User talk:Cullen328

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I don't live on Cullen Ct, but I like the street sign

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

Welcome to my talk page I use the name Cullen328 on Wikipedia, but you can call me "Jim" because that's my real first name. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the old comments from July and August of 2009 that follow the "Contents" here, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome when I first started editing Wikipedia.

The importance of a friendly greeting

Hello and welcome to my talk page. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the comments that follow from July and August of 2009 readily visible, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome here on Wikipedia when I first started editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please offer your thoughts

I would appreciate comments and suggestions on any contributions I make. I am learning.Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on Jules Eichorn. He's been needing an article for a while.   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If I may suggest, now that you've posted the Eichorn article the draft below might be deleted. It's your talk page to do with as you like, but it's a bit hard to edit around.
As for formatting and pictures, a good way to learn is to look around at other articles to see what you think looks best. It can be helpful to break up long blocks of text into subsections. Perhaps it'd be possible to split the biography into two or three eras. Other than that, the formatting is usually kept fairly plain. As for photos, it's easy to upload them: the trick is in finding photos with appropriate licensing. If you have any personal photos then those'd be fine. There are might be pictures of the peaks he did first ascents on in the Wikicommons. File:Cathedral Peak.png is a so-so pic of Eichorn Pinnacle.
As before, feel free to ask if you have any questions. There are several editors here who are mountaineers or just admirers of the Sierra, so you're in good company.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: Many editors create "sandbox" pages for drafting articles. For example, User talk:Cullen328/Sandbox.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 1 August 2009


Your climber biographies

Hey Jim, just wanted to say welcome and thanks for your contributions to the Sierra Nevada climbing history articles. You're filling a niche that's been missing here, I look forward to working with you. --Justin (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. Nice work on Allen Steck and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know who you are planning to write up next but if your taking requests I think Peter Croft (climber) could really use a page. If you ever have any questions please ask. Thanks again for your great additions.--OMCV (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Justin and OMCV. I am beginning work on Tom Frost and Glen Dawson. Comments on Norman Clyde would be welcomed. I will defintely read up on Peter Croft, OMCV. I am still "learning the ropes" in Wikipedia, to use a climbing analogy, and have all sorts of things in mind. My biggest challenge right now is getting permission to use images. My next biggest challenge is hiking to the top of Mt. Whitney with my wife in ten days - she's never been above 12,000 feet except for the train ride up Pikes Peak. As she's 56 and developing arthritis in her toes, it will be an accomplishment if she (and I) complete the Class 1 feat. Jim Heaphy (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Debra and I made it to the summit of Mt. Whitney at 2:20 PM on Friday, September 11. Jim Heaphy (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Archive

2010 Archive

2011 Archive

2012 Archive (first six months)

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3

References[edit]

WikiCake![edit]

Adding cover images[edit]

Hi Jim,

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

Summary[edit]

Media data and Non-free use rationale
Description Far Skies Deep Time cover
Author or
copyright owner
Big Big Train
Source (WP:NFCC#4) http://www.bigbigtrain.com/pics/covers/fsdt.jpg
Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Far Skies Deep Time
Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question.
Not replaceable with
free media because
(WP:NFCC#1)
n.a.
Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Official album cover artwork from the artist's website
Respect for
commercial opportunities
(WP:NFCC#2)
n.a.
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Far Skies Deep Time//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cullen328

As your optional poll has closed....[edit]

2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA[edit]

You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016
Arts+Feminism logo
Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016,
for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

--Circa73 (talk)

Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27[edit]

Please join us in San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism
Panel discussion at a recent Wikipedia & Journalism event.

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area will gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. We have two brief presentations lined up for our kickoff event in downtown San Francisco:

  • The Nueva Upper School recently hosted the first ever high school Wikipedia edit-a-thon. We will hear what interests them about Wikipedia, what they have learned so far, and what they hope to achieve.
  • Photojournalist Kris Schreier Lyseggen, author of The Women of San Quentin: The Soul Murder of Transgender Women in Male Prisons, will tell us about her work and how she researched the topic.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see here: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016

We hope to see you -- and until then, happy editing! - Pete, Ben & Wayne

Please comment on Talk:Jill Stein[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, August 31[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We make sure to allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages and light snacks. We will also have a brief presentation for your education and possible enjoyment:

  • Former EFF intern Marta Belcher will discuss crowdsourcing her Stanford Law School graduation speech using a wiki. The "WikiSpeech" was the subject of prominent national media attention in 2015, and more than half of her classmates contributed to writing and editing the commencement address via a wiki.

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, August 2016


See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Tonight: Live and archived links for Bay Area WikiSalon[edit]

Bay Area WikiSalon, Wednesday, August 31:

If you cannot join us in person tonight, we are streaming (and later archiving) the presentation by former EFF intern Marta Belcher. We expect her to be live starting between 6:30 or 6:45 p.m. PDT and talking and taking questions for about 30 minutes thereafter.

Here is the YouTube stream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t8V79s2-og
Here is the link to join the Hangout on Air: https://hangouts.google.com/call/ezrol7dafjfwxfh2ilpkjyxoaue

You can search for it on the Commons and YouTube later too.

Wayne, Pete, Ben, and Stephen

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What was that?[edit]

The word "fight"?  If I'm following our policies and guidelines, and you say you want to "fight", does that mean that you are opposed to our policies and guidelines?  I don't assume that is what you mean.

I'm also concerned that you have used the term "criticize" in reference to another editor's comments about me.  This has the meaning that the other editor is commenting on the contributor and not the contribution.  I doubt that it was your intent to misrepresent the other editor in an escalation, but I could use some reassurance in that regard at this point as to your meaning.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Unscintillating. By fight, I meant Merriam-Webster's second definition: "to put forth a determined effort". In brief, my opinion is that S&P Capital IQ is not a reliable source with independent editorial control, and accordingly I do not believe that a profile of a corporate executive issued by that company demonstrates notability of that person. I will make a "determined effort" to prevent material from that or similar companies from being considered reliable, independent sources of the type needed to establish notability. I am not opposed to our policies and guidelines in general, although there are a few SNGs that I think should be tightened. In the mean time, I happily live with the current consensus. I apologize for the sloppiness of my wording on Drmies' talk page. I should not have said that he was criticizing you as a person but rather your interpretation of the notability of this specific topic. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
First of all, thank you.

It still seems like you are going in the direction of saying you are considering treating a reliable source as less important somehow, or somehow not reliable because of the topic that they cover.  When listed at investing.bloomberg.com, this source has already been identified at RSN as a reliable source.  My experience has been that there is a good correlation between topics (maybe I haven't paid enough attention to whether the topic was a bio) covered by investing.businessweek.com and Wikipedia notability.  An example of an article we kept that is not listed is Big Ass Solutions.  To my knowledge, Bloomberg needs reliability as part of their business model, and they have an army of reporters.  This is then an ideal source for Wikipedia.  The new complication is that when listed at www.bloomberg.com, they are now using Capital IQ, which only has 10000 employees.  But it is not credible to me that they would allow weak sourcing to go on their corporate name.  Where do you get this claim that there is no independent editorial control at Capital IQ?  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • That Bloomberg is a reliable outfit doesn't mean every part of it is reliable--or relevant. What you fail to notice is that those listings aren't written by reporters. They're not news. They're like the movie listings in the NYT; commercial directory information. Feel free to bring this up again at RSN, but make sure to ping folks like User:K.e.coffman and User:David Gerard, who may also be interested in that DRV/timesink you just started.

    Cullen, I appreciate your diplomacy. In the meantime, I'm looking at Selig Starr, a rabbi whose article needs some help, and I'm not finding much. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Dust off the bookshelf and see if you have what's mentioned in note 4; "a multi-volume work on the history of various Chicago and St. Louis Jewish institutions. This work, written in Yiddish and English side-by-side..." I love the idea of a bilingual book published in the US. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Unscintillating, just as an old fashioned Telephone directory or a business directory published by a Chamber of Commerce may be reliable for their narrow purposes when published, so too are the directory listings published by outlets like S&P Capital IQ. The problem is that they are utterly indiscriminate. Their stated goal is to produce a directory listing for every single senior corporate executive, at least for publicly traded companies. That is useful information, I suppose, for large investors who are studying a given company's management team. However, I do not see this as independent coverage. The data is furnished by the corporations, and then massaged and formatted by the companies that produce these reports. These 10,000 employees have no editorial independence. Their job is to crank out coverage of every corporation and its executives. Just as I would not accept that a plastic surgeon or a golf course is notable just because it has a one or two paragraph listing in a Chamber of Commerce guide, I also do not accept that a brief CV or resume of a corporate executive on S&P Capital IQ in itself confers notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. I stand by my opinion on that while understanding that you seem to disagree. So be it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure that we are on the same page here.  First of all, you've used the words "...Capital IQ in itself confers notability", and I'm concerned that you somehow believe that this is something I said, because why else would you say it?  I have pointed out to editors over the years that notability is never conferred.  Next, if this is a reference to WP:GNG, WP:GNG requires sources, which means in the context two or more sources.  So it is not a GNG-based argument to say that any one source satisfies WP:GNG. 

As for the Chamber of Commerce reference, we are not talking about a small organization with limited staffing, quality control, and legal resources putting out a web product.  At a minimum, Capital IQ is a respected data-collecting organization, trusted enough by Bloomberg for Bloomberg to put their name on the Capital IQ company profiles.  I did a Google news search on ["capital iq" lawyers OR attorneys -site:bloomberg.com] looking for litigation involving Capital IQ, but through the fourth page the snippets had repeated references to analysts at Capital IQ being quoted.  I guess you've agreed that Capital IQ is reliable, which means you agree that it can contribute to WP:GNG.

As for indiscriminance, I think you would agree that Wikipedia can be indiscriminate when it comes to WP:LISTED companies.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Selig Starr[edit]

Drmies, I am starting a new section because I do not want discussion of this article mixed up with the previous conversation. Yes, my wife and I do have a big, dusty personal library, with a helluva lot of cookbooks, books about mountaineering, and quite a few books about Judaism. I even own several books about model ships in bottles, and plenty of books about Ansel Adams and his contemporaries. And lots of other stuff, especially California related. But there is a major hole in our collection regarding the Orthodox academic rabbis of Chicago. Joking aside and turning to hunches, it is very difficult to find sources for men like this, except for the very famous ones. Pulpit rabbis get much more attention from the wider world than academic rabbis. It seems he taught for sixty years (!) at a highly respected institution but that does in itself not confer notability. Speaking generally, Orthodox religious scholars simply do not seek accolades or recognition from the wider world outside Orthodox circles. They treasure humility. They do not publish in journals that JSTOR keeps track of. They do not send out press releases. I claim no expertise in searching Orthodox sources nor do I feel able to express an opinion about whether or not he is notable, since that would require a day or two in the Jewish libraries of Chicago plus the ability to read Yiddish and Hebrew, which I lack. If that is a fancy way of saying "I do not know", then that is my answer and I am sticking to it. For now, at least. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Yeah, sixty years...amazing. I didn't find anything using JSTOR--you'd expect to find at least some mentions of the man, and he doesn't seem to have published in the first place. I did find another Selig Starr, a mathematician, who may well be notable, and more easily written up than this one... Thanks Cullen, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Good morning. He may well have published many things in Yiddish and Hebrew orthodox journals which are not available online. Tough area to research. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hi sir i appreciate you for the contributions you made and hope for your good support for me to improve as a good editor Sreelakshmi srr (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Sreelakshmi srr. To be a truly good editor, study our core content policies like the neutral point of view, verifiability and avoiding original research. Also, study the general notability guideline, which is perhaps our most important content guideline. There is much more to learn as time goes on, but if you truly understand and accept those four things, you will be well on your way to becoming a good Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Biography feedback requested[edit]

Cullen328, your input is requested about an RFC regarding Donald Trump. Here is a link directly to that RFC. The lead of that biography currently says, "Many of his statements in interviews, on Twitter, and at campaign rallies have been controversial." The RFC proposes to insert the words "or false" at the end of that sentence. Thank you in advance for participating. If you have the time, there is a second RFC at that talk page which proposes to instead add the words "or hyperbolic". Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, Anythingyouwant. However, my personal feelings about Trump are so strong that I believe that it is best that I stay away from the biography at this time. I hope that you understand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I understand, no problem. By the way, I have been editing Wikipedia via smartphone for many years (five at least), and it's worked well for me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jane Austen[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jane Austen. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

A million problems[edit]

"Please remember that Wikipedia has 5,232,035 articles at this moment and probably well over a million of them have significant problems. This is not an excuse to create new articles with significant problems."

Ha! This is probably the best way of explaining WP:OTHER I've come across. :) Joe Roe (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Joe Roe. As you noticed, I tend to be conservative and shy about upgrading the ratings of articles that I work on. You seem to be more confident. If you ever have some time to kill, please feel free to rate any of the articles listed on my userpage. I would be grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Following your advice has lead to an attempt to impose sanctions on me at ANI[edit]

You seconded another editors recomendation that I just redirect articles on state beauty pageant winners without taking them to nomination for deletion. I probably went a bit beyond your reccomendation in doing so, but still am feeling like the lone bunching bag in an unjustified ANI on the topic. The ANI is all the worse because it was started after I removed statements that called me "childish" and "lacking a backbone" from my talk page. I in part created as many Article for Deletion nominations as I did because once I had made a decision to redirect articles, and then had my actions reverted, I felt pushed to the point of creating the article for deletion nomination right then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Johnpacklambert. I hardly know what to say, except that I wish you the best. Certainly, you remember that I was directly and harshly critical of you on the Jean Shaheen incident, and am well aware of the Filipacchi incident as well, though I do not recall how much I said about that at the time. I have supported you at a couple of LDS officials' AfDs, and in general, I share your concern about the notability of low level beauty queens and porn performers. But I am a strong advocate of WP:BEFORE which you seem to hold in low regard. I have no doubt about your good faith or your dedication to the best interests of the encyclopedia, as you see it. But you are the only one responsible for your own day-to-day conduct as an editor. So please do not assign any blame to me for your personal conduct as an editor, just because I sometimes agree with you. As always, I wish you well and hope that you emerge from the present controversy having learned something new about editing and collaborating. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Readers contributions[edit]

Hi there, did you check the conversation around readers contributions here?. Thanks --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Louis C.K.[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Louis C.K.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Simplified ref tag names.[edit]

Dear Jim, Face-smile.svg
First of all, thank you for participating, yesterday, in the effort of improving the article on Suzanne Muchnic, on which our colleague MusaVeneziana and myself have collaborated with a view to tidying it up; in my case, since yesterday.
I am pleased to acknowledge your suggestions (here, for instance) that ref names can also be coded without double quotation marks, which is perfectly allowable, as shown in WP:NAMEDREFS.
The purpose of the present post is simply to explain that I personally like to include them because, for me, they make the names easier to locate visually in edit mode than when they're not coded. I guess you could say that, at my advanced age, I need such visual aids to make the editing process easier... Face-wink.svg
Seriously though: I wonder if you would mind that I re-insert them in the two instances you edited yesterday, for the sake of consistency across the article? In any case, please know that I will respect your preference. Thank you, Jim.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 09:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Pdebee. Since you find the quotation marks useful, please feel free to add them back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Jim, Face-smile.svg
Many thanks for your thoughtful support. Will do so in the near future.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 18:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

cougaran[edit]

I'm puzzled by the derivation and precise meaning of the word cougaran. It appears to be a corruption of the South African word Krugerrand. My difficulty is that, when entered in most search engines, the word cougaran, without explanation, returns entries on the Krugerrand. The word cougaran does not appear in the body of the text. This is true of Wikipedia's own search facility.

This makes further research on the derivation of the word cougaran difficult when limited to internet search engines. It would be helpful if there were some forum in which this could be discussed in the hope that someone out there has special knowledge of the subject.

Roland Tyrrell (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Roland Tyrrell. I have never heard the word. Try asking your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Ferreira[edit]

Trophy.png Michael Ferreira
Being a lawyer,I would like to know if a court order is considered defamatory.I have even updated on Qnet wiki page about court orders and police actions.Indian Parliament have declared erstwhile Goldquest and Questnet as fraud companies in 2013 like the courts.Michael Ferreira was shareholder of a franchise of Qnet and also team Faith leader.Bombay High Court while denying bail has called QNet a money circulation scheme.If Supreme Court acquits Ferreira, I will take down my posts happily.My aim is not to target celebs but to bring to light their role in spreading scams, like actor Mithun Chakravorty who returned money received in Saradha Chit Fund Scheme. Jitumoni1995 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jitumoni1995. Our policy on biographies of living people requires that we avoid stating or implying legal misconduct unless a conviction or final judgment has been made. Wikipedia is not a forum to "bring to light" people's roles in what you see as "scams". Another policy, the neutral point of view makes it clear that editors must strive for neutrality even when we personally dislike the people we write about. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse convo 13 Sep 2016[edit]

Whoa, regarding this edit, a generous reading of the IP editor's comment was that it was the behavior you mentioned that was a violation of WP:AGF, not your mention of it.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It is possible that you are right, jmcgnh but the fact that the IP editor quoted me directly led me to believe that it was my exact words that they objected to. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Emphasising Text[edit]

I see a lot of articles in Wikipedia that emphasis text using double quotes ("). When I see these kind of emphasis I think of replacing them with ('') . You said it would be better to use Template:Em. How is Template:Em better than ('') ? Is it good to edit a page to change the way it is emphasised ? Kaartic (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kaartic: Hello. Can you link to a couple of articles using quotation marks for emphasis? Please read the documentation for Template:em, MOS:EMPHASIS, and also MOS:BOLD. Using either the template or the typical italics wikimarkup displays the italicized text the same to the casual reader. The advantage of the template is that experienced editors looking at the wikicode will know the syntactic reason for choosing to display the text in italics was for the purpose of emphasis, as opposed to stylistic convention. It also discourages bots from messing up the italicization, as I understand it. In conclusion, emphasis should be used very sparingly in article space, in my opinion. It is much more common on talk page.
It is definitely OK to change emphasis that does not comply with the Manual of Style. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
These article used quotation marks for emphasis, I italicised them :
(I have linked the comparisons to show the difference)
These article still use quotation marks for emphasis:
There are more articles out there, I have linked only a few I remember. Kaartic (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kaartic: The Vannevar Bush essay is not an issue of emphasis at all, but rather how to distinguish between major and minor literary and artistic works. The convention is that we designate major works with italics and minor works with quotation marks. An essay like this which originated as a magazine article is a minor work and its title should be shown in quotation marks. The title of a major work such as a full length book should be shown in italics. Please read the sections of the Manual of Style regarding quotation marks and italics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The issue in Object-based language is also not one of emphasis. The text is discussing various words as words, and therefore quotation marks are appropriate in this context as opposed to italics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. This is why I asked the question in the first place. I think I would have to change those emphases back to quotation marks. Kaartic (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW, use of semantic markup templates like {{em}}, {{code}} and {{var}} are also helpful for readers with accessibility issues. - Reidgreg (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Semantic markup has existed for much longer than the visual editor, so it is irritating that visual editor drop-down options only include things like "bold" and "italic", while to use things like {{em}} I think one has to click "Insert" then click "Template" then type some things then click again, which is rather unergonomic. MPS1992 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Women- Monthly Contest[edit]

Hi, WUGN write to thank you for your participation and support in our last contest. We are planning another contest See the page here. We will appreciate if you could join our panel of jury for the contest cc@Jamie Tubers:. Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Terrace Theatre (Minnesota)[edit]

Hi Cullen328, thanks for getting in touch. I will give you a little background to facilitate discussion. I volunteered myself to work on this entry when one of my friends posted on Facebook that it needs some work. I'm a freelance copy editor so I thought I'd give it a try. I quickly learned there's more to Wiki than meets the eye. I started editing on the fly, and then decided to try to upload a photo. I learned that I would need to have an account to do so, so I set one up. In the meantime, someone else rejected my edits and reverted back to the original, slanted text. I don't give up easily. I created a talk page to explain myself, and I got most of my edits back from a URL under View history. I intended to do more work yesterday, and then found I was shut out due to potential copyright violations. It's still in that status this morning.

Here is my correspondence from Facebook messaging about my experience:

THU 9:29PM Hi Pete, I've had an interesting afternoon/evening working on Wikipedia. Learned a lot. I was editing "live" and someone removed my edits. Found a way to get them back. I think my current version is now live on Wiki. I ended up not changing too much as there seemed to be a couple of people who didn't like what I was doing. I think I improved it by creating a section on the architecture and taking out the paragraph about the city approving demolition. We'll see if my edits hold. Here is the URL to my edited version, in case it goes away again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrace_Theater_(Minnesota)&oldid=739646982 Terrace Theater (Minnesota) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Terrace Theater is situated at 3508 France Avenue North in Robbinsdale, Minnesota. Located on a site overlooking Bottineau Boulevard and Crystal Lake, the building is surrounded by parking lots to the north, west, and south, with the largest lot on the north side. A mall was constructed on the e... en.wikipedia.org If this version is still there tomorrow I'm going to try to clean up the last section about the Facebook groups. If that succeeds, I will try to post some better photos.

Thanks Kristi. It looks better. Most of what I added is still there. I may add more. The article no longer has a disputed neutrality flag.

FRI 7:39AM Good morning, Pete. I still have a lot to learn about Wiki but I see the page held steady since last night. I am KIRTIS. Are you BirdtownBovine? Do you know anything about those other fellows who tried to trash my edits?

FRI 8:59AM I'm nokohaha, no guess as to other Wikis.

FRI 7:20PM The saga continues. I contacted Teahouse to request that the page title be changed to Terrace Theatre. I felt pretty good when someone (apparently an administrator?) named StarryGrandma made that change. I was planning to try to do further edits this evening, but someone named Fuhgettaboutit has raised objections of possible copyright violations. Under "View history" I find this comment: "Deletion under [[WP:CSD#G12|CSD G12}} is warranted. But it's such a shame. Started as a copyvio from its first edits. Yet, many editors have had a hand. A saint needs to spend hours figuring out what small parts are not tainted, if it's even possible." I wanted to communicate to Fuhgettaboutit that I am willing to work on it but I can't seem to enter a comment on his/her talk page. So I'm on hold for now, I guess. I contacted Teahouse again for advice. Mainly I want to let you know that I took the liberty of requesting the name change to Theatre. --Kristi

FRI 10:42PM Thanks Kristi. I see the problem is the text is similar to what I wrote for the Robbinsdale Historical Society and the Historic Terrace Theatre page. I already addressed this with the Wikis some time ago. There is enough online without Wikipedia. The Robbinsdale Historical site has a Creative Commons attribution link on their site and then states Terrace theater is part of the Robbinsdale Historical Society so the Creative Commons thing should apply to content on both and Wikipedia shouldn't have any problem. There is no copyright violation, etc. That being said, an ongoing battle with Wikipedia could turn into a real chore. If you want to hang in there and keep trying I really appreciate it but feel free to let it go if it becomes too much.


So, what should I do next? Talk to Fuhgettaboutit? Appeal to a higher authority? Thanks for your help.

KIRTIS (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@KIRTIS: Hello. The first thing that I would do if I was you is look at the edit history and find the most developed version before the copyright violations started to be removed. I would then copy that version and save it off Wikipedia. It looks likely that the article will have to be stripped of much of its content because it is largely based on material from a copyrighted book. You can refer to that when writing new content but must exclude copyrighted material.
Of course you should discuss the matter with Fuhgettaboutit, as that editor is very knowledgeable about copyright issues. There is no "higher authority" when it comes to content matters. These issues are resolved by the editors involved with any given article, in compliance with our policies and guidelines. One thing that is certain is that copyright violations cannot remain, and anything used that is properly licensed under Creative Commons must be attributed properly. If that historical society material came from a copyrighted book, then it is not allowed on Wikipedia in that form although it can be summarized and referenced to that book. The article must be written from the neutral point of view and must not be an advocacy piece supporting saving the theater or tearing it down. Gushing praise of the theatre's architecture in Wikipedia's voice is not appropriate, although properly cited quotes from experts are allowed.
By the way, StarryGrandma is not an administrator, nor am I, but Fuhgettaboutit is. Administrators have no extra powers when it comes to content. All editors who comply with policies and guidelines have an equal say regarding content. Please do not talk about other people "trashing" your work or discuss an "ongoing battle with Wikipedia". Wikipedia is no monolith to battle. You are dealing with the small group of volunteers and real human beings who are interested in this particular article. Please assume good faith of your fellow editors. You are one of us now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you so much for your helpful advice and comments. I had said I was going to refrain from working until I heard further, but I just sat down after lunch and made more changes (before I got your message). I will heed your advice. I see that I also have a message from Fuhggetaboutit, and will take a look at that next. Thanks again. KIRTIS (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing a Hungarian film directors page[edit]

Hi! Yesterday I added a lot of info to the article of the Hungarian film and theatre director Kornél Mundruczó. It was deleted, because of being unsourced. Although I haven't finished with what I planned to do. I think I have added a lot of useful info. For example all his films after university and all his theatre pieces. So even in case his awards and festival invitations can't be listed like I wanted to do that, I think I made a lot of changes, which we could keep, for example the completed film table and the theatre table I added. Besides these I planned to do a more detailed description of him, but this will take me more time unfortunately. As a Wikipedia editor I'm rather a beginner, so what I do might not always match with what you can do on Wikipedia, although I have all info about this director and my goal is to make his rather pure page as informative as possible. For that I will probably need a mentors help... I don't want to get a professional editor, I would like to find someone with whom I can share the work, like I have the info, I put it on Wikipedia and the mentor is correcting me. Do think it is possible to find a partner for that? Many thanks and sorry for being a bit of a "elephant" on Wikipedia... Váradi Annamária vita 2016. szeptember 18., 11:54 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Váradi Annamária (talkcontribs) 09:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Váradi Annamária: Hello. The first thing that you should understand is that the quality of your references is really important in Wikipedia and you added a massive amount of unreferenced content. So, start by reading Referencing for beginners and be sure to provide properly formatted references going forward. Another problem with your additions is that they make the article look much more like a Curriculum vitae than a prose biography. This is more appropriate for the director's own website than a Wikipedia biography. The long unreferenced list of every single award that he has won is just not appropriate. Instead, add a much shorter, properly referenced list of the most notable awards that he won. I do not think you need a mentor at this time. I think that you need to spend time studying our policies and guidelines, and being sure to properly reference any content that you add. Feel free to ask me other questions, or ask at the Teahouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your quick answer. I understand the problem with the info I added, although I would have some questions: 1. would it be possible to put the tables back I made? They match the guidelines of Wikipedia, besides I put really a lot of work in it and it would be so nice if I wouldn't need to do it again... 2. how can I avoid being deleted already before finishing what I would like to do? Yesterday I add a lot of info, which took me a lot of time. I planned to continue with sources, for example by adding the website of the independent theatre company runned by Kornél Mundruczó, but I didn't know how to do it. I also planned to do a longer description, but I need time for that. Yesterday I worked for about 3 hours on the page and today everything was deleted. I will never finish, if I don't get "grace time" and the chance to sit done and work again and again on the page without being deleted. I naturally don't want the page being published before it is ready, I only want to avoid all my work getting deleted. Thanks a lot! Váradi Annamária vita 2016. szeptember 18., 22:15 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Váradi Annamária (talkcontribs) 20:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Váradi Annamária: Please do not add the information back into the article until you have referenced it. You can work on new content in your sandbox page and then copy it to the article when it is properly referenced. A theatre that Kornél Mundruczó runs is not an independent source. All your work is still in the edit history of the article and can be restored, but only when it is properly referenced. References come first, and we summarize what they say. We need reliable sources that are independent of Kornél Mundruczó. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

About your mistaken understanding on what I wrote in the Teahouse[edit]

I started to post this response at the appropriate place in the Teahouse when I discovered it had already been archived so I'll post this here on your Talk page. I was quite taken aback when I read your response and I have to say I was dumbfounded by it. I never dreamed that you would react to it the way you did and I can only assume you simply misunderstood what I meant. I think if you go back and re-read it with an objective mind you realize that I didn't mean it the way you took it. For your connivence I have put a copy of it below here:

"And every editor should know that, "The fact that you edit from an IP address may have contributed to the other editor's prickly response. There are experienced editors who have concluded that IP editors tend to be more disruptive than registered editors," is a violation of policy, as Wikipedia requires all editors to assume good faith edits, as long as it isn't vandalism. So there is no excuse for that."

Could you please point to the word(s) that led to your erroneous impression? I would appreciate it, since I want to understand what happened. Thanks in advance. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

You directly quoted me and then followed my words with "is a violation of policy". I read your comment as a statement that it was a violation of policy for me to have written those words, and I defended my comment on that basis. If I misunderstood you and you meant something different, then I apologize without reservation. I still do not understand what else you meant by the policy violation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I explained this on the unregistered editor's talk page. In my opinion, after re-reading, any "mistaken understanding" was not a mistake by me or by Cullen328, but in the way that the unregistered editor explained themselves. I did read the unregistered editor's post as an attack on Cullen328 for what was only intended as an observation. I said that, and said that they weren't getting off to a good start if they started by snapping. I see no need for an apology by Cullen328. If 209.179.36.56 wishes to apologize for being harsh, I wasn't the one who was being attacked. User:209.179.36.56 - I did read your post as an attack on Cullen328 for what was meant to be only an observation. I did read you as accusing Cullen328 of violating policy, not you as saying that other editors were violating policy. By the way, I stand by my observation that creating an account has advantages and no disadvantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response about Biography of Living Persons[edit]

@Cullen328 Hello! Yes thank you for your thoughtful response. I suppose a lot has changed since the early days of wikipedia. Back then I remember the good ole days of the edit wars. How articles were always a work in progress and depending on how long the article stayed untouched the more we knew it was much closer to the truth than before. But I can respect your explanation of the neutrality policy and why it is necessary. The edit wars ruined the reputation and thus the potential of what wikipedia could be. I suppose it's fair to ask for the sake of mitigating controversy and consistent with the neutrality policy that I ought to cite sources which are high quality. I thought the Heavy.com article was well written and very objective considering the circumstances. I suppose it would've been better to post a link to the DNC charter & by laws. I wanted readers to know that bias against a candidate in a party election in favor of others is an egregious violation of the party charter. Since it was committed by high ranking officials of the DNC the party in effect disqualified itself. It made the primary election of 2016 null and void leaving Bernie Sanders the winner by default because he was targeted explicitly throughout the primary. Just because something is an inconvenient fact does not make it any less true. To say Debbie Wasserman Schultz was not a corrupt official on behalf of the Clinton Campaign is like saying Bill Clinton didn't have an affair with Monica Lewinsky.

It's not like Julian Assange wrote those emails either. It literally came out from their smart phones & emails. All Mr. Assange did was post the information for all the world to see. As you probably know Big Cable media is not to be trusted and has openly discredited itself. If heavy.com is not considered a reliable/independent source then it begs the question: what is considered by wikipedia to be an independent/reliable source? The only one I know of is the Bureau of Investigative Journalists but they don't usually cover topics like internal party corruption etc.

The reason why the word "bias" pissed me off when the article uses it is because of the way the talking heads on tv used it. They always brought it up as though all Debbie did was be mean to Bernie Sanders when that is far from the case. There are too many people that still believe this line of reasoning despite her blatantly corrupt behavior she displayed all year. I don't see how my heavy.com link was considered an "extreme voice". Now if I got my source from info wars or godlikeproductions I could understand. But heavy.com tends to work pretty hard to be as thorough as possible when covering an event. It will take me a while to dig up the links to the charter & by laws because it's buried somewhere in my hard drive when I downloaded the PDF. In the meantime I would appreciate future editors to use more than just "bias" to describe what really went on in the 2016 primaries. I could also find the link of when she allowed the Clinton camp to use party resources against Bernie Sanders and laundered money from the state parties to also use against Bernie Sanders lying to the state parties that it was for down ballot democrats. Even though her opensecrets.org record showed and also her FEC reports showed that hardly any of that money ever went down ballot. I will honor that favor from now on checking in with the previous editors and article creators before I make an edit. I thank you for your kind and thoughtful advice.

PS- from one Berner to another I will never forgive Hillary Clinton & Debbie Wasserman for what they did to Bernie and fellow supporters. They embezzled our money, defrauded us, lied, and cheated. Even went so far as to steal precincts using election fraud ever since the incident with the "data breach" in Iowa. It turns out the person who opened the data file was actually a Clinton campaign operative working for the Bernie Sanders campaign. It wasn't the first time that Bernie Sanders had to fire moles out of his campaign even though in retrospect I felt it was irresponsible of him not to consider that his data may have been compromised being that so many of us were complaining about voter purges, switched registrations, etc from the campaign's own voter hotline. He fired a total of 3 or 4 by my count. I will always be eternally grateful for Bernie Sanders giving millennials a voice and the guts to back a true progressive movement. We've accomplished so much at the local and state levels across many states. Now after a year of hard work our platform is mainstream and America finally has a genuine left perspective in the political landscape rather than right and far right.

Herm3s Tresmeticus (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Herm3s Tresmeticus: If you think that Heavy.com is a reliable source for use here on Wikipedia, then you should pull back and consider this sentence from our article about that source: "Heavy.com is primarily responsible for creating and producing largely comic programming for the Internet. Original titles include "Behind the Music that Sucks", "Blisster", "American Suck Countdown", and several machinima series (based on GUN, God of War, and Tony Hawk's American Wasteland)." This source is worthless for any Wikipedia biography. The rest of your comment consists mostly of pushing your own point of view. There are many websites where that is encouraged and rewarded. Wikipedia is not one of them. Wikipedia editors (including you) are expected to comply with the neutral point of view, which is a core content policy here. Even when discussing Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Especially when discussing topics where we have strong feelings. If you are unable to do so, then you should not be editing any article about a topic where you have strong feelings, such as DWS. Please edit only in areas where you can be neutral, and if you cannot be neutral, then Wikipedia is not the website for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cullen328 Hello again! Wow I did not know that wikipedia discriminates against entire websites to determine authenticity of sources. Usually if the article in question is not lying about the events and has links to the source material most people tend to take it as authentic. But I guess I underestimated the high bar being set. Your point about Heavy is basically that it's too much like Buzzfeed or Cracked.com and I guess I can take that. Some web articles include links to source material and some don't. If that annoys me I suppose I should make more an effort to find and post source material rather than rely on articles.

Perhaps for future reference I should look for articles that are dedicated to the controversies of the 2016 primaries rather than individual bios if not create my own articles if one does not already exist. I notice when looking through Anthony Weiner's article that he has an entire chapter dedicated to his sexting scandals. There is no sugar coating of it and that's my point. The editors just lay down the facts and let everyone else draw their own conclusions. I also notice in the reference pages there are links to CNN and the like. I think we should hold ALL websites to the same standard. CNN is a proven propaganda machine just like Fox News. Not to mention Tim Turner, who is the president of the parent company that owns CNN, also happens to be the 7th largest donor to the Clinton 2016 campaign. This is common knowledge to the point that CNN has also admitted it on air. I'd respect the author & editors more if they just admitted they are scared of defamation suits rather than pretend to be politically correct. Lots of people have strong feelings about Anthony Weiner but the editors don't gloss over what he's done either. If you can't put in Buzz Feed or Heavy articles on the references page than I don't think it's appropriate to list Slate either that has a liberal slant nor the New York Post that has a conservative slant. I'm not sure how many other ways you can view DWS but earnest politician isn't one of them and nobody can tell me otherwise. But I digress and will be keeping your suggestions in mind. Herm3s Tresmeticus (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Denial of the Holodomor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, September 28[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

Hi folks,

We would like to invite you to this month's Bay Area WikiSalon. The last Wednesday evening of every month, Wikipedia and Wikimedia enthusiasts gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We will have no formal agenda to allow people to freely share ideas and perhaps learn about Wikipedia through hands-on editing. Co-organizer Ben Creasy will be looking at election-related articles to enhance the information available in the upcoming November elections.

Official logo of Wiki Loves Monuments

Co-organizer Stephen LaPorte has suggested doing an upload-a-thon for Wiki Loves Monuments. Niki, the California coordinator for WLM will be in attendance. WLM is an annual event and the official dealine is Friday the 30th for submissions to count towards awards.

Or, you can grab a couch, a booth, or a stool and do your own thing.

Wikimedia community logo (public domain)

Please note: You should register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on the I.D. part. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in! Feel free to stop by even if only to say a quick hello, but you might have to give us a last minute call if you forget to RSVP. Also, don't be shy about hitting us up if you have thoughts on future speakers or wiki-related activities.

For further details, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, September 2016. Mark your calendars now for the 3rd Wednesday in October, the 26th, when we will have a brief presentation.


See you soon! Pete F, Ben, Stephen and Checkingfax | (Subscribe or Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)