User talk:Cullen328

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)

2012 Archive (first six months)

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3

Message

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

Please comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her. 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, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim -- Glenn Here. New to commenting. Can't seem to figure out how to put what where and when. Anyway, I thought I would pass along my thoughts on this to you. perhaps you can help direct me to the appropriate place? Thanks, Glenn Orignal comment I tried to put on the page. == Suggest Keep == Responding to the proposed for deletion. I found it to be a very well done article about a unique type of storm system; the storm type and this particular storm are both quite notable. A similar storms of tremendous magnitude have occurred in the past and will occur in the future, potentially affecting millions of people. I considered the description and detail quite good: This article is definitely worthy of keeping. Thanks, TimeOnTarget TimeOnTarget (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2014

Oops. Sorry about the lack of reference. It appears to have been renamed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2014_North_American_storm_complex

I guess it made it in a bit modified? That's cool. I thought it was a good description of a type of storm that can have potentially huge impacts. Best, Glenn TimeOnTarget (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!

	Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!
	Best wishes to you and your fam! Rosiestep (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Best holiday wishes to you, too, Rosiestep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Cullen328, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, 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 greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, The Herald : here I am 11:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Holiday greetings to you, The Herald. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Disney University

You identified several sources for improving the Disney University article during the AFD but the article remains completely unsourced. Can you help improve this article?--RadioFan (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes for a happy holiday season

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Hafspajen (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Warmest holiday greetings to you, Hafspajen. It is wonderful to hear from you because I heard some rumors that you might be considering a retirement, and that saddened me greatly. So your kind sharing gives me a precious opportunity to encourage you to stay, to ignore the "negative influences" to the best of your ability, and to continue to contribute work about art and beauty to this wonderful resource for free learning. I enjoy seeing your plaintive requests on a certain user's talk page, but even more so, I appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. Please stick around in 2015. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Was rather angry. Since then I was listening to 7+6=13 tune all day and made feel a bit better, sigh... Being angry made me write a lot angry truth-telling on my talk, since I did made up my mind to leave - but it's too late now. Hafspajen (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It is never too late, Hafspajen. My words stand. Please stick around. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• OK. Hafspajen (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Dear Cullen328,
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! Best wishes to you, your family and relatives this holiday season! Take this opportunity to bond with your loved ones, whether or not you are celebrating Christmas. This is a special time for everybody, and spread the holiday spirit to everybody out there!
From a fellow editor,
--Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook).

Thank you very much, and Happy Hanukkah to you, Nahnah4. The menorah candles for the final night are burning right now at my house. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Nahnah4/Seen --Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For the person who goes the extra mile, offers guidance, support and when necessary isn't afraid to say it how it is when that is what is needed. If I see your signature at the end of a Teahouse answer I know it will be the best answer there. Nthep (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Nthep. You also do an excellent job at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

--Jakob (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you Jakob, and Happy Holidays to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education. 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, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Grandad?

Maurice Cullen - Winter Evening, Quebec....

Hafspajen (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the picture, Hafspajen, but he's not a relative. "Cullen" is a middle name in my family for at least four generations. One set of immigrant great-grandparents did live in Canada for a few years before coming to the U.S. around 1880, but that's a different branch than those who liked Cullen. I have several relatives who have been painters, too, but not this guy. I enjoyed reading about the fellow, though. Happy New Year! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize

    I extend the olive branch.
    ~~~~

I apologize. I know you're just doing your job here and I've been difficult. It won't happen again.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the gracious message, and there is no need for an apology. I know that Wikipedia can be frustrating to newcomers, as I spend about half my time here assisting new editors. My offer to help write an article stands if you can furnish even two reliable independent sources that give significant coverage to the Oregon church. I wish you well, Bohemian Gal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, can I take you up on your offer? If you'd be willing to improve this sandbox draft on the Oregon church, in Bohemian Gal's userspace, i'd appreciate it, and I hope Bohemian Gal would also. I located numerous independent sources but the article could definitely be improved. --doncram 05:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks I see you are editing there, with good improvements. I put in an edit conflict edit that backtracked to my last version i think plus some changes of mine. Could you fix the situation, either adding my changes to your last version or not? I thought i might restore your changes but in fact I have to run, am done for now. If i see this tomorrow i could go back and try to restore your good changes. But perhaps best for you to revert my last edit. Done for the night. Thanks! --doncram 05:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Lizard Squad

I don't think this was a very productive revert. I was attempting to improve some of the awkward wording that was introduced into the article such as: "On December 8, 2014, the PlayStation Network was again attacked, and once again Lizard Squad claimed responsibility." Your full revert of my edit reinstated the awkward wording. I have a made another edit which improves the wording of the article while attempting to have more WP:ALLEGED wording, which I believe it what you were trying to say in your edit summary. In the future though, I would be more careful when making reverts. An edit which expounded upon my improved wording would have been much more helpful than a blind revert. Thanks! Artichoker^[talk] 00:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Artichoker. With all due respect, my revert was not "blind" but carefully considered. Though I agree that the wording was awkward, your edit removed doubt and ambiguity, and the text ended up stating definitively that Lizard Squad was responsible. In my judgment, the factual issues are more immediately important than the stylistic issues. I did not have time for more extensive editing. Today is my wife's birthday, and my sons are visiting us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. Though I'd just like to point out, if you did not have enough time to edit as you have stated, sometimes it is better to wait until you do have that time. Wikipedia is a work in progress, after all. There shouldn't be a rush to do a quick revert, when what is required is a more nuanced edit. Thanks! Artichoker^[talk] 00:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

As for your edit summary remark "Please do not blindly revert and instead attempt to improve the article", Artichoker, why don't you take a careful look at the article's history? You will see that I made 24 edits yesterday, all of which improved the referencing. Then take a look at my contribution to the AfD debate about this article, and my post at WP:AN which motivated an administrator to "snow" close that debate. Please assume good faith of other editors. Thank you for your good faith efforts to improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I was simply talking about the action in question. I will admit that my edit summary was brief; but it is harder to express intonation via edit summary. That is why I wanted to leave you a more personalized message on your talk page to explain my reasoning. I maintain that I have always assumed good faith on your part, and apologize if my edit summary seems to indicate otherwise. Again, it was more meant to be a brief message and I made sure to come to your talk page to expound upon my reasoning with the hope that you could take this as a learning opportunity. Artichoker^[talk] 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Your use of the word "blind" in this context expressed a negative intonation as I perceive things. Perhaps I am sensitive about use of words related to disabilities in this way, because my wife ChesPal is deaf, and I sometimes hear the word "deaf" used similarly. I am an editor who is very serious about this project in general and this topic in particular. I do not edit blindly or without careful consideration, whether I have five minutes to spare or two hours. I have spent a lot of time reading about Lizard Squad in recent days, and have every intention of helping to improve the article substantively. All that being said, why don't we both take this as a learning opportunity, Artichoker, and collaborate to improve the article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That is correct; it was meant to express a negative intonation (though not in anyway referring to disabilities). Not because I am assuming any bad faith on your part, but because I believed there was a better route to take in that situation than the one you chose. Regardless of this, I have never had doubts about your sincerity to this project and know that you have done great work in contributing to Wikipedia. I think your proposal sounds excellent, and that we can continue to improve Lizard Squad collaboratively. Artichoker^[talk] 01:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of Material Pertaining to Nathan Coppedge

Greetings, Cullen328.

In your statements about the person Nathan Coppedge you seem to adopt a somewhat prejudicial point of view. Simply because Nathan Coppedge relates to the subject of Perpetual Motion Machines does not mean that Nathan is insignificant in this area. Indeed, although perpetual motion is an area looked upon with scorn from the outside world, most notably Science, it is often recognized that those within the field are notable for their ability to attract attention for the curiosity, rather than the scientific notability of their inventions. In fact, the idea that a perpetual motion 'inventor' could be scientifically notable is currently considered a serious misnomer. Therefore, for this reason, I consider your comments on the subject to be inappropriate. And consequently, it may be worth recovering the idea that Nathan Coppedge belongs on Wikipedia.

Additional evidence can be cited, such as that few people known for perpetual motion have also been known for other things. The difference between the significance of Nathan Coppedge and Fern Coppedge, an artist, for example, appears to be the cost offered by the paintings, or a dubious social importance. The difference between Nathan Coppedge and Joseph Newman, a perpetual motion 'inventor', appears to be that Newman is more socially vocal and has appeared in Washington, D.C. Whether these other people have more historical importance is thus cast into doubt.

On the other hand, if Wikipedia is a popularity contest, as numerous Wikipedia editors have denied, than my inclusion is probably out of the question (at least for now). However, on the subject of significant content, I would argue that my inclusion is not vanity at all, but educational interest. The major shortcoming is that few if any publications currently hold my biography. Wikipedia ought to have a moral obligation, but according to the editors, it does not. From my point of view, it is sheer blindness.

Although, if you want me to adopt a moral against my case, I would suggest someone write about Rainbow Recycling, one of the first community recycling programs in the United States. Many interesting cultural factors like this get overlooked in favor of businesses that merely 'appear' to have credentials. Meaning is too often expressed in dollar terms, and this is not something that should go overlooked. The ability to differentiate the word 'appear' is something I notice some of the editors don't share with me, apparently at least. It could be that I am generalizing because I see a fault that happens between multiple factors, like a herd mentality. Ideas are ignored, like the idea that herd mentalities are dangerous. Everything's standing on individual words like 'evolution' and 'word-problem'. Some significant historical events are consequently ignored. 32.216.198.80 (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC) 32.216.198.80 (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Nathan, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what reliable, independent sources say about various topics. If such reliable sources do not devote significant coverage to your work, then Wikipedia will say nothing about you. This is not negotiable. It is a fundamental, core part of this project.

The normal way that a scientific researcher gains notability is by publishing articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and then having those articles cited by other researchers and mentioned favorably in comprehensive review articles.

Advocates of "fringe" ideas can sometimes gain notability by Wikipedia standards through publishing popular books, appearing in successful films and TV shows, lecturing widely, and being written about in reliable newspapers and magazines.

Neither seems to be the case here. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Newman's energy machine is notable because it received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, as shown by the references at the end of the article. Fern Coppedge looks a bit weak, but I would have to do further research. We delete weak articles, by the hundreds, every single day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I will assume that's your full critical assessment. However, there is some question whether sources such as the The National Inquirer or even People Magazine are as notable as sources that have mentioned me, such as KgbAnswers.co.uk Knowledge Generation Bureau [1] (which appears to be peer-reviewed), and Project Syndicate [2], which attracts comments from syndicated columnists. I have also been cited elsewhere, such as in Hartford Courant [3], The Economist [4], and Book Forum [5]. The entire debate I've been having has related to the questionability of these sources. And I feel I'm receiving unfair treatment. Entire articles have been written about things like the National Inquirer, perhaps because of social importance, or perhaps not. NCoppedge (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel like someone comes along and says that one must 'avoid the I think' and that's where my content gets avoided. Maybe if Fern Coppedge is confirmed to be included, Wikipedia will consider including other Coppedges, such as Nathan Coppedge. It's not necessarily a bad thing, considering that althought Fern Coppedge (not a relative of mine) contributed significant work, she did not 'found' a movement or a style by herself, apparently, as I sometimes claim to have done. NCoppedge (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Like many new editors, NCoppedge, you make the common error of confusing whether a publication is notable (deserving of a Wikipedia article about it), with whether it is reliable (trusted as a source in a Wikipedia article). Consider the Nazi hate rag Der Stürmer. Highly notable yet completely unreliable for anything other than the vile opinions of its writers.

Directory listings and passing mentions are worthless for establishing notability. As yet, I see no significant coverage of you in reliable, independent sources. Until such coverage is brought to the conversation, there is nothing further to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. NCoppedge (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Bestowage

The coveted dingus.

For this edit you are awarded the Wikipedia Beaux-Eaux Cup with Imaginary Peruvian Oak Leaves. Wear it with pride and/or confusion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks be to you, Comrade Boris, for this glorious award. Since it is suitable for framing, I will hang it on the wall of my summer dacha in Potemkin Village. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)#Requested move 20 December 2014

You were involved in this article. I invite you to a page move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, George Ho. In all honesty, I do not care about the article title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen (again)

I am at my whits end here. Seriously, I am not sure what to do with Ms. Fauble. Her behavior raises more issues than I can count. She either refuses to recognize, or is openly defiant of consensus. Her logic about what belongs in an article raises major WP:CIR questions. She has single handed turned the talk page into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. And we can add to that POV and soft edit warring. I am seriously considering reverting her most recent edit as vandalism and posting a disruptive editing warning on her talk page. But I don't like to do things when I am angry as it can cloud judgment. In any case I have better things to do with my time than fighting a constant rear guard battle with someone persistently trying to insert questionable material back into an article that we expended considerable work on fixing. Any thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, despite the fact that you and I agree that her role in the article is unproductive, it is not vandalism, so I recommend against using that word in this context. Instead, revert whatever you wish with the explanation that it is "against consensus reached on the talk page". I am sure that we will have another battle when this new book is published. Be prepared to argue that a book that has not received reviews in reliable sources describing it as a useful addition to the literature of the era is also not acceptable as a reliable source here. If things get out of control, we can go to ANI and ask for a topic ban on anything connected to the Kennedy assassination, broadly construed.

Console yourself with the fact that you are doing good work in defense of the encyclopedia, and Happy New Year to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

NY editor

thanks for the reinforcement; if enough people tell her, it may help, and I don't want her to get the mistaken impression that I'm personally after her. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've got your back, DGG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Cullen328,
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! A new year has come! How times flies! 2015 will be a new year, and it is also a chance for you to start afresh! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Created by Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook). To use this template, leave {{subst:User:Nahnah4/Happy New Year}} on someone else's talk page.

Thanks and Happy New Year to you, Nahnah4. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cullen328!

Happy New Year!

Cullen328,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, and Happy New Year to you, Hafspajen. I like the fireworks animation.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cullen328!

Happy New Year!

Cullen328,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you very much, Jayaguru-Shishya, and Happy New Year to you, too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Deepak Chopra. 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, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I chimed in there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cullen328!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Cullen328: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Bananasoldier (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you for the dozens of times you've helped me out or answered my questions at the Teahouse! I really appreciate it. Whenever I think "Wikipedia editor", your username comes to mind. Please know that you are a role model to all Wikipedians.

You are very, very kind Bananasoldier. I enjoy assisting other editors, and it makes me feel good to know that you think that my answers have been helpful. Let's work together to improve the encyclopedia in 2015! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Going to jump in here and also wish a happy 2015! Here's to another good year of Teahouse answering, among other things. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you, too, SuperHamster. Let's write some informative, well-referenced articles about notable topics in 2015. The encyclopedia is not finished! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

F9F-2 Panther Korean War Carrier Landing

Hi Jim, I was considering doing an article on a hairy landing on the "Philippine Sea" in Sept 1950. Here's a link to the article I would be using. http://www.historynet.com/miracle-landing-off-korea.htm I have 2 good sources and 2 photos I can use. Would such an article be notable? Do you think it might be nominated for deletion? Samf4u 19:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Samf4u. It is a fascinating story, but I am not sure that the incident deserves its own article. Countless such incidents occur in wars. Most editors believe that an accident involving commercial aviation deserves an article only if people are killed or the plane is destroyed. In military aviation, the standards are much higher, and in my opinion, the vast majority of military crashes are not individually notable. In this case, both the pilot and the plane survived with injuries and damages. That makes for a great human interest story, but not necessarily an encyclopedia article. Maybe a couple of paragraphs might be added to USS Philippine Sea (CV-47). Please be aware that this is just my opinion. Other editors may disagree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. Will take your advise and add to CV-47 article. Thank you. Samf4u 20:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Cullen328,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Thank you, Bzuk. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution help

I hate a user, so does he. However, he hates me more, visibly. We met almost over a year ago at Sorry I'm Late (Cher Lloyd album) and me, being a beginner, did not know about Wiki policies and made unconstructive edits to the article. The article at that time was a redirect to Cher Lloyd as the article isn't notable enough. I keep on trying to bring the article back, and he reverted it, as it fails WP:ALBUMS. Soon, I keep doing it, and he keep reverting it. I was close to being blocked. Then, a dispute started, with talk pages opening about it and other stuff, but everyone was on the user's side. Since then, our relationship deteriorated, and I do not know why. I apologised to the user for like five times (I think) and he just remove the message with no edit summary. First mistake: Removing talk page messages is prohibited unless vandalism or archiving, per WP:ACM. Then, I sent him WikiLoves, a total of four. Anti-vandalism Barnstar, Meghan's Sunshine, My own Christmas cheer and my own New Year cheer. I just send it to anyone in mind. He removed the New Year cheer, stating it as a "non-new section". I am incredibly angry here. Such a hypocrite. I clicked on "New section" for every message I send since February 2013, and yet he is just giving excuses to remove my message. I don't know why. Firstly, he was calm. But we just kept meeting each other in music pages, and yeah. He did assume good faith, but for once only. I do not know if he has already forgiven me, so I am seeking your help. Do not ping the user if you know who he is, I don't want him to be engaged in this conversation. I am sorry if I offended anybody, but I am just trying to express my frustration. There was also once where I uploaded a new version of a file he originally uploaded, and he reverted it, saying 300px is the recommended size. Then, I uploaded the 300px version, but he reverted, saying the colour is wrong. Oh yeah, colour is wrong. It is the right one, he uploaded the one Josepvinaixa uses, an unreliable source he said so himself. Then, he uploaded MY version again, with no explanation. He uploads cover artworks from Josepvinaixa, which he says himself is NOT a reliable source. Then, he still uses it. Perhaps he knows that that is the cover artwork, he is just saving from Josepvinaixa as it is automatically 300px PNG. So, I copied him, and yet he deleted my file. WOW. I am still using Josepvinaixa's one, but I am trying to avoid it. If I really can't find it, I'll just use Josep's. Sorry for this long essay, and I hope you can help. Cheers, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 09:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC) W

Here is my advice, Nahnah4. Stay away from this editor. Call it a voluntary one-way interaction ban. You are incorrect about user talk pages. Users can delete any message from their own page except formal administrative notices. This person does not want your messages so leave no more. Edit in compliance with policies and guidelines, keep calm, and carry on. Do not let your emotions get the best of you. If an image is in dispute, just forget about it and move on. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 02:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm having trouble

I've went to quite a bit of effort to bring a few wikipedia articles up to speed. But two moderators have ganged up on me and reversed some of the content I have added even though it was referenced. Tell me I haven't tried to be a good wikipedian so far in 2014/15?

Can you see what the problem is? I think its being done simply because it doesnt fit in with their worldview but I cant help that.

Jodyrootes (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Jodyrootes has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so I will refrain from commenting further at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Forester

Dear Jim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phoenix-works/sandbox

I have submitted my first article which is the history of a Victorian pottery manufacturer called Thomas Forester who four years after he started in 1877 took the largest order for Majolica ever to have been taken in the Potteries to that date and in 20 years ended up employing over 700 people in his factories. He also created many new techniques and designs in the pottery industry. He became a Justice of the peace and was offered the job of mayor which he declined. All this is evidenced mainly in the leading magazine at the time called the Pottery Gazette and he has a book written about him called "The Forgotten Giant" by Peter Beckett in 2001. I accept the first rejection and fully understood the reasoning. I can't understand the secong rejection. You only have to go on Ebay any day of the week and you can find his wares on offer. There are many collectors who would be really interested in his history being more widely known. Is there any way you can help me ?Phoenix-works (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Phoenix-works. I suggest that you restructure the article to be about his best known company Thomas Forester & Sons, with a section about the founder. The material about his surprise 70th birthday party is trivial, and should be reduced dramatically. The point is that his employees liked him. I suggest using sources at least partially available online such as a book called Majolica: a complete history and illustrated survey. Plenty of other books mention the company. Select three or four that give the most in-depth coverage, and add them as references. Format your references fully, using appropriate WP:Citation templates. When you have completed the upgrade, ask the most recent reviewer to take another look. Let me know, too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Peter Beckett takes a similar approach in his book, wchich you need to cite properly with the full and correct title, ISBN number, and so on. This is a book published by a local company specializing in local history. Such books can be useful, but books published by major houses are much better for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year Cullen328

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

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

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

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

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

Oddfellows

Greetings Cullen328! I was wondering if you could take a quick look at this Oddfellows article? What I see problematic in the article, is that there is the same source used 19 times, and the source is actually the very website of the Oddfellows organization. More than that, the reference (reference No. #1) seems to be a {{dead link}}, linking to the Main Page of the organization's home page, therefore incapable of verifying any claims.[6]

Well, at least that's how it was before the most recent edit[7]. Now an individual citation is linking to three different sources (still, reference No. #1). All of the sources link back to the Oddfellows own website. One of the sources is still the very same {{dead link}} as mentioned above. Anyway, I don't find the organization's own web site really as an independent and reliable source, and linking to three different sources at once seems highly unorthodox to me. This has been discussed with the involved editor, User:Pdfpdf. He has partly agreed with this: he acknowledges the problem with the independency and reliability of the sources, but don't really see why linking to multile sources in one citation would be problematic[8].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where ref [1] goes as follows:

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Mark Andrew Zwartynski

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

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

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

With warm sincere regards,

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

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

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

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

I can cite many, many more examples.

Again, with warm personal regards - Jerry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I humbly apologize to you.

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Mark Andrew Zwartynski

Dear Jim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Aamir Khan

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

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

Page Deletion

Hi Jim,

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

Hi I received this message below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle of Palmdale

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

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

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

Tor Network

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

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

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

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

Hi Jim

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

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

Precious again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Louis Lesser

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

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

Please assist

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

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

January 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

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

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

No edit summary. [9] Gasp!

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

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