User talk:Cullen328/Archive 75

Hi Cullen :)
I accidently stumbled upon your page from WP:Teahouse and i am really happy to connect with you Cullen! Quick question: How do i move page from 'Draft' Draft:Prof Mohapatra to an actual wiki page (page not beginning with Draft:...) i was surprised when a wiki page that i created just a minute back Rob Chandra didn't began with 'Draft:' but it was actual page itself!.. Not sure where did i mess up on the first one... Thx! Have a great weekend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raovikramnet (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Your draft article about Prasant Mohapatra has been submitted for review to the Articles for creation process. You can continue working on it. I suggest that you be sure that every paragraph has at least one reference. As for Rob Chandra, the article was deleted because it obviously was not ready for the encyclopedia. You can work on that topic in your sandbox page or in draft space. Read Your first article for further guidance. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice about photos...
The site can be confusing, so I really appreciate the help! re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historic_places_in_Vancouver A follow-up question: a few of the listings have more than one photo (e.g. Former Vancouver Law Courts; St. Roch), but how is that done? I can't figure how to add another one or two photos to the one already depicted. (BTW, I also can't figure out how to respond within the initial question/response thread, so that's why this message) Luke.Ernz (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . In all honesty, I am not an expert in editing tables, so I suggest that you read Help:Table. As for your difficulty in responding, this may have something to do with whatever site/app/editing tool you use. I edit using the original desktop site on an Android smart phone, and do not use any add-ons like the Visual Editor or the mobile app. I find it very easy to do whatever I want without any of the gadgets and gimmicks. Others may disagree. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Henry Lorentzen (Artist)
Hi Jim, thank you for your kind response. I am relieved to hear that I do not have the pressure of finding the page missing when I get back to the editing process. And yes, I get your meaning on bringing the tone down. I need a neutral editor and that's not me! LOL Henry's been gone 25 years and he really was a saint! Of course, he had no time to get into trouble! I remember him occupying two spots in his home...the art room and the dinner table. It might take me a while to figure out my "verbiage". My other problem is learning the codes on proper references. Any ideas or input you have is greatly appreciated. Warm Regards, Vanessa SmallSteps101 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Would you like me to do some work on the draft? If so, please save a copy of the current version off-Wikipedia, because it will look very different after I edit it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What a great speedy reply! yes, please give it a try!  Give me about 10 min to save my copy.  I just ran into a new snag.  My photos were not kosher either.  Evidently I need to send an e-mail releasing permission.  All so confusing, but I understand the problem.  I suppose the photo of Gov. George Sinner poses a problem because he has his own page.  I thought some photos would make the page a little neater....now it's just harder!  OH my!  This is what happens when you have a grandmother trying to be high tech.  Vanessa SmallSteps101 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well,, I am a grandfather so it is not impossible. Now, I will take a look at the photos. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can't thank you enough for giving this "the once over". I'm a music teacher that is auditioning kids on Monday for the Spring Musical.  My mind is in two places.  You are giving me a gift of your time.  Going to pay this forward with my students!  Also, you've issued the challenge.  Must get tech saavy!  Vanessa SmallSteps101 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

, there is a problem with the copyright status of the photos. You uploaded them as your "own work" which only applies if you are the photographer. The problem has nothing to do with George Sinner having an article. Only the copyright holder can freely license the photos, and if the photographer is dead, that would most commonly be their legal heir(s).

A larger problem is that I am having difficulty finding published reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to Henry Lorentzen, sufficient to show that he meets Wikipedia's Notability guideline for artists. Your draft mentions a book written by a relative, but that is not an independent source, and I cannot find it on Google Books or anywhere else on the internet. What is the ISBN number for this book? Which are the other most comprehensive published sources about the artist? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC) I see the issue on the photos, and I can fix it, as I know them personally. They have allowed me to use them in the past, so no worries there. On the book: here is the number: ISBN 978-0-9852198-0-2 Thank you for your honesty, it is a sincere help to me. SmallSteps101 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Somapsyche, re: Francis Tompson
Hi Jim, you wrote me on my talk page, I think. This is all very new to me and quite confusing and overwhelming. I so appreciate your help and attention! And I hope I'm even writing to the right person? Some of the messages I got were associated with "MarchJuly" or something like that, then there's Cullen, which I think is you? In any case, what I really need is someone I can get on a voice connection with, phone, zoom, whatsapp, skype, etc. to help me navigate some basics. I am generally pretty well able to find answers online but Wikipedia is a whole universe that is totally new to me. Oh, I completely understand about citations and references and am in the process of researching those so I can make sure my editing meets Wikipedia's standards. I guess I'll leave it at that and see what you say. My name is Julia, by the way... thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somapsyche (talk • contribs) 23:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello,, yes, I left a message on your talk page and so did , as can be seen by our signatures there. I do not know why you might think otherwise. Experienced editors do not provide voice assistance to new editors by phone or skype or any of that. We provide support openly and transparently, in writing, here on Wikipedia. The Teahouse is a good place to ask questions. Or, you can ask questions here. Confidential matters can be handled off-Wikipedia but not routine questions from new editors. This is an open collaborative project, by design. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

John Johnson (reporter) entry
Hi Jim, Thank you for looking at the entry. I have been trying to add inline citations. I believe all the references and links to websites, articles, etc. at the end of the entry are now in the proper format, but I don't know how to remove the template message. I would very much appreciate any edits or expertise you could provide. Thank you so much for your time! Ann Yih (Johnson73) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson73 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello . Your username indicates some sort of personal relationship with John Johnson. Can you please clarify the nature of your relationship? Friend? Relative? Client? Thank you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I was just going to write you! My name is Ann Yih Johnson. I'm John Johnson's wife and a former CBS News Executive Producer. I did not edit the factual content in John's entry. I was trying to fix the inline citation problem. I tried to put the references in the proper format and then was trying to remove the old references that didn't have today's retrieval date when I got your message. I would appreciate any help you could give me. Thank you. Ann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson73 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Thanks for clarifying. Your husband appears to be a fine man. I was for many years an admirer of Dennis Richmond in Oakland, who had a similar career. Now that I understand what is going on, I will take a closer look. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You are so kind Jim! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your time and your words. I am an obvious novice at Wikipedia editing but find the site to be an excellent resource. Hope I didn't make a mess. It amazes me how you and other devoted Wikipedia editors are volunteers. John and I thank you! Please stay safe. AnnJohnson73 (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have formatted and inserted four or five inline references, copyedited and wikified the article, and expanded it with a quote from your husband about the "Eyewitness News" concept, and a quote from a review of his book. And I removed the maintenance tag. There is still work to be done, but I think the article is in better shape. Now, I need to get some sleep.


 * You may be interested in another biography of a newscaster that I expanded, Joseph Benti, in cooperation with his daughter. Please give my warm regards to your husband. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the retrieval date, that's the date when a Wikipedia editor first reviewed the contents of the reference, and decided to add it to Wikipedia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Good morning Jim! Wow, your additions and changes are great, and improved the article. John and I thank you SO much for taking the time and staying up late. I still see the template message at the top. Is there a way to remove that? We both read your Joseph Benti article... fascinating. We also looked at your interesting life history. Love the photos especially of you, your wife and Dexter! Please thank Debra (does she play chess?) and David for their Wikipedia work too.Johnson73 (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please go over our project's "new year resolutions", checking if they are peaceful enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to see that you are still discussing infoboxes,, but we all make our own decisions. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you see that I advise to NOT discuss them? ... and have not done it in 2020 unless pinged to an RFC? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By giving that advice, you are discussing them. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They are under project goals, dating back to 2012, by people who came before me. I can't be silent, but what I say is Don't discuss them. It's a futile waste of time. Iridescent worded that well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

How do you like today's pictured DYK, La schiava in Bagdad? Not by me - only nominated, but Voceditenore, whose evaluation from 2018 I gave the arb candidates to consider. They all agreed, "live and let live". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well done, . Congratulations. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and proud today of a pic I took --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and today of Vision pictured (not by me), with Arik Brauer in the news, so art in Vienna twice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please review my page
Its about a wrestler of my village Brahmdev MishraThaeon (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Facebook is not a reliable source. You must remove all references to Facebook. If you have copied some of the content directly from a book, then that is a copyright violation. The material from the book must be summarized in your own words. It was a really bad idea for you to personally attack a reviewer as you did. Other AFC volunteers may be reluctant to review your draft because of your hostile behavior. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Starman2377
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Starman2377 has given you a WikiTrout! Trouts promote WikiFun and hopefully this one has made your day more fun. Spread the WikiFun by giving someone else a trout, especially when they are doing something silly. Happy slapping!

Spread the fun of trouts by adding {{subst:Troutalt}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hey its starman2377 thank you for responding i will remember to check copyright on all images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starman2377 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Turguniev600
Hi Jim, I am sure you might want to have a look at User_talk:Turguniev600. BR, CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . The editor is venting. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thanks re Yerba Buena article
Hi there, thanks for your advice on how to create a new article and willingness to chat about it. That's great that you're familiar with the Yerba Buena complex. I followed your links and tried to draft something up in my Sandbox. Not sure how to share that... Would appreciate your feedback and any advice. Thanks!Stonestageybgf (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I don't see any edits to your sandbox. Did you click "Publish changes"? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I just tried publishing it again.Stonestageybgf (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good start, . Please convert your references from bare URLs to complete references with bibliographic details. I do that type of thing manually but there are various software tools available. Please read Referencing for beginners. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Got it. Thanks so much, just made those edits. How does it look now? Stonestageybgf (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In all honesty,, your draft is better than about 99% of the drafts I have seen. The biggest criticism I have at this point is that the best sourcing is from the San Francisco newspapers. I was pleased to see a reference to Broadway World, but when I read it, I saw that it is obviously a regurgitated press release, so that is not an independent source. Can you find any independent coverage from publications outside San Francisco? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  01:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement ! I did some more digging and added articles from Dance Magazine, Jazz Times, and Mercury News. I also removed the Broadway World article. What do you think now? Stonestageybgf (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that you should click that blue box to submit your draft for review. Let me know if you run across any problems. Let's hope we can get this pandemic under control so that performing arts can resume bringing us joy. Happy to be of assistance. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks,. Yes! We cannot wait to gather folks once again when it is safe. I'll submit the draft for review. Fingers crossed it all goes well. Thank you for all your help!

Thanks
Thank you so much for your advice Whamrockers (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, . <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing an existing reference
Hi Cullen328 -

Can you get me closer to the intended method for fixing a broken reference on an article created by someone else?

The wiki-article cites an LATimes article with a URL that has changed, however I cannot figure out if I am permitted to make that change, because the source for the "references" section appears to be hidden/protected.

The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses The citation is #11 (Named Reference = "Pulitzer3A" The correct URL for citation #11 should be: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-dec-17-na-wall17-story.html The missing title should be: "More Than a Few Good Men"

Thank you. Klgeels (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I took care of the problem. That article is not protected and anyone can edit it. The wikicode that generates each individual reference is not in "References" section but rather in the body of the article. This particular reference is a "named reference" which allows it to be used multiple times. I found the full reference in the body and edited it there. Please read Referencing for beginners. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, so courteous AND expeditious. FYI - I did look at the "How To", but your explanation was far more comprehensible and succinct. Thank you very much for being such a credit to the wiki endeavor. Klgeels (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Happy to be of assistance, . <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Participation without being closed out by others
Hello Jim,

I am now in my 53rd year of practising medicine on the basis of three specialities - Internal medicine, Clinical biochemistry & pharmacology and Psychiatry. My pre-Med University study was in the hard sciences - Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Biological Sciences and Geology. I am neither an idiot nor yet arrived at dementia and it is possible that I have some wisdom based on learning and experience to share. Is Wikipedia an alternative universe with rules only able to be followed by a saint and inhabited by anarchists with no hesitation in savaging persons who are new to the institution?

So far, I seem to have gained benefit for years first consulting Wikipedia because contained in the entry is the cast of characters and the issues in question. Valuable in itself. However, each entry about things I am very familiar with are characterised by a slant which I know to be contentious - the bias is glaring. So,it is vital to then go elsewhere to libraries, journals pertinent websites and the like

Can you direct me to a couple of entries where differing points of view are given satisfactory exposure and thus giving scope for respectful dialogue hoping for clarification. Otherwise, I will not waste my time in butting my head against a brick-wall of ignorant self-certainty issuing forth from self-anointed infallible gossips?

I was hoping to encounter something more disciplined and civilised than the Comment sections of the Guardian OfNoAccount (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I am longtime editor and administrator of one of the world's top ten websites, the only one of which is nonprofit and dedicated to presenting neutral knowledge for free to the entire world. I thank you for your long service to humanity but it seems obvious to me that even a professional with 53 years experience could possibly fall down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theorizing, especially when a charismatic rabble rouser eggs them on. Wikipedia's job is to neutrally summarize what reliable, independent sources say, and we have spent 20 years debating and refining those standards. As for entries where differing points of view are given satisfactory exposure, I would direct you to the biographies of every single American president or every English king or pope or pharaoh or Roman emperor or Nobel Prize winner or Oscar winner. Or any article about a major war that has impacted the world in the last 1000 years. And so on. We have many, many good articles about every controversial aspect of the human condition that you can imagine, and we try to represent all significant points of view.  I see that at the Teahouse, you are objecting to Lin Wood being called a conspiracy theorist. The fact of the matter is that hundreds of reliable sources call Lin Wood a conspiracy theorist, in part because his assertions are so bizarre and unhinged that his local bar association officials are asking him to submit to a mental health assessment. Not a single reliable source that I am aware of says, "No, Lin Wood is not a conspiracy theorist and what he says is true." We will continue summarizing what reliable sources say since that is what we have been doing for two decades, and that is what our readers expect from us. The one thing that we will never do is parrot the Big Lie of an authoritarian. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thank you very much, . Not only do I love strawberries, but I bought some yesterday. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good deal. Real ones are much more flavorful :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Hog Farm
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration
 * The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:GameStop short squeeze&#32; on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 00:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Proud Boys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Rasmussen Draft
Hi Cullen328. I "reviewed" the book reviews once more and I believe I should devote more time to the Terkel descriptions themselves. In fact, the Terkel descriptions sparked my interest in the first place. Although Terkel didn't provide "criticism," of his subjects, he did render honest, genuine descriptions. I'll make the necessary edits and touch base with you when I'm finished. I really appreciate your insight. Thank you for your time. Phoenix7119 (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I am taking your word that Terkel devoted significant coverage in his own words to Rasmussen in those books. If that is the case, then citing the relevant Terkel books is a better approach than citing reviews of his books. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. Sounds good. And on second thought, before I make a complete edit, I think I should get your opinion on my references first. Rasmussen is such a compelling subject and I believe he is definitely Wikipedia worthy. I'm sure I just need to locate the right sources and learn how to write an article that will fit Wikipedia's standards. So, give me some time to locate them, especially the ones I read years ago, and I'll touch base with you again soon. Does this work for you? What do you think? Since I'm new to Wikipedia, can you tell me if it's appropriate for me to ask you this question? What is the protocol for these situations? Please let me know. Thanks. Phoenix7119 (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I think that you are on the right track in general. However, I encourage you to consider that a superficial first impression that a certain topic is "compelling" may lead to problems. You cannot conclude that someone is "Wikipedia worthy" based on a hunch. That decision needs to be made solely on the quality of the reliable sources that devote coverage to the topic. Is the coverage significant? Are they independent sources? Are there multiple such sources? Without being able to confidently answer "yes, yes and yes", you should not proceed with a new article. But of course you are free to take your time developing a draft if you are confident that the sources are out there. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, you're right. I guess my problem is trying to get my hands and/or eyes on the right sources. You see, I read Terkel's _American Dreams: Lost and Found_ back in the 1980s. I never forgot his description of Rasmussen during the time he was being forced out as CEO at Beatrice Foods. If I remember correctly, I think Terkel said seeing Rasmussen standing at the end of a corridor in his offices was like watching a scene in an Ingmar Bergman film. That image of a hurt man, bowed but not broken, still clinging to his American Dream, fascinated me. Oh, and the book is such a great source! And then there's the scandal about high school and college students selling, buying and plagiarizing papers written about the Rasmussen chapter in _American Dreams_. Ha! Once upon a time in the 90s, students could just search the web and buy a copy. For the life of me, I'm still trying to determine why this chapter was so popular! But I've never found any "legitimate" sources about this scandal. On the other hand, there are all of the articles and books about Rasmussen, the "brawler," the "problem" and the "table pounder" in the boardroom. So, yes, I believe I can answer "yes" to all of your questions. Thanks for asking them. I see now that the reviews, although accessible, are not enough for Wikipedia. I need to locate the proper sources. So. I'll see what I can find. Thanks so much. Phoenix7119 (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. I took your advice, added a few new sources and made several changes to my article. Before I make any more changes, could you tell me if I'm on the right track? If you don't mind, I would really appreciate your opinion. Thank you for your time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wallace_Rasmussen Phoenix7119 (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The other article
I think it may be Brian R. Morgenstern‎‎, which I've also AfD'd on the same grounds. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Thanks for the heads up. I will not comment at that AfD at this time, but will keep an eye out for disruptive editing. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you have a moment, would you please proofread and/or copyedit an article I just wrote, Ethan Nordean. Your feedback would be appreciated. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just about to go to bed (3:30am my time), but I'll be glad to a look at it when I start editing tomorrow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I made some minor copy edits and adjustments. If you disagree with anything I've done, please feel free to revert or change them. The biggest thing I did was to add references for the description of the Proud Boys in the lede sentence, which I lifted from the Proud Boys article.  Otherwise, the new article seemed solid and well-sourced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, . <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

User:BoschStiftung
Hi, Cullen328, I hope you are keeping well in these dangerous times. It's of no great importance, but I'm a little surprised at your block of User:BoschStiftung after I'd taken the trouble to write him a personal message and annotate the UAA listing as "being discussed with the user". Am I mis-reading something in WP:CORPNAME? – do we not have the option to discuss with the user in such cases? In any case, is a uw-spamublock really appropriate? Wouldn't uw-causeblock have been more suitable here? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . In their first edit, the team behind this account disclosed their COI indicating they were looking into our policies. Their second edit was to the article talk page, which was OK. But then their third edit was directly to the article. So, those two factors, openly admitting that the account is shared among several people comprising a team, and then directly editing the article about their employer, together led me to believe that the block was appropriate. If they submit an unblock request acknowledging our policies and best practices for paid editors, and one or more of them want to set up individual accounts to make edit requests on the article talk page, then I would not oppose a relaxation of the block on that basis. What are your thoughts? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I still don't want to make a mountain from this molehill. Mostly I find it very hard to weigh many of these cases, other than those that are just blatant commercial promotion, which I hard-block without pity. This is not such a case. I chose not to block because (a) it's a charitable Stiftung (and actually a very good one) (b) the editor had made proper disclosure and an attempt to follow policy and (c) had emailed OTRS to try to get his house in order. I fully agree that he shouldn't have edited the article and most definitely shouldn't have represented himself as a team. I thought I'd covered those points in the note I left him. I'm under no delusion that this would have become a valuable contributor if we had treated him better, but possibly I could suggest that you treat charitable organisations with a slightly lighter hand, as seems to be our general practice? But perhaps you think that I was unduly permissive and should have taken a firmer stance? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am in no way suggesting that you were unduly permissive and I am not at all critical of the choices you made. Perhaps I take a slightly harder line but I think that my block was reasonable and within an adminstrator's discretion given the sequence of events. Can you please point to any guideline or guidance for administrators that we should treat username violations among charitable organizations more leniently than we treat other types of organizations? I am not aware of that, and that has not been my practice, but I am happy to make adjustments in the future. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Need your eyes
Hi, Cullen - would you take a look at the contributions for User talk:PPP001 - appears to be a SPA that is reverting a bunch of redirects. Also see the following reverted redirects:
 * 1) Kota Alam Shah (state constituency)
 * 2) Bakar Bata (state constituency)
 * 3) Bangi (state constituency)
 * 4) Damansara Utama (state constituency)
 * 5) Sungai Pinang (Selangor state constituency)

According to the NPP curation tool, there may be an issue with a blocked user - might be the SPA and the attempt to create standalone articles for these state constituencies. I think it's best to make a final decision to either keep those stubs, permantly PP them or prepare to be hounded by reverts for eternity. My past experiences with similar issues are to let them be stubs because the POV warriors in this and similar topics are relentless. Ping me after you've had a chance to review the activity. Thanks in advance - <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 14:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I know very little about politics in Malaysia, although I am familiar with its geography and demographics. I just found out that they have 23 states and three federal districts. The articles/redirects in question are state legislative districts (constituencies), some of which may have been merged with other such districts. In cases like these, I try to compare the situation with something I'm personally familiar with. I am a resident of California's 4th State Assembly district for example. That article is based on primary sources but I think it is useful in showing the district boundaries, the geography, the towns and cities included, and some electoral history. So, Wikipedia has articles about California's 80 assembly districts and 40 state senate districts. Presumably the same is true for electoral districts in other U.S states, Australian states, Canadian provinces and so on. So why not constituencies in Malaysian states as well? It might be argued that some of these Malaysian districts no longer exist, but notability is not temporary. Back to the example of California. There is speculation that California may lose a seat in the House of Representatives when the census results are finalized. If that happens, there is no way that California's 53rd congressional district will be deleted or redirected. It is notable now and will remain notable even if it is abolished.


 * I see no justification for permanent page protection of these articles. What am I missing?


 * On the issue of this editor's behavior, I am not detecting anything problematic. They focus mostly on Malaysian electoral constituencies, and also on Malaysian political parties and transit stations. Many of their articles have been approved by AFC. They've never been blocked. I see no POV warring. Then again, I am not good at detecting sockpuppets. I hope my observations are helpful to you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That works for me. I'd much rather review removals of redirects as articles to keep than revert and redirect again. I know zero about the politics in other countries. As for the editor, the only reason I brought it up is because the curation tool showed involvement of a block evader. I did not investigate it any further than what I mentioned above. I just needed a foundation on which to base an argument for leaving those articles as standalone articles, and you did just that, so I'm good to go. Not everything needs to be a redirect. Thank you for your time. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Need advice on existing article
Hello, and thank you for being a teahouse host!

I started editing an existing article some years ago Moon-eyed people. At that time, I didn't know its history. I now know it had split off from a different article. I read the old talk-page discussions and began to understand some of the issues. A week or two ago I did a major edit for NPOV and to add references. I also read up on OR and SYN and am trying to comply with policy.

One point from the talk page was that much of this relates specifically to Fort Mountain; I had been expanding it under "Moon-eyed people." But in uncovering new references, I realized that newspaper articles about Fort Mountain from 1920 to 1970 might be what brought the "moon-eyed" topic into notability. Various articles quote the 1700s source(s); some mention recent ethnological reports; the papers report on Smithsonian interest, WPA-TVA projects, and Historic Preservation projects. After part of Fort Mountain became a state park, the legends were published often, almost as travel guides, mostly in Georgia newspapers and on park signs and guides.

In the late 1980s and the 1990s, people began to take a closer look. There are some strong opinion pieces, with conflicting theories; one or more of the opinion pieces are specifically about Fort Mountain's "moon-eyed" legend.

I now know that much of this probably does belong under Fort Mountain. It seems too specific and detailed for a whole section under the current spot in Moon-eyed people, but too detailed as is for a subsection in Fort Mountain (Murray County, Georgia), (stub class), since I couldn't give equal treatment to the less prominent legends.

Should I cut it back dramatically and leave out the more repetitive sources? Leave it as a subsection where it is (under Moon-eyed people)? Or move the bulk of the "Background" section from "Moon-eyed people" back to the Fort Mountain article, where it is definitely related? I would do the rewrite in my sandbox.

Thank you (CohuttaBlue (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Hello, . In my opinion, the Moon-eyed people article is too lengthy and meandering, and devoid of any solid evidence. This seems to be in the realm of myth and legend, and it is difficult to discern how much actually came from the Cherokee, and how much was embellishment by white settlers. I am a bit concerned about the following passages that seem to be addressing or instructing the reader, which is a style of writing that should be avoided:


 * "Early stories are scarce, so it is not easy to discover the facts about the people."


 * "The sources for stories about the people are given below. Also included are some stories that mention people who lived in the region before the Cherokee, which do not specify the "moon-eyed" characteristic of the legend."


 * "Since these descriptions are sometimes picked up by the same sources that write of the eastern-Cherokee stories, they are mentioned here for comparison."


 * The "History" section is unreferenced and not really relevant.


 * I recommend cutting the article back significantly, and relying more on the academic sources instead of credulous human interest stories in local newspapers. As for the Fort Mountain article, I recommend only a brief mention. What that article needs is a better description of how archeologists assess the stone structure. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the lead could say the legend is attributed to Cherokee tradition--but I don't want to rewrite the lead. The concensus today (best I can tell) is that nobody knows the origin of the wall, but that the "moon-eyed people" topic is notable because it is on state park signs and publications. (That's how I came to look it up, too.)


 * A newspaper article after 1980 mentions a UGA archaeological survey. I think it dismisses the various legends, including moon-eyed people, and says the origin is unknown--but that is more about the Fort Mountain site, not about moon-eyed people.


 * I think I can safely delete the "history" section and I will work on the sentences you mention. CohuttaBlue (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Cullen, hello again. I removed the specific sentences you mentioned, that were of an instructing style. I removed the 'History' section, but added a link to the Trail of Tears article in another section. I shortened the Description section. I don't think I changed the Fort Mountain section in Moon-eyed people and I left the other sections. They have references gathered by previous editors. I was really just trying to edit for NPOV and separate sentences where two sources had been synthesized (to the best of my understanding). :-) I hope another editor can address the lack of scholarly articles. I only found vague mentions of old archaeological reports. I probably won't edit the Fort Mountain article for that reason. Thank you! CohuttaBlue (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted at the open Kurds and Kurdistan case
In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Before there are any hurt feelings
Perhaps you could glance at WT:Manual of Style/Images and have a quiet word. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That was utterly bizarre, . <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just thought since he's a new (young?) editor you might help him see that more experience would be good before making bold policy proposals like that. As things are going I'm afraid the comments will soon become uncharitable. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, this editor moved on to suggesting use of the Daily Mail in an article about a pharmaceutical drug. I politely explained why that's unacceptable. Is this a new editor or a troll? I don't know yet. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

John Johnson (reporter)
Hi Jim, We hope you and your wife are well! John is featured in a New York Times profile: "How a Former News Anchor and Current Painter Spends His Sundays". Would you please add it to his Wikipedia article and inline citations? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/nyregion/john-johnson-journalist-painter.html?searchResultPosition=1 Thank you. Ann & John Johnson73 (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . What a wonderful interview that sheds light on both of you! I have added it as an external link at the end of that article. Be well. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jim! And thank you for all the valuable work you do! We appreciate it.Johnson73 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hey there, since I saw you comment recently at BLP/N, I assume you have more experience dealing with contentious biographical content, which ain't exactly my area of expertise. I saw these edits, where someone removed some content on the basis that it was a violation of some law (I'm assuming it's Indian law, which wouldn't be relevant to Wikipedia). Obviously I'm aware of WP:NOTCENSORED, and the victim's name has been published by various reliable sources, where some other reliable sources have omitted it. The Deccan Chronicle posted a photo of the victim, but slightly pixelated it, while omitting her name. It doesn't seem much different to me than the inclusion of various accusations that spring up about western celebrities--just saw some stuff recently about American writer Joss Whedon and rocker Marilyn Manson. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I think that we should not mention this type of allegation early on when sourcing is poor or borderline, but when the person's career is clearly impacted by the allegations, they should be covered in a neutral way without implying the person is guilty. As for including the names of victims, we should err on the side of caution. I haven't done an in depth search, but it appears that the Indian actress has not commented in public so I would agree that her name should be kept out for now, for BLP policy reasons, not Indian law. As for the Whedon and Manson situations, the alleged victims have made detailed public statements, so I see no need to exclude those names, and those cases are therefore different. I also notice that there has been no discussion on the article talk page. If IP attempts to add the name of the actress persist, I encourage you to semi-protect the article for BLP policy reasons if you agree with me. I hope this is helpful. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  00:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can live with that. Thanks a lot for your perspective! Much appreciated. Wish I had more experience specifically with this kind of stuff because I know that's where nuance is learned. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To state the obvious,, you gain that experience over time by wrestling thoughtfully with these types of issues, and discussing them. I think you are right to discuss this one outside the noticeboards because we do not want to draw Streisand effect attention to someone trying to maintain privacy about a matter she may well find humiliating. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the acknowledgement, I was deliberately trying to keep it low key. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"Rugmark" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rugmark. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gw-intl (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed
An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
 * is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
 * Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

TheBellaTwins1445
Hi, I am TheBellaTwins1445, I have seen concern from you on my user name, I have adressed on my User:TheBellaTwins1445 user page how I am a sole person going by this name, and not two people, or a pair of twins, and I am a male. I have placed a legend with the photograph of thiw two wrestlers on my page which says the following, you can check it too if you want - «Nikki Bella (left) and Brie Bella (right), a professional wrestling tag team of retired WWE wrestlers for which I got the name TheBellaTwins1445 and of which I was a fan at some point» additionally I want to add that at some point I wanted to change my name for another one, however, I have done a lot of editing stuff with this name on both English and Spanish Wikipedias as I am a Mexican contibutor, that is the main reason why I kept this name. Hope this clarification helps now, greetings, I await for a response. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Although I do not like your username, I will not take any further action on that. Now that you are unbanned, I just recommend that you focus on careful compliance with policies and guidelines. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will re-read the guidelines so I do not commit this same mistakes again, greetings. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
I discovered your smartphone editing essay and I appreciated the time you took to help mobile users. I’d be interested to see an updated version that includes a HOW TO USE THE OFFICIAL APP haha. It’s insanely hard to edit using the actual Wikipedia app, tags are a recipe for breaking the whole page!

I ended up reading through your user page and I’m just very thankful there’s editors like you who put so much effort in to this platform. You’ve contributed to mankind for many many generations to come. Thank you. Dynen (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I will not be writing anything detailed about the app, since I do not use it. But I do appreciate your kind words. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  14:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Five Orders of Ignorance"
Some questions: Regarding "original research" as not being suitable for a Wikipedia entry: what qualifies as "original" and what qualifies as "research"? If a topic has been published both in professional industry publications and in book form, has been referenced and cited in numerous technical articles and papers by industry and academic professionals does this have bearing on its characterisation as "original"? Also, if a topic describes a concept rather than, say, the results of a scientific experiment, is that "research?" In the article I submitted, it is true that I only included two references, though I could include more. But the topic is not "research" as I understand it--it is a conceptual model. In the submitted article, I included a Wikipedia link to the DIKW model which is a similar, though different, conceptual epistemological meta-model of knowledge. As far as I am aware, the DIKW model has not been "researched" and it appears to be at an equivalent level of abstraction. As another example, Wikipedia has an entry for "Murphy's Law" which I think is at the same level as the core concept behind the Five Orders of Ignorance.

I can see that starting the article with the proverb from Isabel Lady Burton is inappropriate and I will remove it. However, I think I need guidance for the rest: would it be acceptable if I included references and citations for other epistemological models? Would it be acceptable if I added additional references and citations for this model? If so, how many citations and references would be required to qualify it? As to originality: can submissions only be for things which *other people* have developed?

I would appreciate your advice on these. Thanks. Malicorneus (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Have you read No original research from beginning to end? Have you read Help:Your first article completely? To summarize briefly, on Wikipedia, "original research" refers to anything that an editor tries to add to the encyclopedia based on their own personal knowledge as opposed to summarizing what published, reliable sources say about the topic, which should be cited as inline references in the article. Vast swaths of the article are entirely unreferenced, and that is not acceptable.


 * The article is written in the first person, using "I" extensively. That is also not acceptable. A Wikipedia article should be written with a removed tone, describing the topic rather than engaging with the topic. Writing better articles may be useful to you.


 * I also have concerns about Notability. Wikipedia has articles about notable topics, which means that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I see that the concept was developed by Phillip Armour, and that both references were written by Armour. Those references are not independent and therefore do nothing to establish the notability of the topic. What you need are references to publications about the topic written by people who have no direct connection with Armour.


 * You mention DIKW pyramid and I note that article has 41 references. You mention Murphy's law and that article has 27 references. Draw the obvious conclusion. The references are the skeleton of the article, and high quality independent references are like gold.


 * Your final question implies that you may have a conflict of interest regarding the topic. If so, conduct yourself with great care. If you have any kind of a financial stake, then you must comply with the mandatory Paid-contribution disclosure.


 * I hope this helps. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Saha Article creation Help
Hello, i wanna create an article name Sandy Saha. I saw you have deleted the page on 11 september 2017. Now I need your permission to create the page. So can I get your permission ?? If you will give me permission then I can edit the article. Jroynoplan (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . There is already a draft article that you can work on. Take a look at Draft:Sandy Saha (actor). <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jroynoplan (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)