and middle schools are not notable, but that degree awarding secondary schools and colleges and universities are notable. We redirect search terms about non notable schools to articles about their school districts or locales.” See your diff.

I agree with your position but I have been unable to find anything written in the Notability guidelines to reinforce this. Can you identify something relevant in one of the guidelines?

There appears to be a growing number of articles about primary schools. Often, the only reference is the school’s own website. The content is often very bland – “The school has won many awards in the music department” etc.

See:

Regards, Dolphin (t) 06:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Dolphin51. There is no notability guideline specifically covering schools. However, there is what I would call an effective working consensus, which is described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I do believe that a few elementary or primary schools are notable, those of demonstrated historical or architectural significance. But the vast majority get run-of-the-mill coverage and passing mentions in local news outlets that does not establish true notability. I believe that redirecting to the "education" section of the article about the locale, or the relevant school district, is the best choice in most cases. Lacking a clear guideline, each decision has to be made individually, but I believe that consensus should be heavily influenced by the precedent of similar previous decisions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your super-fast response. The information in WP:Outcomes is very useful for my purposes. Dolphin (t) 06:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Friendly hint

You like to hand them out, maybe you can take one: consider running for admin one of these days. We could use you with a magic wand in your hand. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, Drmies. A true optimist is a fellow who thinks that a dirty mop is a magic wand. I speak as a guy who worked as a janitor while taking a break between high school and college. I guess we are both optimists, huh? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd support you! Thanks, Mat ty.007 20:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Did I ever tell you about the two weeks I cleaned in a hospital? I was the only one of the crew who spoke Dutch, and at the end of a night I was asked to explain in various languages that everyone was fired, including me. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'd support you as well! =] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I, too, started out as a hospital janitor, but that lasted nearly two years. Then, I got several promotions and was the telecommunications manager when I left after ten years. As a janitor, filling in for guys on vacation or calling in sick, I saw some truly hair-raising things. Needle safety was negligible, pre AIDS, for example. And working the morgue and the incinerator was always "interesting". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Cullen. Thanks for posting on my talk page, your opinion is of course most welcome. As it did not address a post by any specific contributor, I've placed it in chrono order, and replied. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please feel entirely free to rearrange my comments on your talk page as you see fit, Kudpung. I took a while to formulate my comment, ran into an edit conflict, and then copied and reposted. The software seemed to treat it differently than usual. Wikimedia programmers hard at work, perhaps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again fore replying there. You and I seem partially of split opinion but the essential thing is that we get, well, opinions. I try hard on WP to get policies and practices strqih\ghtent out and usually I am successful. In rare occasions when I am not, I am quite happy to have been 'out voted' by the community. -But it hasn't got to the stage where it is being offered for discussion by the broader community yet and I'm hoping that it can be resolved locally and won't need to be. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think we agree, Kudpung, on the core issue. I seek the same outcome as you, keeping the secondary schools and redirecting perhaps 99%.of the primary schools. It is just that I am less bothered by the school AfDs than you seem to be. But that's OK, isn't it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

It's fine,and by voting 'rediret' on them you are at least helping to reinforce the consensus we already have. --1.2.255.121 (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

My Allison Argo writeup that you looked at through my request for help on Drmies' talk page

Jim, Thank you for your compliment on Drmies' talk page concerning my writeup here . Although I have a very low edit count and few articles to my credit, I try to bring those that I work on to a C or B status before putting them up to go live. I looked at WP:REFNAME, and I'm not quite sure how to edit using the format. I'm not sure how a URL fits into the picture on the original reference from which others are derived. Could I possibly ask you to format one reference on my article so that I could give it a shot with the others before I submit the article for upload into live space? Thank you in advance for any help that you may be able to provide. Doc2234 (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Doc2234. I did two of them for you, the Bates reference and the 2013 Speakers reference. Now, they are all combined, and the number of individual references has been reduced from 46 to 33, with no loss of content. You just define the named reference once, and then you invoke the ref name afterwards, with an ending slash such as <ref name=Bates/>. I hope that helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I will work on the rest over the next few days. Thank you, again. Doc2234 (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

Hi Cullen. I was wondering if you had time to review the proposed publishing section I put together here. I think it could probably be cut back a bit, because many of the books mentioned in it have their own separate articles, but I wanted to make sure to get all the major criticisms in there to avoid the appearance of spinning things. This also starts hammering away at getting the "Issues" section distributed into the article. It's been 2-3 weeks since anyone participated in the discussion, so I just thought I would see if you still had an interest. No problem if you are busy of course. CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Somaly Mam

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Somaly Mam. 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, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see

User_talk:VictoriaGrayson/sandbox/Dorje_Shugden_controversy VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I lack the expertise in Tibetan Buddhism necessary to properly evaluate whether your draft summarizes the range of academic sources. Accordingly, I need to limit my input to general assessments of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Further operational questions

Hi Jim,

Hope you had a good week. Back again with some more questions.

Starting "new Section." Some of my questions deal with that.

4) I am trying to continue my questions immediately under those I have already asked and you have entered. Is this possible or necessary? How do I do it? I have no record of how many colons I have used to indent to a particular place.

5) When I choose New Section to start a conversation, do I start flush left once again?

6) What exactly is the *help me* sandbox used for? i.e. Is its purpose to practice the _procedure_ for asking for help? What exactly can be accomplished there?

7) Regarding the page I am going to be addressing: Since my discussion is going to challenge some of what is presently on that page, it will be necessary to archive a number of talk-page discussions. Exactly how do I do this? (i.e. the steps)

I'm just learning what procedures are available to me and how they function. Being comfortable with any problematic situations that might arise will help me remain completely professional in our conversations.

Respectfully, Rjc1 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Rjc1.

4) It is best to start a new section after a break, and new sections should be created at the bottom of a talk page. Talk pages are in chronological order, with old posts at the top and newer posts at the bottom. (The Teahouse is a rare exception to that general rule.) To see how many colons you used previously, just take a look at the wikicode and count the colons.

5) Yes, new sections should be started without indenting.

6) A sandbox page can be used for a wide variety of things, such as experimenting with wikicode, draft article development, keeping a "to do" list, or any other productive, semi-private work you do to improve the encyclopedia. It is not fully private, it can be viewed by any editor, and it can not be used for any purpose incompatible with improving the encyclopedia. Every editor has at least one sandbox page by default, and you can create as many additional sandbox pages as you need to do your work. I am not sure what you mean by *help me*. Please clarify.

7) I recommend against archiving talk page discussions of a page you plan to work on. What is the name of this page? Any interested editor should be able to easily review previous discussions about the topic, once you start contributing. I had been editing actively for several years before I archived a talk page. This is not something that a new editor should do on the talk page of an article about a controversial topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

4) Jim, forgive me for being dense but, how do I look at the Wiki code? Must be my age. :-)

5) Thank you!

6) O.K., the way you explained it, I believe it answers the question for me. There is so much help available in Wiki, when you come in as a new person trying to figure it all out, you’re surrounded by a huge mass of detail. It’s mind-boggling at times.

7) What I’m about to say is _not_ to sell you on a link to my website. It’s just so you understand why I am doing what I am doing, and why I am asking about archiving. Please keep this in mind as you’re reading this. It directly pertains to both our conversations, and our professional relationship here at Wiki.

I understand what Wiki is trying to do to eliminate the work of dealing with links from websites that disappear. I also believe I understand _part_ of the reason why Wiki is calling personal websites “opinion” based.

However, in all the years I collected data, eventually performing deep analyses of it, no one _anywhere_ has ever called me an "opinion writer." The majority of people who have visited my site have been quite impressed with the work I’ve done. (most likely because they could see I really cared about this topic more than most others and had been willing to put in the actual time to really do it correctly.) People could see that I was 100% sincere, obviously motivated, and had done some really good work.

I am only saying this so you can know a little about who you are dealing with as we proceed. I'm not some wacky UFO promoter who set up a website. It was all about me trying to figure out what it was that I saw by my house back in 1967. (I'm not asking you to believe my sighting was the real thing . . . just to understand _why_ I've done the research I've done virtually every day of my life all these years.) In 1997, I put it all out there in electronic book form so people could see it. I wasn’t even sure who would read it.

As it turned out, my website eventually wound up undergoing an unexpected peer-review. Over time I received many comments (short note snippets) like the following . . and these are just a small sampling. Please take a moment to look what people said and who they are.

Ted Phillips (Prime collector of Physical Trace Research from UFO cases for years - began with Dr. J. Allen Hynek)

Please note _his_ reaction to my site and what the Stanford study said concerning the importance of his work. (To this date, there have been two major university studies concerning UFOs. The Stanford Study, led by physicist Peter Sturrock, was the second.)

What Ted had to say

Ted's comment

Richard Hall - Head of NICAP in 1969, serious investigator of UFO phenomena, compiled “The UFO Evidence” submitted to congress. (also two separate books on same) Hall worked with every major UFO group, and at times quit them if he believed they weren’t being truly scientific. What people are doing today has much to do with the work he did back then. He was a truly historic figure.

His 1964 UFO Evidence

Hall's evidence submitted to congress

His compliment to me regarding my scientific approach:

Hall Compliment

Please see two notes Richard sent me:

“it is highly refreshing to see you going strongly against the grain and carrying the flag for careful, dispassionate, and conscientious study of this most intriguing phenomenon.”

Note 1 - Hall

Concerning how much he valued my work:

Note 2 - Hall

Walter Webb (Senior lecturer, assistant director and manager of operations, Charles Hayden Planetarium (Boston) - He commended me on my work and called it cogent. He happened to work with Dr. J. Allen Hynek.

Walter Webb - comment

Alfred Lehmberg - Writer, UFO Magazine: impressed with the detail and balance of my work

Alfred Lehmberg - comment

So, feeling a little uncomfortable with the designation Wikipedia has placed on my website and my work, and taking into consideration the amount of years I spent talking to many original researchers, performing analyses and getting it right . . . I just want to make sure that what I say here at Wiki concerning the topic I’m going to address gets a fair hearing, not just by people with a vested interest in what’s on the Wiki page in question, but from totally impartial people who can think rationally about what I have to say. (politics, aside)

Please note, I do realize it has to be for the good of, and the practical working of Wikipedia. (I also realize what you are dealing with . . . answering all these letters on a constant basis, and the difficulty of finding people to do it. It’s an awesome, time-consuming task.)

Hopefully, from what I’ve said, you can understand why I am asking about archiving. I need to know how long things remain on-line at Wikipedia before they vanish. Just from some things you’ve said to me so far (and other reasons as well), it is very possible this is going to need to go up the line a good distance. There are certain negative assumptions that have been made about me before I even start. Most of them, if not all, are totally false and even hurtful. I know, don’t tell me . . . it’s only business, right? :-) I get it. I’ve got broad shoulders.

Therefore, responding to your comments,

“I recommend against archiving talk page discussions of a page you plan to work on. . . . snip . . . This is not something that a new editor should do on the talk page of an article about a controversial topic.”,

would you explain this just a bit. I promise I’ll do my best to understand.

Thanks, Jim. I’ll give you the name of the Wiki page next so you can start looking at it when you have some time. (With what you do, I can’t believe you have any.)

Respectfully, Rjc1 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Rjc1. Let's deal with the easy matter first. When I say "look at the wiki code", I mean to click on the "edit" button for the previous conversation, and examine the code displayed in the edit window. You can simply count the colons that generated the indentation. Think of it as "looking under the hood". This is a generally valuable technique for learning how to do something new. Look at the wikicode of a page that does something similar, and emulate that coding.

Now, as to the matter of your website. Experienced Wikipedia editors pay a lot of attention to evaluating whether or not a given source is reliable. In general, we are looking for professional editorial control supervising the writers, and a widely regarded reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correction of errors. So, the best reliable sources for medical articles are well-established journals like JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet. Obviously, there are many others. For books, we are looking for those published by university presses or widely respected mainstream publishers. For referencing articles about history, we want to use books written by professional historians or articles published in recognized historical journals. For news references, we want papers with reputations like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post or Los Angeles Times in the U.S., or written by major wire services or news magazines. Now, obviously, there is a continuum of reliable sources, and a source that is considered reliable about popular music is almost certainly not reliable about nuclear physics. Context matters. We are constantly debating the merits of this source or that one. Just because Wikipedia does not consider a website reliable for the purposes of referencing a Wikipedia article does not mean the website is useless. Consider the Internet Movie Database, a very useful tool for film students. A great website, but strongly discouraged as a source for Wikipedia articles, because much of its content is user-submitted without editorial review. Minor movie personalities can (and do) "beef up" their listings to make themselves look more important. The same is true of Wikipedia itself. One Wikipedia article can't be used as a reference for another article. This is a user-edited website, and people can and do try to add garbage to this encyclopedia all the time. We believe that our thousands of volunteer editors ( and our anti-vandalism bots) will detect and correct most of this, but sometimes a given article will contain garbage for a while. Self-published websites such as yours are very rarely accepted as reliable sources for the same reasons. I will assume for the sake of discussion that your website is useful to UFO researchers and has been endorsed by well-known UFO researchers. If I was highly interested in UFOs (which I'm not), I would probably study it. But it is a self-published website dealing with a fringe topic. I speak only for myself, but I speak from experience. I consider it highly unlikely that a consensus of experienced editors would agree to accept your website as a reliable source. This is not singling out your website in particular. There are hundreds of thousands of self-published websites of varying quality where people offer information on a wide range of topics. I have one myself. Many are wonderful, and many are worthless. But, as a general rule of thumb, they are not accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia for anything more than the personal opinions of their authors. In conclusion, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and experienced editors can be expected to insist on the highest quality sources for article related to any fringe topic including UFOs.

As far as archiving goes, the vast majority of all the Wikipedia edits since the first few months or the project are retained in the edit history of every page, and can be examined easily by a moderately skilled editor. A database dump of the very earliest edits is also available. Even the text of deleted articles, personal attacks, crude vulgarities, legal threats and libel can be seen by administrators, though ordinary editors can't view this type of material deleted by policy. It is all there, every bit of it. For example, if I wanted, I could review almost every keystroke that changed Abraham Lincoln going back 13 years. It is all archived and preserved, but you have to actively search for it. "Archiving" a talk page refers to, in effect, "putting the old conversations into storage", and away from immediate public view. This is useful only when the length of a talk page is excessive, and the older threads are stale and resolved. This is routine on highly active talk pages. But another effect is that it hides the earlier conversations from easy view by less experienced editors. For example, there is a bot that regularly archives my own talk page. The conversations for the past month or so are visible to all (along with a couple I keep for sentimental value from 2009 when I started here). But the archives of older substantive conversations are available for anyone to read. Even some routine message that some bot sent me back in 2010, that I read and erased, can be found in the edit history of my talk page. The bottom line is that talk pages should be archived when they are excessively long and unwieldy, and the discussions are stale. Not before. Accordingly, I recommend against you archiving any talk pages on your own, until such time as we are discussing actual content. It could be construed as an ill-considered attempt to hide things, which isn't wise, in my opinion.

I hope my comments are useful to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on iGaming Business/Bluff Europe/Jackpots Review

Hi Jim,

Thanks again for your feedback on my first few article drafts (if your memory needs refreshing, they're https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IGaming_Business https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bluff_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jackpots_Review

I've taken your comments on board and resubmitted, and would really appreciate your thoughts on the updated version as you were so lucid about what needed changing first time around.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro Diamanti (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

All three articles are still chock full of promotional language and unreferenced claims, Alessandro Diamanti. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Re, your original comments, I asked the following at the time but realise I forgot to tag you:

"I would contest the description of the award in question as 'routine and non-notable', but I accept that it could be moved lower down than the first line. With regards to the readership, do you know if there is an equivalent of something like ABC circulation figures for trade press? If so, I'll look there."

I think this could be a good starting point - I'm still inexperienced when it comes to article creation so it's probably easiest to take things one step at a time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro Diamanti (talk • contribs) 15:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)