User talk:Cullen328/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

GamerGate Discretionary sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 05:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dreadstar. I have read it previously. If anything I say or do on any of those pages gives you cause for any concern, please bring those concerns to my attention. I will consider that carefully. I got a bit involved in those articles because ArbCom asked uninvolved editors to do so. My goal is to build this encyclopedia, and I will always try hard to not be disruptive in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The notice is informational and does not imply any wrongdoing on your part; virtually all editors who edit GamerGate related articles are given this notice. I haven't seen any wrongdoing on your part, so no worries. Dreadstar ☥ 05:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you have said 100%, Dreadstar and probably should have received this notice previously. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

SF edit-a-thons on March 7 and 8

Hi, I'm unsure why this template didn't get delivered to your talkpage through the MediaWiki message delivery, but as you've attended some SF Bay area events in the past, I'll just add it manually.

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Wikipedia community has two events in early March -- please consider attending! First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Wikipedia's coverage of women artists and their works! Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course! I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Yes, Rosiestep, I know about those events and it is likely that ChesPal and I will attend. Hope to see you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

COI

Do you know of anyone else whose work you would also similarly praise? I am trying to find someone I can trust to refer a company to that I cannot accept myself, having already edited their article as a volunteer. CorporateM (Talk) 05:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of anyone else praiseworthy in the category of "paid editors" at this moment, CorporateM, but my mind is moving slowly right now. I will not accept any payments, but might be willing to do some work on a volunteer basis. However, I am old, work slowly, and tend to get cranky if I think people are pressuring me. Feel free to ask, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op: Mentor profiles and final pilot prep

Hey mentors, two announcements:

1. You can now make your profile at The Co-op! Please set up your mentor profile here as soon as you are able, as the pilot begins on March 4th. It isn't very involved and should only take a minute. If you need more info about what the different skills mean (e.g. writing, communication), please refer to these descriptions.
2. Profile creation, invitations, and automated matching of editors, profile creation, that will be coordinated through HostBot and a few gadgets may not be ready for our pilot, and will have to be done manually until they are ready. In preparation for the pilot, please read over these instructions on how we will be manually performing these tasks until the automated components are ready. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Estonia-

On the page of Estonia (nation), an irrelavant section "Holidays" exists which tells about a few holidays like Independence day. This is not a significant topic (While asking to include bout India's cuisine and tourism , I was told that tourism is not significant for the page "India" -EVEN THOUGH INDIA IS ONE OF THE TOP DESTINATION IN ASIA!) Since the list of holidays is not relevant to anyone outside of Estonia (the page is not protected), a user is re-adding that content over and over again. I used the talk page but there has been no reply so far. I found you through tea house. Help me out :) Mousanonyy (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mousanonyy. In my opinion, a well-referenced section about national holidays is entirely appropriate in such an article. The information is relevant to anyone seriously interested in Estonia, namely the readers of that article. Separate articles about tourism in India and Indian cuisine are also appropriate, since these are such large and clearly independently notable topics. Trying to compare Estonia and India is not a useful exercise, when it comes to building an encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Dear Cullen. Just like someone who is really interested in Estonia would want to read about its holidays, someone who is interested about India would be interested in Bollywood, India's tourism, cuisine, culture , languages (more than 600!), clothings etc. Could you help me on India's talk page to include sections on India's cuisine, tourism and two Official (not national) languages on India's page? Thanks and anticipating help since my request has been simply rejected previously. Mousanonyy (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen, I think you missed my message! :) Mousanonyy (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mousanonyy. We have articles such as Tourism in India, Indian cuisine, Bollywood and countless sub-articles that discuss these topics in detail. The official language issue has been discussed extensively. It is up to you to make the case on.the article's talk page that these matters deserve mention in the main article India. I see no recent discussion of these matters there. You have to build consensus among the regular editors who contribute to that article, since they are familiar with the development and structure of that article. I am not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, :) I want the cuisine, languages and tourism to be mentioned on the article India. I had started the topic on talk page but it was turned down saying "not significant part of Indian revenue is through tourism" etc. I will start a new request and invite your opinion. Thanks a lot. :) Mousanonyy (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cullen, please re-produce your thoughts here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India#Tourism. Thank you so much! Mousanonyy (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Acharya S

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Acharya S. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Social Justice Page

Thanks for the kind words on the Social Justice talk page, Jim. Here's the deal:

I have a background in editing and ghost writing educational materials. When I see a rough draft that needs more than a 20% revision to bring it up-to-date; I assume that we need to rewrite the entire draft because it would take less time to rewrite it than it will take to patch it up. More carefully organized and strongly structured manuscripts can stand more patch updates.

I think the Social Justice (SJ) page needs more than a 20% revision, is not carefully organized, and therefore needs to be completely rewritten.

For starters, here is a more useful brief definition of 'Social Justice,' taken from https://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/issue/peace.asp . " ... Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities."

This definition is too brief, but I think it is still a better definition than you currently post ... but is it from a sufficiently authoritative source? I don't know. I am sure you can find other definitions on the internet that are just as useful.

I think you need to add an overview section immediately after a strong definition. A good overview should orient the reader to the discussion that follows. It should clearly define the social problem or issue that SJ addresses; identify real-world (not philosophical) causes of those problems, and note that SJ is a complex topic that has attracted attention from politicians, activists, theologians, historians, social scientists and other professionals, each of whom has made notable contributions to the topic. Briefly describe the state of SJ today, and briefly note what this page will deal with.

Social Justice is a practical social issue. Why are all the academic philosophers and theologians discussed here? Few people coming to this page will have heard of (for example) John Rawles or Luigi Taparelli -- or care, and the current discussion just doesn't make them relevant to anything. If 'd I started a Wikipedia page on political activism and started out by discussing Plato and didn't discuss Lenin, Mussolini or even Saul Alinsky; I'd expect people to object. I'm objecting for the same reason to the heavy stress on academic philosophers here, and for the same reason.

But maybe the problem is mine. Should this page be retitled "History of Social Justice Philosophy?" That would at least save some of the current copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biff alcatraz (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Biff alcatraz. You seem to have strong feelings about the weaknesses of the article, and I again encourage you to improve it. I visited the talk page because I am interested in ensuring that the "social justice warrior" pejorative term does not dominate the article. I have no interest myself in overhauling that particular article.

When you write "I think you need to add an overview section . . ." I wonder why you use the word "you"? I did not write the article or make any significant contributions to it, so I am not sure if by "you", you mean me, or mean Wikipedia editors collectively? Perhaps, instead, you should use the word "we" since you are a Wikipedia editor as well. So go ahead. Make the article better. Go right ahead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For the enduring optimist Darknipples (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

GSL

Hi Cullen, there may have been some "technical" issues with your most recent diff [1]. I'll wait until it's sorted before I give my response. Darknipples (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) (I just noticed the issues are not highlighted - please see where your signature etc... was somehow entered into my most recent text? Darknipples (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know how an extra copy of my signature creeped into the thread, but I think I have removed it, Darknipples. I believe I have properly corrected the error, but if not, please feel free to edit as you see fit. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries. ;-) Darknipples (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

POV pushing

Hi Cullen, could you please clarify what you meant by this [2]? The reason I ask is because it does not appear to be in the spirit of WP:AGF. Forgive me if I misinterpreted this as an accusation. Darknipples (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean injecting an unrelated matter, like interstate handgun sales by licensed dealers, into the GSL article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, that particular TP section refers to a question and a request for discussion and cites on the topic by other editors, with regard to the SCOPE of GSL. So far there have been no citations that I have found, or that have been brought to the attention of the GSL project that dispute this topic, although, there has been a lot of cite-less OPINION. If you feel I am POV pushing, why not bring it up on my TP as opposed to putting it on the articles TP, for everyone to see? Do you intend to take this to ANI? Darknipples (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I struck [3] the cites that reference FFL interstate transfers. Those may involve background checks, but I'm still looking for cites that explicitly state that. It was an honest mistake to cite those, though. I believed they were referencing interstate sales/transfers in general. My other point is mainly that GSL and trafficking are not mutually exclusive, hence the intrastate/interstate SCOPE issue. Just wanted to clarify so we can avoid any possible misunderstanding moving forward. Darknipples (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of taking this to ANI, as I see it this a routine content dispute that requires no administrative attention. When I refer to "uninvolved", I mean an editor who has had nothing previous to do with the GSL article. Whether it's POV, original research or synthesis, we should hash it out on the article's talk page. That's all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of POVPUSHING, I simply asked for some RS citations that prove FFLs conduct BGC's for interstate transfers. I feel it is a DUE question considering trafficking by licensed sellers in collusion with unlicensed sellers is mentioned among the cites already used in the article [4]. Furthermore, I am only discussing and addressing the lack of citations in regard to GSL's SCOPE on INTRASTATE VS. INTERSTATE. I welcome opinions, but how is it POVPUSHING to challenge these opinions that do not seem to cite sources, or use SYNTH and OR to come to their conclusions?....I would also like to point out that, to me, this seems like a rather serious accusation. I don't know if it is meant as such, but I'd like to assume you are only acting in good faith. None the less I will refer to this portion of WP:POVPUSHING

• "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil and pejorative, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done cautiously. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them."

Lightbreather can speak to the fact that I have been been a champion for maintaining BALANCE for both sides of the issue on the GSL article. Your accusation seemingly tarnishes my reputation in this regard, and for everyone to see. Forgive me if I seem overly sensitive, but this is not the first time I have I have been called out, publicly, on this article's TP [5]. My point is, your accusation just does not appear to be WP:AGF. If you continue to do this, it could seemingly be a problem for both of us. Respectfully -- Darknipples (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not call you a POV pusher, Darknipples, and keep in mind that there are several editors active on the Gun show loophole page who display a variety of POVs. I admit that I do not understand your recent edits to that talk page. It seems clear to me what the term means, but I guess it doesn't seem clear to you. To me, it has to do with gun sales by unlicensed private sellers, and all the sources that address the issue say that those sales are only legal if both parties live in the same state. But you keep bringing in questions and material for discussion about issues relating to sales by licensed dealers, and interstate sales, and a recent court decision allowing licensed dealers to sell hand guns across state lines. All that is interesting, I guess, but in my judgment, has nothing to do with the gun show loophole. I know what "loophole" means. Clearly you disagree, although I am unable to understand why, despite my repeated efforts to fathom your point.

I have previously said that I dislike the intense partisanship on gun politics displayed by editors on both sides of the issue. I dipped my toes into the topic as a result of a Teahouse inquiry about an image, and optimistically thought that I might make a positive contribution. It seems to me now that I was wrong. If anything, the recent discussions about the matter have convinced me even more that nothing I have to say about the topic is likely to have any effect on the partisans.

So, I will retreat to the sidelines for a while, observing and remembering, but saying little or nothing about gun politics topics here on Wikipedia, at least for now. I hope that all the involved editors conduct themselves properly in the weeks and months to come. I am the eternal optimist, I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right, you did not explicitly call me a POV pusher, but I still believe you implied my edits were indicative of WP:POVPUSHING, either intentionally or unintentionally. After reading your response, though, I realize that you were doing your best to just be honest with me, and I should have respected that a bit less indignantly. It's difficult for me not to be defensive when it seems like editors regularly and intentionally edit according to their POV, as opposed to just trying to improve the accuracy in the article. It's one of the hazards of editing articles like GSL. I realize that, I too, have a POV that guides me, and I can always do better to keep it in check. We all can. I won't try to expound upon my position as to why I find those particular details of the article relevant, here. But, I do hope that we will both AGF a bit more moving forward.

If I made you feel uncomfortable for trying to participate I sincerely apologize. Your perspective is certainly as valid as anyone else's, and I'm very sorry if I gave the impression that it wasn't. Therefore, I will also be adding this apology to the article's TP, as soon as I get the chance. I tend to put the importance of citations over opinions, but only because I feel this is in the spirit of WP rules and guidelines. Lastly, when it comes to referring to any of my edits as POVPUSHING, I promise you, I will be much, much, much more receptive if it is done on my personal TP, first. I will always respond better to constructive personal suggestions and questions rather than perceptibly public accusations. Especially coming from you, Cullen. You are one the first and only people that ever made me feel welcome here, and I honestly look up to you and endeavor to earn your respect, more so than most everyone else on WP, with the possible exception of Lightbreather...Have a peaceful evening, and thanks again for your insight, patience, and trust. Darknipples (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Darknipples. I very much appreciate your kind remarks. However, there a few things you should be aware of, in my opinion. I am speaking now of my perception of cultural norms among editors, as opposed to formal policies and guidelines. So, I can speak of opinions, since I have them. You can take them or leave them, for what they are worth, as you perceive things. I think that a wide range of experienced, productive editors pay much more attention to conversations on editor's talk pages than on the vast majority of individual article talk pages. Your talk page, and mine, are in no sense of the word "private", and I read probably 50 times more editor talk page discussions than I comment on. I have around 6000 pages on my watch list and many of those are editor talk pages. And I suspect that is the case with a large percentage of experienced editors. I read those conversations to keep track of who, in my mind, is level-headed, fair, neutral, thoughtful, perceptive, dedicated to the project, and worthy of trust. And those who aren't. I see far more than I speak about at any given moment. This is an enormous project and there are many things going on that I know little about. But I try to keep track of the most important stuff, at least as I see things from my own seat in the universe. And I am well aware that I have my own biases and prejudices, but I actively try to monitor them and control them. That's part of why I feel it best for me to retreat from gun politics issues for a while. It brings out my tendency to argue and chastise, which I constantly strive to reduce. There are people I love dearly on both sides of that issue, and the moderate position is very lonely. But that is where I stand in my "off-Wikipedia" life, which means that I am regularly denounced by my gun control friends and my NRA friends. That's life, I guess. At least, if one stakes out an independent position.

Women's edit-a-thons are coming up this weekend, and I will be visiting with and collaborating with some of our outstanding editors who want to improve our coverage of notable women ignored by this encyclopedia previously. My love is writing biographies of painters and potters and copper workers and basket weavers and photographers. Many are women. Many are Native American. Some are white men. Working on those biographies makes me feel good and productive and warm. Gun politics fights make me feel sad and frustrated and alienated and cold. So, simply responding to your message clarifies my mind. I have much better things to do here than argue about gun politics. I will move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

editathons this wknd

Did you see this question on the talk page? cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, phoebe. I responded there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun Politics Task Force proposal

You might be interested in this, although it appears you may have taken a break from the topic. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Faceless Enemy. I think that this is a good idea, even though I am taking a break, as you say, at this time. I may edit in that topic area again in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Jim - Long time. I've been away dealing with a number of family issues. I saw that you defended my entry once again and I wanted to thank you for it. I wish I had known that this was happening or I would have chimed in. It looked, though, like after two "keeps" it got redirected pretty quickly? Thanks again for your suppport, Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianThibodeaux (talk • contribs) 22:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello BrianThibodeaux. Maybe some of that information can be added to LGBT rights in Louisiana. Sorry things turned out that way. I appreciate your kind words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

THat's a good idea. I am going to do that. Is there a way of retrieving a record of what was on the page? I confess to doing the research but not keeping a copy. BrianThibodeaux

I suggest that you ask the administrator who closed the deletion debate to userfy the old article for you. If that doesn't work, let me know, and I will find someone else to do it for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In re: Semi-new editor working on research about Wikipedia

Thank you very much for your willingness to answer some questions! I made a Google doc survey/interview form if you would prefer to answer that way. If you would prefer to answer here, then my questions are as follows.

1. Why did you start contributing to/editing Wikipedia?
2. Why do you continue to do so?
3. How do you normally contribute to Wikipedia?
4. Do you also use Wikipedia for research? If so, how do you use it (gain broad idea of subject, relevant links/sources, etc)?
5. If applicable, what type of research do you do (personal, academic, etc)?
6. What subject(s) do you normally edit/contribute to?
7. What subjects do you normally research?
8. Are you a member of any WikiProjects? If so, which and why those?
9. Is there anything else that you'd like to add?

Thanks again for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casswenze (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Casswenze. In the spirit of transparency which I believe appropriate for 99% of communication about Wikipedia, I will answer right here:

1. I found Wikipedia increasingly useful and intriguing probably around 2006 to 2007. I thought about editing, but was extremely busy with my business (I am self-employed) and with personal, political and family involvements in those years (I climbed a tough route on Mount Shasta in 2007 at age 55, and was highly active in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, working to help elect the current president. I also have a disabled son who requires lots of attention). I started to read and study "behind the scenes" instructions for new editors at that time, but was just too busy to begin editing, which seemed like a very big step to take. In 2009, the Great Recession hit my business hard and that presidential campaign was over. I had spare time on my hands, though I was preparing for a climb of Mount Whitney, by an easier route but still a challenge for a 57 year old. So, I had been reading about and studying Wikipedia editing for a couple of years. Two specific topics motivated me to start editing. The Wikipedia article about Norman Clyde, a major figure in the history of California mountaineering, was in very poor condition. Also, we had no article about pre-eminent California coppersmith Dirk van Erp. I realized that I knew enough about these two topics to improve the encyclopedia, so in July, 2009, I started editing. The response to my early work was very favorable, which motivated me to keep writing and editing.
2. I continue to edit because I enjoy it, because I seem to have the somewhat rare personality type that thrives as an encyclopedia editor, because I believe that I am accomplishing something of worth, because I truly believe in this project, and because I want my writing to be read and remembered for the ages, as opposed to being forgotten and discarded.
3. When I have time to spare, whether a few minutes during my work day, or an hour or two in the evening or possibly quite a few hours on a lazy weekend day, I just look around and see where I might be of use to the encyclopedia. I might answer a question at the Teahouse, vote for (or against) a candidate for administrator, make what I hope will be a helpful comment to resolve a dispute, expand or reference an article that catches my eye, express my opinion in an Articles for Deletion debate, or see what kind of fighting is going on at the various administrative noticeboards. Occasionally, when highly motivated, I write a new article. I think I average about one new article a month. I wish I had time to write more.
4. I do not use Wikipedia for "research" in the formal sense, as I am neither a student nor an academic. However, I am highly curious and "look stuff up" on Wikipedia very often. As an experienced editor, I take the text of an article as an overview, and frequently read the references and external links as well.
5. Anything I do that can be called "research" is personal in nature. It may be for the purpose of improving Wikipedia itself in some way.
6. After my first article, I set out to write and expand a series of biographies of California mountaineers and Sierra Club leaders. Gradually, I branched out and became what I call a generalist editor. I retain an interest in biographies, and in addition to climbers and environmentalists, I have written a number of biographies of artists and photographers, including several of Native American background. But I will happily write or expand an article on any topic that catches my fancy, even if I know almost nothing about the topic when beginning the project. I enjoy the process of learning and piecing together an overview by reading as many sources as I can find about a topic.
7. Anything under the sun, and beyond.

Thank you so much for taking the time to help me out! With your enthusiasm you have inspired me to continue learning about how I can further contribute to Wikipedia. So far I have only helped clean up a few articles, but I hope to be able to contribute in other ways eventually. Thanks again! Casswenze (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing:

8. I have joined several Wikiprojects, but have to say that a very small percentage of my editing is connected with these projects. In theory, it is a great concept, and I am sure that some projects are active. When I sign up for a project, it is because I have an ongoing interest in that broad topic area, and would welcome an inquiry at any time from any editor who shares those interests. To give an example, I have a userbox that says I am part of Wikiproject Wine. I am not a wine expert. But I have lived in the Napa Valley for over 22 years, a premier wine growing area, know many people who work in the industry, and enjoy visiting wineries. I've written one article about a winery, expanded another, commented on wine-related article deletion debates, and so on. I love wine. But I am not a "wine editor". The vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with wine, and know that many other editors know more about wine than I do. But I would be happy to help any other editor interested in wine, to the best of my abilities.

9. First, I want to say that I will expand and elaborate on any of my answers if you want any additional information. Secondly, I want to mention that I believe that I have done some very good work helping new editors at the Teahouse, which is a place on Wikipedia for people to ask questions about the process of editing. Experienced editors, committed to interacting with newbies in a friendly, welcoming way, provide personalised responses to those questions. I recommend the Teahouse to every editor interested in advancing civil collaboration for the benefit of building this free encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again! I have definitely found the Teahouse to be very helpful. Even if I just want to browse through the questions that others have asked, I end up learning more about Wikipedia that I ever imagined.

I was wondering if you'd be willing to answer a few more questions. These questions are as follows.

1. Do you use libraries? If not (or in addition to), what other information sources do you use?
2. You mentioned before that one of your favorite parts of editing is the opportunity to learn and gather sources. How do you conduct research on a new topic and with what sources?
3. What reference sources do you consider to be the most reliable and/or comprehensive?
4. What reference sources do you consider the easiest to find or use?

Again, thank you so much! Casswenze (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Casswenze.

1. I rarely use libraries these days. I mostly use books that I own, or online sources that I track down.

2. I have edited extensively about California mountaineering and about artists and photographers, mostly from California. I have been collecting books about mountaineering for nearly 40 years. My wife and I visit the major art museums of Northern California with great regularity and often buy books about artists that interest us. So, I often start by finding a few physical books, then start Google searches for high-quality online sources. This often involves disregarding a large number of brief mentions or unreliable sources in favor of a smaller number of higher quality sources. I find new or used books in bookstores and occasionally order books online.

3. The reliability of a source has to be evaluated in context. If the topic is of academic interest, then a book by a PhD with recognized expertise, published by a university press, may be the best source. As for artists, I find catalogs published by major museums in conjuntion with exhibitions to be excellent sources. Because mountaineering is a serious and dangerous sport, I find mountaineering journals to be very well researched and accurate for the most part.

4. Obviously, what pops up in a Google search is easiest to find, but the key is to separate the wheat from the chaff, eliminating the poorer quality sources while keeping the best of them. I am an online New York Times subscriber, so I often find useful articles there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I enjoy art museums as well and I have more than one book from museums. Usually they are both excellent resources and conversation starters.

If you don't mind me asking, why don't you visit libraries much?

Casswenze (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time in libraries when I was younger, Casswenze. So I have positive feelings about them. But now I am very busy. You see, I am self-employed which means I have a very demanding boss who makes me work long hours. I enjoy browsing bookstores and owning books, and I live in a large house full of books. If I need a very specific book, it is easier for me to buy it online than make two trips to the library. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That makes complete sense. To be honest, I am the same way. I moved recently enough that I don't have a library card and I also enjoy owning my books. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to run out of room for all of my books!

Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to answer my questions! Casswenze (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse reply

I'm having an issue with the Teahouse where I can't respond there so I am replying to you here. Don't worry bout it. I already went to village pump technical.

"...you are confident that your proposed change is an improvement and properly referenced, then just go ahead, be bold, and make the edit..."—You at Teahouse But all the things I have asked at talk pages is stuff I don't know how to do. That's my point. If I knew how I would. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I did notice that your question at Talk: Coca-Cola was answered. In general, article talk pages are not the best place to ask questions about the technical aspects of editing, but rather to discuss changes to the article content. The Help Desk, Teahouse and Village Pump are better for that type of thing, DangerousJXD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I Would Welcome Some Specific Advice - Thank You!

Hello Jim,

I learned about Teahouse from a post on my sandbox page and I hope you can provide me some advice. I first submitted an article for creation in January and it has twice been rejected. I'm pretty certain I'm the problem, not the person whom I'm writing about.

The URL for my submission is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ran_Poliakine.

Both times I've been told that the article is not written from a neutral point of view and that I need to refer to independent, reliable, published sources. I tried to rewrite the article to make sure it is neutral, but obviously I'm still getting it wrong. As for reliable sources, I do use inline citations to Bloomberg, Re/Code, and the The Wall Street Journal.

I've tried to read what Wikipedia has to say on non-neutral points of view. But I'm still missing something important.

My goal is to get this article published and to continue to contribute articles to Wikipedia. But first I have to learn how to do it correctly.

Thank you. Tjfr (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)TJFR

Hello Tjfr. My time is limited at the moment, so my remarks will be concise.

1. Format the bare URLs to fleshed out references. WP:REFBEGIN explains how.

2. Remove all bold print except first mention of the person's name.

3. Arrange the content into chronological order, except for a lead sentence or two. This is a biography.

4. Ruthlessly remove even the slightest hint of any promotional language.

I will give you more details when I have more time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

David M. Cote

Hi Jim, I wanted to thank you for your comments on David Cote's talk page regarding my proposed changes. I went ahead and made the edits that you, DGG, and Edwardx suggested, and I was hoping you wouldn't mind taking a look at my revisions if you're not too busy. I really appreciate the feedback; I am striving to provide content that is first and foremost Wikipedia-compliant, and it's been helpful for learning more and more about the community. FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review this paid editor's work

Hi, Jim. Could you please take a look at CyberArts International and fix up anything that violates NPOV that you may see. (Hopefully there is nothing.) Thanks! —Tim ($20 richer) /// Carrite (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Your wish is my command, Tim. As you can see, I am not fond of the word "pioneering" in encyclopedia prose. It is an interesting article, though.

Now that you are prosperous, will you buy a BMW or is Mercedes more your style? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My bix are going to the dogs, assuming oDesk is on the level, which it may not be. It has been an interesting experience, which is part of the point. Thanks for your looksee and fixsees. Carrite (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello! I am having trouble with a page I made, as well as editing another. Can you help?

Ryanhinterland (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ryanhinterland. Your draft article is entirely unreferenced and consists almost completely of promotional marketing language. It is the exact opposite of what an encyclopedia article should be. Please read Your first article, and declare your Conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Improper use of "Who?" tag?

Please evaluate the use of the "Who?" tag in the Buddha-nature lead.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The "who?" template is being used incorrectly, VictoriaGrayson. It should be used after vague statements like "some experts claim that . . ."

More broadly, the sentence in question does not belong in the lead unless explained more fully in the body of the article, properly referenced. If so, the "citation needed" tag is also unnecessary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Elon Musk

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Elon Musk, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits.

You have repeatedly removed content despite having clearly not read the WP guidelines on subjects you are attempting to enforce. Please refrain from further edits and remember to operate in good faith. If you question information, remember to use appropriate tags, and not to remove information despite having no guidelines to support your actions.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page, DbivansMCMLXXXVI. The template generated message you posted above is incorrect with regards to my edit summaries. I referred to policies and guidelines in my edit summaries. You state that I have "repeatedly removed content despite having clearly not read the WP guidelines". Let's examine the factual basis for your assertion. You have 33 edits to Wikipedia, and I have approximately 1,000 times your number of edits. I am one of the most active experienced editors answering questions from new editors at the Teahouse, which focuses on explaining Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and procedures to newer editors. Accordingly, your statement is not correct as I am well acquainted with that material. I see that another highly experienced editor has removed the same content that I did, after you reinserted it. I hope that will be a signal to you. I think you have good intentions, but there is a proper way to better describe Musk's relationship with his brother. Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

ElKevbo conflict

Yes I'm asking for administrative intervention because he's wrong and I've tried reasoning with the editor to no avail. What he's doing is illogical but he's convinced that he's right. You can follow the disagreement by looking at his and I talk pages, also by looking at the dispute board. I want him block, restricted from reverted the changes I stated. Broadmoor (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Broadmoor. Since you have furnished no evidence of actual misconduct by ElKevbo, as opposed to a routine disagreement about content, there is effectively no chance that an administrator will block him. The appropriate places to debate the content issues are the talk pages of the articles in question. Do not edit war, try to see the other editor's points, and strive to find common ground. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What evidence are you're looking for so that I can make it clear he needs to be checked. He's been really harassing me since and he's a biased editor who lacks objectivity, critical thinking skills, and fairness.Broadmoor (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You need to furnish actual evidence of harassment, which I certainly do not see after looking at your talk page and his. I see you commenting, "Also please note I'll be filing a formal compliant. Your edits you insist on keeping are misplaced, unfair, and unnecessary." That indicates to me an unwillingness to discuss things, and what appears to me an unfriendly attitude. I see the other editor giving lengthy, reasonable explanations of his thoughts on the matter. I express no opinion on the content issue, and perhaps you are right. But you really should know that editors don't get blocked for content disputes. "Harassment" is a very serious charge, and you are expected to either furnish strong evidence or drop the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim (Lon Safko Page)

Jim thanks for your feedback regarding the referencing in my article 'Lon Safko'. Actually I am new at Wikipedia and thus I am not well versed with the rules enforce here. I have discussed this issue with Safko himself and he's insistent that since there's verification attached with every reference therefore it should make the references independent and thus credible. Most of these references have been verified by credible and well-renowned publishers. Actually so far we have not been able to dig up any references that can be termed independent in the strictest sense. Jim is there a possibility that you could help me with these references so that I can have this article uploaded. Your help in this regard will be much appreciated. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayazf (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ayazf. The requirement for building the article on sources independent of the subject is mandatory and not negotiable. The subject Lon Safko does not get to decide which sources we use. This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. If independent sources have not devoted significant coverage to Safko, then there should be no Wikipedia article about him. Perhaps his book is notable but he isn't. I can't help improve a draft article unless I am convinced that the person is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse Reply ISBN Links

Thanks for your prompt response. I do get the book links page as you pointed out. That's quite the tool! So typing ISBN followed by the number automatically sets up this link? This doesn't seem to be a widely used tool as this is the first time I've seen it. I could have sworn I was getting the ISBN article yesterday! Many thanks.Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Twofingered Typist. You need to use the "cite book" template in a reference in order to enable this function. You enter the numeric ISBN without dashes into the blank ISBN field, and then the Wiki software will display the clickable link in the reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You can find the full range at Wikipedia:Citation templates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Lon Safko Article Resubmitted

Jim I have re-submitted the 'Lon Safko' article after making the desired changes in the References section. I am sure these will fulfill the Wikipedia criteria and will be accepted for upload. I have one question; I tried to link one photograph that I ha earlier uploaded through the Commons Wizard; however I received the following message:

You do not have permission to upload this file, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users. Can you help me in this regards?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayazf (talk • contribs) 06:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ayazf. Your references are a complete mess, and I highly recommend that you clean them up per Referencing for beginners. I also see that you paid little attention to my other recommendations, but that is your choice. I am far less sure than you are that your draft will be accepted. Autoconfirmed status allowing file uploads requires an account at least four days old, and yours is three days old. Try again 96 hours after account creation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:RFA

Actually, I'm not hounding, but based on my previous RFAs your advice is well placed. As it related to this rfa: In Davey2010's case, I replied due to his assumption of bad faith - as I stated, the RFA has been open for less than 24 hours, and this is a global project. Any suggestion to withdraw should come after 24 hours when everyone across the globe who has a vested interest in this has a chance to weigh in. In the case of MusikAnimal, I opined because most people who say I'll support you later never actually keep to their word (I know, I passed on RFA #3, so I heard this line lots and then when the time came to put up the editors were no where to be found). After the first 24 hours you'll see that I weigh in much less on these RFAs, so it will not be an long term issue. I thank you for message though, it does me good to be reminded not to hound people going through these processes. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, TomStar81. If "hounding" was too strong, I apologize. I very much hope the RfA candidate in question resumes active editing, and comes back in a year or so for another request for the mop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry to somewhat barge in here .... but I'm failing to see how on earth my comment could ever be considered "bad-faith"?, If an RFA gains more opposes then supports the second it opens then you generally know where it's heading, and I knew the Opposes would pile on so I thought suggesting to withdraw early would be a far better choice for now..... –Davey2010^Talk 12:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010:, @Mkdw: I have accused or been accused by the three of you of hounding the participants at Buggie111's RFA. That is fair, I have voiced opposition to tactics employed there by the participants, however I feel the true reason for my having done so is perhaps lost on each of you, so I wanted to clarify why I have done what I have done there. I want the three of you look at this RFA. The candidate here had an edit count in the low hundreds, and it was painfully obvious to everyone at the RFA process that the request would never pass. But look what happened after the first editor commented on the RFA with a moral support instead of a strong oppose: the community reacted very differently to the entire process. They treated this as a genuine RFA and not some hilariously derailed attempt by a n00b to join the admin corp well before he met what we generally consider to be the minimum qualifications for the tools. Contrast that with Buggie111's RFA and it becomes glaringly obvious why no one wants to participate: practically everyone who shows up it a hater in some way shape or form (and that does include me, I rode three asses during the RFA so I am hater here as well, albeit a hater of the commenters and not a hater of the candidate, but a hater is hater). So tell me honestly, if we can assume an unprecedented amount of good faith for a obvious fail and let the RFA run for all 7 days there, why can't we replicate the process for other RFAs? Would it have been so hard to change an oppose to a moral support? Would it have been so difficult to ask questions of the editor for the 7 day period so that you could see how the editor would react to your other points without supporting or opposing? If it true that the rfa process is hopeless broken on the English Wikipedia then how do explain my above given example, and more importantly here, why is it that this landmark example of an RFA suddenly became a one hit wonder and not the standard? Drop me a line if you have something to say about it, otherwise enjoy the food for thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Construing an RfA oppose as "hate" seems excessive to me, TomStar81. I saw a candidate whose participation has declined year after year, for six years straight, to a very low level. I did not see bitter negativity but rather people observing obvious facts. I will be happy to support this person if they fully recommit to the project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Except this is 2015 not 2009!, Times change, I've never moral supported anyone and probably never will do but hey we're all different on here, Everything changes here (Look at AFD's in 2005, 2010 and today - All are alot different and never stay the same), Some RFAs succeed and some don't but taking all of this personally isn't the way to go, Well that's the last I'll say on this as I don't think this is getting anyone anywhere. –Davey2010^Talk 15:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@TomStar81:, more often than not, I offer some sort of encouragement. The only difference between doing that in the oppose column as opposed to the support column as "moral support" is to ease the statistical figure on the number of "opposes" which is entirely superficial. Secondly, I didn't feel a moral support from me would have been appropriate. I usually oppose candidates not because I "hate them" but because I genuinely feel they are either not ready or not qualified to have the tools. If the candidate has a surmountable issue, I often say what would be required for a support from me, which is usually something like more activity or time.

The reason why I did not for Buggie111 is because even if they ran again for RFA again with more activity under their belt, I now have reservations about their judgement. They did not do their homework when it came to RFA and I'm not certain why they thought being nearly totally inactive for years would make them qualified to be an admin now. It makes me think this editor is not serious about the process or the role; their answers to the RFA were short and vague; AFD and CSD they cited as areas of interest, they have not participated in years and they are likely out of touch with what is going on there. I have further doubts that if they didn't bother to do the reading for RFA, raises the questions, have they done the reading for adminship and do they have a fundamental understand of what is involved?

I should also note that I didn't recommend the candidate withdraw their nomination but I would have. I chimed in on you losing your cool with Davey2010 for a comment that appeared in no way to be "BS". Anyone with familiarity enough with RFA today would know that candidates who leave their RFA to run their course, despite the outcome being quite clear as unsuccessful, usually do so to their massive detriment. Not only do editors become more emboldened in their criticisms (something you're trying to protect this candidate from), it is also seen as the candidate wasting the community's time. They come off as appearing to fail to understand their shortcomings in gaining the trust of the community. I have seen several subsequent RFA's where failing to withdraw previously is held against them as a lack in judgement. Withdrawal is seen as a recognition of the community's feedback and for them to make a statement before closing their RFA. I read your talk page comments to Buggie111 and I generally feel like you led them astray by not only suggesting they gracefully bow out, but in nominating them in the first place. Even if you thoroughly reviewed them as a candidate, you should, as the nominator, been familiar enough with the RFA process and status quo to know it would not have gone well. As others have stated on other takl pages, and privately in an email to me, Buggie111 should have sought a second opinion. I wasn't going to say anything but you're opened a discussion with me directly. I hope you take this into consideration for the next time. Mkdw^talk 20:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe in "moral support" at RfA just as I don't say "weak keep" or "weak delete" at AfD. I believe in making your decision clearly and stating why. I also believe in reconsidering if new evidence is discovered. But always, such judgments should be expressed respectfully. Opposing, though, is not disrespectful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

OTRS Volunteering

Hey Cullen - hope you're doing well. Curious if you'd be interested in applying to be an OTRS volunteer? You've got experience and level-headedness that I imagine would be of great help for answering the boatloads of emails Wikimedia gets. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello SuperHamster. I am reading the background materials and thinking about this. Thanks for asking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

References Improved (Lon Safko Page)

Hi Jim. I have improved the references in the Lon Safko Page. Can you please review them and let me know? Meanwhile the earlier re-review is still pending according to the status on the page. How can I cancel that review and present this one instead. Can you also let me know the other changes that you had suggested since I have lost that post of yours. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayazf (talk • contribs) 12:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Ayazf. The references are formatted better. Thanks. However, the improved formatting makes it clear that the majority are not independent, reliable sources. Press releases from PR Wire, by their very definition, are neither independent nor reliable. Speaker and author profiles are not independent. Similarity in wording and phrases indicates that much of this material is just regurgitation of press releases. The Guiness Book of World Records thing doesn't even mention him. The subject's own website is not independent. The only one that may possibly be independent and reliable is the Tempe magazine article, which is weak because it is a local magazine profile of a local businessman, which most editors would consider "run-of-the-mill". So, in my opinion, you need to provide much better sources to establish notability.

The most current version of your draft will be the one reviewed. You can improve your draft continuously while waiting for review.

My earlier suggestions are still here on my talk page, a few sections above, and at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)