User talk:Cullen328/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 25

account

Hello Jim Editing on Wikipedia is stressful. :) Is everything Point of View? Surely there are some things, like in historic articles, that are simply just facts? I do not mean interpretation stuff, I mean like the date (or at least month) on which say a proclamation was signed? Or the date when a law was enacted? - It seems that everything has become negotiable, hows that for an entry rant? hehehe, I needed to vent... Zarpboer (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Zarpboer. The date a proclamation was signed should not be controversial if properly cited to a reliable source. When you edit highly controversial topics, you need to cite everything and discuss any disagreements on the article talk pages. User names that indicate a point of view may well bring extra scrutiny to your edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328, thank you for your advice. I think though, that to survive on Wikipedia, you have to have some friends. these users that are teaming up on me have not added anything to this page, they simply want to prevent me from adding anything of value (you can have a look at the full edit record) In fact, this page has been carrying a citation required notice at he top of it, since 2010 and it has one fake citation and a lot of non relevant information, with very little of value about the actual subject. The editors are also not discussing the actual facts, or what exactly their problems are, they simply revert my edits and claim that I am strongly biased. Yet, they seem to know nothing (or very little) about the subject that they are editing (or reverting my edits) on... And it is frustrating to put so much time and effort into a page just to have others destroy it, specially since I have added many citations and over 50% of the citations are to documents and treaties, laws, etc. which may not be well known, but is factual - as per the citations - all any reasonable editor, with an interest in that suject, has to do is to look at the citation itself to verify the quality and the reliability thereof... Yet, these editors do not care, it is all just my POV and click - undo. *sigh* anyway, nice to be able to talk to someone, I also just answered someone else in the tearoom, maybe I can try to make some friends :) Zarpboer (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328 - soz to bug you, but what does it mean if I get a message: user occultzone has reviewed zarpboer ? I tried searching but came up dry... thanks! - oh, and Im thinking about your advice! in retrospect i should have called myself fluffybunny17 :) -  :) Zarpboer (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The "reviewed" message means nothing objectionable was found on your talk page, Zarpboer. Documents, treaties and laws are all primary sources. Far better to cite the work of academic historians with good reputations. Topic expertise is not necessary to edit or revert edits in any article. Experienced editors can detect POV pushing without that expertise, and their participation is useful in ensuring neutrality and adherence to policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328 thank you for the explanation :) - regarding my edit problem, i have decided to stay on wiki and try to resolve the problems, can i maybe ask you a huge favor? Are you willing to look at this page, as a normal reader or user (not an editor) and please please give me an opinion of whether it slants to one side or seems very point of viewish? (it is supposed to be history) - I have read your talk page, where you explained to another editor about the style of something and your informed opinion would be appreciated so much? the page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Republic Please? Zarpboer (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Zarpboer, it is time for me to go to bed here in California, and I have a very busy day of off-Wikipedia activity scheduled for tomorrow. And I have no specific interest or expertise in the details of South African history, though I care about South Africa in general. I have off-Wikipedia opinions about worldwide political issues, but have tried hard for over five years to let those opinions have as little impact as possible on my Wikipedia editing. That is the path I recommend to you as well. If, as your username indicates, you have a pro-Boer point of view, try spending some time improving articles about topics considered "anti-Boer", if that is a term that makes sense to you. Research that topic, learn to love it as a neutral, encyclopedic topic, and improve the article based on mainstream sources you wouldn't usually read. I have done this exercise myself several times, and it has strengthened my identity as an encyclopedist. I recommend it to you. If this doesn't appeal to you, then maybe editing Wikipedia is not for you. But that's just my personal opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328 thank you very much for your honest cander. there are no more boers :) they are factually and completely extinct. so articles about pro-boer or anti-boer is mostly about race or other things, like nationalism or apartheid, etc. that have noting or little to do with what boers were and their history. You are completely right about developing as an encyclopedist, for me though, the research is interesting and as my family has been around Africa in many generations, I guess we all at some point start checking out our forefathers and around here, there is a lot of good and a lot of bad, like everywhere and life in general I guess... thing is though, that to write something neutral where the actual history is reflected, you have to deal with the extreme sides to the left and the right. it is very challenging and sometimes you find both sides attacking you at once, because neither side likes everything that you are saying :) - When you wake up, in the new day (or the next), and you do find yourself with a spare five minutes, please give the page just a quick once over? The first impressions are generally the correct ones and you did say: "Experienced editors can detect POV pushing without that expertise" hehehe, imho there may still be some pov in the article but most of it is just general history... i think - i did add the page to the 'expert required review' page in historic countries, so hopefully some real experts will come to help also :) anyway, you are already sleeping so instead of good night, let me rather say Good Morning! :) Zarpboer (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I read both versions of the article, Zarpboer, and it is obvious to me that your version pushes a pro-Boer, anti-British point of view. That simply isn't acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328 Again, thank you for your honesty. This article does cover a period of strife and understanding only the one side of the wars, does make me somewhat biased... which is also why i have been asking for others to jump in and point out my bias, if you look on the talk page, you will see that i am trying hard to find my own bias, myself, like where i write about removing the sentence about british apology, etc. But anyway, it is very very decent of you to be so honest with me and to give me your honest review, thank you very much! It is truly a pity that you are so busy on other stuff, it would be amazing if someone of your skills would be able to devote absolutely any time at all, to improve this history, which is also my history... the current page is about the general history of southern africa (and the same content is already on that page) and not about the country at all, like it's laws, (which were also racist laws) and about all the other things that made it what it was. Like i said, there are no boers left, there is no dutch spoken in the country at all and much of this countries history is simply not reflected anywhere as it fought both with the british and the afrikaner and was fairly much despised by everyone equally :) on a personal note, in truth my mom is german and i am more german than south african or anything else and my german roots are probably worse than my boer roots - so basically i have a fairly crappy history all round  :) Zarpboer (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't feel bad, Zarpboer. I am 62 years old. My paternal grandmother was from Lima, Ohio, and when I researched the time her ancestors came there, it was in the context of dispossessing Native American people. They settled the spoils of war. My maternal grandmother and grandfather were born in Northern Idaho shortly after the defeat of the Native American tribes there, and their parents rushed in to settle that stolen land. So my great-grandparents (none of whom I knew) were not necessarily enlightened people.
Some of us history buffs become enthusiasts of one particular point of view of historical interpretation. When I was younger, I edited a "newsletter" of that type, and actually won some awards. That's an antiquated word, "newsletter", isn't it? Now we blog, or we tweet. There are so many online venues for expressing our distinctive point of view. Wikipedia is not one of them. Successful, respected Wikipedia editors consciously set aside their individual points of view, and keep neutrality in mind with every edit. I am a proud Jew. But when I work on an article about a cathedral, or a bishop, or a Hindu festival, that simply doesn't matter. I recommend the same course to you. Set aside your particular view of the world, and adopt the broadest world view possible. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
hahaha, luckily we are not our forefathers and people like me are extremely fortunate, i can learn from their mistakes :) I can believe that you won awards, i have read some of the stuff you have written. you are extremely good. i love gefiltefish (speeling?) and yes, thanks, i have to develop skills that you already have, to set aside my personal views and be neutral, it is hard though as we all refer to everything in terms of our own frame of reference and to be truly neutral you have to be open minded and then if you are too open minded you may start donning tinfoil, so imho the trick is balance, fairness and never to lie to yourself :) Zarpboer (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328 i am gonna nag you once a week to invest 5 min to look at that zar page i am trying to develop, to get your 2c on the quality? is that okay? Zarpboer (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's the deal that I will offer to you: You do your level best to collaborate with the other editors there, even if you think they know far less about South African history than you do, because I am confident that they know far more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than you do. In exchange, I will take a weekly look, and comment when appropriate. Just keep in mind that I am busy, don't know all that much about 19th century South African history, and could get hit by a bus at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328 Deal! - I will hold you to it! - & please comment on-page as an editor! --Then - i am not so sure about ALL of them knowing more about wikipedia's policies than I do (grammar?), i have made so many mistakes that i have learned quite quickly & i am sure some of them know more about SA History than i do as well, just that they have been leaving that page to rot, and i am pushing them to actually do something, it does not look like any of them are serious about improving that specific page... anyway, whatever, there are MILLIONS of cool pages I can edit and thousands of editors i can meet, greet and get to know... but I think you are right... I do need to become fluffybunny17? no? Zarpboer (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Cullen328 - Just edited the US Constitution 12th amendment, and I am getting my ducks in a row to edit the main usa page... hehehe, i think i love wikipedia..  :) Zarpboer (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Just checking up on you and the potential "and could get hit by a bus at any time" thingy... did it miss you? If not, where do I send flowers to? Zarpboer (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:James Randi Educational Foundation. 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 September 2014 (UTC)

Photos on Wikipedia vs. Commons

Hello! I saw your recent answer to a question on the Teahouse and I'd like to discuss it with you. It's not true that photos uploaded to the English Wikipedia (vs. the Commons) are non-free; uploaders to en.wikipedia can declare a range of licenses, including various Creative Commons licenses just like on Commons. I upload CC-licensed pictures to en.wikipedia instead of Commons merely because I think that there's better stewardship of images here, and the images I take myself and upload here are just as free as any equivalently-licensed image on Commons. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Orange Suede Sofa. As far as I know, your freely licensed images are eligible to be added to Commons, and I hope that they are, so that they can be used in other language Wikipedias, and elsewhere. As for "stewardship", I am not sure what you mean, but am sure that you know yourself. I am certainly willing to learn how "stewardship" differs from here to there. I know that Commons has problems, but it is what it is, and despite its problems, it is an enormous resource.
When I answer questions at the Teahouse, I try to simplify without oversimplifying. Image policy is very complex for new users, and a certain degree of simplification is needed, in my opinion. With regards to image hosting on English Wikipedia, I see it and present it primarily as a place for non free images under WP:NFCC, and Commons as the place for freely licensed images. If that is oversimplification in your view, I apologize for that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Twain Short Story Collections articles

Jim,

Just wanted to thank you for your reply at Teahouse. I guess I'll be creating separate pages for the short story collections, then. They actually ARE significant and are important to first edition collectors and Twain students and scholars. It's also nice to have a list of what was included because of the various reprints etc. that can include some, but not all of the stories.

I actually have another question, this one about linking to information.

A person on a military history forum looked up an original source document and typed it in in its entirety at the forum. It's not an official PDF or facsimilie, but a transcript he typed from, in this case, the original report that earned someone a Medal of Honor in the Revolutionary War. It's not linked on the Medal Winner's Wikipedia bio, but actually should be. The only place I've found it online is this guy's transcript, but unless he's some sort of genius in writing like someone from the 18th Century, it's a legit transcript.

Could I use it as a source? It's a transcript of the official document from the U.S. Government per this retired Colonel's word.

S.Sa magnuson33 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sa magnuson33. Under the principle of bold editing, I suggest that you link to it. If another editor objects, discuss the matter at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will put this on my list of things to fix. S.Sa magnuson33 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux. 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) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You're invited! Litquake Edit-a-thon in San Francisco

You are invited! → Litquake Edit-a-thon → See you there!
  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 22
  Date: October 11, 2014
  Time: 1-5 pm
  Place: 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
  prev: Meetup 21 - next: Meetup 23 | All SF meetups & events

The Edit-a-thon will occur in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Writers from all over the Bay Area and the world will be in town during the nine day festival, so the timing is just right for us to meetup and create/translate/expand/improve articles about literature and writers. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. This event will include new editor training. RSVP →here←. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Avakian

I was advised to ping you. The bob avakian article had been reverted again. Enrealidad insists that the article reflects his or her original edit of the article and will revert any edits outside of what they find appropriate. This has been happening for the past few years with this article. If one of the editors leaves the article alone long enough, enrealidad will just come back and revert all the edits once again to how he or she wrote it.. It is probable that a neutral administrator take a look. Your assistance and wiki expertise would be greatly appreciated in dealing with the issue. --xcuref1endx (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the hagiography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Bob Avakian

I posted this on the Talk page for the "Bob Avakian" article and am also posting it on the Talk pages of individual editors who have commented on this recently.

Nobody has bothered responding to any of the criticisms I put up on the “Bob Avakian” talk page about edit by Keithbob and others, other than Keithbob saying that I should start a separate thread if I "have concerns about a specific sentence or source". No, it isn't a problem with one or two phrases or sources – I have concerns about the overall totality of the article as rewritten. It is inaccurate, possibly libelous around certain allegations of legal issues, and biased.

My criticisms are very specific, based on carefully locating and studying each one of the sources added to the article, researching the authors of those pieces, and looking at what I know of the actual facts. I have offered specific criticism and comments about different elements of the article. And I've raised concerns that this is very connected with the basic methodology that led to this – just find something that someone said, don't bother looking at whether they have any basis to say it, and then simply cite it as truth. This is precisely what leads to rumors and inaccurate summations being turned into "facts" when there is no basis for this.

Nobody has addressed any of this. Instead, the argument seems to be simply an empty call for "consensus" without dealing with the content of that concensus. Just because the majority of people say something doesn't make it true. Think about the fact that most people in this country question basic scientific understanding like evolution, or global warming.

Again, it is inappropriate and frankly irresponsible to simply remove an article that was the result of literally months and months of careful study of everything I could find on Avakian, whether supportive or critical, and carefully source every statement in it, and instead substitute a poorly researched, biased "substitute". It goes along with removing all of the content of Avakian's views and writings without any effort to even engage them. Again, readers of Wikipedia come here to find something accurate, reliable and informative. EnRealidad (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A Wikipedia biography is not the place to summarize the subject's ideology and writings, cited to their own work. We rely primariky on independent sources. In my opinion, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how biographies of living people ought to be written. Start slowly, step by step, correcting the factual errors, citing to reliable sources. Such edits will gain consensus. Improve the article gradually, gaining consensus for each change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding user HighWindows

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I commented there and at Talk:14th Dalai Lama. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chevalier d'Eon

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chevalier d'Eon. 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, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help with my class project

Thanks Cullen328! I will definitely be taking advantage of your expertise. Just want to let you know I'll be in touch with details later. J.R. Council (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Image upload - choosing correct copyright licence

Confusion of what licence to pick

Hi, Being new to wikipeda, I have only uploaded 1 image and chose template PD-1923 because the photo was from 1905 & I figure the photographer is more than likely deceased.

It was a long very difficult process, totally unlike using FTP to post a website image (which is very easy IMO).

Example

A friend of mine (not a wikipedia editor) has offered to re-take this picture so it can be replaced with a newer one. File:ChristTheKingCathedral.JPG

To me, this should be a relatively simple process. Since it is a church photo, could something be done as per suggestion #3 below? I doubt I could ever help my friend to upload himself-he would certainly ask me to 'do the deed'...

Suggestions

1. So far I have not found a wikipedia 1 page that shows all the copyright licences to choose from.

2. Are there any tutorial articles?

3. Is there any copyright license that could be called PD-NP (Public Domain- Non-Profit)? I seem to recall there was some kind of license for government organizations but I did not check that one out.

The church official I contacted stated they want their images to be freely distributed--he did not use the words 'public domain' but it sounds like that is their intent. As a church organization, would they still be the 'owner' of the images (scans of old photos from 1905 to current day)? Still confusing to me....

JoeHebda (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello JoeHebda. Image policy is complex and I need to get to work so I must keep this brief. A few important points: we do not allow a "non-profit" exclusion. Freely licensed images can be used for any purpose including commercial ones. The church in question has no role here, and no copyright over photos taken by others of their building from a public street. Your friend the photographer is the copyright holder. As for details and tutorials, I suggest you study the help pages at Wikimedia Commons. Any photo published before 1923 in the U.S. is in the public domain now, without exception. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up Comments

Thanks for the clarification. So even if I ship my camera to my friend (3-hr drive away) to Superior, WI, he takes the pictures with my camera & ships my camera back, then He is still the copyright holder?

Yes, I did spend an entire afternoon at Commons---left my head spinning. Guess I will have to re-visit to get a better understanding. Maybe a couple more times...

At Superior, WI is our church diocese headquarters & I was told they have pictures on the wall there of all 10 Bishops. For the ones after 1923 I would also have to re-take the same pictures myself? Maybe I can ask someone there at the office (with a camera) to signup with Wikipedia so they can upload & then it's done.

Is it correct that once the photos are uploaded, & a Wikipedia registered photographer puts them into public domain, I can include them in the appropriate Wikipedia article? (so it is a 2-person process?)

At Wikipedia Commons, there are just too many License choices & 'public domain' is very difficult to find. Are there some specific words I should look for that are the same/equivalent as PD?

Thanks for your patience & understanding. JoeHebda (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, JoeHebda. Please excuse my frankness: it seems that you are trying to do things the hard way. Yes, it is possible for you to make an agreement with your buddy in Superior, Wisconsin to take the photo and assign the copyright to you, so you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons for him. But that is very complex, must be documented in a legally bulletproof way, and is slow. Why can't he just upload it to Wikimedia Commons himself, which is quick and easy?
You seem to think your buddy's photo must be in the public domain. No, that's the hard way, where he totally relinquished his copyright. Why do it the hard way, when the easy way is to simply upload it on Wikimedia Commons under a Creative Commons license? He retains his copyright, but freely licenses the photograph for use by anyone, credited to him.
Photos taken of bishops in 1923 or after are assumed copyrighted unless we have solid evidence to the contrary. Taking a photo of a copyrighted photo does not eliminate the copyright. It is a derivitive work and the copyright still applies. Imagine if you took a mobile phone photo of a famous photographer's work hanging in a gallery. If you tried to sell coffee mugs with that photo on it, the famous photographer would sue you if you didn't cease and desist. Copyright must be respected even if it is a dusty 1937 photo of a bishop by an unknown photographer. Perhaps that photographer's grandchildren might not want that photo on Wikipedia. We must be sure. We must have permission or solid evidence that permission is no longer required.
You can freely license your own original copyrighted creations. Though many websites infringe copyright all the time, Wikipedia doesn't. We insist on strict compliance.
Yes, there are lots of licenses on Wikimedia Commons, to cover all the bases in difficult situations. But the church photo is straightforward. It is not difficult in any way, unless you or your buddy deliberately make it difficult. The photographer uploads it using the upload wizard, answering the questions truthfully, using the standard, recommended license. It goes very quickly, less than a minute. I do it all the time with no problems whatsoever. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Contracted to completely revise an author's entry

Hi Jim,

I'm Kahlyn. An author hired me to rewrite his biography for Wikipedia, complete with picture and such. I've done so and he's approved everything, but I'm unsure of how to replace one entry with an updated entry. It sounds like you are the perfect person to give me the proper information, and I'd greatly appreciate your help.Kahlyn (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Kahlyn

Hello Kahlyn. Who is the author? Your comment indicates that the author and you may have a misunderstanding of how Wikippedia works. Why would you want to completely remove the existing biography? What is wrong with it? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello {{|Jim}}. The author is Joe McKinney. His entry is very basic and he's had several books come out since it was entered on Wikipedia. He's just had another book released this week and will have at least two more major works released in the next twelve months. In addition, he's won another Bram Stoker Award in 2014. I don't want to remove the entry. I want to update it with a well-researched entry, complete with a photo of the author and an updated listing of his publications. What steps should I go about to do this? Kahlyn (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Kahlyn
Kahlyn, you might find this article by a leading public relations executive to be worthwhile. You might want to check in with CorporateM, who is a respected paid editor, and is familiar with "best practices" in that area. You should describe your proposed additions on the article's talk page, citing the reliable sources you suggest using. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kahlyn. Do you mind sharing the draft with us? Also, would you be able to provide 2-3 profile stories that cover him in substantial depth to confirm he meets Wikipedia's requirements for an article? CorporateM (Talk) 23:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Are you aware he already has an article? Joe McKinney (author) --NeilN talk to me 23:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yuppers. Hadn't looked at it yet though. Looking at it now, I see that among the broken links and primary sources this source includes a claim to notability, however asking for profile stories would still be my go-to first step so I can compare them to the draft. CorporateM (Talk) 00:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
CorporateM, that link is about another guy named Joe McKinney - a poet and actor, not a novelist and cop. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, oh, I was looking at the wrong page! CorporateM (Talk) 01:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim. I would be glad to share the draft with you. He's not asking for an article -- just a rewrite of his entry in Wikipedia that is more up to date and professional. As Corporate notes, the entry in existence is very basic and doesn't cover what he's done to date. Where would you like me to copy the entry? I think you'll find in reading the proposed entry and seeing the extensive research supporting the information written there, you'll understand what Joe and I have been trying to do. Let me know what you'd like me to do. I greatly appreciate your help. Kahlyn (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Kahlyn
I suggest that you post the draft in your sandbox page, Kahlyn, and link to it on the talk page of the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll do that now. Thank you. Kahlyn (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Kahlyn I just copied it to my sandbox and I think I've forwarded it to your talk, but just in case, I thought I'd let you know it on my page. Thanks again. Kahlyn (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Kahlyn
"Joe McKinney lives in the Hill Country of Texas near San Antonio with his wife and children, all of whom are properly trained for the zombie apocalypse." Come on, Kahlyn, you don't really think that sentence is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, do you? You need to rewrite that draft, keeping the neutral point of view in mind. You need to remove any unreferenced promotional claims, such as "Naturally, his work contains a strong procedural element and a level of realism reflective of the work he does." I also recommend removing the unsuccessful nominations for awards. Keep the awards he won, but we need references. Your references need to be properly formatted. See Referencing for beginners. You may also benefit from reading Your first article and A Primer for Newcomers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jim, Sorry, I did add a small joke for a zombie writer in his biography. I'll remove it immediately. The quote, "Naturally, his work contains a strong procedural element and a level of realism reflective of the work he does" comes from an interview with him regarding the influence of his work as a San Antonio Police Officer on his writing. I will insure it is properly cited. As for the unsuccessful nominations, those still carry weight in the World Horror Association. I will insure they are cited properly. I will read the material you have advised for me, knowing it will be very helpful. When I make the changes to the draft, I will let you know so you can review it again. Thank you again for all your help.Kahlyn (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Kahlyn
Interviews should be used very cautiously if at all. They are published by a credible, independent source, but that source is merely acting as a conduit for the information's author (the article-subject). However, sometimes the journalist doing the interview may make comments in the interview that are useable, it may be used for non-controversial information like date of birth, or it may have a good quote to include the article-subject's point-of-view on something. Regarding awards, I feel the community is more accepting of them on BLPs than companies, but you can see the criterion I use at WP:ORGAWARDS. WP:PRIMARY says primary sources "are often accounts written by people who are directly involved" and says that proper secondary sources are "removed from an event". The awards themselves are independent from the article-subject, but they are not independent of "the event." Awards that are truly significant to his profile should be included in other stories profiling his life that are independent of both the award organizers and the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

create an article about something I am closely connected to

Hi Jim, I decided to write to you, because your expertise (I concentrate on content creation, referencing and expanding mediocre articles, the "Articles for deletion" process, and welcoming and mentoring new editors) may help me get some guidance about how to create an article and how to avoid its deletion. I must stress that I am an absolute beginner in this.

In the page Wikipedia:Your first article the guide starts with rule #1 Wikipedia covers certain kinds of subjects and not others. If the topic is likely to be suitable for an encyclopedia, go ahead; if you're unsure, or the article is about you or something you are closely connected to, you can ask questions here. So here I am, trying to ask because I am not sure, and I don't even know if this is the place for this question. Wikipedia is intimidating as far as finding a way to ask a question, sending it to the right recipient and finding a way to get an answer. I want to create an article about something I am closely connected to. It is not 'about me' or 'about my business', or 'about a friend of mine'. It is about a nonprofit organization and a public charity. I have absolutely no material interest in the posting of the article; I work for the organization 20 hr/day without pay, moreover, I invest huge amounts of money to keep it going and promote its mission. The purpose of creating the article is to give an opportunity for people interested in the subject to obtain free information and education. This charity was created for and works exclusively in the public interest. Furthermore, I am the creator of this organization, but have absolutely no interest in self-promotion, as a matter of fact, my name does not have to be mentioned at all. In the page Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers under Important cautions we find this 1. Don't write about yourself, your friends, your website, your company, your business, your family, a band you're in, your teacher, a word you made up, a story you wrote, or anything else you're closely affiliated with (exception: we welcome academics, museum curators, etc., who write about their area of expertise, subject to our usual policies). I highlight the exception, because I believe that it applies to me and to my nonprofit organization. Museums and academic institutions get an exception for being nonprofits and public charities, but so is my nonprofit organization. Academics, museum curators, etc., get an exception for writing about their area of expertise, but so do I, and unlike these professionals I do it on a 100% volunteer basis. So I believe that the above exception applies to me and to my nonprofit organization. So will I be allowed to create this article, or will it be deleted? Needless to say that if I am allowed to create the article, it will be my first and I will need help with content and referencing. Thanks. Silentfilmlover (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Silentfilmlover. I can't give you a definitive answer for several reasons. Most importantly, I don't have the power or authority to guarantee that your future article won't be deleted. I am just a rank and file editor, admittedly moderately experienced regarding deletions, but am not an administrator and have no special powers. Even if I was an administrator or had "higher" powers than that, I would not have the power to protect any new article from deletion. No one does here.
I will say that I think that it will be exceedingly difficult (though not impossible) for you to write a successful Wikipedia article about an organization that you support so passionately. There are many wonderful local organizations that are worthy of support but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, in the specific way that Wikipedia defines notability.
In my experience, people in your shoes often get very indignant when an editor expresses the opinion that their topic is "not notable". They will then often search around at random among our 4.6 million articles, discover some crappy article that has escaped scrutiny, or an article perceived as "ridiculous" despite being about a notable topic, and raise a big stink about the matter. Experienced editors have heard this flawed line of reasoning many times, and reply that perhaps both articles, the new one and the counter example, and many more, should all be deleted. But the discussion always zeroes in on the new article, since we debate deletion one article at a time, for the most part.
Such new editors have a very, very hard time writing from the neutral point of view. They may, in all good faith, really, truly believe that they are writing neutrally, but experienced, uninvolved editors will instantly detect their writing style as promotional, and will attack it as "advertising" and "spam". The result is hurt feelings, and all too often, deepening conflict.
Editors passionate about writing a specific article about one specific topic generally have a very hard time here. Editors passionate about improving the encyclopedia by working on a wide range of topics, without advancing any personal agenda whatsoever, are those who are much more likely to flourish. That is a generality, and perhaps you will end up as a counter-example.
I know nothing about your charity, because you have chosen not to identify it for me. Experienced editors, especially those who work in the area of deciding whether to delete or keep articles, can usually determine within a few minutes on Google or another search engine, with perhaps 90% to 95% accuracy, whether or not an article about a given topic is likely to survive. Though quality writing and formatting helps greatly in borderline cases, it can't save an article about a non-notable topic, and a very poorly written article about a notable topic will usually be kept, under the theory that the article can be improved through the normal editing process.
So, if your idea is to go right ahead and write this Wikipedia article, no matter what, then that is your right as an editor, and I can't stop you. Perhaps you will be among the 2% in your shoes who succeed as opposed to the 98% who fail (my estimates). If you choose to take that path, please be fully prepared for intense scrutiny and harsh criticism. I hope that no harshness will come from me.
There is a much slower path that can "buffer" you a bit from the harsh reaction that writers of new articles often encounter, and that is the Articles for Creation process. A reviewer will evaluate a draft article and either accept it or make recommendations for improvement. Problems with this approach are that there is a big backlog with long delays, that not all reviewers are as highly experienced as one might hope, and that passing an AfC review is not a guarantee that the article will survive a deletion attempt. I think they strive for a 50-50 chance of surviving a deletion debate. And I have heard estimates that only about 10% of AfC drafts are now being accepted.
If you choose to proceed, please read, study and assimilate Your first article and A Primer for newcomers. Do not submit a non-compliant article to the encyclopedia. That is a guarantee that our new pages patrollers will pounce on your hard work.
If you give me the name of your charity, I will give you a frank, honest opinion. Best wishes to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Jim, Is this the way to reply to you - by editing the article? I hope this reaches you.

Fist of all thanks for your time and your thoughtful, frank and outspoken comments, that was exactly what I needed. No worries, no matter the outcome I am not the type who will 'raise a big stink about this'. I am a peace-loving guy and I am here to learn, so I appreciate your help.

The name of my charity is Silent Hall of Fame. I care about formerly distinguished silent movie stars who made a significant contribution, but have not been rewarded with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. My mission is to correct this deficiency. This is a unique and very difficult undertaking. It will take a huge amount of effort and money, and a long time to achieve this. I have started by posting bios of these silent personalities and streaming their films for free in order to bring their names back into the public discourse. Obviously, the broader support I can get, the better the chances of success, this is why I want to post an article here so that the public can learn about this charity, what we are doing and what we aim to achieve. The website is silent-hall-of-fame.org.

Thanks. Silentfilmlover (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Silentfilmlover. I will look into your charity later. In the mean time, you may be interested in Romola Remus, an article I expanded. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Jim, I will definitely need your article expanding help if we get to that point. Let me know what you think about my charity when you get a chance to look at it and about the prospects of a Wikipedia article. Thanks.Silentfilmlover (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Silentfilmlover: I had a look earlier and couldn't find any independent published sources that had in-depth coverage of your charity. Do you have any pointers? --NeilN talk to me 22:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse Questions

Hey Cullen! Thanks for expanding on my answer here, had no idea about the issues. So I know what's going on, is bottom posting still an issue? I'm still seeing editors posting questions at the bottom of the page at a rate that appears to be more often than normal. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SuperHamster. There may still be a glitch with the mobile site. I do not understand the technical issues. See the bottom thread at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse for details. At least we are getting questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Barnstar of Integrity
For a job well done helping others at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions even when encountering cases of incivility. Alexf(talk) 16:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Alexf. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

Great Answer Badge Great Answer Badge
Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum.

A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
I learn a lot from your answers as a host.
  Bfpage |leave a message  13:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


I appreciate it, Bfpage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (politician)

I guess the election is getting closer so things are getting nastier. Can you please keep an eye on the article and especially the talk page where stuff like this is happening? --NeilN talk to me 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It is on my watchlist, NeilN. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 14:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Ridge

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tom Ridge. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Input needed

Can you give your input here?VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello VictoriaGrayson. I won't comment on that article right now, because I lack more than passing knowledge of the topic. Also, I don't want anyone to think that canvassing is going on (it isn't). But I will put the article on my watch list, read it several times (once so far) and ponder the issues. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Postural Restoration WP:MEDRS

Jim, You had previously left a dispute on the talk page for "Postural Restoration" regarding medical sources. I have looked into the issue and am wondering what specific sources you thought were not reliable for the use in medical articles when editting the sources used i have tried to use those from medical journals or collective medical research articles. Please provide your thoughts as to how the sources can be bettered to fit a medical page on wikipedia.

Alex.e.miller (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Alex.e.miller. I replied at Talk:Postural Restoration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Biography Articles

The dicussion you wanted to start Zafiraman (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a question for me, Zafiraman, or something you want to discuss? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
You said you wanted to discuss biography articles Zafiraman (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
My custom signature indicates that I am willing to discuss anything about Wikipedia. I did my best at the Teahouse to answer your question about how biography articles are recognized. If you still have questions, Zafiraman, please ask either here or at the Teahouse. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
On some articles, at the top you get &intro=BLP Intro how are articles designed to show this? Zafiraman (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Please give an example of such an article, Zafiraman. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney is an example Zafirman (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see &intro=BLP Intro at the top of that article, Zafiraman. Maybe there is a bug related to the browser you are using. I am reading the article right now on the desktop site using Chrome on an Android smart phone. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Look at the Uniform Resource Locator on a computer it says it there Zafiraman (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Then

hi sir, then would you like to upload this image for me ,please?please reply soon.Jojolpa (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jojolpa. Why do you think that this image is eligible to be uploaded to any Wikimedia project? Please be very specific and detailed in your response, demonstrating your understanding of copyright law. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

My school

My school is an Elementary School! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky 321 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sparky 321. Elementary schools are usually mentioned in articles about their school districts, or in the education sections of articles about the city or town where the school is located. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Whittier cancelation!

I got a message that the page I made for my school got deleted! I don't know why! It said it was speedily deleted! I also received a message that Owais khursheed patrolled it! Does that mean he deleted it? I'm super sad! I just want answers! The page was kinda bad anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky 321 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sparky 321. At the Teahouse, I explained that we usually keep articles about high schools, colleges and universities. When you told me here on my talk page that it was an elementary school, I explained that such a school would have to be of unusual architectural or historical significance in order to have an article on Wikipedia. I explained that we usually cover primary schools in school district articles, or education sections of articles about towns or cities. I had nothing to do with deleting your article, but the decision is in line with policy, guidelines and previous consensus. Your deleted article now redirects to Minneapolis Public Schools, which seems to be the right decision. When you say "The page was kinda bad anyway...", that is also evidence that things were handled properly.
Read the messages on your talk page carefully.
I understand that you are a young student, and are a bit disappointed. You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia but your work will be held to adult standards. Please do not add any "kinda bad" content to the encyclopedia. Work on it at least until it is "pretty good" and please consider asking experienced editors to review your drafts before moving them to main space. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Leela Bordia

Hello Jim

Thanks for taking time out to consider reading my article on Leela Bordia. I am a novice and first time contributor to Wikipedia. I have read your message and am currently rewriting and creating the article as directed by you.

Will need your advice time and again and i hope you shall be kind enough to favor me with it.

Thanks once again and regards

The iWriter ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by The iWriter (talk • contribs) 10:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I have made some further inputs to the said Article on Leela Bordia. Please have a look at it and give me your suggestions on whether i am on the right path and plz guide regarding corrections if any, since i am just a beginner.

Regards

The iWriter ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by The iWriteru (talk • contribs) 12:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello The iWriter. Your article needs to be written in prose, as opposed to the list of attributes you start your draft with now. Her name should be in bold only at first mention, as opposed to twice. You must remove all promotional language and words of praise, unless they are part of direct quotes from reliable sources. Your references should not be bare URLs, but should be filled out as complete references. Please read Referencing for beginners to learn how to do that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:S. Truett Cathy

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:S. Truett Cathy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello... I'm not sure I am in the right place. I am basically thrashing around for an explanation.

This page rejected for "copyrighted content" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:R._C._H%C3%B6rsch

What copyrighted material are they talking about? All quotes are properly referenced. Can anybody annotate exactly what needs to be changed? I truly don't understand because virtually any referenced or quoted information (in ANY article) will be copyrighted.

Thank you! SES — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. E. Stokowski (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello S. E. Stokowski. Information in itself cannot be copyrighted. However, specific wording can be copyrighted, and all contemporary published writing is presumed to be restricted by copyright unless we have indisputable evidence to the contrary. Wikipedia is far stricter about copyright than most websites, because we strive to make free Information available for the ages. Fair use allows us to quote from copyrighted sources in a limited way, and my personal rule is that two sentences of colorful language quoted from a copyrighted source is fine, three is borderline, and more than that is risky.
In your case, you have built entire sections of your draft article with lengthy quotes of copyrighted sources. This is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Instead, the large majority of the content should summarize and paraphrase what the sources say about the topic.
I want to emphasize a few things here. First, I am not judgmental in the slightest about the risque/criminal aspects of the topic. Second, I have not taken the time to read and evaluate the sources in your draft, or to search for new sources. I am very busy with real life work.at the moment. Third, I see a number of other problems with how you have written and formatted the article. But these problems are secondary to the main copyright issue here. I will operate, for now, under the assumption that the topic is notable and therefore worthy of a Wikipedia article. Please feel free to ask further questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply. As far as I know, there are only two quoted passages and they are in the first section. I will, of course, correct them as per your suggestion. Are there other possible copyright issues that you noticed? Also, you alluded to other ("secondary") problems and, if you possibly had the time, could you point me in the right direction?

Again, my sincere thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S. E. Stokowski (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Whose Daughter Is She?

You indicated in the Teahouse that this article had been deleted as the creation of a blocked or banned editor. Although the creator probably intended a joke, I saw that the film was referenced in several other articles, and did a lot of work, completely changing the article from the original, finding references and so on. Is there any way to bring it back? ubiquity (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ubiquity. If you click on the red link at the Teahouse, you can see that articles with that name have been deletd three times by three administrators. The most recent was by Mfield. One of them may restore it to your user space, where you can get it ready to resubmit. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_20&oldid=1089608441"