User talk:Cullen328/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cullen328. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Further operational questions - continued

JIM, YOU WROTE

Hello Rjc1. Let's deal with the easy matter first. When I say "look at the wiki code", I mean to click on the "edit" button for the previous conversation, and examine the code displayed in the edit window. You can simply count the colons that generated the indentation. Think of it as "looking under the hood". This is a generally valuable technique for learning how to do something new. Look at the wikicode of a page that does something similar, and emulate that coding.

1) Jim, thank you. I wasn’t sure how to get to it and do it consistently but, I must be making some progress over here. As I was working at setting myself up, I finally got the clue. Your comment reinforced what I was thinking. I didn’t have my user or talk pages set-up yet because I didn’t want to get into that complication before saying a few things. That left me with some loose ends. I think I’ve got it together now.

2) The rest of your answer was magnificent and exactly what I hoped for. Again, just realize, I didn't write that stuff about my website to sell you on a link to it but rather for you to see which part of your "fringe" I am actually at. If you looked at a little of what I wrote, you can see I'm not at the bottom by any means. :-)

3) When you talked about reliable sources you said . . .

"Now, obviously, there is a continuum of reliable sources, and a source that is considered reliable about popular music is almost certainly not reliable about nuclear physics."

I am glad to hear you say that because what this discussion is going to be about may be partially caused by that very thing. The bottom line is . . . knowing your subject matter is the key.

BTW, I am also glad to hear you say:

"Just because Wikipedia does not consider a website reliable for the purposes of referencing a Wikipedia article does not mean the website is useless."

I have some *citations of verification* (i.e. scans from the important John Fuller book referenced on Wiki's Exeter incident page) which I put on-line, to totally support some of the things I am going to discuss. Pertinent sections are circled to reduce necessary reading time.

Wikipedia had mentioned some citations were missing from that Wiki page. You'll be able to easily see them. They are extremely pertinent to the upcoming discussion, and are necessary to address the reliabiltiy of a particular Wiki-linked article I will point out to you.

Repeatedly saying what you’ve said in this next sentence is actually unnecessary because I have already said *I get it, I'm not asking for either a link to my site or a reference to it.*

You said, ”I speak only for myself, but I speak from experience. I consider it _highly unlikely_ that a consensus of experienced editors would agree to accept your website as a reliable source."

With the repetition, I guess it’s possible this is pre-prepared text by you. Observing the breaking of Wiki guidelines and viewing the certifications I have posted won’t require a written reference to my website on your part. BTW, any or all of those certifications can be available to Wiki (copied, whatever) if desired.

I am also glad to hear the following and fully understand it:

"We believe that our thousands of volunteer editors (and our anti-vandalism bots) will detect and correct most of this, but sometimes a given article will contain garbage for a while."

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. What I have to offer in the upcoming discussion should be of help in this regard for the particular instance I will address.

. . . I’m also happy to hear:

""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and experienced editors can be expected to insist on the highest quality sources for article related to any fringe topic including UFOs."

Exactly! That statement was one of the first things I put on my website. It’s what I do. In that regard, when we’re done, you’re going to be able to ask yourself, *What happened with this article _and why_?*

By the way, why single out only fringe topics for what you just said? Sources should be of the highest quality for _all_ articles, not just fringe topics.

You also said:

"In general, we are looking for professional editorial control supervising the writers, and a widely regarded reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correction of errors."

Wonderful! That is exactly what this is going to be all about. This has to do with the realization *being anointed as a *reputable source* does not guarantee that accuracy in every instance.* Even the "anointed" sometimes need to be checked. This will become obvious in the presentation. That is the main reason I am here doing this.

REGARDING YOUR ANSWER ON ARCHIVING:

Another excellent answer. From what I’ve already said, you know I don't want to hide anything I have written. I thought archiving meant something different. As I said, I just want what I write to hang around long enough for it to get a fair hearing. From what you have said, it seems as though it will. That’s all I can ask. I can guarantee my discussion won't be stale. I'm really not here to repeat myself or beat a dead horse. With that said, I believe we can pretty much say we’ve covered the archiving topic.

. . . and _yes_, your comments have been extremely useful. I have definitely selected the right person. I am really grateful for your help.

Jim, I’m almost ready to begin answering your comment below. Just a little bit more first.

Cullen328. You alluded to a specific article where you see problems. Please mention the name of that article, and describe your concerns in more detail. I will be happy to review that article and give you my opinion about how it can be improved.

Respectfully, Rjc1 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

article for deletion advice

Jim, I am very new to Wikipedia editing. I created a stub page for asteroid (14825) Fieber-Beyer. The article has been put up for deletion. I do think the notability criteria 2 and 3 are met, however another editor disagreed and put it up for deletion Articles_for_deletion/(14825)_Fieber-Beyer. Ultimately, who decides whether an article is deleted it or not? Would you please take a look at my article and possibly help me improve it? Any help would be very much appreciated. Thank you. SKFB (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB

Hello SFKB. Normally, an Articles for Deletion debate will last for a week, but it can be extended. You have done a good job explaining why you think the article complies with guidelines. If you can further improve the article, that may help. When the debate is done, an uninvolved editor (usually an administrator) will gauge consensus and close debate. Only an admin can actually delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'm doing my best to improve the article and explain why it is notable. It seems the admin who put the article up for deletion reads/interprets notability differently than I do. We have come to a stalemate. The article for deletion debate has been extended by I assume an administrator. What happens now? SKFB (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB

WP:MOVE and Help:MOVE

Hey Cullen! I saw you answered a question about fixing article titles at the Teahouse recently; I was also asked this same question by a different editor recently (indeed, it's a very common question). I think I've usually directed editors to WP:MOVE for a long time now, but after reading it over today, I think some newer editors will find it dizzying what with the 17 sections it contains. Today, I did stumble across Help:MOVE, which does a good job of summarizing when to move / not move a page and provides a brief how-to, and I just suggested it for the first time. Just wanted to toss it your way in case you might want to use it in the future.

By the way, I'll be headed to Wikimania next week. This'll be my first one I've been to— it's all very exciting. Are you going, by any chance? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I JethroBT. I will read both. Unfortunately, I won't be at Wikimania. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Marty

Hi Jim, My name is Marty & I 'm not sure this is the right place for questions. I'm pretty 'computer stupid' and was poking around Wikipedia. Before I launch into my questions regarding editorial policy, is this the right place? If not, where? Thanks, Marty. 68.40.59.114 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Marty. That depends on what you mean by "the right place." I am just a fairly experienced editor who likes helping out new editors. But I have no special power or authority. So, I suggest that you ask your question here. Either I will answer it or I will point you in the right direction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr.

Hi, Just letting you know that I’ve added a note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. I tried pinging you, but that doesn’t seem to work. Thanks NQ talk 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I got the ping, NQ. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Leela Bordia

Hello Jim,

My name is Gaurav. It is indeed a pleasure to get your revert back. Actually i was so disappointed that the subject matter that i had taken, seemed to have come under so much objections and i just didnt want to come back here again.

But perchance or a change of fate made me log in back and i saw your revert.

Like i had mentioned in my first post that i am a novice and a total newbie and frankly dont know how to post content here. i even tried the sandbox but still couldnt get much success there.

Nevertheless i will try once again to write on Leela Bordia and mention references - as she has been covered extensively by press media in India as well as Internationally.

I hope that this time my efforts dont go in vain.

I have a small request to make to you.

After i prepare the text would it be ok if i post it here first for you to read it and guide me on my mistakes. I would be really obliged by this kind gesture of yours.

Thanking you in anticipation

Regards

Gaurav K The iWriter (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Just leave a note here, The iWriter, and I will review your draft and make some comments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

VxWorks

Thanks for the comments. I am about to go on holiday, but when I return, I'll do some editing to improve the article in line with your comments. Thanks RobRobpater (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Dorje Shugden controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ralph Drollinger

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ralph Drollinger. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC at Wikipedia for page protection

Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. User:Pundit is in support of increasing gender equality at Wikipedia and another user is opposed to User:Pundit's efforts. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

posting my new book sonnets and sunspots

Hi,

About a month ago I asked about posting as a "bottom page" reference my new book SONNETS AND SUNSPOTS; DR RESEARCH BAXTER AND THE BELL SCIENCE FILMS-- I was dismayed, almost shocked, when you indicated it was a bad idea, might be considered spamming, etc... Would it be better if someone else adds my book to the references of several Wiki entries? NO sarcasm intended.. I appreciate your input-- but here's my perspective.. I worked over 5 years--closer to 6--on this book. it is the ONLY book to be a full-length biography of Dr Frank Baxter, famed TV personality and educator-- the ONLY book on the Bell Films, etc-- all subjects that have Wikipedia articles. My only purpose was to get the word out that such a book DOES exist for further reading. Let's face it-- in terms of popularity, and subject matter Harry Potter , this ain't-- money/sales is not a major concern on this book!

Because my book is the ONLY book on some of these subjects- Frank Baxter, Frank Capra,bell Science, etc--it seemed perfectly legit to add them to the bottom reference/external links Ironically, I'm already in a fair number of "reference/external links" because of my extensive writings, as here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marignano-- that's why I say would it be ok if someone else added the book to the reference/external links to Frank Baxter, Bell Films, etc thanks Baxterfan88 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Baxterfan88. I don't mean to be unfriendly, but I still think that it is a bad idea which may lead to removal of the links as spam, and very likely to produce a negative reaction. You have a conflict of interest in this matter. Instead, provide suggestions on the relevant article talk pages, with links to published reviews of your book. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

When you write "My only purpose was to get the word out that such a book DOES exist for further reading", you indicate that you do not understand the purpose of editing Wikipedia. Far better for you to take your expertise and the array of sources you discovered in your research to improve our existing articles about Baxter, Capra, Bell Films, and so on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Willy Perez-Feria

Cullen or Jim, Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and believe me, I don't pretend to understand everything about it! However, as an honest man (and a Christian man at that) I do understand that there are certain principles which should be upheld when defining any standard. And so, it is with great puzzlement that I come to try and understand your comments made over the page of Willy Perez-Feria, specifically where you claim the songwriter/producer is, and I quote "My online search produced no evidence that this person is actually notable". Sir, everything listed on the Wiki article is true and every single listing is supported by a web link that proves the point. When someone is a content creator for a recording artist, unless they've had PHENOMENAL success they're accomplishments won't usually be written up in the local papers or magazines. And yet, they're accomplishments are still they're accomplishments. Add up a solid 30 year career's worth of accomplishments and I simply don't see why Mr. Perez-Feria can't be afforded the privilege of a Wikipedia page, especially since everything his page says his 100% true and unchallenged in his field. If a Wikipedia editor has problems with formatting, with structure or tone, well that can be discussed and addressed. But when an editor says FLAT OUT that this person doesn't deserve an entry onto Wikipedia, well then he better have PROOF to back up that horribly misguided thought. Mr. Perez-Feria has documented proof of all of the article's claims within all of the links that support each entry. Should anyone have CHECKED those links, they'd see that yes, he is exactly who he says he is.

One of the most curious rules on Wikipedia is the inability to link back to other Wikipedia articles to establish the validity of a claim. I found that especially perplexing. How seriously can Wikipedia take itself if it doesn't use itself as a reliable resource? Nevertheless, every single link necessary in order to back up each claim was found and inserted. Problem is, no one is actually checking them. Jim, your web search may not have led you to Time magazine cover stories on Mr. Perez-Feria, but surely it led you to ALL CREDIT and ALL MUSIC pages listing his song credits. Jim, have you ever written a song that went to #9 on the Billboard Latin Charts? Mr. Perez-Feria did! For Jon Secada back in 1993 from Jon's Grammy winning album (Latin Pop Album of the Year) OTRO DIA MAS SIN VERTE, the song is called "Tiempo Al Tiempo". It is the Spanish version of the song "Time Heals All Wounds" from Jon Secada's debut album of the same name that sold millions and millions of copies. Mr. Secada's own Wikipedia pages support this, as does a wikipedia page SPECIAFICALLY for the album OTRO DIA MAS SIN VERTE. This is only ONE point, but it's a fair one to make: If a person writes a song that makes it onto the TOP 10 of Billboard, doesn't that make them NOTABLE?".

I believe so.

You then went on to say: "The current version of the article is massively promotional, packed full of name dropping and such unreferenced prose gems as "Perez-Feria is currently part of 2 time Billboard Magazine's Producer of the Decade 1990-2010 superstar producer/songwriter and dear friend Rudy Perez’s all-star songwriting/production/instruction team working for IDA (Inspire & Develop Artists) an educational program for aspiring recording artists based out of Miami, Florida." If by chance, a couple of good sources are discovered and the article is kept, this article should have every single unreferenced claim pruned away."

What you call "name dropping" is simply the article listing all of the artists with which the producer has worked with. Tell me Jim, help me understand.... Is there a SECRET CODE on Wikipedia where you somehow list the people a person has worked with without actually using their names? Does Wikipedia have a numerical number assigned to each person in the world that I could reference? Each instance of "name dropping" is backed up by like proving the fact. In fact, the names CAME from the links! I don't understand the vitriol towards this article, could you please help me understand the vitriol please? Did Mr. Perez-Feria offend you personally in some way? IF there is a problem with the tone, wouldn't a healthy suggestion be better than simply a recommendation for deletion? No matter how you feel about the article, the tone, formatting and such CAN be edited to adhere to Wikipedia's standards, whatever they may be! But the vitriol, the disdain and the belief that Mr. Perez-Feria doesn't deserve a page, regardless of his accomplishments, well that sir is an unfounded claim. Completely unfounded claim. That is simply a mean-spirited suggestion on your part, not any kind of a factual observation. If you checked those links you'd see that every word of the article is the God's honest truth. The only statements that are unsupported in the entire entry regarding Mr. Perez-Feria are yours sir, when you say he is not a person of note. I can produce over 45 links used on the page and 147 links total that would disagree with you completely.

I think that as reasonable men, we can find a way to set the tone of the article to your satisfaction. Remember, Wikipedia is full of novices like me and while you've been editing since 2008, I just got here. But we must also find a way for your objectivity to be engaged so that we can be fair to Mr. Perez-Feria, because he very much is a person of note, he very much deserves his own article and nothing YOU say, Jim undoes what HE has accomplished. There's no reason to be so mean, if you've got a problem let's, fix it. But let's do it as gentlemen, shall we?

I hope that this entry has not upset you as that was not my intent, but rather to illuminate you as to the unreasonable tone your dissension with this article was taking.

Check the links, they are all true. Once you have established that Mr. Perez-Feria is exactly who this article says he is, then perhaps we can talk about the tone and language of the article. In the end, all I want is for Wikipedia to be happy and for the article to do justice to Mr. Perez-Feria. I look forward to your response.

-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perezferia (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Perezferia. I am not offended because I am patient with people who do not understand how Wikipedia works. You should take all the energy you spent posting this long complaint here, and devote that energy to improving this seriously flawed article. Our policy on biographies of living people requires that the article contain references to significant coverage of the person in reliable, independent sources. Our guidelines do not assure notability of songwriters of hits. Many are notable, because they have received that coverage. Our articles must be verifiable. A reader must be furnished with the tools to verify that the claims are true. Those references are entirely lacking here. Wikilinks are not references. It is the obligation of people who write such articles, or advocate keeping them, to provide those sources in the form of references. I did a good faith Google search and found no significant reliable source coverage. Something that mentions his name and says nothing more about him is not sufficient.

See Referencing for beginners for instructions regarding references.

As for name dropping, simply performing with someone famous is not an encyclopedic fact, but if performers have a close, ongoing professional relationship, that needs to be shown by coverage in reliable sources. So, furnish the sources showing notability, format them as references, add them to the article, and I will change my mind. Nothing else matters to me in a deletion debate. Nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Lenny McNab

Thanks for all the work you put in, and although this is a reliable source, the article itself is kind of weird, isn't it? The author wrote it as though Nicole is the one who won (I did vote for her, but...). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Erpert. I appreciate your kind words. Reliable sources were scanty when I first started looking, and this was the one that had a phrase that I thought summarized his persona. As for this particular article, she's a New Jersey chef and it's a New Jersey paper. So, "local girl wins second runner-up", I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

Thanks for thinking of the redirect [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Librarians' Information Literacy Annual Conference here]. I feel a little abashed I had not realized the possibility myself. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, my friend. I hope that you know that I hold you in high regard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sierra Club tangent

Saw your User page mention of Sierra Club interest, was wondering what you might be able to find on Russell Varian, who I know was involved with the organization prior to his death in 1959. I am debating if I want to dust off an article I worked on, Russell and Sigurd Varian and take it to GA, I feel it needs a little more info on both men. Fascinating story. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know a bit about Russell Varian. He was very close to Ansel Adams and hired Adams to do industrial photography in early Silicon Valley. I will dig up some stuff for you later, as I need to get to work now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Professional Theatre Wing

Hello Jim: I have been submitting an article "the Professional Theatre wing which was again refered back to me for editing. Apparently I am not using the proper meathod for referances and on how to score people in the article who are already in Wikipedia. Can you help guide me.(Philnypd 15:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philnypd (talk • contribs)

Please comment on Talk:Of Human Feelings

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Of Human Feelings. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bernis PDF

The Bernis PDF used in 14th Dalai Lama is unreliable and thus a violation of WP:BLP. It is a rejected publication and never cited by scholars. Also CFynn has some further comments on it here. BTW, Kjangdom is going by Audrey37 as per here.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, VictoriaGrayson. Audrey, huh? Isn't that the name of the malevolent talking plant that eats people in Little Shop of Horrors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen328. You have new messages at Montanabw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Audrey37 Essence37 Prasangika37

I notice that after your warning, User:Kjangdom blanked his talk page and left a goodbye message. But then up popped User:Audrey37, and then another User:Essence37 and that they both made edits to the Dorje Shugden controversy article within a few hours of each other. I also notice the similarity in the name of these two new users to that of User:Prasangika37 and what all three say in their user pages. Another fairly recent NKT editor seems to be User:March22nd. Chris Fynn (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, CFynn. There has been a sockpuppet investigation, and that person should be restricted to the Audrey37 account at this time. Please report any other activity under different accounts to the sockpuppet page or the administrator who has given warnings to the editor in question. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

OK done - but it may be more complicated than just sockpuppets.

The NKT claim to have more than 1100 centres and branches worldwide and a lot of dedicated followers - so it would be rather easy for them to engage in co-ordinated POV editing without necessarily using sockpuppets. At least one site (New Kadampa Truth) seems dedicated to co-ordinating NKT web activity , taking down what they regard as "smears", and ensuring that their version of the "truth" prevails. Of course the Dalai Lama has many loyal followers too, so this sort of thing may not always come from just one side. I wonder how does Wikipedia come up with reasonably good articles for the whole cluster of articles surrounding the NKT and Dorje Shugden and then keep them reasonably stable? Or are these articles always going to be subject to endless POV editing? If that is the case, it hardly seems worthwhile for anyone to take time and effort to improve them.

Chris Fynn (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If coordinated POV pushing becomes extreme, and routine sanctions on individual editors and other forms of dispute resolution are not effective, then the time may come when the Arbitration Committee needs to intervene, as they have done in topic areas like abortion, Scientology, Israel-Palestine, gun control and other controversial areas. I do not think that things are anywhere near that point. As both my grandmother and mother told me countless times, patience is a virtue. As for the "1100 centres and branches", I suspect exaggeration and puffery. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A controversy about an arcane 17th Tibetan "deity" highly unlikely to exist outside the minds of those who believe in such things is never going to matter as much as abortion, Israel-Palestine, and gun control. I should think it is in the running to matter as much Scientology though. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Help on a GNG article

Hi Jim

I would love some help on making the move (play) NatGertler flagged it as GNG after a PROD.

The play recently premiered and has multiple independent reviews, some of them (shocking!) are in paper in Scotland and I havent found the online version. Do you have advice as to how much/many additional refs could make this into a legit stub? I don't want to work too much on it more (I saw and liked the play and got this stuff started).

Thanks

EdFringe2014 (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, EdFringe2014. You can find some rough, unofficial guidance about the notability of plays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Draft guideline on Notability (plays). I think that many editors will be looking for these kinds of indications of notability. I think it unlikely that there would be consensus to keep an article about a one act play by a first time playwright which has appeared at just one festival. We shall see. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jim,

Thanks for the comments. I emailed the production to try to get more information but I am not sure the play is ready to meet the GNG standards. I got an email back that the play might be published as part of an anthology this fall from a significant publisher (not vanity press) and that there is some talk of a TV option (I agree, but I didn't get any verifiable sources on this. I liked play, but this is getting to be a bit too much work.

What do you think, should I wait and see if we can get some more indicia of notability (meaning leave it up for a month or two), or take article down pending the published references to go online? The TV thing, if real, would change things I imagine.

Thanks for the advice.

EdFringe2014 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC) MuzickMaker (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Book notability

Hi Jim,

Reference: “A Mighty Fortress of Faith - A History of St. Mary of the Visitation Church 1861-2011” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisjt3 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

First, besides Wikipedia, could you suggest an alternate website we may lodge information about the book that could lead researching historians to the valuable material contained in this book? It seems I may have misunderstood the function of Wikipedia in this regard.

Thanks for your comments and taking the time to respond.

I understand your suggested criteria for books listed on Wikipedia and we may have to wait for critical reviews before proceeding further with Wikipedia and this is a regrettable.

Even more disheartening is your reference to DGG, I discovered he seems to have impressive credentials. We are disappointed he seems to have refused or overlooked the acceptance of this history book by several major U.S. university archives. As cited, they have received and archived the book: Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, U.S.A Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Huntsville Madison County Public Library Archives Dept., Huntsville, Alabama U.S.A Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. Mount St. Mary's University, Emmitsburg, Maryland, U.S.A. Sanford University, Birmingham, Alabama, U.S.A. Spring Hill College, Montgomery, Alabama, U.S.A. University of Alabama Huntsville. Huntsville, Alabama U.S.A University of Notre Dame, South Bend, Indiana, U.S.A.

It would seem these acceptances by knowledgeable archivists would indicate at least a degree of creditable endorsements, wouldn't you agree?. Is it possible he missed this information in our reference section?

Would I expect to receive a reply from “Missvain” also or has your response usurped the query?

Again, thanks for your comments. Any further suggestions on alternatives would be greatly appreciated. Wikisjt3 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wikisjt3. My "expertise", such as it is, is limited to Wikipedia, so I can't suggest any specific other websites. My general suggestions are to work with local and regional historical societies, and their journals, to attract attention to the book. Or more properly, to bring attention to the historical information in the book.

As for DGG, you are free to direct questions directly to him. In all honesty, I do not think he has missed anything here. He knows much more about the relationship between library holdings and book notability than I do. I trust his judgment on such major things implicitly, though I occasionally disagree with him on a fine point. But I think that we are looking for several hundred library holdings to consider the possibility of notability on that basis. In particular, we would be looking for holdings in libraries that are neither Catholic nor in Alabama, to show that the book Is of general interest.

Missvain will either respond or not respond as she sees fit. She is a friend of mine, and I knew that she had a very busy schedule of family activities involving travel in recent days, and so I offered comments from the point of view of an experienced editor. This is common here among experienced editors who collaborate frequently, and is not considered "usurpation" in any way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned:

1) The book is privately printed, not published by any of the major trade or religious publishers

2) The author has published nothing else.

3)It is merely the history of a single parish of no obvious interest anywhere else

4)there is no evidence that it has ever been noticed or reviewed or discussed in any published source, or reviewed in any magazine or newspaper

5)WorldCat shows it only in libraries in the immediate vicinity: [1] I see Mt St M7ary's University, U. Alabama, Auburn Univ, Samford Univ., and Spring Hill College.

6)It is not in the Loyola University library Catalog [2] , Notre Dame Library [3], Loras College [4], or Georgetown [5]. My guess is that the reason you are saying it is in those libraries is that a copy was sent to them: That does not mean they added it. (Not even if they thanked you for the gift: that's just normal politeness.) All major libraries receive thousands of books from the people who write them, but only add them to their collection if they are thought relevant. They courteously accept everything, but that doesn't mean they keep it. Normally, a library will add local history of the immediate area, regardless of its importance, but rarely the minor publications of the local history of anywhere else, except sometimes major cities or areas of special interest to their programs. That's exactly what seems to be the case here.

7)That the papal library sent back a nice appreciation when it was sent to them means nothing. That's the courtesy I would expect from one churchman to another.

Thus it meets none of the standards for the general notability guideline, WP:GNG; or for books, NBOOK. The rule for accepting Drafts is that the article would have a reasonable chance in mainspace. On the basis of my many years of experience here, it has no chance at all--it would very quickly be deleted. That you want the article in WP to spread information about the book is what we call "advertising" or "promotion" We never do it. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on some COI and NPOV issues

MuzickMaker (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Hi Jim, I have several questions that I would ask your opinion on.

1) I would like to know if a quote I edited out of that page fails to meet the standards of the Wiki Content policy. It can be viewed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Covenant_Ministries_International&diff=621277575&oldid=618348231

I removed the above mentioned quotation and entered into a discussion with the editor. We have not come to a resolve on the disputed content yet. My reasons for assessing this quote as being in violation of the Wiki content policy are in the editor's talk page which may be viewed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sigeng under "removal of Raoul Tuul quote"

My second question is: 2)I would like to know if I am in a COI position because of the fact that I have an association with NCMI, the organization the Wiki page is about.

In my discussions with Sigeng, the editor who posted the quote I deleted, he suggested that I may be in COI because of my association with NCMI and he asked that I disclose my association with NCMI in my talk page, which I have done. Having read the COI sections I don't believe I am in violation of the COI guidelines, with the added proviso that my editing puts the interests of Wiki above my own personal interests and that of NCMI. However, I would like to make sure of that I am acting according to the COI guidlines. Please let me know if you feel that I am in violation of the COI guidelines.

You can look my disclosure over at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MuzickMaker

Also I would invite you, if you have time, to monitor my behavior, edits and comments to make sure that I am following the Wiki content and editor behavior guidelines.

3) My third question has to do with whether I am wrong in asking that the editor of the quotes clarify his personal interests in editing the NCMI wiki page.

I can say that I made a few errors right off the bat in my communication with Sigeng, which I apologized for and made right. I made a couple very direct requests of him to demonstrate that he was not operating with a COI or a bias. I felt that I was wrong in making these requests, and apologized to him for making them.

I have read the presumption of good faith sections and want to approach this situation from that perspective.

My desire to seek clarification from Sigeng regarding his personal interest in editing the NCMI page comes from the fact that he has done 43% of the edits on the page and when I read through the edits I felt that he was functioning out of personal interests and a BPOV in the way he was editing NCMI page.

I am not at all opposed to NPOV, Verifiable criticism of NCMI that comes from reliable sources. However, I didn't feel that the quote I removed from the NCMI site met that criteria. I also questioned Sigeng regarding what I felt was his bias in selecting the quote in question, which leads to my next question:

4) Is it the responsibility of an editor to make sure that he/she presents ALL significant verifiable published views from reliable sources? And is it right that if there no significant verifiable published views from reliable sources that present an opposing view, an editor should not put in a quote that is weighted to one side, particularly if it is a minority view?

Mr Sigeng response to my suggesting that it was his responsibility to present both sides, not just one side was:

"The article on the whole must be neutral. I would argue, to the contrary, that removing the quotation may upset neutrality since it could be construed as presenting a whitewashed image of NCMI that ignores detractors. If you are aware of a formal response from NCMI regarding Tuul's allegations, I would also be quite happy to include that. I am quite happy to use any reliable material about NCMI, since there is a serious shortage of independent viewpoints given the reported size and influence of the organization."

My argument was:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground

"Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." Wiki is not a venue for opposing sides to debate or defend perspectives, as your invitation to NCMI does, and that you think it is begs the question as to whether you should be editing, especially a wiki article on an organization that you apparently are antagonistic towards.

Your thoughts, Jim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuzickMaker (talk • contribs) 04:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page, MuzickMaker. The first thing I did was to read your COI disclosure on your talk page. I assume good faith that your statement is accurate, and I encourage you to copy it over to your user page, which is now blank. I will now read the other links you have provided. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

After reading that, I read the article in question and the lengthy discussion on Sigeng's talk page. I've got to say that I was shocked to see you attempt a theological inquiry regarding the editor's religious beliefs. That was way, way out of line here at Wikipedia, which is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, in accordance with policies and guidelines. Please ponder and accept this: any editor of any religious belief or no religion at all, is entirely free to edit this article. If you can't accept that, you should not be editing Wikipedia. I see you withdrew this and related outrageous requests and that is good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

When I look at the article and its references, my initial response is, "OMG, what a swamp and what a POV pushing mess!" I think that a good faith editor should go through it with a machete and hack at least 80% of it away. It seems that the vast majority of the content of that really crappy article is based on sources controlled by or affiliated with the NCMI crowd, which is completely wrong. The article should be built on what independent sources say about NCMI, not on what NCMI and its affiliates and allies say about itself. NCMI sources can be used for non-controversial statements about where it is headquartered, and who its current leadership is, and little more. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote NCMI and NCMI and its allies have no right whatsoever to control its article.

As long as referenced opinions critical of the group are represented properly as opinions, and are representative of the range of opinions, pro and con, about the group, then those opinions belong in the article. But if the overwhelming range of opinions from independent sources is positive, then negative opinions are fringe, and should not be over-emphasized. That does not seem to be the case here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be editing as an NCMI advocate instead of as an editor with a neutral point of view. This is problematic and likely to lead you into difficulty here. If you want to be a productive editor here, my recommendation to you as an NCMI Christian would be to go do some productive editing about Tibetan Buddhism or Hinduism or Zoroastrianism, or Eastern Orthodox Christianity. As a Jew, I wrote Holy Virgin Cathedral and Kalpataru Day, articles on religious topics having nothing to do with Judaism. That was how I demonstrated my neutrality. Please note that those articles are built on independent sources, not sources affiliated with those religious topics. For example, The Hindu is a respected, general circulation English language newspaper in India, and is in not under control of the narrower Ramakrishna movement. Such work on your part would demonstrate that you are here to build an encyclopedia, rather than to advance your parochial religious beliefs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

MuzickMaker (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Jim, I agree with you completely that my "theological inquiry" of Sigeng was, as you said, "way way outa line". And that is why I apologized immediately to him for requesting that he provide that. (did you notice that?) I apologized before he answered me back because I was quite unhappy that I had said that. I felt, like you, that it was uncalled for.

As far as the content of the NCMI page being "OMG, what a swamp and what a POV pushing mess!" and the sources being "controlled by or affiliated with the NCMI crowd": Please go back and look at who posted and edited at over 130 of the last 150 edits - Sineng. At least 80% of the content of the site was added by Sigeng.

Think about what I was seeking your help on. I asked you for help on understanding NPOV and COI because I felt that Sineng was editing from a Bias AGAINST NCMI. I told you that I am associated with NCMI and was completely upfront about that. Why would I ask you for your advice on what I felt was Sineng's biased editing against NCMI if he were affiliated with the NCMI crowd? You are wrong about NCMI and it's ally's controlling the editing of the NCMI Wiki page, and I am "appalled" that you would make that kind of accusation.

Jim, what happened to "good faith"? You say that anyone can edit, in accordance with policies and guidelines. Please ponder and accept this: any editor of any religious belief or no religion at all, is entirely free to edit this article." and then you tell me say to me go edit somewhere else?

I have zero problem with anyone from any belief or non-belief whatsoever editing on Wikipedia, so long as they edit, in accordance with policies and guidelines. That includes me. I would have a problem with anyone, including me, editing from a biased POV.

I approached you in sincerity to ask for help on interpreting the policies and guidelines regarding myself and an editor of the NCMI page so that I could make sure that I didn't violate them, and so that I could accurately assess if a majority editor was actually following the policies and guidelines.

And you answer with go edit somewhere else and call my beliefs parochial?

How can you judge what I believe? You don't know me. And if you have an issue with the beliefs and practices that you saw on the NCMI Wiki page how is that unbiased and a NPOV?

Here is part of the wiki guideline on Conflict of interest. "Conflict of interest is not simply bias.[7] Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. On Wikipedia, a person's beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest."

I have done one single edit on Wikipedia in my entire life. And that I did that after carefully reading over the Wiki policies and guidelines to determine if I was acting according to those policies and even contacted you to determine if I was reading the policies right and your response is to call my beliefs parochial?

According to that guideline belief (mine included) is not an indicator of bias or a conflict of interest, but one does not have to have a conflict of interest to be biased. That is worth pondering, Jim.

I will seek answers to the legitimate and fair concerns and questions I approached you with elsewhere.

MuzickMaker, you came to my talk page out of the blue and asked me some questions. I too k the time to look into it and gave you some frank answers. I did not accuse you of being responsible for the poor condition of the article. However, I believe it is in poor condition, whoever is responsible. My advice to you to edit in other topic areas is advice I would give to any editor passionate about one topic. Editing in a variety of topic areas helps give new editors perspective and understanding of the general challenges of improving the encyclopedia. I did not say you should not edit the NCMI article, but you should do so with great caution. You quoted big blocks of policy language to me. I assure you that I am familiar with all of that. But I had to take account of the fashion in which you first approached the other editor, and the underlying tone of your initial questions to me. I do not care at all about your beliefs per se but rather about your behavior as a Wikipedia editor so far, and especially in the future. I think that it is going to be very difficult for you to edit neutrally about NCMI, but I could be wrong. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

More on the book

Dear Jim,

First thanks for your quick reply and comments.

On another subject, are you related to the popular TV personality, Bill Cullen? I always enjoyed seeing him on TV. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cullen

Now regarding the history book in question: “A Mighty Fortress of Faith - A History of St. Mary of the Visitation Church 1861-2011”

The book is available in our public library and the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and is available for sale at “Marie’s Hallmark Cards” in Five Points in Huntsville, Alabama

It’s a bit unfortunate the title may indicate the full subject of the book is about a Catholic parish in Alabama, it is not.

Widely acclaimed as a substantive source of local history, by local historians, it provides accounts of members of the Wernher Von Braun moon-landing team as well as U.S. Civil War accounts from the perspective of a southern city. In fact, the forward was written, and major history research done, by a retired NASA scientist living in Huntsville.

The account, based on his personal war-time diary, of a U.S. WW2, prisoner of war in Germany is worth the price of the book alone.

As Notre Dame Senior Archivist and Curator of Manuscripts in a letter (on file in the Madison County Huntsville Public Library) stated, “This book is much more substantial than the average parish history – much more interesting. It presents the story of human individuals, and not only the bare bones of history, or at best information on pastors or nuns. Lay people are an important part of any parish history, and you included them in an engaging way.”

Again thank you for your comments, and as you may tell, we will persist until the book has wider acclaim to meet the notability standards required by Wikipidia. Wikisjt3 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Wikisjt3. No, I am not related either to Bill Cullen or Countee Cullen. It is a name which has run in my family for four generations, though.

Please be aware that there are many worthwhile books which are wonderful accomplishments, but not really eligible for a Wikipedia article about them. I am sure your book is well researched and informative. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Input requested at DSC talk

Audrey37 is claiming it is "absurd slander" to mention the murder of Lobsang Gyatso and 2 students. This is the most famous aspect of Shugden and is mentioned in many academic sources on Shugden such as Kay, Lopez, Dreyfus etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, VictoriaGrayson, I commented there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Splitting a page into two separate articles

Hi, Jim. I have a question about this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Pop_Festival

I would like to split the page into two separate pages, one on each of the two pop festivals. The main reason is that these two events have been confused with each other for 45 years, and it would be most appropriate for each of them them to have a separate page. However, since the published documentation on each festival is fairly slim (and hence the sources for potential footnote citation), and the volume of text on the current conjoined page is also slim, I wonder if the Wiki world would consider a separation to be premature at this time. I feel like I could add a little bit to the December event once they are separated, but nothing to the first one. Anyway, my question is: Would it be acceptable to split them, and if so, how do I do it?

Thank you very much. Bmankin1 (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Bmankin1. Since these were two unrelated events by different promoters, I think that a content split is appropriate. The details can be found at WP:SPLIT. Please be sure to follow the instructions to maintain the editing history, especially adding links in the edit summaries. Each new article should have a hatnote at the top, referring to the other festival. The new titles should match the existing section headings, but with month and year in parentheses. Let me know when you've completed the split, and I will take a look, Awesome lineups at both festivals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Jim - Please check out both new pages through here, and let me know what else I need to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Pop_Festival Thank you. Bmankin1 (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of minor problems, Bmankin1. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mesrop Mashtots

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mesrop Mashtots. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Stephens--worthy of date of death?

You said Bruce Stephens was only one of many members of Blue Cheer and that maybe he wasn't worthy of a bibliography. Maybe not a bibliography (since there is not a lot written about him) but surely it could be noted the year of his death at the bottom following his years of service. Why is Stephens worthy of this? Not just his musical qualifications as an excellent guitarist, lead vocalist and songwriter on two of their albums (New! Improved! and Blue Cheer)but he was involved in the first incarnation of the group on their third and fourth albums on the original recording contract on Philips label. Most of the many members listed on the page were not in the original incarnation on Philips but were on other labels and most were temporary fill-ins or only played live at gigs but rarely recorded on an official Blue Cheer album (unless live). Therefore I believe Stephens is at least as important as Gary Yoder or Ralph Burns Kellogg (Bruce and Ralph played together in the power trio Mint Tattoo prior to working together in Blue Cheer). Kellogg (aka Ethan James) has his death listed at the bottom but Stephens does not. Does it require verification before it can be listed? Is Kellogg verified? You say CDBaby is a website selling music. Both references #16 and 17 are still being used as verifications (note the info is from www.rearwindowmusic.com via cdbaby). If these are not reliable, why use them on the page?Bobquack (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to see a reliable source that reported his death to even consider including it. Of course, it requires verification. Supppose Wikipedia reports that any person is dead when they are actually alive? That's a big mistake that is very bad for our credibility, and can cause serious hurt feelings. As for Kellogg aka Ethan James, I do not know. Check for yourself. If that death isn't verifiable through a reliable source, remove it as well. If you find other poor quality sources in the article, remove them as well. It is a constant process of improvement, and you are the Blue Cheer fan (which is fine), not me.

Our individual opinions of "importance" don't mean much here on Wikipedia, except to the extent that our opinions motivate us to dig up the sources. We summarize what the reliable sources say. So if Rolling Stone or similar sources describe his significance, we summarize their judgment. No more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
That was a great answer to the question about the reliability of Wikipedia! LukeSurl^{t c} 13:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, LukeSurl. I do my best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Wales's page

It was only after pressing Save that I noticed your echoed "thanks".

Thank you; perhaps I misinterpreted your comment.

But I'm still feeling shattered by Wales's and your contributions to the last SP-related debate. So I'm likely to be very sensitive.

Thank you again. Tony (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious comments here, Tony1. The fact is that I believe your comment on Jimbo's page was the most thoughtful and responsive of the bunch. I agree with you completely about the excessive use of non-free images in Power Girl and commend you and the Signpost team for responding promptly to reasonable concerns. I regret that we locked horns a while back, and look forward to the day when our positive interactions far outweigh our negative ones. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'm certain we could be friends in other circumstances, and I'm sorry I'm not coming off as very gracious on Wales's talkpage. I just don't want to be reminded of all that pain and personal destruction. Tony (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's look toward the future, Tony1. Initially, I had no idea of the nasty attacks you suffered off-Wikipedia, which were way out of line. I did not intend to add to your anguish. Again, thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That makes me feel a little better. Tony (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)