User talk:Cullen328/Archive 83

Page for William Appling
Dear Jim,

I'm writing to ask your advice on how to proceed with a Wikipedia page for a musician named William Appling. With my help, CharlesVictorDudley (user name) did a first draft for a page for Mr. Appling earlier this month, but it was deleted by Bbb23 because they felt there was too much advertising and promotion. I paid CharlesVictorDudley to help me with the draft. Though he had not actually done a Wikipedia page before, he was very good with IT and computer work and was willing to help me. We thought that together we could learn to do a good Wikipedia page.

After the draft was deleted, you wrote to CharlesVictorDudley to say that you had read the deleted draft and would not have deleted it, though it did contain promotional language, misused external links and that many items were not referenced.

Since then, CharlesVictorDudley and I have been working on a new draft which we feel has corrected the problems with promotional language and misused external links and lack of references. I would like to post this draft now for you to see and let me know if you think we are on the right track. I'm concerned about posting it without giving you a heads up in case there are still too many problems with it and another editor deletes it. I don't think that will happen, but if you could look at it, I would really appreciate it.

I feel that while I am definitely not yet a "pro," I have learned quite a bit while working with CharlesVictorDudley on this and would like to take over the creating and further editing of this Wikipedia page myself.

Please let me know if you think this sounds reasonable or if there are other things I should do before posting the draft.

I believe Mr. Appling is more than worthy of a Wikipedia page and very much want it to be a good one. I am ready to post the draft now, so if you say the word I will go ahead.

Thanks so much for your help. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely, scribia4178 (user name)Scribia4178 (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . If the draft is primarily the work of CharlesVictorDudley, then that editor should post the new draft, for legal reasons of proper attribution of authorship. At that point, you can begin working on the draft.


 * A hint on terminology: This would not be "a Wikipedia page for a musician named William Appling" but rather an encyclopedia article about William Appling. The distinction may seem minor but we are serious about producing encyclopedia articles not "pages" because that word carries other connotations.


 * Let me know when the new draft is posted. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Understood on the terminology. Thanks very much. CharlesVictorDudley says he can post the new draft in about an hour. I will write you as soon as it it posted.

Many thanks for your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

We were just about to post the new draft for the article about William Appling but noticed that it says the editor who made the original deletion should be contacted first. Is it okay to go ahead and post the new draft now and let you know, or should we contact Bbb23 first? Thanks for your help.

Scribia4178 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , it would be a good idea to touch base with . I am pinging him to advise him that I will work with you to ensure that the draft complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

We'll contact Bbb23 now. Thanks!

Scribia4178 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cullen, has posted at my Talk page asking "permission" to post the draft. Charles, at least, has a disclosure on his userpage indicating that he's being paid for his work. Scribia4178 has no such disclosure, although they acknowledge they paid Charles to draft the article. I don't think the required disclosures have been made, but you may feel otherwise, so unless you need me for something, I'll leave it in your hands.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I see that Bbb23 responded to the inquiry from CharlesVictorDudley and says that he will leave it in your hands. I am wondering if I may now post the draft for you to see from my account at scribia4178 or if I should still have CharlesVictorDudley do it. While CharlesVictorDudley inputted the initial draft, it was largely my research and work that he used. It is fine if you think he should be the one to post it, but I would ultimately like to be the primary editor for the William Appling article. As I said, I originally paid CharlesVictorDudley to help me create this article. He was not a professional Wikipedia editor but had IT experience and said he would help. While working with him I was able to gain experience and understanding of Wikipedia and feel I can now do the editing myself. Please let me know what you think best and we will go ahead and post the draft. Many thanks again for your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . As I said earlier, if the draft is primarily the work of CharlesVictorDudley, then that editor should post the new draft, for legal reasons of proper attribution of authorship. You can then begin working directly on the draft. Doing it this way will reduce the chance of objections by other editors to a minimum. I think that it would also be wise for you to post a statement on your (now empty) userpage explaining whatever connection you have with Appling that motivated you to pay someone to try to write a Wikipedia article about him. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I will have CharlesVictorDudley post the the new draft and let you know when it is up. I will also post a statement on my userpage about my connection and motivation. (I am one of several former students of Appling's that have been discussing doing an article about him for several years now, and I offered to take the lead in having it done.) Many thanks again for your help and advice, Scribia4178 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, . I look forward to seeing the revised draft. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I believe the new draft page for William Appling is now posted. Please let me know if you feel we are now on the right track and the errors and omissions have been rectified. We are happy to make any changes you feel are necessary. Many thanks, Scribia4178 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:William Appling (conductor, pianist, educator)


 * , I have made a few minor corrections. I have added citation needed tags in several places. A lot of your references show Newspapers.com as the source. This is incorrect. Newspapers.com is an archive, not a source. The original newspaper should be cited, along with the author, publication date and page number. There are some other problems, such as excessive name dropping, that can be dealt with later. It is much better than the previous version, though. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Thanks very much for going through our draft and for your corrections and suggestions. Regarding the citations, I am not sure how we would fix some of them. For example, we only know about Appling's ability to play the piano when he was 3 years old from his brother and daughter. I assume that if we cannot document this and similar items with actual verifiable online sources, we should remove them, which we are happy to do. Regarding the excessive name dropping, all the people mentioned did work with Appling, though, again, we do not have documentation for all of these to an online source, so we can remove those as well. Regarding the links to newspapers.com, we will correct those and give the original newspaper and other information as you suggest; I assume we should still include the link to the newspapers.com clipping which shows the original newspaper article. We were also wondering about the links to the many articles cited in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. That newspaper does not have a clipping option the way newspapers.com does, but one can access the orignal articles with author, publication date and page number through the newspapers paid online archives. Have we formatted those correctly? The only actual "link" we have used for these is to the Plain Dealer's Wikipedia article. This is how they have been done in other Wikipedia articles, so we have assumed this is an acceptable citation. We're glad that you feel this draft is an improvement. We will work to make these corrections and changes and hope to make the article a good one. Many thanks again for your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , the core content policies Verifiability and No original research require the removal of any content that is not cited to a reliable published source. So, please remove whatever you learned from his brother and daughter. Keeping the links to the Newspapers.com copies is fine as long as the bibliographic information is furnished. As for the Plain Dealer, that is certainly a reliable source and there is no requirement that sources be readily available online. Just be sure to include all the bibliographic material such as author, publication date, page number and so on. Please do not list names of people he worked with unless these people are notable and the connection is verified in the references. If that results in a somewhat leaner article, that is fine. It can be expanded as time goes by. On a personal note, my father was a newspaper boy for the Plain Dealer, around the time that the U.S. entered World War II. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  22:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim, This is all great. We will make the corrections and changes as you have outlined. I'm relieved to hear that the citations for the Plain Dealer will work. (Interesting about your father! Are you from Cleveland originally?) In speaking with CharlesVictorDudley, the user who was hired to help create the article, we agree that it will probably be best if he continues to be the main editor for the Appling article—the one who makes and publishes the changes—and will continue to be paid for his work. I am working on a description for my own user page as you suggested and will send it to you before posting it for your reaction and feedback. Many thanks. Scribia4178 (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , my father and I, and I believe my grandfather were born in Detroit but my dad's mother was from Lima, Ohio. My dad's family lived mostly in the Detroit area, but they lived in a Cleveland suburb for a year or two because of a job assignment that my grandfather took. I think he was a Chrysler employee at the time. I still have lots of cousins in Ohio. My grandmother moved back to Lima after her husband (my grandfather) died at a fairly young age about a year before I was born, so I spent a fair amount of time in Ohio during my childhood. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim,

We have been working hard on our updates/revisions to the page and hope to have a revised draft up by the end of the day. It has been slow going as we are still learning to do the citations, links, and other elements correctly. I think we are making good progress, however. As I mentioned in a previous message to you, I am one of a large group of Appling's former students, friends and colleagues that have been hoping to do an article about him for many years, even before his death in 2008. Though I have never done an article from scratch, I have made edits on a number of Wikipedia articles, and I was asked by the others to try. I soon realized I would need help with doing the setup and research and, through a musician friend, I found CharlesVictorDudley. He had not done an article before but was very good with IT matters and offered his services. It was agreed that he would be paid for his work (other former students of Appling's also offered to contribute.) He then went ahead and set the draft page up and has been inputting the drafts and edits. After we got going, and in response to your suggestions, I began doing more research in the Wikipedia guides and help pages. Because of my and the other former students and colleagues relationship to Appling, I am now concerned that we might be considered to have a "Conflict of Interest" in doing the article. We understand there is a tendency for editors who personally know their subject to promote or advertise for them and that, obviously, Wikipedia is very concerned about this. I can only say that we have no intention of doing this for Appling and hope that, despite our close connection to him, we can go ahead with the article. In researching the conflict of interest matter, it appears that if editors are diligent about making sure that all their references and citations are verifiable and accurate, they may be able to go ahead. Please let me know if you think this is acceptable and that I can be identified as an editor of the page. Thanks so much for your help and understanding. Scribia4178 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, you have a conflict of interest but that is why Wikipedia has a draft process and an Articles for Creation process, to allow for contributions by editors with a disclosed COI. I am a bit mystified when you say "We have been working hard on our updates/revisions to the page and hope to have a revised draft up by the end of the day." I see no edits to the draft in recent days. Best practice is to "work hard" on the actual draft itself here on Wikipedia, not to work on it somewhere else. As for being identified as an editor, you have to actually edit the draft in order to be identified that way. Because of your conflict of interest, you can edit the draft freely, but when it becomes an actual encyclopedia article, you are advised to limit your editing to the article talk page. At this time, CharlesVictorDudley is the author of over 99% of the content, and I am responsible for less than 1%. If you want authorship credit, you need to actively contribute content. Keep me posted. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim, We have been working the the revisions but not saving them as drafts—just checking them in the preview to see if they work. We will now put the new draft up and from now on will save the edits as we go along. There were so many we wanted to try to do them all at once and then post them. There are still more to do, as you will see, with the newspapers.com items and the jstor.com, etc., but I think we're getting there. I think I understand about the conflict of interest now, so I will go ahead and post the new draft myself. Can you suggest how I should describe myself as a user? I see so many different descriptions, I'm still confused by that. Thanks so much for your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , you should not be putting a new draft up. You should edit the existing draft. As for your userpage, begin by explaining your relationship with Appling and with CharlesVictorDudley. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I apologize for being so dense about this: Do I need to have my user page set up before I can post our new draft? I am still confused about this. Scribia4178 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I strongly recommend that you disclose your COI before making any COI edits. Just click your redlinked signature, type a sentence or two, and publish your changes. Your signature will turn blue. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

We are editing the existing draft. I'm not explaining myself well. These are just edits to the draft already posted. Sorry for the confusion.Scribia4178 (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , there have been no edits to the draft since I edited it on August 28. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will do the COI now. Thanks. Scribia4178 (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, This is what I am planning to post on my user page. Does this look okay to you? I've been using Wikipedia for several years and have made a number of edits over the years. I am now working with a group that is doing an article for the late musician William Appling, (1932-2008). The group is made up of former students and colleagues of Appling, and I am one of those. We are working with a paid editor, CharlesVictorDudley, who has created an original draft. I will be helping to edit the draft but am acknowledging that there is a potential conflict of interest in that I knew and worked with Appling. Scribia4178 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , that is a good start. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I have created the user page and my signature turned blue. The edit to our previous draft has now been posted. Thanks for your help and, again, I apologize for being slow about this. Scribia4178 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I realize I may not have actually submitted the draft, but I believe I have now done so. Please let me know if it has gone through. At the bottom of the page it says, "Review waiting, please be patient," so I think it has been submitted. Sorry again about my being kind of slow on all these things. I think I'm getting there, though. Scribia4178 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I just made a new edit this morning to the draft. I then clicked "publish changes" and was taken to the page that says "Submit the draft for review!" I am a little confused. Are you able to see the new edits I just made after clicking "publish changes," or I do have to click "Submit the draft for review" each time. This was my confusion last night when I first thought I had posted the edited draft. Thanks for clearing this up. I hope the edited draft is looking better to you and look forward to your comments. I really appreciate all your help with this. Scribia4178 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , it looks like you have made two recent edits. In the first, you submitted the draft for review. In the second, you removed the template indicating it was submitted and therefore it is no longer awaiting review. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that. Also, I had bolded his name at the very beginning, which is a standard Wikipedia convention as describe in the Manual of Style, and you removed the bolding. I am also not sure why you did that. Do you think the draft is ready for review right now? Do you want someone other than me to review it? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am again a victim of confusion/misunderstanding. I was not clear about the "submitting for review." I did not intend or want to remove the template indicating it was no longer awaiting review. I thought I needed to do that so you could read the edits. Also, I had no intention of removing the bolding of his name and did not know I had done this. I do not think the draft is ready for review. I would only like you to review it. If there is a way to correct this, please let me know; I apologize for messing up yet again. (In my defense, this is a little confusing; I'm trying as hard as I can to do everything correctly, but it is challenging for my admittedly spongy brain.) Thanks for your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I've made quite a few more edits to the draft. I wonder if you have time to look things over and see if they're looking any better. I'm trying to correct the items for newspapers.com and jstor.com to show the publications. My only problem is that the order seems odd when they appear: Author first, then Date, then Title, etc. I'd like to have the title be first but am not sure how to get it that way. Thanks for any help. Scribia4178 (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , clicking "Submit for review" means that you are done with your editing for now, and you are calling for a random Articles for Creation reviewer to evaluate your draft. Do not click that button unless you no longer want me to be involved with your draft. "Publish changes" just means that you are making one of possibly many edits to improve the draft. I can see any edit you make by clicking "publish changes".


 * I am in the process of purchasing a retirement home in a community about two hours away from where I now live. My wife and I looked at a possible home today, so I have been "off Wikipedia" for many hours traveling back and forth, and looking at the house. Now I am back home and am preparing to cook dinner. So, I will look at your changes in a while. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Jim, I truly appreciate your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am tempted to accept your draft right now under the assumption that a draft that is likely to be kept in a deletion discussion should be moved to main space. I am highly confident that this would survive at an article deletion debate but let's take a few more steps to be sure. I already told you that my grandmother spent most of her life in Lima, Ohio. So, I doubt that you are surprised that I clicked on the link at www.limaohio.com. That is a link to a 1973 article in the Lima News. The limaohio website did not exist in 1973 because the internet did not exist in 1973. The link to the website is fine, because it is an accurate archive, but the actual source is the newspaper not the current archive. So, the bibliographic information should be about the earliest source that you can actually read in a reliable form, not to subsequent reprints or archives. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I'm happy (and relieved) you think the draft is far enough along to even consider moving it to main space, but I definitely want to wait until everything is totally up to speed. Regarding the Lima, Ohio paper, I was also curious about the link being to www.limaohio.com. When trying to go to www.thelimanews.com, it would open the limaohio.com page. I have changed the entry to "The Lima News (Lima, Ohio)," similar to the papers like the Plain Dealer where you can't get an actual (unpaid) link to the publication's archives. I trust that will work. I do have quite a bit more work to do, so I will keep at it and post more edits soon. Many thanks again for your great assistance.Scribia4178 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I have a quick (I think) question: If one uses the same citation for two different items, do those citations have different reference numbers? I seem to think that there is another way of doing this. The reference numbers I'm referring to in the Appling article are now #27 and #33: "Appling Singers Score on Messiah." Thanks! Scribia4178 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , you can assign a name to a reference and then use it multiple times with a short piece of code. Please see WP:NAMEDREFS for the details. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. . . little by little we're getting there. Scribia4178 (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I've added a number of new items to the William Appling article, and there are several more to come. If you have a chance, could you look things over and let me know if everything still is on track? There are links from a number different sources and I want to make sure they are all okay and formatted correctly. No hurry on this at all. As always, many thanks! Scribia4178 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I have done some wikilinking, copyediting and have added a couple of new references. I have moved the draft to the main space of the encyclopedia because it is now better than most Wikipedia articles in my opinion. One technical problem is that a lot of the newspaper article references are using the "cite web" template rather than the "cite news" template. "Cite web" should be reserved for websites that do not present themselves as news or magazine outlets, such as institutional, governmental and educational websites. It would be a lot of work to convert them all. I did it on the first reference, his obituary, so you can see what I mean. We want to display the names of newspapers in italics, for example, and putting the newspaper name in the "publisher" field does not allow for italicizing. The "access date" is for the date that a Wikipedia editor editor verified the content, which is completely different from the more important date of publication. But this is a minor problem that can probably be solved by an editor who uses semi-automated editing tools. I do everything manually. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I'm so happy you think the article is ready now for the main space. Sometimes hard work pays off! I would be happy to try to change the "cite web" templates to "cite news" if you think that is possible for me to do. I see what you did with the obituary and while it would require work, I think I'd be up for trying it. If you honestly don't think it would matter much, however, I'm happy to leave them the way they are. As I mentioned, I still have work to do on the article and will keep at it. In the meantime, I have only one other question. My understanding is that once the article is "officially" up on Wikipedia that, because of my conflict of interest, I would not be able to do the type of editing I'm currently doing. Could you explain that in a little more detail? I'm concerned that if I find additional information that needs to be included I will have to find someone to do this. If you could clarify this for me I'd appreciate it. In the meantime, thanks so much for your copyediting and other help. I do hope this will be an article worthy of William Appling; he was a truly great musician and human being. Scribia4178 (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , although you do have a conflict of interest, it is of a special nature and I would not worry about it too much. I am always willing to help if you want to make a major, substantive change to the article. Read the guideline on editing with a conflict of interest carefully. Note that the very first sentence talks about how to report a . The key word here is "problematic" and if you avoid that type of behavior, I do not anticipate any issues. William Appling died 13 years ago, and his Scott Joplin CD set was released four years ago. In my experience, problematic COI editing is usually related to biographies of younger people of borderline notability who are trying to build their careers, startup businesses trying to claw their way to success, new candidates for political office, young authors who have written a book or two, and the like. It involves relentless and aggressive attempts at self-promotion that ignores the feedback and advice of more experienced, uninvolved editors. Your behavior has been the opposite. Yes, the initial draft had problems significant enough that it was deleted, but you quickly understood the problem, got on the right track as I see it, and you and I have worked together to bring this article to the encyclopedia. Personally, I am very pleased to be collaborating with you on this. If any other editor was to complain, I would come to your defense as an administrator and an editor with 12 years of experience. I had a very similar good experience a few months ago working with an editor with a COI on Music in Monk Time which is also related to an African-American musician. So, I have no problem with you continuing to make formatting changes to the references and other similar copyediting. I would simply request that you confer with me before making more substantive changes. How does that sound? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, The Appling page is still only a draft, yes? I just did a Google search for "William Appling" and another topic and the page came up in the results. I trust it's still not available to the public yet. I still have a number of edits to make and need to send it to others for their input. Thanks, Scribia4178 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, it is no longer a draft. It is an encyclopedia article. However, it will not be found in a Google search until it has been marked as reviewed by a new pages patroller or 90 days passes. Please see WP:NOINDEX for more information. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  15:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I did a search for "William Appling" and "Western Reserve Academy" on Google (using the Chrome browser) and the fifth result on the first page said "William Appling - Wikipedia." I was able to click on it and go to the article. I was not logged in to Google and had cleared my cache and search history, so I was puzzled as to why it appeared. Scribia4178 (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not an expert in the intricacies of how Google conducts its searches. My suspicion is that your search worked because you were searching for both the title of the article and some content that appeared within the article. If you want a more definitive answer, ask at Village pump (technical), which is watched by editors with much better technical skills than I have. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I don't think it would be a problem even if it was available now. I tried a search just for "William Appling" and it came up as well. In any event, it's pretty close to ready, but I do need to send it around to a bunch of people and get their input before making it "official." Scribia4178 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not sure what you mean by "official". It cannot be more official than it is right now. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be accessible by the general public yet. I thought it would remain as a "draft" page until all the edits I needed to make had been completed. I still have a number of these to do. Scribia4178 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC) Is there any way it can somehow be reconverted back to a draft until I get the final go-ahead from those who need to approve it? I'm afraid I was unclear about how all this worked. Scribia4178 (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , everything on Wikipedia is accessible to the general public, including drafts, talk pages, policy pages, noticeboards and the like. The vast majority of readers, though, are only interested in encyclopedia articles. Anyone who types "William Appling" into the Wikipedia search box will find the article instantly. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I got it. I was a little confused on how it all worked. I will continue with the edits and keep you posted. Many thanks again afor all your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jim, I'm wondering about adding two items to the "Awards and Honors" section on William Appling. After his passing in 2008, two events in his honor were organized by his friends and the William Appling Singers and Orchestra (WASO), the first at Riverside Church in NYC in June, 2009, and the second in June, 2013, also in New York City. These are both described on WASO's web site, but there was no "outside" publicity for them, and they happened after his obituary was published, so there's nothing about them was in any newspapers. I'm just wondering if we can write about them using links to the WASO pages or if we should forego mentioning them. Thanks so much. Scribia4178 (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , if those events were not covered by reliable, independent sources, then in my opinion, they do not belong in an encyclopedia article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  15:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Scribia4178 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I've made more edits to the Appling article and I've started changing the "cite web" templates to "cite news". There's quite a few. If you have a chance to look things over and let me know if everything's still on track, I'd appreciate it. I'm wondering, too, if I should add the article to the other categories you had listed like "African-American Conductors, etc. Hope all is well with you. Many thanks, Scribia4178 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I forgot to add a little bit of code that sorts by his last name instead of his first name, but have now done so. His name appears properly in the categories now. As for changing the templates, I suggest that you ask at Village pump (technical). The editors there may no how to do that conversion on a semi-automated basis. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jim, Thank you so much for fixing the categories! I will contact the Village pump about the "cite news" issue. It would be great not to have to do them all "by hand"! Scribia4178 (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I've added (or think I have) a photo and some additional category links to the article, such as American conductors, pianists, and music educators. I know Appling was proud to be one of the first prominent African American conductors, but he was equally insistent that he be considered a "conductor" and a "pianist," etc. as well, with no qualifiers. Please let me know if you think this all looks okay. If so, I would like to add a couple more photos as well. As always, many thanks. I can't tell you how grateful I am for all your help.Scribia4178 (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , the photo is very nice but I have some concerns about its copyright status. You uploaded it as your own work and identified Nick Granito as the photographer. That means you are affirming that you are Nick Granito. On CharlesVictorDudley's userpage, he says that he was paid by William McClelland. I do not care what your real name is, except to the extent that it affects the copyright status of the photo. I found out that Nick Granito has been a professional photographer for many yours and that one of many William McClellands is a composer who worked with WASO. Thst leads me to conclude that you are probably McClelland not Granito. Licensing a photo for use on Wikipedia is a legal transaction that requires accuracy and a full understanding of the legal implications. In the vast majority of cases, commercial photographers retain copyright over every photo they take, and if Nick Granito is the copyright holder, then only Nick Granito can upload it under a free license. The rare exception would be when the photographer agreed to work "for hire" and signed a legal document assigning the copyright to someone else. Can you please clarify this situation? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  15:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, You have indeed guessed my identity. Nick Granito is a professional photographer who took Appling's headshots in 1996. I thought I was crediting him; it was certainly my intention. He did do the work for hire and this photo and the others from that session have been used for the last twenty-five years for Appling's publicity. Granito has always been credited when photos were published. I don't know if there was ever any document signed about ownership. I did not realize he could be the only one to upload it. I am not sure Nick is still around (or even alive!) but I can check. I know he would be happy to assign copyright to William Appling Singers & Orchesta. In the meantime, should I take the photo down?Scribia4178 (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , the question is "who is the copyright holder?" because only the copyright holder can freely license the photo. I consider it highly likely that Granito (or his estate) is the copyright holder. If Granito assigned the copyright to Appling, then Appling's estate is the copyright holder. Unless you have a legal document that says you are the copyright holder, I see no way that you can freely license the photo. It is not yours to give away. There is an alternative though, that does not require licensing. Please read WP:NFCI and specifically #10. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I will try to find out about Granito or his estate and get this straightened out. I know there are other photos of Appling (many, in fact) which could conceivably be used in the meantime, but they were taken by photographers whose identity is not know and could never be found out. Is it possible to use one of those in the meantime?Scribia4178 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , any photo must either be properly licensed under an acceptable free license, or must comply with WP:NFCI. There is no other option. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I spoke to the photographer, now retired, who took the photo of William Appling that we would like to use on for his article. He is happy to assign the copyright to all Appling's photos over to me. I told him I would write up a document that he can sign and send back to me. I trust this will work (unless it has to be notarized or something, which I think he would also be willing to do, though I'd rather not ask him since he's 82 years old.) Do you think this will satisfy the requirements? Thanks, Scribia4178 (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , you will find all the information that you need at Donating copyrighted materials. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Scribia4178 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, The copyright for the photos of William Appling which were taken in 1996 have now been assigned to me, so I have posted one on his page. I've also posted two other photos of him which are owned by his daughter and who has given me permission to post, and also a photo of the cover to his recording of Scott Joplin's piano music, which is copyright of the William Appling Singers & Orchestra. I trust these are all good and legitimate for Wikipedia; please let me know if I need to do anything else. Once again, thank you so much for all your help on the page. I will be giving you a formal "thank you" so that the Wikipedia community can see it (once I figure out how that's done!) All the best.Scribia4178 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I believe you that the copyright has been assigned to you, but you are claiming those photos as your own work. They are not your own work because you are not the photographer. You need to follow the procedures at Donating copyrighted materials and get this straightened out. His daughter cannot casually give you permission to upload her photos. Thst permission must be formal, in writing, and submitted to Wikimedia Commons. It is really important to get all of this right. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  17:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I will do this. Scribia4178 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I'm trying to figure how to post the first photo. As I said, I was assigned copyright ownership by the photographer. I have now set up a Wikimedia Commons page and have uploaded the photograph and want to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0. I would like to say that who share or copy the photo give credit to the original photographer, Nick Granito, but I'm not sure how to do this. Can you tell me how I should list the "Source" and "Author" on the Summary? Currently the Source is listed as "Own Work" and I am listed as the Author. (Granito is not a registered Wikipedia user.) Also, do I need to post somewhere the document which states that he has assigned copyright ownership to me? I'm not sure where to do this. Thanks for your help. Scribia4178 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC) , I recommend that you discuss each of these images at Commons:Village Pump/Copyright and get guidance from the experts there. The copyrighted album cover is not acceptable on Commons, but you may be able to upload it here on English Wikipedia in compliance with WP:NFCI. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Scribia4178 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Laugh of the day
Today I came across the fact that Wikipedia used to have a category Category:Men with unusually large penis and there was a lively and long discussion about it, focusing on the fact that the title was not grammatically correct and that "large" was too vague & subjective a term to be useful in categorizing people. I think Wikipedia has changed a bit since 2007. I should be keeping a list of this peculiar stuff buried in the dusty, deletion discussion archives I keep coming across. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * LOL, ! If you ever get around to creating Category: Wikipedia administrators with an average sized penis, consider adding me. But my wife would definitely object to the verification requirements. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed IP
IP socks of User:92.14.216.40, indeffed by you a couple of years back, persist in popping up and continuing to edit in exactly the same vein. They are currently active as User:89.242.71.193.

It may be a display issue but I note that reference to them and their edits is no longer shown as crossed through. Has their block been lifted? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Another administrator converted my indefinite block into a three month block, so the new IP (clearly the same person) is not evading a block. Please be cautious about calling edits block evasion unless you are sure. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  15:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. As the nefarious activity has evidently continued with persistence, would it not be appropriate and justified to reimpose the indef, indicating the nature of the user in any discussions of new socks? I have SPI-ed some of their socks but they just pop up with a new one, quacking away. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , the new IP has been blocked for six months by Doug Weller. I have learned since my original block that indefinite blocks of IPs are discouraged. If this person returns in another incarnation, let me know and I will block them. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks very much for your help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Jennifer Robi
Hi Cullen please help me!

Here is part of the comment you made: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." This is why your draft is unacceptable because it is essentially a lengthy argument that Gardasil is bad.

Since I was not intending any of that I want to understand what in the paper gives that impression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Effectivenow (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Your very first sentence prejudges that Rubi's medical problems are due to Gardisil, before courts have ruled. Words like "Merck refused" and "faulty or missing" and "touted as" and "rush to market" are non-neutral and advance a narrative in Wikipedia's voice that Merck is wrong and Rubi is their victim. Writing "the drug caused damage and decline of diverse organs and systems" before a court has ruled is stating that the plaintiffs are correct which simply isn't allowed. Much of your draft is based on work by Children's Health Defense, which is an utterly unreliable anti-vaccine advocacy group. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please Unblock Me
Hi Cullen328 it appears i have been blocked from editing a certain page i humbly apologize for my behaviour i was angry because i created the page Tariq Ali (admiral) and an other editor completely changed the page without even notifing me i guess they can edit the page but completely changing it is not right the page was perfectly fine and there was no need to change it so i kindly request you to unblock me and then i will also talk it out with the other editior.
 * Hello, . As I told you on your talk page, you are blocked from editing any articles at this time. Have you read your own talk page? That's important. As for the article in question, you can make edit requests at Talk:Tariq Ali (admiral). I am not going to unblock you at this time but you can read the Guide to appealing blocks carefully, and post an unblock request on your talk page. Please explain what you will do differently in the future. For example, do not edit Wikipedia when you are angry. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  15:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Blablubbs
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)



Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mkdw

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Galobtter

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
 * Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news
 * DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under.

Arbitration
 * A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
 * Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
 * The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous
 * Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
 * The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Nipsey Hussle&#32; on a "Biographies" 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 05:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

About my help request.
Mz Boom Bap and I are directly talking back and forth, giving me details about his life, as I cannot find any other sources about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodapoppers (talk • contribs) 20:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , you cannot include anything you learn this way in Wikipedia. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

So how can I reliably provide these facts on my article? Me and him are directly talking and I don't know what else to do because I cant find any good sources other than the guy himself. Sodapoppers (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , leave that information out because it is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. Please also read Verifiability which applies to this situation. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what published, reliable sources that devote significant coverage say about the topic. If such sources are lacking, then it is simply not possible to write an acceptable article. You could try writing an article for a music magazine or website instead. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  00:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Featured article...
... Cullen_House, I had no idea, no idea... Elemimele (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither did I, . A complete surprise and an impressive structure. Thanks for pointing it out. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  20:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Italian Coffee Company
Hi Jim. This is again. I appreciate it that you left a message on my talk page. You said that there is no evidence that an article on The Italian Coffee Company ever existed. I am certain that it once existed. How can I recover it? If it cannot be found or recovered how can I send out a message to more experienced editors that I would like someone to create a new article? Any help will be greatly appreciated.s
 * Hello, . If you want to have an article about this chain of coffee shops, you are probably going to have to write it yourself. Please start with Your first article. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  15:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Thanks a bunch for your excellent and prompt response. You have pointed me in the right direction. I must learn how to write my own articles.


 * Hi Jim. This is again. I decided that instead of creating a new article that I should start by just doing edits. I've been trying to expand the stub on the Mexican movie director Alberto Gout. Under filmography I added "Smoke in the Eyes" but it flagged it as a red link even though the article exists. What did I do wrong? Any help will be greatly appreciated.


 * Hi Jim. I figured it out and fixed it. Thanks anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojosa17 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

About the IP thing
First and foremost, thank you for your response on my question on the Teahouse. I just have a follow-up question about my situation where a friend of mine logged in on my phone using her Wikipedia account and did some edits. The real thing is that this happened yesterday and i didn't know about that until hours ago when i got back on my phone. I am still not that sure if she did edits on my phone using my Wikipedia account and then did also edits on my phone using her Wikipedia account when she borrowed my phone. When she gave me back my phone, i did numerous edits using my account and i came to realize that she also edited on my phone using her account. I can't pinpoint or see if which edit might have been done by me or him on my history because it's already filled with my new edits. Can you please help me about this? MisterKaybear (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . You are just as capable as any another editor or administrator to review your own edits and even more so than anyone else to determine the whether all these edits were made by you or by anyone else. It is your responsibility and no one else's, when sharing a device, to log out when you are done, and to freshly log in when you want to edit again. Password security is an important responsibility of every editor. Is the other editor him or her? If you have made mistakes, admit them frankly. Concealment of the truth will be detected and taken as evidence against against you. So tell the truth now. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  07:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The other editor is a she/her. If you're doubting it, kindly check the Teahouse and here in your talk page where i mentioned she/her, and not him/his. Good day. MisterKaybear (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up on block of BadBeast.OFF
Thank you for blocking yesterday. Their actions were beyond the pale.

Can I get your opinion on, a new account, and one of their first actions was to thank BadBeast.OFF? I think I smell dirty laundry. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I have blocked the obvious sock. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Oopali Operajita's Wikipedia page
Hi Jim:

This is Amy, administrative assistant to Prof. Oopalee Operajita, Distinguished Fellow at Carnegie Mellon University and a Senior Adviser to India's Parliamentary leaders and world leaders in international affairs, communication and public policy.

She's concerned that her page has recently (starting September) been subject to multiple revisions, deletions and re insertions. She has hardly looked at her page earlier, but these recent developments cause us great concern. She has requested that her page be deleted, should this continue.

We'd be grateful for your help here.

Thanks so very much.

Amy RosenbergAthena2019 (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by
Hi Jim. This is again. I've been blocked by user Materialscientist. I wanted to continue to improve the article on Alberto Gout. One of the improvements I wanted to make was to use a better source for the film "La sospechosa" because the IMDB is not a reputable source. How can I get unblocked?! Help will be greatly appreciated!
 * , I see no evidence that you are blocked. Please clarify. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Jim. Logged out and logged in and that fixed it. Weird! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojosa17 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

UAA - missing links?
Hey Cullen328. I noticed something today at WP:UAA. There used to be a set of edit filter links between the page header and the bot-reported names section, but now they're gone. Do you know what happened to them? Just curious, because I found those very handy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I know my strengths and my weaknesses. I think that I am pretty good at evaluating usernames but I know that I am weak at highly technical issues. You can try asking at WP:VPT. Good luck! <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328
I am new at Wikipedia.What do you recommend to me at first in Wikipedia articles? --#  Song-Yu-Jun  Talk To Me!  16:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Try The Wikipedia Adventure. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I am an Spanish native but I have a C2 certificated title of English --#  Song-Yu-Jun  Talk To Me!  16:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , why do you have all of that false information on your userpage? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  16:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:B. R. Ambedkar&#32; on a "Biographies" 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 19:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)