User talk:Cullen328/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hi Cullen328 - I hope you had a very merry holiday season. May your new year be happy and prosperous! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Re New Carackus Article possibly nearly ready for submission.

Dear Jim, or Cullen, which ever you prefer,

You sound as though you are a very experienced helpful editor and obviously invest a lot of time ensuring articles follow the correct procedures. I am a completely new editor to Wikipedia but have invested considerable time in a new article, on composer David F Golightly. It is not yet finished or ready for submission as I want to add for information and verification links. Would you be so kind as to run your eye over the existing page and come back with any amendments you feel would be helpful for submission criteria. I have invested a lot of time reading the various guild lines but while all are extremely helpful, it is a bit daunting to take on board. My user name is Carackus if that is how you access my article to read. KylieTastic has been extremely helpful but I am still struggling to get my head around adding images and mp3s.

(----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carackus (talk • contribs) 09:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to respond, Carackus. A Wikipedia biography should neutrally summarize what independent, reliable sources say about the person. Every paragraph should have a reference to at least one such independent, reliable source. Only basic non-controversial biographical facts like place and date of birth should be cited to the subjects website or writings. Also, the article should be written from the neutral point of view, and should contain no promotional language in Wikipedia's voice. Your sentence "An intuitive composer Golightly was able to produce original stylistic compositions from the moment he started to study music seriously" is not appropriate unless referenced to a professional music critic who came to that conclusion. Less important but still worthy of attention is the fact the draft article does not comply with the Manual of style. For example, we refer to people by their surnames not their first names. Accordingly, I believe that your draft still needs lots of work before being accepted. You need to make a convincing case that this person meets our notability guideline for creative professionals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Julianne,

Many thanks for the helpful advice. I understand more now about references to independent reliable sources. I do know of various references to reviews by serious publications and music critics. Also BBC radio three have broadcast this composers work, and John McCabe recorded his first piano sonata. Royal Northern Sinfonia premiered the composer's first symphony and the work is recorded by City of Prague Philharmonic no mean feat in todays world. I realise now the article still needs considerable work but thank you so very much for the helpful comments. I will go back to the article and amend. I will post a copy of this on talk Julianne Moore.

Thank you again

Regards

Carackus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carackus (talk • contribs) 10:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cullen328!

Happy New Year!

Cullen328,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Steppenwolf

STOP TAMPERING WITH THE STEPPENWOLF WIKI SITE, DURING 1977 TO 1980 THE BAND EXISTED UNDER LICENSING AGREEMENTS, YOU CAN DO A SIMPLE GOOGLE SEARCH AND VERIFY IT. IF YOU KEEP TAMPERING WITH THE STEPPENWOLF SITE I WILL CONTACT WIKI DIRECTLY WITH A LAWYER. THERE WAS NO TRIBUTE BAND .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.140.135 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

GO TO THIS SITE AND READ, ITS DOCUMENTED http://newsteppenwolf77-80.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.140.135 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I am reporting you to the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents for making legal threats contrary to policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember reading about this "fake" Steppenwolf some years ago, it was done under a lucrative management team who tried to reform classic bands with the bare minimum of original band members to make money at the expense of upsetting fans. The same lot persuaded Rod Evans to "reform" Deep Purple and was sued out of existence by the "real" DP management. More here. Whoever the IP is doesn't have a leg to stand on. (See, if you'd filed an RfA you could have just blocked directly :-D) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

RfA? Please...

I am guessing that you have been asked a dozen or more times, but you really should consider throwing your hat in the ring. The project would benefit enormously from your having the tools. And I think you might break records with the number of serious editors/admins willing to nominate/co-nominate you. Think about it please. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahh. I just noticed your comment on this subject on the RfA talk page. That rational is difficult to argue with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Kinsale cloak

Hello, I am a new contributor who just created a page on the Kinsale Cloak. I had called it "The Kinsale Cloak (also called the Irish Cloak)". It was just too long a title, I realize. When my article was promoted from the Draft category to the actual Wikipedia, the person who approved it must have created a redirect page (or maybe a bot did). Anyway, I don't think anyone will look for that article under the old title, so the redirect page is really not necessary, in my opinion. How do it either delete it or ask that it be deleted? It redirects from "The Kinsale Cloak (also called the Irish Cloak)" to "The Kinsale Cloak". Thanks. Also, how do I find you again to get the answer? I wrote your name down and will check back later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynnMGallagher (talk • contribs) 04:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, LynnMGallagher. I am not an expert in redirect policy and unsure why that redirect would create any problems. However, if you believe that it should be deleted, the place to propose that is Redirects for discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

for trying to help at VP:T. Smartphones are still a scary mystery to me :-) My working hypothesis is that it's harder to figure out how to get to your talk page and how to edit there if you are using the mobile editor, but there's not much to be done unless the editor does figure those out and leaves some sort of message asking to be unblocked. Meanwhile another new editor has cropped up with a similar article creation pattern and still no talk page edits at all, and been blocked as a sock, but they were not using mobile. So I also wonder whether it's more of a meatpuppet situation - members of a forum or a face-to-face group. In any event, it concerns me that it may be very hard for new editors who use the mobile interface to engage with the community and hence to ask questions and explain themselves if they get off on the wrong foot as in this case. I hope I'm wrong and it is practical to expect them to read and respond on their talk page. Otherwise I believe we may need new templates with suitable links to be used in cases where the person is using the mobile interface. I wish the techies at VP:T had seen my point, because given that a mobile interface exists, new editors used to mobile are going to use it. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carrie Fisher

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carrie Fisher. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to a birthday bash to Celebrate Wikipedia's 16th Birthday!

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Wikipedia Day 16 SF is a fun Birthday bash and edit-a-thon on Sunday, January 15, 2017, hosted by Bay Area WikiSalon at the Wikimedia Foundation's Chip Deubner Lounge in the South of Market Street business district.

For details and to RSVP, please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/SF/Wikipedia Day 2017

The San Francisco gathering is one of a number of Wikipedia Day celebrations worldwide.

---

See you soon! Ben Creasy, Checkingfax and Slaporte | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this notice)

---

PS: We need volunteers to help make this a fun and worthwhile event. Please add your name to the Project page, and what you can offer. It is a wiki, so please make direct edits to the page.

Bay Area WikiSalon usually meets the last Wednesday evening of every month as an inclusive and safe place to collaborate, mingle, munch and learn about new projects and ideas.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Cullen, Let me first wish you a Happy and Healthy 2017. I would like to have your guidance for improving my submission about Brain cysts, their classification and description, which has been rejected on the grounds that did not use secondary sources, but the original publications. I am not a native speaker of English, so that's maybe why I do not understand the intricacies of Wikipedia editing. For example, I don't know how to make links to Wikipedia articles on individual cysts. And I don't quite catch the meaning of secondary sources. I would like to show you my submission which is still in the sandbox stage for you to check out, but I do't know how to do it. My account name is pangsitgoreng.Please answer me on my email: gwanannekego@gmail.com. Thank you and have a nice day.Pangsitgoreng (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)pangsitgoreng.

Merlin

Jim, I am grateful to you for replying to me, a newbie writing about Merlin. My work is not widely accepted by mainstream scholars in the field. On the bright side, neither has it been rejected (at least, not by anyone who has considered the evidence). I just tend to find the wagons are circled and there is no way in. Glasgow University eventually allowed me to attend their 2015 Celtic Congress, although they said this ‘stirred up a hornet’s nest’. Following a brief debate with a speaker (a mainstream scholar), I was approached by three other mainstream scholars who said they had come to disagree with him and agree with me. In November 2016 I put it to one mainstream scholar (an Oxford Univ. Prof.) that in a book he had written, he had changed bedrock source evidence that said Scotland, to make it read England. He accepted that he had done this and went on to say “I cannot now reconstruct why I wrote…” what he wrote. The self-styled ‘scholarly’ American University website Arthuriana/Arthurnet shut down, after 25 years, blaming me. I could answer their questions. They could not answer mine. They too were more concerned about who was writing and less concerned about what was written. I was polite. All this is still on line. I have no idea what the mainstream theory is; as opposed to my ‘fringe theory’. I do not know how much or (better still) how little to write at this point; or what to write that might be constructive. I am especially grateful to you for suggesting I discuss things on the article talk page. I will do this. Many thanks and best wishes. AdamDunardry (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC) Dunardry PS One question, if I may, should I brandish the fact that I was elected a FSA Scot this year? Would this make me more mainstream? I should say, there is no way I would do this. I just wondered... Adam is my real name. The codenames stuff strikes me as a bit silly, but, what the hell...

Hi Adam/Dunardry. I´m not Cullen, but I saw your question on the Merlin talkpage (maybe you know the answer to my question there?). You could very well be a Alfred Wegener on this subject, I have no reason to doubt your comment above. What works against you on WP is that "we" are by design dry and dusty and stodgy mainstream. If some young whippersnapper comes up to Lord Kelvin and says that the earth is much older than he thinks, we side with Lord Kelvin.

Your idea seems to me currently WP:FRINGE, which means that for it to be mentioned in WP, it must have been mentioned in mainstream sources, like if those three scholars you mentioned above wrote an article about the merits/problems with the "scottish Merlin" and got it published in a WP:RS. "Fringe" subjects can even have their own articles, like for instance the many articles on the Shakespear Authorship Question, but per WP-policy, these articles must always be clear on the mainstream position.

I hope you stay around and edit other stuff you´re intrested in, you sound like a valuable WP:EXPERT to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

A swedish comedian once said: "Oh well, I didn´t expect to be appreciated during my lifetime. But times change!" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

From Dunardry greetings and thanks for taking the time to write. I don't think Wikipedia is the way to go for me. I am going to take another tack. Watch the Scandinavian (?) media in March/April. Best wishes Adam, err, umm, I mean Dunardry.Dunardry (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

teahouse comment on iqperson

Im not accusing you of snything but allow me to say this. Your comments were deamining and insulting. Im not that kid and i will never be. The article was suggestedto me by another editor who chooses to be anonymous in this discussio. So may i boldly ask that next time you can keep your insulting comments to youself. Thank you for understanding Iqperson (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Iqperson. I suggest that you re-read my comment carefully, paying special attention to the meaning and importance of the word "if" in the final sentence. I also suggest that you do not trying to write articles about non-notable teenagers. Then, all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Salade niçoise

On 9 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Salade niçoise, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the mayor of Nice implored cooks to "never, never, I beg you, include boiled potato or any other boiled vegetable in your salade niçoise"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Salade niçoise. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Salade niçoise), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Schwede66 00:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminder invitation to the Wikipedia Day 16 birthday bash & edit-a-thon

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Wikipedia Day 16 SF is a fun Birthday bash and edit-a-thon on Sunday, January 15, 2017, hosted by Bay Area WikiSalon at the Wikimedia Foundation's Chip Deubner Lounge in the South of Market Street business district and everybody is invited!

Details and RSVP here

---

See you Sunday! Ben Creasy, Checkingfax and Slaporte

---

PS: We still need more volunteers to help make this a fun and worthwhile event. Please add what you can offer and your name to the Project page or Talk about it. It is a wiki, so please make direct edits to the Project page. The event is already growing due to volunteers that have stepped up so far.

---

Bay Area WikiSalon meets one evening of every month as an inclusive and safe place to collaborate, mingle, munch or learn about new projects and ideas.

---

Note: the previous invitation had a bum wikilink. Sorry! | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this notice) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

relax and recharge
... you were recipient no. 721 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the pleasant reminder, Gerda Arendt. My goal is always to improve this wonderful encyclopedia and I appreciate this recognition from an outstanding editor like you. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I like your recent salad ;) - Today is a strange day: on the main page a pictured DYK where an infobox was requested on the talk (I did it), and the featured article where one was added and reverted (I will stay away). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about Salade niçoise, Gerda. I would rather eat one of those salads than argue about an infobox any day of the week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I love those salads! - I try to stay away, was so far successful for the RfC "Should every biography have an infobox?" - They argue not about "should have" but "must have", as if it was the same. Waste of time. Still love the irony of requested here, reverted there. As long as this a project of writers (and their preferences), not a project for readers (and their needs), that will not end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you use boiled potatoes in a salade niçoise, Gerda? MPS1992 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse

I am a new editor. And I would like your help, is there anyway we can chat for a while? AWMSSilent (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)AWMSSilent

Hello, AWMSSilent. What can I help you with? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I was looking for a article to do but it is kind of hard, beings there is so many articles out there. AWMSSilent (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)AWMSSilent

Cullen,

Hello, can you help me with Eric Brian Hughes article. Several citations. Films1921 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Vonlandsberg/Alex Stenzel

Hi Jim,

I'm fairly new to wikipedia I made a few contribution and did create an article but my last article that I created Gorilla Sandwich didn't survive so I thought it would be good idea for my next article to have some one like yourself with more experience to take a look at it. The article that I have created is about the German artist and designer Alex Stenzel who lives in California. There are a number of references where the sources are reliable periodicals and I linked it to a printed copy that exist at www.alexstenzel.com. As far as I understand the references don't have to be available online so I can't decide if I actually should provide a link to the website? Also I'm not really sure what to include and what not to include into the article. Would be great if you can take a look at it. Thanks!--Vonlandsberg (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vonlandsberg: My first impression is that there is WAY too much detail in your draft. As an example, there is too much detail about his youth tennis including the name of a referee at a match he played. Then you actually include a reference to an obituary of the referee, which does not even mention Stenzel. That is bizarre and all such references that do not mention Stenzel should be removed. As should all references that consist of passing mentions or just photos. You should not link to any website that hosts copies of copyrighted material without permission. Just cite the original publication. The draft has a promotional tone. No one should be described as a "philosopher" unless they teach philosophy, have a philosophy degree or have written books reviewed by academic philosophy journals. Ask yourself why this person is notable. Is it as an artist? If so, then structure the article as a biography of an artist. So, what I think is that you should prune the draft back dramatically, and focus on his best claims to notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Jim, thank you! This is great constructive advise. I will get to work with it and if you don't mind I'll asked you to read it again when I'm done.Vonlandsberg (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Vonlandsberg: I will be happy to read a revision of the draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Jim, I have edited the article and addressed all the problems that you had mentioned above. Would you be so kind and take another look at it. Thank you for your help. I have focused on Stenzel being an artist and designer.Vonlandsberg (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Vonlandsberg. In my opinion, your draft is still crammed full of excessive detail. You simply cannot call someone a polymath unless a really high quality independent reliable source calls them that, and you cite that source. Familiarize yourself with our notability guideline for artists and structure the article to show that this person is a notable artist/creative professional. Unless this person meets our notability guideline for tennis (which they don't), then all the content about tennis is not encyclopedic and should be removed. The same for other athletic endeavors. Unless they are a notable athlete, it simply does not belong. Your draft needs to focus first and foremost on this person's notability, not everything that they have done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn't sure about calling him a polymath either but wanted to point out the unusual many various areas that he has been top in his field but yes no secondary source is referring to him as a polymath. How about I move the athletic part into earlier life and combine art&design and the modern nomad section under one header. Most independent sources that are in my opinion notable are related to art & design. Vonlandsberg (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Or you think it is best to reduce the athletic section to max three sentences and move into the early life section.Vonlandsberg (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Vonlandsberg, I think that your first and most important task is to demonstrate convincingly to skeptical editors that this person meets our notability guideline for artists. Everything else is secondary to that goal at this point, and therefore is a distraction from the main task at hand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

O.K. I'll give it a shot. Thank you.Vonlandsberg (talk) 09:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jim, here is the new draft. You were right on structuring the article as an artist. I like it much better now! I did some research on the definition artist and I was surprised to see that his fashion, architecture and other design works can be seen as artistic creations. So I summarized all of it as the work of an artist. I pointed out some of the reviews that I think are notable. I'm not sure if that violates neutrality. Everything that didn't have anything to do with his creative work I moved into the early life section but reduced it quite a bit. Although it could still be a bit shorter I thought it was worth mentioning his athletic achievements, his early invention a handheld sail for skateboarding and his early on nomadic lifestyle, as it does relate to his future creative life as an artist. (from surfing to designing surf inspired clothing, architectural and product design and art nomad).Vonlandsberg (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jim did you have a chance to look at my article? Again thank you so much for your time. It really helps me becoming a better editor.Vonlandsberg (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, Vonlandsberg, but your draft still has the problems I described above. All that extraneous stuff does not belong in your draft, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Jim, are you referring to the early life section? What I listed under work I kept as minimal as possible except as for the style section which I thought was necessary to reference more to explain his work.Vonlandsberg (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Vonlandsberg, I have repeatedly told you that your draft has severe problems and you have failed to address them in any substantive way. Let me be frank: your draft is jam packed full of unencyclopedic crap that must be removed if there is any hope of having this article included in this encyclopedia. Stengel is not a notable tennis player or a notable athlete in any way. Remove that crap. He is not a notable world traveler or "sandwich inventer". Remove that crap. You write "At age 9, Stenzel unknowingly made his first invention, a wind-skate sail built from aluminium pipes and a plastic tarp. He skateboarded with it along the windy dike roads on the North Sea island of Sylt." and reference that to Stengel's own website. You must be kidding! An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what independent sources say about a topic and Stengel's own website is not independent. I told you previously that your job is to demonstrate convincingly that Stenzel is notable artist and you have failed to do that. I have been patient up until now but this has been going on for six weeks. Remove all the crap from your draft and demonstrate this person's notability. Please do not waste my time any further by asking me to review anything that is not a dramatic and radical rewrite. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You are saying there is to much information that has nothing to do with my main goal to show that he is notable artist. Get rid of everything that doesn't relate to his creative work. Get rid of everything that is not "independent". And even in the early life section don't mention anything that doesn't relate to art.Vonlandsberg (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, Vonlandsberg. Write a neutral encyclopedia article, not a panegyric. Why is this person notable? I have read your various drafts, and I still cannot figure it out. Which museums have exhibited his work? Which professional art critics have analyzed his work? Which major newspapers and magazines have published biographical articles about his career? I cannot overstate the importance of independent sources, and conversely the importance of leaving out any substantive assertion referenced to his own website or his own writings. Remove it all. Every trace of it. We only care about what independent sources say when devoting significant coverage to Stenzel. We care nothing about what Stenzel says about himself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Jim, ok here we go. I got rid of 90 percent of what you suggested and extracted from the independent sources the most notable things about Stenzel and pointed it out right at the top. The work section explains why he is notable in the different fields of art. I didn’t make any changes to the work section since it all shows notability. In my opinion the cucumber sandwich should be included since it is a notable design (artistic creation) and has three independent reliable sources. Also his nomadic travels, as an artist I feel should be included since his lifestyle is inseparable from his art and the fact that he received substantial media coverage by highly reputable independent sources ads to the notability. I got rid of all the athletic stuff but even though he is not notable as an athlete in any one of the disciplines there is some notability having had three world rankings and I think is worth mentioning. I added that he was granted permanent resident status as an artist of extraordinary ability and I’m referencing his website. I checked under WP:SELFPUB and it seems to be ok in this case. Overall I find Stenzel is definitely a notable artist having produced original and first creations over extended period of time and being mentioned by various independent sources to be at the top in his field several times.Vonlandsberg (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Vonlandsberg, I think that I have given you all guidance that I can about your draft. I just have one more question for you. Do you have a personal connection to Stenzel? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jim, yes you have been very helpful indeed. Thank you so much for your time and patience I really appreciate it. As a Wikipedian my relation to the subject is writing a good article about it. That's why I asked for help and not just dumped it on the site. I love Wikipedia and planning to contribute substantially in the future. I also use it extensively as a research tool and the integrity of Wikipedia is very important for me(much more important then having article about Stenzel). Do you find Stenzel as an artist notable enough to be included on Wikipedia or should I get second opinion from an editor that specializes in biographies about artist.Vonlandsberg (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Steppenwolf (band)

FYI: WP:ANI#GlenLBui Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you so much for your help!! Songuitar333 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wind-powered vehicle

Hi Cullen328, you may wish to add to the discussion at Talk:Wind-powered vehicle#Scope—Land only?. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

re: Sea Shepherd page

Hi Cullen, thanks for your help in the Teahouse thread. I've updated that post on the talk page, could you please let me know if it needs anything else? Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society#Edit_suggestions

Tuberose87 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Katherine Johnson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Katherine Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Hey, Cullen - I read your note at the top of your talk page. Just thought I'd stop by and say hi. Also, I wanted to thank you for investigating my T-ban, and then immediately running crying to a liberal-leaning admin to tell on me for mentioning the name of a politician. This was undoubtedly a much preferred option to say, perhaps sending me a private message informing me that I am not permitted to even speak freely in the Teahouse, and offering me the chance to remove my edit on my own volition. Since, as I'm sure you know, Bishonen despises anything resembling an opposing viewpoint, I can probably expect to be indefinitely blocked from the project tonight. Anyway, thanks again and it was a pleasure meeting you! Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Hidden Tempo. It is your responsibility to comply with the terms of your topic ban which was the result of your disruptive behavior. I thought that conservatives were all in favor of accepting personal responsibility, but perhaps you disagree. I did not "run" and I did not "cry" and I did not seek out some random liberal leaning administrator, since I am entirely unfamiliar with Bishonen's personal politics. Instead, I pinged the specific administrator who imposed the topic ban. So, thank you for stopping by and letting me know what kind of person you are. Your comments are illuminating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a conservative just for the record. Just a moderate who is disgusted about what wikipedia.dnc.gov has become. Also, you missed the point of my edit completely! I was emphasizing that my behavior was not "disruptive," but received a ban anyway for expressing a dissenting point of view on talk pages. That's the root of the very problem I wanted to discuss. Anyway, I apologize if you did not intend to rat me out for violating the terms of my ban. That's how it came off to me. I didn't really see any other reason to instantly alert that particular individual after you already informed me that I'm not welcome in the Teahouse. But as I said, it's academic now that I'm on borrowed time until Bishonen discovers what happened and implements her foul-mouthed views on blocking users who she suspects of not supporting Secretary Clinton. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome at the Teahouse any time, Hidden Tempo, as long as you do not violate your topic ban. As for the comment you made above asserting without evidence that someone was blocked for failing to support a politician? That is also a violation of your topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, are you sure that's correct? @Bishonen, could you please confirm that I can't even use the word that Cullen just used after the phrase "failing to support a" ANYWHERE on Wikipedia, including a user's talk page? It would be helpful if I could have a list of words that I'm no longer allowed to use. I know I have a penchant for sarcasm and apophasis, mainly stemming from my frustrations of the ban and the reasons for my banning, but I am honestly confused now what I am and am not allowed to talk about anymore. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Hidden Tempo. There is no possbility that a list of words could be provided and you should not expect to get one. As I understand your topic ban, you may not work on articles related to post 1932 U.S. politics, and in addition, you cannot discuss anything whatsoever related to that broad topic area. The restriction is broadly construed. In other words, no one reading your edits should see even a trace or a whiff or even a poetic allusion to post 1932 U.S. politics. Nothing about politicians active since 1932, living or dead. Nothing about issues, legislation, campaign, elections, or political parties. You may not even mention an obscure North Dakota state legislator who died in 1934.

Of course, you can still use the word "politician", if it is crystal clear that the person's career ended before 1932, or that they were not involved in U. S. politics. So, feel free to work on articles about politicians like Thomas Jefferson or Charles DeGaulle. But avoid writing about DeGaulle's impact on U. S. politics. I hope that makes things clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Notable articles

I have read your message at teahouse but I have one question on my mind. Suppose, I wanted to create an article about my school , what should I write it as? I don't have any information about the founders but only their names. Also, what do the author's mean when they talk about 'writing in neutrality' ? I really don't know what to do. Can you please help me? I mean to write a new article on Wikipedia about my school. I have also checked that whether the article exists or not. So I'm pretty confident my article. Please help me. I cannot decide anything.

Wikipedian (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Wikipedian (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to respond, Faceless Wikipedian. When you write an article about a school (or any topic), you should read the full range of reliable sources about the topic. For all school, much of that would mean coverage in local newspapers. Then, you should summarize what those sources say, avoiding promotional language. Create references to the reliable sources you read, and add those references to the article. That's the process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Citing Items in a List (discussion from Teahouse)

Hi Cullen³²⁸ and thanks for the tip. My concern is that citing every single item (there's only four in this case, but there is a longer list further down the article) would make it too cluttered, especially when each item would refer to the same source. It seems like there would be a cleaner way to do it. See again at National World War I Museum and Memorial association members. See the second (as yet uncited) list at Museum Features. RM2KX (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, RM2KX. I have been quite busy in recent days, so I apologize for the slow response. I suggested a possible referencing technique, and it is pretty much standard procedure that every item on a list will have a reference. It is not "clutter" but rather an example of verifiability, which is a core content policy. As for your second list of individual museum exhibits, I consider any such list promotional and not appropriate for the encyclopedia unless each and every item in the list is cited to a reliable source independent of the museum. It is not our job to republish the museum's own list of the exhibits it considers worthy of attention, but rather we ought to summarize the judgment of independent observers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

My Draft Article: Jean Jepson, Dancer, Teacher, Choreographer.

Hello Jim,

My name is Peter and I am the one using the moniker of "CableHut".

Thanks very much for all your recent comments and suggestions about my Draft.

This is the first Wikipedia article that I am trying to create and I am discovering that I am very unfamiliar with this environment and the way in which it operates. I am learning and adapting as I go along.

One recent example was my use of the word "Help Desk" in the comments in my latest request for help. I should have used the word "Teahouse" instead and that would have avoided much confusion. No harm was intended. I was not aware of the fine distinctions between the two.

Your most recent comments are quite helpful. For example I am going to change the title to simply say "Jean Jepson". The words "Dancer", "Teacher", and "Choreographer" might be better suited in the "Categories" section.

There are a few comments that you made that I would like to discuss:

1. Jean's notability. 2. Licensing of the photo. 3. Biographies limited to presenting just one person. Nowhere in the article have I used the word biography. 4. Reference Book Publishers names, ISBN. 5. Missing page numbers from some references. 6. Excessive detail. Need of trimming. 7. Self-referencing phrases: "This article is about xxx".

I can easily clean up Item 7 above without further discussion but the others will require some discussion.

Are you (or any of your Teahouse colleagues) the best person (persons) to have that discussion with or should it be done with the people who do the final edits (editors)?

Please let me know Jim. CableHut (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello CableHut. Let me start with your final comment first. There are no "people who do the final edits" here. There are just editors. You are an editor, I am an editor, and everyone else you run across is an editor. We are all equal, although obviously experienced editors are more familiar with our policies and guidelines than new editors. No editor is assigned to specific jobs here. We work on what we choose to work on, when we want to. There are also no "final edits". Everything here is subject to ongoing revision at any time.

1. Every acceptable Wikipedia article must be about a notable topic, which means that the topic must have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Please read WP:CREATIVE for our specific notability guideline about creative professionals. You need to show convincingly that she meets that guideline.

2. Images used on Wikipedia must be properly licensed. The licensing must be done by the person who holds the copyright. You cannot upload an image unless the image is properly licensed and you cannot claim an image as your "own work" unless you are the photographer. We are very strict about image usage and you must do this right.

3. Any article titled with the name of a person is by definition a biography of that person, and all content in that article must be about that person. Of course, other people can be mentioned but not discussed extensively outside the context of the person that the article is about. A biography is not the place for extensive discussion about the history of dance in a certain city, or dance studios in that city, or whatever. That might possibly be appropriate for an article about "Arts in Vancouver", but if so, that must be a comprehensive article about that topic.

4. References should include complete bibliographic information. A book reference, for example, should include the author(s), title, publisher, date of publication, relevant page numbers, and ISBN number, at the least. If it is a very old book published before the ISBN system and not reprinted since, then obviously that number cannot be provided. By the way, we never say that a book can be found in such-and-such a library. The ISBN number, if properly referenced, will allow a WorldCat search, listing every library worldwide holding that book.

5. As mentioned above, page numbers should be provided for references to books. A reader consulting the book should not have to search the entire book to find the relevant passages.

6. Simply remove all content that does not directly relate to Jean Jepson's life and career. Feel free to save this content somewhere in your use space for use in possible future articles on other topics.

I hope that this is helpful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi CableHut. Is your #2 above related to what you posted at c:User talk:Marchjuly#Deleting Duplicate jpg Uploaded File in my Gallery about File:Jean Jepson 1940s Portrait.jpg? Perhaps you did not notice my response, but as Jim pointed out above, you cannot license someone else's copyrighted image as your own work. The original copyright holder needs to explicitly agree to license the image under a license compatible with c:Commons:Licensing for it to be uploaded to Commons. Everything depends upon whether you are the original copyright holder of the image. You wrote in the file's description that Jepson provided you with the photo before she died, but it's not clear who holds the copyright on the photo. Typically, the photographer who takes the photo holds the copyright on it, not the subject of the photo, unless it was a work for hire and there was an explicit copyright transfer agreement between the two. If there was no such agreement, then it seems unlikely that the photo cannot be uploaded without the photographer agreeing to license it accordingly. If there was such an agreement, then the ownership of copyright was likely transferred to whomever Jepson's designated to be in charge of her estate after she died. So, if you can clarify any of that then it will be much easier to give you more specific advice.

In addition to freely licensing the file, it may also be possible to upload it locally for use on English Wikipedia as non-free content. Copyrighted photos of deceased individuals are often permitted per item 10 of WP:NFCI. The advantage of non-free content is that permission of the original copyright holder is not required to upload the photo; the disadvantage is that such content is extremely restricted by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which can be a bit tricky to figure out even for experienced editors. Again, it will be easier to figure out if this photo can be uploaded as non-free content once more information about its copyright status is known. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Jean Jepson Draft

Hi Jim,

Thanks for clarifying again how the Wikipedia ongoing editing process works. I have to set aside conventional thinking on the editing process and be always mindful that Wikipedia is an online ongoing collaborative process.

I am going to respond now to each point that we have under discussion.

1. Notability. Jean Jepson is very highly regarded in the Vancouver dance community as one of our most notable dancers and teachers. In the article I mention the tribute event that was held last year by the West Coast Tap Dance Collective (WCTDC) to recognize and honour her memory and her accomplishments. I have added a link from Jean's Wikipedia page over to the WCTDC home page so that readers can see her picture in the gallery along with other honourees.

2. The photo of Jean that I have uploaded for the article is my own photo. It is a copy of a photo that Jean distributed before she died. This is one of the ways in which she wanted us to remember her. It has been widely distributed within the Tap Dance community and it appears in many of the studios around town. It is the same photo that the WCTDC has posted at the Website and which the link leads to. If for some reason you cannot use it then that is fine. The link will lead to exactly the same photo.

3. You said that articles with the name of a single person are automatically deemed to be biography. Fair enough. I now would like to change the name and the tone of the article because I can see a much bigger subject in my mind. At the WCTDC tribute last year we honoured three notables: Jean Jepson; Ted Cawker; and Evelyn Ward. I have almost completed an article for Ted Cawker and given everything that I have learned about the Vancouver Dance Community and about the way Wikipedia operates I would like to refocus the article towards the broader Vancouver Dance Community and not so much on Jean Jepson.

4. Publisher Names and ISBN have all been added to the reference books listed in the draft now.

5. I have added reference book page numbers where I could. It was not always possible as quite often I summarized information spread out over several pages and sources into just a phrase or two. Anyone wanting further details can just as easily have a look at the books as I did. In addition, as mentioned at the end of the article, much more detail has been organized and placed in a scrapbook, 61 pages of photos and commentary, that is now on file at the Vancouver Ballet Society library. The idea is for the Wiki article to introduce interested parties to this history and then point them in the direction of additional resources.

In conclusion I have learned that much of Vancouver's very rich early dance history is in danger of being lost forever unless it is captured, organized and written down, and made available for interested parties to read and learn. We are really counting on the Wikipedia page to help introduce this history to anyone who is interested. I have shown the scrapbook and the Wiki draft article to several people (all dance lovers) and without exception they were thrilled and delighted to learn the stories and see all the pictures. They were very happy that this material is being preserved. We have a Canadian national dance archive collection in Toronto and they are also very excited about this project.

I am now planning to move ahead and broaden the scope of the "Jean Jepson" article to embrace the wider dance community a bit. So there will be at the minimum a name change, and some new people in the spotlight.

In the meantime I would appreciate having your feedback to my comments above.

Thanks for all your help so far Jim.

Much appreciated!

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by CableHut (talk • contribs) 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Peter, known on Wikipedia as CableHut.

1. Although I have not looked into the matter in great detail, I will accept for the sake of discussion that Jean Jepson is notable. The tribute event that you mention can be included only if it was covered in reliable, independent sources.

2. Wide distribution and recollections of the wishes of the subject of a photo have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a photo is acceptable for use on Wikipedia. That type of argument is unpersuasive to experienced editors. All images used on Wikipedia must comply with our strict image use policies. There are no exceptions to those policies.

3. You can rewrite your draft as you see fit. However, you are moving from the difficult task of writing a biography of one notable dancer/choreographer to the vastly more difficult task of writing a broad historical article. Personally, I do not think that is a good idea, but the decision is yours.

4. Thank you for adding publishers and ISBN numbers. An optional upgrade is to use citation templates.

5. It should always be possible to include the page numbers, and you can include a complex page number field like "pages 9, 11, 15-17, 34-39, 62, 81-94". If you rely on two sources, use two references. An unpublished scrap book is not a reliable source and should not be used on Wikipedia. If you want to point people to additional sources, then these must be published reliable sources with professional editorial control.

Your concluding remark indicates that you may not fully understand Wikipedia's purpose. We are not a place for publishing original research about a historical topic. It is not Wikipedia's role to capture, organize and write down that history. That should be done through writing and publishing newspaper, magazine and historical journal articles, and books by respected publishers. Wikipedia summarizes what is already published. We do not publish fresh research. Excitement of interested people is fine, but excitement is no substitute for compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Hi again Peter. One thing about Wikipedia:Notability that many new users have a hard time understanding is that how it is defined by Wikipedia is not exactly the same way how it is defined commonly out in the real world. Wikipedia's definition is quite specific to Wikipedia's purpose and is something that has been established over time by a consensus of the Wikipedia community. There are various sub-guidelines for specific types of articles such as Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Notability (music), etc., but the basic principle is the same: it needs to be established that the subject of the article has received significant coverage in independent and usually multiple reliable sources. If you are unable to clearly do that for Jepson or the broader topic you might now be writing about, then the subject does not merit a stand-alone article.

Of course, you can find tons of problematic articles on Wikipedia at any given point in time which have questionable or even very questionable Wikipedia notability, but the fact the an article currently exists does not mean it should exist. Wikipedia currently has over 5,000,000 articles and many more are added each and every day. Many of these articles have problems and editors try to fix those that can be fixed and delete those which can't. All editors, however, are just volunteers and there are only so many going around and checking articles for problems. So, a problem article can file under the radar for years until an experienced editor notices it. The standard of notability you need to meet is Wikipedia's, not that of the Vancouver dance community, so please always try to keep that in mind.

Finally, you posted above that the tribute event was held to honor the memory of Jepson. That's great and she sounds like someone how impacted the lives of lots of others in a positive way. Wikipedia articles, however, are not intended to be memorial pieces and, as Jim pointed out above, are not not intended to be used as a proxy website to introduce your (not sure who "we" is so I'm using the plural "you") history to the rest of the world. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to make sure Wikipedia is the right place for what you want to do. Please understand that I'm not trying to discourage you from editing, but Wikipedia can seem like a pretty harsh place for those unfamiliar with its various policies and guidelines. That is why I suggested on your user talk page that it might be a good idea for you to expand your horizons a bit and try your handing at editing other articles. There's nothing wrong per se with focusing on one single thing, but it doesn't really help familiarize you with the project as a whole and what the community expects from editors. Anyway, since you seem interested in subjects related to Vancouver and dance, you might want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance and Wikipedia:WikiProject Vancouver -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

parsing

Hi Cullen, thanks for the welcome in the teahouse! The other editor responded and it looks like I was using poor form in replying to their posts. (I had asked him for a list of citation issues that he'd expressed a general concern about and then when he furnished them I replied inline with each issue, which is apparently confusing because despite indentations, it makes it difficult for other editors to tell who wrote what because I'm not below the signature of the previous post-er. And apparently I'd already done this once before and failed to get the point... Hopefully all is fixed now by extracting my comments and moving to the bottom of the post.) Anyway, thank you for the dictionary definition of parse and for encouraging me to swing by your talkpage. I'll need to check out that smart-phone editing stuff sometime, which is something I've never done. Thanks again. G1729 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC) • contribs) 03:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, G1729. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)