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.

Thoughts on the importance of civility from Wikipedia's founder

"One of the great strengths of civility is that it helps others to see who is in the wrong - when you answer rudeness with rudeness, it only generates noise that makes it harder for people to properly reprimand the person who started it. Let someone be as obnoxious and disgusting and horrible as they want - respond to them with professionalism and don't sink to their level. By doing this, you strengthen the community, build a happier environment for all of us, and make it all the more clear who needs to be banned for general obnoxiousness." Jimbo Wales

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

James T. Butts, Jr.[edit]

I saw that you were active at BLPN and was hoping I might draw your attention to this article RE BLP concerns. There is currently an ongoing discussion about the use of op-eds and primary sources for contentious material. I posted at BLPN here, but in the past I have seen my BLPN posts archived without discussion or remedy unless I ask editors to participate, like I'm doing now. CorporateM (Talk) 15:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Although I do not have the time to delve into this now, I will take a look later. Please feel free to bring BLP matters to my attention at any time. Thank you, CorporateM. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW - I wasn't sure if I disclosed my COI prominently enough to make it apparent and wanted to make sure you were aware. You'll see on my user page that I usually support corporate marketing departments in bringing their page up to GA status while following WP:COI. In this case I received an inquiry from a relative of the article-subject and was alarmed by what I saw, so I jumped in with some degree of urgency, before working out if a COI would be involved or not. CorporateM (Talk) 22:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your forthrightness, CorporateM. Though I have not scrutinized your work here in detail, I know enough about your contributions here to have the preliminary opinion that you seem to be doing the right thing and conducting yourself well here. Though the day may come when we will disagree sharply, that is also true of my interactions with any editor. I extend to you the same core assumption of good faith that I grant any other editor. Please forgive me the stilted tone I adopt here, as you and I both know that your very presence here as an active editor offends some. I hope the day will come when we might have a full and frank conversation about many issues. But for now, let's be united in a commitment to fairness and the neutral point of view, and above all, in collaborative work to improve this great encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It takes a lot of character for an editor to remain neutral, focus on content, and AGF in a COI situation. If what you say is true, you have more character than I. I fear that I have seen so much corruption in my "industry" that becoming jaded and paranoid is the only thing I can rationalize based on the empirical evidence. Anyways, if you are going to the conference in New York later this month, I'd be happy to meet you there.
Regarding this article in particular, it's a clear AGF all-around I think. The primary hold out at this point seems to be whether CityWatch is a reliable source. Probably what is needed is a couple more editors to provide input on this specific point to reach a consensus. I just didn't want to push the issue too quickly to avoid being pushy and demanding ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 04:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that a good indication of an editor's commitment to NPOV editing is a willingness to disclose where they may have a COI, especially a financial one. For me, the article that raises the greatest issues about my own financial interests is Oxide jacking, as the business I own remediates such situations. On the other hand, less than 5% of my revenue is connected with this specific topic. I asked for advice from other trusted editors, especially since I self-cited. So, any comment or edit you might choose to make would be appreciated. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I regret that it is unlikely that I will be at the New York meeting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that really constitutes a COI at all, but at-a-glance the first thing that comes to mind is that it is overly-focused on the problem, rather than the science. CorporateM (Talk) 15:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cullen. Just as an FYI, this article is pretty much worked-out and in pretty good shape now. There are a couple nits I have, like I think "rose through the ranks" in the Lead is slightly promotional. user:Hipocrite found a primary source (his official bio) that could be used to add his Bachelors of Science from California State University at Los Angeles and that he has a Masters Degree in Business Administration from California Polytechnic University at Pomona to the body of the article. I've also proposed some better sourcing, copyedits and trimming regarding the lawsuit content here, but all just nick-nacks.
Regarding the discussion about PR firms, I think anyone who wants to make an attempt to write their own articles is obligated show an effort to learn how to do so well, which means they almost have to join our volunteer ranks to gain the skills. The effort I put forth to help someone depends largely on how much effort I perceive they have made, but when it comes to just pointing out errors or attack pages, I think the relationship is reversed - when those concerns are genuine and fair - the community should provide a high degree of customer service and the PR person should not have to be a Wikipedia-expert to bring these issues to our attention. My rant on the topic. CorporateM (Talk) 15:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, since you couldn't make it to the conference, if you still want to have a full and frank discussion about COI, my Talk page is always open. CorporateM (Talk) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that you have done a very good job here, and I have no problem with "rose through the ranks" or with citing college degrees to his website. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Meh, I try to avoid any kind of metaphors (he didn't literally "rise"), but WP:COIMICRO and WP:OWN are relevant here. It's always annoying when any editor frets about the small things and just as I expect volunteers not to hover over and criticize every word I write, I offer the same respect in return. One of the things I teach companies I work with is restraint. I'll leave the Request Edit open for this stuff, but I think it will ultimately be a "no consensus" issue and in those cases I am powerless to make what I perceive as improvements while following WP:COI.
One of the things that occurs often is that editors are VERY resistant to removing poorly-sourced controversies and criticisms, under the expectation that they are being hood-winked (that better sources exist that I am hiding) and the way we handle COI processes is generally disruptive to incremental improvements. In most cases, I myself won't feel confident that I got it just right until I get a strong GA review. CorporateM (Talk) 18:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that you have earned an assumption of good faith that you wouldn't hide sources, CorporateM. As for Butts, I see no point in mentioning that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. They decline far more cases than they accept, and that fact seems run-of-the-mill to me, to use a metaphor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Though I am not a legal expert, I agree. However, it is the type of subject where even if I made good edits I would be accused of whitewashing by an editor with a strong opinion on the subject. I won't make any article-space changes to it.
Regarding reputation, it is a frustrating endeavor, because as soon as I build a constructive relationship with a Wikipedian, they get banned, retire or grow frustrated with something unrelated that effects their editing. Also, we only have a handful of editors experienced in company pages and even less who have an interest in working with COI editors.
Ultimately volunteers can give my content a read-through, but it's not realistic for them to read through 30+ citations used in the article. Realistically I have to find someone willing to trust me and show a leap of faith - a trust that has not been well-earned by the paid editing industry in general. Any mistakes I make will probably be corrected in future iterations and are often not that different from the errors any editors makes.CorporateM (Talk) 19:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I am a generalist and have written a few articles about businesses. I don't fully trust anyone including myself, but trust some editors much more than others. It seems unlikely that I will get banned or retire soon, but anyone can get hit by a truck. So, as I said at the beginning of this exchange, feel free to ask me to comment. If I am not interested, I will tell you so politely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a deal ;-) Nice chat. CorporateM (Talk) 19:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On a completely un-related note, regarding your concerns about the Statement. Someone just told me that many of these PR agencies regularly edit Wikipedia on behalf of their clients, though obviously not from the usernames they signed the statement with. So it's possible you hit the nail on the head there. CorporateM (Talk) 12:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC Opened[edit]

As someone who previously registered an opinion "Brat attributed this electoral victory to God," I am letting you know a RfC has been opened in case you want to reaffirm your position there. I am placing this notice on the Talk pages of everyone previously commenting on this topic who has not already commented in the RfC. BlueSalix (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I commented there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

New editor, need help with adding research papers[edit]

Hi Jim,

I am a law student and research assistant for one of my professors. I have been asked to incorporate some of my professor's research publications into wiki articles that relate to her research about employment law and intellectual property. I am worried about violating the conflict of interest/Neutral POV principles. Initially I did not believe I would have any issues, but the more I read about wikipedia policy the more worried I become. I want to add the content but I do not want to break any of the rules. Can you help me with what is fair game to add?

Hfarah1957 (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Hani

Hello Hfarah1957. You have a number of problems to contend with here. Please familiarize yourself with our Conflict of interest guideline. The purpose of references is to support encyclopedic content. Now, if a reference is lacking for an assertion, adding one is certainly justified. The best thing to do is to improve and expand the content of existing articles, or write new articles, adding references as you go. But going around looking for places to insert references to works written by a specific individual is definitely frowned upon, as this is considered spamming. Editors are expected to make improving the encyclopedia their highest priority at all times, as opposed to some other agenda. Let's say for the sake of discussion that there are five published papers on some aspect of intellectual property law, and that you are familiar with all of them. Let's say that one written by another professor is widely cited as the most comprehensive overview of the topic, and your boss wrote the second best paper. Citing the best paper best serves the encyclopedia. Citing the paper your boss wrote best serves your boss (and you) to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Please read WP:SELFCITE. Wikipedians have some jargon that is kind of nasty. An editor who does the will of others is often called a "meatpuppet". People perceived that way do not flourish in the Wikipedia editing environment, which can be harshly critical. It is to your credit that you are wrestling with such issues before making any big mistakes. Please free to ask as many questions as you wish. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company[edit]

Hi Cullen. I was wondering if I could solicit for your help sooner rather than later. This article about a management consultancy is marked as High Importance for WikiProject Business due to the level of influence they have in shaping business principles and with Fortune 500 CEOs, however these types of articles on business topics tend not to attract the interest of volunteer editors. The article is a bit of a mess because it is a work-in-progress (still the tags seem excessive to me). Anyways, I've submitted some content for consideration here. I don't know if it's just perfect yet, but it should be better than the mounds of unsourced/poorly-sourced stuff currently on the page. The available source material is vast and very polarizing, so it will take some time to get the page just right, but this is a solid first-draft. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I have read over the whole article, CorporateM, and your proposed changes and have a generally favorable opinion. I am somewhat familiar with the company and agree that it is an important article. I am wondering if the other experienced uninvolved editors who have commented on the talk page are no longer interested? I know that you want to get this done and I understand that, but from my point of view, I want to get this right. So I need a little time to ponder. I work slowly. A small question - why do some of your references have a colon and a number after them? Is that a page number? I am not familiar with that style.
Yah, those are page numbers. I think my comment was ambiguous, I just meant that I was asking for your help right after our prior discussion, not that it was urgent at all. WP:NORUSH of course.
A few editors have chimed in off and on. North8000 did some of the work, but was blocked by ArbCom for something unrelated. I think Candle also helped before being blocked for allegedly being a sock. user:Edge3 has helped - he/she has done some of my GA reviews and is very thorough. Guy Macon has chipped in; I notice that he/she has been experiencing health difficulties and as a result I would prefer not to bother them. Another editor (I forget who) offered to help, but said they were busy with a new job and I encouraged them to focus on their real-life responsibilities. Drmies provided some feedback on this section of draft material.
Typically on a page this large, different editors will chip-in for a section or two, but they are doing so because I asked nicely, not because they have a long-term interest in the article ;-)
Hope that helps clear things up! My "sooner rather than later" comment was just referring to how I am taking you up on your offer to help so soon after you offered, rather than later. CorporateM (Talk) 18:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I understand. I am leaving shortly for a Father's Day trip to a museum and a restaurant, but will delve into McKinsey later this evening. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Have fun! I've been working straight through the weekend, so I'll probably be on tonight if you have questions/feedback/etc. or need some research or material from me. CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A friendly ping to see if you were still going to get around to this. I don't mind waiting if you need more time, but am trying to sort out if I should try pinging others - it's been on talk for almost a month and I still have a lot of ground to cover on this page. CorporateM (Talk) 13:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I needed some time to think about this. I will work on this article tonight, CorporateM. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool, I pinged a couple other folks already, so I left a note on Talk saying you'd get around to it. I'm not a COI micro-manager (I wrote WP:COIMICRO), so I'd encourage you to feel free to make any changes you feel are appropriate whether in article-space or in the draft without consulting me. (that statement feels weird like it should be obvious, but people tend to turn COI situations into big bureaucratic approval processes)CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I implemented the changes. Sorry to take so long, but this particular type of collaboration is new to me and I needed some time to think it over, especially in light of the big developments in recent days. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the note. I have the habit of excessive brevity in anything I write. In the future, I will work on expanding my posts with fuller explanations of the subject. Best, Old Beeg ··warble·· 04:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Some of us are prone to brevity and I consider literate brevity a virtue. Some of us, sadly, are prolix. Finding the right balance is ongoing work. Our challenge at the Teahouse is to help the newer editors, while also helping them to help themselves. It is kind of like diving for pearls. Most of the oysters amount to nothing more than a bite, but a very small percentage develop jewels. You, perhaps? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Jim, I'm not sure I'm a jewel of the extensive additions and massive editing variety. But I have found a few minor changes I like making – adding ISBN numbers to books, adding and expanding authority control templates, and unfortunately, making userboxes. :-)
re: Carlos Dews - I wrote it because another article I was editing seemed to 'ask that it be created'. Then I also found two other articles to wikilink it to. I love how interconnected everything is. Best, Old Beeg ··warble·· 04:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

14th Dalai Lama page[edit]

Why did you preserve the D.S. Controversy section at 14th Dalai Lama? You are the who pulled it on June 7th, when you said "remove section as consensus has not been achieved on the talk page". Those are your own words. There is still no consensus. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I read quite a bit more about the matter and concluded that it is significant enough for a brief mention in the biography, with a link to the longer article. I removed POV pushing language. In my view, both sides of the dispute are not dealing with the issue neutrally, and I am trying to find the middle ground. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to go by academic consensus. The foundational scholar is Dreyfus, who is cited and quoted in all subsequent academic work, such as Kay's. Take a look at this brief academic article by Dreyfus on the Dalai Lama's reasoning. Any section in the 14th Dalai Lama's page should be based on this article, in my opinion. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That article seems an attempt to describe the evolution of the Dalai Lama's religious thinking in broad terms and says relatively little about Dorje Shugden. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It says:

his opposition to Shukden is motivated by his return to a more traditional stance in which this deity is seen as incompatible with the vision of the tradition (the “clan”) represented by the Fifth Dalai Lama.

Second, in this dispute the Dalai Lama’s position does not stem from his Buddhist modernism and from a desire to develop a modern nationalism, but from his commitment to another protector, Nechung, who is said to resent Shukden.

VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That's exceptionally brief. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How to Cite Fonds[edit]

Hi Jim, I am back at my volunteer post today. I have had some time to contemplate the responses to my question of citing or adding pictures from our archival collections to other Wikipedia entries. While I appreciate the limited role archival information can play in an encyclopedia, I do believe there are pictures and materials that provide enhancements to an entry. (I think Wikipedia is morphing into something more than encyclopedias could ever have dreamed of, really.)

So my next steps, as I see it, would be as follows: (please feel free to advise me on this though) 1. Upload pictures(with watermark)to Wikipedia picture sharing site 2. Add pictures to the appropriate entry 3. Cite pictures as part of a collection (include website that links directly to the picture)

The bigger issue, in my mind, is the fact that archives collect primary sources. From what I can discern, Wikipedia is not appropriate venue for these sources. However, as Wikipedia evolves into the 1st place humans go to to find "authorized" information, will this change? Is there another commonly known website that can act as this type of clearinghouse?

I thank you in advance for taking time to answer my queries. I really appreciate it. ShannonPeaceofHistory (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Just to answer the question of copyright of photos. We have copyright to the photos that we have on our website, so yes. Further, they are pictures of our region- examples being city streets, farming, community school pictures, etc. ShannonPeaceofHistory (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, PeaceofHistory. There is a clear distinction between how we handle pictures and how we handle other documents on Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not anything more than that. Technology and our worldwide volunteer base have allowed it to to grow far larger than any previous encyclopedia, but Wikipedia is not morphing. The Wikimedia Foundation also hosts many other free knowledge projects. Among them is Wikisource which is for freely licensed published documents. Freely licensed and copyright free images go to Wikimedia Commons. Addressing your three points:
1. Pictures you are willing to freely license should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. We do not allow freely licensed photos used on Wikipedia to have watermarks, per WP:WATERMARK. I believe that Commons has the same policy.
2. You, or anyone else, can then use those pictures for any purpose anywhere. They can be added to Wikipedia articles, based on consensus among editors interested in those articles. The license requires attribution to the copyright holder (your archive).
3. Although we do cite published documents used as sources in a Wikipedia article, we do not "cite" pictures on Wikipedia per se, but instead simply add them to articles with a caption that complies with our Manual of style for captions. Anyone who clicks on the picture will then have access to the underlying license, including the source and the attribution. I am not sure what you mean by "as part of a collection" as the license will mention your archive. All the pictures you upload can be categorized as coming from your archive, but that happens at step #1 on Wikimedia Commons, not here on Wikipedia. We just use the picture; we don't organize or categorize them.
I hope this clarifies things for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino. 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, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello old friend...[edit]

Hello old friend, may I ask a favor of you? I'm currently working through a backlog of deprecated and obsolete HTML elements across the wiki, and notice that your signature contains <font> tags which are obsolete. If you're willing, I suggest replacing:

[[User:Cullen328|'''<font color="green">Cullen</font>'''<sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<font color="blue">''Let's discuss it''</font>]]


[[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]]

which will result in a 161 character long signature (10 characters shorter) with an appearance of: Cullen328 Let's discuss it
compared to your existing 171 character long signature of: Cullen328 Let's discuss it
— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 09:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Technical 13, I finally sat down at a desktop computer and made the change you recommended. Does it all look OK now? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you. It is much better. :) Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Tatyana Kozhevnikova[edit]

Tatyana Kozhevnikova

I have a lot of interests, among which are politics, American history, Abraham Lincoln, the history of mountaineering, the Sierra Nevada, Mount Shasta, the Arts and Crafts movement, Native American artists, wine, plein air landscape painting, Harley-Davidson motorcycles, the history of Michigan, and Judaism. I am a book lover, and look forward to fact checking and adding useful references to existing articles, as well as writing new articles on worthy subjects I have some knowledge of and interest in. Please let me know if signs of bias creep into anything I write.

I strive to be fair in my editing and broad about the kind of articles I work on. I am a Democrat, but wrote an article I'm very proud of about a Republican, Norman Livermore. I am a Jew, but wrote an article about a Hindu religious festival, Kalpataru Day and a Russian Orthodox church, Holy Virgin Cathedral. I am an American, but have expanded articles about people from all over the world.

Why are you against? Кот на крыше (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Among other things, I am against Wikipedia articles making false claims about someone holding a Guiness world record that doesn't exist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
My search of the official Guiness Book of World Records website yields nothing under that name, number or description. Please provide a link to the record on the Guiness site, Кот на крыше. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

nominating articles for the front page[edit]

Hi Jim, thanks so much for answering... and yes i would like to write something but first i think i should learn how to edit and also i want to get this little project off of the ground... implementing a more equitable representation of the human race in this encyclopedia  : )

i have a little question... when i first came on here i didnt know if i was signed up or not and could not remember my log on stuff so i did some things using the ip signature... now that i AM signed up i would like to meld that "account" together with fluffy's... is that possible and how would i go about it?

thanks, 2601:1:9A00:592:7ACA:39FF:FEB0:6D92 (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

now see?!!! i wasnt logged in but i had not logged out! this is so frustrating lol... fluffykerfuffle (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Fluffykerfuffle. Unfortunately, it is not possible to "merge" IP edits yourself with those made by a regular account. If it was a signed talk page comment, you can erase the IP address and sign with four tildes. But it is best to leave the article edits alone, unless you have security reasons to keep your IP address secret. If so, ask an administrator to help you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
As for Systemic bias, that is a real problem here. I try to be friendly to all new editors and have participated in edit-a-thons intended to recruit new women editors. But only a very small percentage of people who start editing stick with it for the long haul. It takes a certain quirky type of personality, which I don't fully understand myself after five years here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

California topics[edit]

Hi Jim,

I guess I have one of those quirky personalities that drives people to wikimania. I don't even remember why I got started on Francis Farquhar. I've also tried to edit Clarence King, but I fear its basic style is too much like a mediocre term paper/book report. Maybe you'd like to tackle it some time. I did get two books about him out from the library to fact-check the article, but I'm not sure I want to spend the time.

Regarding the Book Club of California, I've combed through many pages of references using the suggested links (Google books, Google scholar, JSTOR, etc.), but not found anyone talking about the club itself.

Ann HarZim (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello HarZim Take a look at Book Club of California gala speaks volumes, an article from the San Francisco Chronicle. That should help. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


I just sent you an email. Can you reply ASAP, pleeeeeeease. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 18:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been all over the internet, today, Miss Bono. At least the places where I hang out. Welcome back! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me[edit]

Thanks for helping me at the Tea House. Can I pop over here to ask you for advice from time to time? Harmelodix (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, and you can ask questions here any time, Harmelodix. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you looking at my proposed Curtis Lee page changes[edit]

I appreciate that you took the time to check on the proposed changes for the Curtis Lee page that I was asking about on Teahouse. Can you take a look at the new information there now, please. Kargandarr (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kargandarr. I simply don't understand the reason for listing any cover versions at Curtis Lee. They should be listed, and referenced, at Pretty Little Angel Eyes. Who wrote that song, by the way? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
This time it isn't on the Curtis Lee Page but is for the page about "Pretty Little Angel Eyes. Kargandarr (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any cover versions listed in the song article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Barnstar-abc.png The Helping Hand Barnstar
For your tireless and welcoming presence in the Teahouse ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, ColinFine. I enjoy helping out there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shahrukh Khan[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shahrukh Khan. 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, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard[edit]

Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added it to my watch list, CorporateM. I hope that it proves successful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I am expectantly waiting for someone to nominate it for deletion so a discussion can ensue on whether it should be kept. BTW - are you still planning on taking a look at Talk:McKinsey_&_Company#More_content? I didn't know if you just needed more time or if I should see if I can nab someone else to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I will have time to work on that tonight. I have had several grueling work days recently. Less so today. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool, no problem. It looks like a few folks are using the noticeboard already, which is fantastic. Suggests there is a real need. You know, I went to review some GANs on org pages (I have done 20+ noms, so I should do some reviews as well), but there were only a few noms for org pages and mostly COI-written quick-fails. We have lots of editors interested in pages about businesses, whether they be fans, antagonists, etc. and it's a substantial portion of our coverage as far as article-count, but it's not a subject-area that has become well-developed as far as setting high standards, fostering collaboration, attracting high-quality editors, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cullen. I'm very sorry for being such a pest, but just wanted to drop a friendly ping about the McKinsey & Company content I shared content on the Talk page a week or two ago. It's not urgent or anything, just thought I would follow up since you said you might get around to it a few days ago or so. No biggy if you're too busy. CorporateM (Talk) 15:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC) - Your teashop advice[edit]

Hi Jim - thank you so much for taking the time to comment on my article and for inviting me to discuss it with you. The big issue here is that nobody much is talking about opportunity lifecycle management as it is a very recent creation. I have independently observed the creators of this process implement it to the benefit of numerous global IT and Technology businesses but as yet, these beneficiaries are not yet commenting on it! So it is difficult to get a 'critical mass' of third party references. Indeed part of my rationale for trying to get this into Wiki is to enable that conversation and to remind the beneficiaries that they are undergoing a highly effective and newly designed business process. Perhaps I'm just 'ahead of my time' and need to wait until this process is widely recognised - but I would be disappointed and surprised if that was the feedback, as I have always seen Wiki as being a bit pioneering??

Thanks again for your interest - Jeremy Bassett - Bertiewolf Bertiewolf (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Although I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith, Bertiewolf, you have pretty much explained above why Wikipedia should not have such an article at this time. Please read WP:OR at least twice like I read your draft twice. Then read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not "a bit pioneering" in this regard. We publish articles that are summaries of what rekiable sources say about discrete topics. Nothing more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jim - where you have directed me makes things completely clear - appreciate that. When there is more independent (peer reviewed) comment about this topic, effectively endorsing it's position as an established rather than cutting edge process / discipline, I'll return to my entry at that stage and see if I can be more successful. Thanks again - Jeremy / Bertiewolf Bertiewolf (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Here's some coffee for helping me! Could you help this bad article: ? I want to make this article better. However, you don't HAVE to. Enjoy your coffee. EMachine03 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you offer some assistance please?[edit]

Dear Jim

My article (Draft:Jörn Weisbrodt) has been declined. The reviewer said he didn't check the references. I removed two categories following one of his comments. I thought his decision was a bit rushed. We were both editing the article at the same time and he may not have realised I'd made changes to the Categories section.

I would appreciate it if somebody could check the references and reconsider it.

Thank you.


Username: SongsforLulu

Hello SongsforLulu. The reviewer is correct about the sexual orientation categorization. If you have resolved that BLP issue and the overciting issue, then simply leave a note on the reviewer's talk page asking them to take another look. My quick glance leads me to believe that you are very close. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim Thank you for replying so quickly. I have now checked the categories and removed again the ones I though I had already removed. If the multiple citations are removed, then my article would be declined because there aren't enough citations to back up the statements I've made. I also thought that the place to put the citations was at the end of the sentence, not after each organisation name. I thought I was following Wiki guidelines?! Thank you in advance for your reply. Lulu

Four or five references for a single sentence or assertion is excessive, SongsforLulu, unless the matter is highly controversial. Far better to have a dozen rock solid sources than 34, with lower quality sources mixed in. I suggest removing all marginal sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Antisemitism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Antisemitism. 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, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

FrenchyWine taking up your offer to discuss[edit]


Thanks for your feedback, which made me feel a whole lot better about the way articles are accepted/rejected for publication.

If it's OK with you, I was hoping to throw a few questions your way, viz:

1) the editor who rejected my article stated that I had too many primary sources, and was especially concerned about the materials I obtained from the personal papers and effects of the article's subject. I have actual originals of these papers and effects, so is the editor really saying that I need to get separate confirmation from the government office or employer's archive in order to "legitimize" the facts stated in the papers/certificates/employment records?


1) the original flimsy sheet from the Mayor's Office of the City of Luxembourg stating that Felicien Steichen and his family lived at a particular address in 1946. Can I assume that this was "published" by an authoritative source? Can the note simply state "Certificate of Civil Status for the Steichen-Gonner family, City of Luxembourg Mayor's Office, January 25, 1946?" Or do I need to find out where in the Luxembourg City archives this same paper is located, and then state the locator code or reference information that the City gives me as part of the footnote?

2) Do I need a birth certificate for Felicien Steichen in order to prove his birth date? Do I need a death certificate location in the files of the place of death, or is publication of an obituary in a newspaper of record for his hometown enough?

3) For proof of his graduation from the Luxembourg lycee (high school), I have a program published by the Lycee on the 50th Anniversary of graduation, showing a profile of him as part of many pages of such profiles for each graduate. Do I really need to go back to the Lycee and ask them the location code or reference information for their archival file on this person?

4) Job information: I got all of Felicien Steichen's job info. from his CV. Do I really need to re-contact all of his former employers in order to get reference information for their archival human-resources or employment file on him?

5) I have original, framed certificates for all of Felicien Steichen's degrees, from lycee, through medical school, internship, and residency. I also have original certificates of all of his affiliations with Medical and Surgical societies (The American College of Surgeons, the French Academy of Surgery, the German Surgical Society, etc.) Do I need to contact each of these societies to get their archival file locators? It would seem to me that each of these certificates is "published" material, and that if someone wanted to know whether the membership was legitimate, they could contact the society in question and ask, based on the fact that a certificate exists. In addition, it seems to me that some of these societies, or places of employment, or other such groups might purge their files occasionally, and that the membership or employment occurred so long ago that they may have gotten rid of his information. And what about places of employment that no longer exist?

6) Do I need a wedding certificate or archival info. from the town in France where he was married? Do I need birth certificates for his children?

7) Honors: the subject of the article was given national honors by his country of birth, and I have the medals to show these honors. I also have the URL for a page showing the existence of a chair in surgery named in his honor. Finally, I have the City of New York Liberty Medal that he received. Do I need to contact each of the organizations that gave him these honors in order to "legitimize" them with archival information?

I confess to a bit of bewilderment, because as a former Attorney, I understand the term "publication" to mean making something available for a third person to see. Therefore, if a certificate exists, I would call that "published," and the fact that it exists among Felicien Steichen's personal papers (or even exists at all) should be enough to create an attributable footnote, especially when we are talking about long-standing institutions like the Johns Hopkins University, the Univ. of Lausanne, the City of New York, Lenox Hill Hospital, the Cleveland Clinic, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the Government of Luxembourg and the City of Luxembourg Mayor's Office.

Thank you for any information and clarity you can provide! I realize you must be swamped with requests like mine, but please understand that I would greatly appreciate anything that can help me make this a better article, and that I value your help in cleaning it up.


Francois Steichen, AKA, FrenchyWine (son of the article subject, Dr. Felicien Steichen) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchyWine (talkcontribs) 02:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, FrenchyWine. You seem to have a misunderstanding about the type of sources that Wikipedia prefers, and are concentrating on the wrong things. All the items you are discussing are primary sources, and there is no need to engage in the type of original research that you are describing. As a matter of fact, the results of any such research can't be incorporated into a Wikipedia article, unless published elsewhere first.
A Wikipedia article should be built mostly on secondary sources, which we refer to as independent, reliable sources. The best such sources (roughly in descending order) are articles in academic journals, books published by university presses and other reputable publishers, articles in reputable newspapers and magazines with professional editorial staffs and a reputation for fact checking and error correction, and so on. Context matters. If a movie star marries a physicist, then People magazine is a reliable source for the wedding and the star's current film, but we need a reference to a physics journal for that spouse's research findings. The presumption is that if such independent, reliable sources have devoted significant coverage to the topic, then it is worthy of an encyclopedia article.
Since the type of sources you describe exist to a greater or lesser extent for almost every person who has lived in recent centuries, they do not establish eligibility for an encyclopedia article, and are of limited value or interest here.
The type of sources I described above are essential for establishing the notability of the topic, a person in this case. Once notability has been firmly established, then we allow limited use of primary sources for routine biographical facts: date and place of birth, degrees, marriages, death and so on. So, I encourage you to focus on demonstrating notability first, as Wikipedia defines that term. I also recommend that you read WP:PRIMER carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Well... I guess I'm in a pickle. Speaking outside the bounds of "notoriety" for just a second, the fact is that Felicien Steichen and Mark Ravitch are quite commonly known in the surgical community throughout the world as the Fathers of Surgical Stapling. Given the revolution that stapling ushered into surgery, I'm pretty sure that most surgeons would agree that both these gentlemen would have the notoriety necessary to be in Wikipedia.

They are not famous in a Hollywood sense, nor were they written much about within their own surgical community, because surgeons don't do that. They wrote most of the books and articles on the most common operations using staples, and they performed - and wrote about - these operations before anyone else. The training they organized through their courses was also a major reason for the dissemination of surgical stapling.

Yet - I cannot use any primary sources that discuss them, not even interview subjects who themselves knew Dr. Steichen but still have an objective viewpoiont about him and his work. Nor can I even use his books or articles - written with others and published by the finest medical publishers in the world, therefore vetted by their editors - because that would be "works by the subject" and therefore a conflict of interest. These are peer-reviewed works by the finest surgical journals in the world, yet they are still not proof of his notoriety because they are by him, and co-written by people he knew.

I've read and re-read the notoriety guidelines, and I have to say that they make no sense to me. The primary sources were one thing, and I accept the reasoning there. The definition of notoriety, however, would appear to exclude a whole class of people who were important but about whose work there is little "commentary."

Still not yet frustrated, but definitely deflated. I've spent a lot of time on this, and it's starting to look like it was for naught.

Francois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchyWine (talkcontribs) 14:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Frenchywine. The word is notability not "notoriety". I wish you had mentioned from the get-go that he had invented a surgical technique. His notability in that area is established by his papers published in medical journals, and especially by how often other authors cite his work. Please read WP:ACADEMIC. We have subject specific notability guidelines for special cases. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In other words, being the father of surgical stapling is not "outside the bounds" but rather, it IS his claim to notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)} Dr. Steichen may well be notable enough for an article - although "Father of surgical stapling" is an exaggeration (see Surgical staple#history). He didn't invent it, just helped to expand and popularize the technique. But his publications at Google Scholar [1] are pretty well cited and would probably pass the requirements of WP:SCHOLAR. And I notice he does have an article at the Luxembourgish Wikipedia.[2] To see what a Wikipedia article about a physician should look like, you could look at existing articles such as Grover_Hutchins or John K. Frost. It needs to be sourced to neutral third-party sources; primary sources can be used, but with caution, and there should be no Original Research such as personal knowledge or interviewing people. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I really appreciate the barnstar. I won't bore you with the details, but the recent vandalism has to do with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Not surprising. I don't need to know the details, Malik Shabazz, because I trust you 100%. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer[edit]

Thanks for your advice about removing the "need sections" template from the article on Michael Petrelis. After you pointed it out to me, it seemed really obvious. Unfortunately, I forgot to explain what I did in the edit summary before I saved the change. Is this a big problem in this case? Any way to go back and fix it? Malcom Gregory Scott (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I would just leave note on the article talk page briefly explaining what you did, Malcom Gregory Scott. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

References Discussion[edit]

Thanks Cullen. Would a chronology of key milestones from the company be OK if it was factual and not self-promoting. Thanks Rob70.49.12.2 (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is a "key milestone"? That sounds like marketing jargon to me. If an independent source describes these milestones, and why they were key, then use the independent source, not the company website. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roosh V[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Roosh V. 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, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I commented there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Rashid Ali Malik infobox edit[edit]

Dear Cullen328 thanks for your reply at talk page and also for making edits. Actually in infobox of Rashid Ali Malik I am trying to make visible his alma mater and Military Awards which I could not. That is why I asked for help. Kindly guide. Regards--Zainkazmi1 (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Zainkazmi1. The problem is that two fields in the infobox are not supported by the underlying template software. Please see Template:Infobox military person for all available fields. I solved one problem by changing the unsupported "Miltary Awards" to just plain old "awards", which is supported. But there is nothing close to an "Alma mater" field. The software just ignores any non-standard fields. There may be a method to accomplish what you want, but I am not strong on infobox programming. Try asking a detailed follow-up question at the Teahouse, or at the Help Desk. You could also leave a note on the template talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Thanks Dear so nice of you, Regards--Zainkazmi1 (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - Fifth International re-listed[edit]

Greetings! It seems that Fifth International is re-listed at Articles for deletion. I am in favor of keep, and I actually I have nothing to add to my previous comment on the subject. I hope you have time to take a look! Cheers! =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a look also, Jayaguru-Shishya, and I too have nothing to add. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello Jim. I reworked and resubmitted the "draft:Intequity" article in my sandbox and added information on the "inequity" page. RegardsMdpienaar (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to the redirect. Please read WP:DICDEF. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen this ?[edit]

Perhaps you should write an article on yourself, given that there's this and that other news article a few months ago. ;-) --Jakob (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I write biographies, Jakob, not autobiographies. Thanks for noticing, though. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

List of methanol poisoning incidents[edit]

LOL, I was just getting ready to write up a Requested Move for this title and you went ahead and did it! Well done! --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Every once in a while, I make a bold edit, MelanieN. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oooo - what a wild and crazy guy! --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, someone will probably drag me to ANI within the next ten years or so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company[edit]

Hi Cullen. user:Edge3 reviewed and implemented the "Consulting Services" section. In order to spread around the burden a bit, I was wondering if you had time to review the Publishing section. I mentioned on the Talk page that a lot of these books have their own Wikipedia articles, so we could probably do with less detail, but at the same time I'm trying to avoid the appearance of not including criticisms on some of their published works. CorporateM (Talk) 17:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello CorporateM. I will try to take a look. The past month has been difficult for me, as my wife and business partner was sick for three weeks with a nasty cough, and when she started improving, I caught a similar bug. So a lot of my research time has been spent covering for her and then coughing in bed instead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I hear you - every time my wife or myself get sick, inevitably the other gets sick as well. Get better soon! CorporateM (Talk) 18:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well ...[edit]

I don't participate in it either. But clearly you don't care that someone is abused in public. You need to see the full picture. I hope your campaign is going to stop. Tony (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no campaign, and have no intention of bothering you further as long as you speak reasonably. I do care when people are abused, and consider that other website reprehensible. But I am only responsible for what I say about you, which is readily visible to anyone here on Wikipedia. Your perception, if it exists, that my comments were coordinated with anyone else is entirely false. I speak for myself only here on Wikipedia. I speak as husband for 33 years of a deaf wife and father for 24 years of a disabled son. But I don't even speak for them, just as their relative. As I see it, you lost your cool. I hope that you are regaining it. I wish you well, and offer you two choices: move on, or discuss the issues calmly. I have no interest in fighting with you. None whatsoever. I bid you peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Jim, fighting is destructive, but this has spiralled into a situation where attacks and criticism have gone on for so long that I just fire back when I feel belittled or insulted. I find the stuff on Wales's page that. There is nothing to discuss: I accepted by implication the link to the transcript early on, as you saw, which is why I find the hysteria on several pages dysfunctional. As I've shown in the post you remove and possibly didn't bother reading, I ensured that the transcript was accurate and of better standard than the first raw version. None of the nastiness was necessary. I see people still posting that they prefer a transcript to an audio interview. Why bother saying that? As if anyone in their right mind would ever do an audio interview again. Best. Tony (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I did read your earlier post and removed it only because it quoted vile things from the other website. People say repetitive things all the time here, Tony, and please try to realize that expressing a preference for a transcript is not an attack on you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

New contributor introduction[edit]

Hello Jim,

My name is Jerry Cohen. I’m a new, aspiring contributor who is finding himself in need of a mentor. From what you have written about yourself, I can see my subject is most likely not part of your expertise however, I believe you still may be the perfect person to help me. You and I are about the same age and therefore have certain life experiences behind us the younger folk do not. Handling this definitely needs someone with a mature viewpoint. I’m totally open to criticism.

I’ve followed and deeply researched the subject of UFO’s for years. (Since 1967) I have a website that has been on-line since 1997. I never thought I’d be thinking of contributing to an encyclopedia.

The notion came about as I was referencing one of my cases to see what Wikipedia had to say about it. I was surprised to find that what was on the page was actually biased, poorly researched, and not accurate to the really thorough material I had gathered concerning same. I realized that from what I know as provable fact, I might be the perfect person in a position to possibly improve that particular page. Rjc1 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Rjc1. I can't be a formal mentor to you, as that is a very time-consuming process, and I am already mentoring another editor.

Rjc1. Of course, I understand. I realize I'm not doing this right yet. But I'm only writing this way for expedience at the moment . . .

Cullen328. I took a brief look at your website. What I will agree to do is try to answer any sincere question you have about editing Wikipedia.

Rjc1. Thank you, Jim

Cullen328. Although I claim no UFO expertise, I read several books on the topic in the 1970s and have a general understanding of the issues.
First of all, I highly recommend that you read WP:FRINGE. UFOs are considered a fringe topic, and you should be aware that we have many editors committed to ensuring that Wikipedia does not include any endorsement or advocacy of fringe views. This is not negotiable.

Rjc1. Nor do I expect it to be. I wouldn't ask this of you or myself.

Cullen328. Then, I recommend that you read WP:NPOV which restricts your ability to advance your specific point of view.

Rjc1. Yes, I've bookmarked this and am in the process of reading it. I am aware of the entire upper part of that page and have tailored my arguments with all of this in mind. I am now reading the parts I have not familiarized myself with as of yet. I have no intention of advancing _my_ specific point of view. This was an assumption on your part. The things I will be talking about are extremely specific . I can guarantee you will be surprised when you become aware of them.

Cullen328. Since you mention documents you have gathered, I recommend that you read WP:OR which explains that Wikipedia does not publish original research.

Rjc1. I am totally aware of that. What I am here to discuss is absolutely not my original research. Actually it is about someone else's "original research." I am here to defend status-quo. I will be able to address this when I am totally familiar with this medium. I have taken that completely into consideration before starting this conversation. I would not put any of us in that position.

Cullen328. What you claim to know as a "provable fact" has no place on Wikipedia,

Rjc1. First of all, it is not simply my "claim." I would think one must know what the fact is and where it is from before one can make a reasonable decision concerning same. If the dissenting fact(s) is (are) directly from the source the Wikipedia has referenced, that should be quite important and make a difference.

Cullen328. . . and will be removed on sight by other editors, including me. We summarize only what reliable sources say about a topic, and a self-published website such as yours is not a reliable source.

Rjc1. I believe I can prove beyond reasonable doubt any documented material at my site is totally reliable.

Cullen328. A good introduction to editing Wikipedia can be found at WP:PRIMER. You are welcome to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines,

Rjc1. I had no intention of editing anything before my case is examined by respected administrators and most agree with me. I am hoping the administrators will at least be willing to look at what I have found and not simply exclude it on a technicality, before examining same. Again, it is _not_ MY original research I am asking them to look at.

Cullen328. but this is not a website where advocacy of fringe topics is accepted. As a matter of fact, many editors will be quite aggressive in opposing that.

Rjc1. I can certainly understand this. The only thing I advocate is what the majority agree is accepted fact.

Cullen328. You alluded to a specific article where you see problems. Please mention the name of that article, and describe your concerns in more detail. I will be happy to review that article and give you my opinion about how it can be improved.

Rjc1. I'll be able to get to this as soon as I come to grips with becoming comfortable in this new (for me) medium. Otherwise I am at an incredible disadvantage. My argument is ready but there are a number of questions I still have to ask and a little practice to do first. Thanks for listening Jim. Respectfully, Rjc1 (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

- - -

Rjc1, we don't publish original research by anyone, whether it is by you or someone who won the Nobel Prize for physics. We summarize what reliable, independent sources say about a topic.
Rjc1. That is not exactly accurate, and I'm not here to publish "original research." I plan to address that and the issue of reliability and how it is determined. This is obviously necessary for me to eventually be considered as reliable. But I still need some answers to a few more questions regarding the how the text editor works and communication in general. I can't begin without them.
Your self-published website will never be accepted as a reliable source here on Wikipedia, other than as a source for your own personal opinions. Period. Full stop. Please understand that administrators have no special powers whatsoever regarding content here on Wikipedia.
Rjc1. Jim, I am not asking anyone, anywhere to give a blanket O.K. to my entire website. However, please don't take this the wrong way. With absolutely no disrespect to you, who would I talk to that does has some powers regarding content problems within Wiki?
Administrators deal with technical matters including enforcing behavioral norms, but my opinion as an experienced editor on content matters is equal to that of any administrator. Our core content policies are not "technicalities" but are instead the very things that have enabled us to create the sixth most popular website in the world,
Rjc1. That is excellent. If you'll permit me, I'll come back to this later. I really need to ask those questions. Rjc1 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
far away the first when it comes to original content.

They are not negotiable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Rjc1. Jim, here are those questions. (about 12 altogether - a few at a time)
1) Was what I have edited so far readable and in an acceptable form?
2) To properly explain the need for a change on that page and to, down the line, possibly verify myself as an accurate, reliable authority on the subject, it is essential that whatever medium I write in will allow me to use html’s. Do normal talk pages permit this?
3) I noticed the sandbox. Is that a place I can go that will allow me to practice using Wiki’s text editor and then be able to see the finalized text that would appear on that talk page? i.e. I would like to put the code onto the page (htmls, etc.) and then be able to see the finished product appear, as the person on the other end would see it on his page. Can this be done?
3a) Will the reader be able to click on a link and automatically go to it? (yes/no) This is extremely important for my presentation. Rjc1 (talk)
1) You are interspersing or mingling your comments in with mine. That is not good practice, but I understand what you are trying to do. It is best in most cases to add new content below an older comment.
2)We use wikicode, not HTML. You can link to an exterior site on a talk page. Since we rely on summarizing reliable sources, "reliable" is a word that we use to evaluate sources not editors. Editors are evaluated other editors based on their adherence to policies and guidelines, and their behavior, not on their expertise or "reliability". In other words, I know almost nothing about the history of Arkansas. But if I find a book in a used bookstore, published by a university press, with plenty of information about a 19th century Arkansas senator, I can write a biography of that person by summarizing the reliable source, and other such sources I might find. It is the authors of the original sources who are reliable. I am a summarizer.
3) Your sandbox is for any experimentation that is for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia.
3a) If you format a link properly, a reader will be able to click on it. The links you add must comply with policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


I think your teahouse comment was a little strong. I went there to ask a sincere question, but you called it a complaint. That was unnecessary. Lightbreather (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Little that any of us do here on this volunteer project rises to the level of "necessary", Lightbreather. Removing libel and copyright violations come to mind as "necessary". Few other edits are. If you make a major change to a list article, and then ask for an opinion about the article without mentioning the change you just made, then I feel entirely justified in pointing that out. Was it unnecessary? Yes, exactly as unnecessary as your reversion. The concept of "sincere question" and "complaint" are not mutually exclusive. I will make any comment I choose at the Teahouse that I see as both responsive to the question and productive for the encyclopedia. I encourage you to not be overly senstive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that if Wikipedia wants to attract and keep more editors, especially women, it should stop suggesting they're being overly sensitive when they screw up the courage to say they feel they're not being treated in the manner policy says that they may expect. In addition, the teahouse page says, "Welcome to the Teahouse! A friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia." Lightbreather (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Please try to screw up the courage to tell people that you just removed all the list content when you point out that a list lacks list content. I have said nothing uncivil or unfriendly to you here or at the Teahouse. You have chosen to edit in a highly contentious topic area subject to ArbComm sanctions. Do not expect to be treated with kid gloves. I will interact with you at all times as one mature adult to another. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)



Sorry, I didn’t realize the complication of simply talking to you as a new user. I apologize in advance for most-likely boring you with these most basic questions. Just trying to learn the medium here. I have created a Wiki account. I most likely need a specific order of things to do to set myself up here.

1) After I log-in and click “You have new messages” what am I supposed to see?

2) After I read what you have said, what exact steps to I take to talk to you?

3) I accidentally engaged “watch list" which I thought would help me follow our conversation. I seem to have other things on there I did not want. I simply wanted to follow our conversation. What should I do? Rjc1 (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

4) In "Editing User talk:Cullen328 (new section): What does clicking "Watch this page" accomplish?

Hello again Rjc1. I do not mind your questions. If you stick around, this will all become second nature very quickly.

Rjc1. Believe it or not, I've worked up to this point my entire life. I'm not going anywhere (except to break for family things like this A.M.) I'll stick around as long as you allow. If you'll permit . . I'll be continuing with my questions, but my son is coming over this morning with my autistic grandson. I'm not sure how much of this day is going to be absorbed by that. Going out to get food.

Cullen328 Let me try to help.
1) When you see "You have new messages", take a look at your own talk page. That is where messages of that type will appear.
2) The most common way to respond to a comment directed at you is to click.the "edit" option for that section, scroll to the bottom of the wikicode, and reply. Convention calls for progressively indenting each comment by starting with one colon ":" for the first reply, two "::" for the second, and so on. Never try to indent with blank spaces. That screws up the display.
3) Your watchlist is a list of pages you are monitoring. I wouldn't worry if the software has added your own pages to the list. That is normal.
4) Clicking "watch this page" simply adds any page that interests you to your watch list. You can click the icon again at any time to remove any page that doesn't interest you. The watch list displays the most recent changes to all those pages, and is a very useful tool for active editors. You can customize this tool in various ways, and edit it manually as well.
Hope this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. What you are saying is definitely helping.
5) What is the difference between Rjc1 User Talk (my user page) and Talk (my talk page)? How do I set them up? What is the function of each?
6) In using increasing colons, aren't we going to eventually run out of horizontal page space? (Going out with my family for the rest of the day.) Rjc1 (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
5) Your user page (now empty) is for describing yourself to other editors as a Wikipedia editor. If you write something on that page, your signature will change from red (which hints "newbie"), to blue. You can customize your signature like I do if you want. On your user page, you can mention how long you have been editing, your areas of interest, articles you've worked on, and the like. Some basic biographical information is OK if you want. But promotional material will probably be removed. Your talk page is for conversing with other editors. No "setup" is required for either, though some editors format their pages in a fancy fashion. That's optional.
6)Yes, if a conversation goes on long enough, the column gets narrow on the right side. At that point, you can reply with no colons and begin the numbering of the colons all over. Some editors insert an arrow to indicate that, but I don't even know the code for doing that. It is pretty clear in context.
Have a nice visit with your family. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The code for that cute little arrow is {{od}} or {{outdent}}. --MelanieN (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's try it. MelanieN, you see, is a good talk page stalker, not a bad one. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

how to create personal biography[edit]

I thought to recreate my personal biography. I have an register account in wiki. i didnt find any options to create a biography. so am in need of full process of creating personal biography

Gary Anandasangaree (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Gary Anandasangaree. Trying to write a Wikipedia biography of yourself is unwise, and will almost always lead to problems. If you truly believe that you are notable, then try the Articles for Creation process. You can write a brief profile of yourself on your own user page, talking about yourself as a Wikipedia editor. This should include no promotional material, and nothing that has been cut and pasted from any copyrighted source. Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in here. I am what we call a "talk page stalker", which means I read Cullen's talk page, and occasionally I chime in with a comment. Gary, I see that you did once create a "personal biography" here, on your userpage User:Gary Anandasangaree, but it got deleted. The reason it was deleted was that 1) it seemed to promote something, maybe a business or some such, and 2) it seemed to be copied from somewhere else. Those are both no-nos. If you want to start over, you can. Just click on the redlink User:Gary Anandasangaree, and start writing. But this time, don't copy from anywhere else, and don't promote anything. You could start slow by just typing "Hi, I'm Gary Anandasangaree" and click "save" just to see how it works. You can add to it as often as you like, just be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, don't post any personal information like your address, phone number or email (but if you've been around the internet for a while, you probably already know that). --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Michael Thompson (Aryan Brotherhood). 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, 13 July 2014 (UTC)