Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Cullen328

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 18 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Upload image

Hello Cullen, Thank you very much for your support with the page about Sommer Contmporary Art, I created it and since I'm still a new user I need help and advices. Now I'm creating a page about an Israeli artist and I have problems to upload the images. The one that is now on the page was given to me from a privet person and I don't know how to manage with the copyright, do I have to provide to the details of the owner of the image or how can I show that he gave it to me to use it on wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Krokamaora/sandbox

Thank you in advance! Krokamaora (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Krokamaora. The fastest and easiest way is for the person who actually took the photo to set up an account on Wikimedia Commons and upload the photo under a free license. If that is not possible, then let me know why. I will then give you alternatives, which are slower and more complicated. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Cullen, I will try to ask to this person to do it, and if it is not possible do you think could be easier to take a picture from the website of the artist?

Krokamaora (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The artist's website is almost certainly copyrighted, and so copying a photo from there is a copyright violation which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You could take a photo of the artist yourself. I do that myself quite often. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul LePage

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul LePage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

About a discussion at Teahouse

Hello Cullen! I was reading this discussion at the Teahouse in which you participated and, as someone who has just starter to contribute to Wikipedia, I wanted to tell you that from the perspective of a newbie like me your response to that person could be perceived a little bit intimidating. I highly respect you and I know that it wasn't your intention to be rude, but I thought that a subjective external point of view of a newbie could have been appreciated and taken into consideration. Cheers! ► LowLevel (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, LowLevel73, which motivated me to make a further comment. I am all in favor of being friendly to newbies. But if that means misleading them with an excess of faux kindness, then I must disagree. We have standards here, and our main goal is to build an excellent free encyclopedia. Friendliness that coddles poor content creation is, in my view, not useful. Polite frankness is much more useful, as I see it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Uploading images

Hi Cullen, thanks for offering to help out.

The page I'm trying to update is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Ace

and the image I need attached is http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140315004313/voiceacting/images/thumb/4/48/Get_Ace_Web_Logo.jpg/326px-Get_Ace_Web_Logo.jpg Any help you could offer, would make my day. Wish my work had the same attitude towards deadlines as you guys.

It would be best to use a source that is connected to the show, as opposed to a wiki. Wikipedia editors are volunteers and have no assignments or bosses. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. So if I take an image from the official website http://www.getace.tv/ or just use something I can get from the production office? Eitherway, it's a moot point since I'm not autoconfirmed yet so it won't let me upload any images at all. And unfortunately for me, I do have a boss and assignments, sorry if this doesn't run in the spirit of things here. Again wish I had the time to wait and do it the usual way. Thanks again for all your help. Anyway at all you could help me get the image up there would be much appreciated.

Teahouse discussion about Goethe Award for Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Scholarship

Hi Cullen, I would like to continue the discussion on Teahouse about establishing notability. I am working on this draft article that was rejected: Goethe Award for Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Scholarship. Using your argument about independence, it could be argued that a newspaper is not independent because it reports on something in the hope of selling more copies of its newspaper. In any event, I still can't think of how I could possibly meet the criteria of notability for an award for academic scholarly books. Please help. If I find peer reviewed notable journals publishing articles by the author of the book that won the award, and the author's bio blurb in the journal refers to the fact that the author won the award, would that be helpful in establishing notability?PhilPsych (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC) Here is an example of what I am proposing: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/200/6/439.full.pdf+html. In the editorial on the first page, please see the small explanation of who is Jeremy Holmes in the British Journal of Psychiatry. Would this be a suitable citation to establish notability for the award?PhilPsych (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC) I can find many similar examples but here is one more. This citation work is quite tedious, so your feedback would be most welcome as to whether this kind of citation helps to establish notability for the award. The book Money Talks: In Therapy, Society, and Life edited by Brenda Berger, Stephanie Newman and published by Routledge has a section about the book's contributors which explains that one of the contributors, Muriel Dimen, won the award for another book which she wrote. This Money Talks book did not win the award but it is referring to the award so wondering if this helps establish notability of the award or not. If it does, I will continue to get these types of citations, add them to the article, and re-submit. I think I will stop now and wait for your feedback about whether to pursue these kinds of citations. PhilPsych (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

PhilPsych, I don't see where that source by Jeremy Holmes mentions the award, let along giving significant coverage to that award. Am I missing something? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
What we need is significant coverage of the award itself, not passing mention that so-and-so's book won the award. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
As for your newspaper analogy, let me make a few points: First, reliable newspapers maintain strict separation between their reporting and editorial staffers, and their advertising and finance staffers. Second, there is widespread consensus among experienced Wikipedia editors that better newspapers with a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and error correction can be used as sources in many, but not all articles. We don't use newspapers in medical articles, for example, where our standards are much more stringent. Third, there are many newspapers that can be called "sensationalistic tabloids" that we do not use as sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, Thanks for your response. I don't find that your references to newspaper "accuracy" and "strict separation" very helpful in addressing my analogy. Also, there seems to be some implication that my references were deleted because they appeared on websites that lacked "accuracy" and "strict separation" between potential conflicting interests. In any event I don't understand how this is relevant because again I emphasize that my references appeared on the websites of a notable publishers of peer reviewed scholarly books. But putting that aside, I am relieved that you appear to realize that standards are much stricter for scholarly publishing than for newspaper reporting. I still find you have not explained why the two new citation examples I have provided do not meet the notability criteria. This is an award for scholarly academic peer reviewed books granted by a committee appointed by the Canadian Psychological association. I gave you an example of a peer reviewed medical journal outside of Canada explaining that the author of the editorial won the award. So the British journal thinks this is notable enough to highlight. Also I provided a similar citation from a peer reviewed book published outside of Canada. You appear to refer condescendingly to these citations as "passing mention that so-and-so's book won the award". I find this statement puzzling since that is all you will find when it comes to scholarly book awards. What else is there to mention about a scholarly book award? I have searched randomly on Wikipedia through articles about awards for academic scholarly work and cannot find any example of an article meeting the criteria you are apparently seeking. The citations all amount to ""passing mention that so-and-so's book won the award." Which is entirely sufficient. Why would you expect that an academic would write an article in a scholarly journal about an award, other than to say who won the award? If you can find an example of a good Wikipedia article about a similar topic, I think that would be most helpful. PhilPsych (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@PhilPsych: A couple of examples of award articles are American Sociological Association Distinguished Scholarly Book Award and PROSE Awards. The PROSE Awards are well known and mentioned in magazines for librarians and elsewhere. See the References, especially the last one, which I just added. That gives a good idea of what kind of awards these are. The ASA award is described as an "ASA major award", as opposed to the Section awards, of which there are dozens. In the References there is an article about the ASA Awards called "Prize Proliferation". Although it's behind a paywall so we can't read, it probably has a description of this award. In other words, it's a notable award.
About the Goethe award, I checked Google Web|Books|Scholar and couldn't find it mentioned anywhere except by publishers who had won it. From that it seems to be a relatively minor Section award. Not that I'm not sympathetic. In my work I often need to find information about awards like this, and it's hard to find. Especially for scholarly awards. That doesn't mean they're not important, but it's hard to demonstrate. One thing you might do is write the Association and ask -- who's on the jury, why is it named after Goethe, how important do they think it is relative to other awards, and any other background they may have. Ask if they could write that up and publish it somewhere so you could cite it. Even if the draft doesn't pass this time, it won't be deleted so you can always come back to if you can get some background like that. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
PhilPsych, I have been doing my best to explain how things with how our notability standards apply with regards to your article, and my opinions are based on five years of almost daily participation in building this encyclopedia, being one of the most active Teahouse hosts, and participating in thousands of debates about whether to keep or delete articles. It is clear that you, as a new editor devoted to creating a specific article, are unconvinced by my efforts to explain how things work behind the scenes here. So be it. I could be wrong and you will find an Articles for Creation reviewer who will accept your draft. Good luck to you. I will not try to delete your article because I think that the award may well be notable although I do not think that you have shown so yet. I have no power greater than any other volunteer editor to help you.
As for the newspaper thing, it is a fact and not my opinion that virtually every experienced Wikipedia editor accepts significant coverage in newspapers as evidence of notability. The same cannot be said of publisher's websites. That is also a fact. Even if I retired from Wikipedia now, those would remain facts.
We do not always hold academic subjects to the same standards as "popular culture" topics. I have already mentioned that we have more stringent sourcing standards for medical articles, as described in WP:MEDRS. On the other hand, biographies of professors and other academics do not have to meet our usual strict standards for biographies of living people. Instead, their notability is gauged by the academic positions they hold, or by how often their published papers are cited by other academics, and so on. So, we have many articles about academics that do not include references to biographical profiles in general circulation newspapers and magazines.
We have no such special notability guideline for awards, academic or otherwise. Award articles need to meet the general notability guideline, whether the award is for academic books, children's books, novels, art books, or for sailboat design, interior decoration, woodworking, knitting or any other type of human endeavor. We respect academic accomplishment, but do not offer a "special pass" for articles about awards in that area.
I have just learned that we have WP:WikiProject Awards and prizes, a group of editors who work on that type of article. Their categorization shows that a large majority of our articles about awards are rated "start" or "stub". In other words, they are marginal and mediocre. You may want to look at the small minority of the articles under the purview of that project rated "Good" or "B" for examples of what we are looking for. Active members of that project may be able to give you more targeted advice. In the early days of Wikpedia, lots of lower quality articles were created. We weed those out and are are striving for higher quality now.
I am happy to respond to any new questions you might have. I do not think it will be productive to revisit areas that we have discussed in detail and where we clearly disagree. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I have no doubt that my probing has expressed a bit of my frustration, in the sense that I may have wasted some effort, but I would not want you to think I am ungrateful for your help. I appreciate the elaboration you have provided here. Thank you for being open to other future questions. I am good for now. PhilPsych (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Postural Restoration

Jim, I am committed to revising and bettering the article "postural restoration" as i feel it is a relevant wikipedia page. That being said i understand the use of medical journals and their authors and can somewhat agree that the use of the creators articles is potentially biased. Also the small town newspaper which was inappropriately used as a source. However in relation to the other sources i feel as if they are all medically reviewed, and published journals which could contribute to this article. I feel that the author, (Boyle) which you discussed on the talk page "postural restoration", has simply published her results of using the science in her practice, whether or not she is advocating it should not pertain because she has simply discussed the results of case studies where this approach has been used. And as mentioned they are in mediacl journals. So upon removal of the creators (Ronald Hruskas) sources and the newspaper source, could your dispute be removed from the article? Thank you for your help. Alex.e.miller (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Alex.e.miller. The best page for this conversation is Talk:Postural Restoration, so I will copy your comments, and respond over there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Mas

Hello, is there any chance I could prevail upon you to participate over here? Much has been said already, the article creator admits he isn't too concerned about WP:N, instead going by his own, higher, more mystical, more obscurantist standard — and I really would like to avoid prolonging the agony for another week. Thank you for your consideration. - Biruitorul Talk 14:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't respond when the other editor pinged me because I didn't want any perception that I had been canvassed. But now that both sides have asked me to comment, I have. Sorry you have had to go through that ordeal, Biruitorul. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

DRAFT:ILLUMAGEAR article deleted for copyright issues -- seeking guidance

Hello Jim, my first article was unfortunately deleted for copyright issues. Can you help me understand more specifically what the issue(s) were and how I can go about re-editing and re-submitting the article? I have reviewed several articles today on wikipedia to better understand the issue. Re: the G12 reference, I had permission from the copyright owner for certain parts of the article. However, I'm also happy to go in and re-write the appropriate section(s) to give them a neutral point of view. I'm willing to put in the time to make whatever edits are necessary. Thanks for any assistance/guidance. Best regards, -Andrew

Hello A0royal. First, you have to show that the company/product is notable as Wikipedia uses that term, which means it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. You can't copy and paste any extensive sections from a copyrighted website. It simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Even if formal permission was given in writing (difficult and legalistic), promotional sales language is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article, so it would certainly be excluded on that basis. Any article needs to be written in neutral language. I hope this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, I understand. I will rewrite. There are a number of other independent sources I can reference. How do I access the deleted article in order to edit and resubmit? Is it archived somewhere?
Hello A0royal. Copyright violations are completely wiped from the database. You need to start fresh, scrupulously avoiding all copyright violations. Please also sign all of your talk page edits with four tildes, which look like this: "~". Four of those in a row, without quotes. That will sign and date stamp your comment. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sigmund Freud

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sigmund Freud. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hi Jim. You seem to have a problem, which is that you care too much about new editors.

Wikipedia seems to have a problem, which is that it mostly cares not at all about new editors, who are actually the lifeblood of the encyclopedia.

Arbcom has a problem, which is that almost no-one wants to serve on it, to the extent that anyone standing is now likely to get elected, and that means even more people who don't care much about new editors! (Maybe.)

Anyway, it seems that this arbcom thing needs a hard-working, fair, thoughtful kind of person to serve on its committee thing for two years.

Would you consider standing? I would ask you to say yes, and to be quick about it, since you need to write things on this page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates in less than 48 hours now. Just a brief statement of intent is enough, you can refine your candidacy later, in the questions and discussion etc.

I will reassure you that last year one of the candidates didn't bother answering any of the questions (of which there are many), and got elected anyway.

I am writing this here because I think the best people on Wikipedia are the people who should be taking these "top" roles, not other people. I will understand if you consider it and decide it is not the best use of your time.

Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that I am honored that you would consider me a good candidate for this trusted role, Demiurge1000. I have to decline at this time, but I would not rule it out in the future. I hope that you have noticed that I am not an administrator although I know that isn't a formal Arbcom qualification. My reasons are several and specific, and I prefer not to discuss them in this public forum. If you send me an email, I will be glad to elaborate. Thank you very much for thinking of me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your email

I am aware of this, and have been in touch with the WMF. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, AndyTheGrump. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You have helped many find the help they need. Runne (talk) 15:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Runne. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Robert Peter Gale. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This beer is on me

A beer on me!
For saving me from a possible edit war and/or addressing another editor with language I picked up in the Navy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

.

I am printing it out, tucking it in my wallet, and will collect a pint if our paths ever cross physically, Ad Orientem. We have a little mess on our hands, and need collaboration and consensus to clean it up. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. My own strong inclination is to reduce the controversial stuff and conspiracy theories to one or at most two sections and get rid of a lot of the unnecessary details. As it stands the article is a conspiracy WP:COATRACK and a WP:DUE train-wreck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Go for it. You can count on my support. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen

Your edits cause the article to confuse readers. Under Conspiracy theories, you refer to Dr. DiMaio without saying his first name.

Your edits also cause confusion with the caption for the photo in After death and legacy. The readers recognize Dorothy in the photo, but they don't know who the man and younger woman are unless you tell them. The readers already have noted Dorothy's married name Kollmar in a previous part of the article, so they understand when the caption says "the Kollmars." But they are clueless about the two people who are seated with Dorothy in the nightclub booth. They are her husband Richard AKA Dick and their daughter Jill.

What are you going to do if I submit a new edit that adds these people's first names -- nothing else? Are you going to ban me from editing? DiMaio's first name is Dominick -- correct spelling. You can confirm that with one of the article's major sources: the Midwest Today online article from 2007. Nobody has called it in particular a fringe source.

Regarding other changes I tried to make two days ago, you may think that my adding more words from the online copy of the 1966 Ramparts article on Kilgallen means the Wikipedia article endorses conspiracy theories. If that is the case, then why do your edits contain the first sentence from that same Ramparts article: "We know of no serious person who really believes ..." I was trying to add one extra sentence that comes after that, and you call me a conspiracy supporter? It is also strange that you have not labeled Ramparts one of the fringe sources. Many people believe it was a radical left-wing publication based in San Francisco that had its widest appeal at the height of the anti-Vietnam War movement. Wikipedia itself hints at that description in more than one article.KathrynFauble (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is discussion about the content of a specific article, KathrynFauble, and that discussion belongs at Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. I added no content cited to Ramparts Magazine. I added no content to that article at all. I removed overt copyright violations and material I judged inappropriate. I believe the article has major problems and the majority of the excessive detail about her death should be removed. But the specifics should be discussed on the talk page, not here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Amy Tan Award

Amy Tan Award
Thank you for participating in the First Annual Litquake Edit-a-thon on October 11, 2014 in parallel with Litquake, the San Francisco Bay Area's annual literature festival. Your content contributions and community collaboration helped make the event a success, and are appreciated! Rosiestep (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Rosiestep. It was wonderful, as always, to see you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Imran Khan

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Imran Khan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Engineering Institute of Technology - Submission declined due to referencing issues

Jim,

Firstly; thank you for making yourself known and available for guidance regarding the above mentioned draft page.

As per the subject line, the 'Engineering Institute of Technology' article was denied due to referencing issues. Unfortunately, the reference provided has been deemed invalid and I would therefore appreciate any help to rectify this issue to ensure the EIT page is successfully published.

I look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest convenience.

Regards, OJCASK (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC) (Oliver)

Hello OJCASK. I took a look at your draft, which has many problems. First, it has only a single reference to an Australian newspaper article which is behind a pay wall. We expect multiple references to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Much of the content of the article consists of long lists of educational programs, linked to external websites. There should be no external links in the body of the article, although an external link to the school's website at the end of the article in its own section is OK. Your article should be written primarily as a well referenced narrative, not as a long list. What narrative material you have is largely unreferenced.
The sections on accreditation are way too long, and describe the accreditation programs in excessive detail rather than describing the accreditation of the school.
I suspect that you will find many reviewers to be skeptical about the notability of an online technical school. You need to show this through solid evidence of accreditation cited to independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
When I read through your draft, OJCASK, and then read through the school's website, it appears likely that much of your content is copied from that website, which has a copyright notice. We do not allow copyright protected content on Wikipedia, except for brief excerpts in quotation marks, cited to the source. You must immediately remove all copyrighted material from your draft, and it must be written in your own words, properly referenced to your sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

thank you

thank you, jim ... it is very helpful. again my thanks for your kind cooperation. yes, and i will follow your directions and let me see what i can do.("Cyrusrobati" 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusrobati (talk • contribs)

You are welcome, Cyrusrobati. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I wondered if you saw my recent reply to your message on the Missing Links Volume Two talk page. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have commented on that talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

woo

Cullen, I appreciate your note on ANI, but I think it's time that somebody tell me what "woo" is. Please? Drmies (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What am I here, the Oxford English Dictionary, or just a guy like you, only less educated, and who takes more naps, and makes curmudgeonly observations about the evolution of the language? You could check the Urban Dictionary or some other impeccable, reliable source, you know? OK, I have qualified my opinion adequately, I hope.
When you visit your cousins in Montana, and Randy in the trailer park down the street notices the twelve pack on your cousin's porch, and stops by for a beer, and tells you how the space aliens took him up to "outer space" for a "probe", then you might sarcastically say "that's woo woo". OK, I agree, it is about on the same linguistic level as The Flintstones when I was a kid, where there was a toddler named "Bam Bam". But you didn't come here for a critique of Kant and Hegel, did you? You are the one who asked.
So, intelligent skeptics, who worship at the Las Vegas cathedral of the Amazing Randi and the voluble half of Penn and Teller, have boiled the whole concept down to three letters: "woo". It is a signifier. "We hate all forms of pseudoscience and will do anything to discredit every one of them." Great elsewhere, and useful, if harnessed properly, here on Wikipedia. Unfettered, it is another POV push. That's how I see it, Drmies because I truly support NPOV here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad someone cleared that up! Thanks. Also, YGM, in a minute. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You are, it ought to go without saying, welcome, Drmies..Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Co-op: Pre-pilot discussion for mentors

Hey Cullen. I've posted some initial information and discussions points about the space for mentors here. Give it a read, ask questions on what's not clear, and feel free to add suggestions to the topics I've brought up about mentoring so far. I just pinged a bunch of people at once for this; I understand that sometimes it doesn't go through, so I wanted to make sure you were aware. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I JethroBT. I have read over the material and will think about it in days to come. I wish we had a better place to discuss perceptions of harassment then ANI, with its "pack of wolves" reputation. Perhaps there could be a simple, basic structure with graphics encouraging collaboration, where the mentor could act as a mediator, getting both parties to state their concern in "100 words or less" and the mentor could suggest a solution going forward. This is just quick brainstorming. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that ANI is not an ideal atmosphere to address conduct issues during the course of mentorship. I think mentors acting as mediators would be a great idea. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

woo

Cullen, I appreciate your note on ANI, but I think it's time that somebody tell me what "woo" is. Please? Drmies (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What am I here, the Oxford English Dictionary, or just a guy like you, only less educated, and who takes more naps, and makes curmudgeonly observations about the evolution of the language? You could check the Urban Dictionary or some other impeccable, reliable source, you know? OK, I have qualified my opinion adequately, I hope.
When you visit your cousins in Montana, and Randy in the trailer park down the street notices the twelve pack on your cousin's porch, and stops by for a beer, and tells you how the space aliens took him up to "outer space" for a "probe", then you might sarcastically say "that's woo woo". OK, I agree, it is about on the same linguistic level as The Flintstones when I was a kid, where there was a toddler named "Bam Bam". But you didn't come here for a critique of Kant and Hegel, did you? You are the one who asked.
So, intelligent skeptics, who worship at the Las Vegas cathedral of the Amazing Randi and the voluble half of Penn and Teller, have boiled the whole concept down to three letters: "woo". It is a signifier. "We hate all forms of pseudoscience and will do anything to discredit every one of them." Great elsewhere, and useful, if harnessed properly, here on Wikipedia. Unfettered, it is another POV push. That's how I see it, Drmies because I truly support NPOV here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad someone cleared that up! Thanks. Also, YGM, in a minute. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You are, it ought to go without saying, welcome, Drmies..Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hedwig of Holstein. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Co-op: Pre-pilot discussion for mentors

Hey Cullen. I've posted some initial information and discussions points about the space for mentors here. Give it a read, ask questions on what's not clear, and feel free to add suggestions to the topics I've brought up about mentoring so far. I just pinged a bunch of people at once for this; I understand that sometimes it doesn't go through, so I wanted to make sure you were aware. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I JethroBT. I have read over the material and will think about it in days to come. I wish we had a better place to discuss perceptions of harassment then ANI, with its "pack of wolves" reputation. Perhaps there could be a simple, basic structure with graphics encouraging collaboration, where the mentor could act as a mediator, getting both parties to state their concern in "100 words or less" and the mentor could suggest a solution going forward. This is just quick brainstorming. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that ANI is not an ideal atmosphere to address conduct issues during the course of mentorship. I think mentors acting as mediators would be a great idea. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dalai Lama is primary or secondary source?

Dalai Lama is primary or secondary source?VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, VictoriaGrayson. That depends on context. If he is writing about himself or contemporary events he is a participant in, then he is a primary source. If he is writing a scholarly discussion of some aspect of Buddhist history from before his birth, then that may be a secondary source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for Teahouse-related work. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:SuperHamster submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Cullen328 as Editor of the Week for their extensive work with helping the editing community at the Teahouse. The Teahouse serves as a haven of sorts for newer editors to ask questions and get friendly answers from other editors, namely the Teahouse "hosts". To anyone who frequents the Teahouse, Cullen has become a familiar face. He has constantly been one of the top contributors of answers at the Teahouse, always providing helpful, insightful, and patient answers - and when he's not sure of an answer, he isn't afraid to say so and call on others for help. There's a reason why Cullen's most edited page on Wikipedia is the Teahouse, clocking in at over 1,800 edits while helping hundreds of new editors get accustomed to the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia's system. I'm always confident when I see an answer ending with Cullen328 Let's discuss it.~SuperHamster

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Cullen328
WP:Teahouse
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning December 7, 2014
Concentrates on content creation, referencing and expanding mediocre articles, the "Articles for deletion" process, and welcoming and mentoring new editors.
Recognized for
Assisting New Editors
Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 18:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SuperHamster and Go Phightins!. I am honored. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Congrats, Cullen, very well deserved! MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts on behalf of new editors. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You've earned it.  :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, MelanieN, Buster7 and I JethroBT. The respect of colleagues I also respect means so much to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW Cullen - a year or two ago you issued a kind of challenge or dare to me.[1] This is to put you on notice that I am seriously thinking about taking the plunge early next year. If I do, I intend to remind you of that comment and call your bluff. So you'd better be giving it some serious thought! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

My memory still works, MelanieN, and I read much more than I comment on. Instead of being a big mouth, I prefer to think and ponder before speaking. I have certainly noticed that you are considering the "big plunge". I had some family issues involving a disabled child that prevented me from considering a run, but I am working on wrapping those up. So perhaps there will be "good news" for both of us. If dealing with messes with mops is good news, that is. In any event, it is good to hear from you, as always. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Good, Gaston, I'm glad to know you remember - and maybe have my back. History does not record what would happen if one of them actually went through the door. Would the other one go too? Would it still be funny? Maybe the world will find out. Maybe. Or maybe not. --Alphonse (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh no, the Alphonse sockpuppet has appeared on my talk page! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Oops... --Alphonse (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dalai Lama and computers

He said he has never used one in an interview, I think with CNN on YouTube. In the same video he said he does not even have an interest in music. The article currently gives the misleading impression that he would go on Twitter and think of what his hashtag is going to be. 74.133.104.185 (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to cite a specific reliable source that says that, instead of your recollection of what you think was on CNN. That's how Wikipedia works. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I already knew that my vague recollection does not make for a reliable source; the fact that I was conversing rather humanely does not imply I was unaware of Wikipedia's binding guidelines. I am not unfamiliar with the policies of Wikipedia, although I see that like so many active Wikipedia editors, you are quite anal-retentive and possibly have high-functioning autism, and so flaunt both your intellectual prowess/correctness and your familiarity with the Wikiprocess, love rescinding unregistered edits instead of being kind to them, talk down to newbies, and are a secular Jew. Yes, I know full well that any outstanding claim on Wikipedia must be cited, but what I am far less familiar with is how to do so.
Will the actual video of the interview qualify as a reliable source for WP? 74.133.104.185 (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Answering your final question first, if the video is on an official CNN channel, then it is an acceptable reference to use. If, on the other hand, it was uploaded randomly, it can't be used.
As for your comments about my character, I am not a "secular Jew", as that term is commonly understood. I have been a synagogue member continuously for decades, served as board president of my synagogue in 1998 and 1999, keep kosher and observe all the major Jewish holidays. I am not orthodox, though.
I can't refute your other accusations so easily since they are so subjective, but I will say that you are the first person in my 62 years of life who has accused me of being anal retentive and possibly autistic of some kind. So, I have to conclude that your charges say more about you than they do about me, since you don't know me at all.
With a simple click of my edit history button, you can easily verify that a very small percentage of my edits have to do with reverting the contributions of others. I reverted yours because it was an unsourced addition to an article I watch closely because other people have made far more pernicious changes than yours. I judge edits by their compliance with policies and guidelines, and not by whether they are by an unregistered IP editor. But I do check the edits of IP editors more carefully than those of well known, experienced editors, because my experience Is that they are far more likely to be problematic.
If you read a couple of sections above, you will find that I am one of the most active hosts at the Teahouse, a place for new editors to ask questions. I enjoy helping new editors, and have been thanked by dozens of them there. But every so often, one of my good faith actions or answers rubs someone the wrong way. So it goes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I need some help with my page - Camp Stone

Hi,

I am not new to reading Wikipedia, but I am brand new to editing. I need help with my page "Camp Stone." I work for Camp Stone and I don't know how to make certain changes that my organization wants to make. Can we speak over the phone? If so, what is the best way to reach you?

Thanks, Yakov Fleischmann --Yakfleisch (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Yakfleisch. For reasons of transparency, I prefer to discuss article content right here on Wikipedia. You should start by reading about conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Camp Stone has problems. It lacks references to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources needed to show notability. You should not edit the article yourself, but should furnish references and propose changes on the talk page. Let me know and I will review your proposed changes, and add them to the article, if they comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
After reading the comments you left on two other editor's talk pages, you seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Your organization does not control our article Camp Stone. This is not LinkedIn or Facebook. That is an encyclopedia article about the camp. It is not a promotional piece for the camp. Anyone can edit Wikipedia in compliance with our policies and guidelines, and they don't need the camp's permission. If the camp is in Pennsylvania, then it will be categorized as a camp in Pennsylvania. Explain all that to the camp leadership, and please declare your conflict of interest on your user page, which is currently blank. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey2K USA

Hey Cullen, I just ran into that AfD after an edit war at Greyhound racing. I reverted the Grey2K article to its post-AfD and pre-COI state; perhaps you and your dogloving friends (including Sagaciousphil and Hafspajen) can help that article along a bit? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, now we are useful, we work our asses of with those articles. But of course none of us is an ADMIN. Hafspajen (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, my elderly brain had completely forgotten my epic "Googlehits" takedown of three years ago. Yes, Hafspajen, an "admin" is an exalted one who has the powers to instruct us mere mortals to fix up a "dog" of an article. I will get right on it, boss, if I am not washed away first by the December 2014 West Coast storm, now in progress. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Corp and I have done a pretty thorough job of gutting, but the foundation is there for you (a title and a "reflist" thingy). Good luck. And yes, I hope record wind and rain is not endangering you, Mrs. Cullen, and your flock of greyhounds. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hm. Elderly admin, you know, there are no admins working on dog articles. They just occasionally happens to own some dog and then go on rule-making on that article. the rest, the boring part - they leave to us, poor workers. Hafspajen (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
You're right. I wish I knew how to create content. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Drmies, I just left a message on the Grey2K USA employee's talk page. We are surviving the storm so far, and my only strange little greyhound looks exactly like a Boston Terrier, poor fellow. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Lucia!

Happy Saint Lucia's day!

"Good Morning" Cullen328:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia!
13 December is the day when Swedes perplex the rest of the world by showing up way too early in the morning dressed in white tunics, candles in their hair, singing and bringing saffron buns and breakfast in bed to nice people. Hope you have a bright day!
    – w.carter-Talk 00:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

How could I be perplexed when I didn't even know about it? But now I know, and I appreciate both the information and the sentiment, W.carter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind

Never mind Confident468 (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_21&oldid=1140174547"