User talk:Cullen328

I don't live on Cullen Ct, but I like the street sign

If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia by smartphone, I encourage you to read my essay, Smartphone editing. Thank you.

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

WikiCake!

Paleocemoski has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Thank you so much for helping me with my many questions on Teahouse!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Adding cover images

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your response. I fully agree with your rationale - but how do I "just do it"? I've gone to one of the image pages and tried to update the summary and licensing info (adapted from another album page from the same band), and was greeted with a rapid deletion message. The code I used was as follows:

Image upload from Wikimedia

Hi Jim,

Thank you for answering my query on Teahouse. I did exactly as directed but the link uploads the old version, not the new one that I added. Please see my Draft article and notice that I tried twice with the same result. YOur assistance would be appreciated. Also, please let me know if you see anything else that might be improved in order for the article to be approved asap. THANKS! WendyGaw54 (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gaw54. When I look at your draft, I see one of the three images in the category you linked to displayed in the draft. So what, precisely, is the problem? If you are trying to add a Wikimedia category to the article (which includes three separate images), then that will not work. You can only add specific images, and one of those images is already in your draft. So, please be very precise about what the problem is, because I am simply not seeing it at this time.

On another page, I see you complaining that you have not received a response to your question in one hour. Please be aware that this is an entirely volunteer project that now struggles to maintain five million articles. Our volunteers need time off to sleep, work for a living, prepare and eat meals, talk to their family members, go to doctor's appointments, pull weeds in their gardens, goof around on Facebook, see exhibits at art museums, and watch sporting events. And so on. Expecting a one hour response is unrealistic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Gaw54, it often happens that when a new version of an image is uploaded onto the same page/file, it takes several minutes before that change is actually reflected on live usage of the image. The key is just to wait 15 minutes or so. You might try clearing your cache or etc., but usually it's just a matter of waiting until the MediaWiki servers catch up (which they seem to have now, in the case of the image you are using). Again, patience is the key on Wikipedia, as Cullen mentioned above. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. I apologize for jumping the gun. Since the instructions say to wait more than a minute or two, I thought that perhaps my inquiry had fallen into the internet Bermuda triangle. I am still having trouble with linking to the correct image from Wikimedia. When I click on the new image, the old image comes up on the page. They both seem to have the same link information. Gaw54 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered that cleaning my cache indeed solved the problem. Thanks for that suggestion. I have published a number of articles in hard copy but I'm new to this process; this is just my second article. I didn't mean to come across as complaining. I am just trying to understand the various mechanisms and channels for dealing with different issues. Once I get the hang of this I hope to become more active in editing and creating articles. Gaw54 (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad that mystery was solved; thanks for letting us know, that's good information for us as well. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is best for me to refrain from this particular discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Nigeria Writing Contest

Hello Cullen328, and happy Wikipedia @ 15. This is to notify you of Wiki Loves Nigeria Writing Contest organized by the Wikimedia User Group Nigeria to commiserate the 15th anniversary of Wikipedia. The contest will start on 28 January 2016 and end on 29 February 2016. Please help to suggest articles on notable Nigeria-related topic here and if you like to be part of the jury, add your name here. Thanks for your participation. Warm regards Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica

Greetings Cullen328! I hope the year of Our Lord, twenty-hundred and sixteen, has started out well for you! :-) Anyway, I was wondering if I could have your opinion on the Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica article? I first started working with problems regarding WP:OR and various linking issues, but the quality of sources is what I am more concerned about now.

In brief, the article is a list of figures deemed the saints of the religious denomination. However, the article relies largely on two sources: 1) Wasserman, B. J. (2007) Current List of Saints, and 2) Wasserman, J., Wasserman, N. & Crowley, A. (2013) To Perfect This Feast: A Performance Commentary on the Gnostic Mass. The first one is a .pdf file / a list published by GnosticMass.org, a site run by two "clergymen" of the denomination. The second source, is no different; it has the same authors as the website, and it's a WP:PRIMARY source describing their own belief system. I hate to say this, because it appears so highly bureaucratic, but we'd need WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and at the moment the article has none. Therefore, I've been thinking about a couple of solutions:

1. To merge the article with Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica#Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. But do we really need to mention all the 75 "saints"? We would need sources that qualify for the merger as well.
2. To nominate the article for AfD. Do we really need an article to enlist 75 "saints" of a religious denomination, especially if there isn't any independent secondary sources to discuss the subject? Is the topic area WP:NOTABLE enough to merit its own article in that case?

Well, these are the options that I've been thinking of. The article has been created in April 2006 when passing a new article must have been a lot easier. I'd like to invite Stealthepiscopalian to join the discussion as well. What do you think? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jayaguru-Shishya. I believe that listing all 75 in the main article would be a poor idea, and share your concerns. Therefore, I support your proposal to take the article to AfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply, Cullen328! I'll wait for a day or two for the reply of Stealthepiscopalian first (seems like we are the only active editors at the rather a low traffic article). Heh, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I've familiarized myself with the guidelines and I have Twinkle at my side now to help me :-D Actually, I have few other articles standing in the line for AfD: 1) Cumbia sonidera (an unsourced article written in so bad English that it's hard to make any sense out of it), 2) Grady Louis McMurtry (an article to which I ran through the very list of saints we're talking about right now; created in December 2004, and has been tagged completely unsourced ever since October 2009), and 3) Yamantaka (am article that has been tagged for not having any sources that would verify ever since December 2008).

Well, it is always nice to be learning new things! Thanks for your opinion, I'll try to get started with the first nomination process today :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Status update: So far, I've nominated all of the above-mentioned articles, except for Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. I've been rather short on editing time lately, and I think that nomination will take more time than the others. I'll nominate the article after the process with the other articles mentioned above is over. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Grady Louis McMurtry

Greetings again, Cullen328! I was wondering if you could give me a short advice in regards of the AfD process in general. I nominated an article, Grady Louis McMurtry, for deletion since it's been created in December 2004, and has been tagged unreferenced ever since October 2009. I received an opposing comment for my nomination[1], stating that it's not a valid reason for deletion. Indeed, I am new to this process, and I still consider myself to be practicing and have no strong urges in neither way. I am a bit puzzled, though, since a totally unreferenced article would most likely be deleted nowadays if introduced (my assumption is that it must have been way easier to pass a new article, even an unreferenced one, in 2004).

Now, an user might say that: "Is it an appropriate reason to delete an unreferenced article if you are too lazy to search for some sources?". My point is, though, "Is there an appropriate reason to keep an unreferenced article if the creator has been too lazy to write down any sources in the first place?" Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jayaguru-Shishya. I am in general agreement with the other editors in that debate. I favor deleting articles on non-notable topics. However, if the subject of an unreferenced article is notable, the correct course of action is to make the effort to reference and improve the article, instead of making the effort to try to delete it. There is significant coverage of this person in The Occult World, a book published by Routledge, which does not seem to be a fringe source. Please read WP:BEFORE, which offers good advice in this regard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and guidance, Cullen328! I'm still getting familiar with the process, so thanks for correcting me. I read the guidelines one more time, and there is a mention about Wikipedia:Speedy keep. It appears to me that it might be a good idea in this case, what do you think? :-P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: I think the procedure you're looking for is nominator withdrawal. LjL (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, LjL! Yeah, exactly. I read from the guideline pages that "If no-one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep" (WP:WDAFD), and "... the AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep reason #1, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion." (WP:CLOSEAFD). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Darya Safai

Hi, thank you for helping me out a bit. I tried to improve the draft a bit. One suggestion for improvement was to add person infobox. Can you help me out with this? I don't know where to startStannieke (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Stannieke. Please read Template:Infobox person. Then copy the template and paste it at the top of your article. Then fill in the blanks. Only the fields where you add infornation will display. The others will remain hidden. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Thank you for the information. Can you take a look once to the draft if you have some time? Do you think I can resubmit it now? Or do yo think it needs more improvement? ThanksStannieke (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Your essay on Arnnon Geshuri

Hello Cullen328, and thank you for your essay on Arnnon Geshuri. I believe you played a key role in the community understanding more about our new trustee. I'm not a very prolific editor of Wikipedia, but I am quite the active reader. My internet history tells me I browse hundreds of articles a week, and I would be very disappointed if the leadership of this invaluable website was hindering its advancement in any way. I use Wikipedia for knowledge, curiosity, and entertainment (can you believe I stumbled upon a page with a link to "cow feces" and that link for me was purple!?) I believe you have acted in the best interest of the community (and readers!) and for that I salute you. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What he said. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mr Ernie and Writegeist. I do appreciate your comments, though I am deeply saddened by the disfunction at the WMF board. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Crikey, Jim. Did you read this yet? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was sudden, wasn't it Checkingfax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I take no joy in the demise of another man... usually!

		The Half Barnstar
		For instigating the removal of Arnnon Geshuri from the WMF. You get the left half for your essay about him. Fæ gets the right half for creating the vote of no-confidence. You two have really helped restore my faith in Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Chris troutman. I have to say that I take no pleasure from any of this. I feel only sadness but some hope going forward. And Fæ deserves the credit for bringing this to light, in a comment at The Signpost. I simply looked into the matter and presented information in an easily readable form. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I concur with all the above positive comments from others re this case. I particularly liked your characterisation of Geshuri's "management-speak" response before he left. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

As you were one of the editors, Ericoides, who gave me encouragement and support way back in 2009 when I was getting started, your comment means an awful lot to me. As a matter of fact, I think it was a question from you that motivated me to embark on a major expansion of Harry Yount, one of my favorite projects. Thank you so much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd quite forgetten about Yount but looking through your archive I find that this was in relation to James Eccles edits in 2010 – my gosh! How time flies! Hope you're well, Ericoides (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Eccles and Yount hung out together on the upper slopes of the Grand Teton but things went awry due to rebellious mules running away with most of the mountainteering gear. A pity, Ericoides. I am doing well enough after successful surgical procedures for cataracts, glaucoma and skin cancer last year. I hope you are also well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Russell Wilson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russell Wilson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome, Peacemaker67. I took a serious look at your contributions to this encyclopedia, your temperament, and your understanding of our policies and guidelines. You earned my support, and I was happy to give it. Congratulations! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Medicinal Plants In Australia

Hi Cullen, a while back (Archive 435 of the Teahouse) I asked about an entry for a book series. You were encouraging.

My first attempt is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ringpicker/Medicinal_Plants_In_Australia

I would love comment/criticism, I realise I have to resize the thumbnails, but haven't worked that one out yet! Ringpicker (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, Ringpicker. The main problem with your draft is that it discusses the Australian plants far more than it discusses the actual books. An article about a book or series of books should concentrate on the books. That may include information about the author, the publisher, the publication history, sales figures, awards won, and especially the critical reception. In depth reviews should be cited and summarized. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, thanks for the reply. I was (sort of) advised to stay away from reviews and references in the text as that started to head towards product advertising. I assume you mean some sort of review/reference quote or quotes in each volume section. Thanks for the feedback Ringpicker (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not know who advised you to avoid citing reviews published in reliable sources by qualified book reviewers, Ringpicker. Please read our notability guideline for books, where published reviews are mentioned as one important element of the notability of a book. In my experience, book reviews are the main building blocks, in most cases, for writing Wikipedia articles about contemporary books. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Cullen (or may I call you Jim (my name is Tony Young)). Thanks for pointing me to that, I think it qualifies under 1 and 4 as it has been peer reviewed by the Australian National Herbarium, Economic Botany and the Chicago Botanic Gardens amongst others, and from royalty details under intellectual rights we know it is in Universities in Australia. I have done additions to the general Overview and Volume 4. How is it looking? I will add book info no. of pages, etc next. (hope I am not taking up too much of your time). Thanks again 01:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringpicker (talk • contribs)

Amba Shepherd Wiki Page

Thank you for your advice Cullen328. In fairness I was attempting to do the right thing and edit first before requesting the deletion but my edits were reverted twice. Its really disconcerting when someone that you do not know has decided that their description of you & your work (your biography) is more correct than your own description. Moreso I feel like my edits were met with a level of hostility not warranted, given that no conversation about adding or re-editing my corrections was initiated or my reasoning to adjust acknowledged. I have no need to promote myself on wiki I have a great website and socials for that. I do require however all information about me here to be correct. If I provide a detailed summary of reasons behind all the changes I require would this suffice in having the edits stay? Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASMGMT (talk • contribs) 05:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ASMGMT. Many Wikipedia editors are aggressive in rejecting input from the subjects of Wikipedia articles. This attitude originates from the clear fact that notable people for understandable human reasons all too often try to transform neutral encyclopedia articles into promotional puff pieces. I am more receptive than most editors, perhaps, to input by article subjects, but I am not a pushover. Any proposed edits you suggest must be backed by references to coverage in reliable, independent sources. Such coverage is the bread and butter of building a Wikipedia article. Post on the article's talk page and feel free to ask questions here on my talk page at any time. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Was it you who tried to add "you’ve heard her vocals grace the sovereign main stage of every festival across the globe" followed by a long list of name dropping? If so, please be aware that no experienced Wikipedia editor will allow such overtly promotional content to remain on this encyclopedia. This is not LinkedIn or Facebook or Twitter. You and your PR team have no control over the content of our article about you, although your good faith suggestions are welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

HI there Cullen328 Thank you for your notes above. Yes I understand that the edits have come across as inappropriate or overtly promotional. In actual fact the long list of name dropping is just the list of people I have worked with and my correct biography. You might not like the language used, however it's very concise and factual. Having said that I am here to learn what is and what is not appropriate here in order to improve my page. Further more the edits we made were also to correct my full discography again fully factual. Could you tell me what kind of reliable independant sources you would require in order to edit my bio and discog to correctly reflect my full work? For example I could list all of the iTunes or beatport links of my releases? Thank you again. User talk:ASMGMT

ASMGMT, if you really think that "you’ve heard her vocals grace the sovereign main stage of every festival across the globe" is a factual statement, then you should not be editing Wikipedia. There is no way under the sun that such an outlandish claim is factual. You need to declare your conflict of interest on the article talk page and I suggest on your currently blank user page as well. You need to propose specific improvements cited to independent reliable sources on the article talk page. iTunes and beatport are not independent sources because they sell your music. Why do you think that a neutral encyclopedia article should reflect your full work? That is what your own website is for. A well written encyclopedia article describes a selection of your most notable work; that which has been discussed in depth by independent reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

HI there Cullen328 Thank you for your comments & thoughts. Whether you personally feel that my bio is factually correct or not is of no interest or relevance to me or to wikipedia. There is no need to communicate with me in a patronising and mocking tone. You would be well advised to take your own advice and adopt a neutral tone yourself in matters of assisting editors & editing articles. I was not referring specifically to the first line of my bio, but the long list of artists I have worked with as concise and factual (which you quite inappropriately refer to as name dropping). A bio in the real world is not supposed to be a boring piece of statistical info a bio is supposed to be an interesting story to engage readers. I have politely asked for assistance to edit this real life bio in such a way that makes it appropriate and also up to date & as complete as possible for wikipedia. I have made it quite clear from the outset who I am and what my goals are. I have fully disclosed in all my contact here on this talk page and during editing the page exactly who I am and while I understand the comments about a perceived conflict of interest, my tone and communication style and willingness to learn and try to understand clearly indicates that I do not wish to self promote but to get the facts straight & to abide by the principles here. You ask why I think a wikipedia article should reflect my full work? According to the Wikipedia site notes Wikipedia is allowed to be edited by anyone and articles on living persons that are incomplete or incorrect are encouraged to be updated - so that is why. If you actually have any useful comments or advice I am open to discussing further but otherwise please refrain from making any further insults about me, my work/bio/discog, my position editing here or my right to be editing at all.

ASMGMT, thank you for your kind words. I will continue to support Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and will continue to watch the article you are working on to be sure that you comply with those standards. Your failure to achknowledge that content like "you’ve heard her vocals grace the sovereign main stage of every festival across the globe" is utterly inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article speaks volumes. I encourage you to reconsider your approach. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Significant coverage

Hi, sorry to bother you but I can't get the ask question button to work for the teahouse despite signing. Can you please tell me where it says that significant coverage from one reliable source is at least two long paragraphs as I read it in a policy or guideline and I can't find it now unless its been removed. ThanksAtlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Atlantic306, and happy to help. I am not aware of that two paragraph requirement. "Significant coverage" is defined in the General notability guideline (GNG) as:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

The shortcut is WP:SIGCOV. Hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll study it.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Film video for profile

Cullen328, hopefully I am doing this right. I do not usually leave messages. I will provide the youtube link (or try to) of this film documentary. T Heart (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC) (/youtu.be/LMYAcDuuWgs)

Hello, Imasku. I see no evidence on YouTube that this is an official, approved video with appropriate copyright clearances. Accordingly, I do not see how it is acceptable for a Wikipedia link at this time. Wikipedia is very strict about potential copyright violations and this policy simply isn't negotiable. It is incumbent on you to prove that there are no copyright issues with this video before linking to it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Documentary is owned by the man that shot it Christopher Darton, Blues Harp Productions and Gary Kendall owner of the band in question. They tried to get the necessary copyrights to release it as a full film and could not raise the $50,000 required. Therefore, they chose to release it instead as a youtube video. However, what does not change they are both the owners of the documentary. T Heart (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What you explain above is precisely why the video cannot be linked to on Wikipedia, Imasku. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Sins of the Cities of the Plain

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Sins of the Cities of the Plain. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please help

Hi Cullen328! Thank you for the opportunity that through the Teahouse I can write to you. I am new here and I am working on an article. This is a 6 years old article that was not properly sourced, however, I found more than 40 secondary sources that I have now built in. My problem is that almost no one controls what I am doing, and I should like kindly ask you, that if your time allows, just take a glance to the article and tell me your advises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme My other problem is that this tag "Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" proved to be useless for reaching the sources of the 1960-1980 decades, especially the sources of the past communist countries in East Europe where most of the libraries very poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! [[2]] page 65 [[3]] p.2 [[4]] p.23 [[5]] p.1 [[6]] p.289 [[7]] p.5 [[8]] p.2 [[9]] p.353 [[10]] p.35 [[11]] p.1 [[12]] p.46 [[13]] p.75 [[14]] p.63 [[15]] p.84 [[16]] p.64 [[17]] p.1 [[18]] p.48 [[19]] p.317 [[20]] p.196 [[21]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[22]] p.1 [[23]] p.1 [[24]] p.48 [[25]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[26]] [[27]] [[28]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. Would you kindly investigate the improved article, is my work now sufficient? I saw your contributions, so any proposal or any suggestion would be highly appreciated! Thanks for reading this message, sincerely yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello World

Hi Jim. Apologies for cyber bombing your user page.

It seems that these pages are intended as profiles / homepages , and yours is a well thought out example.

I guess for those a bit shy of the limelight, one could just list their interest areas here.

Is there any mechanism for users to exchange private information one to one?

Wiki seems to be a paradigm shift, reminds me of a SF book where everyone became telepathic overnight and the profound effect on civilisation.
I worked for a large organisation once, and you learned from others mistakes never to put anything in an email that you wouldn't want to world to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salbayeng (talk • contribs) 03:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Salbayeng. No apologies needed, because my talk page is an open forum for people of good faith interested in Wikipedia.

As for the "limelight", I have conducted myself as a semi-public figure my entire adult life, though I am far from famous and do not actively seek publicity. Most Wikipedia editors seek a higher degree of privacy than I do, and that is perfectly OK. You can construct your own user page as you see fit, disclosing what you wish. I strongly recommend disclosing any conflicts of interest, but anything else is up to you.

As for private communication, I have the email function enabled, although as you point out, email is not 100% secure. I conduct 98% of my written communication about Wikipedia openly here on this site, or in public Facebook discussions. I do socialize with a few other editors from time to time. I limit ongoing private communication to matters of personal privacy and opposing harassment. If anyone contacts me privately, I suggest taking the conversation public.

Wikipedia is a great accomplishment and I am proud to have been heavily involved with it for over six years. I know its strengths and understand at least some of its weaknesses. It is not science fiction. It is, instead, a triumph of worldwide 21st century human cooperation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for your great feedback on Arthur Street School, and I will keep developing the article in the sandbox before making it publically visible. I really appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, martin. Cargill208 (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)