User talk:Cullen328/Archive 9

Question
Merry Christmas Jim, could you tell me how to invite new users to TWA? I've been out of the loop recently.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  05:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy Holidays,, and great to hear from "down under". Please talk to as he is our resident expert on TWA. Other than that, I know nothing. Alas, I have a limited number of empty pigeonholes in my old brain.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey! We're still running the metrics from out beta test, so haven't put together a full roll-out kit. But we do have a nice invite you can use in the meantime: TWA/Invite.  Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Yosem'!
Hello!

You may not remember me, as it's been a while since we've spoken and because it seems you've become a much busier Wikipedian lately, but, at any rate, I just wanted to wish you a heartfelt Merry Christmas from up here in HalfDomeland, Tissiacville, the Splendid Merced, the Place of the Gaping Mouth, and some other half-clever nickname I came up with but now forgot! :)

I am the one who created the 1996 Yosemite Valley landslide, 1997 Merced River flood, and Yosemite Lodge at the Falls articles, the Yosemite navbox, and the Shelton Johnson userbox. You were of encouragement/assistance to me in countless forms while I worked on these, as well as other Yosemite pages.

It is unseasonably warm here and, when one stands in the sun, it feels barely colder than down in Los Angeles. It gets nippier in the nighttime, but I could go for some colder temperatures and a dosage of the white stuff myself. The Tioga Road is not open, as it was from December 2011-January 2012 (we both crossed it within two weeks of each other, I believe) due to previous snows, but had these conditions persisted all winter so far I'm sure it would be.

Due to extenuating circumstances, I did not make it up to Yosemite in December 2012, for the first time since I was three years old in 1997. Also due to extenuating circumstances, I'll only be here three full days instead of the usual five or six. But, hey, after missing Yosemite's splendor completely last year, I'm not going to be one to complain about length. Just grateful to have returned. I have been alive for twenty Christmases and have spent seventeen of them in Yosemite. I truly couldn't imagine being anyplace else at this time of year.

Anyhow, now I'm just rambling. THANK YOU for your continued work on Yosemite and Sierra Nevada articles, as well as all you do to improve Wikipedia in general. Hope you had a very happy holiday, and I hope you can make it up here again sometime very soon.

Warmly, – Red Sox  Fan274   (talk ~contribs) 07:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

(P.S. Please forgive me if this message was accidentally posted twice, the wifi's giving me trouble up here.)
 * Thanks,, for the report from my favorite place. I was last there about six months ago, so I'm definitely ready for another trip. Enjoy, and have a safe trip home. Happy New Year!  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Greiner
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bill Greiner. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments. I would just like to say that it has been helpful for me to be able to vent about some of my experiences in editing.  Understanding that no editor owns any article, it is not, nor ever has been my intention to "own" any article.  For that, I believe I have again been misjudged, and I do believe that greater understanding and consideration can be afforded to those who are experienced in writing such as myself.  Regarding experience on Wikipedia, there is always room for improvement, whether or not an editor is experienced.  I will remove my comments, however the experiences that I had have deterred some of my further contributions to Wikipedia. Daniellagreen (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are very gracious, . I truly hope that you will put aside any feelings that might deter you from contributing further. It is useful for newer editors to learn some of the social norms here. Editors on Wikipedia are evaluated and judged pretty much solely on their contributions here, as opposed to their writing experience elsewhere. I have been a published writer for decades, and nobody here cares a whit about any of that. Only my contributions to Wikipedia count when evaluating my worth as an editor. The same standard applies to you.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cullen, Certainly, I understand your viewpoint here, and I can appreciate that, however being "new to Wikipedia" has often been thrown into my face, causing me to feel inferior, misunderstood, misjudged, disrespected, and unappreciated. I can also appreciate that you were not born yesterday, as neither was I.  I do understand the policies, as well, however to say that I have maintained an "enemy list" is inaccurate in that it should be viewed as an opportunity for improvement on Wikipedia by all editors.  When editors get into a conflict over one revert, and then do not respond on their talk page after being contacted about the revert, but escalate the situation into a blown out argument defies any professionalism with which I am familiar.  This has not just happened on the Bill Greiner article, but also with other editors on the State University of New York at Fredonia and University at Buffalo articles.  Why is it okay that those editors appear to own those latter articles, and rarely accept edits from other editors?  This makes for an atmosphere that condones exclusivity in regard to particular individuals who edit articles.  So, my concern is that whether editors are experienced or not, a higher level of professionalism could be practiced and promoted for all, and that policies could be improved that cause Wikipedia editing to be more user friendly for everyone, much as I have experienced with John_from_Idegon.  Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not acceptable for any editor to exhibit ownership behavior on any article, but it is certainly true and unfortunate that some do show that behavior. I haven't reviewed those other university articles, but will take a look if you wish. If you want to propose improvement to policies, then the talk page for the policy in question is the best place to start. I am a strong advocate here for civil behavior and respectful interaction among editors. I have learned in the past 4-1/2 years that the best way to do that is to try to model civil behavior myself, to try to defuse conflicts, to try to welcome and assist new editors, and to try to encourage positive interactions in a positive way. Folks who style themselves as "civility police", going around openly criticizing other editors for their failings, often don't get too far here. I don't think any less of you as a relatively new editor as I can readily see that you have done good work here, and have great potential. Other editors on a self destructive and combative path are likely to be blocked and perhaps eventually banned. Often, it is best to avoid locking horns with such people.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary that you review the Fredonia or UB articles. I found that the same editor who began the conflict on the Fredonia article had also reverted information I added on the UB article.  My perspective is that if they want exclusive articles that they can control, then I don't need to contribute to them.  Also, I would like to add that EricEnfermero and I had discussion about the Greiner article on both of our talk pages, and had reached increased understanding about each other's perspectives.  I do appreciate your comments, though to have this issue crop up again with this article has gotten me all upset all over again.  I do appreciate your advice, though I believe that for my own best interests, it will be good to take a break for awhile. Daniellagreen (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this is lets discuss
Thanks for taking the time to talk with me. Let me reassure you that I am working in good faith and have tried to research the guidelines, but of course I am new. I also believe robol is a very dedicated editor, and believe that he is doing exactly as you say and trying to keep fringe views out of Wikipedia. If I become a more experienced editor I would do the same thing. When I read the guidelines I find both clear words and desire which go towards the need to present significant minority opinions. The distinction is very important. I sense that there are three levels: majority opinion, substantial minority opinion, and fringe.

I would cite the vaccine safety deniers as an example of something that might be slightly higher than fringe but that clearly does not reach the level of substantial minority. The have, for example peer reviewed papers that show mycoplasma in some vaccine. That seems far insufficient.

But if the case were made for any group to be established as a significant minority then it does change the wording significantly, as you would need to say "Evidence shows vaccines are safe." Instead of "Vaccines are safe."

Since I don't want vaccine safety deniers elevated, I totally get the importance. I wasn't sure myself what I thought about this after deciding to pass on expanding even more controversial medical articles (autism, adhd).

The case here is evidence based, and happens when notable figures in the field identify themselves with a position. Here we have two very emininent people in the field working with them. I have never done this, so want to understand the process of debate. It seems like a very simple yes/no question for this article and the evidence seems clearcut. But I only see the same research and documentation that everyone else does, so can be easily dissuaded if my facts are wrong.

In any case the page needs work, and without a decision of whether this group is fringe or substatntial minority I do not know how to frame the issue.

As for low patience. I agree that robol does not need more trouble makers. That is why I am working so hard to start a conversation. I also agree that sometimes you need to wear down trouble makers, and you should. So I will stay persistent until everyone discovers that I am trying to get it right.

Thanks for your help. I hope that everyone who steps into help doesn't run into this, and its just because I landed on a hot button.

Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I get the points that you are making and appreciate the sincere way you express yourself, . My comments to you were made in my role as a Teahouse host, noticing that no one else had responded, and some time had gone by. I do my best there to give an overview of various things that new editors ought to know. I have no medical training and rarely if ever edit articles on medical topics. So my limited goal was to give you a bit of a "heads up", but if you are going to continue editing in that area, you will have to learn the intricacies on your own. I wish you well.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx. awesome reply.  This is a very interesting experience.  Thanks for you efforts on behalf of the world.  Bob the goodwin (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pay-to-view Articles as References
Hi Jim, Thank you for your input. I recently started fiddling around with Wikipedia and editing a few pages on subjects I had some knowledge on - or I was able to do some research on. I am still a bit confused about the entire process and the "maze" of Wikipedia (prods, talk pages, review processes, &c.), but I think I am beginning to get the hang of it - but not quickly. :) I also created a page on an organization that went through the review process and then within half a day or so of being "published" it was tagged with a WP:PROD. I researched what I was supposed to do to fix the concerns noted in the "PROD" - and fixed them (or so I thought). The delete comment stated that there was no information on the organization I was writing about (the editor was right that most of the good citations were related to a lawsuit that the group was engaged in because it was of national interest (NYTimes, CBS News, &c.), while the citations regarding other things the group had done (organizing around the state, working with the legislature on various issues, &c.) were less high-profile). I had no idea when I was writing the article that I could list citations from pay-per-view newspaper archives (the organization is defunct although was active in the 90s and '00s), that was why I asked the question in the TeaRoom about using these citations. When I learned though that I could use them, I was pretty sure that this would address the editor's concern. I added eight articles that, to me, seemed to squarely address what the editor had mentioned. I then removed the WP:PROD, added my commentary in the edit summary showing what I was doing to address the concern. Then an hour or so later the AfD was added. I will work through the discussion and let the chips fall where they may, but I wondered if you might look at the original concern that the editor raised and if you think I addressed it satisfactorily. I don't even know if what I am asking you is acceptable within the rules of Wikipedia, so please bear with me on that! Thank you again for your help. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello . Since you have no way of knowing how I will feel about the actual article, there is nothing wrong with alerting me, since I gave you advice at the Teahouse. I will take a look at the AfD. Please hang in there. We need good editors.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jim. I am good at editing. From my brief experience, I am not so sure how good I am at writing articles. :) BrianThibodeaux (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, Jim. Another question on citations. This one for an episode of "In The Life" (PBS) which was made about LEGAL's lawsuit. It is not available online at present (apparently the "In the Life" series ended after 20 years - just this past year), but UCLA's Film and Television Archive is planning to upload this series (their website says by late 2013!). How would I reference this episode while at the same time saying that it should be available soon - or do I even mention its subsequent availability? Thank you again for all of your help - BrianThibodeaux (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case,, I would cite as much of the information about the PBS coverage as you can right now, and then add the URL to the archived video when it becomes available. No need to mention its upcoming status.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you, again. BrianThibodeaux (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for much of the year

 * You are very kind, . I try to be helpful, and it is nice when others notice it.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Feedback would be appreciated.
Hey Jim. Over the last month I have significantly expanded the “Sousa Mendes” article. My goal is a solid article respecting Wikipedia policies. Since you’ve greeted me, one of your interests is somehow connected (Judaism) I would really appreciate if you could read it and provide constructive feed back. Can you help out JPratas (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello . The article is Aristides de Sousa Mendes. I have no expertise in Portugese history, and don't have time for a complete analysis of the article. However, I have read it and will post some constructive criticisms on the article's talk page.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  02:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now posted my quick evaluation of the article at Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Cullen328! Thank you so much for accepting my request. Thank you also for your time and valuable, constructive feed-back. I’ve substantially edited the article trying to follow your suggestions and guidance. If it is not too much to ask I would like you to give it another review and provide more feedback. I am the one to be blamed for the poor English. I am not native speaker; therefore your help would also be much appreciated on this matter, but I guess the article will still need some rework before we start worrying about form. (I've also posted this paragraph on the article's talk page - I was not sure if you would get "you've got mail warning if I just replied there)JPratas (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cullen328!

 * Thank you very much . I appreciate your comment, and look forward to a great 2014 with all the committed, productive editors, with a minimum of "drahhmahh".  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  08:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here here! Best regards, Northamerica1000(talk) 08:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cullen328
  Pr at yya  (Hello!) — is wishing you a  Happy New Year ! Welcome the  2014 . Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 13:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and Happy New Year to you, too, .  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  16:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

== Bio - forgot Velotrain (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC) first time Suggestion:  PUT them on the top of the screen, so seeing the note isn't dependent on scrolling down ==

Hi Jim -

Well, the problem is that AFAIK no authoritative bio info has been published on him.

My intent is an accurate Bio to the best of my knowledge.

I can certainly pull in references, but they only cover a limited amount of his life and work

BTW - there is a stub on him now, but it uses an inaccurate name.

Charles

When I first logged in, it said there was no talk page for me. I created one, but had no idea what it was for, or what if anything I was supposed to put there.

Velotrain (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello . It is not necessary for an "authoritative bio" to have been published. Take a look at all the reliable sources that give him significant coverage. Things like newspaper and magazine articles or articles in art journals or on the websites of notable museums that exhibit his work. Anything they say about him and his work can be included in the article, if cited properly. Book jacket language, blogs, tabloid journalism material and gossip must be avoided.


 * You have broad latitude to use your user page as you see fit, for the purpose of interacting with other editors and working to build the encyclopedia. Common things are to describe your areas of interest and list articles you've worked on. Please see WP:User pages for more information. Also, take a look at mine.


 * Established talk page convention here is that posts are arranged in chronological order, with old posts at the top and the newest posts at the bottom. The Teahouse is the only place I know that does this differently, but it isn't really a "talk page" strictly speaking.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Multi
Hi Jim - I understand what Let's discuss it is, but had the impression that it was a hot link. I saw it at the bottom of your reply, but I couldn't activate it there, so took that to mean you were no longer available.

I have no idea how I deleted anything. Can you determine just how I did this? I can't imagine that I can delete from the teahouse, so did I delete it in my Talk folder? I don't recall clicking on any button that said Delete. I'm quite certain that I never got a prompt, "are you sure you want to delete this?"

Back to the possible bio. This artist was born in another country, and I learned some things about his time there by posting on a genealogy forum. Much of the responces linked me to government documents - is that considered personal research? I could either point to the thread on this group, or the original source docs.

Charles

Velotrain (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello . Charles, you must have opened the Teahouse question edit window, highlighted the material, and then left without saving. The Teahouse edit history shows at least two deletions by you there recently. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, except protected pages, and for obvious reasons, the Teahouse is unprotected. So it is clear from the page history that you deleted that material accidentally from the Teahouse. My comments on your talk page remain there.


 * As for the biography, we don't normally use primary sources like government documents as sources in a biography. Genealogy forums lack professional editorial control and fact checking. Such documents can guide and inform your search for reliable sources, but are problematic as sources themselves.


 * If you give me the article name, I may well be able to give you more specific suggestions.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim -

I have no memory of seeing that screen, much less highlighting anything.

You say highlighted material automatically gets deleted if you leave the page? I would have thought "Save" would be the default.

Our exchange is NOT still on my talk page, which leads me to another possibility.

Someone put a "menu/directory" in my talk page, and I wonder if that action could have wiped out everything previously in there?

Are there any graphic diagrams / discussion of navigating here? I find it less than intuitive, especially when things start disappearing on me.

Charles

Velotrain (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'm guessing happened here is that you edited an old revision of the page instead of the live current version. There was likely a warning near the very top of the page, which you may not have seen as pages tend to scroll down to the edit window upon load, that looked something like:
 * Changing the page and hitting save would have deleted ALL material between that revision and the current revision. If I can be of any further assistance, feel free to leave a message on my talk page or use the email link in the sidebar or at the top of my user page. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Charles, my comments are at the bottom of your talk page now. I just verified that. Simply scroll to the bottom of your talk page to see them. If you click "help" on the menu in the left column, a wide array of help pages will be offered to you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Charles, my comments are at the bottom of your talk page now. I just verified that. Simply scroll to the bottom of your talk page to see them. If you click "help" on the menu in the left column, a wide array of help pages will be offered to you.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Canada naming
Hi Cullen: RE the naming of Canada. I do get what you're saying, and that's why I wasn't suggesting "eliminating" the name Canada (for pre 1867 entries). And while it is true that the term "Canada" was in use before 1867, it wasn't an umbrella name or used in many places: Acadia, New France, Ruperts Land, etc etc were all equally in use.

So, I'm more puzzling it out than being insistent on change. As I say, I don't feel that the name Canada is entirely inappropriate or shouldn't be used for pre-1867 entries. But I was wondering if a caveat of the type I suggested in my other note would be in order.

I have seen some pages in Wiki with caveats in italics at the top -- although at this moment I can't find an example of one, but I know they're there! I also don't know if there's a wiki policy on naming of countries -- there must be lots of other examples of country names used before those countries actually existed, or the names changed, or whatever.

OOPs, just found an example of an italicized clarification. On the South Sudan page, at the top, it says: "Southern Sudan" redirects here. For the former autonomous regions of Southern Sudan, see Southern Sudan autonomous region (1972–1983) and Southern Sudan autonomous region (2005–2011)."

Now, I'm not proposing a "redirect," of course, but a clarification. For example, my caveat might say something similar such as: "The country Canada didn't come into existence until 1867. See also "Ruperts Land," "New France," Acadia", Lower Canada and Upper Canada for pre-1867 events and people."

What d'ya think? Wordy24 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello . I think that a clarifying note might be in order, such as "This article is about events in the French colony of (link) or the British colonies of (links)". My closest analogy is California, which was Spanish, then Mexican territory, then briefly independent until American occupation in 1846. So in articles about California history before 1846, I don't recall notes at the top making a point about California not being a U.S. state until 1850. I think that is just assumed in the broader context of the article and related, linked articles.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  20:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Saib Tabrizi
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Saib Tabrizi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Finally!
Happy New Year, Cullen, and finally someone is showing you some of the respect you deserve: who all here is a Cullenite? Drmies (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DYK that "Cullenite" can also mean "authoritative" and "intransigent"?

Follow-up to Teahouse topic "How does one search for articles not yet published?"
I appreciate your feedback. I am new to writing and editing for Wikipedia, and I am still learning. Therefore, all help is welcome.

When I tried a search for "Dangerous Assignment" and selected "containing," the results appeared to be the same as those in the original search. I looked through the first 60 results and didn't find the Dangerous Assignment user article that I mentioned last night. However, when I tried clicking on "everything," the user article appeared as the 16th item in the list. Perhaps, as was mentioned in the discussion last night, browser settings affect the result.

My real concern is what I alluded to in the second paragraph of my post last night. I am reluctant to begin work on any new article when someone else might have a well-developed article on the same topic already in progress. I see now that using the "everything" search option might indicate a draft article, but who knows how far down the list it might be? All I can think of that would help in that regard is to refine the search topic. While writing this paragraph, I added "Donlevy" (the last name of the star of Dangerous Assignment) to the search, which brought up Glenn Ray's article as the second item in a list of only five. Therefore, I might have answered my own question.

One other thing (and I apologize for taking so much of your time). Last night you wrote: "The author of that draft abandoned it well over two years ago, and has made only four edits on Wikipedia since then. We can consider that user 'inactive'. You are free either to work on it yourself, or to begin a completely new article. But please don't 'cut and paste' any of that material without attribution."

I need to read the article more closely, but it appears to be in good shape already. If the author is inactive, what would be the protocol for publishing the article either as-is or with any revisions that I might make?

Thank you for your time and your help. Teblick (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, . I am here to help where I can. I know a fair amount about Wikipedia, but far from everything. As for the search issue, I am not the greatest at technical issues. At this point, I don't think it is a browser issue, but rather a matter of Wikipedia user settings. I guess I must have readjusted my user settings to show a broader range of results than the default settings for the "containing" search a few years back, and forgot about it. Given how I use that function, that makes sense. Your search strategy of adding "Donleavy" to the search terms is also an excellent one.


 * As for the draft article in question, you can edit it as you see fit. It would be nice to leave a note on the original author's talk page, but that is just a courtesy. That editor has already released their work to be freely edited by anyone else. When you think it is ready to be an actual encyclopedia article, you can simply move it to article space. This is easy, but may be a little scary the first time you do it. Be bold and do it, but if you want help, don't hesitate to ask me.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  03:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I made one more discovery about the search function last night after I wrote the message above. I tried the "Advanced" option on the search results page for "Dangerous Assignment," checking the "User" box. Lo and behold, "User:GlennRay77/Dangerous Assignment" was the first item in the list, with my barely begun entry on the same topic second. I suspect that this approach may be the best one for finding out whether anyone has started work on a particular topic. Since you mentioned changing your user settings (something I need to explore), perhaps you have that option already included by default when you search.

I may do as you suggested and move the article, then submit it. I don't like the idea of a fairly solid piece of work languishing in draft mode. If I can move it and submit it as you suggested, then it would become available for others who might benefit from reading it.

Thanks again for your help. Teblick (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul Newman
There is a discussion at Talk:Paul Newman which you may be interested in contributing to.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim I need advise and instruction on how to put info on this site?
Jim,

Thanks, and let me first ask your forgiveness in advance for how I communicate. I am high functioning Autistic Adult. I would like to submit info about a new Program we are trying to start up. I am the Savant Artist for the Wild West Wandering Artist Project. I do a bit of everything right now for them. I donate all my artwork to raise awareness and funds for the organization. What we are trying to do is bring a greater awareness about Adult Autism, especially to older adults that are struggling to figure out life but were never diagnosed because there was no diagnose to be made when we were young. I actually missed being diagnosed by two months before the official diagnoses came out. We believe that many of the homeless could very well be adults who are Autistic, and because they lack understanding and need just someone they can trust to help them figure out how to live with a home and in daily life and find income resources. I was but a breath away from being homeless myself.I am on disability now and becoming stable. We see the need for a Life Coach Program and that will be out main focus. We will teach people about Adult Autism and how to communicate and coach adults with Autism.

Can you help or can you refer us to someone who can write an article for Wikipedia about The Wild West Wandering Artist Project? I would not be good, and we are lacking a spokesperson, publicist or communication director right now. Is this too early in our development? Please advise us. We are working on getting a 501(c)(3) status but do not have it yet.

Thank you kindly for your help and consideration, it is really appreciated!

Joseph Fawcett The Wild West Wandering Artist joseph_fawcett@yahoo.com you can look me up on Facebook too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.167.166 (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Joseph and welcome to my talk page,


 * Let me begin by saying that I think that your project is wonderful and I wish you every success. I "friended" the Facebook page, and love Western art. My family visited the Leanin' Tree Museum of Western Art in Boulder, Colorado in 2008, and enjoyed it very much.


 * You ask, "Is this too early in our development?" and that is an excellent question. My preliminary answer is "yes" but I am willing to consider other evidence. In order to understand why, please read the General notability guideline and also our special guideline for Organizations. I did a basic Google search for independent coverage of your group, and was not able to find it.


 * I encourage you to enter "Category:Autism-related organizations" in the Wikipedia search box. You will see a list of 60 articles of varying quality. The more comprehensive of these articles will give you a good idea of the sort of coverage needed for a Wikipedia article. My friendly advice is to work on getting the 501(c)(3) tax status, building your programs, and reaching out to newspapers, magazines and TV stations in areas you visit to encourage coverage of your efforts. When you think that you may have sufficient coverage, please feel free to contact me again. If you have any questions at any time about how Wikipedia works, please do not hesitate to ask at any time. I wish you well.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  21:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD
Hi, You were very helpful to me before when I posted some questions at the Teahouse, so I am wondering if could ask for your assistance again. I recently was trying to be bold and made what I were some good-faith improvements to Shogi. Somebody came and undid those changes because they felt they actually made the page worse. OK, that's really a big deal really to me because I'm still learning how things work. The person who undid my edit's left a message on my talk page and I replied that maybe the discussion should be continued on the Shogi talk page so that others could participate. However, that's doesn't seem to be something they are too interested in doing because in their words "I am too verbose" and "others would find it boring." So, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Shogi page and maybe let me know if I was on the right track or if I really was heading in the wrong direction. I'm not asking you to take sides (you can of course), just trying to get some additional feedback. I'd like to take a crack at editing that section again, and asked that other person if they wanted to work together on doing it on the shogi talk page, but they threw down a WP:BRD and seemed to have been offended the suggestion. This other user is obviously more experienced at Wikipedia than myself, but I know quite a lot about shogi and think I could really improve that page so would like to keep trying. Now I am not sure if I am allowed to make any edits at all on that page or whether I need the permission of this other user to even try. Ha, ha, ha. I just realized that I am actually pretty "verbose" just like that other user said. Thanks in advance. Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Sorry meant to add this to the above but had a brain cramp and didn't) If you don't have the time or desire to get mixed up in this, then perhaps you could point me to somebody you might. Thanks. --Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Things appear to have taken a turn for the better and it looks like it will all work out. I'd still like to hear what you think of my original edit though because I didn't think it was all that bad. Besides the more feedback I get, the more I learn. Thanks again -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
And some mountains for you! Two 8000m mountains, Annapurna and Dhaulagiri

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, ! The prayer flags are a great element. Doc, take a look at Arlene Blum, who led the first women's expedition that made it to the summit of Annapurna. I took the portrait of her in the 1970s.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  16:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice. I love the country. And am now involved with translating medical content into Nepali among nearly 60 other languages :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

friendly collaboration
Hi Cullen. Nothing discourages me from  my  work  on  Wikipedia more than when I  attempt to  cast  some calming effect and people take my  comments either out  of context  or completely  misunderstand them. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding on  Sarah's talk  page. I apologise if my  comment  above sounded pompous -  perhaps there is a cultural  dichotomy  at  play  here. On her issues I share your thoughts entirely, having  much appreciated her work  on  the TeaHouse, AfC, and elsewhere, and having  supported her RfA which  was one of the greatest  landslide approvals for adminship by  the community  in  Wikipedia history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear, if anything I said offended you in any way, then please accept my deepest apology, since I think that your contribution to the conversation was entirely positive. I rate you among "the best of the best" here, so please know that I did not intend any criticism.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No apology needed, Jim.  'Two  nations divided by  a common  language'  -  even I'm  sometimes a tad too  quick  to  read the wrong  semantics ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, .  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  06:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Re Fluffy
Hi Jim

I appreciate your response and after having read the documentation I realised that having a link button was NOT there for me to "show" where the term came from. I've taken the link off! The term fluffy is not for "a" horse its all horses that are rescued .. it's not just facebook its website etc too. I figured that with amount of people using the term (and the TV lol) it warranted a mention.

Kind regards Emma Emma Lemons Thompson (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello . You may find some of the topics listed at Animal rescue to be interesting.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  20:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Phil Robertson
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Phil Robertson. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Help requested
Hello Cullen328 I'm here to request for your advice on this BLPN post. I have mentioned all my points in the first post. Also I request you to read the other posts of other users there also. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read the entire section. I strongly oppose inclusion of this child's name. It seems to me,, that you misunderstood what I intended in that quote. I was speaking of minor children like Malia and Sasha Obama, or Siri Cruise, who was featured in a photo layout by Annie Liebovitz in Vanity Fair magazine, or Prince George of Cambridge. I am talking about children who have received significant, ongoing coverage in a wide range of reliable sources, not minor child victims of a notorious crime, whose names are mentioned in passing. I hope that that you can recognize clearcut consensus, and drop your efforts to include this child's name, which adds nothing to encyclopedic coverage of the crime, but increases the chances of humiliation of the child.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  02:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From beginning I was somewhat agreeing that her name should be not included though I had doubts on whether her name should not be mentioned. That's why I posted this at BLPN. But some editors have misunderstood me. My main aim was just to ensure that we weren't violating any policies or that we were not censoring info. I trust your advice and too agree with your comment at BLPN. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please reread your own comments on the article's talk page and at WP:BLPN. You say now that you were "somewhat agreeing" that the name should not be included. When I read the discussions, I perceive that you were the only forceful advocate for including the name, pretty much to the point of stubbornness. So please re-evaluate how you express yourself, and how you respond to contrary opinions. Good editorial judgment is very important here. The same thing can be said for your user page. It is argumentative and not welcoming. Please consider carefully how you collaborate with others, and present yourself as an editor. This, after all, is a collaborative project.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  05:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read the talk page of Ariel Castro kidnappings carefully. I did say in one of my comments there that I somewhat do agree in not including her name.

" I am starting to somewhat agree that perhaps the name should be excluded until it can be confirmed there is explicit permission."

This is from one of my comments. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now do you still think I need to read my own comments again? I think it is you who actually needs to read the comments carefully. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of arguing with you,, I will instead thank you for the changes you made to your user page. Let's move on.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  03:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I too don't like to argue over the same thing again and again. But you have blamed me falsely by saying that I made it up when I said I had earlier somewhat agreed on not keeping the name. I have proved that I was correct and your statement is wrong. You must apologize since you accused me wrongly. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am confused by your comments. I never said you made anything up. I also am not blaming you for anything or accusing you of anything. I have no idea which statement of mine you find wrong. I made no false statements. This is what we call a routine content dispute on Wikipedia. You supported including the child's name in many of your comments on the article's talk page and at BLPN. That is a fact. Later, after several other editors (myself included) put forward arguments against including the name, you made the comment that you quoted above. I apologize for anything confusing in how I expressed myself that led you to misunderstand my intentions.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  03:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This following statement is of yours from your talk page. Here you say that I am now saying that I was somewhat agreeing that the name of your talk page. In this comment you are indirectly accussing me of making it up :-

"Please reread your own comments on the article's talk page and at WP:BLPN. You say now that you were "somewhat agreeing" that the name should not be included."

And this is my comment from Talk:Ariel Castro kidnappings. It's before discussion at BLPN. :-

" I am starting to somewhat agree that perhaps the name should be excluded until it can be confirmed there is explicit permission."

This proves that your accusation against me of making up the statement that I was somewhat agreeing in not including the name is wrong and baseless. You have made a false accusation and every accusation on Wikipedia requires a proof and you have no proof at all. You must apologize for making a false accusation. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I never accused you of making anything up. I readily agree that you made the quoted statement, which is in the record. I also know of the many statements you made in support of including the name, also in the record. I again apologize to you that I said things in a way that led you to believe that I was accusing you of making things up. That was not my intention. This discussion is now over.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  16:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm that's better that you apologized. If you didn't meant your words that way then you should have not written them in that way and should have thought clearly for some time in order to represent the words better so their meaning won't be confusing. Your right this discussion is already over. I forgive you regardless and hope if you think I made any transgressions against you then you will forgive me too. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin?
Hey Jim. Having now seen you in action for some time – your knowledgeable answers at the Teahouse, your demeanor and some of your conduct elsewhere – you strike me as someone who would make a great admin. Do you have any interest? Subject to a more in depth look at your contributions (that might sound ominous; I just mean doing some further due diligence for anything alarming, where i'm expecting to find nothing), I would gladly nominate you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This idea has come up before,, and I don't reject it out of hand. I am honored by the suggestion. On the other hand, I make such decisions slowly, and will need to discuss it with my wife. And she is very busy with a "real world" project right now. So, please let me have a few days to ponder it again?  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  08:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Take all the time you want. Open offer. Or if you want someone else to nominate you, don't hesitate to say that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
OOops! sorry, I am afraid I first posted this message on your user page...Hope I caused no harm! Damn akward newbe!..


 * Thank you, but my role in developing that page was minor. deserves the lion's share of the credit. Please give him a barnstar.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  06:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jim, your sense of humility honours you :-) MichaelQSchmidt definitely deserves a barnstar too then. But I won't change your barnstar : first I don't know how to do that! Second I would like to thank you with a transparency, approachability, openness & good ethics barnstar but I couldn't find that in store...However, it's a brilliant idea to behave that way - so keep this one! ;-) Velanidia Foundation (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again!  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  20:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Unproductive severity of the policy enforcement and an idea to relax it.
Hello Jim,

Thank you for your work (especially the Primer for newcomers) and openness.

Some recents mishaps as a new contributor inspired me this proposition post for the Wiki, that you might be interested to read knowing your contributions on this topic :

"Hello Wikipedia Team...I love the Wiki Project !

Basing on my personal experience, it can be sometimes harsh to make one's first steps as a new contributor, despite the fundamental principles :"Assume good faith" and "don't bite newcomers". So here is a small suggestion for Wikipedia's great platform developpers to still improve Wikipedia's conviviality-and especially indulgence towards newbies.. ! (I don't know who develops the web platform, so I leave it to you to forward the idea...)

I would like to suggest that action is taken preventively, so that new users don't infrige the policies and get blocked right after their very first contribution (for instance on ground of invalid username).

This could be done simply by the same automatic programm responsible for the ban : let it notify the user beforehand that the account he is creating contains words that are likely to result in a block, such as Society, Foundation, Group, etc...

This would prevent the blunt barring a posteriori of good willing contributors, who just wished to contribute to the common knowledge. This type of proactive action is applicable to other domains of course.

Here is my short story: I assembled material, with the help of a few friends, to create and expand some articles that we thought interesting and missing on Wikipedia. It took us a few days to carefully complete the work (although we are well aware it is still highly perfectible). Putting the first part of the work online, as a token of consideration for my collaborators, I created an account with the name of this (unformal) group. No promotional purposes in that ! (This association is totally non-profit, its goal is mainly to raise public awareness about the environment on a tiny island in the Aegean). BAM : blocked !

I realize I did unwittingly infrige Wikipedia policy, that is clearly specified. I apologize and wish to correct this. But please consider that Wikipedia's guidelines, policies and regulations span over dozens of pages, making it difficult for newcomers to absorb them all at once.

I suppose most contributers are like us, regular users of Wikipedia who simply wish to contribute to the common knowledge in their turn, in good faith...Assuming that sticking to the Five Pillars is fair enough. Be bold, they say ! So the blunt barring of a user- for an easily remediable problem - seems somewhat brutal. How could it be a motivating pedagogy ?

Still, congratulations for the remarkable achievement of Wikipedia and thank you for this worldwide epistemic adventure."

Don't hesitate to make me your comments! Regards,

Lonaïs Velanidia Foundation 12:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanidia Foundation (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, Lonaïs of the and thank you for your kind words. I think that you may have a good idea here, and I thank you for it. That being said, I am rarely active in the area of monitoring user names, although I have a basic understanding of the issues. And as for my computer programming skills? Well, my skills are not non-existent but they are primitive. I last did actual programming about 30 years ago, and a bit of HTML programming about 16 years ago, so my skill set lives in the stone age. So I can't do anything myself to bring this idea to reality, but I will bring it to the attention of a Wikimedia Foundation staff programmer I know. Thanks again.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  06:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Pleased if someone finds this little idea worth considering, and in any case, thank you for your kind reply. Velanidia Foundation (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Programmer? Where?!
 * More seriously; it seems to make a lot of sense, if we could find a reliable way to identify possibly promotional accounts. Steven's team does some work around the registration process and might(?) be able to help. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I studied COBOL at San Francisco State University in the 1970s,, with programs coded onto stacks of Hollerith punched cards. Rubber bands were essential. It would take a couple of days to have a program run and get a big zig-zag folded paper printout. Then, debugging began. I later dabbled with Microsoft BASIC programming on the Radio Shack TRS-80. This powerful computer saved data on an ordinary cassette tape. I did an animated slide show presentation about Space-based solar power on that machine for a college class, which many of my fellow students found amazing as they gathered around the black-and-white monitor. I also maintained the mailing list for a political newsletter with a couple of hundred subscribers. It could take a couple of hours to sort a list update into zip code order, if the darned thing didn't crash. I also took a class called "Text editing" which was what word processing was called before that term was in general usage. My wife and I rigged up a first generation IBM PC to output to an IBM Selectric typewriter and she used that setup to do various types of promotional communications for small businesses along Polk Street in San Francisco in the early 1980s. At that time, I worked in telecommunications management for about six years, before migrating into construction management. But that's all ancient history, isn't it?


 * It would be nice if could comment.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  06:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I have a few comments. First, it wasn't actually an automated process that blocked you originally; it was an actual person who did that.  I don't think there are any bots that block (aside from the one that automatically blocks the IP addresses of open proxies, but that's a different story altogether). More importantly, though, this isn't the kind of thing that a bot would help with, iirc, since this whole process happens before any bot could intervene. What we could do is add entries to the title blacklist, which can prevent people from registering usernames entirely (and can leave them a helpful response when doing so), but as that has no more selective ability than a regex, that would probably have many false positives (not least of which is the so-called "Mark at Alcoa" exceptions, wherein usernames that contain a company name but still unambiguously identify themselves as belonging to a specific person). And you're right: there's too much policy for a new user to go through, and that it's very difficult for them to navigate it successfully the first try; this is one reason that the lack of a welcome page that is shown to people as they're signing up has been bemoaned by more than a few of us. A lot of times, we as experienced editors discount the idea that a block itself, even if it's not meant to be punitive or judgemental (which is the case for username blocks) is still seen that way by their subject; this is perhaps hypocritical of us, given how many established editors are proud of their clean block log, and how upset they can be when it it marred. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)