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 Bebacktalk21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi Jim, thanks for the message; yes, it was a bit ambiguous. As was "Royal Robbins described Frost as one of his heroes in 2002"! But I changed that too... Funny how there seems to have already been a Frost page, but that it was deleted. See here[1]. I wonder why it was scrapped? Great article of yours anyway. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting question. I'm really not sure. It would be good to have a date before it appears on the home page as a DYK. Why not have a go; there wouldn't be a way to reference it tho', but I don't see the harm in that. I can't find a date online, but I haven't looked too hard. From one of the pages linked in your article we know for a fact that he is over 60... (Added later: From this interview[2] we know he is at least 72, but I'm not sure when the interview took place. Even if I did, the year might be one of two, as it were) But at present the article is like a statue missing a head. Ericoides (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I might make one more remark, good idea for scrapping the infobox. I can't see the point of them for this kind of article. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. If you look at the infobox in the Allen Steck article it should be clear. Simply add info to the fields for which you have info. Details here: MOS:INFOBOX. If Frost does repond, you could be cheeky and ask if he has a photo of himself which he'd be happy for us to use.... Regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On October 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Frost, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
PS: I note on your user page that you have asked to be alerted to signs of bias. I have to say that I don't see any; you've acted perfectly correctly AFAIK. However, if you're interested, the material at WP:OWN has a bearing on the kind of question that you've asked, since I also note that you created the article in question. Again, let me be clear, you don't seem to be biased here; I'm offering a reference that will bear on the potential for bias in the future, and may give you an idea of how to recognize it. Accounting4Taste:talk16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Muir Trail
Hey, great additions to the article. It looks much better. Lets see if you can add some citations though. The article has already been tagged for lack of citations and the addition of more information without citations only makes that problem worse. Thanks--Jojhutton (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Frost photos
Hi Jim,
I saw over on Commons you uploaded some photos by Tom Frost and noted that he has granted permission for his photos to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. Can you provide more details about his grant? Does it apply to any photos of his we might find on the internet? If so, that would be fantastic news, as there are many classic images of his which can be found on sites like http://yosemiteclimbing.org/. Jfire (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jfire,
I've been in touch with Tom Frost about the article about him, which I wrote - specifically trying to determine his date and place of birth. He's private about that kind of stuff but we had a great phone conversation. He isn't a "computer guy" and doesn't do email. So, I mailed him a copy of the article and a friendly snail mail letter mentioning the need for good images on rock climbing history. He wrote back on 10/21/09 "Any photos you can find or download you are welcome to use." He also marked up the article with a few suggestions for addition and not a single correction - that made me feel good. I was busy with other things, but yesterday, I got around to finding photos he took of John Salathe and Royal Robbins, and uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons, trying to handle the licensing thing right. I then added the photos to the relevant articles.
Wikimedia Commons immediately let me know the quote above is not adequate, and they need a formal license. I have to call Tom and then mail him the license agreement and have him sign off on it. I also have to get his specific permission for me to scan and upload on his behalf. I tried to call him today but got a busy signal. I think it would be best if a single Wikipedian handled the contacts with him at this point. I will keep you posted. Jim Heaphy (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jfire, I just got off the phone with Tom Frost. He is happy to sign the Creative Commons agreement, so I will send it off to him in tomorrow's mail. Jim Heaphy (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Marmots_Eating_Trash.jpg
Hi,
I saw your picture in the Hoary Marmot article on Wikipedia. It is a nice image but I believe it is misidentified.
I believe the animals in the image are are not hoary marmots because:
The hoary marmots don't seem to have yellow bellies.
The image seems to have been taken out of the range of the hoary marmot.
I believe the image is of yellow bellied marmots, Marmota flaviventris.
Good work on amplifying the section on mountaineering achievements by David Brower, but one thing was unclear. In this version of the article, the punctuation at the end of the first paragraph of "Mountaineering Achievements" didn't make sense. There was an unbalanced quotation mark and an ellipsis floating around. I took a guess at what the passage was supposed to be but you should take a look at it in case my guess was wrong. (Note also that the correct title is "Mountaineering achievements", per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings.) JamesMLanetc21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your guess was right and it looks fine now. Sometimes when I cut and paste a reference, I accidentally pick up a few extra characters. I appreciate you noticing this. Thanks. Jim Heaphy (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Mount Whitney Fish Hatchery
On November 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mount Whitney Fish Hatchery, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On December 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chuck Pratt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi. I have been doing some work on the article Mezzetta to save it from deletion. Thanks for also helping out. By the way, there is no need to put ~~~~ in your edit summaries. It does nothing. Btilm03:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I will add more references. I guess I should have worked it out in my sandbox first. I am trying to develop the habit of using the four tildes all the time, as another administrator told me to do so. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I will give you a few tips. You only need to use ~~~~ when you write a comment and need to sign it, or whenever something says you need to use it. And there is another way to respond to this message. Instead of putting an asterisk, use a colon for every above section/reply. So guess how many you need to reply to this message? (the answer is 3) Btilm03:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I understand you properly. Thanks for the tips. I am still a Wikipedia kindergartner, but am enjoying the learning process.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. andy (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SSCS & Dalai Lama References
Thanks for offering to do that. I find that real life has suddenly become a priority, but hope to get to those references as well within the next week or so. I'm happy to see so much good work done on the article so quickly. Oberonfitch (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent a half hour looking for something to bolster the DL claim. Of course, as seems to happen frequently, I got into a circular loop of SSCS propaganda and Wiki quotes. I think that it needs to be reworded. Thanks for your note. Oberonfitch (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use of Ansel Adams and Camera
In the article on Ansel Adams, you recently replaced a non-free image with J. Malcolm Greany's Ansel Adams and Camera on the basis that the latter image is in the public domain. How did you determine that this image is a work of the U.S. government? JeffConrad (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I obtained this particular image from a Yosemite National Park website, whis is a unit of the National Park Service, which is a subdivision of the U. S. Department of the Interior. I listed the specific web page in the image file on Wikimedia. The original photo caption reads "Ansel Adams shown as pictured in the 1950 Yosemite Field School yearbook and in “Yosemite Nature Notes” in January 1952." I researched the photographer J. Malcolm Greany and learned that he worked for the U.S. Fish and Widlife Service in Alaska, and had been on a trip with Ansel Adams near Juneau, Alaska, probably in 1947. A similar photo from that trip, almost certainly taken during the same photo shoot, appears on a University of California - Berkeley website. Adams is wearing what appears to be the same clothing, using the same camera, and what looks like the same hillside is behind him, though that photo was taken from a different angle. This is the evidence I used to conclude that this Yosemite website image, which is probably 63 years old, is in the public domain. Your feedback is welcomed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I'm not sure any two Wikipedia editors have the same take on the distinction between Notes and References. The latter usually means the works actually consulted in writing the article, preferably with inline citations that include page numbers. The former seems to mean different things in different articles. Sometimes, as in the Adams article, they're used for a combination of discursive footnotes and short footnotes with page citations. Some editors even put discursive footnotes in a separate section, and group them using the group= parameter for the <ref> tag. For short articles, many editors just put full citations inside <ref>...</ref> tags for inline citations, and a <references/> tag or the {{reflist}} template in a References section. This doesn't work so well when a work is cited several times, perhaps each with a different page number. For this, short foonotes are usually a better choice. Another editor changed this article to use the {{Sfn}} template, which works to much the same effect, but creates a hyperlink to the full citation. With this approach, the <ref> tag isn't needed—just use the template. For an example in the Adams article, see the {{Sfn |Adams|1985| p = 76}} citation near the beginning of the Career section. Note that in the References section, the citation templates need to include the ref=harv parameter to create the target for the hyperlink. The “harv” comes from Harvard referencing, which is apparently what the Brits call parenthetical referencing. In effect, the short footnotes work to the same effect as parenthetical referencing, except that they're doubly indirect. I usually use author-date parenthetical referencing, but the citations take up a lot of space when there are as many as there are (and need to be) in the Adams article. And in any event, the existing references used a different style, and the WP:MOS dictates that the original style be followed unless there is a consensus to change it.
One school of thought holds that short footnotes are needed only if a work is cited more than once. The result is that some full citations are in a nice alphabetized list in the References section, while others are scattered throughout the Notes, which seems an inconsistent mess. And of course, this approach presupposes that an additional citation won't be added later; if a second citation is needed, things need to be moved around. Having done this cleanup a short time ago in the Adams article, I can assure you that it's much easier to put the citations and refs where wanted in the first place. Even with relatively few citations to change, I was relieved that I managed to do it without causing any major damage.
I think I understand, but I guess I will have to study the relevant sections in the Adams article in order to understand how to code new references and how to create the notes properly. Cullen328 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Whoa Nellie Deli, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gert7 (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gert7, I appreciate you noticing the article I wrote last night, but am not sure why you proposed Whoa Nellie Deli for speedy deletion, as the article I wrote included no promotional material from the restaurant itself or even paraphrases of such material. Instead, I used neutral language and relied on quotations from 7 relaible sources to establish notability. Those included the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune. These aren't just home town blurbs. Quoting relaible sources is not advertising. I also quoted national magazines like Gourmet and The Atlantic. As a point of fact, I have no connection with the restaurant other than as a satisfied customer. Did you actually read the article and look at the references that clearly establish notability? Fortunately, someone else disagreed with your proposal and removed the flag. I am sure that you acted in good faith but am curious as to your reasoning. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this crisis has passed, but as Ettamogah Pub has been on wiki for years, I think this is comparable, and even more unique. I mean, if we have an article on, say, Antoine's, we need balance, right? ;-) Now, the local Mexican place in my town that's connected to a gas station is also tasty, but not yet notable when compared to this! Perhaps they can take inspiration..LOL!. Montanabw(talk)04:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Packing and such
Cullen, I have been digging around in the packing and guiding articles and have arrived at the conclusion that the whole area is an ungodly mess of stubs, starts and disorganization! My own interest and time is a bit limited to spearhead an improvement drive, but I'd be glad to weigh in and help as I can on any bright ideas for organizing it all (such as making outfitter into a disambiguation page for all the different kinds and a new article for the horse-packing guide variant...). Montanabw(talk)04:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice Sugar
Hi Cullen!
I'm just launching Maurice Sugar right now, working off Johnson's biography as the main source. If you'd like to help wale away at it, feel free. I'm not finding a death date, for one thing — and my interest is primarily in the early years, so if you've got any interest in the later period, maybe I can take care of up to 1920 or something and you can work on the later phase.
If you'd like to email me directly, feel free: MutantPop@aol.com
I made a comment partially directed at you on Talk:Ahmed Yassin, that I think got lost due to the discussion taking on a life of its own. Do you think I could press you for an answer?
In an an attempt to build consensus (and get this issue over with), I will narrow my opinion to Support Option 1, cropped as a portrait of the subject. Showing the wheelchair is OK with me. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to call me Jim, which is my real name. I should let you know that my opinion on the appearance of disabled people is affected by the fact that I have a 20 year old son with moderate disabilities. He has classmates with severe disabilities, so I've had more chances than most people to get beyond the appearance issues. As I said on the talk page, I think the 3 options are all better than the image now used, which I think shows the man's appearance at its worst. People with severe vision problems often look "googly eyed" which isn't a very neutral term. He was, by definition, sickly. So photo 1 isn't my favorite but I am trying to build consensus for improvement. I didn't think your question was directed specifically at me, and the conversation was moving fast. That's why I didn't respond earlier. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jim,
1) Please accept my apologies for the use of the term "googly eyed". You were understating it when you said that it "isn't a very neutral term". It is in fact a terribly insensitive term, and was used too lightly. I have nothing but the greatest respect for people living w/ disabilities and those who help them.
2) I think there are a lot of biographical pages about politicians/important figures who were sick and/or disabled at some point in thier life. I think in general, most images offered for such people are usually respectful in that they don't press the point that person was sick and/or disabled. It strikes me that option 1 from Talk:Ahmed Yassin does make him appear rather sickly and decrepit. Option 3 on the other hand shows he is disabled, but makes him look somewhat more stately.
Apology accepted and not really needed because it wasn't in main space. Option 1 is not my personal favorite but I am willing to make concessions to get consensus for changing the current one. I am inexperienced with these debates and surprised how hard it is to move forward. Your opinion is valid. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I somewhat understand but I guess I would understand better if the issue had clear substance favoring one side or the other. I will probably move on soon to better things (as defined by me). Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it is that Avi (a typically pro-Israeli editor) is looking to represent Yassin (a sworn enemy of Israel) in an aestheticly unpleasing light. NickCT (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the benefit of portraying your enemies as ridiculous? Have you ever seen propaganda posters? Don't they are portray the enemy in comical characticture?
Excellent point, but the guy has been dead 6 years. This isn't 1942 and he isn't Tojo. As I noted yesterday, the lead photos of Hitler and Stalin et al are neutral. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure I understand the counter point. Hamas is very much alive. Yassin was the founder of Hamas. Is it not reasonable to assume that if I wanted to discredit Hamas I might attempt to make its founder look silly? NickCT (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since our last exchange, I noticed that the same image is used in the Hamas article. I read a bit of that article's talk page. I understand your point better now. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, Just wondering whether you might have any info on James Eccles, about whom I've just started a page. He seems to have done a fair bit in the Rockies. I don't have any books on US mountaineering, whilst I imagine that you have quite a few. Any new info gratefully received. Best wishes, Ericoides08:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. My detailed knowledge is about California and the Sierra Nevada. I've never climbed in Wyoming which is a very long 2 day drive from where I live (but would love to). The best overall survey of U.S. mountaineering history I own doesn't mention Eccles. By the way, that book, Climbing in North America, was written in 1976 by a British climber/author, Chris Jones.
Back to Eccles. Available online is a book published by the National Park Service called Grand Teton NP: A Place Called Jackson Hole. Chapter 16 by Reynold G. Jackson is called "Park of the Matterhorns". The whole chapter is fascinating and there is a lengthy paragraph about Eccles' attempt. I Googled "james eccles grand teton" and it was #2 right after your article.
I am researching and replying on a smart phone which is great but a bit awkward. I will be back at my computer and book collection in about 12 hours and will scout around more then. Cullen328 (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
C. Douglas Milner describes Eccles as a climber of "exceptional calibre" and his guides as "the finest that Chamonix could provide at that time" in Mont Blanc and the Aguilles, p. 74, 1955, Robert Hale Limited, London. My copy has no ISBN. Cullen328 (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milner says Eccles failed in an attempt on the Peutery ridge on July 28, 1877, but tried again two days later, succeeding in a very fast time. He also describes Eccles failing an attempt in 1875, intimidated by the Innominata face. Back in London, while walking down the Strand, he saw a telephoto showing Mont Blanc and that amphitheater taken from Crammont displayed in a shop window. This photo revealed the best exit from the amphitheater, by the couloir to the Peutery ridge. Milner implies that photo was the key to success of the climb. All on page 75. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Eckenstein, I think there's something in a Winthrop Young biography I have, as well as a Younghusband biog. Plus a passage in Eric Newby's A Short Walk in the Hindu Kush (about the Eckenstein boulder in Snowdonia). I'll have a rummage tomorrow, it's late now. Crowley biogs have more, of course. Ericoides21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In The Throne Room of the Mountain Gods by Galen Rowell is about K2 mountaineering, and has some very interesting information about Eckenstein (and Crowley as well). I am particularly interested in elaborating on his efforts to improve mountaineering equipment and techniques. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of my books are still in storage but I found this (btw, JP means justice of the peace). "Early in 1907 Geoffrey was voted on the committee of the Climbers' Club, the club for Snowdonia climbers, and immediately he was in action. His Journal notes: "Made a brilliant (!) speech at their dinner, with Charles Trevelyan and Francis Acland as my guests, who also spoke. Helped to settle the Eckenstein-Abraham row over the Abrahams' North Wales book." Oscar Eckenstein was an impressive but odd man, one of the very few who could get along with "the great beast", Aleister Crowley. A railway engineer by profession, he was a veteran climber with an original and inventive mind, a pioneer of balance climbing and a pioneer, too, of the use of crampons on snow and ice. Like many of the Snowdonia climbers, he hated publicity, believing that their sport should remain private and exclusive. The Abraham brothers of Keswick, George and Ashley, had grown up in a very different tradition. They were professional photographers and took the view of their Lake District mentor, O. G. Jones, that climbing was such fun that everybody should be told about it and encouraged to have a go. In 1906 the brothers published a book, Rock Climbing in North Wales, crammed with accounts of adventures on the cliffs of Snowdonia and illustrated by their superb photographs. This would have been enough to upset Eckenstein but, compounding the offence, one passage in the book, [94] about an early attempt on the Devil's Kitchen, vividly described his assault on the crux wall and "pricipitate retreat". An incensed Eckenstein introduced a resolution at the Club's annual meeting, the exact terms of which have not been recorded. The tenor, however, is obvious. Ashley Abraham stood up to plead that he and his brother had intended no personal offence. Eckenstein was finally persuaded to withdraw his resolution." Hankinson, Alan (1995). Geoffrey Winthrop Young: Poet, Educator, Mountaineer, Hodder & Stoughton, 1995, pp. 93–4. In a later passage in the same book, Eleanor Slingsby (daughter of Cecil Slingsby), gives this brief portrait of OE. "I remember Eckenstein very well at the 1911 party, hammering things in the hall and smoking his awful pipe tobacco. He had a bushy beard at that time and was regarded as something of a prophet figure." (p. 119) On p. 233 Hankinson notes that OE, together with Farrar and Collie, had helped GWY with his book Mountain Craft. If you have the time/energy you could also trawl through some of these threads on UKC (eg the one entitled "Who was the Brit mountaineer?"). Ericoides09:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your work on OE is excellent, well done. If you have the time you could give more details on the OE-Abraham feud (the GWY above) after the sentence "though their relationship was not always smooth". For instance, "though their relationship was not always smooth, as may be in seen in the Eckenstein-Abraham row. This was caused by the publication of the Abrahams' North Wales guide in which Eckenstein was ... etc etc."; always nice to have specifics. This would then lead nicely into the North Wales material that follows. I'm afraid I don't know much about that period of the AC, although I know Whymper had trouble with the AC because he was considered a "swell" (a class distinction, I think). There is an excellent collection of essays called Mirrors in the Cliffs (ed Perrin) which, among many other good things, describes this period; many decades later, as the Edward Lisle Strutt article says, "... 1927–37, these being the years – according to Alan Hankinson – in which 'the Alpine Club [...] had declined into a stuffy, snobbish, backward-looking institution. Its dominant figure was Colonel E. L. Strutt [...] for many years the autocratic and outspoken editor of the Alpine Journal. His views were rigid and intolerant. The only decent and honourable way to climb was the way in which he had climbed as a young man. Crampons were inadmissible; pitons anathema." Ericoides07:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I agree that the conflict with the Abrahams brothers is illuminating. Perhaps a case where OE was the conservative one - opposing guidebooks especially if one's own accomplishnents were criticized a bit. I'm also interested in mountain photographers such as the brothers. I wrote Tom Frost and improving Ansel Adams is an ongoing effort. Cullen328 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you might be right. Perhaps he asked for a serviette rather than a napkin. Most of what I know about California comes either from the Grateful Dead or Curb Your Enthusiasm. The only time I visited I was 6 years old. Ericoides12:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have made a start on this and will expand it further as and when I have time. Normally I focus on the mountains of Germany and Austria rather than people, but this looks quite interesting. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coal is a dirty energy source, but what are the men and women that produce coal supposed to do for work if it is fased out? There arent many jobs in our coal mining areas, and coal is a source of income that pays good so we can provide for our families. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb17816 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our job here on Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view, backed up by verifiable references. Your personal opinions simply don't belong in articles. Cullen328 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Yvon Chouinard
I didn't see any links or references regarding "T. M. Herbert" or "TM Herbert" in the article, and assumed it was a common violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you can document that it should be "TM Herbert", have at it and change it, but note the peculiar lack of punctuation with an embedded comment so it doesn't get changed again needlessly. —QuicksilverT@05:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sierra Club 2
(writing to your talk page, as "last edit" may be easier to pick up on a cell phone).
(Comment posted here in response to your message at the Village Pump because second-class netizens can't post there.)
Back when I still had an account, I got these automated welcome messages consistently once every three or four months. They weren't fully automated, because someone had to decide I was new and come template my talk page (honestly, after nine months and three messages, you start to view these things as juvenile insults--"Welcome, User!" for the fourth time? Really, now...), but they were automatically generated and that's what counts.
An automatic message like that will never look friendly to anyone even remotely familiar with the modern era. We're used to dismissing out of hand any kindness bestowed by a machine because we know that machines have no feelings and, more often than not on the 'Net, are programmed to lie to us.
The only "Welcome, User!" message I ever received that meant anything was a very short one, hand-typed, by another user. Even though an initial, fully-automated message that arrives the moment an account is created would avoid the suspicion born by those later, semi-automatic messages ("Is he serious? I've been doing this for two years. Jackass."), it would still be a message from a heartless machine that honestly just isn't happy to have you here--because, really, it can't feel happiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second ascent of the Nose did not include Yvon Chouinard
Dear Jim,
I don't have Chris Jones' book anymore, so I am unable to check the pages 275-276 which you cited, to see if it is one of his mistakes, or if it is a misinterpretation. Thanks for explaning the revert, though.
The party which did the second ascent of the Nose in September 1960 was these 4 people:
Royal Robbins, Tom Frost, Joe Fitschen, and Chuck Pratt.
There is actually a commemoration of this event this weekend in Yosemite.
Another:
Royal Robbins - Spirit of the Age, Pat Ament, p.38-49.
non-primary reference:
Fifty Classic Climbs of North America, Steve Roper, Allen Steck, p.266.
Another:
Beyond the Vertical, Layton Kor, p.148.
Yvon Chouinard, Warren Harding, Janie Taylor and about 20 other people did hike to the top to meet the team of 4.
Yvon Chouinard and Dennis Hennek did the 10th ascent of the Nose in 1967 - that was his first time up the Nose, but not his first time up El Capitan. Here is a list of the first 17 ascents:
1- 1958 Warren Harding, Wayne Merry, & George Whitmore
2- 1960 Royal Robbins, Joe Fitschen, Chuck Pratt, & Tom Frost, seven days
3- 1963 Steve Roper, Layton Kor, & Glen Denny, three and a quarter days.
4- 1965 Gary Colliver, Richard McCracken, & John Evans
5- 1966 Dave Dornan, Dick Williams & Ants Leemets
6- 1966 Galen Rowell & Tom Fender
7- 1966 Jacques Dupont & Andre Gaunt, 6 days
8- 1967 Ken Boche & Don Lauria, 7 days
9- 1967 Jim Madsen & Kim Schmitz, 3 days
10- 1967 Dennis Hennek and Yvon Chouinard, 3 Days
11- 1967 Pat Ament & Tom Ruitch,
12- 1967 Don McPherson & Ron Burgner
13- 1968 Jim Logan & Wayne Goss
14- 1968 Jose Luis Fonrouge (Argentina) & Rick Sylvester
15- 1968 Jim Bridwell & Bill Stanton
16- 1968 Mick Burke & Rob Wood
17- 1968 Jim Madsen (again) & Mike Covington
see the March 6, 2010 post by BooDawg (Ken Boche) here:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=712787&tn=0
I believe Yvon also did the first "clean" (without using a hammer) ascent of the Nose in 1973 with Bruce Carson.
Hi Cullen, note that I took a stab at seeing if the wikigods will accept fair use portraits of the various Varians, and to that end, uploaded some images of the brothers (taken by Ansel Adams, no less) to Varian Associates. I'd be glad to help if I can. I also dribbled some stuff into the Ansel Adams article (which I think you worked on too?) Anyway, you may want to check out the notes I have on Russell and Sigurd at User:Montanabw/Sandbox 2, mostly copy and paste from some other sources, but the URLs are there with the excerpts I thought relevant. The timeline on the history of Silicon Valley is significant, and the Hammond book on Ansel Adams (sourced in the John Varian article) has stuff on Russell. My stake in all of the above is that I created the article Sheila Varian, their niece, the horse breeder. Russell's wife Dorothy helped bankroll the horse ranch in its early years. It's sort of taken off from there. Fascinating family. Montanabw(talk)00:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The date, length and hook of the expanded article of Harry Yount has been verified. However, the image presently at Commons does not match the NPS source you originally specified. Do you know where the current image came from? KimChee (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original image was uploaded to Commons back in 2006, long before I got involved. While working on researching Yount in recent weeks, I was searching for a better quality version of the image. The best I found was part of Google's archive of LIFE magazines photos. Since it is a 19th century image, I concluded that it is in the public domain, as did the original uploader. I uploaded the highest resolution version I could find, but it had a LIFE watermark. I then uploaded a somewhat lower resolution version from LIFE, without the watermark, but still better than the NPS version. I thought I had properly updated the Commons data, but have gone back and made sure that it shows LIFE's archive as the intermediate source. The photo, of course, was taken long before LIFE magazine was founded. By the way, it isn't accurate to say that the photo was taken by a NPS employee, as it was taken long before the NPS was founded. I believe that it was taken by a photographer working for the Hayden Survey in the 1870s. That survey was funded by the U.S. Department of the Interior, so the photo is almost certainly a work of the U.S. government. However, I haven't been able to verify the exact origins of the photo. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm PD status for DYK usage, it would help to determine whether the photo had been published before 1923 or if it had in fact been part of the Hayden Survey. The date is in a gray area where it is uncertain whether an unknown photographer would have been dead for at least 70 years. Here is a book that states that William Henry Jackson had taken at least one of the photos of Yount during the Hayden survey (that image from the USGS appears to be clear to use). KimChee (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this iconic portrait is not by Jackson, though the distance shot of Yount in mountain scenery is by Jackson. The portrait is, however, by another employee of the Department of the Interior.
The earliest publication date for this photo that I can verify is 1928, in the book, "Oh, Ranger!" by Albright and Taylor, which is reference 1 in the Wikipedia article. I own a copy of the 2nd edition printed in 1929, but unfortunately it does not have any photo credits - just a brief caption.
The best information I can find about the source of the photo is in the frontispiece of the following book, which I found on Google Books:
National Park Service Uniforms: In Search of an Identity, 1872-1920
R. Bryce Workman
DIANE Publishing
1994
ISBN 9780788187919
Workman writes, "Photograph was taken by William Henry Holmes while both were employed on the Ferdinand Vandiveer Hayden geological survey in 1873, Yount as guide and Holmes as illustrator. William Henry Jackson was the official photographer, but apparently Holmes also dabbled in this medium. NPSHPC - William Henry Holmes photo HFC/91-16"
The photo is described in detail on page 1 of the book, and descriptions of other photos of Yount follow.
Suggested ALT1: ... that Harry Yount(pictured) killed 70 antelope in one day during a hunting competition, but was ashamed because "it went against his heart to kill so many innocent creatures just for the glory"? KimChee (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Yount, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Harry Yount(pictured) killed 70 antelope in one day during a hunting competition, but was ashamed because "it went against his heart to kill so many innocent creatures just for the glory"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
License tagging for File:Lute Jerstad on Sahale Summit 8-66.jpg
Thanks for the comment on the photo. I think the license should be OK now. I put a similar picture of Dick McGowan up on his article. Jack-z (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks great and is very comprehensive for its genera of article. You should consider nominating it for GA status. I suspect it would pass without much ado. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. I rewrote the material to put it into a more logical flow. I think it's worth including, but I wish it could be combined into a general history section rather than standing on its own, which tends to give it additional weight. However there isn't such a section right now, so a standalone section is perhaps the next best solution. We might revisit the material in a few weeks to see if there have been any further developments. If not, it could be minimized further. Will Bebacktalk22:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for your kind comments. I wish I was quite as patient as you describe me, but I do try for as far as my tether will stretch! I very much appreciate your comments about Srebrenica and the Srebrenica genocide article. There has been an ongoing campaign of denial, driven by political and other considerations, that has made the article a bit of a battleground. The disputes have been slightly less energetic since the International Court of Justice rescued Serbia from the threat of reparations, but sadly there is still considerable residual conflict over the facts. The article could do with more tidying up but at the moment circumstances prevent me concentrating on dealing with more serious matters so I get distracted into discussions on subjects of perhaps lesser weight that I still think should be treated with adequate respect. All the best, Owen Opbeith (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC) After a losing battle over the deletion of John Monk MBE (essentially I believe the UK Honours List recognition of long-term, exceptional but low media profile community service should be respected by Wikipedia as a reliable non-elitist measure of notability but ... you can guess the rest), someone referred me to the WP Notability discussion forum. I haven't the time or energy to take it up there but I came across your comments on the subject of red links. I endorse them completely. Opbeith (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those words about the Honours List effort, Jim. I'm holding back till I feel ready to subject myself to exposure to the full fire of battle (the proposal's a loser, I'm certain, but it's justified, so that's no reason not to give it a try). And first, once I can settle back to proper concentration, I need to get back to another head-banging session at the Bosnian genocide article. Once the time comes, though, I'd be happy to have a chat about the basics of the UK Honours system (hopefully without rendering you catatonic). Opbeith (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to add something that I think is useful to the article on the John Muir trail. The social networking site for the trail on Yahoo has a very extended collection of files and links related for the trail. E.g., Excel spreadsheets that give mileages, elevations and GPS coordinates of all trail junctions and campsites; information on permitting dates for each potential trailhead, equipment suggestions. I see the usual prohibition on links to social network (Yahoo, Facebook) groups, which makes some sense to me, but this particular networking site has the best collection I know of online info about the JMT - it is way more useful than many of the links that exist in the article, some of which merely describe a single person's account of hiking the trail. Any ideas of how to get around this problem. Not a registered user - please respond to JohnLadd@Gmail.com (or I'll come back here to look for ideas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.103.211.28 (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John and thank you for trying to improve the John Muir Trail article. I encourage you to get more involved, and help make the article better. However, Wikipedia has a clear policy on external links to avoid, found at WP:LINKSTOAVOID item 10, which says that links to YahooGroups are not allowed. In my opinion, the article has too many external links now and a number of others should be removed. I recommend that you work on improving the article itself, which could certainly benefit from the input of an expert. I don't claim to be an expert because I've never hiked the full length, just a number of segments. More and better photos would be a good addition too. Cullen328 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing and offering to help out. i had created a stub article a while back, which was turned into a redirect within a day. based on the content at that time, and assuming it could not have been expanded, it made some sense. but of course this publisher is a major influence on environmental issues. I added it back once i had enough to feel comfortable it would not be summarily removed. I think it needs a lot more work, and i of course may not get to it (being a volunteer with a life outside WP:)). I have tried to add a few of the SCB titles already mentioned on WP, but i think some of the works used as references here should be added as well. I think the fact that the dust jackets for the pictorials had ordering and membership information on the inside of them is notable. I basically collected old SCB's at thrift stores, and worked from the hard copies. Generally, coverage of publishers and books here is not on a par with music and record companies, or movies. This is a small start. PLEASE feel free to rewrite or reorganize the article, as i think this is one of my less well written articles. You probably couldnt do worse unless you tried...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you say "keep but source" it'd be better if you actually added at least one of the sources you've found. I've seen this happen far too often: an article gets pile-on "keep but source" and no one ever gets around to doing it, leaving an unsourced nanostub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)04:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
National RTI Forum
Thanks for your message. I shall post my observations on the articles talk / discussion page. Please watch it. Incidentally, despite being a regular contributor to this article before the AfD I was not involved and opine the AfD process would have been better had it attempted to include prior "deletionist" inclined contributors also.RobertRosen (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will watch for your observations on the talk page, as I keep this article and others that interest me on my watch list. I did not start the AfD but noticed it, began researching the topic, and added sources. The edit history, as I read it, shows you made three edits within a three minute period last November. Is that what you mean by a "regular contributor" or am I missing something? Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you missed my 30th Nov edit :-) I also extensively edited a connected article Amitabh Thakur. To cut to the chase, I think both these articles should be extensively edited to somewhere between our respective present positions to satisfy 5P.RobertRosen (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These Yahoogroup postings are repugnant rumormongering that have no place on Wikipepdia. You have weakened your case in my eyes by linking to these.Cullen328 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly aware that YG is not a RS. I was clarifying the context of the individuals behind the NRF as you alluded to, and considering the pending sock report. In passing, do you plan to respond to my other concerns for that article, especially the issue that the sources do not back the sweeping claims made about NRF ? RobertRosen (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice now you have posted this previously [9] which referred to me in the context of this article and my deletions then. It is pertinent that very few of the links I removed then are back in the article. I dont think my edits, either then or now constitute vandalism. RobertRosen (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood my question to Uncle G. I was not accusing you of vandalism. Instead, I was observing that you had accused another editor of vandalism in an edit summary of November 30, 2010, in which you wrote: "undid vandalism. SPS, NPOV, lack of reliable sources" when reverting an edit by Nutanthakurlko. I agree that this inexperienced editor, unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, added SPS material, wrote in an POV fashion, and clumsily tried to use sockpuppets. However, all of her misguided edits were in good faith and none of her edits constituted vandalism. Please note that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting patent nonsense into a page." Nutanthakurlko has not edited in six weeks or more. Her shortcomings as an editor are no longer relevant to the development of this article, unless she returns to the process. We can deal with that if and when it happens.
I don't think that your edits were in any sense vandalism, and assume good faith of your editing as I do of Nutanthakurlko. However, I perceive that you have a negative POV regarding the National RTI Forum, for whatever reason. Despite your personal POV, you have an obligation to edit this article in an NPOV fashion, and to base any observations about the topic on reliable sources, rather than your own opinions or personal observations. If you will work with me in a collaborative way, maybe we can agree on a good article on this topic. Let's try. Cullen328 (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You characterized the following sentence as containing "extraordinary claims": "National RTI Forum is a grassroots anti-corruption organization in India that advocates for government openness under the terms of the 2005 Right to Information Act." To me, an "extraordinary claim" would be that a certain person lived to be 200 years old, or that an inventor had developed a perpetual motion machine, or that space aliens controlled the United Nations. My intent was to describe the National NTI Forum in a single sentence based on what I've read in the reliable sources, and I don't see what is so extraordinary about any of it. Please explain. Cullen328 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have reliable access to internet now. Will talk later about this article. 12:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertRosen (talk • contribs)
Hello. You have a new message at Salegi's talk page.
Hello. You have a new message at salegi's talk page.
Garry Wills opinion - reply
Thank you for the nice compliment. I also feel it was a very good speech and historically significant. I realized after our discussion on the talk page that the sentence still didn't describe Wills' opinion fully, so I tweaked it. Glad you like it! and Happy Trails! (and thank you for all the work you did making it a good article). --Kenatipospeak!16:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfD Comment
I struck my AfD comments that you were referring to. I was a little annoyed at a few earlier discussions I had seen and that carried over. I didn't take the time to fully investigate before commenting on that one; nor did I have the tact I should when I made my comment. There were one or two !votes that I thought were SPA-ish, but I should have done my homework better. Thanks for calling me on it. Shadowjams (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328 I was wondering if you'd be willing to be my ambassador
Hello there, My User name is Msujsj and I am currently involved in a Native American Law and Policy course at Montana State University that entails updating indian law related articles. I was wondering if you would be willing to be my ambassador in this endeavor for this Spring semester . I am not quite sure if this would something of interest to you, but if interested please let me know.
Sincerely,
Msujsj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msujsj (talk • contribs) 04:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would be happy to be your mentor. Please tell me a little bit about you, and what your goals are with regards to learning about Wikipedia. Do not hesitate to ask me anything, and I will do my best to be of assistance.
Hint - sign your talk page messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). That will generate an automatic signature with a link to your user page and your talk page. You won't have to type your user name.
Hi, when I talked to Sage he said I should ask you to introduce yourself to the user on their talk page and add the {{WAP student}} template, something like this: {{WAP student|project=WikiProject United States Public Policy|course=Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Environmental_Policy_spring_2011_(Gen)|coursetalk=Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Courses/Environmental_Policy_spring_2011_(Gen)|mentor=Cullen328}}. This should be a bit easier since the student doesn't know their way around yet. Please let me know if you want to do anything differently. And thank you for your help! Dcoetzee00:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you be interested in taking me on for the online ambassador program? I'm working under the the Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy, studying federal Indian law at Montana State University. I'm considering focusing my Wikipedia project on the Wyoming v. United States 1989 Supreme Court case dealing with water rights leasing.
Chris.arneson (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding accepted practice for using content from other Wikipedia articles
Hi Jim. I am taking an environmental policy class at San Francisco State University and my class is participating in the United States Public Policy WikiProject. Our project for the class will be to create or contribute to a Wikipedia article on a public policy issue of our choice. I was told that you will be my online mentor for the semester and I have a question that I am hoping you can help me out with. I would like to know what the accepted practice is for using content from other Wikipedia articles.
The topic I will be writing about is the application of the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases. I am in the process of writing a portion of my article and there is a particular section of the article "Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency" which I think is well written and relevant to the piece I am working on. I don't want to simply include a link to the other article or transclude the entire article into my own, and am wondering if it is acceptable to simply copy and paste a portion of the other article into my own. If so, do I need to cite to the other article or otherwise indicate that it is a quote? I want to avoid any issues associated with plagiarism and am not quite sure what to do in this instance. Thank you for any advice you can provide. JLapka (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of issues to be considered here, and I don't claim to be an expert on these issues, so please check out and verify my advice on your own. These are my opinions. First of all, a given Wikipedia article, since it is a product of a user edited website, can't itself be considered as a reliable source for another Wikipedia article. On the other hand, the Wikipedia content is freely licensed, so the writing can be re-used or copied as long as the content is supported by reliable sources. You won't have any copyright issues, but if you incorrectly represent the writing as your own, you may have some plagiarism issues. Be certain that the source of the writing is identified properly. I think the main challenge for you will be to read the reliable sources that back the language in the article you want to use, to verify for yourself that the content is really justified and fully supported by those reliable sources. After you have read and verified those reliable sources, then you are perfectly free to use them in another article. I think that I would recommend to you that you re-write or paraphrase the content in your own words, reflecting your own understanding and interpretation of those reliable sources, so that you have made your own specific encyclopedic contribution to an understanding of the unique issues in the article you are working on. Please feel free to ask a follow-up question if anything I have written is unclear to you. I will think about this more, and may have more to add tomorrow. Thank you for your question. Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi buddy. Wikipedia doesn't seem to want me to edit pages tonight. I suspect that anonymous editors are restricted now to one edit per page for a time period or something, which is pretty useless really! I couldn't even go back to re-edit my own talk page just now. So sorry for the delay in responding - I've been trying to work the problem out! Here is what I had written. Feel free to copy and paste it to the relevant article and discuss further. Thanks.
I am over thirty years old and, although I am not an expert nor a climber, I have seldom heard this tool referred to by experts and non-experts alike, as an ice axe. That's not to say it isn't referred to as such. However, it is also referred to as an ice pick. Perhaps you both should have discussed it before you made the reverts, AND perhaps informed me of the debate.
Here are some links to people who use the term ice pick, some of which also use the word axe.
I'd be willing to bet the decoration referred to in the last link isn't merely the tip or head of the tool proper, but the whole tool, as a whole.
Now I'm sure there are many more examples. But I believe the generic name (in some places outside the USA certainly) is ice pick. I also believe it is probably more of a laymans' term, but popular enough to include in this article. The experts' name might well be ice ax(e). I don't know if this is a recent adoption or from the early days of mountaineering.
Also, this think about what Trotsky was killed by - I don't believe it was an error at all. It's just the name by which the tool had been generically known back in the day.
I am also not sure about how many different locations throughout the world use the term ice pick, as opposed to an exclusive usage of the term ice axe (or ax) to refer to the whole tool. So I could very well be wrong about it being American English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.130.116 (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts here, and I concede that a mountaineering ice axe is sometimes incorrectly called an "ice pick", which the article already mentioned with regards to the Trotsky murder weapon. The key word there is "incorrectly".
Here on Wikipedia, we have to rely on reliable sources. Let's take a look at the reliability of your sources in order:
Source #1 is a caption on a stock photo website. This is not a reliable source for mountaineering terminology, as there is no evidence that the person who wrote the caption has any mountaineering expertise.
Source #2 is an item about something that is not a mountaineering tool, although the photo is fascinating. The item was found at the bottom of a lake that had a history of commercial ice making. The term "ice pick" is associated with domestic ice chipping tools from the days before mechanical refrigeration. This has no relevance to mountaineering.
Source #3 is a news story written by a reporter who is not a mountaineering expert, and accordingly, the article is not a reliable source for mountaineering terminology. The article uses both "pick" and "axe", and pick is the proper term for the part of the axe that caused the injury.
Source #4 is a YouTube video, which is in no way, shape or form a reliable source on Wikipedia for technical terminology.
Source #5 is a blog post related to a video game, and has no real world relevance to mountaineering terminology.
Source #6 is a list of key words associated with a stock photo. These lists include everything but the kitchen sink, and are not a reliable source for mountaineering terminology.
Source #7 is better than the previous sources, but is an article by a "culture and society" correspondent. There is no evidence that this reporter has mountaineering expertise.
Source #8 is a website domain name that is for sale, and dealers for these domain names will fill the space with roughly plausible material that is not fact checked. I know because I once bought one myself and transformed it into a genuine and accurate website. This is not at all a reliable source.
Source #9 is another example of a journalist, Carolyn Fry, who is not a mountaineering expert, inadvertently misusing technical terminology in an article about the history of the Alpine Club. It is not an article about mountaineering equipment, and the mention is in passing.
The simple fact is that in every English-speaking country, such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand and also in English speaking outposts in every mountaineering locale in the world, the accepted English language term for the item discussed in this article is "ice axe". There is nothing "American" about the term. This is the term used in mountaineering magazines, journals and books published in all countries, and in the catalogs and websites of mountaineering equipment manufacturers and dealers worldwide. This is the term used by all active English speaking mountaineers. WP:UNDUE tells us that we don't highlight occasional erroneous usage by people who have no expertise in a given field. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, axes aside, I've just seen your comment on Talk:Thomas Graham Brown. Yes, you are correct. I've just acquired a copy of Brenva so I'll be greatly expanding the article in the next few weeks. But see my rather weary comment on the Talk page. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wheels of progress turn slowly. I will watchlist the page and look forward to your expansion. On another matter, I am 99% done with a biography of California mountain photographer Cedric Wright. That red link should turn blue sometime this weekend. Take care. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few minor changes to Wright, mostly closing up the refs to the text immediately preceding them. Bit busy at the moment with work but will have a better look on Wednesday. Looking good, though. Ericoides (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cedric Wright, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Cedric Wright accompanied his best friend Ansel Adams when three of Adams' most famous photographs were taken? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.
Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!
Thanks for uploading File:Hagafen.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Hi there,
Thank you for your note on my talk page. Please do tell how you propose that we 'work together'. I am new on Wikipedia and would love to have discussion about best practices and developing high standard content here, including the RTI related article that you have highlighted to me. Conceptually, I am a keen believer in every person's right to information(which is why I work at developing articles for Wikipedia) and would love to collaborate with you. Feel free to contact me via 'talk' page or email me from my user page. Look forward to getting more details from you. abhishek singh (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have read the article and its associated discussion page.
Jim, thanks again for being so encouraging to people. In the last few days I've bumped into people at Wikipedia who have been helpful and courteous beyond any expectation and I've also come across people who give the impression of being graduates from the school of playground bullying. I'm resilient enough to take care of myself, but a lot of people aren't. Your reassurance is the sort of thing that helps the less robust find the resolve not to be deterred. Opbeith (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came across a situation where you seemed to be having a bit of a problem with a copyright issue. If you need a very solid opinion you might contact User:Moonriddengirl. She is knowledgeable and authoritative but also exceptionally helpful - one of the people who encourage me to keep faith with Wikipedia. However save the problem until you're really stuck because I think she's got quite a lot on hand to cope with. Opbeith (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, it's been a while since we spoke. Inspired by RTI (as we last spoke), I recently added an article on National RTI awards. Can you please lend me your expertise? Take a look at the article, improve it, give feedback or rate it, anyway that you can help, so that it can be up to Wikipedia's high standards. Your assistance is greatly appreciated
regards abhishek singh (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Online Ambassador Program
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the major contributor to this article I am contacting you to let you know the article has failed GA review. Full notes are available on the talk page as well as a note about the article title.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Backes
I am basically clueless right now about how to navigate Wikipedia. I am starting to figure it out through trial and error. Thanks for your awesome work on the edit of the article on Scott Backes. I have read both of Mark Twight's books and Steve House's book and Feel like Scott is deserving of a place in history. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr1sandman (talk • contribs) 06:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Cullen328. You have new messages at User:Snottywong. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!
This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:
Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.
And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.
Thanks for the heads up - I will add the article to my watch list this evening as I am responding on a smart phone and the button doesn't work on this interface for some reason. It doesn't look like true vandalism but rather POV pushing. You and I can make sure that doesn't succeed. I appreciate your concern. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Stone
Sorry, looks like we edit-conflicted while trying to add sources. I'm done now, so if I broke anything you were adding, sorry about that! 28bytes (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you have written about editing on smartphones. I often edit on a Android device, namely the Droid X. I am using one now. This allows me to make minor corrections and also participate in AfD debates when I am away from a computer. The limitations can be frustrating though, and I have had other editors say, "Why didn't you do so-and-so", such as put a reference into an article. That's almost impossible when you can't cut and paste. I wish I could do more, and wish there was a more robust Android editor available. Your thoughts? Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I have an iPhone. It allows me to do just about any form of editing Wikipedia. Since I got it, I have actually done quite a lot of editing on it. It can get to the exact same screen as a regular computer, input all the same characters, and copy-paste as well. I have even created a few articles with it and managed to place references in them too. I'd say that the only thing I cannot do with it is to take a picture and place it on Wikipedia without the intervention of a regular computer.
Before my iPhone, I had a Blackberry-like phone that could sign in and edit. But it had a lot of limitations. It could not copy-paste, so I was unable to use it to move text between locations. Getting to anything that was not a letter or number character was tricky, especially the [[brackets for linking]] and {{templates}} and the vertical lines used within them. It was totally impossible to get the bullet • that is used in a lot of navboxes. It took three keystrokes on the tiny keyboard to get each ' when bolding or italicizing anything. Not to mention what I had to go through just to get the <ref></ref> tags.
Despite all these limitations, I managed throughout the time I had the device to compose with it lots of articles and edit many more. I was just happy to be able to do it at all. I edited with it constantly while away from home for part of the day, in various public places, on multi-day trips, even during a weeklong hospital stay. There were times when some event happened and I had it on Wikipedia within minutes.
Prior to the Blackberry-like device, I had a Motorola RAZR phone. I could not sign in on it at all. I could edit (but not create articles) with it . . . sometimes. Sometimes, it let me edit short articles using a random IP address from a certain range that varied each time. Other times, it would send me a message that I was blocked from editing, probably because that IP had a problem from someone else. It was frustrating because what I typed would be lost as a result. Not to mention, I had to input the text using the iTap method on a number key pad. I rarely edited this way at all.
Given all my smartphone experience, this has led me to do certain things. For one, I have pushed for grace periods in which new articles won't get deleted simply due to the lack of references. This is one reason why I created the template {{newpage}}. I have thought about creating a similar template just for smartphones to let others know that one created the page on their phone and would make improvements as soon as they get to a regular computer.
I also made a suggestion somewhere recently that there should be the ability to send a picture one takes with their camera phone straight to Wikipedia for uploading. IPhones allow videos to be sent directly to YouTube without an intervening computer. There should be something similar for pictures on Wikipedia. Sebwite (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Mentee?
Hello Cullen238,
I'm a grad student at the University of San Francisco and am working on the WikiProject United States Public Policy project to update and create public policy pages on Wikipedia. I'm completely new to the world of Wikipedia and am wondering if you could be my mentor.
Thanks for your insight on my resources re: the Chevron case. I agree, it's very opinionated. I do think it will serve as a good resource to find other resources.
Hi Jim, It was a pleasure to meet you on Saturday. Thanks for all the good tips you provided for editing on Wikipedia. Sonam and I are coming along with our article. We actually decided to change our topic after your feedback and a conversation with Aaron. We're now writing about the California Truck and Bus Rule which is much more straight-forward. When you have a moment, could you take a look at what we have so far? It isn't much - just the background. But any thoughts on the format or the writing itself would be great! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elsnthesea/sandbox
It looks like you're a popular Ambassador, that's wonderful. Sonam and I have a pretty good draft of our article on the California Diesel and Truck Rule. I'm wondering when you have a free moment, if you could take a look at what we have so far and give us some feedback. We've gotten some so far from other students and wikipedians which has been helpful. Here's our page: California On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles Regulation. Thanks a bunch! User:Elsnthesea (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. The gorgeous snow in the high country should last well into July, and the streams and the waterfalls will be gushing for a long time to come. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I Use You as A Mentor?
Hi Jim or Cullen238,
I am new to the Wikipedia editing world and also a part of the US Public Policy Initiative underway at the University of San Francisco’s Environmental Management Masters Program. I was wondering if it was possible to use you as a mentor. I would love to ask you questions as I begin this online journey.
I am working with Kimiye on our article and I was wondering if you could be my mentor as well. We're going to work on Citizens to End Animal Suffering and Exploitation v. The New England Aquarium.
Sure, Stephanie. Let me know why you think this case is notable. By the way, sign your talk page remarks with four tildes. This is a tilde: ~. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim,
Thank you for your response. I feel lucky to have you as a mentor. I have found a few articles that I thought were notable. If you could review them and let me know what you think. The first article I discussed with my partner (Slum125) and saw your comment to her. We will discuss our thoughts and try to come up with a solution. I have added a summary and a link to the other articles. Thank you for all you help. Kkihara (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Articles
1. Citizens to End Animal Suffering and Exploitation v. The New England Aquarium
Summary: The primary issue addressed by the court was whether a dolphin, named Kama, had standing under the MMPA. The court found the MMPA does not authorize suits brought by animals; it only authorizes suits brought by persons. The court would not impute to Congress or the President the intention to provide standing to a marine mammal without a clear statement in the statute.
http://www.animalrights.net/2003/citizens-to-end-animal-suffering-and-exploitation-v-new-england-aquarium-1993/
2. Defenders of Wildlife v. Dalton
Summary: Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant government official from lifting the embargo against tuna from Mexico's vessels in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Plaintiffs alleged irreparable injury if three stocks of dolphins became extinct. The court found plaintiffs failed to produce evidence showing irreparable injury.
http://animallaw.info/cases/speciescases/caspdolphin.htm
3. Anderson v. Evans
Summary: Advocacy groups challenged governments approval of quota for whale hunting by the Makah Indian Tribe. The Court of Appeals held that in granting the quota, the government violated the NEPA by failing to prepare an impact statement, and, that the MMPA applied to the tribe's whale hunt. REVERSED.
4. Cetacean Cmty. v. President of the United States
Summary: Plaintiff, a community of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, sued Defendants, the President of the United States and the United States Secretary of Defense, alleging violations of the (NEPA), the (APA), the (ESA), and the (MMPA). The Plaintffs were concerned with the United States Navy's development and use of a low frequency active sonar (LFAS) system. The community alleged a failure to comply with statutory requirements with respect to LFAS use during threat and warfare conditions.
http://animallaw.info/cases/speciescases/caspwhale.htm
5. Stryker's Bay Neighborhood Council v. Karen
Summary: The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) considered alternative sites before redesignating a proposed site for middle-income housing as one for low-income housing it should have given determinative weight to environmental factors. http://supreme.justia.com/us/444/223/
Each of these court cases is a promising topic for an article. The main criteria I would use for making your selection is notability, and I am referring the the Wikipedia meaning of the word. Please read the overall notability policy, and especially the section called the general notablity guideline. The key sentence is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that four of these cases are mentioned just a few times in passing in reliable sources, but the fifth has many sources that discuss the case in depth. The fifth case should be your choice. The analysis is unlikely to be that clear cut, and if several have in-depth coverage, then you can use other factors to decide. But, in my opinion, notablity (in the Wikipedia sense) should be among the most important factors in your decision. Cullen328 (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick Google search on these cases, and noticed that your new user pages show up very high in the search results! That's either a tribute to how highly Google values Wikipedia in its search results, or how obscure these cases are, or perhaps a bit of both. You can't just "count" Google hits to determine notability; instead, you have to evaluate the sources, and find those that are reliable, independent and discuss the case in depth. The judge's ruling is not independent, and neither are publications by the plaintiffs. These can be referenced after notability is established, but can't be used to establish notability itself. Article in major law journals, books, newspapers, magazines and so on are best. I think that a Supreme Court decision would be considered notable by most editors, but that's just my opinion. I have lots of Wikipedia experience, but none directly related to court cases.Cullen328 (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, Kimi and I chose a new case: Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon. Also, see Jodi's talk page regarding a visit to our next class. (Jodi.elizabeth) Slum125 (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rob Stone (actor), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that former Mr. Belvedere actor Rob Stone later became a producer of documentaries, including a short film on homelessness that featured Mr. Belvedere himself? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello Sonamgill, Since you are working on a team with another student I am mentoring, I will say yes. Please feel free to ask any questions, and welcome to Wikipedia! Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, was deeply saddened to read of Dr. Marable's death. Along with many others, I've been looking forward to publication of his book. His death is a loss to us all. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk04:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Class Visit at USF
Hi Jim, thanks for your message on my talk page. Sorry for the delay in responding to your question about a potential class visit. Thanks for your offer and willingness to come to class to help out. I discussed this with Aaron Frank, our Professor and we think it is a great idea. Would the afternoon of 4/16 work for you? I was thinking we could ask one more wikipedian to come and help (either Annie Lin or someone she suggests). I think it would be good to have a brief presentation of some of the things I haven't covered yet and then a Q&A session. Jodi.elizabeth (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to be of assistance. Please give me the time and address, and also an idea of how long I should talk. What are the things you've covered and those you would like me to cover? I am looking forward to it. Cullen328 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, sorry for the delayed response, I didn't see that you had responded until today. I will email you via your Online Ambassador link. Thanks, Jodi.elizabeth (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff existing
You are correct, of course. I just used the shorter name, as both point to the same rule ... the points being two sides of the same coin.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool to meet you
Yes, thank you for your great suggestion. And yes, what a tale. And yes, we have much in common: construction, writing. I have the sense you're a west coast version of me, but with many more contributions! I posted things on the Bounty Board about donations; my sense is it's a good idea, overall. I like to choose what to write about here -- people I meet, authors I like, stuff that I want to learn more about. Inevitably, people coming in contact with me would like to hire me to write stuff, and I feel somewhat awkward doing that here. So the essence of the bargain I'm thinking of making is this: IF I get sent a check to my mailbox which is made out to Wikimedia Foundation (or whatever the wording is -- gotta learn this) THEN I'll write on the particular topics asked for, and do that, while making a note on the talk page that this is a donation request. So we're all above board on this. So, that's kind of how I'm thinking of approaching it. I've learned over the years that being upfront about things is the only way to go, and not to try to trade my reputation away for a few bucks. And then of course I mail the checks to WM foundation. (I'll need the address). What do you think about this? Have you ever used the Bounty Board?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
--Hi Jim! This is Flavia, also working on the Syracuse's public policy initiative. I've made several edits to the Save the Children page, but I'm having some trouble referencing my sources. I've been using the 'cite' toolbar add-in, but somehow it isn't referencing my sources the correct way. Any chance you know what I'm doing wrong? The page is largely unsourced, for now, so I want to make sure it gets the proper citations soon! Thank you so much! Fccolang (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mirelis
-Hi Jim,
This is Mirelis (Syracuse University senior working with the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy Initiative) just informing you that I've made some minor contributions to the entry on the United States and the International Criminal Court. I except to edit it much more within the next few days, so I just wanted to keep you in the loop! Thanks so much for offering your help!
--MTGonzalez (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Online Ambassadorship
April 16, 2011: Hi Jim, If you have the time and interest I would love for you to be our Online Ambassador for Aaron Frank's Environmental Law II course. Sarah Favrot and I (Amy Parsley), will be working on the Ocean Beach Public Policy page. Thanks for all of your help and your great lecture in class today!
Hello Jim- I'm wondering if you might be able to serve as my online mentor for our public policy class at USF
My partner user:dradams5 and I are working on covering the San Francisco Mandatory Recycling and Composting Ordinance Ckgurney (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Online Ambassador Help
Hi Jim. Thanks for volunteering to help with our Environmental Law Course. We really appreciate your input and it is great to have an USF alumni helping with the course! Jodi.elizabeth (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jim, My name is Mehrshad, and i a student in USF. I am takeing En Law with (Aaron Frank). I am new in Wiki. Could you please, give me some advices and idea that how can i start? Best.mehrshad
user talk: mehrshad006[reply]
Hi Jim,
It was my pleasuer to meet you on Saturday. As you know I am going to work on Audubon v. Dept. water and power. Could you give me your advice on my work? I have started my research, and I am going to post it late this week or early next week.Best.Mehrshad006 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I should be this if it is not let me konw.User:justintaplin/justsandboxtestMehrshad006 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Jim, I am responsibale for two parts, case and issues. I started to post a few sentences, but it looks ugly. What should I do? thanks.Mehrshad006 (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Jim, I have attached two sections (case, Issues) could you please, look at these and give your advice. Thanks.MehrshadMehrshad006 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. I should say i posted in my sandbox.Mehrshad006 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Jim, Could you please let me know how can i do citation? thanksMehrshad006 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
USF Public Policy initiative
Jim,
Thanks for the talk today at USF, very helpful. If you have time to help my partner Scott and I out we would appreciate it. We will be working on a case for the environmental law class that revolves around the clean water act, EPA and power plant cooling water. May not be ultra interesting but the case may have some implications for future rules and regulations. We will be working on the content this week and let you know if / when we have questions if you are up for it.
Thanks again and let me know if you would be an online ambassador for us.
Thanks for the feedback! We will be working on it this week and bring it to main space Tuesday April 26th evening. Will incorporate Summary and better organize as we develop, Thanks.Gbfalcone (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing to be my mentor. Doug and I also look forward to working with you and we both enjoyed your in-class presentation today. Take care.Ckgurney (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you Jim for your kind words. I'm still learning the wikipedia language- but I am really trying to remember the signature. I know about it, I just forget :-). I'm a former- Californian, and thanks for all the work you've done on Cali wikis- especially on our beautiful mountains. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC) (woo hoo I remembered ;-))[reply]
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
India pilot being organized now - Plans are currently underway for a pilot expansion of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – in India! Hisham Mundol and other Wikimedia staff have begun recruiting Campus Ambassador candidates for Pune.
Document DYK, peer review and other milestone at the trophy case - If students you are working with (or any others you notice) are doing work that makes to DYK, is nominated for Good Article status, or is just solid content worth marking, then please help us document the students' success at the trophy case.
Changes to mailing list - A new low-volume mailing list, [Ambassador-announce-l], is being created. It will be reserved for key announcements and news, which we'd like all ambassadors to be subscribed to.
Actually, I am interested for a number of reasons. I am an active member of Napa's only synagogue, and PUC students sometimes attend our Shabbat services as part of their study of comparative religion. I always try to welcome them and answer their questions when I meet them. I am also involved in Napa County politics, and land use issues at PUC have been widely debated in recent years. I will make some comments about the Dr. Knight article on the sandbox talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool! Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to edit the article as well.. I may make a project out of the PUC page later on, it would be nice if you could get some pictures and upload them, but I realize that is asking a lot. I will try to make some edits to the article based on your comments. BelloWello (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the edit and it seems that I used the CSD criteria incorrectly. In hindsight, I'm not sure it meets any of the CSD criteria. After consultation with other admins, the article has been restored and the AFD re-opened.
Jim, Thanks for your initial input on our USF Env Law article we have moved into main space and added a summary paragraph in the beginning (as suggested). It is a work in progress until May 10th so please let us know what you think at this point. We still have some to add but please let us know if it flows and tells the story in an unbiassed manner. Entergy v Riverkeeper Thanks fro any feedback. Gil (and Scott) Gbfalcone (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback on our article. We will continue to improve it through this weekend and try to incorporate. Gil Gbfalcone (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research
Hi Cullen328,
Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!
Hi Jim,
I'm having trouble trying to add links within my article. I have a bulleted list (separate from the TOC) that describes the sections in our article and I want it to jump to tha section when you click on the bullet but it's not working. I've tried the code for linking to sections: Section linking But it doesn't seem to be working.
With all due respect, I did not choose that word, but rather the folks who run the Wikipedia Ambassador program did. I just volunteered to be a mentor for that program, and they call the students I help "mentees". It is not my favorite word, but it does appear in several dictionaries, so I am not going to fight it. You are welcome to take it up with the program if you wish. Happy editing! Cullen328 (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea on when you'll be able to get pictures of Pacific Union College? Partially in anticipation of your promised pictures, I have refocused my energies on articles related to that school. An article on the Church there WP:SDA/PUCChurch is nearing readiness for mainspace and I would like to feature it with an image of the organ in DYK, so it would be nice to get a picture soon. Anyways, no pressure, just wondering when you'll think it would be so the article can be held for then. BelloWello (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had considered driving up there this afternoon, but the weather turned cloudy and forbidding. We have rain expected soon. I can't make any promises, as it is about a one hour drive from where I live, nearly half of which is on winding mountain roads. The next time I have an afternoon to spare, and it is a nice sunny day, I will drive up there and take some photos. Cullen328 (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. That's cool, and I really appreciate you doing this! Do you have any ideas for what you're going to take pictures of? From the articles now, I think pictures of the bell, music building, cafeteria/student center, organ, outside of the church, the sign, and whatever else you think would be nice, but again, no pressure. :) I'll be excited to get any pictures at all! I'm tempted to take a picture of a PUC T-Shirt I have sitting around and putting it up. haha. BelloWello (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will certainly take your suggestions, as I am not very familiar with the campus. I have probably only driven through Angwin four or five times in the 19 years I've lived in the Napa Valley. It is really quite out of the way (and they don't sell wine there). It is a very scenic area, though. By the way, did we have an interaction or two under your previous username? Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I visited the school earlier this year. I wish I had taken pictures then, for an east coaster like me, the campus and area in general was very gorgeous. And, yes, we did. :) I'd rather not disclose publicly what it was (or who I was, due to the outing incident) but it was very positive. You were able to provide some advice at one point and gave me some helpful words in another. BelloWello (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dude, I just thought of some more. When you take pictures of PUC, some pictures of the Prayer garden, Art Gallery, Gym and Airport would be really amazing as well! I hope I'm not asking for too much, just do what you want. I may be able to get out to PUC at some point next year if all else fails. BelloWello (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moonlight Cocktail
My reference for the date of the Glenn Miller recording is:
Moonlight Serenade (A bio-discography of the Glenn Miller Civilian Band)
by John Flower
published by Arlington House 1972
I think you are over managing Congregation Emanu-El. If editors can't add things, even unreferenced, there is no room for improvement. If you give editors a chance I think most of the time they won't disappoint. Just think about it. Russbus64 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as content must be referenced properly, or will likely be deleted. Please add comments to the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Cullen328Let's discuss it
Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,
We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.
WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk
Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!
Hello - hope I'm writing on your page correctly. Thank you for the welcome! Yes, I would be happy to talk with you outside the delete discussion. Especially if it can help me with editing and creating articles. CaraSchulz (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
You did it perfectly: Created a new section with a good title, signed your name with the four tildes, and best of all, friendly. I am working now but will respond at greater length later. The one thing I will say now is that I will do my best to answer any specific questions you may have. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a specific question, but it is not time sensitive. What is the process a news organization goes through to be considered reliable or real or authentic? I've successfully gone through - and am going through - the process to gain Press credentials for our organization, but I'm unclear how this process works on Wikipedia. Is there information you could direct me to? CaraSchulz (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
I suggest that you read WP:RS carefully, and also review relevant past debates on the reliable source noticeboard in detail. My very preliminary opinion (based on very little experience in this specific area) is that a news service itself is unlikely to be judged an inherently reliable source, but rather that would be determined by the character of the publications that actually use the material in question. That's because there is an additional layer of editorial control involved. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the Associated Press put out a story on some obscure topic in 1960, and not a single newspaper ran the story. Then, that material from the AP archive might not be considered a good source for that topic. People might ask, "What dis those editors back then see in this story that led them NOT to publish it?" So, my preliminary thought would be to identify the most solid and professional of the publications that use your material, and have those publications discussed as reliable sources. Hope this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've been reading the areas suggested for the past week and I think the problematic area for PNC is the word "mainstream" and how you look at that word. Is a small, niche news org ever going to be considered mainstream? Sometimes. The MinnPost, which generally passes muster as a reliable source on hard news on Wikipedia, is extremely similar to PNC. (Former mainstream journalists, non-profit, alternative funding, etc) They're about 2 years ahead of us. I can't find if they've ever been challenged as a source. But their wiki is still up so I would think not? I'll look into this more, later. However - thank you! I'm sure I'll have many more questions.CaraSchulz (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
Seems you indicated some interest in this article. I've started some work on it and would welcome any input. Thanks. Pjefts (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been working on Wikipedia much lately, so struggling with the coding, but I cited a source for Keith style with a direct quote as well as a link. I plan to add more to his article with some historic clippings I have access to at the library. The conclusion was in direct contradiction to the paintings on display all over California. The early Keith paintings were all in the epic, romantic style of the Hudson River School, like the paintings at the Crocker in Sacramento. Then, under the influence of the Barbizon School from his trips abroad and his friendship with Inness, he adopted the Tonalist style or what they called "Quietism" back in the day. You are a Northern California person, so you can visit the Crocker and see the large works on display there and then contrast them to some of the later, more intimate scenes in the St. Mary's Collection. His compatriot Thomas Hill worked in the grander style throughout his career, but Keith changed dramatically and the nice quote you - or whoever posted it - have from the exhibition catalog reflects his later philosophical approach. The LACMA painting in the link is a mid-career painting, large and grand but the later, darker style works are not usually on display and are not very popular today. His tonalism rarely had the subtle approach of an Inness. Jim, I have the CAC article you mention by Mrs. Adams. The biography I sourced is actually almost identical to the Keith biography published in the 2001 California Art Club Gold Medal Catalog I have on my desk with many of the same bios as the site, so the book can be cited if it makes you happier. Same author as Jonathan Club Collection book I just received, also frequent writer for CAC in the past, which I also get newsletters from. I understand the guidelines, that is why I looked for and referred to a source for what I felt needed to be said. I was trained as a classical musician, but I was an intern at a gallery and work in an art atelier part-time. I actually spent some time with Mrs. Adams at a wedding last year with her husband and have access to all their publications User talk:Redefineculture—Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I appreciate your help as you can tell I have problems with formatting at times. It's easier sometimes to start a new article than to work on an existing one because there is more than one format for links and references and I am not always used to the format someone else has used. The essay on Keith comes from the California Art Club's 91st Annual Gold Medal Exhibition Catalog by Jane Dini and Jeffrey Morseburg, Published by the California Art Club, Pasadena, California, 2001, Page 18-19. ISBN 0-9672257-3-6. For several years there was an exhibition of historic works along with the contemporary paintings, the one with Keith was titled "From the Desert to the Sea: Paintings by Historic American Artists and California Art Club Members, curated by Jeffrey Morseburg and Jeanette O'Malley (Pasadena Museum of History). Redefineculture (talk) 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
No, for some reason I got that confused with another thread and thought that it was current for some reason. Well, no harm (it's not forbidden to comment in a thread three years after the last comment), anyway you read it, and I'm always up for a bit of pontification and/or ranting. As the the content, well, if Person A or B met the WP:GNG standard of, basically, some coverage in the papers (which Person B possibly might but probably not Person A, unless he did some other stuff), then maybe -- maybe -- they would have a case for an article. But probably not: you generally have to meet some additional criteria (WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, WP:ACTOR, or whatever).
I don't know if that's good or bad. If Person A and Person B meet the criteria, then probably a few million other people do, which would mean a large expansion of articles. Which would be OK, I guess, although it would mean a major expansion and raises the question of whether someone is likely to need to look up someone who was, at the end of the day, just an everyday person, albeit an accomplished one. And if Person A and Person B qualify, why not someone who was a forklift driver for forty years -- after all, a lot of people knew him too, and he might well have impacted the lives of scores of people in a meaningful way if he was that sort of person. So his successful and useful career was blue-collar rather than white-collar, so what? And at that point you are pretty close to including everyone, which of course would mean several billion articles, potentially, and are we set up to handle that? So I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfD/DB
I just mainly incorporated my two comments in the introduction. I would remind you only discuss notability issue on the AfD page. If you wish to reply my comments on DB's talk page, please do so only on that talk page; you should also read the older version of the DB article before you made your judgement. STSC (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gladding, McBean
So very nice to see the Gladding, McBean page finally included on Wikipedia. I am just beginning on Wikipedia - experimenting on my user page. Now I can link to GMcB, and delete the extra material from my experimental article on Franciscan Ceramics! One big correction to GMcB. GMcB never had a plant or factory in Glendale, California. This misconception is wildly held in all prior publications including my own books & the Wedgwood Museum's web site. GMcB had two plants in Los Angeles, the former Tropico Potteries plant acquired by GMcB became what the company called the "Glendale Plant" as they already had a brick plant in LA. The former Franciscan/GMcB plant "Glendale plant" at 2901 Los Feliz in Los Angeles borders Glendale - and never was in Glendale - though FYI - prior to the GMcB acquisition of Tropico Potteries, Tropico Potteries was in the unincorporated city of Tropico, California. Tropico, California never incorporated and the land was eventually annexed by the cities of Los Angeles & Glendale - further research still needs to be completed regarding Tropico, California. The Franciscan web site at gmcb.com/franciscan can be cited for the correct information regarding the "Glendale plant, in Los Angeles" until a new book is published this fall which will clarify this misconception.
I will review the information on GMcB, and will make additions & corrections as needed - especially regarding Washington state acquisitions and Tropico Potteries in LA. I edited the "Growth Section," you may wish to format the information differently & make corrections. Without going into the Glendale plant argument, I referenced the different plants: LA & Glendale. See what you think. Gmcbjames (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts.
There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank you for signing up to participate. I had a special request from NARA staff, so I thought I would ask personally to see if you might be interested or know someone who is. I was contacted by the head of NARA's Archival Recovery Team about ways that Wikipedia might be able to raise public awareness of their activity. Now, this is a public agency, and one with a fascinating job, but it would still be somewhat improper for them, or even me, to make edits related to it, but we'd like to put the question to the Wikipedians at large to see if you think this merits a mention on Wikipedia. The team has received some media coverage in its own right, and might even merit an article of its own. I have listed some of the coverage in my note at the bottom of Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/To-do. If you're not interested in working on the request, that is perfectly fine, and if you don't think it is even notable, that is also okay. :-) Dominic·t20:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's appreciated, I usually only get noticed when I rebuke someone who - no matter what the census says - has some odd ideas about what race Latinos can and cannot be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are a new user. Welcome to Wikipedia! Please read and study our policy on biographies of living people. We do not include malicious rumors and gossip in such biographies. We do not echo tabloid newspaper sensationalism. There are plenty of other outlets for such material, but we include only material which has been widely reported and verifuied in reliable sources, and we are scrupulous to write from the neutral point of view. This approach is non-negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boston?
Hey Cullen, have I not run into you yet? I mean, have I met you as a real person without connecting you to your wikidentity? ;) Drmies (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. My name is Jim, I am about 6'-3", clean shaven and almost 60 years old. I'll be wearing a dark square patterned shirt and jeans today. So say "hi" when you see me. I am enjoying meeting lots of Wikipedians here. Cullen328 (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am Californian, but alas I am just finishing my thesis and really don't have time to pursue other academic endeavors. Best of luck and thanks for thinking of me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This week, our first multilingual featured article contest was announced. We are aiming to improve the articles on the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights to featured or good status in English and other languages. Prizes for winners will be a gift package from the National Archives including a book of your choice or a tote bag, and other swag, plus, of course, a special barnstar.
August 6 backstage pass
Plans are in the works for a meetup and backstage pass event at the National Archives II facility in College Park, MD. There will be a regular social meetup, a discussion with Dominic about WP:NARA, a tour of the building by NARA staff, and then time for a scanathon and editathon in the research rooms and library until the building closes at 5 pm. Keep your schedules open!
The National Archives' Archival Recovery Team (ART) is a team of law enforcement agents and archivists who investigate NARA's lost and stolen documents. They have received media attention ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) and would like to request an article be written for the team, if Wikipedians deem it notable. It is hoped that making more information about the group available on Wikipedia will increase public awareness of the documents they are seeking to recover.
Ongoing
Today's Document challenge
The Today's Document challenge is an opportunity for Wikipedians to get their work related to National Archives holdings spotlighted on Archives.gov and the National Archives' tumblr. Each day the National Archives selects a document related to the day's date to showcase. The goal is to get articles related to the selected documents on the main page in ""Did You Know...?" the same day that the National Archives features the document. Alternatively, other appropriate articles related to National Archives holdings not already selected will be used for new documents of the day by NARA staff and posted to their tumblr.
Wikisource
WP:NARA has a sister WikiProject on Wikisource, WS:NARA. On Wikisource, editors transcribe, proofread, and arrange documents. This helps to make little-known documents more discoverable, or well-known documents more searchable, and improves accessibility. See the files being worked on. If you are new to Wikisource and would like to participate, there are experienced Wikisourcerors willing to be mentors.
New contributions
A list of some recent contributions to the project:
The National Archives has hundreds of thousands of digitized documents in its holdings. We are working on a bulk upload to Commons of one particular cache of about 123,000 TIFF master files in the next few days! Once uploaded, these will require a massive community effort to help categorize the files on Commons and add them to articles on Wikipedia or transcribe them on Wikisource.
Inclusion in the online catalog
We are currently working on a system for including links to pages on Wikimedia projects in the National Archives online catalog. The Wikimedia projects are hosting an increasing number of transcriptions of National Archives documents and high-quality image and video files that are not available through NARA's own site. Links to these Wikimedia pages in the documents' actual catalog records will benefit the end user by providing them access to further resources about the documents, and they will also demonstrate the National Archives commitment to supporting Wikimedians' efforts.
To stop receiving this newsletter, please remove your name from the list.
I disagree with your assessment. This is the website of a professional, successful freelance writer for major magazines. She is the author of the piece. I think that it is reasonable to presume that she is authorized to maintain an archive of her published articles on her own website. Presumably the magazines that hire her are familiar with her website. Cullen328Let's discuss it02:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.
In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.
Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.
Thank you for your comments on the merge of Dishware to Tableware on Talk:Tableware. Since none of the notified major contributors of either page have discussed the merger, I don't think the merger proposal pros and cons has been fully covered prior to forming an opinion to merge or not. I have added some comments on the tableware talk page I would appreciate you reviewing and discussing. I was looking forward to a lively discussion and now maybe there will be. Just for fun, as I have typing this, the word dishware has been flagged by my spellchecker as not a word. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Gmcbjames (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic notability
I've now decided to keep away from articles and arguments, life's too short, but remembering your kind comments in the past I just wanted to say that you're not the only person who is utterly bewildered by "innovative" notability criteria - gobsmacking, to use an expression! Opbeith (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your kind words. Perhaps after a restful break, you may decide to return to the wonderful world of Wikipedia editing. At least I hope you will. In any case, I wish you well. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a dog that can't resist returning to its vomit, to use a lovely expression, I went back to clamber over the wreckage at Anders Behring Breivik (3) and look at what had been said again. I noticed that you considered my (and others') editing to be "ill-advised", apparently endorsing the general suggestion that this was a bad faith attempt at guilt by association. It was not. I don't want to get into an argument on the subject so no need to reply, take my word for it or not as you choose. Opbeith ([[User talk:Opbeith|talk] ]) 11:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a one paragraph contribution three hours into that ten day debate, and my main point was in opposition to those who argued earlier that we should have no Breivik biography per a strict interpretation of WP:BLP1E. I think that it was "ill advised" for editors to comb through the manifesto assembling a list of every commentator Breivik praised, then adding that primary source factoid to the BLPs of those people as, "Wow, XXX inspired Breivik to kill a bunch of innocent people!" I've only now read the entire debate, and, as usual for me, end up in a moderate position. I think that Robert Spencer emerges as a special case because of the sheer number and depth of Breivik's discussion of his work, plus Spencer's in depth response. Hope this helps clarify. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very good at keeping away from scenes of disaster or resisting semi-addiction, so thanks for your message which it didn't take me very long to get! I still very strongly disagree, but (a) I'm trying to keep away from the argument and (b), more importantly, I know that your opinion is an honest and generous one that I respect, so I'll not say more on the subject. I do appreciate your kind comment and good wishes. Opbeith (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The top dog is always a mongrel! You don't need me to tell you that Cullen is a common Irish name - I just wondered if there was a connection to that place, and I guess we'll have to call it a maybe. Anyhow, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your diplomacy with this barnstar - it may come as some surprise but it isn't just for the interaction on our talk page - it's for a pattern of decent, thoughtful behaviour with and toward other editors that jumps out after a short review of your talk page.
Hi Jim, We are looking for relatives of John Salathe, Swiss-born (1899), pioneer rock climber in Yosemite Valley and blacksmith. We are writing a series of articals in a Swiss Journal on rock climbers. Please respond if you have any knowledge of his background. We thought you wrote about him and added a facebook page for him also. Thanks, Max Matter via Sandy James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmatter (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Max and Sandy, I expanded the article based on sources listed in the references. It is tough to find extensive information about him. You could contact Tom Frost through his website. Frost photographed him in 1964. Allen Steck knew him fairly well, but is very elderly now. I don't know how to contact him. Perhaps Royal Robbins or Yvon Chouinard may have some information. I had nothing to do with a Facebook page. Sometimes such pages are created in an automated way by computer programs to drive traffic to Facebook. Feel free to email me if you wish. Cullen328Let's discuss it17:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much like an alcoholic is "anyone who drinks more than I do," an inclusionist is anyone who votes "keep" more than I do... (Oops, that old alcoholism joke might be over your head, but it will make more sense after your 21-er in a few years...)
Hey dude, I know that "almost sixteen" sounds a lot like "almost sixty" but it has been decades since I've been carded at the local pub. I could post a recent photo, but it might scare the kids here. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a dispute resolution open for a page I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to resolve, Heroes in Hell. The dispute page is located here and the relevant dialogue related to this dispute is on the talk page of the article. It would be helpful to get another opinion in here from someone uninvolved with the dispute. I must warn you though, you might want to get comfy before you start going through this material-- there's a lot to read. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add my thanks for your help at DRN. If you have a bit of extra time, we'd welcome your help with other disputes there as well. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First publication of Gilgamesh in the Outback
In reply to your question, I don't know which edition of Gilgamesh in the Outback first appeared for a reader to see. Both have a printed July 1986 publication date. The Asimov's edition probably went to subscribers before July and appeared on some newsstands before July, too. Review copies of Rebels in Hell might have gone out before July. However, I have not claimed first printing or original publication of either edition. In terms of a known publication record, I have asserted both have a July 1986 date, as several citations show, most especially Silverberg's web page. I think this is the most accurate description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokzap (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
Watching out for the class as a whole
Helping students to get community feedback on their work
This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.
You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.
Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.
If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.
I personally could go either way on this issue. I added the note about the fatalities seeing as they have catapulted Yosemite into the news a lot lately – I read the Los Angeles Times and it seems as if almost every day there's a notice about yet another luckless soul who's been killed there. (And they're not even counting the latest death because they rushed the poor kid out of park boundaries before he expired? What is that? But I digress.)
My train of thought was that if a notice I posted in March about the park's temporary closure, which I consider to have the same level of or even less importance than the fatalities, could survive in the article then almost certainly this fact would be able to. Then again, now that I brought the March edit to your attention it's likely that will get removed as well, but these things will go the way they want to. The point is that I can think of roughly the same number of arguments for both keeping and removing the edit for a variety of reasons, and I would not at all be bothered if it was deemed insignificant, so I'll leave it up to you on this one.
(By the way, thank you deeply for allowing me to get in my two cents on the matter before taking action; I know that some other people would not have given that courtesy.)
Their edits and uploads were, at a minimum, suspicious, because of the multiple minor edits they had made just to get enough edits to be able to upload images, their multiple uploads all of a sudden with no previous valid edits, their major changes without discussion, and the need to keep valid images from being deleted because of their suspicious edits. I wouldn't have given them a vandalism warning if I didn't think what they were doing was vandalism, which it has proven it was. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will readily concede that their editing pattern was suspicious, and if investigation shows that this was a sockpuppet of a banned user, then so be it. Ban the sock. But the offense is sockpuppetry not vandalism. I still don't see vandalism in this particular group of edits. Don't arrest a burglar for armed robbery. Those are different crimes. Where's the vandalism here, and when you answer, please quote policy. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sierra No. 3
I'll take a look when I have a more reliable connection, probably tomorrow. For now I'll suggest that with the films, maybe list how the locomotive appeared in the movie rather than the actors. (Reply here; I'll watch your talk page) Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion. I will try to add a description of the locomotive's role in at least some of the films based on descriptions in reliable sources. I thought that listing the names of the most famous human stars would give readers a sense that these were major Hollywood films and not just something trivial. I look forward to more of your opinions. Thanks. Cullen328Let's discuss it21:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rated it B-class and mid-importance for Wikiproject Trains, and honestly you've built such a good article that I can't suggest much improvement. You could probably get it rated GA now with only a few minor changes needed during the process. Perhaps lengthen the lead section - so that it's not as dependent on the direct quotes - and add citations for some of the stuff at the end of the history section. Otherwise, that is a fantastic article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was reviewing my edits in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tala_Raassi and recognize that I should have probably used a more calm and reconciliatory tone. I apologize for that. While I still don't believe that Tala should have an article in wikipedia, for the reasons that I enunciated in the AfD, I am not going to post any longer there, and will leave it to other contributors. We have a disagreement on the policies, which is fine: that's why there is a vote. I trust that you and other contributors, more experienced than me in interpreting wikipolicies, will find the right solution. Again, my apologies for the tone used. Bye now and be well.Divide et Impera (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Although I am sure that you are acting in good faith here, I will decline to comment on this AfD. I don't want anyone to get the impression that I can be influenced by canvassing by other editors. Thanks for asking. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After some rumination I am thinking that COI statements are too long and grim for everyone to put on a user page. An editor may well want the main user page to be more expressive and joyful. How about this: userpage/COI could be a standard location for a conflict of interest statement; then it can be long, legalistic, explicit, and boring, and the main user page need only link to it. I put an example here. What do you think? If you and I were to agree on this standard, we would already have a plurality, as far as I can tell. -- Econterms (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that it is best for you to put your COI statement on a sub-page, then that is fine. I see the logic behind your thinking. However, I don't see my own disclosure as "grim" but rather as (I hope) honest and forthright. So, for now, I think I will stick with what I've got. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I decided also to have a go at him and found a curious but wel documented book that resulted in another article entirely-> Gunterstein. Still no high resolution images, but he's got a commons category now. It turns out (as is usual for engravers), that several etchings of his were already out on commons attributed to the original artists. Jane (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Julia Butterfly Hill does have a page, but not every tree climber that protests does. I would like to clarify that I have the hugest respect for people who climb trees to save them, sorry if the allusion diverted from the topic. Anonywiki (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was fine. My response was to point out that the main issue is notability. If reliable sources give significant coverage to a topic, then a Wikipedia article is appropriate. That applies to tree-sitters as well as racially controversial movie performances. That's my view. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hello Rob, Thank you very much for your good faith question. At the moment, I am editing on a smart phone sitting next to my wife. I am a volunteer as are you. I happen to be self-employed and working today and tomorrow 75 miles away from where I live. So the commute has been long and brutal, and I can't add the sources with a smart phone. It's late where I live and I'm not going to walk into my office at the moment to sit down at a computer. However, I have identified the sources for any editor, including you, to add to the article. Feel free to do so, and I will send brownie points to you. If you are too busy, I will do it in the next few days. The important point is that the reliable sources have been identified and are in the article talk history. You can add them, or I can add them, or some other editor with more spare time than either of us can add them. Consensus is that the topic is notable. Warm regards to you. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are notable and I don't think your citations assert they are so I won't be adding them - as your comment and so called sources that assert they are notable "swung" the AFD imo you have a duty of care to improve the article. There is no imminant hurry to improve just that some improvement occurs. In the afd you say, "Keep I see significant coverage in New Statesman Society, Magazines for Libraries, Carfree Cities and a Dutch book Leven volgens je idealen: de andere politieken van huidige sociale bewegingen in Nederland which Google translates as "Living according to your ideals, the other policies of current social movements in the Netherlands" - when you have time I would appreciate you showing me this significant coverage, what is the coverage about? and turning that into actual article improvement, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you think that I am influential enough to "swing" an AfD debate on my own. I would have preferred to think that it was the reliable sources I identified that accomplished that goal. I will add the sources when I have the time since your personal opinion is that they are not adequate. That is fine and I respect your opinion. Let me again repeat, as I said the other day, that I consider you a very useful and valuable editor here at Wikipedia. Even though I am sure that you and I will disagree again, I treasure the times that we agree. You do good work here, and thank you for what you do. I truly mean that. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, they don't look adequate to me,(a mention in a book/line, what would I add, "and they were mentioned in a book"..) perhaps I will be presently surprised.I look forward to the improvement of the article - enjoy your real life work, regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update on courses and ambassador needs
Hello, Ambassadors!
I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.
On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.
Courses looking for Online Ambassadors
Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!
Thanks
Thanks, I just recently "went legit" but I've been lurking and editing here for a few years now. I believe you sent me something after I added some info to the American Canyon High School article. I don't know all of the ins and outs but I'm willing to learn and would appreciate any help you can lend. I also created another article on a Napa related item-Queen of the Valley Medical Center. I noticed you have Charles Krug on your list of to dos. I do also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napa56 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:
your post here - has the content your discussing been deleted, I don't see anything in your logs, if it has, what was the topic? I think that smartphone of yours might have led you to the wrong talkpage ... Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the editor's comment on your talk page (since deleted) that started "Why not continue the protests here?" and alluded to discussion above of the pepper spray incident. Cullen328Let's discuss it15:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are Kont Dracula and Qattusu two different editors, or is one a sockpuppet of the other? I notice that we still have an article about Malta, not suprisingly, but no article about the journalist. When someone is completely wrong about one thing, there seems to be an increased chance that they will be wrong about other things. I guess we can call it "wrongheadedness". Cullen328Let's discuss it22:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it for you. At the top of any article, you will see a number of choices to the left of the "Search" box. They say "Read", "Edit", "View history", then a star (click to add an article to your watch list), and then a little triangle/arrow thingy. You click on that triangle to "Move" an article. In essence, "move" renames the article. Just type the new name (accurately) into the proper box, and give a good reason. In this case, I said "Proper capitalization". Click the "Move page" button, and it's done. Happy to be of assistance. Cullen328Let's discuss it23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other Editors Behaviour
Thank you for your note. I am afraid I have experienced real problems with the behaviour of a few editors on Wikipedia. The editor in question has attempted to question the notability of subjects in articles I have authored due to reasons of personal animus, after I highlighted his incompetence on other pages. He has repeatedly questioned this article Sam Leith, the subject of which is a very prominent and respected British journalist, raising silly questions and non-issues about his notability and demanding citations for his birth date when, in reality, the vast majority of articles about subjects do not include such citations, including the articles he has worked on. It is quite depressing to see that Wikipedia is run like this. To be honest, I just want to make my contributions and have these contributions edited and improved by people who are competent and knowledgeable about the subject areas. That seems too much to ask. Kont Dracula (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After I have had the chance to do some research, I will make specific comments on the Sam Leith talk page. In general terms, I encourage you to assume good faith of the other editor here. His prose on talk pages may not sparkle and he is prone to typographical errors and run on sentences. However, he knows a lot about Wikipedia policy and what motivates him, I believe, is a strong desire to improve the encyclopedia, rather than "personal animus". Please also be aware of the importance we place on inoependent sources to establish notability in Wikipedia terms. A journalist may be "notable" in common pdrlance if widely read, but not meet our notability standards if not covered significantly in independent sources, namely publications he doesn't write for. Furnish such sources and there will be no question. I wish you well. Cullen328Let's discuss it18:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult for me to assume anything like good faith from the "editors" in question. There seems to be something of a tag-team element to the behaviour of User:JohnCD and User:Off2riorob. User:JohnCD petitioned for the deletion of my article and User:Off2riorob deleted it. This was an article about someone who is indisputably notable. When I questioned User:JohnCD about deleting an article about an obviously notable figure, he immediately informed User:Off2riorob, who promptly targeted the most recent article I have started, about Sam Leith. All very cosy and, I am sure, all within accepted Wikipedia etiquette. The facts remain that Daphne Caruana Galizia is an extremely notable Maltese journalist and Sam Leith is a very notable British journalist. I think there were and are easily enough external references to satisfy the notability of both. Except, that is, if the articles I have contributed to are not being held to standards not required by the articles to which certain editors contribute. If I had enough time, I am sure I could find a thousand Wikipedia articles about far less notable figures, with fewer references. It took me half a minute to find one which User:Off2riorob himself had contributed to, an article about a Brazilian actress, Adriana Ferreyr, where almost all the references are in relation to her sexual relationship with an American billionaire. You will note that, despite User:Off2riorob's numerous contributions to this article, he has somehow neglected to add a tag demanding a citation for the birth date of the subject of this article, as he did with the Sam Leith one. I have looked at many, many Wikipedia articles and the vast majority do not contain citations for subjects' birth dates. This is very far from being even-handed or transparent. Forgive me if I am not intimately acquainted with the Wikipedia etiquette of commenting on users' pages. On the nature of etiquette and social conventions on Wikipedia I will bow to your greater knowledge, but I do not accept this apparent attempt to redefine elementary English language words; I did not "harrass" him. He attacked some of my articles at the prompting of his buddy and I responded by questioning the motives behind his behaviour. It is as simple as that. If anything, I have been the victim, rather than the perpetrator of harassment, though I would hesitate to use such an emotionally charged word. I have not conspired but been conspired against. In the end, I only want to contribute knowledge to this site. The likes of the two "editors" mentioned above only want to sit as judge, jury and executioner on topics they very clearly know nothing at all about. Surely, this is not what Wikipedia has come to? Surely there has to be some mechanism to prevent people like this effectively operating in teams to effectively vandalise and destroy the work of others purely for their own sense of self-aggrandisement at the expense of accuracy? Kont Dracula (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you accuse other editors of colluding in bad faith, you are expected to provide specific evidence in the form of diffs. I am very familiar with Off2riorob, and have sometimes disagreed with him strongly and sometimes agreed with him. I've never doubted his good faith. As for JohnCD, I am unfamiliar with the name. You say that Off2riorob deleted an article. That can't be as he is not an administrator and doesn't have the power to delete articles.
As for Adriana Ferreyr, I am somewhat familiar with that article, as I advocated deleting it partly for the reason you alluded to. The consensus decision was to keep the article, and I see Off2riorob adding references where readily available, and tagging the article with a request for references when they are lacking. In other words, trying to improve the article as with Sam Leith. I do not see a birth date in the Ferryr article. Perhaps it was deleted, as it should be if reliable sources don't verify it.
You assert that two specific journalists are notable. Fine. All you have to do is provide reliable, independent sources discussing these journalists in order to establish their notability by Wikipedia standards. I recommend that you develop future articles in your sandbox, and take them to main space only when they are adequately referenced to show notability. That will avoid such controversies, and it is what I have done with the articles I've written.
Please be advised to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Instead of searching for other articles that have shortcomings and pointing to them as a reason to keep Sam Leith, instead I recommend that you concentrate on improving that article by finding the sources requested, and adding them to the article. You can then go on to add references to the other articles you've mentioned, and then all and sundry will agree that you have been a productive contributor to the encyclopedia. I wish you well. Cullen328Let's discuss it15:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I'm sorry, I responded on the talk page before seeing your invitation to talk here. My bad. Look, I don't really want to spend anymore time on this. It's an ugly topic. I stepped in because it looked like other editors were being dismissed and bullied by people like yourself who haven't grasped the issues, and I didn't think that was fair. There is a lot of ignorance on that talk page about Mem's connection to the trial and the storm that has caused nationally in Australia. Rebox or Robox or whatever is actually raising some valid points that have been attacked and ignored. The part that you're not getting is that to not acknowledge this on Mem's bio page is seen as a biased act. This is because there has been a lot of discussion about her husband recieving special treatment and because the victim of the sex attack was afraid to come forward for many years because of Mem's power and political influence, and this has been quoted on the news many times. So not recording this at all reads to many people in Australia as a bias protecting Mem further. You can say "well, that's garbage and I don't know anything about that" but it doesn't help. The stance you've taken on this issue isn't neutral and not knowing any better doesn't alter the way it comes across, especially as people are now trying to tell you as clearly as we can. This is why I raised the Lewinsky issue as a comparrison, although an affair pales in comparrison to a sex attack, which I'm sure you'll agree. I also understand Bilby's point, that to target Mem too much is swinging too far the other way. This is why I have been persuaded towards the arguement for a soft one-line acknowledgement. That is the only neutral response. What is complete nonsense is this stupidly naive idea that Mem is unconnected to her husband of 20 or more years, or that because he is (arguably) non-notable that the issue itself should be buried. Mem's notability is at the heart of the case. You keep saying that the policy does not allow for this, but I have read it, and I think it does. Other users have pointed out that a negative story can be included on a biography provided the sources are there, and they are and more will generate, and I have given you an example where a husband's actions are included on a wife's biography, because any reasonable person can see that a husband's actions impact on a wife's life just as a wife's actions impact on a husband's, or a parent to a child. Also, Malcolm is already mentioned on the biography, so the connection has been established prior. The issue here isn't only that the case is in the news because of Mem, but that because of her the case itself has changed, the sentence was suspended, and the victim has not come forward for many years. It's not 'coatracking', it's a legitimate part of her biography. Her decisions and her public profile have influenced these events. Feel free to disagree and stick to your guns, but please do so with some understanding of the issue and a more empathetic attitude towards those who've raised legitimate objections. This isn't gossip, but a crime with a victim and a political issue with widespread shockwaves. I know you're acting in good faith, and I officially withdraw at this point to leave you to a long and happy life, but this is a messy and highly emotive topic and I think it could have been handled better. I'd ask you to reconsider a soft mention or perhaps request an expert on the main page, or perhaps advocate a 'wait and see' approach, if such a thing exists on wikipedia, because I think ultimately this will be recorded in sources outside of the news of the day and that there will be further developments, in fact there already are if the DPP decides to launch an investigation. Lastly, to conclude this novel, I'm sorry if any of my words came across as personal attacks. That wasn't what I meant. (123.2.53.91 (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Let me start by saying that I am not at all offended by any of the remarks that you've made, and in no sense consider them to be personal attacks. I admire your passion and dedication to the truth. I, too, am a bit tired of this debate, and perhaps a rest from it will benefit all of us who've chimed in. I regret that you think I've bullied you, as my intent has been only to maintain the high standards that the Wikimedia Foundation insists we maintain, especially with regards to biographies of living people. You claim that there is "a lot of ignorance about Mem's connection to the trial". I've read pretty much all the coverage in the Australian media brought forward in this debate, and I see nothing in reliable sources that says anything more than she accompanied her husband to court, gasped, put her hand on her chest, hugged the lawyer, and so on. Where are the sources that document more than that? We don't read between the lines at Wikipedia. So far, I've seen no reports that she's commented in detail about the trial. That's the difference between Mem Fox and Hillary Clinton, and explains the reason why Clinton's biography contains two paragraphs on the Lewinsky affair. Hillary Clinton (who I admire greatly) spoke and wrote extensively about the Lewinsky matter, changed her story as the facts emerged, and even discussed it in her memoirs years later. That's why it deserves a small place in her biography. If Mem Fox discusses Malcolm's behavior and conviction in a comparable way, then I will change my mind regarding Mem's biography.
Are reliable sources in the Australian media reporting that it is a "biased act" that Wikipedia has no information about Malcolm Fox's trial in Mem Fox's biography? If so, please send me those references.
If Malcolm Fox is notable or his crime is notable by Wikipedia terms, then a biography of him or an article about his crime can be written. If the trial and the sentence which some see as too lenient have actually caused a "storm" nationally in Australia, then certainly there will be significant coverage of that controversy in reliable sources that can be used in an article about Malcolm Fox's crime and the reaction to his conviction. That's the place for such material, in my view. Of course I understand that this is a crime with a victim, and I sympathize with that victim and do not belittle the crime. However, it's not Mem Fox's crime, and she did not victimize the young man. So, if the crime is so notable, write a well-referenced article about the crime rather than including the material in a biography of someone entirely innocent of that crime.
When I refer to "gossip", I am most assuredly not referring to reporting of the crime or the conviction or the impact on the victim. I am referring to descriptions of Mem Fox's gasps and sighs and hugs. I do believe that specific content is titillating gossip that adds absolutely nothing to an understanding of the crime or the trial. Nor does the media's seeming preference that almost every photo of Malcolm Fox must show Mem Fox at his side. One can almost imagine the assignment editor instructing the courthouse photographer to not bother with any photos of Malcolm Fox by himself.
If reliable sources report in detail about Mem Fox's "power and political influence", then that material may belong in her biography. Feel free to furnish such sources.
I am not at all concerned that some people who do not understand Wikipedia's standards may misunderstand why we include some things but not others in biographies of living people. It is only by striving to uphold our standards that we maintain a reputation as a useful reference source, and if we allow every factoid that the newspapers report into biographies of celebrities, then our reputation as a reference source will inevitably deteriorate. We do not attempt to record every fact about every thing, but rather the notable, relevant facts reported neutrally. There is no way that we can please every person who wants to add controversial material to our articles. I am sorry, but we can't please all the people all the time and still stay true to our mission.
By no means do I argue that Mem Fox is not "connected" to her husband, but on the other hand, it is his crime rather than hers. You argue that a negative story can be included in a BLP if it is well-referenced and of course, you are right. But the negative story here is about Malcolm Fox not Mem Fox. If Mem Fox was convicted of a sex crime, of course that fact would belong in her biography. If Mem Fox gave a press conference and defended her husband publicly or denounced him publicly, then that would belong as well. If a reliable source publishes a long analysis (not an opinion piece) based on facts not speculation about her role in the case and how it has impacted her, then perhaps I might reconsider. But these "well-referenced" items about the sighs and the hands on the chest and the lawyer hug simply don't justify including that kind of trivia. That kind of material simply does not belong in a reputable encyclopedia biography.
You say that her decisions have influenced these events. If that is reported in depth in reliable sources, then please furnish me with links to the sources that advance that claim, and I might change my mind. In the stories I read about the suspended sentence, I don't think that the judge said he made his decision because of any influence his wife or his daughter exerted, but rather because of his mental and physical health and the excessive publicity the case had received. If the publicity was as a result of her "decisions" or actions as reported in reliable sources, then we may have something. If the publicity was as a result only of her long-standing celebrity status in Australia, then that is another matter entirely.
You ask me to reconsider, or to take a "wait and see" approach. To that, I readily agree. If I see new and significantly more in-depth coverage in reliable sources that discuss what Mem Fox herself has said and done regarding this matter, then I will be happy to reconsider. However, if I read a new story that says she sniffed or sneezed or blinked or winked, and tries to connect that to her husband's conviction, then my response is almost certain to be the same.
Let me close by apologizing for anything I have said in an over-enthusiastic way that made you feel like I was attacking you. Based on our interactions so far, I truly feel that you are acting in good faith, and I sincerely wish you well. My mind is always open to new information and new arguments. Please also take a moment, if you have the time, to look at Grenville Anderson, an article about an Australian race care driver that I helped save from deletion on Wikipedia. I am proud of the role I played with that article. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
First thanks for the welcome back. Now just need to make sure I don't get sucked back into editing too much :-) I really don't have the spare time at the moment.
Thanks for the feedback. In that case I'm going to have a go at addressing some of the issues over the next week. (I'm also at work at the moment, and I'm a developer not part of marketing, so this will be a spare time effort.) --AdRiley (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of Tom Frost at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chzz ► 08:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Salegi's talk page.
Thank you
You don't need me to tell you that Cullen is a common Irish name - I just wondered if there was a connection to that place, and I guess we'll have to call it a maybe. Anyhow, may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your diplomacy with this barnstar - it may come as some surprise but it isn't just for the interaction on our talk page - it's for a pattern of decent, thoughtful behaviour with and toward other editors that jumps out after a short review of your talk page.
_At_Launch_Approaching_End_of_Ways_-_NARA_-_5900076_-_1915_edit.jpg)
