User talk:Cullen328/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Question

Merry Christmas Jim, could you tell me how to invite new users to TWA? I've been out of the loop recently. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, Flat Out, and great to hear from "down under". Please talk to Ocaasi as he is our resident expert on TWA. Other than that, I know nothing. Alas, I have a limited number of empty pigeonholes in my old brain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey! We're still running the metrics from out beta test, so haven't put together a full roll-out kit. But we do have a nice invite you can use in the meantime: Wikipedia:TWA/Invite. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Yosem'!

Hello!

You may not remember me, as it's been a while since we've spoken and because it seems you've become a much busier Wikipedian lately, but, at any rate, I just wanted to wish you a heartfelt Merry Christmas from up here in HalfDomeland, Tissiacville, the Splendid Merced, the Place of the Gaping Mouth, and some other half-clever nickname I came up with but now forgot! :)

I am the one who created the 1996 Yosemite Valley landslide, 1997 Merced River flood, and Yosemite Lodge at the Falls articles, the Yosemite navbox, and the Shelton Johnson userbox. You were of encouragement/assistance to me in countless forms while I worked on these, as well as other Yosemite pages.

It is unseasonably warm here and, when one stands in the sun, it feels barely colder than down in Los Angeles. It gets nippier in the nighttime, but I could go for some colder temperatures and a dosage of the white stuff myself. The Tioga Road is not open, as it was from December 2011-January 2012 (we both crossed it within two weeks of each other, I believe) due to previous snows, but had these conditions persisted all winter so far I'm sure it would be.

Due to extenuating circumstances, I did not make it up to Yosemite in December 2012, for the first time since I was three years old in 1997. Also due to extenuating circumstances, I'll only be here three full days instead of the usual five or six. But, hey, after missing Yosemite's splendor completely last year, I'm not going to be one to complain about length. Just grateful to have returned. I have been alive for twenty Christmases and have spent seventeen of them in Yosemite. I truly couldn't imagine being anyplace else at this time of year.

Anyhow, now I'm just rambling. THANK YOU for your continued work on Yosemite and Sierra Nevada articles, as well as all you do to improve Wikipedia in general. Hope you had a very happy holiday, and I hope you can make it up here again sometime very soon.

Warmly,
–RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 07:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(P.S. Please forgive me if this message was accidentally posted twice, the wifi's giving me trouble up here.)

Thanks, RedSoxFan274, for the report from my favorite place. I was last there about six months ago, so I'm definitely ready for another trip. Enjoy, and have a safe trip home. Happy New Year! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Greiner

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bill Greiner. 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, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I would just like to say that it has been helpful for me to be able to vent about some of my experiences in editing. Understanding that no editor owns any article, it is not, nor ever has been my intention to "own" any article. For that, I believe I have again been misjudged, and I do believe that greater understanding and consideration can be afforded to those who are experienced in writing such as myself. Regarding experience on Wikipedia, there is always room for improvement, whether or not an editor is experienced. I will remove my comments, however the experiences that I had have deterred some of my further contributions to Wikipedia. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You are very gracious, Daniellagreen. I truly hope that you will put aside any feelings that might deter you from contributing further. It is useful for newer editors to learn some of the social norms here. Editors on Wikipedia are evaluated and judged pretty much solely on their contributions here, as opposed to their writing experience elsewhere. I have been a published writer for decades, and nobody here cares a whit about any of that. Only my contributions to Wikipedia count when evaluating my worth as an editor. The same standard applies to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Cullen, Certainly, I understand your viewpoint here, and I can appreciate that, however being "new to Wikipedia" has often been thrown into my face, causing me to feel inferior, misunderstood, misjudged, disrespected, and unappreciated. I can also appreciate that you were not born yesterday, as neither was I. I do understand the policies, as well, however to say that I have maintained an "enemy list" is inaccurate in that it should be viewed as an opportunity for improvement on Wikipedia by all editors. When editors get into a conflict over one revert, and then do not respond on their talk page after being contacted about the revert, but escalate the situation into a blown out argument defies any professionalism with which I am familiar. This has not just happened on the Bill Greiner article, but also with other editors on the State University of New York at Fredonia and University at Buffalo articles. Why is it okay that those editors appear to own those latter articles, and rarely accept edits from other editors? This makes for an atmosphere that condones exclusivity in regard to particular individuals who edit articles. So, my concern is that whether editors are experienced or not, a higher level of professionalism could be practiced and promoted for all, and that policies could be improved that cause Wikipedia editing to be more user friendly for everyone, much as I have experienced with John_from_Idegon. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not acceptable for any editor to exhibit ownership behavior on any article, but it is certainly true and unfortunate that some do show that behavior. I haven't reviewed those other university articles, Daniellagreen but will take a look if you wish. If you want to propose improvement to policies, then the talk page for the policy in question is the best place to start. I am a strong advocate here for civil behavior and respectful interaction among editors. I have learned in the past 4-1/2 years that the best way to do that is to try to model civil behavior myself, to try to defuse conflicts, to try to welcome and assist new editors, and to try to encourage positive interactions in a positive way. Folks who style themselves as "civility police", going around openly criticizing other editors for their failings, often don't get too far here. I don't think any less of you as a relatively new editor as I can readily see that you have done good work here, and have great potential. Other editors on a self destructive and combative path are likely to be blocked and perhaps eventually banned. Often, it is best to avoid locking horns with such people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessary that you review the Fredonia or UB articles. I found that the same editor who began the conflict on the Fredonia article had also reverted information I added on the UB article. My perspective is that if they want exclusive articles that they can control, then I don't need to contribute to them. Also, I would like to add that EricEnfermero and I had discussion about the Greiner article on both of our talk pages, and had reached increased understanding about each other's perspectives. I do appreciate your comments, though to have this issue crop up again with this article has gotten me all upset all over again. I do appreciate your advice, though I believe that for my own best interests, it will be good to take a break for awhile. Daniellagreen (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is lets discuss

Thanks for taking the time to talk with me. Let me reassure you that I am working in good faith and have tried to research the guidelines, but of course I am new. I also believe robol is a very dedicated editor, and believe that he is doing exactly as you say and trying to keep fringe views out of Wikipedia. If I become a more experienced editor I would do the same thing. When I read the guidelines I find both clear words and desire which go towards the need to present significant minority opinions. The distinction is very important. I sense that there are three levels: majority opinion, substantial minority opinion, and fringe.

I would cite the vaccine safety deniers as an example of something that might be slightly higher than fringe but that clearly does not reach the level of substantial minority. The have, for example peer reviewed papers that show mycoplasma in some vaccine. That seems far insufficient.

But if the case were made for any group to be established as a significant minority then it does change the wording significantly, as you would need to say "Evidence shows vaccines are safe." Instead of "Vaccines are safe."

Since I don't want vaccine safety deniers elevated, I totally get the importance. I wasn't sure myself what I thought about this after deciding to pass on expanding even more controversial medical articles (autism, adhd).

The case here is evidence based, and happens when notable figures in the field identify themselves with a position. Here we have two very emininent people in the field working with them. I have never done this, so want to understand the process of debate. It seems like a very simple yes/no question for this article and the evidence seems clearcut. But I only see the same research and documentation that everyone else does, so can be easily dissuaded if my facts are wrong.

In any case the page needs work, and without a decision of whether this group is fringe or substatntial minority I do not know how to frame the issue.

As for low patience. I agree that robol does not need more trouble makers. That is why I am working so hard to start a conversation. I also agree that sometimes you need to wear down trouble makers, and you should. So I will stay persistent until everyone discovers that I am trying to get it right.

Thanks for your help. I hope that everyone who steps into help doesn't run into this, and its just because I landed on a hot button.

Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I get the points that you are making and appreciate the sincere way you express yourself, Bob the goodwin. My comments to you were made in my role as a Teahouse host, noticing that no one else had responded, and some time had gone by. I do my best there to give an overview of various things that new editors ought to know. I have no medical training and rarely if ever edit articles on medical topics. So my limited goal was to give you a bit of a "heads up", but if you are going to continue editing in that area, you will have to learn the intricacies on your own. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thx. awesome reply. This is a very interesting experience. Thanks for you efforts on behalf of the world. Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pay-to-view Articles as References

Hi Jim, Thank you for your input. I recently started fiddling around with Wikipedia and editing a few pages on subjects I had some knowledge on - or I was able to do some research on. I am still a bit confused about the entire process and the "maze" of Wikipedia (prods, talk pages, review processes, &c.), but I think I am beginning to get the hang of it - but not quickly. :) I also created a page on an organization that went through the review process and then within half a day or so of being "published" it was tagged with a WP:PROD. I researched what I was supposed to do to fix the concerns noted in the "PROD" - and fixed them (or so I thought). The delete comment stated that there was no information on the organization I was writing about (the editor was right that most of the good citations were related to a lawsuit that the group was engaged in because it was of national interest (NYTimes, CBS News, &c.), while the citations regarding other things the group had done (organizing around the state, working with the legislature on various issues, &c.) were less high-profile). I had no idea when I was writing the article that I could list citations from pay-per-view newspaper archives (the organization is defunct although was active in the 90s and '00s), that was why I asked the question in the TeaRoom about using these citations. When I learned though that I could use them, I was pretty sure that this would address the editor's concern. I added eight articles that, to me, seemed to squarely address what the editor had mentioned. I then removed the WP:PROD, added my commentary in the edit summary showing what I was doing to address the concern. Then an hour or so later the AfD was added. I will work through the discussion and let the chips fall where they may, but I wondered if you might look at the original concern that the editor raised and if you think I addressed it satisfactorily. I don't even know if what I am asking you is acceptable within the rules of Wikipedia, so please bear with me on that! Thank you again for your help. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello BrianThibodeaux. Since you have no way of knowing how I will feel about the actual article, there is nothing wrong with alerting me, since I gave you advice at the Teahouse. I will take a look at the AfD. Please hang in there. We need good editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Jim. I am good at editing. From my brief experience, I am not so sure how good I am at writing articles. :) BrianThibodeaux (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Jim. Another question on citations. This one for an episode of "In The Life" (PBS) which was made about LEGAL's lawsuit. It is not available online at present (apparently the "In the Life" series ended after 20 years - just this past year), but UCLA's Film and Television Archive is planning to upload this series (their website says by late 2013!). How would I reference this episode while at the same time saying that it should be available soon - or do I even mention its subsequent availability? Thank you again for all of your help - BrianThibodeaux (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In this case, BrianThibodeaux, I would cite as much of the information about the PBS coverage as you can right now, and then add the URL to the archived video when it becomes available. No need to mention its upcoming status. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you, again. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for much of the year

		The Special Barnstar
		For patience and skill as a mentor and for concise and wise comments on discussion pages. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You are very kind, Wasted Time R. I try to be helpful, and it is nice when others notice it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback would be appreciated.

Hey Jim. Over the last month I have significantly expanded the “Sousa Mendes” article. My goal is a solid article respecting Wikipedia policies. Since you’ve greeted me, one of your interests is somehow connected (Judaism) I would really appreciate if you could read it and provide constructive feed back. Can you help out JPratas (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello JPratas. The article is Aristides de Sousa Mendes. I have no expertise in Portugese history, and don't have time for a complete analysis of the article. However, I have read it and will post some constructive criticisms on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now posted my quick evaluation of the article at Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Cullen328! Thank you so much for accepting my request. Thank you also for your time and valuable, constructive feed-back. I’ve substantially edited the article trying to follow your suggestions and guidance. If it is not too much to ask I would like you to give it another review and provide more feedback. I am the one to be blamed for the poor English. I am not native speaker; therefore your help would also be much appreciated on this matter, but I guess the article will still need some rework before we start worrying about form. (I've also posted this paragraph on the article's talk page - I was not sure if you would get "you've got mail warning if I just replied there)JPratas (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cullen328!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Cullen328: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you very much Northamerica1000. I appreciate your comment, and look forward to a great 2014 with all the committed, productive editors, with a minimum of "drahhmahh". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Here here! Best regards, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cullen328

Pratyya ^(Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you, too, Pratyya Ghosh. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bio - forgot Velotrain (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC) first time Suggestion: PUT them on the top of the screen, so seeing the note isn't dependent on scrolling down

Hi Jim -

Well, the problem is that AFAIK no authoritative bio info has been published on him.

My intent is an accurate Bio to the best of my knowledge.

I can certainly pull in references, but they only cover a limited amount of his life and work

BTW - there is a stub on him now, but it uses an inaccurate name.

Charles

When I first logged in, it said there was no talk page for me. I created one, but had no idea what it was for, or what if anything I was supposed to put there.

Velotrain (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Velotrain. It is not necessary for an "authoritative bio" to have been published. Take a look at all the reliable sources that give him significant coverage. Things like newspaper and magazine articles or articles in art journals or on the websites of notable museums that exhibit his work. Anything they say about him and his work can be included in the article, if cited properly. Book jacket language, blogs, tabloid journalism material and gossip must be avoided.

You have broad latitude to use your user page as you see fit, for the purpose of interacting with other editors and working to build the encyclopedia. Common things are to describe your areas of interest and list articles you've worked on. Please see WP:User pages for more information. Also, take a look at mine.

Established talk page convention here is that posts are arranged in chronological order, with old posts at the top and the newest posts at the bottom. The Teahouse is the only place I know that does this differently, but it isn't really a "talk page" strictly speaking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Multi

Hi Jim - I understand what Let's discuss it is, but had the impression that it was a hot link. I saw it at the bottom of your reply, but I couldn't activate it there, so took that to mean you were no longer available.

I have no idea how I deleted anything. Can you determine just how I did this? I can't imagine that I can delete from the teahouse, so did I delete it in my Talk folder? I don't recall clicking on any button that said Delete. I'm quite certain that I never got a prompt, "are you sure you want to delete this?"

Back to the possible bio. This artist was born in another country, and I learned some things about his time there by posting on a genealogy forum. Much of the responces linked me to government documents - is that considered personal research? I could either point to the thread on this group, or the original source docs.

Charles

Velotrain (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Velotrain. Charles, you must have opened the Teahouse question edit window, highlighted the material, and then left without saving. The Teahouse edit history shows at least two deletions by you there recently. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, except protected pages, and for obvious reasons, the Teahouse is unprotected. So it is clear from the page history that you deleted that material accidentally from the Teahouse. My comments on your talk page remain there.

As for the biography, we don't normally use primary sources like government documents as sources in a biography. Genealogy forums lack professional editorial control and fact checking. Such documents can guide and inform your search for reliable sources, but are problematic as sources themselves.

If you give me the article name, I may well be able to give you more specific suggestions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim -

I have no memory of seeing that screen, much less highlighting anything.

You say highlighted material automatically gets deleted if you leave the page? I would have thought "Save" would be the default.

Our exchange is NOT still on my talk page, which leads me to another possibility.

Someone put a "menu/directory" in my talk page, and I wonder if that action could have wiped out everything previously in there?

Are there any graphic diagrams / discussion of navigating here? I find it less than intuitive, especially when things start disappearing on me.

Charles

Velotrain (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) What I'm guessing happened here is that you edited an old revision of the page instead of the live current version. There was likely a warning near the very top of the page, which you may not have seen as pages tend to scroll down to the edit window upon load, that looked something like:

You are editing an old revision of this page. If you publish it, any changes made since then will be removed. You may wish to edit the current revision instead.

Changing the page and hitting save would have deleted ALL material between that revision and the current revision. If I can be of any further assistance, feel free to leave a message on my talk page or use the email link in the sidebar or at the top of my user page. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Velotrain: Charles, my comments are at the bottom of your talk page now. I just verified that. Simply scroll to the bottom of your talk page to see them. If you click "help" on the menu in the left column, a wide array of help pages will be offered to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Canada naming

Hi Cullen: RE the naming of Canada. I do get what you're saying, and that's why I wasn't suggesting "eliminating" the name Canada (for pre 1867 entries). And while it is true that the term "Canada" was in use before 1867, it wasn't an umbrella name or used in many places: Acadia, New France, Ruperts Land, etc etc were all equally in use.

So, I'm more puzzling it out than being insistent on change. As I say, I don't feel that the name Canada is entirely inappropriate or shouldn't be used for pre-1867 entries. But I was wondering if a caveat of the type I suggested in my other note would be in order.

I have seen some pages in Wiki with caveats in italics at the top -- although at this moment I can't find an example of one, but I know they're there! I also don't know if there's a wiki policy on naming of countries -- there must be lots of other examples of country names used before those countries actually existed, or the names changed, or whatever.

OOPs, just found an example of an italicized clarification. On the South Sudan page, at the top, it says: "Southern Sudan" redirects here. For the former autonomous regions of Southern Sudan, see Southern Sudan autonomous region (1972–1983) and Southern Sudan autonomous region (2005–2011)."

Now, I'm not proposing a "redirect," of course, but a clarification. For example, my caveat might say something similar such as: "The country Canada didn't come into existence until 1867. See also "Ruperts Land," "New France," Acadia", Lower Canada and Upper Canada for pre-1867 events and people."

What d'ya think? Wordy24 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wordy24. I think that a clarifying note might be in order, such as "This article is about events in the French colony of (link) or the British colonies of (links)". My closest analogy is California, which was Spanish, then Mexican territory, then briefly independent until American occupation in 1846. So in articles about California history before 1846, I don't recall notes at the top making a point about California not being a U.S. state until 1850. I think that is just assumed in the broader context of the article and related, linked articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Saib Tabrizi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Saib Tabrizi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)