User talk:Cullen328

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I don't live on Cullen Ct, but I like the street sign

Welcome to my talk page I use the name Cullen328 on Wikipedia, but you can call me "Jim" because that's my real first name. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the old comments from July and August of 2009 that follow the "Contents" here, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome when I first started editing Wikipedia.

The importance of a friendly greeting

Hello and welcome to my talk page. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the comments that follow from July and August of 2009 readily visible, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome here on Wikipedia when I first started editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please offer your thoughts

I would appreciate comments and suggestions on any contributions I make. I am learning.Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on Jules Eichorn. He's been needing an article for a while.   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If I may suggest, now that you've posted the Eichorn article the draft below might be deleted. It's your talk page to do with as you like, but it's a bit hard to edit around.
As for formatting and pictures, a good way to learn is to look around at other articles to see what you think looks best. It can be helpful to break up long blocks of text into subsections. Perhaps it'd be possible to split the biography into two or three eras. Other than that, the formatting is usually kept fairly plain. As for photos, it's easy to upload them: the trick is in finding photos with appropriate licensing. If you have any personal photos then those'd be fine. There are might be pictures of the peaks he did first ascents on in the Wikicommons. File:Cathedral Peak.png is a so-so pic of Eichorn Pinnacle.
As before, feel free to ask if you have any questions. There are several editors here who are mountaineers or just admirers of the Sierra, so you're in good company.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: Many editors create "sandbox" pages for drafting articles. For example, User talk:Cullen328/Sandbox.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 1 August 2009

Your climber biographies

Hey Jim, just wanted to say welcome and thanks for your contributions to the Sierra Nevada climbing history articles. You're filling a niche that's been missing here, I look forward to working with you. --Justin (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. Nice work on Allen Steck and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know who you are planning to write up next but if your taking requests I think Peter Croft (climber) could really use a page. If you ever have any questions please ask. Thanks again for your great additions.--OMCV (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Justin and OMCV. I am beginning work on Tom Frost and Glen Dawson. Comments on Norman Clyde would be welcomed. I will defintely read up on Peter Croft, OMCV. I am still "learning the ropes" in Wikipedia, to use a climbing analogy, and have all sorts of things in mind. My biggest challenge right now is getting permission to use images. My next biggest challenge is hiking to the top of Mt. Whitney with my wife in ten days - she's never been above 12,000 feet except for the train ride up Pikes Peak. As she's 56 and developing arthritis in her toes, it will be an accomplishment if she (and I) complete the Class 1 feat. Jim Heaphy (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Debra and I made it to the summit of Mt. Whitney at 2:20 PM on Friday, September 11. Jim Heaphy (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Archive

2010 Archive

2011 Archive

2012 Archive (first six months)

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3


Hello, Cullen328. You have new messages at Center for HIV Law and Policy's talk page.

Photos on Wikipedia vs. Commons[edit]

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

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

Twain Short Story Collections articles[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Please comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rebecca Bardoux. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Bob Avakian[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding user HighWindows[edit]

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Chevalier d'Eon[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chevalier d'Eon. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help with my class project[edit]

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

Image upload - choosing correct copyright licence[edit]

Confusion of what licence to pick[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

2. Are there any tutorial articles?

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

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

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

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

Follow-up Comments[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

create an article about something I am closely connected to[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson[edit]

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

Contracted to completely revise an author's entry[edit]

Hi Jim,

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

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

Teahouse Questions[edit]

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Derek McCulloch[edit]

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

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse![edit]

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

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

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

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


Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
For a job well done helping others at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions even when encountering cases of incivility. Alexf(talk) 16:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Alexf. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wendy Davis (politician)[edit]

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