User talk:Cullen328/Archive 66

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 64 Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 → Archive 70

Sadly, Yet Again

Mr. Cullen, it is with great sadness that I must gently request you to evaluate the post-block editing behavior of Lmatt. It seems that an editor suggested something at WP:CfD and he took and ran with with. Previously, I had noticed abrupt category changes on pages I watch, which prompted me to gently recommend that we wait until consensus and comment is had before doing things. (This, I assumed incorrectly, was action taken in a vacuum. However, since then, the creator of that CfD topic has questioned why everything is being implemented and shuffled around furiously so quickly and haphazardly.)

I became curious, it seems that contributions has been editing up and down a firestorm of all different types of articles and categories. I'm unsure. He just got back from block. Perhaps he's trying out a new avenue for editing (focusing on metadata)? Perhaps he's being WP:SNEAKY? Or has a WP:RUNAWAY issue? Regardless, I hate mentioning this because even though I'm just trying to keep up with a seemingly-disruptive user when they happen to cross my path, I worry if I'm being a WP:HOUND. Your input is appreciated, as always. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I second Gwenhopes request. I checked the contributions and suspect that this spurt of unusual behavior is gaming the system, the real intent is to hide one catgegory change inside a long list. The user seems obsessed with a subject, TERF's and if someone who posts on that thread garners their interest, they follow them to other threads, totally unrelated to the subject matter of their primary interest, which appears to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism. Just speculating based on observed behavior, which is strange to say the least. At minimum it appears to be vandalism using a new toy (hotcat).Oldperson (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I have asked another administrator to help evaluate this situation, because I do not use Hotcat. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gwenhope:It is just not hotcat, this person is on an agenda driven "Jihad", nominating articles for deletion and hotcatting what appears to be a consistent subject matter theme, Like this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_serial_rapists_by_number_of_victimsOldperson (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
HotCat can help editors make very quick edits changing categories on articles, pages and other categories and today he made hundreds of changes across a wide variety of subjects (not all of them about sexuality). The pace concerns me because it is difficult to be careful and deliberate when you are making hundreds of category changes without interacting with other editors. If you go off in a wrong direction (which has happened to everyone working in categories), repairing the damage can be time-consuming for others because of the volume of edits.
I can't say that I have come across mistakes in his edits because I haven't looked into the individual edits very thoroughly, it's just, like other automated or assisted forms of editing, they can cut down or reduce the thought one puts into individual edits and, frankly, it can become addictive because you can just recategorize entire subjects in a matter of minutes. But it's hard to imagine that there aren't mistakes for ann editor who is relatively new to categories, making this volume of edits in a day.
There is no problem with creating empty categories. Every day, editors create new categories they think of before they have figured out what to put into them. After a week, if they are still empty, they are deleted but they can be recreated at any later time if they are needed so that's not a big issue. It's the recategorizing that can cause problems because, unlike with empty categories, we have no bots that can detect miscategorization, it's only when another editor comes across something they know is wrong that anyone is aware of a problem and it can be a challenge to track down where things went wrong and fix things.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that I think Lmatt should slow down before something gets broken. I suggest he participate in CfD discussions which is an education, like all areas of deletion debates on Wikipedia. Every time I go over there, I still learn new things (or I am schooled!). Some of the regulars have very fixed ideas about how things should be but, you know, in general, I think the right decisions usually get made. Just a few thoughts. I'll be gone on a trip this week but I'll try to keep an eye on things. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:21 Savage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:21 Savage. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I've comment your blocking

Here - User talk:Jimbo Wales Boeing720 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Boeing720, I have replied there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A Star

The Special Barnstar
Sometimes editors deserve a star! You earned it! Keep on working! Your contributions are appreciated. Lightburst (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Lightburst. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Save us!

Hey, Jim, I see to my surprise that nobody's nagging you run for ArbCom, that I can see. Help! Please do! Do you realise there are only five candidates so far, and 11 places to fill? (How did that happen?) Save us! Bishonen | talk 16:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC).

You have mail, also. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC).
Actually, Bishonen, several other editors have encouraged me to run, and I have declined. Those conversations have been archived. I am honored by your request, but for a variety of reasons, this is not the right time for me to run for ArbCom. I will respond to your email with additional details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A Guy walks into a biker bar...

Hi! inspired by recent events, I have decided to walk into the meanest biker bar in town wearing a pink T-shit that says "Harleys suck. Japanese bikes are faster". I can't imagine anyone taking exception to that, but if they do, I plan on telling them about the "Let's discuss it" in your sig and telling them that the existence of your sig means that I can do anything and say anything I want without repercussions. I will let you know how this works out for me. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I have had social interactions with members of the Hells Angels on several diverse occasions and never had any problems. All they ask is respect for their considerable accomplishments on two wheels, and I am not a confrontational guy. My closest biker friend now rides an Indian after decades with H-D. None of this is intended to imply that I am among the "Hells Angels" of administrators. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I did enjoy your anecdote. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of the Mongols Motorcycle Club, which is quite active in the area where I live. I doubt that any Mongols reading this will object to my implying that they are not a group you want to go out of your way to pick a fight with. As for the Hell's Angels, I haven't done a lot of research on them, but this article in Vice is thought-provoking:
We Hung Out with the Hells Angels to See What They're All About in 2016: The police still recognize the biker brotherhood as an organized crime group, but to me they just looked like a friendly group of guys with face tattoos.
Is it OK if I start the rumor that you are one of the Bronies of administrators? Friendship Is Magic, after all...   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Sure, start any rumor you want. I will admit that 20 to 27 years ago, I watched an awful lot of Barney the Dinosaur. Great article about HAMC, by the way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm using a mobile

Maybe I can't see these reply buttons and archives because I'm using a mobile? (Android)

I mentioned the contributions to emphasise my frustration. I'm a devoted user of Wiki who has relied on it at length for nearly a decade and had enough faith in it to support it financially, only to find that apparently you can make a claim with bogus support and once it's made it can't be undone unless there's some kind of consensus. As it turns out I may have been wrong about that second part so my frustration may have been unwarranted. But I'm just answering your question now. Allocutus (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Allocutus. I do 97% of my editing with Android smartphones. My first suggestion is to scroll to the bottom of the mobile homepage and you will see the option to switch to the fully functional desktop site, which works just fine on Android devices. For more details, you may want to read an essay I wrote called User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing.
With all due respect, your frustration is misplaced. Let me make it clear that I have no vested interest in the outcome. I am a Jew and do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was divine, or the son of God, or a miracle worker or a Messiah. But I have no problem with the proposition that a man called Yeshua preached some unorthodox teachings in the Galilee and Jerusalem roughly 2000 years ago and ended up executed, and that his followers and their descendants created a major religion. On the other hand, perhaps Robert M. Price is correct that Jesus is completely mythical but even he concedes that his view is shared by only a tiny minority of scholars.
You seem to be frustrated with the process of consensus, which is precisely the decision-making procedure that has enabled a worldwide group of volunteers to create a massive free encyclopedia in hundreds of languages. If you are to have any hope of making changes to Wikipedia articles about controversial topics, then you must familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the cultural norms shared by productive editors. I suggest that you read about the bold-revert-discuss edit cycle.
Please read note "g" in the main article Jesus, which states: "In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[15] Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".[16] Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[17] James D. G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".[18] Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[19] Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[20]" Have you read any of these sources?
I suggest that you do some serious reading of the talk page archives and also about how Wikipedia operates behind the scenes. At that point, you might consider beginning a formal Request for comment which will pull a cross section of experienced editors into the discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jim

I’ve finally worked out how to reply.

1. My frustration was not a personal thing about you. I didn't think you were biased or anything like that. To the contrary, I understood what you had been saying about consensus. My frustration was caused by the fact that I thought (at the time) that all the initial writer had to do was write a false proposition and add false (and vague) reference materials and, BINGO, the whole thing becomes untouchable unless one gets consensus. If indeed one were able to write any rubbish and it stayed until consensus was reached to change it, you can imagine the credibility hit!

2. I agree that as a Jew any bias you might have on the issue would be minimal or absent altogether. The same for me as an atheist. Most atheists are convinced Jesus existed. I was convinced about it too, until I actually bothered to consider the issue I more depth. At this point I'm unconvinced. But I'm certainly not a mythicist. I just don't think we can be very certain, at all. But again, no bias. Indeed, the only religious orientation that WOULD be biased would be Christians. Their worldview invariably depends on Christ's historicity. Mine is unaffected.

Allocutus Apologies Jim for jumping into this conversation. I only do so because Allocutus stated that "Most atheists are convinced Jesus existed". I dispute that claim. "Most" is an extraordinary claim and quoting Karl Popper requires extraordinary evidence. I am one who does not believe in a god or gods (a-theist), and I know other a-theists and do not know a single one who believes in the historicity of Jesus. There are some who take this view of the Mystery Man of the Bible But that is only part of the story. Point here is that this a-theist and those that I know and have interacted with do not believe even in the historicity. However I can accept aYehusha, which I believe is Anglicised to Joshua and in original Hebrew means "savior", but I doubt that Yehushua had 12 disciples, was crucified, performed miracles, etc. As an a-theist I have zero interest in the religious beliefs and totems of others.A vast majority of historians and scholars (which is different from a vast majority of atheists, unless one claims that historians and scholars are majority atheists) may indeed believe in the historicity of Jesus,then again the vast majority of historians and scholars are Christians (an extraordinary claim), or at least know that rocking the boat can be hazardous to one's career, status and incomeOldperson (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

3. The sources

Yes, I've read the sources you are citing. I actually own most of them. Many are very dated by now. Eg, the article by Dunn was from 1991 and attacked a position proposed by Wells as far back as 1971. Since, in Dunn’s words, the 1971 Wells work was an attempt to “revive” the CMT, Dunn must be saying that CMT had been dead LONG BEFORE 1971. Which really makes one wonder WHEN. Why? Because it would be interesting to know WHO, WHEN and HOW has rebutted mythicism, and WHAT VERSION of it, at least according to Dunn. But I digress.

a)Agreement

I agree (as I've always agreed) that they are sufficient to support the claim that the vast majority of scholars and historians believe that Jesus existed. I have no issue with that at all.

b) Disagreement

The Wiki article as it stood when I found it cited 4 sources in the top part of the article (it now has 5 with Ehrman inserted as the new #1). It cited the first two (being Blomberg and Fox; now it’s the first THREE, including the newly added Ehrman) for the proposition that "Nearly all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain" (“The Claim”). By saying that, Wiki is claiming that a very large number of NT Scholars and NE historians (“almost all”!) have APPLIED HISTORICAL CRITERIA to the issue and concluded that Jesus was historical. And yet none of the two sources cited (and now, three sources, including Ehrman) say that or anything even remotely close to that. The sources simply say that the vast majority of scholars and historians accept that Jesus was a historical figure. And with that I agree. As does Price. As does Carrier. As would anyone who has looked into it. But it’s NOT TRUE that they have arrived at this conclusion by applying the relevant criteria. There’s simply a complete vacuum of any actual research into the historicity of Jesus. To my knowledge, there are no peer review articles in History Journals at universities reporting research and conclusions at to Jesus’ historicity. I’ve challenged hardcore historicity advocates to demonstrate JUST ONE; and nobody has so far. I’ve looked extensively as well. So, while it would be quite accurate to say that mythicists are a very small minority (ie that almost all NT scholars and NE historians believe Jesus existed), it simply isn’t true that almost all experts, “applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain”.

And falsehood is one issue. The other is misattribution of a claim. Even HAD The Claim been true, it's not supported by the sources listed by the article.

Cheers Martin (Allocutus)

--Allocutus (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Allocutus. As stated elsewhere, the proper place for detailed discussion of the article's content is Talk: Historicity of Jesus. I am happy to discuss procedural matters with you here at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That's ok, Jim. I only replied here because you opened the issues up here and asked me if I was familiar with the sources here.

--Allocutus (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok Jim, so I have now identified the issues at length in that "talk". I have made it perfectly clear that those sources do not support the claim. The other fellow has failed to address my points and has added another source (Ehrman) which ALSO doesn't support that claim.

In these circumstances, I understand it is appropriate for me to modify the claim to make it compatible with the Ehrman quote and delete the 2 irrelevant references (Fox and Blomberg). Am I correct?

Allocutus (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Recently unblocked editor making lots of category changes

You blocked Lmatt for one month back in September for disruptive editing. It wasn't clear at the time if the editor had competence issues or if there was some intentional disruption going on, and it still isn't really, but they've made hundreds of changes to categories since their unblock, and a lot of those raise questions.

Their talk page is suggestive: five open threads about speedy deletions for categories that they've created, and three threads about "rash editing" or making changes to categories that are under discussion at CFD. Honestly, I don't know much about the categorization stuff, so maybe some of this mass editing is normal, but their creation of Categories by categorical categorization seems like it has to be a joke.

Anyway, it seemed like the sort of thing where a disruptive editor might do some damage, so I figured I should give someone a heads up so it doesn't go unnoticed. Thanks!Nblund talk 16:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry! I'm an idiot. I just realized someone had already brought this up in a thread above. Nblund talk 16:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
No problem, Nblund. I have blocked that editor. I just needed some time to think about it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks for taking a look! Nblund talk 15:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mohan Bhagwat

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohan Bhagwat. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Littel

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Littel. I had a question that I'd also like you to reply on my talk page as well. I appreciate your honest takedown of my user subpage and am attempting to do better. Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 23:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen

I'm about over the years (decade?) long battle with the tin foil hat brigade and DK's internet fan club. I've requested indefinite pending changes protection at RfPP. Obviously we are both far too involved to push that button, but my patience has been worn to the bone. We really need a speed bump between that article and the various agenda driven editors it seems to attract like moths to a light bulb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem. I will take a look at RfPP. I suspect that the vast majority of the disruption comes from one person, but I am not a skilled sockhunter. There are two consolations: the article is not high visibility, and we have gotten to know each other better while dealing with the disruption. I hope and suspect that you are watching Lee Israel as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Woo hoo! The drinks are on me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
We will have to stretch those bottles out over several days, Ad Orientem, unless it is going to be a group event. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
We could always invite KF...-Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks but no thanks, Ad Orientem. That reminds me that our encylopedic coverage of Party pooper ought to be improved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Heh. I am going to finish my cigar and Killians Irish Red and then go in search of a fun article to work on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, then, take a look at Paul K. Guillow, Inc., Ad Orientem. I bought some balsa gliders for a certain child's birthday party, and they were so popular that I tripled that article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Behind the Voice Actors site

Hi Cullen,

I saw in a thread that Starbeam2 was asking about Behind the Voice Actors as a legitimate site. Just for your own info, the voice industry is well aware of this site, and the problem is that it's wildly incomplete, and often contains wrong information, so can't be used as an appropriate or comprehensive source.

The problem for my husband, who is a well-known voice director and actor, is that Starbeam2 appears to have taken the "green checkmark" thing as permission to go in and completely redo his page, based on the information found on the Behind the Voice Actors site. The fact that Terrence Scammell is primarily a voice DIRECTOR should have been Starbeam2's first clue that this was not the site to use as an authority on Terrence's work and career.

I have restored the previous version of his Wikipedia page, and will continue to keep an eye on it.

The site in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrence_Scammell_(Canadian_actor) just FYI.

Thanks for listening — mostly I thought you should know about Behind the Voice Actors. The verdict of most voice actors and voice directors I know: Not even remotely reliable, because it's so incomplete and outdated. WEKeditor (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)WEKeditor

Hello, WEKeditor. Thank you for the information. Let me state that I am not very interested in voice actors in general. I recognize that some of them are truly notable, but I am deeply skeptical about using fan sites, directory sites and industry back-scratching sites as evidence of notability. I lack both the expertise and the motivating interest to delve deeply into the sourcing issues. As for the specific website that you mentioned, you may want to bring the matter to the Reliable sources noticeboard. If you file a report there, please follow the instructions carefully. I will read the article about your husband and add it to my watchlist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible alternate recommendations for how to improve to a COI article?

Hello Cullen328 I wanted to know if you might have any recommendation as to how I can get help with making improvements to the Kent Tate article's content? I've become ever increasingly disappointed and frustrated with the process of making edit requests on the KT talk page. Is this the only option? Since it was AfC approved some time ago now, each time I've made an edit request, the request seems to be meet with great resistance. The talk page is now cluttered with these conversations. From my perspective, it is an unproductive process that puts all the responsibility onto the COI editor to make a 'perfect' request. The talk page for this article is a humiliation for me and I think it also reflects negatively on the subject.

I understand you are a very busy person outside and inside Wikipedia so if you have any suggestions (hopefully positive as I am weary of feeling shamed for my writing style that doesn't seem to get this level of criticism outside of this particular article) it would be very much appreciated. Thank you for your consideration! LorriBrown (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LorriBrown. It is difficult for me to see that Kent Tate actually meets the notability guideline for artists. Please convince me. In the list of references, I see a routine Canadian government directory listing that apparently includes over 50,000 artists. That's not evidence of notability. I see references to newspaper articles in towns of 2000 people and 20,000 people. I live in a small town of 20,000 people and would not even think of writing up a local artist with limited coverage in Wikipedia. Where are the reviews by professional art critics? Where are the exhibitions in major museums? Where is the impact on a major art genre? Please explain his notability. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Cullen328! Tate was a painter, performance artist and filmmaker in the early 1980’s in Toronto and then in Vancouver. The most notable exhibition in Toronto was in 1982 which was an A.R.C. satellite installation “Museum of Post-Habitation” and performance “Ending All Occupation”. This was written about by Oille, Jennifer (March 1983). "Kent Tate: Museum of Post Habitation" (magazine). Vanguard. Vol. 12 no. 2. Retrieved 18 October 2019 and also an article by Carrico, Jim (Nov 1983). "Jim Carrico interviews Kent Tate" (magazine). ISSUE. Vol. 1 no. 2. Vancouver, Canada: Unit 306 Society. pp. 16-18 (1-24).
In 1983, Tate produced an optically printed Super 8 film (60 minute) “Vanishing Heat” that he toured across Canada at various venues including Toronto, Edmonton, & Vancouver. "Vanishing Heat". UNIT/PITT. 13–15 September 1983. Retrieved 27 October 2019 and Carrico, Jim (Nov 1983). "Jim Carrico interviews Kent Tate" (magazine). ISSUE. Vol. 1 no. 2. Vancouver, Canada: Unit 306 Society. pp. 16-18 (1-24).
The most notable exhibition in Vancouver was The Stalker at the Vancouver Art Gallery in 1988. A gallery publication produced with an essay written by the curator Merike Talve. Merike, Talve (1988). The Stalker (catalogue). Vancouver, Canada: Contemporary Art Gallery. pp. 1–15. ISBN 978-0-920751-21-3. A pdf version was posted on the artists’ website with the permission of the gallery.
Tate shifted his art practice to video in the 1990’s and 2000’s and produced five DVD’s including The Birthing Earth, ISBN: 978-0-9865421-5-2, Surface under Sky ISBN: 978-0-9865421-4-5 and Long Horizons ISBN: 978-0-9865421-2-1. World Cat: https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=kent+tate&qt=owc_search.
Tate has exhibited a ten year retrospective at the Art Gallery of Swift Current Movies for a Pulsing Earth in 2012 & 2016 at the Moose Jaw Museum & Art Gallery. Marchand, Laureen (Summer 2012). "Kent Tate: Movies for a Pulsing Earth". Galleries West, vol. 11, no. 2. pp. 24–26 (1-74) with a catalogue and essay by Nye, Jeff (2012). The Hypnosis of Time. essay. Kent Tate | Movies for a Pulsing Earth. Art Gallery of Swift Current | catalogue. pp. 2-4 (pp. 1-6).
Tate's experimental movie Isolated Gestures won the Ruth Shaw Award (Best of Saskatchewan) in the 2015 Yorkton Film Festival in Saskatchewan, Canada. Cataldo, Sabrina (2015). Isolated Gestures Wins Award. review. Saskatchewan Arts Board | SAB | annual report. pp. 20–21 (pp. 1-64).
In 2019 Tate exhibited a secound exhibition at the AGSC with the installation PENEPLAIN which will be touring the Prairie provinces. https://canadianart.ca/agenda/peneplain/ with a catalogue and essay by Miller (2019). Beauty and folly. essay. Kent Tate | PENEPLAIN. Art Gallery of Swift Current | catalogue. pp. 4 (pp. 1-4). https://artgalleryofswiftcurrent.org/past-exhibitions/peneplain-by-kent-tate/
Tate has had multiple international screenings which have been incorporated into a list that was created as a draft page for possible proposed changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LorriBrown/Draft_page.
Most currently Tate’s film “Catalyst” has been selected by the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Group in Toronto to be showcased with some other films by the CFMDC director at the Kasseler Dokfest in Germany on the Nov 16 2019 in the “Distributions in Profile: Vtape & CFMDC”: https://www.kasselerdokfest.de/en/online-programm/2019-11-16/p-4aab1c37-105a-41aa-9857-24079effdb31.
The article that already exists was Afc approved and I hope the information I provided gives a more complete view. Thank you for your consideration.LorriBrown (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Approval by an AFC reviewer is no guarantee that the topic of the article will be judged notable by the wider editing community, LorriBrown. An AFC reviewer is just one editor, and the only thing their approval accomplishes is to move a draft to main space. Interviews of an artist are worthless for establishing notability of that artist. Please do not mention interviews again since they are of no value.
Let's take a look at the sources you mentioned that I could check or assess. The Kasseler Dokfest material was obviously written by Tate himself, since it discusses "my work". Even if it had been rewritten by a festival staffer, it would not be an independent, reliable source since it promotes the festival and the films it shows.
As for Art Gallery of Swift Current, they are promoting their own gallery showing, so that is not an independent, reliable source. That is a non-notable gallery in a city of less than 17,000 people. The reference is worthless for establishing notability. We have a very nice local gallery in my home town of American Canyon, California, population 20,000. None of the artists exhibited there are notable, to the best of my knowledge.
The Yorkton Film Festival has been held for years in a city of less than 20,000 people, and simply screening a film at such a tiny festival is not an indication of notability. Where are the independent reviews by professional film critics?
The 1988 exhibition at the Vancouver Art Gallery is a possible indicator of notability, but the gallery's own writings about the exhibit are not a reliable, independent source. What did Vancouver's most respected art critics write about the exhibit? Provide quotes or links.
Producing five DVDs is not an indicator of notability unless those DVDs were reviewed in detail by independent, reliable sources.
As for the Moose Jaw Museum & Art Gallery, at least I have actually heard of Moose Jaw, a city of about 34,000, probably because of its distinctive name. But the gallery itself is not notable. Content written by museum curators can be useful as a reference for biographical facts about an artist already established as notable. But such writings do not establish notability because part of the job of a curator is to help promote the exhibition. This type of material is not independent.
Because you have a declared conflict of interest regarding Tate, I encourage you to leave the article as it is, and move on to editing articles where you have no conflict of interest. If your friend/relative ends up being exhibited at one of the Tate Museums in the United Kingdom, or at any other major museum worldwide, let me know, and I will edit the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it
Cullen328 The quote and references were in the article for KT but were removed by Spintendo after last edit request. I will provide a link to the draft which does include this information and can e-mail articles if required because they are not available with on-line links. The draft page is User:LorriBrown/Draft page and the information is noted in the secound paragraph of the Installations subsection in the Career section.
In 1988 Tate pointed out environmental concerns through symbolism and humor in The Stalker installation at the Contemporary Art Gallery in Vancouver.[27][28] Similar to his previous works, The Stalker was described as "...ambitious, theatrical, playful and ironic. Kent Tate's installation work has always demonstrated a skillful handling of materials and the continual development of his distinct, sardonic critique of the West's post-industrial economic, social and spiritual collapse. Significantly, he continues to choose the mediums which fit his ideas - the return to performance, video, film or painting are all possibilities."[21]:11
26. Oraf (30 December 1988). "Year in Review". Visual Arts. Vancouver, Canada: The Georgia Straight. p. 22.
27. Perry, Art (19 September 1988). "Stalk the Light". Art Scene. Vancouver, Canada: The Province.
21 Merike, Talve (1988). The Stalker (catalogue). Vancouver, Canada: Contemporary Art Gallery. pp. 1–15. ISBN 978-0-920751-21-3.
Oraf in The Georgia Straight 22 Dec. 30 1988 in the Visual Arts Year in Review said, " Its economic woes, the visual arts remained dead in this town, where there is no affordable studio space and people don't even think of buying art.  No customers and no workplace. No wonder local art production is down.... Of course there are exceptions, but they are few in number.... A real drawer, Kent Tate's The Stalker" at the Contemporary Art Gallery: Humour, ecology, multi-nationalism, and beautiful 3-D work all in on spot..."
26. Oraf (30 December 1988). "Year in Review". Visual Arts. Vancouver, Canada: The Georgia Straight. p. 22.

Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Re : Revision declined

Hi Jim,

Can you help sort out this issue I am facing. I had edited submissions and the revision is presented neutrally, from SOURCES that Wikipedia lists as verifiable/permitted. The language does not suggest promotion of any kind, the information is fully verifiable and factual, citing from reliable sources. Yet the submission has been declined. Can you help me out here? Here's the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stiwarinetlink/sandbox

Chenjo9 (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Chenjo9. I cannot help you with this. The draft you mention has been deleted by another administrator, Justlettersandnumbers, as unambiguous advertising or promotion, and also for undisclosed paid editing in violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Article that might interest you

Hi User:Cullen328. I accepted this article on Articles for Creation and thought you might have interest in it. It could use a copyediting for tone: Jerry Gallwas. No pressure, but he's a rock climber in his 80s who had a first at Yosemite and aligns with your editing interests. Cheers! Missvain (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for bringing this article to my attention, Missvain. So nice to hear from you as always. I actually have one of the books used as a reference, Climbing in North America, by Chris Jones (a British climber). It is an author autographed copy I bought in 1978, annotated with Post-It notes because I have used it in other Wikipedia articles. I just checked and the book verifies many of the claims in the Gallwas biography, regarding several of his major climbs. So he is clearly notable in my opinion, though his impact on climbing only lasted five or six years. There is an anecdote in the lead about him trying rappelling as a beginner based on a drawing in a Sierra Club book. That (well-known among California climbers) 1947 book by David Brower is used as a reference, but it was published years before Gallwas started to climb. Brower, by the way, went on to make Sierra Club Books into a financially successful operation. Despite the importance of the book, it cannot be a legitimate reference for this claim and is probably instead the source of the drawing that Gallwas used as a beginner. My concern is that much of the personal details may well be based on an editor's personal experience or original research, instead of summarizing reliable published sources. But I do not have easy access to many of the other sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
On a personal note, Missvain, my wife and I drove past Fort Ross today, which brought back great memories of our mutual visit there several years ago. As for Gallwas, in 1953, when I was one year old, he completed a high mountain traverse from Thunderbolt Peak to Mount Sill. A quarter of a century later, I climbed both those peaks while spending two weeks at a Sierra Club mountaineering base camp. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Newbie's first article was removed

Cullen,

Thanks for the work you are doing.

I recently posted some additional sections to an article and it was removed. I found the edits and saw the user who removed them, but not much else.

Is there a way to find the reason the article was removed? Could you look at the content and give me some constructive feedback? Have you ever gone through the appeal process?

I completed the interactive training. I don't think it violated any copyrights and I had lots of references.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Shenaw2016 (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Stepping in here - Shenaw2016, my recommendation is post your question on the Talk page of the Sacred Heart article you edited and also on the Talk page of the editor who reverted all of the content you added. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Shenaw2016. The proper place to discuss this matter in detail is Talk: Sacred Heart. Here is my opinion: You tried to add a subsection called "Why Enthrone an Image of the Sacred Heart in Your Home?" That style of writing is not appropriate for an encyclopedia which must be written from the neutral point of view. It comes off as advocacy and an attempt to persuade. "Your home" is especially unacceptable because we never address readers in the second person. We never say "you should do this" or "you should not do that". Wikipedia is not an instruction manual for religious devotion or anything else. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

/

Please comment on Talk:Aaron Hernandez

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aaron Hernandez. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft prep for review/publication

Thank you very much for your reply at the Teahouse, Cullen328. What you shared is really helpful. This will be the second page I've created. I believe this particular submission is in a category of interest the Wiki project/community is trying to support: alternative perspectives. This book is an Indigenous-centered history of the U.S. by historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. I'll definitely add reviews per your recommendation. I also just disabled 'categories' as I learned that is an obstacle for the review process. One question for now: In addition to a summary/synopsis and (upcoming) links to reviews, is it acceptable--or a no-no--to include the table of contents if that usefully reveals the structure of the book and its contents? In this case, the title of one chapter is a term used in the military and I linked it to a Wiki page that defines it. The titles of several other chapters are mentioned and linked to in the synopsis. Thanks again. --PaulThePony (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PaulThePony. I am very familiar with Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz and heard her speak at a political event quite a few years ago. However, whether or not a book presents "alternative perspectives" has exactly zero effect on whether or not the book is notable and eligible for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not favor articles about progressive books over articles about reactionary books or anything in-between. What matters is only whether or not the book meets the notability guideline for books, and so I encourage you to concentrate on adding references (especially book reviews in reliable, independent sources) that demonstrate that the book is notable. You may find the "Article structure" section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books to be useful. Personally, I do not think that replicating the table of contents is a good idea, although I am not aware of any formal prohibition against it. However, a table of contents is an extended quotation from the book, and according to the Manual of Style, we do not include wikilinks within quotations, but rather add wikilinks only to originally written prose. I hope this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

That's really cool, Cullen328! I have yet to see her in person. I'll remove the table of contents, for the reasons you state. I've added quotes from reviews with links, from sources like The Progressive and CounterPunch. I'm unclear how to format a series of quotes from online book reviews. They'd exist as a list, not within a narrative section. I checked the Citation page but I didn't find guidance with this particular matter. Also, is there a way for you to review my draft when I finish with additions and corrections? I'd certainly welcome your feedback.

Finally, is there a discussion page that wrestles with this: people or written works that do not, due to their views, works, or activism, receive attention from the major press outlets, such as the NY Times or the Atlantic. Most material written by Indigenous people, for example, is ignored by mainstream media. It's a catch-22, no? All that said, if/when you check out my draft page, I think you'll be satisfied with what I've been able to pull together. :) PaulThePony (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joan Crawford

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joan Crawford. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For concise editing information about protected topics and the gentle nudge for me to register as a user. :)

OldfeelingamI (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia, OldfeelingamI. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Crypto ban

Hey Cullen328. Is your recent ban considered to fall under WP:GS/Crypto? If so I guess it should be logged in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies#2019 blocks and bans. If it's just a plain old community ban (not under any sanctions regime) then probably WP:EDRC is best. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, EdJohnston. I have logged the topic ban here as you suggested. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Rick Tyler

The rumor you removed at Rick Tyler wasn't unreferenced; it is in the Alabama Political Review citation below, which was used to cite the entire paragraph. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bneu2013. The source is actually called the Alabama Political Reporter. Wikipedia does not report on an unsubstantiated rumor with only one source that originates from the subject of the biographical article trying to promote himself to his racist fan base. The source calls the project a TV pilot not a film, and that is a big difference. The source does not say that is is "scheduled for release in 2020", which makes no sense when discussing a TV pilot. The bottom line is that this content does not belong in Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know. I guess this is disallowed per wp:CRYSTAL then. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Response to your response to my concerns about inaccurate information on Israel page.

Cullen, thank you for your message to me. I am not, however, asking to bash Israel on the Israel page but to provide a minimal counter to the inaccurate claim that Israel is a liberal democracy. At the very least, that claim should be removed or countered with a few sentences. To leave it as is lessens the credibility of Wikipedia and makes the page look more like a promo for the Israeli government or tourism sector. The parliament of South Africa, during apartheid, was also a parliamentary system, I believe, though I doubt any legitimate news source would have called it a "liberal democracy." In my post, I provided multiple links from credible sources, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, that challenge the claim that Israeli is a liberal democracy.

Is there an appeal process here? Who administers this page? Can administrators post whatever they want, protect it and disallow verifiable and legitimate challenges to biased claims?

While I understand that the subject can be sensitive and spur robust debate, one should not acquiesce to falsity for fear of debate.

Thank you,

Marcy — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Marcywinograd |Marcywinograd]] (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Marcywinograd. The proper place to discuss your concerns is Talk:Israel. Please read the headers at the top of the page, and check the archives for previous discussion, if any, of the use of the phrase "liberal democracy".
Administrators are not assigned to pages. You can appeal the protection of the page at WP:RFPP.
What you see as falsehood is what another another person sees as truth, and Wikipedia articles should be written neutrally. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Cullen, for your guidance on how to move forward. I'm learning. Marcywinograd (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timothée Chalamet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timothée Chalamet. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Block

What was the reason for block. I was asked to comment on a redirect article which I created. What is duration of this block? --Spasage (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

In October, I blocked you for two weeks for violating your topic ban on participating in deletion discussions, Spasage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
What is end date? Secondly, I was asked to comment on the topic. --Spasage (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Spasage. Your topic ban is indefinite. You may be invited to comment in areas covered by your topic ban by human editors or by bots unaware of your topic ban. That does not matter. Your topic ban still applies. You can file an appeal at WP:AN but you must comply with the topic ban until you are successful with an appeal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Kalkaska, Michigan

I'm a bit flummoxed here. Recreational sales of marijuana became legal (with local option) in Michigan last Sunday. The only extant operations are in Ann Arbor. There is an Ipv6 editor adding a small bit to the above article that is totally inappropriate now, but may be in the future. Due to the dynamic nature of Ipv6, I cannot iniate communication with him. Please semi the article to force either communication or registration on their part. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to respond, John from Idegon. I have been very busy with "real life" issues off Wikipedia. I hope that you noticed that I semi-protected this article. Let me know if disruption resumes after the protection expires. Thanks, as always, for the good work you do here. 05:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
No problem. If they came back after this message, I'm not as of yet aware of it. Busy day here too. Thanks Jim.. John from Idegon (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)

Atsme Talk 📧 18:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Time To Spread A Little
HappyHolidayCheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

 What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉
Thanks, Atsme. Happy Holidays to you! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Oops! I think you got me wrong, I wasn't hat collecting, I was asking for EC status because I wanted to edit middle east related articles (We are learning about the middle east in school), and most of them had EC protection, so I hope you can grant me this status, and I promise not to miss use it. James The Bond 007 (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, James The Bond 007. On your userpage, you state, " I am in 7th grade, and I'm very excited to be on Wikipedia! and I one day I wish to be an admin, or a rollbacker, or a bureaucrat." That is a classic hat collecting type comment. Please consider how other editors view such comments. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
As for extended confirmed status, you will get that status when you have earned it the normal way. In my opinion, it is a poor idea for inexperienced editors to venture into the swamp that is the Middle East topic area. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh that comment, I made that comment when I was new on wikipedia, and I was really excited to become one of those, but I will never misuse the authority, as for the Extended Confirmation I will earn it on my own like you suggested James The Bond 007 (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_66&oldid=1146345304"