Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53→Archive 55

Account Blocked and Entire Page Removed

Hello Cullen328, I am a fairly new contributor to wikipedia and I have been having some issues in regards to my some of the pages I have edited. A user, DGG, has banned my account and IP address because of my closeness to the organization pages that I edited. All of my edits have been reversed, the NYU WIRELESS page I edited has now been completely removed, and a conflict of interest warning has been added to the other page I have edited.

Here are the two pages I'm referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Rappaport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYU_Wireless

At first, the admin said he was going to migrate the page from NYU WIRELESS to NYU Wireless to comply with Wikipedia's policy on organization titles but instead he has removed the page entirely. The page now forwards to Theodore Rappaport's page.

I understand now that due to my involvement in this organization, direct editing of these pages is against Wikipedia's conflict of interest but removing a page entirely is an extreme reaction. If the NYU WIRELESS page can be restored and the clean-up box on Rappaport's page is removed, I will keep my future suggested edits to the talk section, rather than making direct edits to the page.

Thank you for you assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainmaker713 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rainmaker713. The very first thing that you must do is to comply, fully and completely, with our mandatory policy on paid editing disclosure. This is not optional.
I see no reason to restore the NYU Wireless article. This seems to be a research program at NYU. Our guideline on this type of thing reads "programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field. Separate articles on law schools and medical schools are being kept."

NYU Wireless is not just a university program. It has contributed significantly to the field of mmWave and 5G research and continues to work closely with industry affiliates like Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. The NYU Wireless channel simulator program, NYUSIM, is used across the industry to generate realistic temporal and spatial channel responses to support realistic physical-and link-layer simulations and design for fifth-generation (5G) cellular communications. The Brooklyn 5G Summit, an annual 5G summit hosted by NYU WIRELESS and Nokia, brings together industry professionals and NYU students to present their findings on the future of 5G. Please see the following articles supporting my statement. https://www.aglmediagroup.com/fcc-grants-nyu-wireless-early-program-experimental-license/ https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/sprint-joins-nyu-wireless-as-industry-affiliate-sponsor https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/anablog/4458310/Brooklyn-5G-Summit-2017-wrap-up http://brooklyn5gsummit.com --Rainmaker713 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The Rappaport and NYU Wireless pages have been subjected to highly promotional editing by banned or blocked accounts for years. I see no signs of improper behavior by DGG, a highly respected editor and administrator here. DGG has worked for several years to improve the encyclopedic quality of the Rappaport biography. Instead of being upset with DGG who works very hard to maintain the standards of this encyclopedia, you should be upset with all the rogue promotional editors who have created so many problems with these articles.
Accounts are only blocked if they have violated our policies and guidelines. Accounts are only banned if there is community consensus for a ban. IP addresses are only blocked if persistent disruptive editing originates from them. The solution to all of this is to comply scrupulously with all of our policies and guidelines going forward, and take steps to prevent people in your organization from engaging in further disruption of the encyclopedia.
So, no, I see no reason to restore NYU Wireless or to remove the COI tag on Rappaport. That tag is accurate and informative to readers, and it is not appropriate for an editor such as you to make that request , since you clearly have a conflict of interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Rainmaker713, this is your only edit. Are you evading an active block? What are your previous accounts? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I might prepared to remove the block on your real account if you agree to stay completely away from any edit relating to Rapport, NYU Wireless, or NYU in any article. But this is the only topic you've worked on. DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

My other account that was blocked was Musicman713. I created this new account so I would be able to post on your talk page.--Rainmaker713 (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

A user insults other editors:

Hello Mr.Cullen328;

There is a user called Dalida Fan who insulted me and keeps removing sourced information, he claims that it is not my business to edit on the Dalida page and told me "don't put your nose where it does not belong". Is this dictator attitude accepted in Wikipedia? and what should i do to report his attitude? Kindly see his language on the Dalida history page, he deals as if he owns the Encyclopedia of Wikipedia. [1] Thank You. Mina Alfonse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Mina Alfonse. I've warned the other editor about their ownership attitude but please do not call good faith edits vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 15:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello NeilN;
Thank you so much for your help and advice, i meant removing sources and bad attitude targeted at me because he's an organization and thought he owns the page. Thanks Sir! Mina Alfonse (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Mina Alfonse. I agree with my friend, NeilN here, and thank him for his input. I apologize for being slow to respond as I had a very long day at work today. The other editor has made some mistakes but is not a vandal. Vandals are deliberately trying to ruin the encyclopedia. This editor believes that they are contributing positively. That being said, the head of a fan club has no special status here, which should be obvious. I see that you are discussing the issues on the article talk page, which is the correct approach. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for that mistake, and thank you sir for enlightening me. I admit i got angered by his/her way of claiming the page and insulting others for editing. Mina Alfonse (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen

So you think it is "editorializing" to point out that a dead man cannot defend himself? Of course, we know that Wikipedia editors live on their own planet.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You are a Wikipedia editor as am I, John Paul Parks and we are both bound by policies such as the neutral point of view. We summarize what the reliable sources say and simply are not allowed to insert our own observations or opinions into articles. Our planet is the one where encyclopedia editors live. There are plenty of online blogs and forums where we can express our opinions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Jū-Ni

Tagged this. Feel free to remove once you are happy with it. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Doc James. I understand that the article was probably written by an undisclosed paid editor originally. However, I have edited the article substantively, and it is very different from what it was like when I first got involved. Also, the fact that it has a Michelin star is very strong evidence of notability. I do not think that the article should be tagged at this point, but you do, and I respect your opinion. Can you suggest further changes so we can agree to remove the tag? Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Cullen328 if you are happy with it now, happy to see the tag removed :-) Just checking to make sure you had reviewed the whole thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Northeast Arc

Jim -

Thanks for your feedback. I really appreciate it. As I mentioned, I have never attempted to create a Wikipedia page before and I have found it to be a bit challenging.

My goal is to set up the page so people are aware of the organization and its role in helping those with developmental disabilities. I saw your comment about not normally doing articles about chapters of larger organizations. Does this automatically mean it can't be done? The Northeast Arc is the 2nd largest Arc in the country, which I would think would make it worthy of a page, but if not than I won't continue but rather see if I can add to the US Arc page.

Also, I'm confused about references vs. external links. I thought the goal was to show that other reputable media outlets have reported on the organization to show its credibility and worthiness for an Wikipedia page.

If a page on the Northeast Arc is allowed, would I be better off starting with a couple of sentences about it and then edit it over time to provide more information about the organization?

I'm happy to get on a call with you or someone else who can provide guidance. I really appreciate your assistance.

Thanks, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dthomson102467 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dthomson102467. Please read the specific section of the notability guideline at WP:BRANCH. The relevant language is "chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." In other words, significant coverage in reliable sources well outside Boston would be required for your draft article, such as detailed articles about the chapter in newspapers and magazines in places like New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, London and so on.
Inline references provide complete bibliographic information about the source, and display in a reference section at the end of the article. For a newspaper article, this would usually include author, article title, newspaper name, date of publication and URL. City of publication should also be furnished if not part of the name of the newspaper. Page numbers should be provided if it is a paper source. Please read Referencing for beginners.
External links do not belong in the body of an article, and should normally be limited to a link to the official website or social media site for an organization, either in an infobox at the beginning of the article or in a separate section at the very end of the article. External links should not be used as a substitute for properly formatted inline references. Please read WP:EL.
The length of your draft or of a future article is a relatively minor issue, although very short articles are discouraged. The main issue that you need to address is whether or not an article about this group is acceptable under WP:BRANCH. That is entirely dependent on the quality and geographic coverage of the independent reliable sources that you provide. High quality independent reliable sources are gold on Wikipedia, because our job is to summarize those sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Re

Dear admin,isn't that obvious that there are more several bikes in the pictures? No matter whether they were parked by renters or placed by Ofo employee, these bikes are blocking the bus boarding platform. Anyone with eyes can see this from this picture. The issue is that some people like this company too much and don't want negative aspects of this company to appear in this article. That is not neutral point of view. 螺钉 (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What you wrote above is original research, 螺钉, unless you are accurately summarizing what a reliable source says. A single photograph of a single place cannot be used to say that this situation is typical. This type of editing is not acceptable according to policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Spark interview

The Press Barnstar
Hello, Cullen328! Congratulations for your appearance on CBC Radio‘s Spark today, with thanks for helping educate the public about what goes on here.—Odysseus1479 19:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Odysseus1479. The people at Spark including host Nora Young were very professional and a pleasure to deal with. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, here is a link to the Spark interview. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

David vs Goliath

Hi Jim

I just heard your interview with/ on CBC Sparks and wondered if you might be interested in and able to resolve what I have long regarded as unfair editing on pages that involve big money. I have certain pages in mind but suspect the problem is general in that any page that involves big money, be it financial, industry sectors, sciences like GMOs, etc are likely subject to the same phenomenon - ephemeral individuals grinding a moral axe vs supported lobbyists (even voluntarily self appointed) obfuscating and dissembling. I feel that anybody who works in any particular sector/ industry is supported by that endeavour and can outlast random individuals who have other lives to live and simply cannot battle on indefinitely. Industry participants are oftentimes blind to the moral dimensions of their industry but find it easy to deride technicalities brought up by outsiders or are able to enforce unreasonably high standards of evidence.

I have put my concerns on hold for many years now, having heard various compromising issues about Wikipedia and also having discovered a workaround in that one can refer to history pages if one wants to learn the truth (arduously!)

A direct resolution would be much better and I would be delighted to work with you to improve Wikipedia pages - though I am under no illusions about the difficulty of taking on the 'big boys'. The problem is well known. Perhaps you could mull this over and let me know if such a project would interest you and/or how it might be tackled, after which we can get specific about which pages should be looked into.

Thanks very much

Bob

Canbyte (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Canbyte. Experienced editors and administrators are highly aware of the general problem that you describe, and the community works to deal with it every day, as best we can. Undisclosed paid editing is a violation of our Terms of Use, and such editors are blocked all the time. A complicating factor is that we value anonymity and doing inappropriate "detective work" on anonymous editors is also a violation that we call "outing", which can result in the investigating editor being blocked. The behavioral pattern is usually the best evidence. There are no easy solutions. It takes hard work by hundreds of administrators and thousands of highly active neutral editors to keep this type of problem under control.
Please be aware that individuals grinding an axe can be just as disruptive as paid lobbyists. Our goal is neutral encyclopedia articles about corporations. We need neither hit pieces nor hagiographies.
Please give me specific examples of problematic articles. Here is some "light reading" for you:
Thanks for your comments, and I hope that you will become an active and productive Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Nice interview on the CBC. Thanks for spreading some good news about Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Walter Görlitz. The people at Spark were a pleasure to deal with. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, well done Jim, and Nora Young used to host one of my favourite CBC radio programs, Definitely Not the Opera (DNTO). --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Luke Allan page in wiki

Jim 

 I just listened to your interview on CBC Radio 'Spark' for the second time, today; it was great.

I am the original author of the article on Hyatt Verrill in Wiki probably a dozen years ago---that is for my background...

For the last four years I have been researching a Canadian author, known to the world as 'Luke Allan', W. Lacey Amy (1877-1964) wrote 47 books, all published in London, many published elsewhere as well. He was translated into a half dozen languages in Europe. He is almost entirely forgotten today.

See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Allan

I have tried twice to create an English wiki page on luke allan but in the major try it was removed by wiki editors!!! I am wondering if you might help me. I don't know anything about formatting but with 4 years of research on the author, I have lots of references and details that no one knows---like his second alias!

Here are some locations for details on his life... http://stillwoods.blogspot.ca/ you have to search along this blog, lots of pages on him. LULU website had to be removed! ...many of his books are rare today so I have been republishing them. His character 'Blue Pete' was described as the most popular cowboy known (in England!).

Somewhere in the web is the page I created and Wiki rejected... Thanks in advance. Doug Frizzle Stillwater Lake Nova Scotia

Hope this works! Please send me an email---frizzle@hfx.eastlink.ca Frizzled (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Frizzled. I looked at your deleted article about Allan which is still in our database though visible only to administrators. The article had only one reference, to blogspot, which is not a reliable source. The article was nowhere near ready for the encyclopedia. A Wikipedia article must summarize what published reliable independent sources say about the topic. I suggest that you read and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Magtoto

Just FYI, the article got re-created 3 minutes after you deleted it. — IVORK Discuss 04:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IVORK. I deleted it again and salted it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Margot Robbie

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Margot Robbie. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

my little pony

File:Girl with pony.JPG
Obligatory posting of one of Drmies's sprogs. Softlavender (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi.
You recently deleted My little pony harmony rainbow power is magic. Could you please tell me who was the creator of the recent two versions? Thanks a lot, —usernamekiran(talk) 20:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Usernamekiran. You will probably not be surprised to know that it was Taylorwalls. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I am surprised lol. I must have confused the time stamps. I went through his talkpage, and didn't find the CSD notification relating to latest deletion, so I thought it was somebody else. Thanks for the reply, and sorry for bothering you with such a silly request. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
No problem at all. I don't know why the CSD notice was not visible. All I did was delete obviously unacceptable content, which showed up on a "to do" list for administrators. You do not need to apologize. It is my job as an administrator to answer relevant questions. I am happy to do so and you are welcome on my talk page at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
If you look at the history of the editor's talk page, you will see that the last edit on 01:40, March 22, 2018 was to delete a CSD notice, Usernamekiran. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Cullen.
@Softlavender: your comment lol'ed me. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Considering that this nonsense has been created and deleted three times, I have salted the title. I also found the mother lode from which these creations were springing - User:Taylorwalls/sandbox - and have tagged it for speedy deletion. I even wondered if this person meets the criteria for WP:NOTHERE, based on their user page and this creation. But I see they have been here for a couple of years and used to do reasonably constructive editing on articles, so I held back. However it looks like a strong case of competence is required. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Wow, Doc, that was fast! --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Recent changes... Drmies (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
How strict do we want to be in Some Knowledge of Proper English is Required? Drmies (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Perfesser. Define "proper English", please. TYVM. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
"Proper"? How about "not gibberish"? Sample: "It's Was being yours Kingdom Hearts Cover Z like came going doing Characters making you from Kingdom Hearts Cover in Z Apps into the Heartless once there being 2018-2019 like going doing live same Ps4.... " I'd suggest we need enough knowledge to do a little better than that. --MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, MelanieN, I read it (or tried to), and I deleted it. I was just joking around with my pal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I know. But I'm seriously thinking that if this user continues to try to write articles (as opposed to making small edits to existing articles), we may need to take some action. (Still, it would be fun to hear the Perfesser define "proper English".) --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, and warned them on their talk page. But they haven't edited in five days. Please block if they resume their shenanigans. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

added 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
removed Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

  • Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
  • Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
  • The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
  • The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

  • A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ayup

I was a bit curious. It seems that the April 2018 edition of "ichthus" is the first since 2014 and seemingly the first edited by Lionelt: Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach. Far form being accidental, it would appear that this edition was motivated in part by the death of Graham. I think that puts a slightly different light on things. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that this was an attempt to revive a moribund newsletter. I am not sure that changes things much, Guy, but I will take another look. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Cullen328

Thanks very much for making the changes, I feel it reads fairly as well as more accurately. I apologize for the angry tone of my first message and for the lengthiness of my second message. Thanks again for the changes. Have a good weekend and take care. JDMAVkwd (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, JDMAVkwd. I hope that you will stick around and continue editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Christ, get a grip on yourself, will you?

[2][3] EEng 19:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I was racing to avoid another edit conflict with you, EEng, and fell victim to the Cupertino effect. At least I have managed to train my phone to stop calling Drmies something like "dramamine" or "doom" or "dipshit". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
A side benefit is that correcting my own typos boosts my edit count, and we all know what a status symbol that is around here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you've seen me address arbitrators as "Your Arbship". I'm looking forward to addressing a bureaucrat as "Your Cratship" and having it come out "Your Crapshit". EEng 19:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Autocorrect is a crapshoot sometimes, my friend. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Who said anything to you? EEng 04:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think that I did, if pinging means anything, EEng. I remembered the most common autocorrect rendering of your user name, Drmies. It was "demise", which is kind of dark, you must admit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. On my setup visited links can be detected to be links only on minute examination. EEng 04:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

eduprogram

Hi Cullen328, to follow up on User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_50#Courses_Modules_are_being_deprecated, this has been completed. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 17:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Abi Ann

Hi,

We're part of Abi Ann's marketing team and by her request, she would like us to update the photo on her page to match her Facebook profile photo. I understand why the photo was flagged and removed due to copyright violations, but we do have permission from Abi Ann to use that photo on her Wikipedia page. What would you recommend is the best course of action to have the photo uploaded without being removed? I am new to the editing process, so if there's something I'm unintentionally missing, I would like to know so we can have this resolved as soon as possible.

Thank you! Tally.bevis (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Tally.bevis. The photo's copyright holder (usually the photographer) must follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Editing Wiki Page

I'm extremely new to this & am having a hard time understanding everything. Have sources & wanting to edit Tupac Shakur & Kidada Jones Personal Life on their wiki pages. I wanted to include that they dated & lived together for months until Tupac was murdered. Kidada also said they were engaged. One of the sources is an article in Vanity Fair called To Die Like A Gangsta. Just not getting anywhere with asking for help. Thank You! 2PacKidada (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, 2PacKidada. You can edit those pages as long as you provide a reference to the Vanity Fair article. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeff Novitzky

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeff Novitzky. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328

I so appreciate you responding to my inquiries. Am so confused with this whole process. I've been trying to add to the Personal Life section on both Tupac Shakur & Kidada Jones as you may recall. I've also been trying to learn how to respond to you. Have no idea if this will reach you because every time I try something different to talk with you or follow your advice on the editing process, I mess myself up. Have no idea if I will ever succeed but thank you for trying to help me. Never thought this would be so difficult. Hope you get this. 2PacKidada (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, 2PacKidada. I am sorry that you are having trouble editing Wikipedia but I have tried to give you assistance and advice. I gave you a link to a reliable source at the Teahouse, and right above, I gave you a link with instructions about how to format references. Just go ahead and edit those two articles, adding the proper reference. You are successful at editing talk pages. Just edit the two articles the same way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

Hello Jim and thank you for taking the time to advise me on correct and proper use of wikipedia. Your reply makes sense, however I have one question regarding notability, hopefully its not a silly question, but il ask anyway. Im fairly confident notability can be demonstrated regarding dejavufm, but wanted to know if such information or evidence could be provided by way of links to interviews, videos footage & documentaries, (BBC & Channel 4) confirmations and acknowledgements by verified artist and musicians that started their careers with dejavu, ofcom reports, officially published biography books by former host who went on to achieve MBE's who also credit dejavufm as being the founders of the most exciting music genre to come out of the UK in recent years. Basically this is quite substantial evidence in media format they can be provided.

Independent links http://www.mtv.com/news/2129670/uk-grime-music-a-history/ http://thequietus.com/articles/13488-dizzee-rascal-interview https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/sep/26/how-southside-allstars-became-grime-social-network-ska-2-nikki-s-nyke https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/stormin-dead-latest-grime-rapper-skin-cancer-aged-died-cursed-mc-tributes-a8217466.html https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/apr/26/site-and-sound-when-cities-spawn-music-london-grime-trip-hop-bristol https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/rudimental-design-app-allowing-users-to-livestream-gigs-and-trial-new-material-with-their-followers-a6715586.html http://www.complex.com/music/2018/04/grime-needs-a-shake-up/ http://www.complex.com/music/2018/02/stormin-nasty-crew-sir-spyro-1xtra https://radiotoday.co.uk/2017/10/charlie-sloth-takes-over-radio-1-weeknights/ http://clashmusic.com/features/pied-piper-rapid-and-the-continuing-allure-of-ruff-sqwad

Any further clarity would be most welcome

Warm regards

Wayne — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalDJDlux (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello there, OriginalDJDlux. At the Teahouse, I referred you to our paid editing disclosure requirement. This is mandatory. It is not optional and not negotiable. So, click on that red link that is your username and make your disclosure. You must do that before we engage in any substantive discussions. Thank you for understanding. Also, sign your talk page posts at the end with four tildes. This is something that all experienced editors do as a matter of course. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Once you have made your paid editing disclosure, OriginalDJDlux, please tell me which of those ten links devote significant coverage to your radio station, as opposed to routine passing mentions? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I am really sorry if I am getting this the wrong way around, with regards to a disclosure. I am not a paid member of staff and rather volunteer my time to play music I am passionate about, I know a lot of the history of the music and culture and want to contribute appropriately. This is not for any financial payments of in-kind rewards. I am actually looking for the correct part to fill il but the template I was reading appears to imply I am getting paid when this is not the case

Thank you for your help Jim.

Wayne ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalDJDlux (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sign your posts, please OriginalDJDlux. At the Teahouse, you wrote, "I work at DejaVufm.com a UK based music radio station launched in 1994." You did not say that you were a volunteer. We take such things very seriously. In any case, you have a major conflict of interest about this radio station, which you should openly declare on your currently blank user page. Are you here to build this encyclopedia, or are you here to promote this radio station? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand how my initial message must have confused things further. This is not paid work at all. Its not for promotional reasons either which is why I thought I should just message and ask for clarity. I guess my knowledge on the UK urban music scene and its history is very deep as I was there to witness and experience lots. Its basically a question that gets asked as to why dejavufm is not on wikipedia as it played a major role in influencing the youth music culture in the UK and I guess its because people like me dont know how to use things like wikipedia so parts of our culture and heritage doesn't get its due recognition. an accurate encyclopdia on UK urban music os what needs help in building. If dejavufm wants promotion, it can use social media marketing, I know.

With regards to your previous question about which link gives notability. I think my point is that the majority of todays leading UK Urban artist all credit dejavufm as being where it all started for them and this is the reason why they still exist to this day. these links below are example of several of the headline artists in features when they were just starting our and dejavufm gave them the exposure which change the course of UK urban music history.

They are all talking about dejavufm show like this. featuring Dizzee Rascal, Wiley, Kano, Crazy Titch, Lethal Bizzle, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqqwq9mxUPc - this is where it all began. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyaBnuH6J3s

Id be happy to create a basic draft and submit substantial evidence to support.

I am really sorry for not fully understanding this system, I am trying to learn. I note I am typing 4 tides and still not signing correctly.


OriginalDJDlux 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC) (OriginalDJDlux 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)) OriginalDJDlux 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalDJDlux (talk • contribs)

DRN

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! deisenbe (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Deisenbe. Is there one dispute in particular that you want my input on? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The issue is whether there should be any mention whatsoever that questions have been raised about whether Kilgallen's death was in fact a suicide. A side issue is how to help innocent bystanders like me deal with Shaw's book. deisenbe (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A question about survivors

Should immediate-family survivors be listed in a person's biography?

The Out-of-date material section of the Biographies section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style says, "'Survived by' and 'survivors', phrasings commonly found in obituaries, should not be used." That sentence implies that survivors should be omitted, but it addresses wording rather than the actual inclusion or exclusion of survivors. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Teblick. This is not a matter of hard and fast rules (as far as I know), but rather a matter of good editorial judgment. In my opinion, listing surviving relatives is not encyclopedic, especially if those people are not notable. If a relative is notable and said or did something encyclopedic following the death and connected somehow to the death, then that should be mentioned. If the reader wants obituary-style lists, then provide a link to an obituary. That is my personal opinion on this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
That sounds good. I appreciate your insights. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello + thank you

Hi Jim, it's Kate writing. Just wanted to drop in and say hello. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and I really appreciate your helpful comments. I think I'm starting to get the hang of it and appreciate any feedback you have. Hope you have a great day. Kgraceystewart (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Cullen and friends--museum help requested!

Cullen, I know you've written up a museum or two, or three. Please help me out. The National Memorial for Peace and Justice is pretty bare bones, and The Legacy Museum is even worse. They're opening this coming week--GASP--and we'd be doing a lot of people a good turn if we could improve these articles some. I know there's pictures coming, and I understand that there will be more coverage soon in the WaPo and the NYT. But in the meantime, can you or some of your editing friends have a look? I've not really written up a lot of musea, and I am sure that there's material/organization/STUFF that can be done already with existing sourcing. (Rosiestep, you know artsy people, don't you?) Thank you so much! It's a good cause, also because it will bring people to a city that desperately needs NEW people, if you know what I'm saying. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I will take a look and try to help out, Drmies. I have seen a bit of coverage of these fine institutions recently, and will look for more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping as it's a good cause, Drmies. Not available to research/edit at the moment, but I'll take a closer look after I return home from WMCON at the end of the week. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

RfA nom – thanks

Just a brief note of thanks for the time you spent with my nom. I did spend about an hour on the advice article and others related, and against my better judgment I forged ahead. Bottom line–I really do not need the admin tools in order to make my best contribution to the platform, so I have no qualms about the end result of the nomination. Thanks again for your kind remarks, Pal. Hoppyh (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome, Hoppyh. Please consider getting more involved in some of the behind-the-scenes work of the encyclopedia, such as WP:AFD. That type of work is good preparation for administratorship, and we need help. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Addition of New Section to Iota Page

Hey cullen328,

I have submitted a request to add a section to the IOTA page, please review and let me know if there is more info that I need to provide, thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokesh1699 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yank Barry Page

Hi Cullen328,

Pleasure to meet you and welcome to the discussion. I'd like to discuss the removal of the change made on the Yank Barry Wikipedia page. If you've read what I wrote up on the Talk page, if we're looking at reaching a consensus for the change, I'd like to know if it's possible to introduce unbiased editors who've never worked on the page to review and discuss what's been written back and forth without it coming up as a surprise immediately after the change is made. Consensus will never be met based on discussions on the Talk page no matter how much evidence and sourcing is provided, or anyone's attempts at arguing Wikipedia rules and providing a valid argument with the active editors on the page given it's history. Can you please tell me, have you read over what's been said on the Talk page? Because I think I've made it more than obvious that I would be happy to work towards a consensus if I thought a fair consensus could be reached. However I don't believe that the other active editors on the page are willing to work towards a consensus given that they aren't even willing to acknowledge the straight facts provided in the sources given, only go back and forth with the argument that mainstream sourcing is needed and the repeated use of the puffery/peacocking that I've clearly argued against in my last post with no response. Where's the attempt at consensus there when someone else's valid points based on the rules of Wikipedia aren't acknowledged?

How many mainstream sources are required calling a person a philanthropist in the article are needed in order for it to be a valid title for the lede of a page? How many events need to be covered? His work in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Bulgaria is more than what a lot of the people listed on List_of_philanthropists (I think Yank's work far exceeds Mr T's donation of his gold) if you disregard the financial numbers given that people's financial worth's as if affects how much they can contribute. And after it was explained to me, I agree both of his NPP nominations aren't worth noting on his page, however I do believe it should lend weight to the adding of the title seeing that one of them came from Manny Pacquiao.

As always, I appreciate the opportunity to learn from another Wikipedia editor. This is the first page I tried my hand at editing on and it's been quite the experience. I thought editing the page of a musician my mom picked would be a piece of cake! I look forward to hearing from you. 19:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk)

Hello, JustAnotherNerdWithWords. I am very familiar with the long history of disruption and promotionalistic editing at Yank Barry. Perhaps you should study that long sad history. Experienced editors who watch that page are very cautious of new efforts at promotionalism.There are a variety of forms of dispute resolution available to you. A request for comment, for example, will bring in new editors. What is certain is that you must get consensus. That is how Wikipedia works. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Heya Cullen328, I've gone through the majority of the archives at some point or another during my Wiki-education. It's been quite the story on the Yank Barry page and agree that there's been some very shady attempts at editing the page outside of what Wikipedia represents. However given everything I've provided based on Wikipedia's guidelines that the other editors have taught me, I don't think the addition of the word Philanthropist can be considered disruptive or promotionalistic.
Reading through the history along with the lessons the other editors have given me is why I want to limit the edit to just the single word and didn't press the idea of a new section to support it on the main page that I made briefly; the sources say enough and any more would make it look exactly as what you've advised happened in the past, like a promotion. As I said in my previous post, any attempt I've made to try to gain consensus has either been met with a focus on WP:PEACOCK, requests for valid sources, or just ignored without discussion when the other 2 issues have been addressed. If the other editors involved aren't willing to acknowledge and discuss the sourcing I've provided that validates the title and makes the WP:PEACOCK line of thinking invalid then I'm not sure what else I can do to gain consensus. On the Talk page I listed 10+ articles from either international media sources or major country outlets that either directly call him a philanthropist, outline some of his humanitarian work, or mention the NPP nomination from Manny Pacquiao. While going through the history again previous to my first post in 2018, I found a list of awards that had some verified awards as well mixed in with all the fluff that I didn't include in the recent discussion. And there's also the retraction from the National Post which again while we've all agreed that it's not enough on it's own to justify anything it does warrant consideration. Altogether I think that's enough valid sourced information to say that Philanthropist isn't being misused in this situation.
Thank you very much for pointing out the options I have to assist in dispute resolution, I'll familiarize myself with them and follow the procedures. I'd also love it if you have a free moment if you could look at what's been said in the conversation regarding the Philanthropist title on the Talk page. As a new editor having an Admin's opinion on my research and work towards the topic would be a great lesson for me. I hope you've had a great weekend and look forward to hearing from you. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
If you have read the history of that page, you will know that Yank Barry sued four Wikipedia editors for $10 million. Caution is in order when dealing with an article about such a person. I do not want to get sued and I am not anonymous, so I will refrain from expressing any opinion on the proposed content changes. Instead, as an administrator, I will limit myself to discussing procedural and behavioral issues. The bottom line is that you must gain consensus for any changes that you wish to make to that article. If that proves to be a difficult process, then perhaps the lawsuit and all the controversy may have had a chilling effect. I know that it has chilled me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
So I saw and I appreciate your concern over the lawsuit history. Blew me away that someone can actually do that over an open-source site and just can't see it ever being successful. He tries and I'd love the 5 minutes of fame myself. Desperate move to try to end whatever was going on with the page back then if you ask me but hey, people try right? However if it's caused other editors involved to be biased against Yank and unwilling to step away from the Wikipedia page, wouldn't that mean the validity of anything those editors contribute to the page have to be reviewed with a grain of salt based on that bias formed against Yank for what he did? I know myself if he went after me, I could never be impartial on anything involving him again.
I understand the need for consensus, but here we only have 1 side willing to work towards it using the guidelines of Wikipedia, and 1 side that's just basing their rejection of the word based on their belief that it's a Peacock term without the willingness to discuss that issue. And as I said, I've responded to all of that with no attempt at a discussion to counter my points from the opposition, only the same Peacock response. I'd even be less inclined to push this as hard as I am if the other editor involved would take the time to engage with some counterpoints instead of the same WP:PEACOCK comment over and over, then ignoring responses to that argument when I make them as well. If we'd like to discuss procedural and behavioral issues, please explain to me why that type of behavior is allowed and still have that person's argument be a valid point towards consensus. As always, been a pleasure and look forward to hearing from you. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I already suggested a formal Request for comment which brings in uninvolved editors. I have nothing else to add at this time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Appreciate the response and the time you've taken to further my Wikipedia education. If it's permitted I plan on creating a list of the editors who've assisted in teaching me how to do this properly. With your permission I'd like to include you in the thank yous. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with that but I do this work to improve the encyclopedia, not for any recognition. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
None of the editors I've had the pleasure of having discussions with have ever shown any indication that they want recognition for what they do when I mention what I'd like to do. It makes me want to do it more. I try to mention it as many times as possible how appreciative I am of all the help I'm getting from you experienced Wikipedia editors. As a new and casual editor everyone's been invaluable in my attempts at making Wiki editing a fun and interesting hobby. JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Naomi Wu

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Naomi Wu. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you mark Drive-in movie maniacs for deletion when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_Beat_Cinema is almost exactly the same

Hello, IP editor. I deleted that article because it was entirely unreferenced and highly promotional. Off Beat Cinema has references and is not overtly promotional. So they most definitely were not "almost exactly the same". We have well over five million articles and I am not going to review every horror TV show article before deleting one that clearly does not comply with our policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_51&oldid=1140690007"