User talk:Cullen328/Archive 49

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 45

←

Archive 47

→

HP Nielsen

Hi Jim. Was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at HP Nielsen? It's a new article and appears to be a first effort by a new editor. Lots of content with citations, but most are from very old newspaper articles which make verification a bit hard. Anyway, Nielsen appears to have been from the Bay Area so maybe he's fairly well known in your neck of the woods. I also wondering in the initials in the title need periods. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. For what it's worth, I have never heard of the guy. What a strange article! I am having trouble seeing how this fellow is notable. He hit a kid with his car, and the kid was uninjured. He got food poisoning and his stomach got pumped. He crushed his hand while fixing a car. He had some unsuccessful inventions including a biplane that didn't fly very well. He was a fireman. His name was often spelled wrong. He got into scrapes with the law. He had a blind son and an angry wife. And so on.

The Call was a major San Francisco newspaper that stopped publishing in 1965. The Oakland Tribune was a major daily that declined and shut down in 2016. I do not know the Alameda papers used as references. In my mind, routine local newspaper coverage of a colorful eccentric does not add up to notability, but maybe I am just a very mean old man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Jim. Not sure what to do then. It didn't get added via AfC and it appears to a first time effort by a new editor. I thought about tagging with {{Notability}}, etc. but don't want to appear bitey. At the same time. if WP:BIO is questionable, then AfD may be where this should end up. Any ideas on how to best deal with this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you express your concerns with the creator of the article first, Marchjuly. AfD may be appropriate in the end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I posted a comment at User talk:FLRdorothy#HP Nielsen per your suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As a passer-by, I think Jim's estimate is likely to be proven right in the end. On the other hand, browsing through the article and claimed sources, part of me is tempted to think that this is exactly the sort of regular press coverage that leads -- or led -- us to believe that all high schools are likely to have sufficient coverage to be notable. That is also one reason why I think contact with the article creator, as soon as possible, is wise. Anyone providing that many newspaper sources is either likely to be able to explain how they accessed them (microfiche at a local library?) or may actually still possess paper copies (and therefore be able to provide page numbers et cetera). I am among the latter group, but not on the topic of HP Nielson! Either way, we should really be assuming good faith that the newspaper sources all exist and support what is in the article. And if apparently reliable independent sources really wanted to talk about this person so much, then........

(At the risk of talking too long about an article that is probably too long and possibly does not need to exist, the trivia about him refusing to pay a business tax may actually be of interest or relevance to someone or other studying legal judgments made about the rights of repairmen as against salesmen or mechanics or whatever it was -- it is not merely a legal argument made on his own behalf, though its wider relevance is not made clear in the article.)

The article title is probably not punctuated right, or perhaps should include both forenames if the sources are not very insistent on use of the initials only. MPS1992 (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, MPS1992. We could discuss the notability of high schools endlessly, but I am not sure that the comparison with this person is a fair one. I will try to keep my point succinct: For fifteen years, our Five pillars have said that Wikipedia combines the characteristics of encyclopedias, almanacs and gazetteers. Go to a used bookstore and look at a 40 or 50 year old general purpose almanac - a single volume printed reference work. You will find a very comprehensive list of colleges and universities. Since we do not need to buy paper and ink, and are not limited by the constraints of a single volume, I think it is entirely reasonable to include verifiable articles about all accredited degree awarding educational institutions including high schools. This does not seem to be the same as including an article about a fellow who tinkered around with fire nozzles and failed airplane designs, and got into fights. When we had compromise consensus that we kept high school articles but did not keep primary school articles, except the rare historical counterexample, these debates were kept brief and on point. The deletionists have chipped away at that simple working consensus, wasting endless editor time, in my view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we agree with each other on the notability of high schools mess, Jim. Or at least, that it is a mess. My perception is different in some ways -- from the rather old-fashioned British/Commonwealth viewpoint that I either enjoy or suffer depending on perspective, a degree is not something that is ever awarded by a mere high school! On this particular individual's notability, I think we'll agree to disagree. I rarely find myself at AfD on either side, it all seems so tiring once one researches a topic deeply enough to choose a side. Maybe that is a failing on my part, maybe we all need to do more AfD. But are there regular AfDs on high schools again now? Ugh, yes, so wasteful of time. Oh, and the Spruce Goose was a failed airplane design, along with every other failed airplane design that are notable even in themselves, item by item. Failed to fly, flew only once, et cetera... on and on it goes. MPS1992 (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but with these kinds of sources I'm afraid the subject's not notable. The article's exactly the kind of thing you'd see in e.g. the California Historical Society Quarterly, and then the existence of such an article would make the subject notable by WP standards. But threading this kind of stuff together directly on WP is OR and, in a few cases, SYNTH. The key warning sign is that the article is entirely based on old newspapers – it's the sort of occasional routine coverage you'd see for a colorful guy living in one town for 70 years. (And the patents are WP:PRIMARY.) The one exception is the 1945 Tribune obituary. If that were extensive and comprehensive, then maybe. Maybe. I'd be torn. It's a shame because the headlines in the refs are some of the most fun I've seen in a while: "Auto Backs Over Cliff", "Stenographer Injured By Falling Door", "Auto Runs Down Boy Who Escapes Unhurt", "Vein Bursts In Man's Leg", and (my personal favorite) "Eats Boiled Beef And Is Poisoned". I hope we can handle this without discouraging a new editor. E Eng 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@EEng and MPS1992: I appreciate all of the feedback. FWIW, I certainly don't want to discouraged any new editors. If this a first effort as I suspect, then it's not nearly close to the worst I've seen. I came here because Jim has been very helpful with bios in the past and thought there's a chance they he might be able to help with this one as well, particularly since the subject seems to hail from his neck of the woods. If there's a chance that this could be better sourced and cleaned up into a stand-alone article, then maybe userfication or moving to the draft namespace would be an acceptable alternative to AfD. It might even be possible for Neilsen to be mentioned in another article with the bio redirected to that article. Maybe there's some "List of ... " article where he could be added or maybe it's posssible for an article about the plane itself to be created. If there's no chance of this ever being a stand-alone article or any reasonable redirect being found, then maybe AfD is unavoidable. I posted something on the creator's user talk (I tried to be careful with my wording), so maybe they will respond and help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed my mind after reviewing the text of some of the sources -- see the editor's talk page and article talk page. E Eng 00:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Toby Keith

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Toby Keith. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Lets discuss Poetry excerpts

Hi Cullen,

The poet biography I am working on is residing in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MauraWen/sandbox

I understand what you are saying in your response to my earlier Teahouse question. This is a fairly new published poet, there are no reviews that I can find. I like the idea of sharing a few lines of her poetry to make her biography more interesting and also to expose readers to her work.

Do you think, given her little known poet status, I should or should not add a few lines of her poetry? Would you add lines of poetry to her bio if you were writing it?

Thanks for the offer of additional discussion. I like to discuss what I am working on and new things I am learning. MauraWen (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MauraWen. I am a bit concerned when you say that there are no reviews of her work since professional reviews are usually the best way to establish the notability of a writer or poet. I see a few awards but are they notable awards that also confer notability on the recipient? Is one of the awards given by her publisher? So, the first goal is to show that this poet is truly notable. If she is, then in my opinion, including some brief quotations from her award winning poems would be appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

New article moved from sandbox has sandbox history

The Zombie Hut article seems to have taken my sandbox history with it and needs cleanup please. Sorry for the mess. Here is the diff from where I moved it from my sandbox to the article space and where the history of this article begins. I guess i did that wrong.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Aloha, Mark Miller. No, everything is OK. When you move a draft from your sandbox space or draft space to main encyclopedia space, the history comes along. Sometimes, multiple editors collaborate on drafts, and that history is needed for proper attribution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything from 14:48, 22 July 2017‎ PrimeBOT (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,659 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Replace magic links with templates per local RfC - BRFA) going all the way back to January 4, 2016 is my sandbox history for another article on the Children and wives of Kamehameha I and part of the article that became House of Moana.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

My first comment was badly worded. The diff I left is not from where I moved it to the article space but the diff where the history for the Zombie Hut article begins. Everything else is not the article history.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the very first history of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It took me a while to learn the proper technique, but

Done, Mark Miller. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--Mark Miller (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hiya!

Sorry to bother you, but I've seen you in action at the teahouse and was wondering if you would be willing to help out user ShelbyLH. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women's_volleyball_leagues and User_talk:The_Quixotic_Potato#Volleyball and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women's_sport#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women's_volleyball_leagues. Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, The Quixotic Potato. I moved the article to Big West volleyball. It is a bit of a mess, but I have almost no knowledge of the sport. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Big 10 Conference (West Virginia) High School Football

Thank you for responding with more specific instruction. Most of my historic references are from a book which is no longer in print, "Knights of the Laughing Waters" by George W. Ramsey, Jr. I've placed footnotes where he's referenced. I also found information on Washington Irving High School's history sight, which I've foot-noted as well. You are correct about the win-loss records and conference standings; I've collected those from newspapers and in recent years, on-line. Should I reference every single year and the newspaper/sight I found the records, or should I just place a note at the end of a series of records? Nearly all came from the Clarksburg Exponent/Telegram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SGT1998. I cannot find any listing for a book called Knights of the Laughing Waters by George W. Ramsey, Jr in any of the usual places, such as Google Books or Amazon. Please provide an ISBN number and the name of the publisher. If it is a self-published book, it is unlikely to be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a spot where the book is for sale: http://www.marionhistorical.org/pages/shop-books.html It's about three-quarters of the way down the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SGT1998. I am not questioning whether or not the book exists but rather whether it is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. For that, I need the name of the publisher and the ISBN number. This is basic bibliographic information that should be included in a book reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's all good. How do I delete the article from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SGT1998, please don't be hasty. Jim, I have a different viewpoint than those expressed at Teahouse. Search "List of high school athletic conferences in X state" (for some states, it's "List of (abbreviation for the state high school athletic sanctioning body) conferences"). You'll see in the majority of states, all the conferences have articles. There are a few states that do not have conferences, such as your home state of California. Existence and details such as current members can almost always be cited to the sanctioning body. The formation will be covered by some newspaper, somewhere. So will every change. The conference standings will be subject of ongoing coverage from multiple reliable sources, every week for at least 18 weeks out of the year, every year. The conference representatives in the state tournaments (for at least football and basketball - that's where the 18 weeks above came from) will be subject of statewide coverage, which would satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Note that the sources only have to be on the article to pass AfC. They only have to exist to pass WP:ORG. There are multiple articles we've kept over the years due to the supposition of existing sources. Articles like this, that help complete a suite of articles, and have hard to find sources, should be kept. If for no other reason, GP. My 2¢. John from Idegon (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, John from Idegon. I looked at List of Missouri high schools by athletic conferences and I do not see individual articles about the Missouri conferences but rather a single list article that covers all of them. I am not arguing that this West Virginia topic is not notable but rather, I am questioning whether the sources now in the draft article are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Then I found List of high school athletic conferences in Indiana and saw that all of the conferences have articles. I looked at a few and they are uniformly either unreferenced or very poorly referenced. That does not inspire confidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Outside of newspaper articles, there's not much information on the high school Big 10 Conference in WV. I've been keeping track of the member teams since the 1970s and simply wanted to share the information with others. I thought Wikipedia would be a good way to share the information. "The Knights of the Laughing Waters" is the only book I'm aware of that has any information concerning the Big 10's history. Mr. Ramsey is elderly and wrote much of his book based on records he'd kept over the years and newspaper articles. It has been made clear that my article is not going to meet the Wikipedia standards. I will have to find another means of publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweet Caroline

Dear Cullen, I have attempted to discuss this with them, but they continually just keep changing it back to an incorrect date. I change it and they change it back....What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weintzer (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Weintzer. It is crystal clear from the full range of reliable sources that the single was released many weeks before what Neil Diamond says. We do not rely on a primary source like Diamond for such things. If the record was on the Billboard charts for at least four weeks by August, then it was for sale in record stores all over the United States during that time. Billboard is far more reliable than Diamond for such matters, and there are many other sources that confirm that the record was widely distributed. So, I recommend that you drop the matter and go edit something else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a first....I didn't know that the original writer and singer of a song didn't know what they were talking about, even though they gave multiple interviews to multiple sources with the same date and this page has correctly reflected that fact for ten years, and now it is incorrect. What if Neil Diamond himself edited it? Would that be sufficient instead of AP, Guardian and other interviews? If you notice, the song was floated some weeks prior and took off BEFORE the official release date of September 16th, 1969....That's the point of the matter which is the OFFICIAL release date.

As far as editing, I generally never do and I haven't logged in for months. I am a long term user and donator to Wikipedia, but this is troubling behavior when it is obviously incorrect.

I am disappointed in Wikipedia management for not relying on the words of the man that wrote and sung the song for 48 years...If that's not a good source, then we have a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weintzer (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Weintzer. Neil Diamond is a primary source and we rely on secondary sources. We do not care about some theoretical "official" release date which is obviously meaningless. Diamond is unreliable in this case. The song was already a big hit by August and had been for sale widely for many weeks. Use your powers of logic. How can a record which is supposedly unreleased reach #4 on the Billboard charts? By coincidence, I owned a record store from 1970 to 1972, and I know that is is impossible that this record was released in September, if the word "released" has any meaning at all. I checked the Billboard charts myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the Sweet Caroline Wikipedia page has remained for a decade this way and even the Neil Diamond fan club lists the release date as September 16th, 1969:

http://www.thefeelofneil.com/single-post/2015/04/12/Neil-Diamond-reveals-truth-behind-Sweet-Caroline-lyrics-and-contrary-to-popular-belief-they-were-NOT-inspired-by-JFKs-young-daughter

I was told to use the article talk page to resolve this, but we both know that nothing will change minds when they are set in stone, no matter what the facts are...The conversation that I am having with you now is prima facia of that fact.

Since Neil Diamond himself stated that fact, then BOTH dates should be in the article for a compromise. The June date when the song took off and then the multiple sources, (including Diamond himself), that stated that the official release date was September 16th, 1969....It's not hypothetical, it is the writer and singer of the songs' own words, which should obviously carry some clout in an online pedia format...I would think that a primary source should not be just ignored and a secondary source embraced. That goes against any logic.

I guess Wikipedia seems to know more than anyone on this? This could have been compromised, because my sourcing was above reproach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weintzer (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Weintzer. The reliable source here is Billboard in 1969, which has an impeccable reputation for accuracy. Any "official" September release date is meaningless and deceptive to readers, since the song had already been a smash hit many weeks before.

As for your more recent newspaper sources, they contradict each other on the Caroline Kennedy connection, because Diamond has said contradictory things about what inspired the song. That shows that Diamond himself is not a reliable source about this record. You have not yet explained how an unreleased record can reach #4 on the Billboard Hot 100. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Kemron

I am not sure if you meant for me to come here when you wrote "Let's discuss it". If I misunderstood you, please clarify in simple terms. My talk about Kemron remains talk despite the addition of some newsclippings. I have seen the news items now referenced in the Kemron article but they do not touch on the point I was trying to make. Periodically - roughly once a year - I make a determined effort to find an article (it would probably now be very old - dating back to the late 1980s or early 1990s) discussing the con-artistry behind Kemron, but no such luck. I had noticed these things back when they were happening but, of course, my personal impressions are not suitable for a encyclopedia article. If I ever find a suitable source, I will try to spruce up this article. Sussmanbern (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Sussmanbern. I was pointing out an inaccuracy on your user page. That is all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry for my mental sluggishness on this. I actually had forgotten all about my (or anyone's) User Page, and confused it completely with my User Talk Page and simply didn't pick up on the distinction until more than a day elapsed after receiving your message. Thank you for your attention and your thoughtful note. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Sussmanbern. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Shmuly Yanklowitz

Hi, Cullen. I was disappointed to see you reverted my removal of fluff promotion at Shmuly Yanklowitz as "Unexplained removal of referenced content." Yes, all the "content" by Yanklowitz's PR machine is "referenced" but it's also exceedingly trivial and promotional. (An IP had reverted all my removals, and another IP then partially reverted them, to be quickly reverted by you.) None of the IPs explained anything they did, but, well, I did (admittedly not very fully in that particular edit summary). Compare also Sir Joseph's revert of some more, and more recently added, fluff, and see talk. That's a pretty promotional article IMO, and various experienced editors are always struggling to resist its tendency to record every last action and pronouncement of Yanklowitz's. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

Hello, Bishonen. Thank you for the heads up. I will be much more careful with this article in the future. I saw an IP reverting with what looked like a misleading edit summary. My apologies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kenny Biddle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kenny Biddle. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

WebIT.pk

Revert back page WebIT.pk . As it has a significant importance in web field — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpstudio13 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gpstudio13. That was an entirely unreferenced article. Do you have a connection to the company? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe

I'm happy with "many" - I didn't use it because you were opposed to using a quantifier, but if you're happy with "many" it works for me. - Bilby (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good compromise, then, Bilby. Thanks. We need to find a very fine line between demonizing and excusing these charlatans. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand fully - that's my concern. It is easy to become too positive or too negative, and what we need is NPOV. My feeling is that a completely neutral but accurate account of someone like Wolfe is the best way of convincing people of the problems with their views. - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Richard Chang

Hey Cullen328,

Thanks for your comments. They were elucidating and helpful.

You mentioned that Forbes Magazine says the Taiwanese Richard Chang is a billionaire, so your working assumption is that he is the most notable of the world's Richard Changs. Well, just because he has money and is a billionaire doesn't automatically make him the world's most notable.

If you want to use that kind of criteria, what about this Richard Chang, who is an art collector who lives in New York and Beijing? He has collected some of the world's most expensive art, and sits on art and museum boards around the globe, so one can assume he's a billionaire too. Check out this Wall St. Journal article on him.

I don't want to start a heated debate. You had a link in your comment that said, "Let's discuss this." I'm just offering some more thoughts to chew on.

Thanks, Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiechang2002 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Richiechang2002. That is very interesting, although I cannot read the whole article because of the Wall Street Journal pay wall. Why don't you write well-referenced articles about every "Richard Chang" that you believe to be notable? Except yourself. Then, we can create a disambiguation page that lists them all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, there is a very big difference between a working assumption and a final conclusion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I Have Been Refused the Right to Post on Wikipedia

I have replied at User talk:Maria567. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Delete or FFD?

Hello!

I ran into a lot of images which have invalid licenses. The user uploads many almost daily but the trouble is, they're improperly licensed. Here's what I've done so far at FFD. Unfortunately there are many more yet to do; most have been taken from the National Portrait Gallery and have copyright notices as well as information about the photographer. This makes the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag invalid. Should I start tagging them as speedy deletions or continue loading them to FFD? (What a mess!) Thanks, We hope (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

More of a mess than you might think. Take a look at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, especially the later parts. Apparently a painting from 1794 does not acquire a new creative license in 1994 just because a photographer points a camera at it. MPS1992 (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, We hope. I will not comment on the substance of the issue because I am unfamiliar with the relevant details of UK copyright law. I wonder where the information comes from claiming that these photos were taken before 1948. I recommend discussing the matter at the editor's talk page and at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion, where editors with expertise can comment. If this does not resolve the matter, you could take it to WP:ANI, but please exhaust other alternatives first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

I really don't want to take this to ANI and doubt discussion would help as the user contends this is the correct use for that license and removes FFD tags. The only answer for now seems to be to just keep listing them at FFD because the files will have a discussion even if the uploader continues removing the tags. We hope (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is the bias here?

As regards your recent comment, I don't understand why you encourage some editors by arguing for them when they have made gross edits from the beginning (like on January 15 reverting 5 edits at a time against a supposed "concensus" which seemed to me to include only his two close collaborators). Some came to my defense but where overwhelmed, in one case by an editor who wants to go nameless. Then on January 19 he reverted wholesale again, admitting that he hadn't taken time to check all the refs. Should this make me confident of his neutrality, that he's not trying to impose the ultimate in rigidity on school cases of his own choosing? Jzsj (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jzsj. You seem to be here to promote Roman Catholic theological concepts and Jesuit schools. (I realize that this specific high school is not Jesuit). I am here to create a neutral encyclopedia. I am a generalist editor and administrator. I support John from Idegon because I have interacted with him many times on articles about many topics for several years and I am sure that he has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. You need to be very careful about violating the neutral point of view by inadvertently adding content that uninvolved editors see as promotional. Wikipedia is not the place to promote any religion or ideology. If I was you, I would write or expand some articles about Jewish or Muslim high schools or Hindu or Buddhist theological concepts, for example. I do that kind of thing all the time and work on articles completely outside my realm of personal experience. That type of experience might give you a greater appreciation of the critical importance of neutrality when building this encyclopedia.

To be clear, I have nothing against Jesuit education although I am not a Catholic. I attended a Jesuit high school for three years and graduated from a Jesuit university.

I highly recommend that you allow experienced uninvolved editors to keep this Wikipedia high school article neutral, and that you promote this high school through social media or in any other way you choose off-Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your present outlook on what's going on, and your past collaboration with John of Idegon. But please take the following into consideration. I have been attracted to improve articles on other Christian religions and on non-Christian religions. I am not a gung-ho Catholic intent on promoting Catholicism or Catholic schools. (During my nine years in Nigeria and Zimbabwe I was impressed in my hospital ministry by the interest of Muslims to be included in my prayers with Catholic patients, and I would like to do whatever I can to improve the lot of the Palestinians ... .) But here I am simply trying to give a clear picture of these schools, so that readers don't have to go to another article to learn what's happening at this school, good or bad. I have expressed this in my mentions of Georgetown and, like in my earlier appeals for an explanation, no response was given: this would lead me to conclude that while I am open to learning in this process, they are intent on (effectively) diminishing the importance of the Cristo Model as exemplified in this school. Why else would they eliminate everything on clubs and spirituals while leaving the big spread with the very mundane sports list, ignoring the directive that prose is preferred over lists. In entirely eliminating the clubs they contravened the directive that what is mentioned in the infobox should ordinarily be mentioned in the article (the publication).

I'd also like to know where it says that, especially for short articles like this, one may not consolidate some of the entries in the infobox, like mentioning the number of teachers under the two-line entry of student to teacher ratio. There's a great diversity in the way school infoboxes are used and as long as they give a clear summary of what's significant about this school, is slavish following of some singular model absolutely required, and if so where are we told this. As I read the article on infoboxes the principle of succinct presentation of information is just as important as some complete uniformity in how infoboxes are used.

My motive for pursuing this one example is not any special attachment to this school, or to Catholicism or Jesuitry, but I do think that it's for the good of all to make the success of the Cristo Rey Model as clear as possible. What I am hoping for from this dialogue is that even experienced editors like John from Idegon do not get your unqualified support when they are not showing respect for others but rushing through reverts with little sensitivity to the good intentions and valid contributions of those they are reverting. If they don't have time to give specific references for their changes, then their work may be seen as high-handed, and rightfully resented. Jzsj (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The group who are suggesting guidelines for articles on schools, unlike the Wikipedia:Core content policies and Manual of Style, makes no mention of "common sense" application of their suggestions. Do they really mean to claim more authority for their " advice and/or opinions" article than is claimed on authoritative Wikipedia pages like the two referenced above.

Also, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages we read that "most articles are within the scope of multiple WikiProjects, and seek(s) to avoid conflicting advice." But there is no project to advance the publication of articles on "social justice". I see the Cristo Rey Model of school spanning the schools and the social justice areas and not fitting into the tight categories of those looking only to standardize all school articles. I commend their efforts to improve school articles but I think less rigidity in advancing what they see as ideal and more willingness to show respect for other opinions would better serve the overall good of Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"Authority" regarding content matters comes from the consensus which emerges from discussion among those who are interested in the specific topic or the specific guideline, and who step forward to discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages, Jzsj. It seems to me that the high school article ought to comply as closely as possible to established standards on school articles, and that broader philosophical issues can be discussed in the article about the Cristo Rey Model. Your job is to make your case to all interested editors and win consensus. I encourage you to avoid describing your opponents as some sort of organized cabal unless you have irrefutable evidence. Editors who work heavily in the broad topic area of high schools are dealing with thousands of articles highly prone to vandalism and promotionalism. It is both understandable and wise for them to try to enforce consistent standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate your effort to explain your opinion in greater detail, and I apologize for pigeonholing your areas of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

As for infoboxes, they are the cause of much unnecessary arguing on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Unless there is a compelling reason to deviate, editors should stick to the established parameters and how they are described in the template documentation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered opinions on all this. I will continue my discussion on the Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School page and hope to find more serious engagement than I encountered early on there, as when I made a distinction about post-nominals that are not honorific and I got a heated response that seemed to characterize such entries as "crap". Then when I explained myself the discussion was abandoned, and the reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies is either irrelevant or inconclusive, with some support of what I am proposing. I'll resume discussion there, hoping for meaningful and open engagement. The responses so far seem to reflect the attitude "we have all the answers and you must comply", with some of the few references to policies being overly general and inconclusive (as in this post-nominals case). Jzsj (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Boorish behavior or not?

You're an experienced admin and I know you followed a certain sorry debate a few months ago, so I'll ask here. I tried to remove what seemed to be the worst of the personal invective posted by the same, anonymous editor in the Talk:Requiem_(Duruflé)#Infobox discussion, i.e. "How patronising and obnoxious your comments have been. So dismissive of all opinions except your own." Another editor believes that such comments are nothing but "a judgement on the tone of [my] comments", a judgement he explicitly stated he agreed with. Does this kind of verbiage fall under WP:TPO or not? ("Removing another editor's comments is...allowed...[such as] harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling.") Is this something we want to encourage by allowing it to remain up? I'd appreciate your input. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It certainly does not fall foul of TPO- unless we apply it far more stricly than we have, and in which case, we apply it to all even-mildly "patronising and obnoxious" remarks, wherever they came from. Further: This discussion was five months ago. So: really? But, you want to hear from Cullen, so ignore me :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The remarks from the complaining editor aren't exactly warm and fuzzy; drivel vandalism-all of this toward the IP editor who made the remark back then. Guess you're still trying to stir the pot re: Cassianto as you did here-again after the fact. We hope (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The vandalism of that particular IP editor (posting under many IPs, in fact, as he admitted) had been pointed out by others before me. Mine was simply a reminder of the IP's past behavior. The whole attitude by the anti-infobox column in that discussion was terrible; the IP was joining the general mood. As to Cassiano, the time lines were simply misread. But do keep trying to shift the blame on the side that was on the receiving end of the boorishness. It was both surprising and funny to stumble across such fanaticism about inboxes. :-) The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This matter is stale, The Gnome. I suggest that everyone involved drop the matter and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Merely trying to seek precedent. I can see the demarcation lines somewhat more clearly now. Thanks, Cullen. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I took the time to read that entire five month old thread, The Gnome. My frank opinion as an editor is that it was all an enormous waste of time, and that you were partly responsible. I think that all lengthy infobox debates are a waste of time, and I think less of the judgment of editors, both pro and con, who get all obsessive about infoboxes. I do not deny that the blame is shared, and that the IP editor was the worst. Deny attention to trolls.

Many of these editors make excellent contributions elsewhere, but this compulsive infobox warring is bizarre and counterproductive, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I was dropped (well, bot-summoned) into that field of battle without any idea whatsoever of the history of it. "All this beef about a couple of [expletive] infoboxes"! As to me being "partly responsible," I confess to sarcasm; the most I can be accused of and the least one can do when faced with a barrage of personal insults (not just against me) that goes on unimpeded, e.g. "[you are] fairly low on the IQ scale", etc. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There's "sarcasm" and then there's down right trouble making, which you seem to be rather good at. There was no other reason to reply to a seven day old comment, which required no response, other than to stoke an otherwise extinguishing fire. Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a very valid point, Cassianto. I call that type of remark "stirring the pot". Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, Gnome is now edit warring his unconstructive comment back in. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, we are all keen to move on with this and improve the project elsewhere. It's obvious that Gnome is not here to build the encyclopaedia with moronic comments like this and is doing his/her best to keep the toxicity of that discussion alive. Cassianto^Talk 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not on Wikipedia every hour of the day and cannot be presumed to be following everything of interest in real time. This is just the reality of having a life beyond this project. Hence, the belated comment. There has been no "edit-warring": I simply reinstated my comment, per WP:TPO. I invite you (and everyone else) to check the language I use in every discussion I ever participate and the kind of language used by editors such as Cassianto! (Even here: "moronic comments", "not here to build", etc, not to mention the "low on the IQ-scale" insult I mentioned before!) There have been in that sorry discussion a sadly great number of comments that truly "made things worse", yet they were allowed to stay up. This is precisely the kind of toxic environment I warn the other editor about. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not exacerbate that toxic environment, The Gnome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I shall abstain from discussions on other talk pages for about a week or so. I'd hope this would assist in removing the toxicity but this is clearly not achievable. To reiterate: Admins, IMVHO, should be more proactive and start clamping down whenever lack of civility and assumptions of bad faith rear their toxic heads. It's the only stance that makes for a constructive environment; I've been an admin in a number of quite busy message boards for a number of years and FWIW this has constantly been my experience. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

How to fix friend's page?

Thanks for the help! How should the language be adjusted? And adding the image wasn't how the warning was triggered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenelleman (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Stevenelleman. A human editor (not a bot) called Atlantic306 noticed the problem with the photo, fixed it, reviewed the article and added the tag. We are discussing Atul Singh. An experienced editor, Dr.K., is in the process of cleaning up the article right now, and I thank that editor for taking an interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way I can help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenelleman (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Stevenelleman. You can leave specific suggestions for improvement at Talk: Atul Singh, but I recommend that you do not edit the page yourself, because your friendship creates a conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James D. Zirin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James D. Zirin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Not sure if you're online, but could you please take a look at 109.48.210.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He/she has spent the last ~24 hours making dubious edits regarding large(st) animals, and won't respond to discussion. Not sure if it's deliberate vandalism or a child with a book about large animals and no idea how Wikipedia works. nagualdesign 21:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, nagualdesign. I have blocked the IP for 31 hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. nagualdesign 21:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Wbm1058#Failed page-swap

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Wbm1058#Failed page-swap. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Usernamekiran. I think it is best to let another administrator more experienced with complicated page moves fix this problem. I have never done anything more than a one step move. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the quick reply. Fortunately wbm fixed it. Sorry for the trouble. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all, Usernamekiran. I know my strengths and weaknesses. Stop by here any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure.

And I still owe you a proper reply from your thank you note regarding your RfA! —usernamekiran(talk) 01:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kusala_Bhikshu

Thank you for your quick reply, Jim.

I can certainly clean up the external links and put them in a separate section. Thank you for that guidance.

I would like your help on the other issue.

Venerable is a traditional term for a Buddhist monk in the this tradition. (like "Father" might be used in Christianity) Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heng_Sure

I have read the guidelines on notability.

I do not understand why The Los Angeles Times, Voice of America, Public Radio International, and the UCLA Oral History Archive are not considered reliable, independent sources. Of the articles listed, footnotes 6 and 10 are completely focused on his work. I was using the other sources to show verification of his other activities.

Should I only use these two sources and remove the others? Should I remove any reference to his awards?

Kusala Bhikshu is very well known in Southern California. He is one of the earliest American-born ordained Buddhist monks and was the first Buddhist Monk to work as a police chaplain. He is well known for his years of community service and his use of music to work with young people. He is respected nationally for his work on inter-religious dialogue. He was chosen to be included in UCLA's Oral History archives.

Is there a way to revise or shorten the text that would clarify his notability?

Thank you for any more specifics you can help me with, EluckringEluckring (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Eluckring. I agree that reference #6 is the best of your sources, but being a police chaplain is not a very strong case for notability. Reference #10 has no text and appears to be a radio interview with this person. Interviews are not independent sources. If he is "very well known" then it should be easy to find much better sources which discuss his life and career in detail. "Respected nationally" is your subjective judgement which is of no value on Wikipedia unless a reliable source uses those words to describe him.

The most important Wikipedia lesson that I can offer you is that our personal opinions mean nothing here. Quite literally, all that matters is what the reliable sources say, and everything we add in an article should be an accurate summary of those sources.

Passing mention of the topic in reliable sources is not sufficient. We need significant coverage, and we take the word "significant" seriously.

As for "Venerable", we simply do not use these honorific terms on Wikipedia. We do not put "Father" before a priest's name, nor "Rabbi" before a rabbi's name, nor "Dr." before a physician's name, nor "Professor" before a tenured academic's name. If you run across that anywhere, remove it as I do. We refer to people by their surnames only, after the first mention of their full name. There are very few exceptions, such as "Doctor Ruth" and the "Dalai Lama", which are almost universally used in reliable coverage of these people, but those exceptions are rare.

In conclusion, notability on Wikipedia is a product of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If the sources are poor, then the topic is not notable. It is that simple. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Kusala Bhikshu

Dear Jim,

Thank you again for taking the time to review and respond to my questions about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kusala_Bhikshu I really appreciate your help.

I now understand what you are saying about the removal of the term Venerable. Thank you for explaining.

I have also re-read the descriptions of "reliable", "independent", primary, secondary and tertiary sources and I understand your concerns.

If you can answer a couple more questions, I would be grateful.

I think there are a few appropriate sources for some of this draft.

I'm thinking to focus the article on the community service work with the police, health care and teaching the English speaking children of immigrants.

Since source #6 is ok, this person was the first Buddhist police chaplain in California and the 2nd in the whole country, which has a growing Buddhist population--I hope in tandem with the following that indicates notability.

Source #8 This seems to fit the source requirements as a publication documenting the significance of his contributions to diversify the spiritual patient care at hospitals.

Can you explain if this is not an accurate interpretation of the source guidelines?

Source #10--? From a Wiki page about a similarly notable Community Service person in Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Boyle A radio interview is listed. The interview I listed is with Public Radio International, which seems to be at least on par with the national radio interview used in this wiki entry.

This along with source #9 would seem to fit the source requirements to verify his work with the English speaking children of immigrants.

Does that work?

In summary, If I keep the first three lines of the entry, remove the biography section, and then revise the Community Service to reflect what's above, would that work?

In the long term I am hoping to create a series of entries about people doing notable community service to reach across religious divides.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, EluckringEluckring (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI comments

Hello Cullen, and thanks for your input at my ANI posting. Turns out mine was a fool's errand last night, showcasing a broad range of blunders and ignorance on my part. I later realized that I'd neglected to leave a notification on the IP's talkpage. Then this morning I see that you rightly point out that I should not have kept restoring the test edit warning template. I was focused on the fact that the IP just kept blanking the page without discussing, and I did not realize that individual IP editors enjoy the same level of sovereignty over their talkpages as registered users. Annoyed by the IP's uncollegial behavior, I saw only combativeness in his/her repeated edit summary not test edits, rather than reading it for comprehension. All I can say for myself is that my road to Wiki-embarrassment -- and wasting admins' time -- was paved with the best of intentions. Thanks for your understanding, and sorry for distracting you from other matters. Eric ^talk 16:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric. Consider it a learning experience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)