User talk:Cullen328/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Muntazir764

The picture is captured in 1956 olympics games. This pic is of my grand father. --Muntazir764 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Then, Muntazir764, the issue becomes, who took the picture? And is your grandfather alive? If the picture was taken by one of your ancestors (now deceased) and you are the heir, then you are the copyright holder, and can freely-license the photo at Wikimedia Commons. If someone else holds the copyright, and your grandfather is dead, then you can use it under WP:NFC to illustrate the biography of someone who is not alive. But if your grandfather is alive, and you don't hold the copyright, you can't use the image on Wikipedia. By the way, if your grandfather was an Olympic athlete, then he is definitely considered notable for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who captured the picture. My grand father is not Alive. But He was Olympion and was at 1st position in the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntazir764 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Muntazir764, please read WP:NFCI #10. That probably allows use of the photo in an article about your grandfather. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I Can not understand whether i can upload the pic or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntazir764 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there currently a biography of your grandfather on Wikipedia, Muntazir764? That comes first. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
yes The airtical is. Abdul Khaliq (athlete). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muntazir764 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Is the photo you are talking about the one in the article now, or a different photo? Because in most cases, there should be only one non-free portrait in an article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have more then photos and some of them are from video captured. and the picture which is in the aritical is uploaded by me.--Muntazir764 (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Torres (musician)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Torres (musician). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sheri Fink

Cullen328, I worked very hard at gathering information to make the article about Sheri Fink and Memorial Medical Center and Hurricane Katrina, as I do with the other articles I contribute to on Wikipedia. I have never had someone continuously erase work from a page. This person obviously is very closely connected to Sheri Fink. The section removed about her not doing a resident was taken directly from The Jerusalem Post. Sheri Fink said residency was not for her. There is criticism about the way she gather the information. I was attempting to cover all aspects of the story. There are two sides. I included all of Sheri Fink's awards. I attempted to have a plain and balanced tone. For the user to say I "must be a paid publicist" by Dr. Anna Pou is absurd. I do not know Anna Pou or Sheri Fink. The information published on the pages were all referenced. Several times I asked the user to discuss on the talk page and they refused. I was not attacking anyone. I was merely stating facts. I mentioned the awards Sheri Fink received and cited her articles too. However, I also referenced the other side as well. Nevertheless, I am not going to argue with a person who will continue to erase information from a page and not even discuss it. I can not continue to contribute to an article if a person continues to erase the research I do. The user also has only contributed to those two articles. I have contributed to a number of other articles on Wikipedia. Thanks for your assistance. What do you think? Schwartzenberg (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the citations I found in a court document. It was made by a US Federal Judge. Schwartzenberg (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"We are working to improve this page." I am referencing the Wikipedia Community. Schwartzenberg (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Schwartzenberg, I think that the website Memorial Hospital Truth clearly fails our standards as a reliable source. It is an advocacy website devoted to attacking Fink's credibility. You over-emphasized her decision to pursue journalism as a career, giving it undue weight and framing it to make her look bad, emphasizing her lack of a medical license. Court documents are primary sources, and need to be used with great care. You've cherry-picked a quote from a lengthy decision where the judge dismissed a lawsuit against Fink on First Amendment grounds. This is also undue weight. An investigative journalist is going to make enemies. We don't allow their enemies to vent in the journalist's biography. We only report controversies as they are covered by reliable sources. You have brought forth none so far. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I was very careful about that. The Website Memorial Hospital Truth said the suit was dismissed on First Amendment grounds. After I read the lawsuit, it was dismissed because neither side could produce evidence in time in accordance with federal rules. This is why I never mentioned the First Amendment claim made on Memorial Hospital Truth. Sheri Fink told the reporter who wrote the article for The Jerusalem Post "residency is not for me." It is obviously someone closely related to Sheri Fink editing the cite to take it personal and not want to discus the change. Now I understand the Website can not be used as a source. The user did not even want to discuss it. They just started deleting everything. Schwartzenberg (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
What reliable sources discussed that judge's comment? And, your being "very careful" didn't extend to citing an anti-Sheri Fink website, and then edit warring to keep it in the article, did it, Schwartzenberg? BLP policy is so important that it allows immediate deletion of violating content without discussion, but the editor in this case made their reasons clear in edit summaries.. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
William G. Armington, M.D. versus Sheri Fink, M.D. et al case 2:09-cv-06785-MLCF-DEK, Section "F" the quote was made by US Judge Martin Feldman. I cited from both sides. There is criticism. One article published in the Rockford Register Star on Wednesday, April 7, 1999, stating Sheri Fink is not a licensed physical and she was "practicing" in Skopje, Macedonia. A direct quote from Sheri Fink "I don't think anyone knows how many people have died, it's been so busy and crowded that we forgot to keep track." There are also individuals referenced in the book who made sworn statements included in court records stating they did not make the statements Sheri Fink wrote. I cited both sides. In one article her book is cited twenty-four times. I tried to find other sources to quote and use as references. Schwartzenberg (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
US District Judge Martin L. C. Feldman, "While the motivation in researching, writing, and publishing the article might seem ghoulish, driven in part to sell a sensational topic like the use of euthanasia in disasters" William Armington, M.D., versus Sheri Fink, et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwartzenberg (talk • contribs) 06:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

As I have pointed out previously, court cases are primary documents that should be used sparingly and with great care in a BLP. They are not independent sources. Which reliable, independent, secondary sources discussed the judge's comments, placing them in context? Is the Rockford Register Star article available online? Is it critical of her, or are you cherry-picking a comment, as you've cherry picked one sentence from Fink's journalism? Let me be absolutely clear: unless reliable sources (not attack websites) report that Fink is unethical, there is no way that her Wikipedia biography will be allowed to state or imply that, Schwartzenberg. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not selectively choosing words. If a person is not licensed, they are not licensed. The definition of a physician is someone who practices medicine. Yes, she has a degree, but she does not practice medicine. The article from the Rockford Register Star I found at the library and that is the direct quote. Now I understand Websites are not independent sources. Do you consider the Website an attack Website? Schwartzenberg (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's take all further discussions of these content issues to Talk: Sheri Fink, which is the appropriate place to develop consensus. You can't generalize about the reliability of websites. I have stated my opinion of that specific website there, and other editors have concurred. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

 The Good Friend Award
Cullen328 I appreciate your help and guidance. Schwartzenberg (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't punish editors for passionate efforts to maintain access to truthful, published news articles!

Hi Jim: I am writing in regard to your comment (below). There are many readers of the page and associated talk section who are concerned about the continued attempts of that page creator (Shobeir f) to expunge and delete citations and references to published sources such as the Detroit News, Crains Business Daily. There are several additional news source citations that could be added in to this page, however, it is certain that this page "creator" would similarly object to those and engage in complaining (and manipulative) behavior to eventually get their way and "clean" this page of all factual events that are not slanted to his liking. "Detroit Joe" has it right with his "hagiopian" characterization and many of those reading sympathize with his passion. Apparently it takes that tremendous amount of passion and energy to retain references to factual news events in the face of significant pressure and propagandizing by the page creator. We readers are watching to ensure that Wiki remains a a fair place where factual information may be presented. The only "vendetta" that the editor you reference seems to have is directed to trying to retain relevant information in the face of attempted suppression of that information. I have no idea who this person is, however, I assure you, that editor is very courageous and it is only his passion that has maintained access of readers to truth. We hope that you will consider that point of view and not censor someone who seeks only to retain access to information that other readers consider relevant as proven by its publication in major news media publications. Thank you! ----

You said

"Farshad Fotouhi[edit]

An editor seems to be on a vendetta against this person, using extremely insulting language on the talk page. I request fresh eyes on the article, and comments by someone willing to explain BLP policies. I had a previous disagreement with this editor, so perhaps I am not best for the job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)"

Hello, Concerned Reader seeking Facts. I am afraid that you are very much wrong about this matter. First of all, I have made no edits to Farshad Fotouhi or its talk page, so to accuse me of censoring anything is completely without merit. I drew attention to the talk page, where the editor Detroit Joseph you call "courageous" has called the subject "a very bad, corrupt man", the "Grand Fotouhpoobah", the "Fotouhnary", said "Fotouhi's heart is strictly for himself", described his alleged "greed and arrogance", repeatedly compares him to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because both are Iranian, and concluded "where there is smoke, there is fire". None of the reliable sources use such inflammatory rhetoric. The Crain's source on the talk page is a letter to the editor from a dissatisfied former employee, and is absolutely not a reliable source for a Wikipedia biography. These are extremely serious violations of our strict policy on Biographies of living people which applies to talk pages as well as articles, and these insults simply don't belong on Wikipedia anywhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The editor in question made those comments on the Talk page NOT the Article page after repeated efforts by the page creator to take down factual insertions including references to current news events.
It is clear that Wikipedia is seriously flawed in its ability to allow readers to be aware of the involvement of personages, possessing pages on your site, in current news events that may be controversial or of which the personage does not wish to have the public aware.
Thank you for making that clear. I will share what I have seen with this page and the "wiki" process with others and we will not be using Wikipedia for biographical information in the future due to its lack of impartiality when the page creator seeks to censor readers access to accurate news information.
Both you and the other editor should be aware that our policy regarding Biographies of living people applies to talk pages as well as to articles, and it applies to all areas of Wikipedia without exception. What you call serious flaws in Wikipedia are the very characteristics that have enabled Wikipedia to become the #5 website in the world, and far and away #1 in terms of originally written content. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, not Facebook, not Twitter, not "BadProfessor.com" and not a platform for "righting great wrongs". You have countless places available on the internet to make the case that this person is wrong or even corrupt. Here on Wikipedia, we summarize what the highest quality reliable sources say about a person. If there is a controversy, then we describe both sides of the controversy using neutral, non-judgmental language. These basic principles are non-negotiable. If you can accept them, you are free to contribute. Otherwise, please blog elsewhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Jim . . . To summarize your paragraph above, first you are touting the Wiki biography as a perfect process, even when the persons creating these biography pages are self-interested and will rabidly attempt to censor published news references they do not like, then you are encouraging anyone who doesn't agree with your defense of that process to pack up their toys, go home and not object to or express those concerns.

(talk page stalker)It is odd that you would interpret Jim's paragraph in that way. There are many biographies here that contain very controversial information, where both sides of the controversy are presented and well-sourced. Wikipedia is a work of consensus and there are well-worn processes for dealing with any attempts to censor or whitewash an article subject. In the case of Farshad Fotouhi there have been clear and very serious breaches of the wikipedia policy on biographies of a living person that were appropriately dealt with. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Flat out... I admit I am new to Wikipedia and appreciate your comment. I took a look at a couple other wiki biography pages talk sections last night and noticed many of the same charges of "vendettas" etc. and it makes sense that some editors may possess inherent biases that likely motivates their involvement in editing the page. I don't know any of the folks involved in editing the subject (FF) biography, however, a couple of points are clear: 1) the page creator (and another editor/homepage moved to that one) has repeatedly removed previously edited, and moderated references, 2) it is that editor himself who copied what appears a private conversation between himself and the frustrated editor "Detroit Joseph" to the biography subject's talk page (for fairly obvious reasons), and, 3) as it is clear that published news events are relevant and may reappear over time, this individual wishes the page taken down.

I agree the dialog between the disagreeing editors lacked civility, however, one of the parties was clearly frustrated by having previously moderated info taken down. Sordid but typical probably. While I don't agree with the DJ's characterizations, I think his references about "Iranian" figures likely came after looking at information/names directly retrievable from the author/editor links of this "Shobeir f" editor (https://www.google.com/search?q=hamid+soltanian-zadeh&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari, and, http://www.cs.umd.edu/~shobeir/ ).

I dont know any more than this about what is going on with this biography and as I said, I am a new reader watching this process, however, it appears to me there is a concerted effort to censor information and one editor was passionate in a conversation with another editor and that was then prominently displayed on the bio talk page to get the editor banned and win the day. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There are people watching who are interested in seeing if information can be maintained when biased and persistent author/editors simply don't want it in. Thanks for caring.... (Concerned Reader seeking Facts (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC))

That is exactly the problem I feared in this flawed process when I queried you to determine whether you were aware of this inherent bias (hagiography as the editor you mention you had a former dispute with, put it). In this case, the personage creating the wiki page (shobeir f) has been continually removing all references to recent published news events (from your own hometown press : ) by multiple editors over several months if I read the history correctly. It is disappointing that an editor (or person in your role), ostensibly doing this as long as you have apparently been, simply won't acknowledge this obvious problem/flaw with the wiki biography process? Best wishes to you anyway, Concerned Reader seeking (Uncensored) Facts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerned Reader seeking Facts (talk • contribs) 13:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

In-line citations vs. general citations Comment

Hello, Cullen! I was wondering if you could answer a quick question for me. I know there are two ways to cite sources on Wikipedia; one being in-line citations, which are the ones with numbers and appear after each sentence; the other being the sort of "general" citations, which appear in a bullet point list at the end of the article.

How come general citations are allowed? Because they do not directly tie to their specific fact, doesn't it make sourcing ambiguous or possibly hard to catch vandalism?

Thank you very much, :) Bananasoldier (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bananasoldier. I think that inline citations are preferred, and are pretty much the standard for highly rated articles. However, we allow a variety of citation styles, and on a simple, brief article, a general citation saying that the content is referenced to pages 11, 13 and 42 of a book, and the pages 1 and 3 of an article might be adequate. Any motivated editor with access to the sources can upgrade the citations at any time. Please do so if you are so motivated. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! How would one go about converting references to in-line citations if he or she cannot access the material?
Oh, also, do you know how to convert the sourcing of Yellowfin madtom to Wikipedia format? I am unsure what formatting style is being used on the article, and I was wondering if you could explain to me "what-goes-where".
Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time or the interest to check every one in Yellowfin madtom, but it appears that "Sources" is highly redundant to "References" in this article. I am not sure if anything would be lost at all by deleting "Sources" completely. But you are the fish expert, my friend, not me. Please check carefully. As for converting when you don't have access to the source, I am not sure that I would go about doing such a thing. When I see some poorly formatted reference without obvious "red flags" indicating possible fraud, hoax or vandalism, and I don't have personal access to the source, I simply leave it alone. We have 4.4 million articles and I can't improve every single one. Nor can you. I have immediate access to a couple thousand books in my own personal library. I have access to untold millions of excellent sources online. I don't agonize about what I can't improve or am not motivated to improve. Instead, I work on improving articles on the specific topics that captivate me, and those where I do have access to good solid sources. There are enough of those to keep me busy for the rest of my life, and that is just fine with me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! A very thoughtful reply, and I agree. Bananasoldier (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Toronto article FAC

Hey, Cullen. Hope all is well. I was wondering if you would like to be an FAC co-nom for Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix. Just let me know and I'll fill-out the paperwork. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I would be honored to be part of that process, GabeMc, and thank you very much for asking. I have never been involved with promoting a Featured Article and would like to learn more about what needs to be done. I am doing well and hope you are too. Yesterday, I worked on improving Sheri Fink which was subject to BLP violations, and Nikolaev Massacre, which was an unreferenced stub nominated for deletion. Not rock and roll by any means, but I have broad interests. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, great! Since I have this nom still open: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Are You Experienced/archive1, I have to ask a delegate for leave to nom another, so either we will wait until after the AYE FAC is closed or I'll open it after leave is granted. I'll keep you posted. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and added your name. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel like this text-string: "Mervin Wilson, the customs agent who discovered the drugs, agreed with O'Driscoll's assertion that Hendrix had drawn attention to himself at the airport by wearing what O'Driscoll described as "obviously mod clothing", needs "which was uncharacteristic of someone who was smuggling drugs", or similar added to the end. Where is this notion detailed? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that is what the Toronto newspapers implied as did The Torontoist as well, but didn't state explicitly. If we could get a copy of the defense closing argument, my guess is it would be spelled out. I think very limited use of a sentence or two from a primary source like that would be acceptable. What do you think, GabeMc? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
We need to find this point explicated by reliable secondary sources, as any interpretation of the court transcripts would be WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. I'll double check the sources, because I thought that one of them might have asserted this as part of the defense strategy. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not propose interpretation of the transcript but rather a brief, direct quotation without interpretation if we are able to access the defense closing argument. Our policy WP:OR states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Such a quote would fall within that policy language, in my view, GabeMc. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess you're right; we should be able to do that. Are you willing to make an attempt at obtaining the transcript? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Chuck Philips article

Hi there, Cullen323, Thanks for offering to discuss Chuck Philips. I'd like to invite you discuss it on his talk page. Thanks so much for the interest. Best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

unexpectedly deleted article

Hello,

I wrote the article for Anne Ewing a month or so ago. A couple of hours ago I wrote a related article about feminists in the 70s and called it Removing Sexist and Racist Language in Primary School Readers in the United States. It was quickly deleted for lack of context. Okay. Now how can I access what I've already written and edit/add the requested context? I am just not sure how to do it. Thank you for your help. SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, SDFeminist2.0. I would like to help you, but I see no such edits in your contribution history, your talk page or in a search of the phrase you wrote above. Is it possible that you left the Wikipedia edit screen without clicking "save"? If so, the material was never saved on Wikipedia's servers. Or were you possibly editing under a different user name? Did you receive a message from an administrator who deleted the content? If so, that person may be willing to userfy the deleted content for you. I truly wish that I could help, but I have no clues, as I am not an administrator, and have no access to deleted content. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. The person who deleted my article is Cinamuse. Again, I am really new to this and I can't figure out how to contact that person. How do I do that? Many thanks! SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait! My mistake, the user name is Cindamuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDFeminist2.0 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You must be talking about Cindamuse, a female administrator I know. Click that link to learn more about her, and click her talk page link to discuss the matter with her. She is a reasonable person. Please be aware that I am willing to help you create a new article about any notable topic. Feel free to ask questions at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. SDFeminist2.0 (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that Cindamuse userfied the content for you, SDFeminist2.0. I told you she was reasonable! Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex

Hi Jim The page A Woman’s Deeper Journey Into Sex was taken down as the film was yet to be released. The film will premiere at the Byron Bay International Film Festival(see link). Then screen at the WOW Film Festival in Sydney. As the film now has several external links (included) is it possible to put the page up again, as discussed when it was taken down? http://www.bbff.com.au/official-selection/bbff-2014-official-selection-a-womans-deeper-journey-into-sex/ http://www.echo.net.au/2014/02/women-able-buy-sex/ http://www.wift.org/wow/ (Chaucer 06:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC))

Hello Coalfacesally. I remember the deletion discussion. Please review WP:MOVIE, our notability guideline for films. The three links you provided are not adequate to establish notability. The first and third are upcoming film listings for minor film festivals. These are not independent sources, since the film festivals have an interest in promoting the films they feature, and the copy seems likely to have been substantially written by the filmmakers. The second link is an article in a local publication where one of the festivals will be held that consists mostly of an interview with the filmmaker. In my opinion, these sources are insufficient to support a Wikipedia article. Perhaps once the film has been played at these festivals, some truly independent coverage in reliable sources will emerge. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cullen
From within Wiki, I'm sure the html talk, the places to look for discussion and all the challenges that communicating and contributing to wiki include - must be clearly apparent. From outside, there is a plethora of difficulties. Apart from that, I see a somewhat seemingly arbitrary nature of deleting articles and some editors swift to delete seemingly to exert their power (not including yourself). I have determined that the deletion process is hardest on independents. The studio films of course have a plethora at seemingly 'arms-length' assistants to post on their behalf. I shall take your advice and await reviews. In the meantime, can you spare a moment to communicate where and how we work on the page in preparation for it being published - this includes uploading the poster, which has been accepted by wiki under common licences. Thanks (Chaucer 22:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coalfacesally (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your questions, Coalfacesally. I am the leading contributor (162 edits) to the article on Steven Spielberg's Lincoln (2012 film) and watched that article very closely for a very long time. I feel completely confident in saying that not a single substantive edit to that article was made by any "seemingly 'arms-length' assistants". The article was created and improved by committed and experienced volunteer editors with no paid connection to the film makers. Good Wikipedia articles are written by independent editors.
I have participated in 1859 debates about deleting articles. The process is by no means arbitrary. It is based on well-established policies and notability guidelines. Yes, there are some borderline cases, but the vast majority of deletion debates are resolved in a very consistent, fair and predictable way.
I simply don't understand why you would release rights to your film poster under a free Creative Commons license on Wikimedia Commons, when you could instead protect your copyright far better by using it only in an article about your film here on Wikipedia under our non-free content policy. Why are you essentially giving your hard earned copyright away for free?
You can work on a draft of your article in your sandbox. No one will interfere with it as long as your writing is encyclopedic not promotional. I will be happy to review it for you once you have some independent reviews. I wish you well, and would like to see your film. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Let's discuss it. I will follow your advice and thank you for the offer of review the draft when ready. In terms of the poster, it is really only of value in relation to the film. However, I may have misunderstood the requests asked by Wiki when the poster was uploaded. I appreciate your feedback in terms of the Wiki process (Chaucer 11:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coalfacesally (talk • contribs)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I, wikiLeon, present you this The Tireless Contributor Barnstar for the reasons stated on this article, from the Napa Valley Register. wL<speak·check> 07:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I just read that article in response to a google alert for "Wikimedia" and I remembered you for rescuing the Joseph Mulder article from the AfD queue. What a nice article! Keep up the good work and I hope to see lots more contributions about the history and highlights of the "Canyon"!!!! Jane (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jane. You have a good memory. I still can't quite wrap my head around the Mulder babysitting story, but times have changed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The Press Barnstar
Congratulations on achieving significant coverage from a reliable source. One more such and you could be notable! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you see the (anonymous) comment to your article? Looks like you may have recruited a second WP editor from Napa County. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aristides de Sousa Mendes page

Dear Cullen328,

A user in Portugal has been systematically vandalizing the above-mentioned page to turn it into an unreadable, unwieldy, defamatory mess. That same reader asked you to evaluate the page, and you provided some astute and helpful comments and suggestions. Since the time of your comments, this man's actions have only gotten worse, and he managed to bloat the article to something like 50 pages, loaded with tangential and/or defamatory material. Is there a way to stop his shenanigans? Thank you for your help!

Beebop211 (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Beebop211. This is a content dispute not vandalism. Vandalism is a conscious attempt to damage the encyclopedia. You should be using edit summaries explaining your edits. You should be discussing these issues on the article's talk page which has been quiet since I posted there two months ago. Please assume good faith of JPratas and discuss your views of the strengths and weaknesses of the article. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Cullen328. I would be happy to go through my past edits and explain each one--is that possible? Also, it would be a good idea if you could keep a watchful eye on this page. I and others would appreciate it. Thank you for all your help! Beebop211 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to explain each edit individually Beebop211, but I suggest a talk page post explaining your goals and reasons for the changes. Be diplomatic. And use edit summaries going forward, please. They can facilitate debate and reduce disputes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your helpful advice! Beebop211 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello Cullen238, thanks for your heads up on the need to use the article’s talk page. Although I was the last editor to use it I do recognize I can and should use it more.
I saw a massive deletion from user “Beebop211”, performed without using the talk page and I’ve noticed that the account was new (Created on the same day) and it seemed it had been created with the sole purpose of perform a mass deletion. This was not the first time that something like this happened. It happened last month and another editor reverted it. Nevertheless if Beebop211 is willing to contribute to improve the article then I am glad to welcome him. The more people contributing and scrutinizing it the better. That is one of the strengths of wikipedia. I don’t own the article.
I would like to clarify the following:
  1. Until today, apart from minor obvious undisputable mistakes, I have not made any deletions.
  2. I have made an honest attempt to review my editing in light of your last recommendations and I am willing to keep on doing it.
  3. Most of my editing’s have 4 main sources: The two major Sousa Mendes’ biographies (one by Jose Alain Fralon and other by Rui Afonso, both this books are endorsed by the Sousa Mendes Foundation). And the works from two Scholars: Yad Vashem Historian Avraham Milgram and Historian Douglas Wheeler. I have also sometimes quoted some primary sources that are available online, as it is the case of the Virtual Museum Aristides Sousa Mendes http://mvasm.sa/
I understand that some of the facts that were deleted might seem like an attempt to denigrate Sousa Mendes and some other facts might also seem as an attempt to denigrate other peopled ( Secretary General Teixeira de Sampaio, Ambassador Teotonio Pereira, etc.). But the facts are what they are and should not be deleted. They allow us to understand Sousa Mendes in all his psychological complexity.Looking forward to have news from you and from Beebop211 JPratas (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, JPratas, many of your edits are clearly intended to denigrate Sousa Mendes and to bury his story in tangential verbiage. What is your motivation? There is no reason for the article to be as long as you made it, and I am trying hard to keep it within reasonable limits. I am assuming good faith, as Cullen wisely suggested. Please demonstrate that this assumption is well-founded. Beebop211 (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Apology

Jim "Cullen328" Heaphy wrote on user Gregg DesElms's "Talk" page: Hello Gregg, I saw your comment on the Napa Valley Register website and want to apologize. The reporter talked with me twice. The first time, she asked if I knew of other editors in Napa County. I told her that I would look around. In our second conversation, she interviewed me for an hour and ten minutes. I told her I did find a few accounts that had made a few edits but were no longer active, and also that I knew of an active editor who grew up in Napa but now lives in Southern California. I am sorry that I did not find your account. I told her that I was the only highly active editor living in the Napa Valley that I was aware of. I mentioned that there might be others I was unaware of. She simplified my response, and so I regret that you were offended. I think in general she did a good job, but not every single detail was right. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's Response

Hi, Jim. I was just thinking that I should probably reach-out to you, here, but you've beaten me to it. That's because, I think, I got distracted by commenter-beneath-the-story Michael Haley's remarks about his problems with the Napa Wikipedia article. As I got the little notice of your message at the top of my screen, I had both the Napa city and county articles open in separate tabs in my browser, trying to figure what he was talking about. He needs to put his concerns and/or complaints into the "Talk" page of whatever article to which he's referring so that folks like you and me can address them. But now I digress; sorry.
Anyway, no apology necessary; though it's a mark of an educated, sophsticated and sensitive person that s/he would both think one appropriate under such circumstances, and then would reach-out to do it; so please don't think it's not appreciated. I was of a sort of kneejerk mindset when I first read the piece and commented, and quite another after having fired-off the comment which, once done, I sorta' wish I hadn't. I might, now, post a link to our chat, here, so people reading the article can see how it's done at Wikipedia! [grin]
Actually, I think the article's very cool; and I agree that the reporter did a generally good job. I'm also, don't get me wrong, very impressed by your both work and rank around here. I'd love to be able to contribute as you have. My hat's off to ya', and I mean that.
I'm a fairly rabid anti-degree/diploma-mill activist (have actually helped put some millists in jail and everything; hence the mounted-on-a-server-in-Malaysia-so-it's-beyond-the-reach-of-my-lawyer website, out there, where I and my colleagues are called everything but pedophiles by said millists -- er... wait... I think they've now finally done that, too -- and their curiously-loyal fake "degree" holders); and among my consulting firm's areas of expertise is educational accreditation and, most specifically in that world, the application of technology to the educational -- particularly the distance educational -- function. Needless to say, then, I've got more than a few friends and colleagues in academia...
...and to nearly the last of them, they're anti-Wikipedia. Many won't even accept citations from it in undergrad papers and, especially, in masters' thesis and doctoral dissertations. You and I both understand why, of course: a single idiot can make any Wikipedia article wrong for however many hours or even days it takes for someone like you or me (or, preferably, those who "watch" the vandalized page) to discover and correct it; and apparently that's enough for them to just dismiss Wikipedia, out of hand. But the triple-net bottom line on Wikipedia is that despite such anomaly, it's about as generally accurate as the Encyclopædia Britannica (which I used to sell, by the way, some 40 or so years ago; bought a brand new metallic blue two-door 1976 Ford Gran Torino, for cash, right off the showroom floor; and also helped pay for college from its proceeds, so I was kinda' almost good at it)... or so said Nature in its 2005 study. See also this CNN story about it. Part of the reason for that accuracy is, from what I can see, your (and I hope my, as well) painstaking work to get things provably right, with proper citation, around here.
I worked for a newspaper, myself, eons ago -- was even an editor for a while; strung for the Associated Press for even less time after that -- and though my degree is in business, I took several journalism courses, and read tons of books, and have owned a current AP Stylebook every year for pushing 40 years; and so I feel at least a tiny bit qualified to critique the Napa Valley Register reporter's otherwise good work in the following way: When you suggested that you were alone in the county as an editor, she should not have gone to press without having researched how to verify (or not) that suggestion; and then to either report what she found, or why she couldn't verify it. It turns-out, as you know, to be difficult (see this). There are sections, here, which list editors by state, and even city or county; but said editors need to have placed a certain kind of tag onto their user pages which identify them as living in said states, counties or cities; and most of us haven't done that (though I may, now that all this has happened). She could also have gotten a quote about it from someone at the Wikimedia Foundation.
My overarching point is that she shouldn't have just run with it, as you presented it, without maybe an either qualifying or countering quote; or perhaps a verification or an explanation about whether it's accurate, and/or why it can or can't be verified. It wouldn't have added that much to the length of her piece; and, of course, that's the problem: every piece has to fit into what's called a "news hole," determined each day by the editors in what's called a "budget" meeting where they figure out how many column inches to give each story, based on the overall amount of space available in the paper for news (aka, the "news hole"), which is determined by how much advertising the "business side" of the paper has told them (the "editorial side") it has sold. Each column inch has a cost, and must be paid for by advertising. Whenever a newspaper is small in any given day, it's not because there wasn't enough news; rather, it was because the business side of the paper didn't sell enough advertising to support all that the editorial side wished it could have printed; and so that day's paper had a small news hole.
One upside (and there darned few, in my opinion, by the way) of the printed newspaper going the way of the Dodo Bird is that the web-based alternative allows articles of virtually any length without incurring the traditional and article-length-limiting, per-column-inch costs of newsprint, ink, press time, etc. That said, I am already regretting my late '80s and early '90s very small (mostly just as a browser beta tester; though I'm also proud to have heavily influenced some UseNet discussions about a few elements of the then-still-fledgling HTML standard which later came to be per my way of thinking; and then, starting with its release in '94, I was quite an evangelist for it in my writings) contribution to the very development of the Worldwide Web (WWW) part of the Internet, and what it's now doing to ink-on-paper newspapers, magazines and books. I will never stop loving the feel (and even smell) of a real ink-on-paper publication in my hand; and I'm sorry, but I'm actually glad I won't live long enough (at least I don't think I will) to see the day when they're all finally gone and every last thing we read will be on a tablet (or, as in my case, a phablet) or Kindle-type device (which kinds of devices I own -- along with my desktop replacement notebook -- by the way, 'cause ya' sorta' kinda' gotta', these days; but it doesn't mean I have to actually like it!).
I also lament what it's doing to our young people. Multi-tasking is a myth: all it breeds is attention-deficit-diordered youth who are all about breadth and no depth; who think the world can be covered in 140 characters or less and who, therefore, eschew anything longer with a dismissive "TLDR" (Internet slang for "too long, didn't read); who want everything in as-brief-as-possible sound bites; who think the unnecessarily-brief, really-just-television-on-newsprint USA Today is actually a newspaper, or that The Daily Show is actually news; and so, then, who would just about be killed by having to read a New Yorker magazine or Chicago Reader length feature article. Such youth, they keep telling us, are our tomorrow's leaders; I'm glad I won't be around to see much of that, either.
I lament, most of all, though, what the WWW is doing to the way we, as humans, now interact. I cite, for explanation of that, the excellent work of psychologist Sherry Turkle, who was also a WWW evangelist in the mid-90s. Her magnificent, must-see 2012 TED TALK video explains it best; and I could not more strongly recommend her book about the subject (which, of course, I have on Kindle, 'cause it's cheaper; can't win for losin', eh?). I often joke that if it weren't for the WWW, the world wouldn't need a "National Night Out" just so we can all meet our brick-and-mortar world neighbors; and, instead, we'd be meeting them across the back fence, like both we, once upon a time, and our parents and grandparents did; and we'd be arguing with them about where, precisely, is the property line in that little strip of grass between our driveways so we'd both know where to stop mowing.
I mean, just look at us, here: meeting on Wikipedia instead of having coffee together, in person, somewhere. As I type this, I am only, according to Google Maps, precisely 4.12112 miles (as the crow files; only 5.6 miles by surface streets) from where you are sitting in the photo that's accompanying the Napa Valley Register article. Heaven forbid we should sit down over a cup, in person. I'll buy, if you like... it's the least I can do for having kneejerked an irritated comment beneath your otherwise wonderful article. Didn't mean to rain on your parade.
So, then, apology right back atcha', there, Jim. I should have thought twice before writing once. Then again, the reporter should have better handled it, too (despite that, yes, she did, indeed, do an otherwise good job on the story). I just wanna' know who I need to have sex with to get a story like that written about me! (just kidding... er... you know... sorta') [grin]
Keep-up the good work!
Peace.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328's response

Thank you, Gregg. In the reporter's defense, I speak rapidly and she mentioned a couple of times that she was having trouble keeping up with me. I probably should have emphasized the point more, but I had lots of things on my mind during the interview. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DesElms's response

I understand what you're saying, but I fear you're being too charitable. Actually, my use of the phrase "I fear," there, was too charitable. And you're also taking too much responsibility for it all on yourself.
When she quoted your assertion, she knew (or at least should have known), from her training, what to do. She didn't need you to either soften what you said, or, by so softening, to suggest her follow-up. Her training (assuming she went to a real journalism school) should have imposed upon her the journalistic duty of attempting to verify your assertion; and then to either not go to press with it if she couldn't, or to explain why it's not possible. In this case, because leaving-out your assertion would weaken the story; and also because why should couldn't verify could be explained, the latter would be better.
I determined both the difficulty, and reasons for it, of determining Wikipedia editors by location in only about eight minutes in my very first Google search, on the phrase "wikipedia editors by location"; and by then reading the first best-and-most-logical article among the search results that weren't on the Wikipedia website, itself, and that to which it linked: in other words, the Quora article that I linked-to in my earlier-herein response. If she knew how to use Google as well as I apparently do (and in her line of work, she had certainly better), then she could have determined the same thing in the same amount of time... double it, at the outside. Even someone on deadline can manage that.
And so, then, after your assertion in her article, she should have written that precisely determining Wikipedia editors by location is difficult because those who don't include a location tag on their Wikipedia user pages cannot be parsed into the Wikipedia editor location database (except, of course, she'd have to reword it so the 8th grade-level, non-technical reader could grasp it).
Had I been her desk editor, I would have told her to either do that, or remove your quoted assertion. And, again, because removing your assertion would have weakened the article; and explaining why it could not be verified was fairly easy, I would have insisted that she include the assertion, followed by said brief explanation. At that point the reader would have appropriate reason (actually "due cause," is what I really mean) to call your assertion into question in his/her mind, which would be exactly the right journalistic thing to do, under the circumstances.
That's why I wrote that the newspaper should not have run your assertion; though you, obviously, were perfectly okay to make it. And that's why I earlier herein wrote "apology back atcha'," because the problem, here, really, is not with you. She was just quoting you; and it wasn't your responsibility to be an expert on whether or not there were other Wikipedia editors in Napa county. The problem is that the writer of the story didn't properly follow-up on that assertion. She's writing the story, not you. None of that means, though, that she didn't do a good job with the rest of the story. She did, indeed, as I earlier wrote.
The bottom line is that if I had been her editor, there would have been no way that your assertion -- with or without your having either softened it with mention of that there were probably others, or your having so done effectively reminding her of her duty -- would have gone to press without her either verifying it or explaining it; and I've just written that I would insist it be the latter, and why.
As a former both experienced writer and editor, I know that there's a well-determined procedure for this sort of thing that's taught by every journalism school in the country, and she didn't follow it. Her editor's job was to ensure that she did. That neither of them did is, in part, why they're working for a small-town newspaper, and not a big-city one. Sadly, Napa's readers of its local paper are the worse for it.
Furthermore, the fact that she needed you to slow down as you spoke to her, instead of her having her own form of notehand that can keep-up, no matter what (mine certainly still works; and I had it both fully developed and well-practiced by only my second month as a reporter), augmented by a tape recorder (which, under law, she must notify s/he whom she's interviewing that she's using), speaks volumes about what I can only surmise is her lack of experience. I'm not trying to be hard on her, but there's a certain skill set which all professional (and that's the operative word: she works for a real newspaper, not a student or mere "Penny Saver" type one, and so she's at least supposed to be a professional) journalists must have; and it sounds like she's not quite yet developed her skill set.
It's all really as simple as that. Don't allow that you like her, and that she wrote a good story about you, either cause you to relieve her of her professional responsibilities; or, especially, cause you to try to convince me to do the same. The newspaper business is a tough one. She either toughens-up and does her job like a pro, or she'll always work for small-town papers, and will never really be that pro. While it's up to her which she chooses, it's sad that if she chooses the latter, readers of her work won't be getting her best.
Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
After studying the matter further, I believe that I described myself to the reporter as a "highly active editor", and the word "highly" somehow got omitted.. That is, I suppose, a subjective term. My wife has 556 edits, you have 812, and I have 26,720. I'm not bragging, and maybe it is an addiction as much as a virtue. I also explained to her that it is often not possible to know where an editor lives. But the point I was trying to make to her is that I am the only one I know of who lives in Napa County and who is involved with things like internal policy discussions, the Teahouse and deletion debates on a daily basis. But she didn't state it as fact. The sentence reads "Heaphy said he believes he’s the only active Wikipedia editor living in Napa County." If the word "highly" was added there before "active", I think that sentence would most likely be considered accurate. But the article also mentioned my wife, who edits occasionally too, making it clear that at least one other Napa County resident edits occasionally. So criticize the reporter or criticize me or move on. So it goes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting thread. I think you should take Gregg up on that offer of a cup of coffee! Heck, I'll take you for coffee, and I live in New York! :) Beebop211 (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_12&oldid=1142947730"