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

Oddfellows (2015-01-25)[edit]

Thanks, but ...

Honestly, I don't understand your problems. And also honestly, I don't think you understand my problems.
I'm sure that with mutual good faith and attempts at communication, we might succeed. But also, ...
To be brutally honest, this isn't my highest priority - I have many other interests that I'd rather be devoting my time and effort to. But after 7 years of effort, I'm very uncomfortable with the article being changed to give an impression which is both inaccurate and misleading.

I hope you find the above useful and informative. Meanwhile, thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Pdfpdf. I don't have a "problem", whatever that might be, regarding this article. I was asked for my opinion by another editor and I gave it. Here's my view: the article defines the topic as the various groups called "Oddfellows" in the UK, and then proceeds to devote considerable attention to Oddfellows groups outside the UK. And when discussing the groups within the UK, it seems to devote disproportionate attention to the Manchester group. I think that it would be a far better article if its clearly defined topic was the Manchester group. Currently, it seems jumbled and spawling to me. That's my sincere opinion, and I see no need at all for a confrontational tone in edit summaries or elsewhere. I am a very cooperative fellow. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Goodness gracious me! If you're not careful, you'll get a reputation for being reasonable and rational!!
Thank you. I found your reply very useful. I'll think about it, and get back to you.
I am a very cooperative fellow. - So it would seem! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I am glad to see that you have engaged in discussion, Pdfpdf. It seems, however, that my edit where I added a disambiguation hat note got reverted by you again.[1] That's the very edit in regards of which I asked Cullen328's opinion. Anyway, your ES went as follows:

rv ALL of these matters have already been discussed and addressed. These edits are simply your opinion. There is NO basis of fact behind them, and you re NOT supplying any. PLUS, there are inaccuracies in what you have added. WP:BRD

I am sorry to hear you feel that "the edits are simply my opinion, and have no facts behinds them". I have discussed the problems at the article Talk Page though (here[2] and here[3]). Not just do I think that a hat note is a good way to disambiguate, but currently the 3rd paragraph (used to disambiguate as well) is {{OR}} and lacks of any references. That's another reason that speaks on behalf of a hat note instead of the current extra paragraph in the lede.

What's the way forward from here? Pdfpdf and I seem to be the only "active" editors present at the moment. I don't want to engage myself in any further reverting, and edit warring probably isn't on anyone's list. I hope that Pdfpdf would stay at the article too, since he seems to have to have some expertise on the subject that is valuable. Any suggestions? Cullen328? =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Cullen328. I just wanted to let you know that I asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambigation discussion at Oddfellows, and administrator PBS already helped out with this one, so everything should be settled now. Anyway, thanks for your time and help as well! I appreciate that! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

for noticing. It's an old post, very old, must have been from the days when I still had a sense of humour. I'm amazed that it's suddently got so popular. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's a meme, my friend, and also quite funny. Your current firmness is entirely appropriate. I read much more than I comment on. By the way, I think about the emails we exchanged quite often. All in good time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
So do I, so do I. In the meantime I think I'm going to try and raise my pay grade and have a shot at CU to be able to look for more lost socks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, Kudpung, roaming around in cyberspace, scrutinizing IP addresses. That sounds . . . fascinating, infuriating, possibly boring. But it is work that needs to be done by trustworthy people. I trust you.
By the way, there are a few behind my dryer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking for guidance[edit]

Hi Jim!

I feel I should be calling you Mr Cullin or Sir Jim or something similar given your contributions to Wikipedia! I trust though that you are happy with Jim. :-)

The reason I am writing to you is that I am a very new User of Wiki. Well new in the sense of being a contributor.

Yesterday I inserted my first ever post under the section Selfie called nowie. I was never expecting it to simply “get approved” as this is my first attempt at writing for wiki. I would however really areciate your feedback in terms of what I need to change / add to the article in order that it might be approved?

Thank you so much for your time.

CassieNen (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello CassieNen, and thank you for your kind words. The reason I reverted your edit is explained at WP:MADEUP. You should also read WP:NOT and WP:NEO. The basic principles of Wikipedia are described at WP:5P. Read some of the links you will find there. Feel free to ask additional questions after reading that material. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for review : Draft:Ed DeCosta[edit]

Hi Jim,

I know it's been a while but I was hoping to share with you the improvements I have made with the article I am working on. It was recently declined however the admin who did so gave me awesome pointers to improve the article and resubmit.

Perhaps you can enlighten me with something I have been struggling to get answers for. My research on the subject led me to conclude that most of the articles about him is geared towards the teachings of his book, Ascend : A Coach's Roadmap for Taking your Performance to New Heights. . His publication has been comprehensively discussed on numerous media. Do you think it would be wise to create an article about the book first?

I really appreciate your assistance and thank you in advance for taking the time off your busy schedule =)

Pmanz2014 || Let's Connect 11:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Pmanz2014. I notice that you posted a similar question at the Teahouse, and I made a comment there. Though you have toned it down a bit, the article still reeks of promotionalism. That family photo resembles the ones that politicians send out on glossy postcards right before election day. Why the heck did you think that was appropriate? You preface all the substantive content with this promotionalistic junk about the various people who interviewed him or wrote about him or whatever. That kind of stuff is very irritating to most experienced editors, who have seen it all many times before, and do not like it. My recommendation to you is conciseness and scrupulous neutrality. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
As for the book, please read WP:NBOOKS. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


I'm sure you've been asked this before, but I'm too lazy to trawl through your talk-page archives: Would you have any interest at all in becoming an admin? There are always drama-free (or nearly so) tasks that need to be done, and a fellow old fogy would be welcome. Deor (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Deor. I have been asked and I do have an interest, but I have some family issues to resolve first. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Understood—sorry for bothering you. Deor (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
You are not bothering me in any way, shape or form, Deor. Feel free to visit my talk page at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

List of compilers question from Teahouse[edit]

hi Cullen,

thanks for inviting me to your page.

For reference yesterday I was user LADSoft but had my name changed to KoalaSleeps for the obvious reason. I had posted in the teahouse about the compiler I want to write about and you had left your comments about the state of every college student under the sun turning out a buggy homemade compiler. I couldn't really argue with that lol!

Just out of curiosity, how do I find the compiler's list talk page so I can see what other concerns people have?

For fun I did a google search tonight and found the compiler mentioned on several pages that aren't mine, dating all the way back to 2007. While most of those pages are individual users or chats and may not meet the definition of reputable, the compiler is listed on both and I didn't see seen any reviews though, just blurbs about the compiler's existance and what basic features to expect from it.

here is a list of the sites: Feb 2015 has a blurb about the compiler Feb 2007 compiler is mentioned in a discussion about assemblers that come with compilers undated has a blurb about the compiler undated but based on content was last updated in the 2013-2014 time frame, has a blurb about the compiler. may 2014, quick mention of compiler and MSDOS editor August 2010, discussion about the compiler in an MSDOS forum.

For comparison this is my site:

I am wondering if this is enough to make the compiler interesting for Wikipedia? Thanks for your help!KoalaSleeps (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello KoalaSleeps. I can answer one of your questions with confidence. In general, every page on Wikipedia has an associated talk page. There are a number of ways to view Wikipedia, "skins" they are called, but in general, there will be a menu strip at the top of your view of the website. One of those choices will be "Talk". Click on that. In this particular case, the talk page is located at Talk:List of compilers.
As for all those websites you linked to, I am not in a position to evaluate the reliability of those websites. I am not a professional programmer, but rather just a guy who took a few programming classes 35 years ago, getting A grades rather than D grades, but took a different career path. My technical knowledge is WAY out of date. Instructions on how to evaluate the reliability of a website or other source can be found at WP:RS.
Please be aware that quite a few editors here are strongly opposed to any edit that can be construed as self-promotional. Do not be surprised if other editors take exception to you editing about your own compiler. Their comments may be "unfriendly". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm New! I Just Posted LORRIE GOULET : : Need Wiki Sherpa![edit]

Dear Jim,

Thanks for being so generous with your knowledge - your enthusiasm and commitment are very inspiring.

I'd appreciate your help on getting "Lorrie Goulet" reviewed and improved. Lorrie is one of our greatest living American artists - not just a scupltor and painter, but a philosopher and poet. A team of volunteers here in NYC have been working with her going through a vast archive she has built in her beautiful studio in Chelsea. Many of the papers, photos and films about her and her husband (Jose de Creeft) are in the Smithsonian and other institutions which we'll be visiting over the next few weeks to further enhance the story. We are working on a few books and documentaries and were surprised Lorrie didn't have a Wiki years ago.


Hello Cynthia Artin. Please remove the promotional material from your user page. That page should introduce you as a Wikipedia editor but the current version promotes your business interests. I have read Lorrie Goulet and agree that the artist is notable. Thank you for starting the article. Please be aware, though, that it is essential and a matter of policy that a biography of a living person be properly referenced. Every factual assertion should be cited to a reliable source, in the form of inline references. Please see Referencing for beginners.
The list of exhibitions and museum holdings is excessive and should be trimmed to the most important. Each entry on the list should be cited to a reliable, independent source. Her education should be described in prose, not list form. Currently, the article looks way too much like a curriculm vitae instead of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, nor is it a repository for the kind of brochures that art galleries hand out praising the artists whose work they sell. Accordingly, any praise or evaluation of her work must be cited to an independent expert source. Every direct quotation must be cited.
I recommend trimming the article by about 50%, an exercise which will result in a much leaner, fact based style. The article will be better for it, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

OK Jim, thanks again! Finally figured out the various comments on my own page and cleaned them up (re-posting with a mea culpa and simple explanation of what I am doing 'here.')

I will simplify the Lorrie Goulet page and add citations and such over the weekend, and also respond to others who are concerned with my ineptness!

Thanks again!

Cynthia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia Artin (talkcontribs) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please help me.[edit]

Jim. My name is John Shine, Hello and thanks upfront.

I am the owner of a company called Kornukopia. We are are free learning management system for schools. I have learned to rely on wikipedia for myself doing research. I believe Kornukopia can really help some needy schools. My problem is that my entry keeps getting deleted.

Almost all the other options for LMSs are listed on wikipedia for Learning Management Systems. See below.

But every time I try... Deleted.

WP:G11 Main page: Wikipedia:Spam Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. See Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION for the policy on this.

I have gone so far are to basically repeat what one company did.. Still deleted.

what can I do? I am in one way promoting, but in the other I think that a reference to learning management system that does not include our service is not a complete entry for all providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornukopia123 (talkcontribs) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Kornukopia123. I suggest using our Articles for Creation process to create a draft of your article. Experienced editors will give you specific feedback about the content after you submit it. One thing that's important - your company needs to be covered in independent published sources (e.g., newspapers, magazines) to show it meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. See WP:CORP for more info. --NeilN talk to me 21:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Kornukopia123. I see from your talk page that you have been advised to change your username. I agree with that advice, and suggest you do so promptly. Since your article has been deleted, I can't see the specific promotional problems. But it is clear that you have a conflict of interest, and should not write an article about your own company. Almost every single new article I have ever seen about a company or organization written by someone employed there is promotional. Uninvolved editors work constantly to remove promotional content. This is an encyclopedia and our articles need to be neutral and based on independent sources. Just because you see mediocre articles about competing companies doesn't mean we should have a mediocre article about yours. If your company is truly notable, we should have a good, policy-compliant article about your company, and either get rid of or improve those other articles. You should use the Articles for creation process going forward. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in, NeilN. It is always nice when you stop by. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I like it here. It's friendly :-) --NeilN talk to me 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'll butt in here, if I may, because I can see the deleted articles. Mr. Shine, thanks for asking; we will try to explain what is happening here. I see that you created an article about Kornukopia twice. The first time it was extremely promotional and was deleted immediately. The second time it was not as bad but didn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion here, which are explained at WP:CORP. And now you have created a third version. You put it in your sandbox, which was smart because no one will delete it there; you can take your time and work on it. Even those who don't have X-ray vision can see that draft: User:Kornukopia123/sandbox. My comment: You have done the best you could, eliminated most of the puffery and flowery language - but you could not fix the basic problem, which is notability. Notability requires that your company has received significant coverage from outside, independent reliable sources (like newspapers etc.). It seems very unlikely that your company has received any such coverage, since it has only been open for a few months. In addition, you should read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, which basically says that you should not be writing an article about your own company. Here is the deal: Wikipedia is not a site like Facebook, where you can say whatever you want about yourself or any subject you choose. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and as such it has to have criteria for inclusion. I'm afraid your company does not (yet) meet those criteria. Maybe after it has been in business for a few years and been written up by some outside sources. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S. You probably don't need to bother with Articles for Creation - since your article is in your sandbox and people here can advise you. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted photographs on Lorrie Goulet page[edit]

Can you take a look at this please User_talk:Cynthia_Artin#Photographs Should the photographs be tagged for deletion? Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to respond, Theroadislong, as I have been distracted by family matters. Since the photos are gone, I couldn't comment on them in detail. I tried, though, to make a supportive comment about sourcing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
I have had more pleasant and enjoyable conversations with you than any other editor on Wikipedia. You are one big reason why I keep editing, because you are so encouraging to me.   Bfpage |leave a message  21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I really appreciate that, Bfpage, especially since we had a minor disagreement. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It is precisely the times that we disagree that I learn the most from you.
  Bfpage |leave a message  22:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jemima Goldsmith[edit]

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

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I expressed my opinion there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


Just an FYI, replied to you (with an edit also) re GamerGate vs USU. You might want to read it - we've got a dilemma on our hands. MicBenSte (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding the point on the talk page, MicBenSte. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you![edit]

Cheeseburger.png It took me a while but here is a burger for that terrific answer at the teahouse. Top notch. Very in formative. DangerousJXD (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Why, thank you very much, DangerousJXD. As a Jew who keeps kosher, I can't eat a real beef cheeseburger. I can eat a kosher beef burger without cheese. I can eat a veggie burger with cheese. I can eat a salmon burger with cheese. And my rabbi approves me enjoying "virtual cheeseburgers" and also movies featuring entertaining animated pigs. So, thanks a lot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Favor, please[edit]

Would you please remove my username from that discussion header on EC's talk page? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

With apologies for butting in, Cullen, here we go again. LB canvasses someone after an admin - HJ Mitchell in this case - has already reverted her. If you're going to post like this, LB, I think you should be open about what has gone on previously.
On a lighter note, Cullen, many moons ago you asked if I could find a quotation written by the article subject for William Beach Thomas. I did get there, eventually, and the thing passed through FAC much more recently. Thanks for your comments re: that. - Sitush (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Lightbreather. I am afraid that I can't help you in this situation. I would like to have a good working relationship with you and also with Eric Corbett and his friends as well. Eric is in control of his own user page. I recommend that you just ignore what goes on there, to the extent possible. If I was to intervene in the way you suggest, I would have several people angry at me for no benefit whatsoever to anyone, especially me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Sitush. You are welcome here at any time. Yes, I remember our discussions about that old fogey of a journalist. Congratulations on reaching featured article status, and I took another look at the article around the time you reached that goal. It was much better then than back in the days when I was taking pot shots at your work from the cheap seats. I hope you know that my comments were in good faith, with the intention to point out areas for improvement. As for the current controversy, I think I know when I can help and when I can't. I see no way at this moment that anything I say might lead to a de-escalation. In such sad situations, I choose silence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Despite appearances, I frequently choose silence also, and with increasing frequency of late. Beach Thomas was not a loveable man, more a caricature of the worst of his type. I'd never even heard of him before beginning research but his name apparently crops up quite a lot even in pre-high school history lessons nowadays in the UK, so probably that article should be a target for Simple Wikipedia. Alas, I can't really do simple writing. - Sitush (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Taking this off my watchlist, but FYI, I'd forgotten HJM was an admin - and that Cullen isn't one![4] Lightbreather (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
On a lighter note, Sitush, is there any discussion I start with others that you don't try to hijack? (Completely rhetorical.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Rhetorical or not, watching or not, the answer is clearly "no". I am aware, through other pages, of numerous debates that have involved you but where I have chosen not to comment at all. You really, really have to stop trying to get the last word, LB. Apologies, Jim, and this really is my last word. I'm fed up of this person constantly casting aspersions. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Co-op news for December 2014 – Feburary 2015[edit]

CO-OP Logo 2.png

Hey Cullen328, it's been a while. The Co-op team has been hard at work during over the winter, so let's get right into what's been happening:

Landing page draft. You know it's a draft when you need to squint at the logo, ha ha.
  • Graphic design work is nearing completion and development work is coming along slowly but surely. The main components of the space, profiles, the landing page, and the mentor landing page have all been built, and we're basically just putting the pieces together. We have close-to-final draft of the landing page, which is currently at User:Slalani/Landing_page, and in the thumbnail to the right. You can check out other components over at User:Slalani if you're curious. Soni, Slalani, and I are working together on some of the front page elements. We've also been doing some testing on for profile building and matching. If you're curious about checking that out, let me know.
  • We've finished up a survey for newer editors to assess their experiences of using existing help spaces (e.g. Reference Desk, Teahouse, IRC, The Wikipedia Adventure) on en.wikipedia. Gabrielm199 is putting together a summary of that survey, and in the meantime, some findings from that survey of 45 newer editors include:
    • On average, editors found contributing to Wikipedia to be easier after using the help space compared to before.
      • However, after using one or more help spaces, only half of editors reported that editing, addressing social challenges, and resolving technical issues were easy or very easy. The other half of editors were either neutral, or reported that these matters were difficult or very difficult.
    • Just under 30% (11 of 38 editors) of newer editors said they probably would have stopped editing entirely had they not received support from the help space they used.
    • Editors frequently reported either 1) that they would not have been learn what they needed without the help space, or 2) That they could have found it, but admitted that it would have been difficult or taken much longer.
  • We will be making one final move of the pilot start date to March 4th, 2015. This is the last move (I promise), because we can't afford to run the pilot any later than that. So there it is: March 4th or bust! But we won't bust, because there are just a few things left on our plate before we can run our pilot successfully. I'll be alerting you about when you will be able to make mentor profiles soon, so when you get a message about that, please take a minute or two to create your profile here (otherwise, you won't get matched to any editors!).

Thanks to all of the new mentors who have joined over the past few months. Big thanks to Missvain to posting about our little project here to the gendergap-l mailing list. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC) on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!![edit]

Wikilove2 new.png Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Cullen328, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
 - T H (here I am) 12:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Drive by comment...[edit]

Just read Vaillancourt Fountain and wanted to stop by to say hello, and compliment your work. Great job, Cullen. I also like the fountain's design. It is quite unique. AtsmeConsult 15:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Atsme. I really appreciate that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

X!'s Tools[edit]

the total edit count is 304 as per the tools viewing from other account. but it isn't visible from this one. aGastya 08:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgastyaC (talkcontribs)

This has been discussed at The Teahouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David M. Cote[edit]

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

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


How deal with some one like this, I am trying contribute to make more worldwide a legend and this reviews is using his personal opinion to delete something that is accepted in other languages, I am doing translation to link with page in german about legends:,_Carol#Die_Sage_von_der_Seerose

I would like to know why you deleted my file.

If it is here:ória-régia

And here:

Under experience reviews also.

--Taemaya (Diskussion) 14:42, 16. Feb. 2015 (CET)

Hello Taemaya, there are a few good reasons for deleting this entry. First of all: Never use a babelfish-translation in the german wikipedia. It doesn't work, the result is far away from beeing german language. Second: Nice tale, but it does not have any relevance in de:WP. And last but not least: To copy a text, even if translated, and to offer it as you did in WP, is a crime in Europe. And we don't want to become criminals, do we? Kind regards, --CC 14:47, 16. Feb. 2015 (CET) --

I haven't used translator, my fiencé did, he is german and translated it from portuguese, this is a legende it do not have owners, exist before colonial period. I think it is relevante, if it was not it would not be in ptwiki and enwiki, this would be a philosophical question of taste (your taste in case) BUT once wiki is free and with free contributors. Crime if I had made plagium what it is not the case. -- This translation was not suitable german language, whatever your fience says. And we do not insert legends in de:WP. This is not any kind of philosophical question. --CC 14:56, 16. Feb. 2015 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taemaya (talkcontribs) 14:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script[edit]

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDKTC 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For recent calming advice on WP:Teahouse. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Especially appreciated, GeorgeLouis, since I made an inadvertant mistake that might have inflamed things. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

SF edit-a-thons on March 7 and 8[edit]

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!
8 March San Francisco International Womens Day edit-a-thon.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Wikipedia community has two events in early March -- please consider attending!

First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists and their works!

Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course!

I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

In re: Semi-new editor working on research about Wikipedia[edit]

Thank you very much for your willingness to answer some questions! I made a Google doc survey/interview form if you would prefer to answer that way. If you would prefer to answer here, then my questions are as follows.

  1. Why did you start contributing to/editing Wikipedia?
  2. Why do you continue to do so?
  3. How do you normally contribute to Wikipedia?
  4. Do you also use Wikipedia for research? If so, how do you use it (gain broad idea of subject, relevant links/sources, etc)?
  5. If applicable, what type of research do you do (personal, academic, etc)?
  6. What subject(s) do you normally edit/contribute to?
  7. What subjects do you normally research?
  8. Are you a member of any WikiProjects? If so, which and why those?
  9. Is there anything else that you'd like to add?

Thanks again for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casswenze (talkcontribs) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Casswenze. In the spirit of transparency which I believe appropriate for 99% of communication about Wikipedia, I will answer right here:
  1. I found Wikipedia increasingly useful and intriguing probably around 2006 to 2007. I thought about editing, but was extremely busy with my business (I am self-employed) and with personal, political and family involvements in those years (I climbed a tough route on Mount Shasta in 2007 at age 55, and was highly active in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, working to help elect the current president. I also have a disabled son who requires lots of attention). I started to read and study "behind the scenes" instructions for new editors at that time, but was just too busy to begin editing, which seemed like a very big step to take. In 2009, the Great Recession hit my business hard and that presidential campaign was over. I had spare time on my hands, though I was preparing for a climb of Mount Whitney, by an easier route but still a challenge for a 57 year old. So, I had been reading about and studying Wikipedia editing for a couple of years. Two specific topics motivated me to start editing. The Wikipedia article about Norman Clyde, a major figure in the history of California mountaineering, was in very poor condition. Also, we had no article about pre-eminent California coppersmith Dirk van Erp. I realized that I knew enough about these two topics to improve the encyclopedia, so in July, 2009, I started editing. The response to my early work was very favorable, which motivated me to keep writing and editing.
  2. I continue to edit because I enjoy it, because I seem to have the somewhat rare personality type that thrives as an encyclopedia editor, because I believe that I am accomplishing something of worth, because I truly believe in this project, and because I want my writing to be read and remembered for the ages, as opposed to being forgotten and discarded.
  3. When I have time to spare, whether a few minutes during my work day, or an hour or two in the evening or possibly quite a few hours on a lazy weekend day, I just look around and see where I might be of use to the encyclopedia. I might answer a question at the Teahouse, vote for (or against) a candidate for administrator, make what I hope will be a helpful comment to resolve a dispute, expand or reference an article that catches my eye, express my opinion in an Articles for Deletion debate, or see what kind of fighting is going on at the various administrative noticeboards. Occasionally, when highly motivated, I write a new article. I think I average about one new article a month. I wish I had time to write more.
  4. I do not use Wikipedia for "research" in the formal sense, as I am neither a student nor an academic. However, I am highly curious and "look stuff up" on Wikipedia very often. As an experienced editor, I take the text of an article as an overview, and frequently read the references and external links as well.
  5. Anything I do that can be called "research" is personal in nature. It may be for the purpose of improving Wikipedia itself in some way.
  6. After my first article, I set out to write and expand a series of biographies of California mountaineers and Sierra Club leaders. Gradually, I branched out and became what I call a generalist editor. I retain an interest in biographies, and in addition to climbers and environmentalists, I have written a number of biographies of artists and photographers, including several of Native American background. But I will happily write or expand an article on any topic that catches my fancy, even if I know almost nothing about the topic when beginning the project. I enjoy the process of learning and piecing together an overview by reading as many sources as I can find about a topic.
  7. Anything under the sun, and beyond.
Thank you so much for taking the time to help me out! With your enthusiasm you have inspired me to continue learning about how I can further contribute to Wikipedia. So far I have only helped clean up a few articles, but I hope to be able to contribute in other ways eventually. Thanks again! Casswenze (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

8. I have joined several Wikiprojects, but have to say that a very small percentage of my editing is connected with these projects. In theory, it is a great concept, and I am sure that some projects are active. When I sign up for a project, it is because I have an ongoing interest in that broad topic area, and would welcome an inquiry at any time from any editor who shares those interests. To give an example, I have a userbox that says I am part of Wikiproject Wine. I am not a wine expert. But I have lived in the Napa Valley for over 22 years, a premier wine growing area, know many people who work in the industry, and enjoy visiting wineries. I've written one article about a winery, expanded another, commented on wine-related article deletion debates, and so on. I love wine. But I am not a "wine editor". The vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with wine, and know that many other editors know more about wine than I do. But I would be happy to help any other editor interested in wine, to the best of my abilities.

9. First, I want to say that I will expand and elaborate on any of my answers if you want any additional information. Secondly, I want to mention that I believe that I have done some very good work helping new editors at the Teahouse, which is a place on Wikipedia for people to ask questions about the process of editing. Experienced editors, committed to interacting with newbies in a friendly, welcoming way, provide personalised responses to those questions. I recommend the Teahouse to every editor interested in advancing civil collaboration for the benefit of building this free encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again! I have definitely found the Teahouse to be very helpful. Even if I just want to browse through the questions that others have asked, I end up learning more about Wikipedia that I ever imagined.
I was wondering if you'd be willing to answer a few more questions. These questions are as follows.
  1. Do you use libraries? If not (or in addition to), what other information sources do you use?
  2. You mentioned before that one of your favorite parts of editing is the opportunity to learn and gather sources. How do you conduct research on a new topic and with what sources?
  3. What reference sources do you consider to be the most reliable and/or comprehensive?
  4. What reference sources do you consider the easiest to find or use?
Again, thank you so much! Casswenze (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Casswenze.
1. I rarely use libraries these days. I mostly use books that I own, or online sources that I track down.
2. I have edited extensively about California mountaineering and about artists and photographers, mostly from California. I have been collecting books about mountaineering for nearly 40 years. My wife and I visit the major art museums of Northern California with great regularity and often buy books about artists that interest us. So, I often start by finding a few physical books, then start Google searches for high-quality online sources. This often involves disregarding a large number of brief mentions or unreliable sources in favor of a smaller number of higher quality sources. I find new or used books in bookstores and occasionally order books online.
3. The reliability of a source has to be evaluated in context. If the topic is of academic interest, then a book by a PhD with recognized expertise, published by a university press, may be the best source. As for artists, I find catalogs published by major museums in conjuntion with exhibitions to be excellent sources. Because mountaineering is a serious and dangerous sport, I find mountaineering journals to be very well researched and accurate for the most part.
4. Obviously, what pops up in a Google search is easiest to find, but the key is to separate the wheat from the chaff, eliminating the poorer quality sources while keeping the best of them. I am an online New York Times subscriber, so I often find useful articles there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I enjoy art museums as well and I have more than one book from museums. Usually they are both excellent resources and conversation starters.
If you don't mind me asking, why don't you visit libraries much?
Casswenze (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I spent a lot of time in libraries when I was younger, Casswenze. So I have positive feelings about them. But now I am very busy. You see, I am self-employed which means I have a very demanding boss who makes me work long hours. I enjoy browsing bookstores and owning books, and I live in a large house full of books. If I need a very specific book, it is easier for me to buy it online than make two trips to the library. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking for a mentor[edit]

Hello Cullen328 I am looking for an editor as I have been doing some paid Wikipedia consulting but I had not been transparent enough -- maybe at all -- but that was not in any way malicious. I put together a free and open video on how to engage Wikipedia (maybe I did more harm than good) and included my name and what I thought were best practices. Now I know how out of line I have been and I am looking for someone with deep experience to help me keep especially appropriate and well-within the lines. I know I am probably toxic but I found you in the TEAHOUSE and I thought I would ask. Chrisabraham (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Where to start, Chrisabraham? Here you are, a paid editor, asking me, a volunteer editor, to help you be more effective at earning money by editing Wikipedia. Articles about barely notable third tier Scientologists who were once personal assistants to Tom Cruise, purveyors of rat poison, and militantly anti-gay fried chicken fast food restaurants. Plus the cousins of minor musicians. Right. Well done. What's in it for me, other than infamy as an editor? Maybe you should seek a higher quality of client.
I would love your help to bring each page into compliance. I am sorry if my clients offend you but we probably share some beliefs and not others; however, I would like to try to make edits and entries -- or recommendations of them -- that are neutral and cited rather . . . isn't that what I am supposed to do? Chrisabraham (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw all the alerts you put onto all the pages I declared as COI. What steps do I need to take in order to bring these pages into compliance? I am fine with the alerts and the notices but I would like to see if there's anything I can do to bring them into compliance. Chrisabraham (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The first recommendation is to openly declare your conflict of interest on the talk page of every article where you have a conflict of interest. Cease all edits to any page where you have a conflict of interest, other than reverting vandalism, and confine yourself to proposing changes on the article talk pages. If your proposals are rejected or ignored, live with it and move on.
I will do that now. I saw that you've already put in the alerts onto the pages. I wanted to do a little more research before I went into each page. I will do that now Chrisabraham (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I am being harsh with you because you are being paid, and therefore it is your job to pay attention to the assessments of experienced editors. I am not an editor who rejects all paid editing out of hand, though I have never been paid for any of my edits. However, I insist that paid editors comply 100% with every single Wikipedia policy and guideline. You have not yet done so. If I was one of your clients, I would ask for a refund. Get your act together. Now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Cullen328 I deserve it. You have been much more than generous. I cannot defend myself except to say that i didn't mean any harm and I kept real name and didn't intended to be covert but will move quickly to come into compliance ASAP. Thank you for responding to me honestly and at all. The only thing I can do now is to work hard to meet these heightened expectations. Again, thank you. Chrisabraham (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I recommend that you emulate the practices of CorporateM, a paid editor who is ethical and has a very good reputation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chrisabraham:§§ Regarding Cullen's advice, the best way to "earn your keep" sort of speak is through "community service"; as in improving important articles where you have no financial connection, so the extra attention you require where you have a COI is not a burden on the system. This also has the effect of imparting experience and perspective. That being said, no direct trades should take place. In a perfect world, someone would offer training that you would pay for, rather than being offered by volunteers, but since no such service exists and Wikipedians do have a vested interest in promoting ethics, what else can be done?
The level of persistence that is appropriate does vary depending on the case. I wouldn't encourage you to give up if you are being victimized by a POV pusher, but in most cases where a COI alleges someone is POV pushing, it's the other way around (or both).
Cullen also hits on an important point; statistically I only accept 30% of client inquiries, because most clients want something different from Wikipedia (hence the conflict of interest) and there is no way to ethically serve them without undermining Wikipedia. Without taking a closer look, I would bet your own client portfolio may require trimming if you want to be ethical and refunds may in fact be in order. In fact, any ethical service has to make substantial financial sacrifices to be ethical and will have less satisfied clients regarding content outcomes (again, hence the conflict of interest). CorporateM (Talk) 18:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)@CorporateM:
CorporateM thank you for getting back to me. A very small part of my practice is doing this at all and my little agency of one is really not even about this. This is all just casual word if mouth and so forth. So far, I have bought all the books that have been mentioned in 3rd party references so I can properly contest them, if the need arises. I did that for Orkin and Doven, etc. So, I have been trying to hold the folks I work with to high standards. That said, it's my part of the equation that I need to reform and that's what I need to do. Personally, I don't have a problem with any edits I have made except for what we're talking about now, me and my disclosure, transparency, and COI. Also, I look forward to doing what you recommend: giving back way more than I take. I'll do my best and really hope to become part of the community and eventually be accepted as a Wikipedian Chrisabraham (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparing old stub and new additions to Brad Myers article[edit]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for inviting me to discuss this in a more private area (I guess?). I am new to expanding existing articles - just fixed typos before this. I added a couple of comments to you in the Tea House before noticing the link to Discuss it. Thank you!

The issue is whether I can add more facts and citations to Brad Myers' stub of an article. Here are the two articles: Stub: which says, " a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." My Sandbox:

All the things I added are heavily cited, and are mostly about degrees, employment, papers he wrote, and awards he won.

I'll also send this to Sam Sailor whose comment seemed to say that my work was ok except for the fact that there were two articles. I guess I just need to know the proper way to proceed. I thought it would be better to ask for a review before commandeering the other page and other people not liking my work. What procedure should I have done?

Athomeeditor (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Athomeeditor. I have made additional comments at the Teahouse. Feel free to ask follow-up questions, either there or here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Cosby[edit]

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

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


On the page of Estonia (nation), an irrelavant section "Holidays" exists which tells about a few holidays like Independence day. This is not a significant topic (While asking to include bout India's cuisine and tourism , I was told that tourism is not significant for the page "India" -EVEN THOUGH INDIA IS ONE OF THE TOP DESTINATION IN ASIA!) Since the list of holidays is not relevant to anyone outside of Estonia (the page is not protected), a user is re-adding that content over and over again. I used the talk page but there has been no reply so far. I found you through tea house. Help me out :) Mousanonyy (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mousanonyy. In my opinion, a well-referenced section about national holidays is entirely appropriate in such an article. The information is relevant to anyone seriously interested in Estonia, namely the readers of that article. Separate articles about tourism in India and Indian cuisine are also appropriate, since these are such large and clearly independently notable topics. Trying to compare Estonia and India is not a useful exercise, when it comes to building an encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Dear Cullen. Just like someone who is really interested in Estonia would want to read about its holidays, someone who is interested about India would be interested in Bollywood, India's tourism, cuisine, culture , languages (more than 600!), clothings etc. Could you help me on India's talk page to include sections on India's cuisine, tourism and two Official (not national) languages on India's page? Thanks and anticipating help since my request has been simply rejected previously. Mousanonyy (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Cullen, I think you missed my message! :) Mousanonyy (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Mousanonyy. We have articles such as Tourism in India, Indian cuisine, Bollywood and countless sub-articles that discuss these topics in detail. The official language issue has been discussed extensively. It is up to you to make the case on.the article's talk page that these matters deserve mention in the main article India. I see no recent discussion of these matters there. You have to build consensus among the regular editors who contribute to that article, since they are familiar with the development and structure of that article. I am not. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, :) I want the cuisine, languages and tourism to be mentioned on the article India. I had started the topic on talk page but it was turned down saying "not significant part of Indian revenue is through tourism" etc. I will start a new request and invite your opinion. Thanks a lot. :) Mousanonyy (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cullen, please re-produce your thoughts here- Thank you so much! Mousanonyy (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks so much for trying to help me[edit]

Jim, do you have an example of newbies user page? I have no idea what should be included in there. I'm probably not even formatting this talk / discussion properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogMorton (talkcontribs) 21:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC) I am trying to do the right thing in how I approach wikipedia, so I am just hesitant to put anything out there. I understand that a person has to treat Wikipedia very different from facebook and the like. I am just not understanding what the user page is for if I am interested in writing an article about my company. That is why I didn't quite get it.

Hello RogMorton. Your user page is for you to tell other editors a bit about you as a Wikipedia editor. It can be brief or lengthy, simple or fancy. In your case, you must disclose your conflict of interest there. This is mandatory.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have an example of a standard users page you could pass onto me so that I have an idea of what kind of relevant information should be put in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogMorton (talkcontribs) 22:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a "standard" user page as some are a single sentence and others (such as mine) are lengthy and complex. Simply click on a few editor's signatures at random (those that are not red links) and you will see a variety of user pages. Please disclose your conflict of interest immediately. Just click your red signature and do it. Start simple. You can expand it any any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I see you have begun. Why do you say NON Conflict of interest? Please remove the "NON" as it is misleading. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nickel Institute[edit]

Hello Jim

I am here because of some kind words sent to me (Matthew Vanitas) when my first attempt to create an article was rejected. He introduced me to Teahouse and offered to chat with me about why my proposed page was rejected and what might be done about it. So I thought about it, did some research and organized my thoughts. I was going to go back to Matthew but now find that he is taking a couple of months off. In addition, his interests are in all things Indian...and bagpipes. I thoroughly approve but it is quite removed from my little topic. I have left a copy of what you will see below and promised to let him know (when he returns to wikiwork in April or May) how things have progressed.

I suspect the original exchange can be seen by you at

So with that background, here is the issue and how I prepared my reply to Matthew:

Dear Matthew Thank you very much for your message. While crushed (absolutely crushed, I tell you!) that I didn’t get a medal with my first attempt, your note seems entirely in keeping with what I understood was the Wiki spirit. So while I still may ultimately fail to get through the Wikipedia filters, I am happy to take up your offer to talk about it.

I’ll try to explain (1) why I thought an entry for the Nickel Institute was justifiable (this gets at the issue of “notability”), (2) why I think I’m qualified to prepare such an entry (this provides disclosure of my background), (3) why the (rejected) submission was written the way it was, (4) observations – and they are various – on other industry associations that ARE represented in Wikipedia, and (5) why “secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject” is such a challenge for an entry on the Nickel Institute. So…

1. Why an entry on the Nickel Institute can be justified The Nickel Institute exists because of the element nickel and the various commercial forms it takes. So the importance of the Institute is tied directly to the importance of “nickel”. There is a good entry on elemental nickel ( the technical bits are solid but other parts (production, applications, issues, etc.) are looking a bit out of date albeit not embarrassingly so. What the entry on nickel does not sufficiently address are the occupational and human health issues associated with nickel production and use. Nor does it address the engineering issues: how to weld nickel alloys, what applications of nickel-containing stainless steels are appropriate…and inappropriate, which metal finishing (“plating”) solutions work best on what substrate materials, and a whole host of practical engineering challenges. All of this information, without any advertising, brand identification or cost, is available on the net from the Institute…but you would not learn that from Wikipedia.

FYI, a number of Institute publications are used as references for the entry on nickel. Examples: Flint GN; Packirisamy S (Feb–Mar 1997). "Purity of food cooked in stainless steel utensils". Food Addit Contam 14 (2): 115–26. doi:10.1080/02652039709374506.PMID 9102344: Molloy, Bill (November 8, 2001). "Trends of Nickel in Coins – Past, Present and Future". The Nickel Institute. Archived from the original on September 29, 2006. Retrieved November 19, 2008) My very first minimal attempt to introduce the availability of this resource was to add, under “External Links”, a link to the Nickel Institute. It was immediately removed by Barek (

2. Why I’m qualified to write about the Institute I have 30 years of experience with mining and metal issues, half of which have been focused exclusively on nickel. Thirteen of those years were as an employee of the Institute. You can see more of my background at

3. Why the submission was written the way it was In spite of much contradictory evidence (see 4 below), I am a strong supporter of the wiki ideals. While I believe the Institute deserves a modest presence in Wikipedia, I did not want to conflate the importance of nickel (enormous to society) with the Institute (supportive of the appropriate use of nickel use in society). Thus a list of the member companies and of the publications, technical support services, etc., was noted but not elaborated. There is also the reality that the Institute has the mandate and responsibility for advancing the commercial interests of its member companies. The more the attributes and value of “nickel” are praised in an entry that is supposed to be about “the Institute”, the more it begins to resemble a commercial. That is not a wiki objective nor was it mine. But then my original submission was rejected, at least in part, because it was not sufficiently “notable”. How to make an entry “notable” without getting into the commercial, promotional and environmental aspects in which the Institute is engaged? Clearly I need help here.

4. Observations In thinking about a possible wiki entry for the Institute I naturally looked at existing industry association entries. What follows is a selection of what I found (and what I thought about them).

World Steel Association This looks neutral at first glance but in reality it is unapologetic in setting out the commercial and promotional objectives of the member companies. Three of the four references given have direct links to the steel industry. ALL of the seven “External Links” are products of the Association and are entirely promotional and do not pretend to be neutral although I expect them to be technically sound.

The Aluminium Association This is a poorly written and entirely promotional page. That is noted in the wiki notes at the top of the entry:

   [hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (August 2014)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2014)

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (August 2014)

   This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (March 2012)

I note that the legitimate concerns noted above date from March 2012 but, unlike my submission for the nickel industry, the aluminium page (a) exists and (b) continues to exist in spite of issues that have remained unaddressed for almost three years now.

The Minor Metals Trade Association (MMTA) is included here because, well, it’s minor but has a wiki presence. It is mainly a list of the Periodic Table elements of commercial interest to its members and with a list to URLs that take researchers to more specialized sites. Of interest too is the lack of “secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject”: only two references are given, both of which are from the trade association itself. That sounds like a criticism but in fact I’m sympathetic…which gets to point 5.

5. Why the requirement for “secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject” is such a challenge They don’t exist. There is absolutely no reason why a desperate graduate student or marginal journal would write or publish research on the Nickel Institute. The Institute is an open book, its objectives are predictable, its history is non-controversial and never political. The scientific research of NiPERA is, of course, published in journals and commented upon but that is the research, not the institution. The technical publications that are vital to downstream users of nickel, nickel alloys, nickel chemicals and catalysts have a large audience but neither the practice of technical support nor the quality of that support justifies third party examination, commentary and citable material. That is why the MMTA had to cite itself because that is all there is.

But think of the alcohol industry. Sprits Europe ( represents and enormous industry with products that practically every world citizen will recognize. In addition, the issues related to those products generate enormous social and political attention. There are probably hundreds of articles written on the PRODUCTS and their EFFECTS every month in every language…but nothing on the industry association which is, after all, the subject of the wiki entry. This is understandable and explains why that the wiki entry contains a long list of references and external links, every one of which is by or to a member company of the industry association. The majority of them will also be entirely promotional in one way or another. In other words, even an industry association dealing with drinks and spirits has not found entirely independent secondary reliable sources to buttress its wiki presence. Neither can the Nickel Institute. The difference is, however, the Spirits Europe – like the Minor Metals Trade Association – can be found in Wikipedia but my attempt to get the Nickel Institute in has (so far) failed.

Are you still glad you offered to chat about all this?

I have perhaps over-explained the situation and I suspect you and others close to Wikipedia would be the first to admit that there is great unevenness in the different wiki entries. That is inevitable and we, the users and supporters of Wikipedia, understand and accept this: the ideal is just not achievable in such the dynamic and expanding universe that is Wikipedia. Maybe in a hundred years….

But until then, and with the examples and explanations I have given, what should I be doing now that I have so far failed to do? With many thanks in advance for any words you can offer, I am sincerely yours, Bruce McKean (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Bruce McKean

Hello Bruce McKean. You must show that this organization is notable based on significant coverage of the group in reliable, independent sources. Perhaps you have discovered some other non-compliant articles that need to be improved or deleted. That happens all the time here. But no experienced editor will accept a new non-compliant article just because other such articles exist.

The bottom line is that, lacking coverage in independent sources, we should not have a Wikipedia article about any given topic. This is well-established. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cullen328. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 03:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:Co-op: Presentation at Wikimania 2015[edit]

CO-OP Logo 2.png

Hey Cullen328. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar![edit]

Thanks for the barnstar, Cullen - I am just trying to kepp it all honest out there! Cheers CJ Canada Jack (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Request to userfy a deleted page[edit]

Hello Cullen328! A group of us from Wikimedia DC have been collaborating to improve coverage of African Americans in STEM in connection with an editathon, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/African Americans in STEM. One of our newer editors put his worklist, List of African American men in STEM fields, in mainspace and it got deleted. Could we please request you userfy and restore this list, either in the list creator's userspace, or in my userspace, User:Djembayz? We had a bunch of *really knowledgeable subject experts* at this event, so we experienced editors want to look through those suggestions for articles. It's also possible some need print or subscription sources. Any chance you could bring this page back for us so we can continue our collaboration? It would be a shame if this well-informed new contributor's work got lost! --Djembayz (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Djembayz. I moved that to Donald R. Brown since he was the only person described. I am not an administrator so do not have the power to userfy, but it is not needed here. You can start a new list article, but it should be an actual list, not an article about one person like it was when I learned about it. Just click the red link and start editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Culllen328, now I see what happened here. We'll see how our new editor does if they try again, and if need be, I can start the list myself. --Djembayz (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

Hello, I would like to help Wikipedia and I want to apologize for my behavior earlier. I am glad that you are understanding. Have a good day!

Frogger48 (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Frogger48. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar 05:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dreadstar. I have read it previously. If anything I say or do on any of those pages gives you cause for any concern, please bring those concerns to my attention. I will consider that carefully. I got a bit involved in those articles because ArbCom asked uninvolved editors to do so. My goal is to build this encyclopedia, and I will always try hard to not be disruptive in any way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The notice is informational and does not imply any wrongdoing on your part; virtually all editors who edit GamerGate related articles are given this notice. I haven't seen any wrongdoing on your part, so no worries. Dreadstar 05:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand what you have said 100%, Dreadstar and probably should have received this notice previously. Thanks again. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

SF edit-a-thons on March 7 and 8[edit]

Hi, I'm unsure why this template didn't get delivered to your talkpage through the MediaWiki message delivery, but as you've attended some SF Bay area events in the past, I'll just add it manually.

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!
8 March San Francisco International Womens Day edit-a-thon.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Wikipedia community has two events in early March -- please consider attending!

First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists and their works!

Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course!

I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Yes, Rosiestep, I know about those events and it is likely that ChesPal and I will attend. Hope to see you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


Do you know of anyone else whose work you would also similarly praise? I am trying to find someone I can trust to refer a company to that I cannot accept myself, having already edited their article as a volunteer. CorporateM (Talk) 05:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of anyone else praiseworthy in the category of "paid editors" at this moment, CorporateM, but my mind is moving slowly right now. I will not accept any payments, but might be willing to do some work on a volunteer basis. However, I am old, work slowly, and tend to get cranky if I think people are pressuring me. Feel free to ask, though. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op: Mentor profiles and final pilot prep[edit]

CO-OP Logo 2.png

Hey mentors, two announcements:

  1. You can now make your profile at The Co-op! Please set up your mentor profile here as soon as you are able, as the pilot begins on March 4th. It isn't very involved and should only take a minute. If you need more info about what the different skills mean (e.g. writing, communication), please refer to these descriptions.
  2. Profile creation, invitations, and automated matching of editors, profile creation, that will be coordinated through HostBot and a few gadgets may not be ready for our pilot, and will have to be done manually until they are ready. In preparation for the pilot, please read over these instructions on how we will be manually performing these tasks until the automated components are ready. I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Acharya S[edit]

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

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Cullen, there may have been some "technical" issues with your most recent diff [5]. I'll wait until it's sorted before I give my response. Darknipples (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) (I just noticed the issues are not highlighted - please see where your signature etc... was somehow entered into my most recent text? Darknipples (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how an extra copy of my signature creeped into the thread, but I think I have removed it, Darknipples. I believe I have properly corrected the error, but if not, please feel free to edit as you see fit. Sorry. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries. ;-) Darknipples (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing[edit]

Hi Cullen, could you please clarify what you meant by this [6]? The reason I ask is because it does not appear to be in the spirit of WP:AGF. Forgive me if I misinterpreted this as an accusation. Darknipples (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean injecting an unrelated matter, like interstate handgun sales by licensed dealers, into the GSL article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, that particular TP section refers to a question and a request for discussion and cites on the topic by other editors, with regard to the SCOPE of GSL. So far there have been no citations that I have found, or that have been brought to the attention of the GSL project that dispute this topic, although, there has been a lot of cite-less OPINION. If you feel I am POV pushing, why not bring it up on my TP as opposed to putting it on the articles TP, for everyone to see? Do you intend to take this to ANI? Darknipples (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I struck [7] the cites that reference FFL interstate transfers. Those may involve background checks, but I'm still looking for cites that explicitly state that. It was an honest mistake to cite those, though. I believed they were referencing interstate sales/transfers in general. My other point is mainly that GSL and trafficking are not mutually exclusive, hence the intrastate/interstate SCOPE issue. Just wanted to clarify so we can avoid any possible misunderstanding moving forward. Darknipples (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention of taking this to ANI, as I see it this a routine content dispute that requires no administrative attention. When I refer to "uninvolved", I mean an editor who has had nothing previous to do with the GSL article. Whether it's POV, original research or synthesis, we should hash it out on the article's talk page. That's all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have no intention of POVPUSHING, I simply asked for some RS citations that prove FFLs conduct BGC's for interstate transfers. I feel it is a DUE question considering trafficking by licensed sellers in collusion with unlicensed sellers is mentioned among the cites already used in the article [8]. Furthermore, I am only discussing and addressing the lack of citations in regard to GSL's SCOPE on INTRASTATE VS. INTERSTATE. I welcome opinions, but how is it POVPUSHING to challenge these opinions that do not seem to cite sources, or use SYNTH and OR to come to their conclusions?....I would also like to point out that, to me, this seems like a rather serious accusation. I don't know if it is meant as such, but I'd like to assume you are only acting in good faith. None the less I will refer to this portion of WP:POVPUSHING

  • "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them."

Lightbreather can speak to the fact that I have been been a champion for maintaining BALANCE for both sides of the issue on the GSL article. Your accusation seemingly tarnishes my reputation in this regard, and for everyone to see. Forgive me if I seem overly sensitive, but this is not the first time I have I have been called out, publicly, on this article's TP [9]. My point is, your accusation just does not appear to be WP:AGF. If you continue to do this, it could seemingly be a problem for both of us. Respectfully -- Darknipples (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not call you a POV pusher, Darknipples, and keep in mind that there are several editors active on the Gun show loophole page who display a variety of POVs. I admit that I do not understand your recent edits to that talk page. It seems clear to me what the term means, but I guess it doesn't seem clear to you. To me, it has to do with gun sales by unlicensed private sellers, and all the sources that address the issue say that those sales are only legal if both parties live in the same state. But you keep bringing in questions and material for discussion about issues relating to sales by licensed dealers, and interstate sales, and a recent court decision allowing licensed dealers to sell hand guns across state lines. All that is interesting, I guess, but in my judgment, has nothing to do with the gun show loophole. I know what "loophole" means. Clearly you disagree, although I am unable to understand why, despite my repeated efforts to fathom your point.
I have previously said that I dislike the intense partisanship on gun politics displayed by editors on both sides of the issue. I dipped my toes into the topic as a result of a Teahouse inquiry about an image, and optimistically thought that I might make a positive contribution. It seems to me now that I was wrong. If anything, the recent discussions about the matter have convinced me even more that nothing I have to say about the topic is likely to have any effect on the partisans.
So, I will retreat to the sidelines for a while, observing and remembering, but saying little or nothing about gun politics topics here on Wikipedia, at least for now. I hope that all the involved editors conduct themselves properly in the weeks and months to come. I am the eternal optimist, I guess. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
You are right, you did not explicitly call me a POV pusher, but I still believe you implied my edits were indicative of WP:POVPUSHING, either intentionally or unintentionally. After reading your response, though, I realize that you were doing your best to just be honest with me, and I should have respected that a bit less indignantly. It's difficult for me not to be defensive when it seems like editors regularly and intentionally edit according to their POV, as opposed to just trying to improve the accuracy in the article. It's one of the hazards of editing articles like GSL. I realize that, I too, have a POV that guides me, and I can always do better to keep it in check. We all can. I won't try to expound upon my position as to why I find those particular details of the article relevant, here. But, I do hope that we will both AGF a bit more moving forward.
If I made you feel uncomfortable for trying to participate I sincerely apologize. Your perspective is certainly as valid as anyone else's, and I'm very sorry if I gave the impression that it wasn't. Therefore, I will also be adding this apology to the article's TP, as soon as I get the chance. I tend to put the importance of citations over opinions, but only because I feel this is in the spirit of WP rules and guidelines. Lastly, when it comes to referring to any of my edits as POVPUSHING, I promise you, I will be much, much, much more receptive if it is done on my personal TP, first. I will always respond better to constructive personal suggestions and questions rather than perceptibly public accusations. Especially coming from you, Cullen. You are one the first and only people that ever made me feel welcome here, and I honestly look up to you and endeavor to earn your respect, more so than most everyone else on WP, with the possible exception of Lightbreather...Have a peaceful evening, and thanks again for your insight, patience, and trust. Darknipples (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Darknipples. I very much appreciate your kind remarks. However, there a few things you should be aware of, in my opinion. I am speaking now of my perception of cultural norms among editors, as opposed to formal policies and guidelines. So, I can speak of opinions, since I have them. You can take them or leave them, for what they are worth, as you perceive things. I think that a wide range of experienced, productive editors pay much more attention to conversations on editor's talk pages than on the vast majority of individual article talk pages. Your talk page, and mine, are in no sense of the word "private", and I read probably 50 times more editor talk page discussions than I comment on. I have around 6000 pages on my watch list and many of those are editor talk pages. And I suspect that is the case with a large percentage of experienced editors. I read those conversations to keep track of who, in my mind, is level-headed, fair, neutral, thoughtful, perceptive, dedicated to the project, and worthy of trust. And those who aren't. I see far more than I speak about at any given moment. This is an enormous project and there are many things going on that I know little about. But I try to keep track of the most important stuff, at least as I see things from my own seat in the universe. And I am well aware that I have my own biases and prejudices, but I actively try to monitor them and control them. That's part of why I feel it best for me to retreat from gun politics issues for a while. It brings out my tendency to argue and chastise, which I constantly strive to reduce. There are people I love dearly on both sides of that issue, and the moderate position is very lonely. But that is where I stand in my "off-Wikipedia" life, which means that I am regularly denounced by my gun control friends and my NRA friends. That's life, I guess. At least, if one stakes out an independent position.
Women's edit-a-thons are coming up this weekend, and I will be visiting with and collaborating with some of our outstanding editors who want to improve our coverage of notable women ignored by this encyclopedia previously. My love is writing biographies of painters and potters and copper workers and basket weavers and photographers. Many are women. Many are Native American. Some are white men. Working on those biographies makes me feel good and productive and warm. Gun politics fights make me feel sad and frustrated and alienated and cold. So, simply responding to your message clarifies my mind. I have much better things to do here than argue about gun politics. I will move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Social Justice Page[edit]

Thanks for the kind words on the Social Justice talk page, Jim. Here's the deal:

I have a background in editing and ghost writing educational materials. When I see a rough draft that needs more than a 20% revision to bring it up-to-date; I assume that we need to rewrite the entire draft because it would take less time to rewrite it than it will take to patch it up. More carefully organized and strongly structured manuscripts can stand more patch updates.

I think the Social Justice (SJ) page needs more than a 20% revision, is not carefully organized, and therefore needs to be completely rewritten.

For starters, here is a more useful brief definition of 'Social Justice,' taken from . " ... Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities."

This definition is too brief, but I think it is still a better definition than you currently post ... but is it from a sufficiently authoritative source? I don't know. I am sure you can find other definitions on the internet that are just as useful.

I think you need to add an overview section immediately after a strong definition. A good overview should orient the reader to the discussion that follows. It should clearly define the social problem or issue that SJ addresses; identify real-world (not philosophical) causes of those problems, and note that SJ is a complex topic that has attracted attention from politicians, activists, theologians, historians, social scientists and other professionals, each of whom has made notable contributions to the topic. Briefly describe the state of SJ today, and briefly note what this page will deal with.

Social Justice is a practical social issue. Why are all the academic philosophers and theologians discussed here? Few people coming to this page will have heard of (for example) John Rawles or Luigi Taparelli -- or care, and the current discussion just doesn't make them relevant to anything. If 'd I started a Wikipedia page on political activism and started out by discussing Plato and didn't discuss Lenin, Mussolini or even Saul Alinsky; I'd expect people to object. I'm objecting for the same reason to the heavy stress on academic philosophers here, and for the same reason.

But maybe the problem is mine. Should this page be retitled "History of Social Justice Philosophy?" That would at least save some of the current copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biff alcatraz (talkcontribs) 17:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Biff alcatraz. You seem to have strong feelings about the weaknesses of the article, and I again encourage you to improve it. I visited the talk page because I am interested in ensuring that the "social justice warrior" pejorative term does not dominate the article. I have no interest myself in overhauling that particular article.
When you write "I think you need to add an overview section . . ." I wonder why you use the word "you"? I did not write the article or make any significant contributions to it, so I am not sure if by "you", you mean me, or mean Wikipedia editors collectively? Perhaps, instead, you should use the word "we" since you are a Wikipedia editor as well. So go ahead. Make the article better. Go right ahead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Resilient Barnstar Hires.png The Resilient Barnstar
For the enduring optimist Darknipples (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

editathons this wknd[edit]

Did you see this question on the talk page? cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, phoebe. I responded there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Jim - Long time. I've been away dealing with a number of family issues. I saw that you defended my entry once again and I wanted to thank you for it. I wish I had known that this was happening or I would have chimed in. It looked, though, like after two "keeps" it got redirected pretty quickly? Thanks again for your suppport, Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianThibodeaux (talkcontribs) 22:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello BrianThibodeaux. Maybe some of that information can be added to LGBT rights in Louisiana. Sorry things turned out that way. I appreciate your kind words. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
THat's a good idea. I am going to do that. Is there a way of retrieving a record of what was on the page? I confess to doing the research but not keeping a copy. BrianThibodeaux
I suggest that you ask the administrator who closed the deletion debate to userfy the old article for you. If that doesn't work, let me know, and I will find someone else to do it for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun Politics Task Force proposal[edit]

You might be interested in this, although it appears you may have taken a break from the topic. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Faceless Enemy. I think that this is a good idea, even though I am taking a break, as you say, at this time. I may edit in that topic area again in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)