User talk:Cullen328/Archive 23

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Request to extend your expertise : Article for Submission Draft:Ed DeCosta

Happy New Year Cullen328

I have followed your advice in line with NPOV and the content of the article as a whole and am seeking for your expertise to check it again.

Previously you have asked me to take out the word "Roadmap" as it is promotional jargon. Please note that the title of the book is Ascend : A Coach's Roadmap for Taking your Performance to New Heights.

I hope to hear back from you when you are available. Thank you so much. Pmanz2014 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Pmanz2014. Your draft is significantly improved. Stick to the Manual of style. Even though wikicode allows for full justification, our standard is left justified, single space between words and sentences. Quotes should be in quotation marks, not italics. Stick to standard uses of italics. It is usually not necessary to describe the context of an interview in the body of an article, unless it is a really big deal. Simply state the important point, and let the reference provide the context. In general, though, the draft is now much better than the earlier versions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you so much for taking the time to check my article. I exerted so much effort to work on the improvements based on your feedback to meet the wiki standards. I will continuously improve this. If you have more tips for me to help get this article approved, I'm all ears. Thanks again. Pmanz2014 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Jim Many thanks for taking the time to help me. I really appreciate it. I will get to it and make the amendments. Many thanks again. If I have done too many thank you's I apologise. I'm completely new to all this. Best Wishes and a Happy New Year Brian Milner Phoenix-works (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the barnstar and your thanks, Phoenix-works. Have a great 2015. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Andrew Zwartynski

Hi, Jim! This is Jerry Page (JP). I am working on a wikipedia article regarding Mark Andrew Zwartynski. He is a a an author and advisor to high net worth people for their personal branding and other public image management. He has been written about in numerous articles and interviewed on many major networks. As well, he is a recording, touring artist, guitarist and singer songwriter. In my research prior to taking on this assignment, I have researched many articles of people with far less substance. He is a direct descendant of the Royal Cupbearer for King John Sobieski. The Cupbearer is not a slave but rather a Grand Duke who would only gain that position if they were childhood friends of the King. King Sobieski saved Europe for Christianity regardless of anyone's religious views. Mr. Zwartynski paternal grandfather is a recipient of the highest Polish Medal of Honor - Virtuti Militari. Mr. Zwartynski was a leader in the emergence of the NBA to its success today. Mr. Zwartynski is a bonafide direct descendant of the Prusai nation which is the first group of people to accept democracy and Christianity in Europe before the countries of Europe were formed. MR. Zwartynski is the United States Ambassador of the Prusai Association. He is the grand nephew of Marian Morelowski.

All of these people and items as well his accomplishments are already published in articles in Wikipedia. Their are far many people with far, far less credentials than Mr. Zwartynski who is also related to the Brzezinski family who contain articles in Wikipedia.

We can cite references for all of this. Would you be so kind to help us accomplish an article that is very much worthy of Wikipedia publishing.

With warm sincere regards,

Jerry Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markandrewz (talk • contribs) 01:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example of someone that does not have the accomplshments of Mr. Zwartyinski: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Newell_(basketball) Mr. Zwartynski hired and worked with Mr.Newell who reported to him at the Indiana Pacers.

Mr. Zwartynski is a descendant through his Mother: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prus_coat_of_arms

mark taught the business side to Donnie Walsh while at the Indiana Pacers - Mark was at the Pacers five years before Walsh was hired as an assistant coach at that time Walsh reported to Mr. Zwartynski. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnie_Walsh

I can cite many, many more examples.

Again, with warm personal regards - Jerry

Some more references: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS572US573&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Computerized+Information+Systems+and+their+role+in+the+sales+process+zwartynski

Again, with warm personal regards, Jerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markandrewz (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Markandrewz, also known as Jerry. First of all, please change your username, which violates our username policy. Please see WP:IMPERSONATE. I see that you tried five years ago, without success, to add Mark Andrew Zwartynski's name into Wikipedia as a notable sports agent, a claim you don't seem to be making now.

All of his famous relatives are completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED.

When you write "Zwartynski was a leader in the emergence of the NBA to its success today", that is a strong claim of notability which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Please furnish those sources. When I search, I see mentions of him holding NBA jobs involving ticket sales, marketing sales and media relations. Those jobs don't indicate notability.

Donnie Walsh was once head coach of the Denver Nuggets. We consider NBA head coaches notable, but ticket sales managers? Not so much. So I am not sure why you mention him.

I see that Zwartynski has a band called "Markie Z" but I see no critical reviews of its performances or recordings. It seems that their album was just released just last month.

I have read every word of your draft article, and it seems to me that Mark Andrew Zwartynski is a fine person who can be proud of his career, accomplishments and family. But I see no evidence that he is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jim- Thank you for you comment. Mr. Zwartynski has done many things. Yes, also represented athletes. As far as past experiences are concerned he represented J.L. Lewis on the PGA Tour and has helped many people. The reality is that he has been a person who has accomplished quite a bit and helped a lot of people along long the way he is also a donor to Wikipedia. I believe that his attempts to have an article published in the past were lacking in the knowledge of how to accomplish that fact. it appears that this conversation is going into a direction that seem on the verge of adversarial and we have always wanted to keep everything on a higher level as we believe in Wikipedia very strongly. I will open my own account and have mr. Zwartynski address you directly. We are sorry that we drew a terse response from you. We wish you the best and a Happy, Healthy, Prosperous New Year. JP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markandrewz (talk • contribs) 06:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jerry, and Markandrewz. Thanks for Zwartynski's donations to Wikipedia. I am always happy to talk to either of you, as long as the accounts are straightened out, based on "one person, one account".

I am sorry that my remarks come off as "terse" and "adversarial" as if I am being rude, since that is far from my intention. However, as an experienced editor, it is my obligation to be firm in upholding and frank in explaining our policies and guidelines. I try to do so in a friendly, helpful fashion, but this has been a long day of tough questions. I encourage you to read the policies and guidelines that I have linked to in my earlier responses, and return with additional questions based on that sincere study. I will do my best to give you the friendliest possible honest answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jim- This is markandrewz. I have chastised my dear friend jerry for logging in on my username even though he thought he was helping me. He is a good man, Tenured Professor at a prestigious university and very eclectic. Needless to say, he is highly embarrased. I have had many guests in my home over the holidays and I allowed these guests access to my computers. Sometimes good intentions turn into calamities even to those who provide the community and the world honorable efforts for nothing in return.

So, I humbly apologize to you.

I do want to say that I have to bristle a bit when I am questioned as being notable. But that is a human weakness and frailty even for someone like me who has developed very thick skin and endured quite a bit in life. My thinking is that you are not familiar with my areas and verticals. I also find inconsistencies among different editors/moderators which make me ponder the decision making process and the difficulty for Wikipedia (of which I love and am a supporter and donor and will continue to be/do so regardless. I am not going to mention names but there are several people that have reported to me, were trained by me and have a short article describing them. I can point out many inconsistencies throughout Wikipedia regarding the interpretation of"Notable." I do not want to mention names. I am in the mindset, as I have been all my life, to help people. I do that on a daily basis because that is what I am a "helper." I can load up a hard drive with written references from second and third parties providing me with their kind testimonials. I make sure to do the right thing.

I do not see the rationale as to why I cannot be included with my colleagues. I am not a simple ticket sales "guy," which by the way is the largest source of revenue for professional and collegiate sports along with Television revenues. The "Ticket Sales Guy's" are the unsung heroes of collegiate and professional sports and I have spent a lifetime bringing that to everyone's attention with the endorsement of Sports franchise owners. Yes, the most oft criticism of me in professional sports is that I have always had the highest paid "ticket sales staff" along with sponsorship sales staff, community relations staff, media relations staff, game operations staff, scoreboard operations staff and the broadcast production staff for the myriad of sports broadcasts, Television shows, radio shows, sizzle reels and webcasts I have produced. All with the blessing of "Notable Sports Franchise Owners" that had given me millions of dollars to produce over twenty years of experiences for fans with the purpose of putting a smile on the faces of children. Jerry was correct on that point.

When I look at the articles of the people that I gave opportunities to on Wikipedia (and pride myself on the fact that they have risen to heights in the field) and those that I have not given opportunities to but know oh so well it flabbergasts me that they are "Notable" and I am not - based on someone that does not know me. If that is the "hidden" criteria or inconsistency among the decision makers then those people should be removed. If only I would lower myself to tell you things about some of those people. But I prefer to keep things on a higher level.

I graciously and with deep respect request that you do the right thing. I should be allowed the article. I think that our discussion should be along the lines of what needs to be done technically to abide by the honorable rules of Wikipedia as opposed to subjective assumed misconceptions.

Thank you for your time and patience. I await your "help" in this matter.

Respectfully,

Mark Andrew Zwartynski

Dear Jim,

I am sorry to bother you. Yes, I am a published author and editor as well. As well, I am a recording artist and current member of ASCAP. I truly am sorry to bother you. I, too, had a long day in the studio which was successful but draining. Peace. markandrewz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markandrewz (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Markandrewz. You are not bothering me at all. I am here as a volunteer for the express purpose of answering questions from new editors. Your friend Jerry also need not feel embarrassed. Wikipedia editors should be tolerant of the mistakes of newcomers, though some of us aren't. I try to be. Just tell him to open his own account, and he is welcome to edit in compliance with our policies and guidelines.

You can bristle all you want about your notability and I wouldn't question your notability in general terms. You have had a great career and have a wonderful family. But here on Wikipedia, notability has a very specific, narrow definition, which is not negotiable. It is the obligation of any person who believes that Wikipedia should have an article about "Topic X" to demonstrate that "Topic X" is notable, as Wikipedia defines that term. Please read this carefully: With all due respect, in the Wikipedia context, I care nothing about what you say about yourself, or what your friend Jerry says about you. I care only what reliable, independent sources say about you. It is coverage in reliable sources that is the building block of the encyclopedia. We summarize what reliable sources say, and don't engage in any original research.

The argument that we have existing articles about people you judge less worthy than you is unpersuasive to me. Your friend Jerry called into question a guy who was an NBA head coach for a while. All NBA coaches are notable. But I agree that we have lots of articles that should be deleted, out of our 4.7 million articles. We delete hundreds of articles every day, and I have personally helped delete thousands of them. It is hard, unrewarding work. So, don't mention other poor articles unless you, too, are willing to do the hard work needed to delete them from this encyclopedia. We are not going to add a poor quality article about you just because we have other poor articles.

You are correct that I am not familiar with your "areas and verticals". I do not even know what "verticals" means in this context. I am not a basketball fan. I am a generalist editor and I do understand how Wikipedia defines notability, and in my experience, our experienced basketball specialist editors are much more ruthless than I on the notability issue.

When you ask that I "do the right thing", that indicates to me that you misunderstand my role here, and how we make decisions. I have no special powers here. I am just one of a few thousand highly active editors, and I can neither approve nor decline any given article on my own. When I give an opinion, I try my best to reflect our policies and guidelines, and what I believe that other experienced editors would do if they were in my shoes. We operate on consensus, not individual decision making. If I deviate from consensus consistently, I lose credibility and respect. I am not going there. That being said, I sometimes make an error in judging notability. I am always quick to reverse my position when new evidence is produced. So, please produce the evidence: significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Nothing else matters here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello, Mr. Zwartynski, and excuse me for jumping in here. Like Cullen, I am a regular editor here, and I happened to see this conversation on Cullen's talk page. I just want to emphasize that what Cullen is saying is in fact Wikipedia policy. We have a special definition of notability here, and it is not the same as being famous or having an accomplishful career. It depends entirely on what has been said about you by independent reliable sources. This is an international encyclopedia, and we have to have standards. One of our standards is that we only publish articles about people who have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I have not read your proposed article so I am not making any judgment about whether it does or doesn't meet this requirement. I just wanted to make sure you realize that Cullen is citing Wikipedia policy in what he says, and that there is really no appeal from this significant-coverage-in-independent-reliable-sources requirement. Thanks for your interest in Wikipedia, but this may not be the place for an article about yourself. By the way there is an additional problem with your proposed article: writing about yourself is STRONGLY discouraged here. See WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. The feeling is that if a person is really notable, someone else will write an article about them, but they shouldn't write it themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aamir Khan

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aamir Khan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hi Jim,

I am trying to publish a page about an American Politician and before I can finish uploading content, it seems that I am running into an overzealous editor who is bent on not allowing the publishing of this content. Is there anything that you can do to help?

Hi I received this message below:

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

07:23, 7 January 2015 MER-C (talk | contribs) deleted page Allen L. Ellison (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11. Also copied from http://ellisonforcongress.com/full-biography/)

After reading it, I proceeded with reading possible reasons why a page would be deleted. I now have some ideas why. I am requesting that it be placed back so that I can continue to upload the rest of the contents to it. Allen L. Ellison is a public figure and American Politician who is running for United States Congress. He has made history as a first African American to accomplish monumental milestones in several fields on national and international levels. The public will benefit tremendously from having access to information about him.

In the near future, he will be running for President of the United States and one could see how this is Encyclopedia worthy content. Please give me the chance to finish the content without deletion. Please let me know what needs to be done. As I am new to editing in this format.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCampaign (talk • contribs)

one could see how this is Encyclopedia worthy content A campaign biography -- encyclopedia worthy? Please. Let me guess... you're editing Wikipedia to further his election campaign? MER-C 06:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Hi MER-C, I understand were you are coming from. However, Allen L. Ellison has accomplished a great deal in a very short time frame and if allowed to publish without deletion, a more comprehensive biography can completed. Just need the chance to finish writing without interruption. It's more than a campaign. Allen is a history maker and will continue doing so while inspiring a nation of people. Only a portion of the bio came from the congressional campaign site. Allen has made history in the fields of sports entertainment and is currently working to reshape policy in foreign affairs. The start of his bio mirrors that of any United States Congressman already on Wikipedia. To become registered as a United States Congressional candidate is a huge undertaking in and of itself. The process goes through various federal and states agencies. Candidates are processed in a way much different from any other political races. Financial disclosures are extensive, donors have to be reported and one is essentially upon federal filings become a public figure and is placed on a course to one of the highest offices in the world. Yes, it's encyclopedia worthy which is why so many articles are written on the subject every day. Please allow me to continue writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCampaign (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is more:

It is also clearly advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. See WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. Even your comment above, talking about how Mr. Ellison will be "inspiring a nation", is advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Wouldn't any content be considered advertising under the definition that you interpret. How does one distinguish between advertising and educating? Can the content be simply educating the public about who he is as opposed to advertising. Advertising would be to solicit and there is no soliciting or propositioning here. Also, the language above is not the published article it's a conversation between you and I.

Help me to understand what it would take to get the content published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCampaign (talk • contribs) 03:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

you're editing Wikipedia to further his election campaign? I'm going to take your responses as a yes. Is there any reason why your editing privileges should not be revoked in light of this inference? MER-C 03:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCampaign (talk • contribs)

Hello TheCampaign. First of all, I recommend that you change your username to something neutral, as your current name is bound to cause intense scrutiny of all of your edits. Secondly, I very much doubt that the candidate you support is notable enough for a Wikipedia article at this time, based on reading the biography on the relevant website. We routinely delete large numbers of such biographies about unelected political candidates. If your candidate is elected to Congress, then of course we will have a biography of him at that time. Next, I advise you to avoid criticizing an editor who is far more experienced than you as "overzealous" without solid evidence, which is lacking here.

It seems that you tried to create an article using material cut and pasted from a copyrighted campaign website. That will never be acceptable here. All copyrighted material is deleted on sight. And the purpose of a campaign website is fundamentally promotional, while an encyclopedia needs to be scrupulously neutral.

Any coverage of your candidate in this encyclopedia at this time ought to be in an article called something like "2016 election in Florida's XX Congressional district". Such an article should include brief, neutral descriptions of every candidate in the race. It is probably too soon for an article at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, it is much appreciated and you are right. I will definitely take your advice. When I am ready will you assist me in publishing the contents? TheCampaign (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, TheCampaign. Ask any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very muchTheCampaign (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Tor Network

Hi Cullen, many thanks for the reply to my query in the Teahouse. You mentioned a Tor network. What is that?Noughtnotout (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Noughtnotout. Let me emphasize that I am not by any means an expert in online computer security. However, as far as I know, Tor is free software that can be used to create a highly secure computer network. Please see Tor (anonymity network) for the details I do not understand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

But will it affect normal editing or editing of a semi-protected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noughtnotout (talk • contribs) 06:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Because highly motivated vandals, block evaders and sockpuppets may abuse Tor networks in an attempt to evade scrutiny, those who edit from such networks are held to more stringent standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

relax and recharge
Thank you, Jim, for truly thinking that Wikipedia is the greatest thing since sliced bread, for quality articles (that you don't own) on the Sierra and its people, such as Cedric Wright, for rescuing articles, for welcoming and helping new users, for mentoring and encouraging those who leave to "reconsider", "take a break for a while whenever you need to", "relax and recharge", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 721st recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the reminder, Gerda Arendt. Hearing from you makes me feel very good, and also makes me wish that I was a better German language student back in high school. I have that terrible American affliction of failing to master any language other than American English, though I dabble poorly with several others. Would you be willing to help me translate a challenging passage from medieval German to English? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I am better in English than in medieval German, but I would look ;) - If you want to help me you can look at Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her (not my article, but I link to it), and the request to merge the 2007 specialised infobox hymn to a more modern and general template (link on top of the other). I am on vacation, therefore brief, looking for today's candidate for Precious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I did a tiny bit of copy editing there. I can't help more, as I am neither Christian, nor a musicologist, nor a template expert. I recognize my limitations. I wish you a wonderful vacation, Gerda Arendt. I will dig up that German passage soon. It is not a rush. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be a Christian to say something in the move request, and it might even help to support a merge of a special template ;) - a hymn is a composition, no? (Some of the opposers possibly never used the template. I tried. It's not useful.) There was a little edit war over it on the hymn in question, did you see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Louis Lesser

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Louis Lesser. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please assist

An article I created, Town of Salem, is currently being discussed for deletion at the AfD. Can you please help me save the article? The discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Town of Salem. I will appreciate it, as I know you have helped save articles from deletion over the years. Thank you, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 04:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I will refrain from commenting at the AfD since I don't want any accusations of canvassing. If you can bring forward some significant coverage of the game in reliable, independent sources, then I will help improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

No edit summary. [1] Gasp!

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, NeilN, I appreciate the helpful advice, and will work hard to raise my edit summary percentage, but math and logic tells me that it will never quite hit 100%. Thanks for motivating me to re-read Robert L. M. Underhill. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN, this came up at my RfA, to my detriment. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

205-2-3 ain't bad :-) In fact, it's pretty phenomenal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the 205 were me and Cullen, you know, and our families. The two opposers, that was kind of funny. The one opposed cause I wouldn't have the other blocked. I still don't like throwing around blocks. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The two opposers are also currently banned/blocked indefinitely. I smell a... CABAL!! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oddfellows

Greetings Cullen328! I was wondering if you could take a quick look at this Oddfellows article? What I see problematic in the article, is that there is the same source used 19 times, and the source is actually the very website of the Oddfellows organization. More than that, the reference (reference No. #1) seems to be a {{dead link}}, linking to the Main Page of the organization's home page, therefore incapable of verifying any claims.[2]

Well, at least that's how it was before the most recent edit[3]. Now an individual citation is linking to three different sources (still, reference No. #1). All of the sources link back to the Oddfellows own website. One of the sources is still the very same {{dead link}} as mentioned above. Anyway, I don't find the organization's own web site really as an independent and reliable source, and linking to three different sources at once seems highly unorthodox to me. This has been discussed with the involved editor, User:Pdfpdf. He has partly agreed with this: he acknowledges the problem with the independency and reliability of the sources, but don't really see why linking to multile sources in one citation would be problematic[4].

You are much more experienced editor in these matters, and therefore I'd like to ask you two questions:

Is it okay to include more than one (in this case three) sources to one reference (one of them falls under {{dead link}} / {{fv}} / {{or}}?
Should one tag a piece of text or a source everytime it appears, or only once (this time it is tagged in the footnotes)? In the MEDRS articles I've used to see, that the source is tagged everytime it appears.

Personally, I clearly belief that "Odd fellows / Oddfellows" meet all the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as an internationally active friendly society. Therefore I've been in support of tagging the dependent sources, so it'd help to catch the attention of other users. I think the current article would suffer decisive damage if the current sources were just plainly removed.

I hope you can dedicate a tiny little piece of your time to see this one. Cheers! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jayaguru-Shishya. Yeah, that article is a mess. It seems to be a mash-up of an article about the Manchester group in the UK and every group that uses the name "Oddfellows". Since the IOOF based in the US already has an article, I think this article should focus on the Manchester group and briefly mention the others in passing.

Of course, it is unfortunate that most statements are cited to the group's own website, and so I recommend that independent sources be given prominence to the extent possible. Such problems are common in articles about social groups. Pretty much everything in articles on Roman Catholic topics will be cited to Catholic sources. General books about the history of fraternal organizations would be best, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica can be cited for the early history.

Referencing should be consistent and simple. I haven't examined those details. The "ref name =" function allows a reference to be defined just once, and cited repeatedly. Efforts should be made to find alternatives to dead links. Failing that, leave them for future editors to work on. Google may have digitized hundreds of millions more old books in a few years.

I do not feel the need to tag sources that lack independence unless the notability of the topic is in question. That is not the case here. Personallly, I would not use the group's own website for all that ancient history claptrap. I have little patience for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that cleared a lot Cullen328. I agree, the "independency of sources" isn't the main problem here, and I've been quite a "soft liner" here (although there's been discussion on the Talk Page about finding better sources).

Anyway, there's still one piece of technicalities that I keep wondering: that is, mentioning multiple sources in one citation. For example,

The name Oddfellows refers to a number of friendly societies and fraternal organisations operating in the United Kingdom. It also refers to a number of Lodges with histories dating back to the 18th century.[1]

Where ref [1] goes as follows:

Extended content

<ref name=IOOMUFS-history> One or more of:<br> {{Cite web | url = http://www.oddfellows.co.uk/uploads/documents/feb_06/odd_1139392353_Oddfellows_History.doc | title = History of the Oddfellows | publisher = The Oddfellows (The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited) | place = Manchester, UK | accessdate = 2007-09-02}}.{{deadlink|date=January 2015}}<br> :and/or {{cite web |title= History of the Oddfellows |url= https://www.oddfellows.co.uk/About-us/History | publisher = The Oddfellows (The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited) | place = Manchester, UK | accessdate = 1 Jan 2015}}<br> :and/or {{cite web |title= The Oddfellows Over the Years |url= https://www.oddfellows.co.uk/About-us/Over-the-Years | publisher = The Oddfellows (The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited) | place = Manchester, UK | accessdate = 1 Jan 2015}}<br> :''(Note that there is an overlap between the content of the no-longer-available-from-the-web "History of the Oddfellows" document and the "History of the Oddfellows" and "The Oddfellows Over the Years" webpages.)''</ref>{{Efn| Various legends claim that fraternal societies date back to the [[The Exodus|exile]] of the [[Israelites]] from [[Babylon]] in 587 BC, when many of those exiled banded together into a brotherhood for mutual support and defence. The "History of the Oddfellows" document traces the legendary origins of fraternal organisations from the Israelites, through the [[Ancient Rome| Romans]] and into [[Great Britain| Britain]], up to the time of the formation of the [[Guilds]]. It states: :"While there is little contemporary proof of this chain of events, it is known that similar fraternities did exist from classical times." {{Citation | title = History of the Oddfellows}} }}{{Efn| Note that much Oddfellow terminology has biblical origins. For example, the female Order are called "[[Rebekah]]s", named from the [[Old Testament]] character.}}

So, this is practically the reference now that appears 19 times in the article. I agree with you totally: "Referencing should be consistent and simple.". Unfortunately, I don't see this very simple. It can be viewed in a more clear form at the article (ref [1]), where you can easily see that it is linking to three different sources.

Sorry for the mess at your Talk Page xP Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem with the "mess", Jayaguru-Shishya. I see more clearly now what you mean, and I do not think I have ever seen that citation style before. My instinctive reaction is "one citation for one source", but I do not know if there is a specific guideline against that type of citation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328! I discussed with the user and the citation style has been fixed now. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Means of disambiguation and reliable sources

Greetings! I'd like to ask you a couple of questions more, if you don't mind :-) I've currently brought up to discussion a couple of problems with the lede at Talk:Oddfellows#Problems with the lede. In a nutshell, we had the following third paragraph in the lede[5]:

Note that there are, and have been, a number of different Orders of Oddfellows in the UK – refer to Societies using the name "Oddfellows" for a list. One of them, The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited, uses the trading name "The Oddfellows". Thus, there can be ambiguity when referring to "the Oddfellows".

I brought up two main concerns: 1) The paragraph seemed to be written for disambiguation purposes, and 2) it might have included {{OR}} as there were no sources provided. For disambiguation, I proposed the following neat and nice hatnote:

For the possible {{OR}}, I suggested that we'd use a source, e.g. "According to X, there has been a number of different Orders of Oddfellows in the UK, and those can be easily confused. These orders include..." instead of relying solely on any single editor alone.

I appreciate that the user responded to the concern, but I am not entirely satisfied with the source he gave in the most recent version[6] of the article to "verify" the third paragraph of the lede. This is because the given reference actually links to the front page of "The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited", and more specifically, the very bottom of the page (along with notes about trademark issues etc.). Moreover, it doesn't say a word about the ambiguity of the term. That's why I still think that we should just use a hatnote (like in many other articles) to solve the problem, and not to add unsourced / poorly sourced paragraphs.

Well, like I told to the editor already before[7], I don't see this as a content dispute, but purely as a matter of WP:MOS (well, and a bit of reliable sources now). I suggested him that we could ask for a neutral opinion at the very WP:MOS, but I thought it could be smart to ask an opinion from a more experienced editor first. What do you think? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jayaguru-Shishya. I agree completely regarding the proposed hat note. An independent source for the variety of UK groups with similar names would be best. Lacking that, references to the relevant web pages of several of the groups is preferable than to just the largest of the groups. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328, and thanks for your answer! I carried out the changes in the lede[8] but I am afraid there's gonna explode soon. I tried to discuss the problems with Pdfpdf, but it seems he wasn't too eager about it[9] =F ...

Anyway, a great thanks for your help! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Straight over his head

Laughed at your comment at WT:Teahouse but I think the recipient will completely miss the point. Nthep (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You are probably right, Nthep, but at least I was motivated to read our article The True Believer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Advice on mentor program

Hi, Cullen. I wonder if I could ask your advice. We have a new editor who has been having problems with his articles being deleted for copyright reasons. I left a message at his user page, and he says that he would like to deal with a single human. That made me think of the mentor program. I see now that an associate has posted a banner on his (user page) -- professor and university historian at the University of Colorado. Do you think that the mentor program would be appropriate for this, or should I send him directly to Moonriddengirl? She's the expert on this, and has been very good in the past. Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I made some comments on the user's talk page. It is kind of a mess because he is clearly acting in good faith, but going about things in a way that attracts scrutiny. I hope Mike V can get involved. As an administrator and OTRS volunteer, he may be able to expedite things. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I notice that his account is blocked. Hopefully Mike V can help get this situation straightened out. I left another note saying that once it's established that these documents are public domain then probably we can get some of his articles back (and get the block lifted). – Margin1522 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the fundamental issue is whether many of these these people are notable or not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This editor was blocked from January 4 to January 16, Margin1522, and was unblocked by . . . Mike V. Please see this. He is not currently blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was pointed out earlier. I missed it. About the notability, we shall see. To tell the truth I haven't read them yet. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Curious!

Hello Jim, I recently submitted my article Hostyle Gospel that was rejected two weeks ago. I reached out to other users and administrators and got tips on how to improve my article. One user even went as far as browsing over the article and reformatting the entire article so it would be ready for resubmission. I'm still new to Wikipedia and I don't know as much as the other gurus, but how long does the process of a resubmitted usually takes? Thank you Graceking123 (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Graceking123. I looked at your draft and I have problems with the notability of the group, and especially with the "Reception" section. The Journal of Gospel Music source is a reprint of a blog post. Blogs are, in general, not reliable sources. The Brain Magazine reference from France is a very brief passing mention, in a general article on Christian rappers. It is a "name check". It is not significant coverage useful for establishing notability. It may just be that this group is not yet notable, if this is the best you've got. As for the AfC backlog, it is severe. Many weeks in most cases. I suggest you reach out to the two previous reviewers for additional input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Vitamin B12

Jim, I was looking at this article on my cell and stuff in the info box looks odd, and there's a weird template on the page--which may be one of those mobile markers. Last edit was by an IP, apparently. Can you have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, Boss. I don't use the mobile site, which protects me from all such bugs. The article looks great using the desktop site on my Android HTC One M-8, but, yeah, when I pull up the mobile site, there is the word "Smiles" plus a lot of what looks like gibberish. That garbage is actually coding called Simplified molecular-input line-entry system. "Smiles" is the acronym. It's a code for displaying a graphic image of a molecule. Please don't quote me because my programming skills are almost non-existent, but it looks to me that there is a mobile site bug that isn't displaying that function right. Maybe the geniuses over at the Village Pump can help out. Fixing it is WAY above my pay grade. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted at the Village Pump. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse Question

Hello, thank you for provide help for my question before and I'm sorry to bother you again on your talkpage. If you have time, can you please help with my follow up questions here ? or can you please refer me to appropriate place that can help? Thank you so much. Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I made additional comments at the Teahouse in response to your questions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Insertion of an image

Hello Jim, I uploaded an image (Logo) and the apropriate copyright tag to be inserted in the posted article. It is not there yet. Is something missing? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_on_Technical_Interchange_for_Space_Mission_Operations_and_Ground_Data_Systems) Cheers Joachim Spaceops (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Spaceops: You have asked the same question at the Teahouse where I have responded to it. It is not recommended that you ask the same question on several pages at the same time. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Palmdale

Hi Jim, I'd like to do an article about The Battle of Palmdale. Here is one of my sources http://blog.usni.org/2009/11/13/flightdeck-friday-the-battle-of-palmdale . In have 2 other good sources and some really good original photos I can use. I believe it is notable enough because it shows how poorly we were to able to protect ourselves against the ominous Soviet threat. What do you think? Samf4u 17:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Samf4u. I don't know about the other two sources, but I have my doubts about whether the blog post is a reliable source. I notice that it quotes an unnamed LA newspaper, suggesting that the writer is using an unmarked clipping. Also, the word "battle" is used. tongue in cheek. Be careful to avoid original research about the relationship to broader geopolitical issues. I don't think the risk of a Soviet air attack on LA was high in 1956. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and your opinion. Samf4u 22:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim, May I ask you to review The Battle of Palmdale ? I value your opinion and any criticism would be welcome. You can call me Eric if you like, it being my real name. Samf4u 03:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that you have done a very good job with the article, and I really enjoyed reading it, Eric. I made one minor edit. My main criticism is that the references are now poorly formatted. Please refer to Referencing for beginners. Then go over your article several times, being sure every factual assertion is referenced, and that you are comfortable with the wording of each sentence. I think the article may be worthy of the Did you know section on the main page. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll work on the references. Samf4u 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse discussion

Thank you for your opinion. I am just frustrated with Hans Barbosa, who keeps adding those bonds. It was very helpful for another person's opinion. Thank you. Buscus 3 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since no other editor supports adding those forgeries, I don't think you have much to worry about, Buscus 3. Stop by here any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

:P Ok will do. Buscus 3 (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Johann Hari

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Johann Hari. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjusting pilot start date - WP:Co-op

Hello Cullen328,

I'll be putting out a formal update sometime soon, but I wanted to inform you that I've decided to push our start date back to mid-February rather than in January. There are number of reasons for this, but the biggest factor is that we are now facing the hard work of implementing our designs on the Mediawiki interface. It's a limiting environment to work with from a web-building perspective, and the team that worked on the Teahouse can offer similar testimonials to these challenges. We also want to make sure there is time for us and for you to test the environment out, ask questions at our project's talk page, and give us a little time to make any last changes before we start inviting editors to the space. If some of you know you will be unavailable during this time, it's totally fine if you need to bow out for the pilot. But we do need all the mentors we can get, so even if you can take the time to mentor just one or two editors, that would be fantastic.
Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed re conflicting edits

Hi Jim, as you probably saw from my question to Missvain, I've tried to educate myself by reading various WP guidelines for developing good articles and avoiding common problems, but I'd like some advice as to a number of issues, the main three being: 1) the best process for making changes when I believe existing edits are not consistent with WP guideliness, but would require substantially changing or reverting some existing edits, and 2) best communicating with someone who is offended by changes to their contributions (even if I give WP reasons for the change) and then simply reverts any changes and personalizes it. I've noticed that experienced editors that I've interacted with (e.g., User:SusanLesch are very professional and give logical reasons why they want to make changes to what I've written or edited. However, looking at other sites I've noticed that some editors appear to take edits very personally and respond very defensively. 3) When the other person doesn't engage in a discussion, but just makes reverts, what is the procedure? Any advice? Thanks. [--Civlaction (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Civlaction. Am I correct that you are asking about a hypothetical future conflict, as opposed to an actual dispute that you are involved with? If so, here are my thoughts:

1. If you believe something needs to be changed, the general rule is to be bold and change it. Provide references and explain things in your edit summary. If your change is reverted, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. This is what we call the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, if the article is about a highly controversial topic, or a rapidly developing news story, or just in the midst of intense editing, caution may be in order. Review the talk page to see if the matter has been discussed previously. See which editors have been both active and level-headed, and ask their opinion. Never engage in edit warring, and always try to build consensus.

2. Dealing with problematic editors is always a challenge and a bit of an art. Personally, I believe that is is usually best to ignore signs of defensiveness (at least early on) and to engage in a polite, professional fashion. Always remind yourself that there is no "perfect way" to write an article, and always try hard to understand the other opinion. If the matter is not extremely important, consider letting it be. But if you truly believe that changes are needed, propose them on the article talk page. Seek allies among other level-headed editors.

3. Repeated reverting is edit warring, which is forbidden except in very limited circumstances, such as fighting overt vandalism, removing copyright violations, and dealing with obvious attacks on living people. We have administrative noticeboards to deal with these various behavioral issues. Since you are a new editor, I recommend being slow to go to the noticeboards, since they can be highly adversarial. Try informal dispute resolution first, and ask for advice from experienced editors. One of our core assumptions is that productive, good faith editors will win out in the end over problematic, confrontational editors. This takes patience, often called the "long view".

These are my opinions, which reflect my personality and 5-1/2 years of editing. Other opinions may vary. Please feel free to ask any question at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the sage advice. That approach makes sense to me and I will plan on following it. If I have further questions I will take you up on your offer and contact you. Thanks again for taking the time to counsel.--Civlaction (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Civlaction, and my invitation to return to my talk page at any time is sincere. Thank you very much for setting out on the path to being a productive Wikipedia editor. We need people like you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim

Thanks for the help on my newness at w. I have learned a lot lately. Can you help me here? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Welcome to the Teahouse, PhilipofJMJ. It seems that you tried to add unreferenced information, including the statement "See other Wiki articles by philipofJMJ on wikipedia."We never use one Wikipedia article as a reference for another. No respected Wikipedia editor ever promotes their own article work in article space. I am proud to say which articles I have helped improve on my own user page. But it would be entirely inappropriate to do so in an encyclopedia article. Please take this as a lesson. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I am learning a lot by these responses. Thanks. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It seems that there is a clear contradiction at different pages of Wikipedia. That is why I said that. For example: on Pope Sylvester I's page, he is said, correctly said, to have baptized Constantine the Great. I said as much, and all was erased, preferring to have the error remain on other pages, that, he was baptized on his deathbed by a heretic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipofJMJ (talk • contribs) 04:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, PhilipofJMJ. Please do not type a big long string of characters on Wikipedia. That is not acceptable here. I know nothing about Pope Sylvester and Constantine. But I do know that you are obligated to cite reliable sources. If there is a "clear contradiction" between different pages, then discuss how to resolve that contradiction on the talk pages of the various articles, bringing forth reliable sources for discussion. Maybe you are the first to notice the contradiction, maybe not. But you need to resolve such contradictions in a professional way, citing reliable sources, as all editors are expected to do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Jim: I now have at least 2, very good, references for my project. When you have time, could you please help me get them moved from the talk page to the main page? Where to start? Either the main page on Saint Constantine The Great, or the main page of Saint Pope Sylvester I. Thanks, Jim. Sincerely, philipofJMJPhilipofBVM (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC) PhilipofBVM (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello PhilipofBVM. The sources you propose are not reliable sources as Wikipedia defines that. They are fringe self-published sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. I chimed in there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)