1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
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.
- 1 The importance of a friendly greeting
- 2 2009 Archive
- 3 2010 Archive
- 4 2011 Archive
- 5 2012 Archive (first six months)
- 6 References
- 7 WikiCake!
- 8 Adding cover images
- 9 Summary
- 10 As your optional poll has closed....
- 11 2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA
- 12 Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27
- 13 Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota
- 14 Holiday card
- 15 2017 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA
- 16 Page Link
- 17 I just don't get it
- 18 You've got mail.
- 19 Neutral and due weight Comment
- 20 References
- 21 You've got mail!
- 22 Please comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians
- 23 A star
- 24 UPOL
- 25 Robotics and Visual servo
- 26 False accusation of vandalism
- 27 Sock?
- 28 Chelsea Manning
- 29 Claude Ferguson Article
- 30 Discussion - Article 'GlobalLinker'
- 31 Erich Brauer - Technical Problem
- 32 Please comment on Talk:Bill Shorten
- 33 WooHoo!
- 34 Happy First Edit Day!
- 35 Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
- 36 Assistance
- 37 Lewis Hilsenteger
- 38 Administrators' newsletter – July 2019
- 39 Wikimania 2020 Bangkok
- 40 Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
- 41 Please comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales
- 42 contradiction of Poetics 13 and 14
- 43 Your eyes, please
- 44 Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings
- 45 Changing username
- 46 Thanks
- 47 Thanks
- 48 WP:GRAVEDANCING
- 49 Greeting
- 50 re “Lets Discuss It”
- 51 Please comment on Talk:Elon Musk
- 52 Fotile
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
- 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)
Adding cover images
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:
|Media data and Non-free use rationale|
|Description||Far Skies Deep Time cover|
|Big Big Train|
|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)
|Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3)||Official album cover artwork from the artist's website|
commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2)
|Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Far Skies Deep Time|
As your optional poll has closed....
|Ritchie333 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Ritchie333 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cullen328. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.|
2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA
|You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016
||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!
Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27
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
Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota
I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.
I notice you are active in activities related to project page and project talk page, so I wonder if I could invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.
Please reach me at email@example.com if you are interested or have any questions.
|Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,|
|"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you|
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)
2017 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA
|You are invited! - Friday, March 10 - SF CCA ArtAndFeminism 2017
||Please join us at the California College of the Arts'|
Simpson Library on Friday March 10, 2017, for
an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!
I just don't get it
You've got mail.
Neutral and due weight Comment
You've got mail!
Please comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
|The Civility Barnstar|
|Keep up the great work! ☎)(Edits) 20:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)(|
Hi, Cullen! Would you be willing to reconsider your block of this user? I know UPOL is somewhat vague (I often question things while doing ACC) and I tend to be on the side of "block and as questions later" but I really do not think that this is a upol violation, though I welcome your opinion on this. Duncan Foster isn't notable or well known as a unique name. The editor in question has made only two edits, both of which are to talk pages seeking help or instruction and 3 months apart. I also don't believe that a mere mention on an article is suitable to say that it qualifies under any of the relevant policies and it's also generic enough that WP:REALNAME isn't really applicable. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Praxidicae. I am sorry but I disagree with your interpretation. The editor is claiming that he is a film/TV director (which seems likely) but there is a significant enough risk of impersonation that I believe it is appropriate for the editor to confirm their identity by email. I will not object if another administrator disagrees with me and unblocks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Robotics and Visual servo
Hi Jim, not meaning to be aggressive but I'm genuinely confused. Several articles now have prominent COI banners which I don't see as warranted.
- is not a *major* contribution by me (but I do have a close connection with the subject). I see only 3 edits by myself, in total I added 1 reference to myself, 3 to others, and 1 to a no longer existent 2004 workshop paper collection which I can no longer recall the authorship of. This seems in the spirit of wikipedia. Yet the banner which went on today is apparently related to my behaviour, and this seems out of all proportion. Most of the references to my work were placed there by others. I also don't see that I made a major contribution to the page. The bulk of it is by user Arbusmar.
- WP:SELFCITE, I don't understand this. Is it a guideline or is it something I put in the page? I'm struggling with the documentation here.
- , can you provide guidance on that issue as well?
- Hello, Peter.corke. As for the COI banners, discuss them on the article talk pages and with the editors who tagged the articles. I am sorry if the backlash against your edits is excessive, but conflict of interest is a major problem on Wikipedia, and some editors specialize in fighting it. WP:SELFCITE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is a behavioral guideline. Just do your best to follow that advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
False accusation of vandalism
First sorry for taking so long to respond. I was in the other room watching a TV show. The small TV next to my desktop computer died a little while ago, do I can't do both at the same time.
First of all the bot may not like 'did cut' but for the "Low Spark" page, THAT WASN'T ME. That was what was there before - I changed (or rather tried to) to make it say something similar to what is said (again, not by me) on the "Shoot Out" page... " Like its predecessor, the original jacket for the Shoot Out LP had its top right and bottom left corners clipped"
What I said on the "Low Spark" page was that the cover had its top right and bottom left corners clipped, and that the image gives the effect of looking like a three-dimensional cube. That page has now reverted to the "die cut" version, so that can't be the reason. I specifically changed it because the cover does not really meet the definition of die cut as that generally means there are holes cut into the cover - like The Rolling Stones' "Some Girls"
I think that it must be that I made so many changes, by making continual errors, saving and then going back to edit, and then saving, and, well... rinse and repeat.
As for references, well many them are right in the next room where I have all the LPs, and many CDs and singles and other stuff. I have been collecting records since the late 1960s and I have original UK pressings of all the original Traffic albums, except the 2nd (eponymous) album, of which I have a rare Canadian first pressing.
Of course, I do know about Discogs, I'm there all the time, but when I look at some of these pages I don't others stating where they got their info from. Speaking of which, I just looked and nowhere on the "Low Spark" main page is the cover configuration mentioned. Nor is it mentioned on the main page for "Shoot Out" except in a comment. If you go to the South African versions of those albums, those pages DO point out that the covers are NOT cut.
In other changes I made, I added info, like the fact that original UK and some European versions of "The Low Spark of High-Heeled Boys" << have a hyphen in the name of the album and song on the labels, while the actual names do not. Again, nowhere does Discogs say that, and other than checking each version's pics, you wouldn't know that. Am I expected to post links to each of those labels as proof?
On the page for "When The Eagle Flies" I added that the album (previously listed as only being on Island) was released on Asylum in the US and Canada. This was the result of a deal between Island where they let Asylum for the US, and Island got Bob Dylan for the UK. I added that note. I don't believe I can find a link to a story on the net from 1974 about that.
I guess what I'm saying is that many of these thing to me are just things I know are true cause they are on my shelves.
When a recent box set of Traffic LPs was released I communicated with another collector about an issue with a mono UK version of the 2nd album that nobody's ever seen. Finding proof that it never existed. I fixed that info on the page a few weeks ago, but not signed in at the time.
I have looked at the pages that I painstaking fixed that have mostly reverted, and in virtually all of then, the previous info from others (like the 'die cut') do not have any references links to them at all. Not to be picky, if all these others have been getting away with no proof, why should bear the burden of having to look up things I know my heart?
I AM PROUD of the changes I made as I want Wikipedia to have the best and most correct info as can be. If people, not bots, actually read what I wrote as opposed to what was there, they could see how much better I made the pages. Now, I feel like the whole concept of Wikipedia has been lost by the powers than want to ban.
- Hello, DDB9000. Bots are absolutely necessary to protect the encylopedia against vandalism although as I said earlier, they are not 100% effective. I regret that the bot made a mistake in your case. I tried to give you a plausible explanation of what happened and explain the importance of references to you. I understand that you are a serious collector but the content you add to Wikipedia needs to be properly referenced. It is a process of continuous improvement. If you see other unreferenced content, consider adding a reference. No administrator wants to block or ban editors. We do it only when it is necessary to prevent disruption to the encylopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed a new editor pop up on Jewel Changi Airport. Newly created account and hitting some familiar pages. Any suspicions that User:A339 could be a sock of User:Ineedtostopforgetting whom you have blocked a couple of times recently? Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I knew you would pop up again. You just love following me around do you? Yes, it's another account of mine. I initially forgot the password for this account, which is why I created a new one. However, I've managed to remember it and have returned to editing on my main account. I assume 'sock' means 'sock puppetry', so I took a look at the article for it. So let me say something, The account was made at a time while this account was unblocked, so I'm not evading a block. (an admin can check this) I'm not using that account for edit warring (you can see the edits), or avoiding 'detection' since admins can check IPs anyway, being disruptive/problematic, violate community standards or policies, being biased in my edits to support my edits on this account, creating an illusion of support, trying to sway opinion to another side and finally trying to distort consensus. So this is my explaination, I'm not misleading nor deceiving anyone either. Thanks. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, could you please explain why you reverted my edit on Chelsea Manning's page? The only explanation you gave was that it was "unnecessary" but I disagree. "Female gender identity" is inaccurate because female is a sex, not a gender. This causes confusion, which is why I felt the quotation marks and note of clarification were necessary. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Abbyjjjj96. Please discuss this matter at Talk: Chelsea Manning and gain consensus for your change there. Please also note that Gender states in the lead paragraph: "Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation)" I understand the distinction made by John Money and those he influenced in the social sciences, but this is a biography reporting on the person's claims not an article about those distinctions from a social science perspective. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Claude Ferguson Article
Hi Jim, I need help and I have a COI (I just learned that it is a bad thing). Now I should not edit it and try to cleanup it up.
The DDT Aerial spraying section is correct and has a published article 1977... “Ferguson still battling bureaucracy but tired of waiting” by David Hulen, IDS staff writer.. (Indiana Daily Student Bloomington, IN) .
It talks about his faulty diagnosis, his medicine and hospitalization with DRS names. I have emailed IDS to see if they can point me to it online but if it’s not how can I get it used as a citation, I have it in my hand. It states exactly what I wrote in the ddt section. It looks like someone else has shorten my ddt aerial portion again.
The off road vehicle section and the lawsuit section were created using newspaper article and a 2009 published article “Administrative Profile: Claude Ferguson Rosemary O'Leary Syracuse University... and her book :: “The Ethics of Dissent” includes an entire chapter “ When a career public servant sues the agency he loves: Claude Ferguson, and off-road vehicles in the Hoosier National Forest”.
I had included these in my reference section. That is now gone.
Discussion - Article 'GlobalLinker'
hi @Cullen328. Taking this forward from Teahouse reference. References are reliable, independent and not press release. These are news in top newspaper.
- Hello, Aksndls. That is the conclusion that I draw from decades of writing, reading and evaluating press releases. Please tell me what your connection is with GlobalLinker. Are you an employee or a PR person by chance? I would appreciate an answer. If so, please read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Erich Brauer - Technical Problem
Hi, @Cullen328:. I am the creator of the page Erich Brauer, but when any onlooker checks the edit history and goes back to the earliest date, the article is listed as being created by User:Mag2k. The reason for this discrepancy is because, before I created the article, User:Mag2k had already made a "Redirect" for a different article, entitled Arik Brauer, and he used the name "Erich" for his redirect. How can I alleviate this problem, and have the article "Erich Brauer" shown in my own list of articles created? The same can be said about the article Beit Shearim, which I created, but because of an earlier re-direct in that name to the article Beit She'arim National Park, the article that I created is listed under the articles created by User:Ynhockey. Davidbena (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Davidbena. In all honesty, I have never run across this problem before. I am now working a long way from home and will be traveling for several hours when I am done. I recommend that you ask for help at Village pump/Technical. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Bill Shorten
- Thanks, Mjs1991. Thirty minutes to go in my time zone, but Wikipedia runs on UTC, right? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day!
Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
hello Jim i humbly ask for your assistance on the article am writing. i am new here and i dont know that much. can you please help me on the article am writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omafeni (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Omafeni. If you have some specific questions, I will try to answer them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cullen328. You applied indefinite create protection on Lewis Hilsenteger. Would you redirect the page to Unbox Therapy, which I recently restored to mainspace. Lewis Hilsenteger is the co-creator and host of Unbox Therapy. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Cunard. Done Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
- 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • 1 • Flyguy649 • 2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
- A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
- In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
- The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
- The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
- A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
- In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop . This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Wikimania 2020 Bangkok
Hi Jim. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Kudpung. I can't make any promises now, but I will certainly consider it. I already knew about 2020 but thanks for the reminder. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Please comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales
contradiction of Poetics 13 and 14
Hello, I have another question as I start drafting. I went to my talk page and added a disclosure that the topic is close to me. However, the peer-reviewed work that I have done on the subject I no longer endorse, and plus it wasn't published. My opinion has changed since then. Currently, another scholarly piece I wrote is soon to be peer-reviewed. But it may not be published. Consequently, I would never include it in this Wikipedia draft, nor should any other editor who comes along mention my own research. Unless my academic article was published. Therefore, there should not be a serious COI issue in this draft. The article for now will only include researchers other than myself. Thanks.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Cdg1072. I suggest that you move the disclosure to your (now blank) user page, and elaborate a little bit if you want. You may find Wikipedia:Expert editors to be useful as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I did that--moved it to the talk page. There I clarified that I should be able to write about the other scholars opinions objectively. I won't be criticizing them, except in reporting where they have criticized each other--as Lessing did Dacier.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is another incident I would like to notify you about, and surprisingly it relates to this "contradiction" article idea. There are a few different strands going on in this incident I just noticed, let me outline briefly. (1)The first thing is: the person who made an irrelevant edit to the Aristotle's Poetics article, also owns the press that publishes his books--ExistencePS Press--and that press reveals only his works among its publications. While I'm not quite expert on Wikipedia regarding self-publication, again, the edit that he made was irrelevant. The place where it was made is a discussion of the etymology of the word "tragedy" near the beginning of the article on the Poetics. That etymology has nothing to do with the edit, which references Mr. Gregory Scott's book:
- "The reason is that Aristotle says three times in the treatise that the protagonist can go from fortune to misfortune or misfortune to fortune; also in Chapter 14 the best type of tragoidos is that which ends happily, like Cresphontes and Iphigenia (presumably "in Tauris")! reference: Aristotle's Favorite Tragedy: Oedipus or Cresphontes? Gregory Scott, 2018, ISBN 9780999704912 or 9780999704905"
- (2) my second point is, that Mr. Scott's book that he irrelevantly references there, is on the same topic of the article that I proposed to start, and that I've now completed. That Poetics contradiction issue, chapters 13 and 14. This creates a future concern. This editor (possibly Gregory Scott himself) has edited erratically in this one instance. And his book is not peer-reviewed. Is it likely he will attempt to edit the article I'm about to write? I am concerned that this could harm the article or be disruptive. In that article, I have used third-party sources, as historical fact, with no original research. Isn't the above comment irrelevant to "tragedy" etymology? Could it be deleted? That article has other problems, but this makes it worse. And what policy should be taken towards this editor, on the piece I'm about to submit?Cdg1072 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello again, Cdg1072. The first thing that I want to make clear is that I have no expertise regarding Aristotle in particular or philosophy in general. I am a generalist Wikipedia editor and administrator, and my area of expertise here is this encylopedia. Here are a few observations: Scott's book appears to be self published, and I have my doubts that it is a reliable source. Scott's book was added as a reference on October 11, 2018 by someone using an unregistered IP address. There were four edits from this IP address in a 25 minute period, but there are no other edits from this IP address either before or since. I looked at Scott's website. He has a PhD but it does not seem to me that his academic career has been particularly prestigious. But hey, I only have a bachelor's degree and my academic career is pretty much non-existent, with the exception of a few unpaid guest lectures in college classrooms over the years. You are in a much better position to judge the reliability of that source than I am. If you agree that it is not a reliable source, then remove that content and that source. Was the person who added the source Scott himself? That is certainly possible but there is no solid evidence one way or another. Is this an "incident" worthy of concern? No, this was a brief flurry of edits nine months ago. It is barely worth talking about. If they were bad edits, remove them. I am not sure what you are referring to regarding policy about this editor on the article you plan to submit. You must be aware that any Wikipedia article can be edited by anyone at any time, as long as the edits comply with policies and guidelines. You will have no ownership stake in the article, and people could come along and modify it extensively. You must accept that possibility. Will Scott edit the article? I have no idea. If there are disruptive edits, you can count on me to warn the disruptive editor and block the person if they persist.
- Earlier, I recommended that you add your COI disclosure to your user page. Perhaps you misunderstood. Your user page remains a blank red link, and the COI disclosure is on your talk page instead. Not a big deal, but a blank redlinked user page is the most common indication that an editor is a "newbie". Try clicking on the red link and adding something about you as a Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, it may be premature to go into this now, but while the article I wrote mentions Arata Takeda a few times (because he made some good points in his piece on the subject), the University of Chicago peer-review (a very reliable authority) I received in 2017 agreed with me that Takeda confused the positions of Dacier and Lessing on the subject. Yet I know of no way of permanently referencing that event.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- In general, writing for Wikipedia about any subject, if one is talking about a particular theory about a larger issue, I take it that one doesn't have to use a third-party source to talk about this already third-party writer, on the subject. If the subject is, say, Fermat's Last Theorem, then Andrew Wiles as the author of the famous proof is a third-party source. So one doesn't have to find a newspaper article talking about Wiles to relate the story of his contribution. Right? This is what I would like to get clear on. Because in order to add a few more theories to the list on the Aristotle's Poetics contradiction, one has to talk about those third-party commentaries as if they were worthy of direct attention. That doesn't mean arguing against them, or analyzing their opinion critically at all-- its just means stating what they think. It seems most unproblematic to do this for the very oldest third-party commentaries--like Andrew Dacier and Lessing on Aristotle. When we get to recent times, there are just a few more, very few. I only added one from the 21st century, from 2012. It should not go further than this, unless the academic piece that I've written is published (and in that case perhaps I shouldn't be the one to include it in the Wiki on this.)Cdg1072 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hello again, Cdg1072. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I also suggest that you examine the sources in articles listed at Featured articles about philosophy and psychology and Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion. Those are articles that have gone through extensive review by highly experienced editors. You may also want to take a close look at the type of references used in Fermat's Last Theorem, Andrew Wiles and Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, although those articles have not undergone rigorous review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, I re-read the Reliable sources page and I think it confirms the scenarios I described in my question. The rules refer to the fact that sources have to be third party, but not that one cannot name third party sources in the text of the article.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- To clarify the question: fortunately, we do have Takeda as a third-party source in relation to Castelvetro. But when you get to Dacier and Lessing, it's impossible to use Takeda to describe them (because Takeda's view of them is incorrect)--which would otherwise be a great option to make it third-party. So I wrote about Dacier and Lessing simply by stating what they believed and citing to the text that they published. I could try to improve that, by including Lessing as a third party referring to Dacier, which Lessing did. And maybe use Vahlen as a third party referring to Lessing. So there may be a way to make this work.
I then went on and simply added the views of Ingram Bywater, John Moles, Stephen Halliwell, Sheila Murnaghan, because they are the basic views that have appeared throughout the 20th century. There is one third-party source talking about Elsa Bouchard, who has presented the most recent theory (2012). And it is a reliable venue: the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, the article by Andrew Ford of Princeton reviewing the book in which Bouchard's article appeared. These are some third-party relationships that could be used:
(1) Lessing referring to Dacier. (2) Vahlen referring to Lessing. (3) Moles referring to Bywater. (3) Bouchard could be used as a third party reporting Halliwell's view.
I'll attempt to go back and incorporate these more, if you think it's necessary. The list of contributing theories are not light commentary but serious novel attempts to address the issue.Cdg1072 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have gone back and removed those extra citations I just added. I think I understand correctly that reliable sources themselves can be talked about without a further source referring to them.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Your eyes, please
- Hello, Atsme. Those remarks were pretty snippy. It seems that the conversation has moved on since then, and it might be counterproductive for me to comment right now. What do you think? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, he's bludgeoning, and gaslighting while trying to push his POV, right at the beginning of a GA review that FunkMonk just accepted. What he's doing is highly disruptive. Take a look at the TP. Atsme Talk 📧 01:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- You simply cannot edit closed discussions to change the names of the editors involved. That is falsification. Please read Wikipedia:Changing username for the options available to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen!!! Due to your supportive essay about using smartphone for editing,I am now successful in using the desktop site of Wikipedia.Thanks for your advice on Teahouse. Also,could you tell me how to gain the adminship on Wikipedia. Thanks,and waiting for your advice!! G-Force234 (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are welcome, G-Force234. I am glad that my essay was useful for you. As for becoming an administrator, please read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and the associated links. The short answer is that the community will expect well over a year of consistent productive editing which includes both high quality creation of encyclopedic content as well as constructive participation in the behind-the-scenes operations of the encylopedia. That includes things like vandalism fighting, evaluating new articles and participation in deletion debates. Community members will be looking for evidence of good judgment, a calm demeanor, a helpful attitude and good knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
If you could you look in at FlightTime's gravedancing, which they are edit-warring to keep on the editor's page, with increasingly aggressive edit-summaries. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC), whom you recently blocked, and advise against
- This matter has been resolved, Serial Number 54129. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
re “Lets Discuss It”
Ok fine I’m out of line, this is not a hierarchy where I must respect only superiors. You respect everyone. John continues to revert the slightest edit (capitalization error) and only reverts my edits cause there not sourced, but why not the other stuff unsourced stuff. I don’t care that he is a highly respected editor or not the point is if he must revert me he must do it to other people. [[[User:Luke12334|Luke12334]] (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)]
- Hello, Luke12334. Do not expect experienced editors to ignore capitalization errors or the addition of unsourced content, because that simply isn't going to happen. We do not have "superiors" here on Wikipedia, only more experienced editors and less experienced editors. John and I are more experienced than you, but you can also become an experienced editor if you take the time to learn how things work around here. Start by reading Assume good faith and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nobody cares which high school you graduated from. We only care about the quality of your editing. That's all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- So why is it that I can’t fix a simple capitalization error with out sourcing it!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke12334 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have checked all edits by this account, Luke12334. Were you logged out perhaps? Please state the capitalization error and I will make sure that it is corrected. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Luke12334, I see that you tried to capitalize "Official Website" after our previous discussion. That violates Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style. Calling something an "official website" is not a proper noun. It is ordinary descriptive language that does not require captialization. Plus, that phrase is unnecessary and redundant in an infobox. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)