→re your suggestion: reply |
|||
Line 365: | Line 365: | ||
It's not about what I'm doing, but what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17&diff=next&oldid=604820381 others are doing]; what do I do to attract them? Good question, but it seems to have to do with being an easy target for getting me riled so they can pontificate on what a bad Wikipedian I supposedly am, without contributing anything to the discussion other than wiki-lawyering and denying that they should read the facts presented or the facts themselves; that CfD is entirely COI and "stalking" in origin, and was launched without any real guideline or convention to refer to.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 02:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC) |
It's not about what I'm doing, but what [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17&diff=next&oldid=604820381 others are doing]; what do I do to attract them? Good question, but it seems to have to do with being an easy target for getting me riled so they can pontificate on what a bad Wikipedian I supposedly am, without contributing anything to the discussion other than wiki-lawyering and denying that they should read the facts presented or the facts themselves; that CfD is entirely COI and "stalking" in origin, and was launched without any real guideline or convention to refer to.[[User:Skookum1|Skookum1]] ([[User talk:Skookum1|talk]]) 02:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I wish you well, {{U|Skookum1}}, but here's my observation: I have an attitude toward editing and a style of interaction with others that brings me great satisfaction and a minimum of conflict with other editors. You, on the other hand, have an attitude toward editing and a style of interaction with others that brings you grief and a maximum of conflict with other editors. Your continued claims that "It's not about what I'm doing" speaks volumes in a single phrase. As I said previously, I wish you well. [[User:Cullen328|'''<font color="green">Cullen</font>'''<sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<font color="blue">''Let's discuss it''</font>]] 03:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:05, 19 April 2014
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Welcome to my talk page I use the name Cullen328 on Wikipedia, but you can call me "Jim" because that's my real first name. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the old comments from July and August of 2009 that follow the "Contents" here, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome when I first started editing Wikipedia.
Thoughts on the importance of civility from Wikipedia's founder
- "One of the great strengths of civility is that it helps others to see who is in the wrong - when you answer rudeness with rudeness, it only generates noise that makes it harder for people to properly reprimand the person who started it. Let someone be as obnoxious and disgusting and horrible as they want - respond to them with professionalism and don't sink to their level. By doing this, you strengthen the community, build a happier environment for all of us, and make it all the more clear who needs to be banned for general obnoxiousness." Jimbo Wales
The importance of a friendly greeting
Hello and welcome to my talk page. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the comments that follow from July and August of 2009 readily visible, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome here on Wikipedia when I first started editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Please offer your thoughts
I would appreciate comments and suggestions on any contributions I make. I am learning.Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nice work on Jules Eichorn. He's been needing an article for a while. Will Beback talk 06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- If I may suggest, now that you've posted the Eichorn article the draft below might be deleted. It's your talk page to do with as you like, but it's a bit hard to edit around.
- As for formatting and pictures, a good way to learn is to look around at other articles to see what you think looks best. It can be helpful to break up long blocks of text into subsections. Perhaps it'd be possible to split the biography into two or three eras. Other than that, the formatting is usually kept fairly plain. As for photos, it's easy to upload them: the trick is in finding photos with appropriate licensing. If you have any personal photos then those'd be fine. There are might be pictures of the peaks he did first ascents on in the Wikicommons. File:Cathedral Peak.png is a so-so pic of Eichorn Pinnacle.
- As before, feel free to ask if you have any questions. There are several editors here who are mountaineers or just admirers of the Sierra, so you're in good company. Will Beback talk 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- PS: Many editors create "sandbox" pages for drafting articles. For example, User talk:Cullen328/Sandbox. Will Beback talk 00:17, 1 August 2009
Your climber biographies
Hey Jim, just wanted to say welcome and thanks for your contributions to the Sierra Nevada climbing history articles. You're filling a niche that's been missing here, I look forward to working with you. --Justin (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll second that. Nice work on Allen Steck and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know who you are planning to write up next but if your taking requests I think Peter Croft (climber) could really use a page. If you ever have any questions please ask. Thanks again for your great additions.--OMCV (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Justin and OMCV. I am beginning work on Tom Frost and Glen Dawson. Comments on Norman Clyde would be welcomed. I will defintely read up on Peter Croft, OMCV. I am still "learning the ropes" in Wikipedia, to use a climbing analogy, and have all sorts of things in mind. My biggest challenge right now is getting permission to use images. My next biggest challenge is hiking to the top of Mt. Whitney with my wife in ten days - she's never been above 12,000 feet except for the train ride up Pikes Peak. As she's 56 and developing arthritis in her toes, it will be an accomplishment if she (and I) complete the Class 1 feat. Jim Heaphy (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Debra and I made it to the summit of Mt. Whitney at 2:20 PM on Friday, September 11. Jim Heaphy (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3
Psst
Hello. You have a new message at Justaguy120's talk page.
Whisperback
Hello. You have a new message at Fylbecatulous's talk page.
My response awaits
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Whisperback
Hello. You have a new message at Fylbecatulous's talk page.
Merry Christmas!
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Good afternoon, re: article for deletion
Hi Cullen,
Good evening and how have you been? Great I hope.
It has been awhile since I have been here, school and family life has been a killer this year. However, I am trying to get some editors involved in a discussion regarding an article marked for deletion. As I was the creator of the article I would like the recruits to be people other than those that I have actually had contact with and not really sure how do do this but thought that if I could tell a few editors and then they could tell other editors that way it wouldn't be a biased set of people getting involved. Anyhow if you might want to take part the discussion is located at Patrick article marked for deletion It has been re-listed twice due to lack of participation and any input would be appreciated. Please place "talkback" on my talk page as it should notify so i know to come back should you have any advice or questions. This is in no way a request for a vote to "keep". Just an FYI that this discussion could use some help. Thanks Tattoodwaitress (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, Tattoodwaitress, and it is good to hear from you. I think that I will refrain from commenting on the AfD since I don't want you to be accused of canvassinvg or me to be accused of responding to canvassing. I know that your comment here is in good faith. My only recommendation is to update the page with recent events - the outcome of the walk, referenced to reliable sources. Also, try to add some more biographical details. I looks like most of the comments are recommending "keep". I like DGG very much and think he's a great editor. But he is opposed to articles that he thinks are too promotional, and he and I have discussed these issues a few times. Usually he is right, but I think sometimes he goes a bit too far. But he has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, and independent editors will never agree 100% of the time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh thank you so much for your input here Cullen I was not sure if I was allowed to ask for some input or not Ooops. I won't do that again. It was in good faith as you said. As always you are very smart where these matters are concerned. Thank you for your time. Have a Great day and happy editing. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you did anything improper, Tattoodwaitress, since you had no way of knowing how I would react. But I responded with an abundance of caution. I am glad that your article was kept. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you again and I am always happy for the education I can get from you. I am glad the article was kept. The wiki article not "my" article. Just something that I learned around here is don't take it personal because its not yours it belongs to everyone and is done for the good of wikipedia. I am happy my attitude has changed a little bit since I started editing here. It does make it much easier when you don't take things so personal. Have a great day Cullen and again Thanks for being you. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, too, for being the Tattoodwaitress, and enjoy this humorous day. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you again and I am always happy for the education I can get from you. I am glad the article was kept. The wiki article not "my" article. Just something that I learned around here is don't take it personal because its not yours it belongs to everyone and is done for the good of wikipedia. I am happy my attitude has changed a little bit since I started editing here. It does make it much easier when you don't take things so personal. Have a great day Cullen and again Thanks for being you. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you did anything improper, Tattoodwaitress, since you had no way of knowing how I would react. But I responded with an abundance of caution. I am glad that your article was kept. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh thank you so much for your input here Cullen I was not sure if I was allowed to ask for some input or not Ooops. I won't do that again. It was in good faith as you said. As always you are very smart where these matters are concerned. Thank you for your time. Have a Great day and happy editing. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
About citations
Hey Jim! Thanks for the response in the teahouse. It looks like someone is, in good faith possibly, bombarding the page with references to a commercial site. The page is one I am editing although recently. But I have put about 60 hours into it. I don't want to tick anybody off who is working on that page though. I would like to see the commercial citations removed. How do I delicately go about having that done? I already put a statement about it on the page's talk page. Thanks - Jen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenjhall (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to be slow to respond, Jenjhall. I suggest you remove any references that you conclude are overly promotional. I wouldn't rule out all commercial websites as reliable sources in such cases. The determining factor is whether the content itself is overtly promotional, or whether it is neutral technical information that is not brand specific. You could post your concerns on the talk pages of other recent active editors to the page. A review of the article history will show that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I figured out who put the citations there. I was done in good faith given his other work on the page. But there are 75 citations pointing to the same quite commercial site. So, I put a friendly invitation to discuss the matter on the users talk page. I began that invitation with a compliment regarding how much work the person has done on the page. I will let you know how this progresses.- Jenjhall (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is a very good strategy, Jenjhall. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I just heard back from the person and he agreed that it was ok for me to remove these references. Since we are the only ones who have appreciably worked on this page in over a year I don't think anyone else will mind. Thanks for your input.-Jenjhall (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am glad it worked out well, Jenjhall. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I just heard back from the person and he agreed that it was ok for me to remove these references. Since we are the only ones who have appreciably worked on this page in over a year I don't think anyone else will mind. Thanks for your input.-Jenjhall (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is a very good strategy, Jenjhall. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I figured out who put the citations there. I was done in good faith given his other work on the page. But there are 75 citations pointing to the same quite commercial site. So, I put a friendly invitation to discuss the matter on the users talk page. I began that invitation with a compliment regarding how much work the person has done on the page. I will let you know how this progresses.- Jenjhall (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Letting you off the hook
Dear Cullen328, If you really no longer wish to be involved in the Sousa Mendes drama, I'm not going to urge you to continue to be involved. Believe me, I would rather not be involved myself. But if I cease to be involved I have no doubt that the page will revert to being the smear job it became in late October 2013. I am happy to include any fact as long as it is relevant and substantiated. Really I am. I do not speak Portuguese so have no way of knowing if JPratas is accurately representing Portuguese-language sources. For example: the business of the "San Francisco incident" I never knew anything about until I saw the YouTube video I shared with you. Then when I looked in Fralon I saw that he devoted one paragraph to it, and characterized the facts somewhat differently. Now I see that in one of the French sources the incident also rates one paragraph, and I would be happy to share that text too. But it's dispiriting when I present my findings on the article Talk page, and JPratas, instead of working towards common language, chooses to go on the attack. I realize that trying to reason with someone intent on doing harm is a waste of my own and everyone else's time. And I don't know what to do about it. Thanks for listening. :-) Beebop211 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- And now I see that JPratas has started inserting language into the article before we have even agreed on how to characterize the five points of dispute. What to do? (Sorry if this question puts you right back "on the hook.") I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Beebop211 (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Binksternet may be able to help, as he is a highly experienced and very competent editor. He is also a tougher guy than I am, which may be a useful personality trait in this particular case. I will continue participating as long as I believe I can make a positive contribution. You might want to check in at that sockpuppet investigation, Beebop211. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Negri’s Original Occidental Italian Family Style Restaurant page
Can you start the page? I read your page and your bio. I came here to see if I could alert you that I had posted back, and I noticed you often start pages. I have a learning disability and it's hard, I don't remember how to start a page. If it was started. I could add it. You seem like a very nice stand up kind of guy. Please put the union hotel in the article. thank you. I did not start the page on my father Carmelo Zito. I had a friend start it for me at a tech club computer meeting I attended. Apriv40dj (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Apriv40dj. I will not start an article about this restaurant unless I see significant coverage in reliable sources that shows me that the restaurant is notable by Wikipedia's standards. I believe that a section in Occidental, California about the importance of restaurants to the local economy, especially the old school Italian family-style places, would be the best way to start. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Bracketbot and responses
TO THE READER: BraketBot had flagged Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) on his talk page, which page Cullen328 was apparently "watching". The following ensued...
Gregg's response (to BracketBot)
- Oops! My bad. It's fixed now. (Oy... look at me: I'm talking to a bot.)
- Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Cullen328's counter-response
- An intelligent response from the bot is highly unlikely. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Gregg's counter, coun... oy...
- Actually, it's an intelligent response from me that's unlikely. [grin] To be clear, though, I wasn't actually responding to the bot, hence my joke about it. I just wanted to document -- for me, if no one else -- that I fixed the problem. That said, I actually have been known to talk to bots. I figure I've got nothing to worry about, though, as long as they don't talk back. [grin]
- Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, it's an intelligent response from me that's unlikely. [grin] To be clear, though, I wasn't actually responding to the bot, hence my joke about it. I just wanted to document -- for me, if no one else -- that I fixed the problem. That said, I actually have been known to talk to bots. I figure I've got nothing to worry about, though, as long as they don't talk back. [grin]
My first six equal sign edit
- I didn't think that you were "actually" responding to the bot, but rather that commenting as if I did might be considered amusing. I should give up on humor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
On Teahouse
When you reply on the Teahouse, I hope you can drop a {{teahouse talkback}} template on the talk page of the person who is asking the question. This will inform them that their questions are answered. I understand if you "ping" the user, and in that case, it's not necessary. I am helping a lot of you to drop teahouse talkbacks on talk pages though I never answered them. Cheers! --Nahnah4 Any thoughts? Pen 'em down here! 08:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer to ping, Nahnah4, as it is quicker and easier for me, and in my opinion, as effective. I often edit with a smart phone, and working with templates is awkward at best. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Citation Problem
Dea Mr. Cullen,
I am new to Wikipedia edit although I was a contributor many years ago. I have a citation problem and am flumuxed. I keep getting a "cite error" and I don't understand this.
I will continue researching. If you know a quick solution, please let me know. Hope you are having a good day--I am writing from Tarquinia, Italy.
Below is my edit for poet Ray Bremser, adding details about his marriage and his wife's prison letters to Ray which became the book titled Troia in 1969.
Thank you and sincerely, Jerome Poynton Literary Executor to Herbert Huncke Writer
- You have made some mistakes in formatting your references, Jerome Poynton. Please take a look at Referencing for beginners. Please also check the spelling of LeRoi Jones' later name, and write in an encyclopedic tone, avoiding slang like "on the lam". Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Request
Cullen, I would like to request your intervention regarding the current conflict on the UB article. Please see Talk:University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. Thank you, Daniellagreen (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have commented there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
C is for cookie!
I baked a digital cookie just for you! Thanks for all your help at the Teahouse; you practically answer all of my questions. Bananasoldier (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC) |
- T is for thank you, Bananasoldier. Happy to be of assistance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings,
From the Tea House, I saw your input about using an English translation from a German document. The book "Bonaventure's Memoirs: a translation" is 91 pages, including 2 appendixes.
Tonight looking at the cover, right there in front of me (but very small) is a picture of the original German document. Chances are the school archives have one of these German memoirs. In high school, I had 4 semesters of German, but don't remember much any more.
I just searched on the book's publisher, Benziger Brothers (published in 1904) and find a wikipedia page on them. After the table of contents, there are 3 pages of "Translator's Note" explaining that the first 3 chapters were a "narrative delivered orally by Bonaventure to an anonymous chronicler".
In the last chapter my prof. mentions that the German text does not identify the author, and he does identify the author, but does not explain how he obtained this fact. Also, he explained that since this last chapter was written during Bonaventure's later years, it contains some factual errors in his recollections. The translator placed corrections in footnotes on these pages and left the German translated words "as is".
Being very new to wikipedia, I see the need to be concise. It will be a definite challenge to summarize an entire lifetime of accomplishments into a few paragraphs! All I can do is chip away, a bit at a time.
I really like being able to begin here and not with little scraps of paper scattered here & there.
Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are being careful to analyze the source, and I think you are on the right track, JoeHebda. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Simon Collins
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Simon Collins. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Look forward to see you at Berkeley today!
Hi there. Thanks for signing up for the WikiWomen's Edit-a-Thon at Berkeley that is happening today. I look forward to seeing you! We have changed the on-campus venue due to the response we've had, via Wikipedia and Facebook. Please take a look at the event page. If you get this message too late, we'll have a sign on the door of the former location directing you to the new one, which is only a short walk. See you then! SarahStierch (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- We will be there at 1:00 SarahStierch since we want to hear your speech. Can you please hold two seats right in front of the podium so that Debra can lipread? See you soon. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Henry Scholberg
Thanks from the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar.
Took a while to get my first one. Alatari (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Bob Shaheen
Hey, Cullen328, I respectfully reverted your undoing of my clarify tags at Bob Shaheen. Though the lead may be supported by sourced statements elsewhere, the lead is so thin that I really don't know what the subject is supposed to be, and/or why they are notable on their own. The various backs-and-forths between the people who want to turn him into an arms dealer/arms sympathizer or whatever, only pollutes the notability. If there's a way to clarify who this dude is, I'm all for it. I only happened upon the article because of my anti-vandalism work. I don't have a specific take (political or otherwise) on the subject. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Cyphoidbomb. This BLP article, for some strange reason I can't fathom, has been subjected to ongoing bizarre editing I consider disruptive for quite some time. I believe that the man (now retired) is at least marginally notable for his role as "right hand man" and as senior executive in several of his business entities for an important figure (Khashoggi) in everything from the Iran-Contra scandal, arms dealing in the Middle East to real estate investment in Salt Lake City. Given that most of these events happened a quarter to a third of a century ago, I do not understand the intense interest in the article now. It seems likely to me (though unproven) that sock puppets, both pro and con, are trying to sway the article. I argued for keeping the article at an AfD about 2-1/2 years ago, and have been surprised at the ongoing attention it has received since then. Shaheen, after all, is over 80 years old, and no longer active in public affairs. Any help you can give is appreciated, but I don't see tagging as the solution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hiya, I've self-reverted. I still have a problem with the article as I can't really determine why the subject is notable, other than that he was, as you've said, a right-hand man to Khashoggi. I mean, even something like, "...is notable for being the president of Triad Corporation when it was the most profitable company in the world" would help. (I made that up, though.) I've looked at various sources including, but much of what I found was fluff, or passing mentions. Even this congressional report doesn't have anything of note. Now Khashoggi, that's an interesting dude. "Mr. Khashoggi has been linked to — but never convicted in — almost every major scandal of the late 20th century" Wow! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Barnstar for your help
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
Thanks for helping me at the Teahouse regarding my worries about a fraudulent article about a "Daniell family" OhioJack (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC) |
- Thank you, but you deserve a barnstar for detecting this hoax and bringing it to the attention of experienced editors. I have reported it to WP:ANI and hope an administrator will take prompt attention. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for my barnstar! Regarding the article about this "family", would it be possible to block the IP addresses of the sockpuppets that seem to have created it in order to prevent them creating another hoax?--OhioJack (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- We need a more prolonged pattern of vandalism before blocking an IP address, OhioJack. That's because IP addresses are often shared by many people, and a single hoax by one person is not usually considered enough for a block. I am not an expert on such issues. Hopefully, an administrator with such experience will take a look. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Mutilations
Jim, may I seek your advise on something? I edited the page on "Neville Maxwell" to make it balanced and objective, and incorporated a host of unimpeachable sources. Yet, Zanhe, in a blatant violation of the WP:BLP policy, mass-deleted large portions of the writeup in order to preserve a flattering profile of Maxwell. His mutilations remove any pretense of objectivity. What can be done in this matter? I'll appreciate your advice. Mona.SHEPHERD (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mona.SHEPHERD's edits had turned Neville Maxwell and Henderson Brooks–Bhagat Report into unabashed attack pages (see this and this). See Talk:Neville Maxwell#Blatant BLP violation for reasons why they were reverted by myself and another user. -Zanhe (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to be slow to repond, Mona.SHEPHERD and Zanhe. The proper place to discuss the details of any proposed changes to the article is at Talk:Neville Maxwell. I now have that article on my watch list. When I looked over the content added by Mona.SHEPHERD it sure looked to me to be an attempt to make Maxwell look as bad as possible. Particularly disturbing is misuse of sources. If someone says, "I used to think A, but now I realize that I was wrong and now I think B", it is completely wrong in my opinion to add that writer's opinions A to a Wikipedia article. They have repudiated those views. We don't need a "faux" presentation of both sides of a controversy, and we don't need simulated neutrality. And most of all, we do not need Wikipedia biographies of living people to be transformed into hit pieces. That is against policy, and I will do my best to ensure that it won't happen in this particular case. By the way, I have no opinion one way or the other about the 1962 war between India and China, except to recognize that wars are catastrophic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jim, thanks for your response, which is what one would expect from any fair-minded person. However, this Mona.SHEPHERD seems to live in a parallel universe where reason and logic do not exist. See his/her comment on Talk:Neville Maxwell. Sigh... -Zanhe (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry to be slow to repond, Mona.SHEPHERD and Zanhe. The proper place to discuss the details of any proposed changes to the article is at Talk:Neville Maxwell. I now have that article on my watch list. When I looked over the content added by Mona.SHEPHERD it sure looked to me to be an attempt to make Maxwell look as bad as possible. Particularly disturbing is misuse of sources. If someone says, "I used to think A, but now I realize that I was wrong and now I think B", it is completely wrong in my opinion to add that writer's opinions A to a Wikipedia article. They have repudiated those views. We don't need a "faux" presentation of both sides of a controversy, and we don't need simulated neutrality. And most of all, we do not need Wikipedia biographies of living people to be transformed into hit pieces. That is against policy, and I will do my best to ensure that it won't happen in this particular case. By the way, I have no opinion one way or the other about the 1962 war between India and China, except to recognize that wars are catastrophic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:John Schlossberg
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:John Schlossberg. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
That IP
Editors who are only here to attack a religion get blocked, and I've blocked the IP telling him/her that further such edits (including the ones made to articles) will lead to further blocks. Let me know if you see any. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Editing
I hope I am in the right place to ask questions.
I started editing for the first time this week. One "improvement" I would like to make in several articles is to vastly expand the "external sources" section to include a list of online review articles on the subject, and a list of websites where there are charts , illustrations and You tube videos that would enhance the material in the wiki article. My logic is - why try to duplicate on Wikipedia something that has been done very well elsewhere?
Is that an appropriate use of the External sources section? Is giving a short comment as to the value of the source as I see it compatible with Wikipedia policy?
The second question relates to judgments regarding organization and placement of various facts in an article. I'm looking at one where the introduction is massively long, and virtually everything in the intro is repeated later. Is it appropriate for me to delete 90% of the introduction just because I think it is a good idea? Or should I post my intention on the talk page and see if anyone objects?
I would appreciate any feedback.
```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by IiKkEe (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello liKkEe. Adding external links is fine, but they should be relevant, not for promotional purposes, and should otherwise comply with our guideline on external links. The introductory section of an article should summarize the entire contents, and the length of the lead should be proportional to the length of the entire article. One to six paragraphs is a good rule of thumb, but it is a matter of editorial judgment. Please see WP:LEAD for a fuller explanation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've responded to your comments there. To sum it up, I've added information comparing the time of the first settlement of Fishing Creek to time of the first settlement of Pennsylvania (Which I think is irrelevant because the article makes no claims about when other creeks were inhabited). There is no information on when the headwaters of other creeks were inhabited (which again is not important because the article only discusses Fishing Creek), so I can't add anything there. Hopefully there is nothing now to stop you from supporting. Please respond. Thanks. --Jakob (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have made additional comments there, Jakec. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've replied there. And also, my apologies if my above comment sounded like a rant. BTW, is it possible notify you using pings or have you opted out of them? --Jakob (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Pings are fine, Jakec. I detected no rant above, and there is no need for an apology. But thanks anyway.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've replied there. And also, my apologies if my above comment sounded like a rant. BTW, is it possible notify you using pings or have you opted out of them? --Jakob (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Need some flower ID help
IIRC, you know a bit about flowers. Could you lend some expertise at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Please_identify_yellow_flowering_plant. Thanks! --Jayron32 02:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Jayron32: You are right that I love flowers and post at least one of my flower photos on Facebook every day, along with its location, as I travel around Northern California on business and pleasure. This is my way of letting my friends know where I travel, and sharing a bit of beauty. But I am not an expert and usually rely on my Facebook friends for help identifying species. Thanks for remembering my interest in flowers, though. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey Cullen. I wanted to ask if you might give a read to this proposal currently under review; a small team of us want to put together a new space for mentorship that is more lightweight and easier for both mentors and learners to take on. You work a lot with new editors, and I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on it. If you're able, give it a read and let me know any comments you might have about it. We want to make sure this proposal fits the community's needs. If you like the idea, please feel free to leave your support under the Endorsements section. Take care, I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support. Your experience will definitely be valuable to us! :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Happy to support an excellent proposal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cullen! If you aren't busy, could you please skim through TerraCycle and let me know what could be improved? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Bananasoldier. I think that you have done a very thorough job, and the article is well-referenced and informative. My only comment is that I think that the current version may be somewhat overly detailed for a company of relatively small size. I recommend a round of editing to make things more concise. Otherwise, well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Cullen! Thanks for your feedback. I wasn't sure what was sort of excess material and what was the essential material. However, I submitted it for DYK (5x expansion), so should I wait to condense it? :P Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, wait for a while, Bananasoldier. I understand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good! Bananasoldier (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, wait for a while, Bananasoldier. I understand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Cullen! Thanks for your feedback. I wasn't sure what was sort of excess material and what was the essential material. However, I submitted it for DYK (5x expansion), so should I wait to condense it? :P Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, also: What do you think about its structure? I notice that Apple Inc. and Microsoft have different structures in terms of subheadings, but I guess every article is unique. As in, there's no set in stone for the structure of company articles? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- In general, I think that the structure is fine, although the section called "Corporate identity" may be a bit much. Companies vary so much that I don't think a standardized structure would work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! What can I do to fix the corporate identity? Bananasoldier (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have really specific suggestions, Bananasoldier, except to say that it seems a bit choppy to me, and some (but not all) the content may be a bit over-reliant on statements by the company's spokesman. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try to work on it. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have really specific suggestions, Bananasoldier, except to say that it seems a bit choppy to me, and some (but not all) the content may be a bit over-reliant on statements by the company's spokesman. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! What can I do to fix the corporate identity? Bananasoldier (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- In general, I think that the structure is fine, although the section called "Corporate identity" may be a bit much. Companies vary so much that I don't think a standardized structure would work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, also: What do you think about its structure? I notice that Apple Inc. and Microsoft have different structures in terms of subheadings, but I guess every article is unique. As in, there's no set in stone for the structure of company articles? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help
Thank you for answering my question in the Tea House just now! I wondered if there was a delay in indexing photos. I've passed on the information to the student. Best regards! Michelev (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- You are welcome, Michelev. I encountered a very similar situation myself about a week ago, so that indexing delay at Commons is fresh in my mind. I don't know precisely how long the process takes, but my guess is more than a handful of hours but less than 24 hours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Fishing Creek FAC again
Hi,
Are there any further objections on the FAC? --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have no objections, Jakec. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Would you consider supporting in that case? --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 11:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: ? --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 16:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
How to create one of those banner/flags requesting editorial help for a page.
Greetings, Cullen. I've come across a page full of un-cited apparently personal observations and opinions, that is also not very well-written. However, it is a great subject and the author/contributors that have built it obviously care about it and have spent time on it. But it needs a lot of help. I think it might benefit by having one of those banners across it somewhere noting that it contains lots of stuff with no source-citations and that it really needs improvement. Something firm and clear but warm and friendly. But I don't know how to do it myself. If you want to take a look it's Mar Y Sol Pop Festival. Thanks for your help. 108.31.73.101 (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please take a look at Template:Cleanup. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've looked through several of the Template:Cleanup pages, but honestly much of it is essentially unintelligible to me regarding clear instructions on how to accomplish my goal. While I might be able to insert a simple Cleanup banner, I am utterly confused with how to insert a slightly more complicated one - and especially with how to select the right one. It is clear that the article I refer to contains multiple issues, but is the Multiple Issues banner the best one to use? And how do I insert text such as this: "Several portions of this article are written more like personal observations or opinions and lack objective verification and source-citation; the article contains certain information that seems extraneous to a focused understanding of the subject; and there are numerous structural and grammatical weaknesses in the writing." Bmankin1 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Simply follow the format immediately after "Examples",Bmankin1, and insert your preferred language in the reason field. Add that revised template to the very beginning of the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've looked through several of the Template:Cleanup pages, but honestly much of it is essentially unintelligible to me regarding clear instructions on how to accomplish my goal. While I might be able to insert a simple Cleanup banner, I am utterly confused with how to insert a slightly more complicated one - and especially with how to select the right one. It is clear that the article I refer to contains multiple issues, but is the Multiple Issues banner the best one to use? And how do I insert text such as this: "Several portions of this article are written more like personal observations or opinions and lack objective verification and source-citation; the article contains certain information that seems extraneous to a focused understanding of the subject; and there are numerous structural and grammatical weaknesses in the writing." Bmankin1 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Is my subject notable enough to be included
Dear Jim,
I apologise for the fact that there may be a number of this question following you. I have been lost and floundering around. David Biddulph has kindly pointed me in the right direction. I asked the question about my subjects notability last night and Vchimpanzee kindly said that my subject was OK but you might have a different view. I would be extremely grateful if you would look at last night's question and give me your views. If you do, where will I find your reply?
Many thanks, KeithKeithhmorris (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Is my subject notable enough to be included
Dear Jim,
Thank you so much for your reply. I am delighted! I have to take a break for a day or two but how do I discuss it with you? Am I on the right track at the moment? Best wishes, KeithKeithhmorris (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I recommend that you draft your article on your sandbox page, Keithhmorris. Please refer to WP:PRIMER for good advice for new editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I've never had anyone support an FAC of mine before. Thanks! --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:Jason Russell
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jason Russell. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
re your suggestion
It's not about what I'm doing, but what others are doing; what do I do to attract them? Good question, but it seems to have to do with being an easy target for getting me riled so they can pontificate on what a bad Wikipedian I supposedly am, without contributing anything to the discussion other than wiki-lawyering and denying that they should read the facts presented or the facts themselves; that CfD is entirely COI and "stalking" in origin, and was launched without any real guideline or convention to refer to.Skookum1 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wish you well, Skookum1, but here's my observation: I have an attitude toward editing and a style of interaction with others that brings me great satisfaction and a minimum of conflict with other editors. You, on the other hand, have an attitude toward editing and a style of interaction with others that brings you grief and a maximum of conflict with other editors. Your continued claims that "It's not about what I'm doing" speaks volumes in a single phrase. As I said previously, I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)