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

Wm A Stewart edit - need more info as to how to prove

Hi Jim, Thanks for your response to my question. Am very new to this world of editing Wikipedia but want to try to get Dad's info right online. I have no idea where his birth certificate would be. At this point, just have Funeral Director's Proof of Death which shows correct DOB. All his government records (CRA, CPP, OAS) and pension records and bank records, etc etc would have shown his correct DOB but I don't think want to be releasing those. Am trying to find any other places where correct date was noted. What kind of "source" does Wikipedia recognize? My mother is also now deceased but my three sisters could confirm!  :) Any guidance much appreciated. ````

Hello Slingerg. A minor item first: You sign talk page posts with four tildes, and a tilde looks like this: ~

Because of his government positions, your father is indisputably notable in Wikipedia terms, and eligible for a biography which can be expanded and improved over weeks, months and years to come.

As for the immediate substantive issue of his birth date, we are looking for published, independent, secondary sources. All the sources you mention above are unpublished primary sources, and are not acceptable here on Wikipedia. The current version of the article about your father relies far too much on sources we consider of lower quality. Upgrading the sources should be a long term goal of yours.

High quality sources for a biography of a politician like your father include the current link to his profile on the Ontario Parliament website. Other sources might be newspaper articles from his home town or from Ottawa. Published obituaries often include date of birth. Books published by university presses or by reputable mainstream publishers are strong sources. If his papers are held in a university archive, they often publish a biographical sketch. Perhaps the Progressive Conservative Party has published biographical information about your father. I am just brainstorming here, and you may be aware of other possibilities.

If you are so motivated, you could write a biographical article about your father, citing the primary sources, and submit it to a local historical journal. Once published, that article could be a source for his date of birth and other significant biographical details. Editorial review by the people running such a journal would "transform" sources unacceptable for direct use on Wikipedia into an acceptable secondary source.

I hope this clarifies things, but if you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Very helpful. Guess I'm wondering what was source of the incorrect date shown on Wikipedia - any way to find that out? Anyway, I see that I have a project ahead of me - will be great to do. Thanks! Slingerg (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Photos

I removed the photos on the Footjob page because they were inappropriate and offensive. They should not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a family friendly site, and those photos were completely disgusting and unrefined.

ElliotNettles (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)ElliotNettles

ElliotNettles, please be aware that Wikipedia is not censored, and many of our articles about human sexuality have images that some people may find offensive. Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:MyWikiBiz. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I am leaving

Hello Jim dfrr here I am leaveing Wikipedia unless I decide to come back because I am about to get blocked and I am also giving you this final message. farewell my friend and Live long and prosperDfrr (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-))

Hello Dfrr. If editing Wikipedia is frustrating to you, then you can take a break on your own any time, and come back when you are ready. Please do not engage in any conduct that will get you blocked. This is only just a hobby, though the greatest hobby of the earliest 21st century, in my opinion. Play by the rules, and work your way up slowly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

hello

hello my name is CrawfordLou.and I am a new user:-)CrawfordLou (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)(Lets Discuss It Man)

Hello, CrawfordLou I will happily believe that you are a productive editor if you conduct yourself as a productive editor, based on your edit history. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reflecting

Thank you for reflecting the Gerechtigkeitsspirale!

Did you know ... that a church's 1510 spiral of justice declares: "Justice suffered in great need. Truth is slain dead. Faith has lost the battle"?

The poem ends with "Praise the right thing".

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. It is a nice article about a very beautiful carving. It is hard to believe that it is over 500 years old. Well done! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hard to believe, with the lines still true. Did you know that a friend of mine was almost banned because he helped me to restore an infobox? That I am the most restricted person in the field? That another friend left after his protecting an article (in an edit war) was called "abusing admin poswer"? Praise the right thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are an outstanding editor, Gerda. As for infoboxes, I simply do not care all that much, one way or the other. I simply do not understand why so many editors are motivated to argue endlessly about infoboxes, and I have tried to understand. Without success. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same, and said so, but I can't leave the battleground on which I am the nurse, a battle not for infoboxes but for what is right. It is correct to say someone abused admin tools who protected an article in a war, but I feel it is not right to say so if you are one of the fighters. It was not right that an arbitrator commented the edit about which I inquired the arb candidates: "That he deliberately parachutes into infobox editing disputes in such contentious areas: [1] (March 2013) concerns me deeply." (in his vote for a ban). It concerns me deeply that he obviously didn't look, nor did any of the colleagues. It was the only diff given in the case, - no wonder, there was no "disruption" in all of 2013. My life would be more comfortable if I also stayed away, but it would not be right ;) (Btw, did you know that the arbitrators had originally been called to look at reverts?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am completely convinced that every atom of energy spent on arguing about infoboxes, pro and con, is completely and utterly wasted. Accordingly, I will be studious in avoiding those pointless battles. If some admin abused their power somewhere in the endless infoboxes wars, I do not care too much, because it is all pointless foolishness and every single infobox warrior should be sanctioned, in my book. There is no right or wrong in this foolishness. I love real nurses, but no real blood is shed in this obsessive-compulsive pointless craziness. So "nursing" the infobox war knuckleheads is a waste of time, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I must have a language problem. I am not nursing the war, I am nursing the victims and will not leave them alone (some listed in the infobox on top of my talk, victims on both sides). I have not spent time in "pros", - if you followed the link you will have read that I don't care if Beethoven has an infobox or not). When I see good faith edits reverted, I am not silent, and that is happening, too often. If an admin is leaving (because of the nonsense) who has served the project well for ten years, I am not silent. Thanks for listening, I will not take more of your time but added the spiral to my memories which begin with "singing in defiance" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Dessert, with thanks for your patience: one of the "battles" which all participants seem to have enjoyed, - it's short and amusing, promised ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dinnerbone

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dinnerbone. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mountain Climbers

Cute response. on SV's page. Yeah, I picked mountain climbers intentionally because they are not very ideological, but knitters would have worked just as well. Anyway main reason I am posting here: Even though I did see your comment, I wanted to inform you that the {{u|David Tornheim}} template didn't notify me, because it must be used in combination with the ~~~~, which did not occur on your revised edit. Not sure if you knew about that requirement on some of those notification templates. It is mentioned in red here. David Tornheim (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly not familiar with the contending ideologies of the various schools of mountaineering and rock climbing, but that is OK. Few people are. My wife is a dedicated knitter, so tread carefully. As for my defective ping, David Tornheim, I guess that I am fortunate that you noticed my comment. Maybe the programmer types will fix that some day. Be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's very possible that I'm misremembering something I read, but didn't Kim Stanley Robinson write something about the "contending ideologies" of mountaineering and rock climbing? Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That may well be true, Viriditas, but in order to know, I would have to read his work, and oh-my-gosh, that would eat into my Wikipedia editing time, wouldn't it? When I started roaming the High Sierra as a young man, I was most influenced by Royal Robbins and Yvon Chouinard in the realm of the ethics of technical rock climbing, and by Norman Clyde in general Alpine mountaineering, California style. I could mention many other names of climbers whose biographies I have written and improved. Chuck Pratt definitely comes to mind, and I will never forget two weeks in the Minaret Range with Jules Eichorn in the late 1970s. In recent years, Glen Dawson's daughter has let me know that he appreciates the biography of him that I wrote. Since Glen is 102 and was doing major climbs around the time my father was born in 1931, I forgive him for not learning Wiki markup. Through my efforts, climbers like Tom Frost and Pat Ament have agreed to donate historic climbing photos to Wikimedia Commons. I take it all very seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory Palestine vs. Palestine

Hi Cullen328,

Thanks for the advice. I noted in the Teahouse that I already posted on the article's talk page (it is the first and only comment to appear). Should I revert to the original text in the article to avoid a sanction or just sit patiently and await whatever my fate is? Zozoulia (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you leave well enough alone, Zozoulia. It is a low visibility article, and I note that the other editor in question has only made two edits in 2015. You did the right thing by posting your reasoning on the article's talk page. If anyone gives you a hard time, please let me know. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Zozoulia (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse stuff

Hi, Jim,
I think of you as the Teahouse guy although you may not prefer that as an identity! But I'm running into one issue and I don't know where to mention it so I'm bringing it to you. I try to answer 5-10 questions at the Teahouse every week and often I have something to add to a question that already has answers. I have to say in every single case when I've gone to leave a TH Talkback message on the questioner' talk page, there is not already one present. Despite the very convenient pop-up reminder, many editors helping out at the Teahouse don't let the new editors know they should return and find an answer. I don't understand this, it just takes a few seconds to do. But since it is not common to ping the editors who ask questions, it's really essential to provide a direct link as sometimes there are so many new questions, it can be difficult to find one's question further down on the page. I would think the pop-up would work but apparently it isn't for all hosts. Any ideas for how it can be more widely adopted? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Liz. I think of you as the helpful, levelheaded editor, and so you can think of me however you wish. I used to leave the Teahouse talkback template a few years back but as pinging became more common, I ping instead. In general, I template talk pages rarely.

I do most of my Teahouse work from a smart phone, and find it inconvenient to find the template, cut and paste the section title, and so on. I hate to be lazy but my Wikipedia time is limited, and pinging is so quick.

As for the pop-up reminder, I do not see that when I edit, so maybe I have that disabled. I think all hosts should either ping or template. If you start a conversation on the Teahouse talk page, I will back you up, and we can ping (or template) the most active recent hosts. I will be away for a few hours. Thanks for noticing this issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, there was a time in 2014 when I copied a lot of scripts from other editors' .js pages and so in my menu bar at the top of the page, there is a drop down menu that allows you to post a THinvite, a special THAfC message or a THTalkback. You select it and it is posted. It's right next to the WikiLove option.

I never realized that it was more common to ping as I don't see many hosts using editor's names in their response. I guess that is just as fine as a Talkback which I'll continue to leave because, heck, it's always nice to get polite messages on ones talk page. ;-)

By the way, is there some special status to be a host, some commitment that is given? Or is everyone who helps out considered to be a host? I've always wondered since I moved from being the question asker to the question answerer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to chime in here, I always ping too, and I usually only leave a talkback message if it's a time-sensitive matter. That being said, if a host isn't pinging and doesn't leave a talkback message, I don't think it would be a bad idea to suggest that to them. I'd also support some sort of reminder to hosts to ping/talkback, if you recognize that as a problem.

And to answer your question (now that I'm here - sorry Jim!), anyone who is experienced can add themselves as a host. Nothing special, other than being identified as someone who is here to help. There's no edit count requirement or anything, but I'd imagine that a typical host should have at least a few months' experience and a few hundred editors (in addition to being kind, patient, etc.). So I'd certainly recommend adding yourself as a host, if you're interested. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your keyboard to my brain...

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Thanks for your detailed answers today, Jim. I'm still learning from your explanations. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Anne Delong. You are very kind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, Cullen328. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. North America1000 09:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Help with biography

Hello Cullen328.

Your good reputation in Wikipedia triggers me to ask for help. Can you help make this biography publishable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar

Thank you in advance?

Juvetorre (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Juvetorre. Your draft article has lots of problems, many of which are common to new editors. I am not sure if this person is notable or not. That's because I do not see, at first glance, significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. You should do everything possible to make it easy for a reviewer to see those sources, and place no obstacles in their path. Your current draft has many such obstacles.

Your draft has a large number of references and they are presented as bare URLs, which makes it difficult for a reviewer with limited time to assess notability. First, format your references properly and flesh them out as explained in Referencing for beginners. Secondly, and this is my opinion, you have too many references that I suspect are of low quality. Far better to have six really solid references than 36 mediocre references. Do not expect a reviewer to look through a large number of poor quality references to find a handful of value. It is your job to separate the wheat from the chaff, not the reviewer's.

The vast majority of YouTube videos are worthless as references. The exception are those on the official YouTube channels of reputable news organizations. Eliminate all other YouTube references.

The photo is almost certainly a copyright violation as it is lifted from a copyrighted CNN broadcast. You claim rights as author but those rights belong to CNN not you. Get rid of it.

The external links are massively excessive. Normally, a biography of a living person will have only a single external link, to their own website. It would be rare to have more than two or three in a good article about a person. External links of any type are not allowed in the body of the article. Eliminate them.

We don't create our own Tables of contents. Instead, we create sections by putting two equal signs before each section heading, and two equal signs after the section heading. When you have three or more section headings, the wiki software will create the Table of contents automatically.

A Wikipedia biography is not a resume or a curriculum vitae. It is not appropriate to list a bunch of court cases that a lawyer has been involved in, unless reliable, independent sources have written extensively about the lawyer's role in those specific cases. Every substantive claim should be referenced to a high quality reliable independent source.

In conclusion, please ponder your motivation for writing this article. If you are Omar Garcia, please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you are a friend or family member, please read WP:COI and follow its recommendations carefully. If you are being paid to write this article, then you are obligated under Wikipedia's Terms of service to disclose this openly. Undisclosed paid editing accounts are routinely blocked. If you are writing this article simply because you are interested in this person, without any of the motivations I mentioned, then please disregard this paragraph.

Let me know when you have addressed my concerns and I will take another look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Te-mktg Unable to view my submission

Hi Cullen328 Thanks for replying to my question on Tea House. I have submitted an article using article wizard but its not visible. Can you suggest what should I do next?Te-mktg (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence whatsoever of a submission under the username Te-mktg unless it was deleted by an administrator. Did you get any deletion messages? Did you submit under this account or another? Please be precise about exactly what this submission was about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking more closely, I see that an article about Kamal Sagar was deleted by an administrator as a blatant copyright violation. Soiry, you cannot copy content from another website to Wikipedia. This is illegal and is simply not allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, here is my submission link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Sagar Please suggest if this is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Te-mktg (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that your submission is a copyright violation and will be deleted soon. You are not allowed to copy things here, other than brief quotes, in quotation marks. Everything you submit must be entirely original writing in your own words. Read all the messages on your talk page very carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Simon Collins

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Simon Collins. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Curious your opinion

I just posted here. Curious if you could weigh in on it? Victor Grigas (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ed Viesturs

Hi Cullen, I revamped the layout & added more sources & his books to the Ed Viesturs article just as I did with Peter Hillary's last yr, & then promptly forgot about it. Looked in & Viesturs is still rated start-class (alas, I only got to C-class with Hillary) &, unbelievably, seeing as he's the premier American mountaineer, rated low-importance as well. Sorry to bother you, but I get lost in the plethora of unhelpful Help pgs around here, & I've no idea how to submit Ed for review so he'll no longer be start-class, as I think I've done enough to at least get him up to C (maybe a bit higher; I can dream :-D). You submitted it for me with Hillary (thanks), but I'd like to figure out how to be able to do that myself rather than popping in to put another job on your plate. Would you mind giving me a destination? Can't seem to find that. Thanks in advance! ScarletRibbons (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (edited to sign & erase IP, because I got apparently got logged out after clicking Save)

Hello ScarletRibbons. The wikicode for the quality and importance ratings is at the top of the article talk page. You can change those as you see fit. Formal reviews are required only for Good articles and Featured articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

TYVM for getting back to me so quickly. I clicked thru the template where it said *for instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation*, & it says because it's a biography, the template can only be changed by admins or template editors (of which I am neither). Clicked thru some more stuff & did find a pg where I could insert articles at the bottom of a long list & request assessment, which I've been looking for in vain (who knew there was so much stuff to find behind a template?). Something else said I could request a peer review only if an article was already at B-class. So I did finally find all that stuff, TYVM, but unless I'm not understanding what it told me correctly, my options seem to be limited to an assessment request. ScarletRibbons (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to edit the template itself, which would affect thousands of articles, ScarletRibbons, but only the data fields for this particular article. That is routine. There is no need for an independent assessment unless you want a GA or FA review. Any editor can re-rate below that level. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Google books

Greetings Jim! I'd like to ask you a question concerning the references to Google books. See, in the article Vajravārāhī user Skyerise has been reverting all the citations to the exact Google books sources[2][3]. However, I ran into a fellow editor at the article, and we've discussed the topic at User talk:Ogress#Religion in South Korea. We both, Ogress and I, find the statements by user Skyerise somewhat confusing. I have also discussed the matter directly with user Skyerise at User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#Google Books.

In a nutshell, the issue has been discussed at:

1. User talk:Ogress#Religion in South Korea
2. User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#Google Books

I'd like to ask for your opinion on this as you are a more experienced editor. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jayaguru-Shishya. Please see WP:BOOKLINKS for guidance. I agree with you and disagree with Skyerise on this matter. There is a big difference between a link to an informational Google Books page showing the text of the book page plus bibliographic information, and an Amazon page for the book which is purely a commercial tool for Amazon to sell a copy of the book. A Google Books link is entirely appropriate in the URL field of the "cite books" template (or alternate citation styles) while adding the ISBN number to the template allows readers to obtain the most detailed information about obtaining the book, either by purchase through a mass-market commercial bookseller, or a used book store, or through a library. If the text of the book is hosted on another website (especially for books in the public domain, such as those published before 1923), then that can be added in place of the Google Books link, if it provides more useful information to our readers. If you look at a random selection of Featured articles and Good articles, you will see that many of them include links to Google Books in their references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking into this and giving your opinion. I really appreciate that! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy... Sorry to bother you again, I thought this was settled but apparently it is not[4]:

Oh, and here is the state of the article on 21 April 2015 immediately before you began most recently to edit it. Note that it does not have Google Book links. I did not remove them, it was you who added them. As there is no discussion on the talk page indicating a consensus to do so, I was completely correct to remove them, and then go ahead and fix other problems like the broken isbn, duplication of the same reference, etc. I still request that you start the talk page discussion about the Google Books links. Otherwise I may very well remove them again in a few days. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

or[5]:

You are simply wrong. Adding Google Books links is a change to the citation style. CITEVAR is very clear that you need to get consensus. Why are you so opposed to simply taking the time to get consensus on the talk page? I am happy to allow consensus to be implemented once it has been reached. There is no deadline. You don't have to add any URLs right this minute You are also violating WP:BRD, the "bold, revert, discuss" process. You were bold, I reverted you, where's the subsequent discussion on the article talk page which is what WP:BRD required you to start back in April when you were reverted??? Certainly it's clear that there is a disagreement between us. The only way to resolve that is to involve other regular editors of that specific article by starting a discussion on the article talk page, but you simply refuse to do so, even though to do so is not difficult and causes you no harm whatsoever. Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue has nothing to do with WP:CITEVAR; as far as I am concerned, all the distinct citation styles allow linking. The discussion burst in flames again at a new section at my Talk Page, User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#Google Book URLs. Should I ask for an administrator to take a look, what do you think? I've been trying to assume good faith with the editor - although I am getting rather frustrated as well - and I hoped she would understand with less efforts. She has been reverting on the same material over seven times already, and that's why I'd like not to take her on trial immediately since I still hope she will get to understand. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that both of you are in danger of being blocked for edit warring, Jayaguru-Shishya, and both of you should be discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(Pinging Jayaguru-Shishya because of typo in earlier comment)

That's what I keep telling him, but he insists on discussing it everywhere but the article talk page. He doesn't seem to understand that all the regular editors of the article get a say, but unless he informs them of his intent and reasons on the article talk page, they are simply in the dark. Skyerise (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, Skyerise. I notice that you have also failed to open a discussion on the article's talk page, and that you too have been edit warring. You are an experienced editor who must surely know that edit warring is not permitted, so why are you doing it? I disagree with your comment that "Adding Google Books links is a change to the citation style" because every citation style allows adding Google Books links without any change in style. I do not understand your opposition to Google Books links since they are routinely included in the references of Good articles and Featured articles throughout Wikipedia. Frankly, I am mystified by your stance on this issue, but will certainly try to understand your reasoning, if you will offer it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, just maintaining the status quo. The edit is disputed, it is the obligation of the editor proposing the change to open the discussion and get consensus for it. An editor maintaining the status quo is under no obligation to start the discussion: I'm not going to do it for him. And both BOOKLINKS and CITEVAR are red herrings. The issue is his not following the pretty standard BRD process. 'Any' disputed edit should be taken to the talk page, not wikilawyered all over Wikipedia. Venue shopping? What's so hard about him starting a discussion. It's not just about me and him, it's about all the regular editors of the article, but he simply won't engage them. Skyerise (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly maintaining the "status quo" over and over again is the classic definition of edit warring, Skyerise. Failure to start a talk page discussion exacerbates the offense. I still see no logical explanation from you for your opposition to Google Books links. Consider me a new "regular editor" of Vajravārāhī who supports adding Google Books links to the references in the article. I will start the talk page discussion. Any further edit warring will be reported to WP:EW. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to send the message that it's okay to refuse to start a discussion in the proper place when the change an editor wants to make is disputed, by all means go ahead. Skyerise (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, the message I want to send is that edit warring is not allowed and that both of you should stop your edit warring, and instead make your case at the talk page discussion I just started. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. After having a few days off from Wikipedia and giving a second thought about my actions at Vajravarahi, I could remember these wise words by user BullRangifer at article Acupuncture (boldings added):[6]

There is nothing in my comments which allows for continued edit warring, so the block for edit warring is entirely proper. Lack of collaboration is part of the problem here. Trying to force one's edits through, against the objections of other editors, never works. [...] I hope that Klocek learns something from this. One can even be 100% correct, and even have all the RS on one's side, and still get blocked. I'm not implying that's the case here, but telling it like it is. One must collaborate or one has no success.

I admit that I've been rather stubborn by sticking to the WP policies and guidelines. And no matter which one of us has been right or not, Skyerise and I have still engaged ourselves in an edit war. On my behalf I'd like to apologize for that. I will discuss the issues at the article Talk Page in the future. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well said, my friend. I commend you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

How to delete my own article

Hi Jim,

I had submitted an article 'Lon Safko' however unfortunately it was declined. Now I want to delete this article. Can you please tell me the process to delete this article?

Regards,

Ayazf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayazf (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ayazf. Remove all the content from your draft, and replace it with this template code:

{{Db-author}}

An administrator will delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

good subject for wikipedia?

Dear Jim,

I want to create a wikipedia page about 'EPISTOP'. This is a long-term, prospective study that evaluates clinical and molecular biomarkers for epileptogenesis in a genetic model of epilepsy - tuberous sclerosis complex. This research project is funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme. My question to you is whether this subject is suitable to be included in the wikipedia encyclopedia.

More information about this project can be found on the website: www.epistop.eu

Best,

Chloë — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe.scheldeman (talk • contribs) 09:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chloë. I am not an expert in evaluating the notability of medical related topics on Wikipedia, which is a very tricky area which requires the highest possible standards to ensure that our readers are not misled in any way. Please read WP:MEDRS to develop an understanding of our standards in the area. In my opinion, our best editor in this field is Doc James. Maybe he can comment or recommend another editor with expertise in this area. I encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia, but know when it is best for me to defer to the expertise of other editors I trust. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hum. Not sure. I am finding nothing on pubmed discussing this study. Are there independent sources that discuss this study specifically? Or significant media discussion? There are of course a number discussing this area of research generally.

Will ask for further opinions at WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:M. T. Carney

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:M. T. Carney. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This thread is unproductive

Fraud right under your nose! Hello Jim, you were quite active in patrolling and deleting the pages Prasant score calculator and maths, created by me. It is a strange comedy that fraud is being committed right under your nose, and you/wiki have honored the crime. I am talking about the other user Harrias who nominated my page for deletion. His own contribution list has a feature wiki article, yes 'featured' ..about cricket Herbie Hewett. It relies heavily on the reference link.. James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual. Firstly, this is not a ref but a wiki page itself. Secondly, this lilly page itself has been created more badly than those created by me, it has 'zero' ref, plus own website link- double fraud. Now, this arouses serious suspicion that your team, the specific group of members who were active in the deletion of the two pages created by me, had nothing else except criminal intentions. It can't be a co-incidence that you didn't spot the mistakes in a featured article herbie hewett and its chain of fraud links, and you patrolled and deleted my created pages. SillyLilies (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC) SillyLilies, James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual was a published annual (a book) and the reference includes the year and page number. It's true that James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual could use references but these are easily found. [7] --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC) And sources added. --NeilN talk to me 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC) But I want a reply from your original identity Jim, not through one of your multiple identities.SillyLilies (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC) NeilN is not me, just another experienced fellow editor who comments on my talk page. I have no "multiple identities" and I contribute here only as Cullen328. As I write, Wikipedia has 4,865,100 articles, many of which have shortcomings. We work constantly to improve or delete them. There is no team, there is no fraud and there are no "criminal intentions". This is an ongoing project to create and improve an encyclopedia. That's it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC) There was a definite criminal intention behind the deletion of pages created by me, the over gathering of moderators and nominators was un-natural [it is absent on other really 'cheat' articles]. As you said, there are 4, 865, 1000 articles, how could your patrollers land on my pages, particularly, which starts with 'P'..so low in the alphabet list? And it is definitely criminal that you/wiki awarded an article as featured which contains fake/promotionary links. The wiki team is providing excuses evertime I have spotted a 'cheat' article. It is really fishy. Laws/rules are applicable on all, equally. And rules are not to be reminded everytime, wiki should check 'cheat' articles on their own. Otherwise, cheaters would survive and grow, even earn monetary gains. And genuine, knowledge based contents like prasant maths page would suffer because of your criminal intentions/ partial attitude. Just now when I reported to you about lilly page, you didn't prefer to nominate the page for speedy deletion. Later, the creators of that page should have added the ref. But no, you support lilly page in full swing. What is this partial attitute? The ref are still 'not independent of lillies'. SillyLilies (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC) @SillyLilies: Couple things. Newly created articles always get increased scrutiny from editors. There's a project which does nothing but check new articles - WP:NPP. And when you identified an issue with James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual I went out and found independent sources to add as that was the fastest way to resolve the issue for an article created in 2007. As the creator of a new article, you are in the best position to provide sources that show notability. --NeilN talk to me 15:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC) SillyLilies (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)::means, I will have to help myself. And wiki team are here to help all the others except me? Its still not late, you can help me, suggest me what are the 'correct forms of ref? wiki ref article is too much confusing... at one place research articles not allowed, book published under own name not allowed, but lillywhite new ref is from book published by lillywhite itself.. it is totally confusing.. And what more, the second ref is pointing towards error page!SillyLilies (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC) The second ref is this. The .com site is having problems. Cullen may be able to help you further as I see no point in expanding what I've already said on my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 16:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC) User:SillyLilies. Please do not accuse this or other editors of "criminal" conduct or intent again. This is an extremely uncivil assumption of bad faith and a personal attack, and skirts a violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. If you do and I notice or am informed of it I will immediately block your account from further editing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC) But why are you trying to hush up the frauds done on wiki. Your team were ignorant about them [how, i don't know] Now that I am providing you everything in detail, still you are trying threaten me instead? why this impartiallity? SillyLilies (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC) The unwarranted characterizations in your post above is exactly the problem. It is actually possible to calmly discuss the substance of a matter without flailing about with personal accusations (though I'm afraid at this point there is little patience that is warranted). It's also much more likely to end with a result in your favor than persistently assuming everything is a conspiracy against you by persons in nefarious league with each other, determined to censor you and destroy your meritorious content for improper reasons, apparently under the influence of outside enemies of yours (what I've distilled to be your position by reading the AfD, this discussion and posts elsewhere). The matter is simple. You wrote two articles. An ordinary course deletion discussion was started by an editor, who actually nominated 12 other unrelated articles under the same process on that day and the next. The community – people who often comment in such everyday discussions – offered their opinions that it violated our policies and guidelines and an administrator determined the consensus was reached to remove that content. You are unhappy with that result and are throwing mud at everyone involved. Go read our policies, do something constructive, and stop making unfounded and actionable accusations. You need to drop the stick now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with Biography

Cullen,

Thanks for previous comments.

Can you please take a look now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juvetorre (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Juvetorre. The biggest problem with your draft article that I see at this time is that the majority of your references are formatted as bare URLs. I recommend that you flesh out those references as described at Referencing for beginners. Proper formatting makes it much easier for a reviewer to zero in on the best references, and conveys an image of competence and professionalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

MarkMonitor

Any thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 21:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, CorporateM. I commented there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason I thought of you is because it was very similar to a discussion we had recently. The editor was making assumptions and mis-interpreting my comments, because my disclosure caused them to see everything through a COI lens. CorporateM (Talk) 18:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For that, I apologize, CorporateM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow

But when he left us forever, due to cancer, he was loved and respected by many people, and had no enemies and left no debts. Only loving friends

Your father must have been an amazing person! Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, yes he was. My dad was an unpaid amateur artist from his late teens to age 72, who never sold or "displayed" a single work of fine art but gave away countless works. Many are still around my home and the homes of my siblings and his grandchildren. He was a painter, a sculptor, an art furniture maker, a stained glass artist, and in his final years, a writer of hallucinatory fiction. He earned his living as a draftsman, a construction subcontractor and project manager, and an owner of a custom cabinet shop. The projects he loved best were schools, museums, churches, hospitals and clinics. He devoted his life to outfitting and beautifying the places where people are at their finest, or in their final days. He died in a hospital that he had provided the cabinetry for, about ten years previously. He was not notable because no reliable sources wrote about him. He never sought publicity but rather a good reputation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Viriditas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

On Vikrant Class Aircraft carriers

Thank you for your interest in taking time to clarify my issue. The issue in Vikrant Class Aircraft Carrier is that there has been no official announcement or even a trusted public info whether there are going to be any future carriers under Vikrant class or INS Vishal is the last. So the issue is how to represent this in Infobox of the page, As "Unknown" or as "2".If represented in the first way, some editors feel it neglects the planned versions . But representing the second way would mean "2 carriers only planned". Please express your views in this issue on the talk page of this with a solution you propose.Regards--M.srihari (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

edit to Dakota Meyer Wiki page regarding marriage May 17, 2008

I have a link to the Central Kentucky News Journal at http://www.cknj.com/content/public-record-may-26 for Thursday May 22, 2008, which describes Marriages "Cassandra Marie Wain, 21, of Monroe, Mich. and Dakota Louis Meyer, 19, of Hawaii", which should corroborate the PDF marriage license report listing the actual marriage date.

On the 17th of May 2008, Dakota married Cassandra Marie Wain.

KarenJ503 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)KarenJ503

Hello KarenJ503. The clerk's office listing is a primary source, and the local newspaper blurb is a simple reprint of that primary source with no secondary coverage. In my opinion, those sources are not yet adequate to add that information to the article. It is not Wikipedia's job to break a scoop. My hunch is that actual news coverage will be forthcoming. Be patient. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

New user questions

Hello Jim,

Help please. I am new to wikipedia and surely lacking sufficient skills. I finished a new article on a new subject matter "Virtus Economic Theory and Model". I used the wizard to write it. It is currently in Draft form and wished to know: a) what happens next? b) how do I (or someone else in Wikipedia) transform this article from a Draft status to a live one? c) how can I benefit from someones more experienced to look over/edit the draft - do what is necessary to turn it into a formal article.

Many thanks and all the best. bfvolve 17:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfvolve (talk • contribs)

Cessation to edit of Dakota Meyer Wiki page

OK, I'll follow your advice. There will be interest in a heretofore unrevealed marriage. It wasn't mentioned in Dakota Meyer's book "Into the Fire: A Firsthand Account of the Most Extraordinary Battle in the Afghan War". Others have been attempting to follow up on this marriage documentation, to find documentation of a divorce if any, dates and location for the principals. If they are successful, you're right, there will be "actual news coverage" albeit of the tabloid variety.

KarenJ503 (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)KarenJ503

Jerry Cohen saying hello after a long hiatus

Hi Jim,

Hope this is finding you in good health & spirits. I wrote you a note on my talk page a couple of days ago. We had shifted our conversation over there back in July 2014. At the time, you mentioned you get pinged if I place your URL in it. I'm not rushing you, I'm just writing this here in case this didn't occur because of the length of time I haven't been here. When you get a chance take a look at User_talk:Rjc1#Hello_Jim.2C_I.27m_back._.28May_2015.29 Thanks and best wishes -- Rjc¹ Respectfully 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse

I have been awarded the Great Question Badge and Teahouse Host Badge, but on the host profiles section of the Teahouse under my profile it only says Teahouse Host Badge is there any way you can add the Great Question Badge as well? Regards -- TeaLover1996 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I do apologize if I have not been clear.

Please, let me be very clear. I have not suggested Paluzzi was a member of the Abstract Expressionism Movement. What I have suggested is that his work in the late ‘50s and early 60s was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I received this suggestion from a professor of Art History at the school from which Paluzzi received his two degrees. What I also suggested was that per edits by JNW there are no published references as to Wilke, Wols or Zao Wou Ki being part of the Abstract Expressionism Movement or that their work was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I also suggested that Modernist contradicted himself by deleting Romul Nutiu for not being an American when there are a number of non-Americans on that list. I do apologize if I have created a fuss, but I am an academic, and I believe in FACTs and in doing so, I may have offended Modernist who is defending what he considers is his own article. Sirswindon (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sirswindon. In my opinion, stylistically similar artists do not belong in Abstract expressionism, especially if that is based on an unpublished observation by a professor you talked to. Doing so would violate Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If other editors have made contradictory edits, then discuss and resolve the contradictions. If other entries are unreferenced, you have several choices: find and add a reference, or tag the listing as needing a reference, or remove the item from the list. Or move on to something else.

Facts are wonderful things but facts only belong in a Wikipedia article if they are cited to an independent reliable published source. It is bad form to point to other poorly cited things to justify a lack of a reference in content you add. Fix or remove the other content, depending on which best improves the encyclopedia. And properly cite everything you add. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and I do agree with what you just wrote. I am now trying to find if any authority has published something about artist Paluzzi’s early work being stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. Now to what I also did which was reversed by Modernist. There are Artists in the list in Abstract Expressionism titled: Other artists (significant artists whose mature work relates to the American Abstract Expressionist Movement) where in their individual articles there are no references as to any of their work having been related to the AEM.) I removed their names (Wilke, Wols and Zao Wou Ki) but Modernist replaced them without providing published substantiating references. Shouldn’t Modernist be held to the same standard as I am being held? I suggested that the intro be modified to read: “significant artists some of whose mature work,” but that was ignored. I am trying to be a respectful editor, but it is difficult when the discussions are one sided. Sirswindon (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It can always be difficult to edit an established article about a broad topic with a range of opinions in the published literature. It takes, above all else, patience. Hey, I love art including the major abstract expressionists but don't think I have ever heard of the three artists you mentioned above. I have an aunt who has painted in that style for decades but is a minor figure at best. So I am not a topic expert, just a fan. Instead, I think I can claim some modest expertise into the social dynamics of editing Wikipedia. I have written a number of biographies of individual artists, which I enjoy because the topic and the structure is so clearly defined, and when writing about lesser known (but still notable) figures in art, a single editor can shape the article in most cases, and if anyone else notices, the response is usually thanks as opposed to combativeness. That kind of stuff is my niche. But certainly you knew, based on what your own user page says, that it was incorrect for you to try to inject Paluzzi into that AE article based on your unpublished verbal conversation with some unidentified college professor. That's not how we roll here, and is 100% certain to cause an experienced editor to be highly skeptical of your input into that and related articles. So, I recommend to you the power of apology and humility. Acknowledge that you made a mistake. Familiarize yourself with the highest quality survey sources covering AE. If you want to argue for removing some artists from that listing, show that you are conversant with the best quality sources about those artists. Strive always for a friendly and collaborative working relationship with other editors active in the area. In other words, conduct yourself at all times as collaborative encyclopedist, not as a fighter. That's the best advice that I can offer, Sirswindon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328; I've commented on the above at Drmies' page, where the same note was left by Sirswindon [8]. I don't think it's honest, especially as one of the most recent tacks is to pass of his latest series of edits as following my example, something I couldn't distance myself far enough from. Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter May (disambiguation)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter May (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim, local Santa Barbara News Press writer James Wapotich ran a story about the 2014 event and the events name change from SBER 100 to Santa Barbara 100. We are not the Santa Barbara Century

Newspaper and Web-newspaper (post-event): http://www.adn.com/2011/05/01/1839869/juneaus-roes-wins-title-at-california.html http://presidiosports.com/tag/santa-barbara-endurance-race/ http://www.frequency.com/video/geoff-roes-wins/5855331 http://running.competitor.com/2011/04/news/geoff-roes-running-inaugural-100-mile-race-this-weekend_26247 http://www.race360.com/running/races/detail.asp?eventid=15734 http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=1476&nid=53710

Magazines: http://devononeil.com/Stories/Anita%20Ortiz%20Issue%2074.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Gilcrest (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Hi Cullen328,

Your application for a Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library was approved last August, but we have no record of your having completed the process to claim your account. If you still want access, please let me know. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're not interested and the account will be given to another applicant. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello HazelAB. I was busy with other things then, and got distracted. Can you please send a link to the sign-up instructions again? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Agosta information for you

Hi Jim,

As it relates to Meghan, I can show you various articles where she has now dropped her last name and gone back to Agosta.

Here are some of those:

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/08/19/canadian-olympic-hockey-hero-meghan-agosta-joins-vancouver-police-department/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/meghan-agosta-pauses-hockey-career-to-join-vancouver-police/article20718192/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/meghan-agosta-of-team-canada-hockey-joins-vancouver-police-1.2739417

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/22/olympian-meghan-agosta-vancouver-police_n_5860860.html

Here is her personal twitter page as well

https://twitter.com/MeghanAgosta

I hope that this satisfies what you need.

Thanks

--SenatorBF (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello SenatorBF. The first two sources you provided mention her by her married name. Is that the best you've got? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim

I have a problem from the Quebec Department of Justice website. They have broken links.

http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/sep-div-a.htm

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and you see this:

  • Department of Justice Canada Clicking on this icon will take you to another website.

The registration of a waiver of partition of the family patrimony, of the value of acquests, of community property or to register the cancellation of such a waiver, to register a divorce judgment, the annulment of a marriage or the dissolution of a civil union, a legal separation (or a separation as to property):

   • Registre des droits personnels et réels mobiliers 

To avoid duplicate proceedings for divorce in different courts across Canada:

   • Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings Clicking on this icon will take you to another website.
     (Department of Justice Canada)

The guide entitled "When a Couple Separates":

Both the Department of Justice Canada and Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings links don't work. I don't know what to tell you except that her ex husband who she is in divorce with is in Quebec and she is in British Columbia where she is now a police officer.

--SenatorBF (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me make something clear, SenatorBF. If you can furnish a reliable source that says the marriage is over, then we can include that in the article. I sincerely wish her the very best in her new life and her police career, and do not wish to be unkind to her, or anyone else, in any way. But this is an encyclopedia, and we need reliable sources to report that a marriage has ended. Surely you can see that taking the word of an anonymous source (like you) would open the door to cruel deception by trolls? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen,

I am a sports agent, with an office here in Los Angeles. I see that you live here in California as well. The principal of my business is to try and make my clients happy. I was asked by Ms Agosta to have her name changed since she has gone through the process. I will have to ask someone else on Wikipedia about this, because she wants this to be removed.

My company is called American Group Management and have been in business since 1996 and represent over 20 Olympic athletes. www.agm.us . There is no point or relevancy to make a change or to troll as you are staying as an anonymous source since on our site with the other athletes we work for it has each of their names on it.

--SenatorBF (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)