Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Late breaking invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, July 27 (Wednesday) - change of venue - tonight

Please join us in the Mission at Noisebridge (one time change of venue)!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

We hope you can join us today, Wednesday, from 6 p.m. on, at our July Bay Area WikiSalon. This month only, we are going to be at Noisebridge, a hackerspace/makerspace 1.5 blocks from the 16th & Mission BART station (see the link for directions). Some of us will be working on the Wikipedia article on basic income. All info here. Some good news - we do not have to be as strict about advance RSVP at Noisebridge, so bring spontaneous guests! (Registering ahead of time is still helpful, as always, as it will help us plan ahead.)

Come and hang out, have some light snacks. Wi-Fi is available, so please bring your editing device if you plan to edit.

Also, Pete just published a writeup of the Wikidojo exercise we did last month. Your comments welcome, if he missed anything! http://wikistrategies.net/ghost-town-royals-wikidojo

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. Mark you calendars now.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Emily Bear

I ask here. In the moment I update the Emily Bear article. After some days I learned that English wikipedia don't like any youtube video - even the most serious so I put as many other references in I could find.

One of the best features if not the best was made by german public channel SWR. For one year it was on their media library and on their official!!! youtube account here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WidH9mx5Dns After one year the media library link expired. Only the official youtube excists. I searched it it is somewherr embedded - no. How can I use the youtube link for reference here without risking that a bot destroys all my work? In Germany its no problem.

Greetings from Germany (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eifelochse (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Eifelochse, it's OK to use a YouTube video if it is not a copyright violation. Since that YouTube video you posted above is from the news source's official YouTube channel, it is not a copyright violation. It can therefore be used on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I thight that but several people deleted my work several times, user arjaya still, In the momrntbI get the impression that it is kind of harassment, coercien He ust deleted an interview feature by US known journalist Ann Nyberg because "it would be irrelevant" alhough it was not a youtube link. Please help me. Or someone delete his block his abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eifelochse (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Eifelochse, there are some problems with your editing and your talk page posts, and you need to improve your skills if you want people to take you seriously. First, YouTube links are not usually used as citations on articles unless there is no other available source which can verify the information. Second, you need to double-check (via "Show preview") your typing and your spelling (and your signature) before you click "Save page" when you are posting a comment -- right now you make so many spelling mistakes that your posts are borderline gibberish, which is frustrating for everyone else because it's hard to decipher what you mean. Third, you need to properly indent your posts, with colons, underneath the post you are replying to. Don't start your posts at the left; indent them properly instead. Fourth, do not post on the talk page of an editor you are having a conflict with. Instead, discuss with them carefully on the talk page of the article in question, and if you still have a problem, seek outside assistance via dispute resolution. Lastly, remember to sign your talk page posts by typing four tildes: ~~~~ ....... Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Eifelochse, I've noticed two more issues with your editing that need to be addressed. Nearly all of your edits, both on English Wikipedia and on German Wikipedia, have been to the article on Emily Bear. This makes you overly focused on that one subject, and likely to have very little objective perspective about what belongs in the article and what doesn't, or about the appropriate level of detail the article should contain. Right now the article has been correctly tagged as having an excess of detail and an excess of information; much of that excess information was added by you. I think it's time for you to step back and accept the guidance of far more experienced editors as to what level of detail and coverage the article should contain. One of our policies is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. You need to remember that Wikipedia is not a fansite, and that if you want to create a fansite, there are plenty of free webhosts where you can do that. Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I know that and gladly will step back. And it should be not a fan side. I would be very glad if someone correct my spelling mistakes. Yes I just started, so I chose a topic where I know 100% what I write and I know this topic like a few of Quincy Jones artists. The style could be better - no discussion. But sorry to say as I know this topic all my updates are appropriate. !!! Really. I just had to laugh when you wrote about the indiscramate collection of information part. Have I posted daily photos, concert reviews, ..... If you really mean that

what about these sides e.g. it seems that these sides are written by their management, are they paying wikipedia - to let them do what they want?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Evancho

and many more

I was shocked, these sides are unreadable because of all the the real only fan interesting fan information that is put in these articles. They are really only a indiscramate collection of information.

At Emily Bear I put really only in the central events, if someone uses wikipedia as a research base should and needed to be mentioned.If I had wanted - but no!!! - I studied history and I know to filter the central aspects!, I know to do the research - this article could be as long as the other examples or even longer - no joke. I could have put in every Ellen Show visit, a few other shows, what she said there, what Queen Latifah said. I could have put in link to photos, the songs she played at gigs, the background of every song she wrote. e.g. Hot Peppers for paternal grandmother etc etc. She works with musical score writers, lyricists. She works with Chris Jahnke who orchestrated Lady Gaga's performance at the Oscars. ;) I could have put in every symphonic piece, every detail.

There are so many not central details I could have put on - but I did not.

If someone of you don't know her already its not my fault. This year Santana, Van Morrison, David Gilmoure played on the same stage Emily Bear did last year.

She played at Dakota Jazz Club (signing the piano next to Adele's autograph) She played at the Blue Note (NY), at the Regatta Bar Boston, at the Blue Note Tokyo, literally nearly all important jazz venues in the US.

Perhaps you know Joey Alexander - he is in the business for 3 years? - she is in the business for 10 years - with far more genres - classical music, jazz, film scoring, she scored a nationional weight watchers campaign when she was 11. Oh she works in the musical field, for spring 2017 she is commmidioned to,write a choral work (with orchestra?)

This is her score ( Jessica Simpson weight watchers)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ3UYRKi6J8

If you want to double the size of Swift, Bieber, Evancho even together - ask me - I will get you all the infos.;)

I will step back - because the article about the really needed information O.K now

Greetings from Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eifelochse (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

GSL

Hi Cullen,

Good to see you, as always. I'm a bit disturbed by what is going on at GSL lately, but of course I can't be too assumptive. It seems I have been made a target, yet again, after almost a years time. I have no issue leaving the "current" discussion up for the time being, but you of course recall a similar incident, in which my name was actually in the title, in a similarly "accusatory manner"? What I'm really hoping for is some friendly advice on how to handle the recent drama. Darknipples (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and nice to see you again, Darknipples. I cannot say anything kinder than that or certain editors will accuse me of plotting to destroy the Second Amendment, even though I fervently support the entire Bill of Rights off Wikipedia, and NPOV on Wikipedia. So it goes. I advise level headed calmness. Some IPs have been blocked, some long term gun rights editors have reconsidered their involvement, new accounts who shot their mouths off a few days ago have shut their mouths more recently, and competent administrators are "on the case" and prepared to act if disruption returns. So, please do not worry too much at this time, but keep an eye on things, and I will do so as well. Do not hesitate to alert me if the situation escalates. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse not working?

Hi, Is the tea house working? I need proper admins to look into what the law clearly says and not one persons inability to read it.--A12bc34be5 (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice has been offered at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Australian census page which seems connected to a dispute at Talk:Census in Australia. A12bc34be5 has not posted to any teahouse pages that I can see.
Section titles like this one are questionable in my opinion. MPS1992 (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, A12bc34be5. I think that you got good advice at Editor assistance, and suspect thst you would get similar advice at the Teahouse. Neither of these venues exists to resolve content disputes, which should instead take place on the article's talk page. As for the Australian census, as an American I have no personal knowledge. The one thing that I will say is that Wikipedia editors do not interpret laws. We leave that to real world judges, and instead summarize what published reliable secondary sources say about laws. So, if such sources call the census "compulsory", then so must Wikipedia. My personal advice to you is to drop the behavior that comes off as needlessly confrontational, and recognize that editors ought to try to collaborate and establish consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear finest

Dear finest, I seek help on this subject on the truth of a manipulative politician in my country, South Korea. This manipulative politician(Pyo Changwon) has used the tale of Francis Spaight to disseminate false lies to the people of Seongju. This politician's lie is considered a heartwearimng speech by multiple media outlets, but in fact his speech was a manipulative lie that distorted the facts of the events of Francis Spaight. I'm rather new at this, so I'm very much willing to ask your opinion on whether my contributions to Wikipedia are flawed or just. Pyo Chang-won Francis Spaight Thaad


I'd like to stick to the truth. If you feel any of my contributions to be in err, please inform me so that I may improve or reprieve.

Thank you, "Truth and Justice" from the Republic of Korea. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Veritas et aequitas Korea. Your edits to Pyo Chang-won concern me very much. You have added lots of content about a political controversy that does not include any references. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. How does anyone know that what you wrote is true? Also, Wikipedia editors are suppposed to write from the neutral point of view, and your additions do not seem neutral to me. Who says that this speech was "false lies"? That may be your personal opinion, but editor's opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you or any other editor to right great wrongs. You can do that on Facebook and Twitter all you want. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I've added additional resources regarding this issue. I know my edits about Pyo Chan-won are controversial, but I'd like to listen to neutral opinions on what I contribute to wikipedia at this moment. One particular issue at hand is that Pyo Changwon has used grievous lies about the Francis Spaight to manipulate the people of Seongju county. If you believe my edits on Pyo Changwon's page and the page on Francis Spaight are in anyway distortions and erroneous, please let me know so that I may correct them. Per my insistence on Truth and Justice, your opinion on such aspects of my contributions mean much to me. Veritas et aequitas Korea (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

About Your Revert of My Edit to the Page Humayun Khan (soldier)

Hi. You reverted my edit to the above page, removing Category:Pakistani Muslims which I added. You stated your justification for this as "he was born in the UAE not Pakistan." Being born in a particular country does not make him explicitly from there, and there is no category indicating him as an Emirati. He is of Pakistani background, and the categories Pakistani emigrants to the United States and Pakistani expatriates in the United Arab Emirates are also present on the page. Therefore there is justification to also add Category:Pakistani Muslims to the page. I'm going to reverse your revert of my edit. Please don't change it again. Thank you. --113.203.216.202 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The description of the category says, "This category includes articles of people who are Muslim (followers of the religion of Islam) from Pakistan." He was not "from Pakustan" but rather his parents are. This category is not correct in my opinion. Discuss it on the talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laura Boushnak

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laura Boushnak. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to David Cote comment.

Thanks for offering an answer to my David Cote query.

I should point out that the controversy relates to the fact that he killed endangered species and shipped the parts back on a private company jet, thereby contravening corporate use. I offered no opinion on the matter, but briefly summarised the referenced article in a sentence.

Furthermore, Cote is the CEO of an multinational company; therefore the information will be of wider potential interest than simply a narrow US view, where such activities may often be met with indifference, as you have indicated. (I'd be surprised if the public's reaction to a CEO trophy hunting would be the same as if he indulged in cigar smoking for a hobby, even in the US).

In summary, it appears that if an individual doesn't approve of certain referenced information, they can simply delete it without any justification. WHetzenauer (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello WHetzenauer. No, there is ample justification for removing this content. WP:BLP requires that contentious material be very well referenced. The New York Post states that his hunting was "perfectly legal". Was there any legal adjudication that concluded his hunting was illegal? I see no evidence of that. You charge that he contravened appropriate use of a corporate jet. Did the board of directors forbid him from bringing back his hobby materials on that jet? Where is the evidence of that?
In addition, removal is justified because the New York Post is not a reliable source for any contentious claim about a living person. It is a highly biased tabloid newspaper with a 35 year history of publishing falsehoods, lies and innuendo. It is widely considered the least reliable New York daily paper. Removal is also justified because there is no consensus for including it. You have spent close to two months trying to insert this contentious material but have thusfar failed to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is based on consensus and you have failed to build consensus in favor of your proposed additions among experienced editors. Accordingly, removing this content at this time is fully justified. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your assistance with the recent research mess that I bought to ANI.

Stuartyeates (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Stuartyeates. I married a "cat lady" so I have seen a lot of these over the years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary Cooper

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gary Cooper. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I commented there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I am hesitant to edit.

Hi Jim, I periodically browse the Public Art related articles. I have found that there can be some edits and maybe links between Community Art, Public Art, Participatory Art as they are often in public space. After reading all the introductions and tutorials, I now find that I may be in conflict because my work has specialized in this area for many years. Honestly, my recent search on WIKI was to find a directory of Public Art that I could add some of my projects to. It appears there are no comprehensive Public Art directories out there yet but I found a Wiki article for Big Art Mob but the link to their site redirects to a site where the linked domain is for sale. So I have a few questions.


re: Conflict I am interested in contributing to the areas of Public Art, Community Art and Participatory Art. My approach to the work was/is in democratizing public space and is influenced by Dewey's essays "Art as Experience", Democracy and Education, , The School and Society , although I do not think I am the only public artist that made the connection/relationship with Dewey, democracy and participatory public art is not documented elsewhere. I am not sure it is an appropriate add on to Participatory Art. . . .and of course whether I should even try to edit in these areas because of the perceived conflict.

re: Big Art Mob Because Big Art Mob project is based on the website, does it make it defunct as an article or just need to be edited to include that it no longer has a mapping site and not include the website link? It appears they still have a Facebook page but there is no linked "mapping" site. Based on their FB page it appears they are focused mainly on graffiti-style art and not on "all forms of public art". The introductory text in the article is misleading - "The Big Art Mob is a website founded in 2006 and re-launched in 2012 that provides a platform and toolset for documenting and mapping public art. It is dedicated to showcasing and celebrating all forms of public art including ephemeral works such as street art, performance art and graffiti. The crucial aim of the site is to create the first canonical record of all the public art in the world. The site also offers a new working definition of public art. Initially created to support the Channel 4 documentary series The Big Art Project, the site was spun off as a standalone site owned and administered by Art Public."

Re ? : >Can I seek out an editor would consider working with me so I can qualify for notability and be added the list of example artist for any of these areas- Public Art, Community Art or Participatory Art?

Anewbee (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Anewbee. You have a problematic conflict of interest only regarding you as an individual artist, specific artworks that you have created, or organizations that you have a paid or leadership position with. If you intend to edit Wikipedia in these narrow areas, I recommend that you disclose your identity on your user page, as I do on mine. Only a tiny percentage of my editing involves these types of COI and I have disclosed where appropriate. I recommend that you expand your user page as appropriate if you plan to edit in these areas.
Since I do not yet know who you are or anything about your body of work, I have no way of evaluating whether or not you are notable and thereby eligible for a Wikipedia article. The normal standard for notability of an artist includes things like solo exhibits in major museums and galleries, or being part of the permanent collections of major museums, and so on. Those standards may not be compatible with the careers of public artists so instead we would rely on things like articles about their careers in art journals, major newspapers and magazines with a good reputation for covering the arts, art books issued by reputable publishers, and so on.
If "Big Art Mob" was notable and has now ceased operations, then it is still notable, under the Wikipedia principle that Notability is not temporary. Think of it this way: We would not delete the encyclopedia article about a notable person who has died, and similarly, we do not delete the article about a notable organization that has closed down. Instead, the article should be updated to reflect that the website is defunct, and ideally, a reference to an article discussing the demise of the group should be added.
As for adding your works to any of these articles, I think that most Wikipedia editors would agree that would only be appropriate if there is a Wikipedia article about you or your work. In certain limited circumstances, a notable artist might be listed before an article about that artist is written. This was common in the early days of Wikipedia when there were gigantic gaps in the encyclopedia. But the project is now over 15 years old, and has millions of articles. You are likely to encounter stiff resistence to adding you or your works to articles without establishing in advance that you are notable as Wikipedia defines that term.
I am happy to discuss any of these issues in more detail. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your Wiki wisdom. Since there seemed to be much said in the introductions about limiting private information, I was very short with my profile on my user page until I could understand more. Even though I took the Adventure Tour, I am still shy about touching anything yet. BUt I will add more in the near future.
I did not mean to say Big Mob Art should be deleted, I mixed up some thoughts. It was an article I ran into today serendipitously and wondered "How is this addressed in a Wiki way? "
I wouldn't consider adding anything about myself without Wiki due diligence, I would like to find someone that can review my work and find the proper Wiki niche, but if it doesn't happen before I die then, well . . it doesn't, but I am in the midst of the Bucket List stage of life and attending to archiving and such, so the thought occurred to me lately to be more proactive about it. I do not have some of the typical notability traits but there are some there. I am currently building an Omeka website for the sole purpose of archiving, projects, news/magazine articles, images, video etc.My articles are not from Forbes or Newsweek, but I have a few decent ones. I will revisit this notability process after I have organized my files and completed inputting archival info of at least 30 projects or so.
Thank you for responding in detail and I would like to continue talking though I am not online everyday.

Anewbee (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Anewbee, thank you for your response. If you want to let me know who you are in "real life", I will give you my honest assessment of your Wikipedia notability, based on online sources. You can provide that information either here or by emailing me using the "Email this user" function in the menu to the left. A bit of information about your career such the name and location of your best known works would be helpful, especially if your name is common. I need to filter out other people with the same name. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your dedication to thoughtful and kind responses at the teahouse S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, User:Sphilbrick. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail from Jmorgan (WMF)

Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Jmorgan (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jill Stein

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

Invitation to the Bay Area WikiSalon series, Wednesday, August 31

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

Hi folks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bay Area WikiSalon, Wednesday, August 31:

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

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

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

Wayne, Pete, Ben, and Stephen

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

Selig Starr

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

  • Yeah, sixty years...amazing. I didn't find anything using JSTOR--you'd expect to find at least some mentions of the man, and he doesn't seem to have published in the first place. I did find another Selig Starr, a mathematician, who may well be notable, and more easily written up than this one... Thanks Cullen, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

What was that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biography feedback requested

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Jane Austen

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

A million problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

Readers contributions

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

Please comment on Talk:Louis C.K.

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

Simplified ref tag names.

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

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

cougaran

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

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

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

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

Teahouse convo 13 Sep 2016

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

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

Michael Ferreira

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

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

Emphasising Text

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

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

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

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

Wiki Loves Women- Monthly Contest

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

Terrace Theatre (Minnesota)

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

Here is my correspondence from Facebook messaging about my experience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_37&oldid=888960782"