Open main menu

User talk:Cullen328

I don't live on Cullen Ct, but I like the street sign

If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia by smartphone, I encourage you to read my essay, Smartphone editing. Thank you.

Welcome to my talk page I use the name Cullen328 on Wikipedia, but you can call me "Jim" because that's my real first name. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the old comments from July and August of 2009 that follow the "Contents" here, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome when I first started editing Wikipedia.


The importance of a friendly greeting

Hello and welcome to my talk page. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the comments that follow from July and August of 2009 readily visible, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome here on Wikipedia when I first started editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please offer your thoughts

I would appreciate comments and suggestions on any contributions I make. I am learning.Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on Jules Eichorn. He's been needing an article for a while.   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
If I may suggest, now that you've posted the Eichorn article the draft below might be deleted. It's your talk page to do with as you like, but it's a bit hard to edit around.
As for formatting and pictures, a good way to learn is to look around at other articles to see what you think looks best. It can be helpful to break up long blocks of text into subsections. Perhaps it'd be possible to split the biography into two or three eras. Other than that, the formatting is usually kept fairly plain. As for photos, it's easy to upload them: the trick is in finding photos with appropriate licensing. If you have any personal photos then those'd be fine. There are might be pictures of the peaks he did first ascents on in the Wikicommons. File:Cathedral Peak.png is a so-so pic of Eichorn Pinnacle.
As before, feel free to ask if you have any questions. There are several editors here who are mountaineers or just admirers of the Sierra, so you're in good company.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: Many editors create "sandbox" pages for drafting articles. For example, User talk:Cullen328/Sandbox.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 1 August 2009

Your climber biographies

Hey Jim, just wanted to say welcome and thanks for your contributions to the Sierra Nevada climbing history articles. You're filling a niche that's been missing here, I look forward to working with you. --Justin (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. Nice work on Allen Steck and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know who you are planning to write up next but if your taking requests I think Peter Croft (climber) could really use a page. If you ever have any questions please ask. Thanks again for your great additions.--OMCV (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Justin and OMCV. I am beginning work on Tom Frost and Glen Dawson. Comments on Norman Clyde would be welcomed. I will defintely read up on Peter Croft, OMCV. I am still "learning the ropes" in Wikipedia, to use a climbing analogy, and have all sorts of things in mind. My biggest challenge right now is getting permission to use images. My next biggest challenge is hiking to the top of Mt. Whitney with my wife in ten days - she's never been above 12,000 feet except for the train ride up Pikes Peak. As she's 56 and developing arthritis in her toes, it will be an accomplishment if she (and I) complete the Class 1 feat. Jim Heaphy (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Debra and I made it to the summit of Mt. Whitney at 2:20 PM on Friday, September 11. Jim Heaphy (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Archive

2010 Archive

2011 Archive

2012 Archive (first six months)



Adding cover imagesEdit

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your response. I fully agree with your rationale - but how do I "just do it"? I've gone to one of the image pages and tried to update the summary and licensing info (adapted from another album page from the same band), and was greeted with a rapid deletion message. The code I used was as follows:


Media data and Non-free use rationale
Description Far Skies Deep Time cover
Author or
copyright owner
Big Big Train
Source (WP:NFCC#4)
Use in article (WP:NFCC#7) Far Skies Deep Time
Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC#8) to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question.
Not replaceable with
free media because
Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) Official album cover artwork from the artist's website
Respect for
commercial opportunities
Fair useFair use of copyrighted material in the context of Far Skies Deep Time//

As your optional poll has closed....Edit

2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCAEdit

You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016
Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016,
for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

--Circa73 (talk)

Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27Edit

Please join us in San Francisco!
Panel discussion at a recent Wikipedia & Journalism event.

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area will gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. We have two brief presentations lined up for our kickoff event in downtown San Francisco:

  • The Nueva Upper School recently hosted the first ever high school Wikipedia edit-a-thon. We will hear what interests them about Wikipedia, what they have learned so far, and what they hope to achieve.
  • Photojournalist Kris Schreier Lyseggen, author of The Women of San Quentin: The Soul Murder of Transgender Women in Male Prisons, will tell us about her work and how she researched the topic.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see here: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016

We hope to see you -- and until then, happy editing! - Pete, Ben & Wayne

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of MinnesotaEdit

Hello Cullen328,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I notice you are active in activities related to project page and project talk page, so I wonder if I could invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you,


Hello, Cullen328. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Holiday cardEdit

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas,
"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you
That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end
And sickness nor sorrow don't find you."
—C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926.
Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCAEdit

You are invited! - Friday, March 10 - SF CCA ArtAndFeminism 2017
Please join us at the California College of the Arts'
Simpson Library
on Friday March 10, 2017, for
an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

--Jscarboro (talk)

Page LinkEdit

I just don't get itEdit

Hello, Cullen328. You have new messages at Purplebackpack89's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You've got mail.Edit

Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please comment on Talk:Death of Elaine HerzbergEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I mean...Edit

I meannnnnn..... let him see.... he said i can edit. He even stated that in quora ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you can edit User:Jimbo Wales to add your foolish remark with its negative innuendo. And I can edit to remove it. I am just as free to edit that page as you are. Now, go do something useful, ImmortalWizard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
LOL ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Quick question: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia which side u take? ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not stake out an extremist position, ImmortalWizard. I am in favor of including content that is in full compliance with our policies and guidelines, and either improving or deleting content that isn't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah nice! I have issues with WP:ONESOURCE in WP:VPP and vandalism in WP:VPI. Anyways nice to meet you. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi Jim. I was checking on external link usage in Norman Reedus when I remembered an exchange I had over these links with PhiladelphiaInjustice. It also reminded me of User talk:PhiladelphiaInjustice#WP:UP#NOT. This editor hasn't edited since 2016 for some reason, but they never really got around to addressing the problems with their user page. Do you think even at this point in time the page should be blanked or even tagged for speedy per WP:U5? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I certainly understand your concern but my personal feeling is to leave this matter alone. It seems that this editor was at least potentially a productive editor. I would interpret this list as an indication of the type of topics they hoped to edit. Yes, they have not been around for a couple of years but who knows what is going on in their personal life? Let us hope that at some point they remember that they used to be a Wikipedia editor and decide to return. It would be nice for them to see their user page when they come back. If not, I see no real harm here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Other opinions may vary, Marchjuly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Jim. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cedric Wright.jpgEdit


Thanks for uploading File:Cedric Wright.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Neutral and due weight CommentEdit

Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weightEdit

First thanks for answering my questions regarding Greenhaven, Ga in a respectful manner. That is much appreciated. There is an external link on Greenhaven to Imagine Greenhaven which is the pro group for the proposed legislation. An external link to N.A.G. Neighbors Against Greenhaven and CCIOTG, the opposition groups, were not allowed. My question is if the article is to be neutral shouldn't there be a link to both pro and opposition websites be included?

TravelinFool 23:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable contention to me, TravelinFool, but I have not taken a close look at the content dispute. If the group is a significant player in community discourse about whether or not this city should be created, then an external link may well be appropriate. But you need to gain consensus on the talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titlesEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You are really very greatEdit

Thankyou so much for your constant support to all young editors like us. Ssaarraayyuu (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Ssaarraayyuu. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

About dashesEdit

Hi, you might see the type of dash as trivial (and I agree with you) but this is something that's gone to ANI very many times, and even up to arbcom. There are easily hundreds of thousands of words in meta about types of dash. I don't know what the right thing to do is, but it's a long running tedious flamefest. DanBCDanBC (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: Boots RileyEdit

Hi Cullen328,

Could you tell me how I am violating the wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living people? I'm updating the political views of the person, which he shares openly on his social media platforms and they certainly seem important to him and relevant to understanding his point of view and art.

Thank you!

Hello Valepop. You cannot use the highly judgmental phrase "murderous dictator" in Wikipedia's voice. You cannot draw sweeping conclusions from a tweet, which is a primary source. We need secondary sources discussing the tweets. And, you cannot edit war. Discuss this matter at Talk: Boots Riley. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328. I wasn't trying to edit war, I just thought that my edit hadn't gone through. I apologize!

I'm, however, confused on why there must be a source discussing the tweets when a person (Boots Riley) has made numerous remarks on social media that are very clearly and transparently in support of Nicolás Maduro and Hugo Chávez. I'm still new to this and thank you in advance for clarification.

Also, is there any way to request updates to a locked page? I've noticed that the page on Nicolás Maduro doesn't mention political prisoners or deaths caused at his command, while others with the same allegations (such as Paul Kagame) do have this information.

Thank you!

Valepop, here is a direct quote from WP:BLP which is one of our most important policies:
"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."
You cannot state as a fact that someone "supports murderous dictators" based on tweets expressing concern about the crisis in Venezuela. That is simply not going to happen. As for the other matter, Talk: Nicolás Maduro is the place to discuss that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi Jim.. thank you for your kind advice on publishing a comment on deletion. I am about to see what happens. Tony HER KNIGHT (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You made your point very effectively, HER KNIGHT. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the Jeff Sessions thingEdit

Look, I understand if right now you look at this and think something like "Oh my god, that Jeff Sessions idiot is back again to spread more of his nonsense. Looks like I have to block him again." To be honest with myself, that is a fair thing for you to think with how awful my history has been on here. However, it has been almost two months since this whole thing happened. I have come to recognize my mistakes and simply want to apologize and explain what I was thinking at the time. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and read this. I assure you that I have changed and for now on will make nothing but productive edits that make Wikipedia a better place.

Let me start this off by saying that I fully deserved the original blocks I received. I was blocked for spreading my personal theories about Jeff Sessions and saying that pages about him should be edited to fit those views. Yes, I handled this terribly originally. I should of recognized that the purpose of Wikipedia was to report what reliable sources say, not to spread the theories of the people editing. I didn't understand that original research was not allowed. At the time I was a new user and did not fully understand the mission of this site. My mistaken thinking at the time was that Wikipedia should always state the things I think are true, rather than what was actually proven. I fully apologize for the issues I caused and the time I took up. I deserved those blocks. After this I educated myself on the rules and purpose of the website and came to understand what I did wrong.

When my original block ended I was determined to make these mistakes right. In the discussion about my edits on your user talk page, I conceded that Jeff Sessions' party affiliation should not be changed to Democratic, and that I was wrong and stubborn for claiming that it should be. I said that I was done pushing my theory and would not argue about it anymore. However, I did say that because there is doubt about Jeff Sessions being a Republican, then it is simply not a proven fact. It is disputed, making it a political theory. The article shouldn't unequivocally state a political theory as a fact. Wikipedia rules make clear the theories should be stated as what they are, theories. The argument I was making was simply that the claim that Sessions is Republican should be stated as a theory rather than a solid fact.

Although I still stand by that above argument and would like to hear your response to it, I originally stated it poorly. It seemed like I was still spreading my personal theories. I wasn't, but it looked like it. So I was blocked again for spreading my personal theories and arguing about it. I was not doing that at the time, but I make it look like I was, so being blocked was my fault. I should have waited and expressed my opinion in a better way.

I then made another mistake. After being blocked that time, I made an unblock request. I should have not done this and should instead of waited it out until my block expired to discuss this issue further. With my history on the website at the time, I looked bad and everything I could say in an unblock request could easily look like either me trolling or begging. Also, I made previously made unblock requests for my original block that were awful nonsense, so I understand why you guys were sick of these. So after the block request, you guys gave me mercy and decided not to extend my block. I sincerely thank you guys for not extending it, that was a very nice thing to do when I looked so bad. Instead you guys simply block my access to my talk page. Looking back I am honestly glad you did this, if you didn't I probably would have made myself look worse and wasted your guys' time. Thank you for showing me mercy.

After my talk page access was removed, I realized that in trying to correct my past mistakes, I ironically made another mistake. I decided that I would wait for another month or so after my block ended to again try to correct what happened, so that I have more time to think about it and that I wouldn't look so bad. So here we are today.

In conclusion, I promise that I will not spread any more personal theories on Wikipedia. If I do, you guys have the right to immediately block me. I understand why you guys blocked me multiple times and I am not mad at you. I would actually like to thank you for showing me what I did wrong in the first place and helping me become a better editor. Your misreading of my comment that lead to him blocking me the 2nd time is not your fault. It is mine because I should have made the comment clearer, and it looked bad due to my history of arguing about this. My only request is that you consider my argument that Jeff Session's Republican affiliation should be stated as theory rather than a fact. You can disagree with me, I would just like to see a response. Thank you for dedicating your time to this site and being such a productive editor. I promise that I won't be annoying about this issue any more. I hope to help edit more articles in the future and to be a productive user here. Who knows, I may even create a few articles! (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions joined the Young Republicans as a college student back in the 1960s and has been a Republican ever since. There is nothing in his long years of involvement in politics that indicates any deviation from loyalty to the Republican party. I can find no commentary or analysis by reliable sources anywhere that calls his membership in the Republican Party into question. Yes, he had a falling out with the current Republican president and lost his job, but that does not make him suddenly not a Republican, unless he decides himself to quit that party. These are the facts and it is not a "theory" in any way under the sun. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald TrumpEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


Hey Jim, hope all is well.

I recently stumbled upon a page called Avonite because of a promotional editor. The page seems to be in very poor shape so I looked through the history to see if I could find a better version. While I didn't find a better version, I did find there was an AFD on this page [1]. I know it was a long time ago but are you still interested in improving this page? I have absolutely no experience, knowledge, or interest in this topic but I cannot leave it in the form it is now. I can try my best but as you said, you have more experience and knowledge on this topic. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, HickoryOughtShirt?4. Sorry to be slow to respond, but I traveled from San Francisco to Miami today, and have been distracted. I am not the most objective person regarding this topic, because this brand name is very familiar to me in the industry I operate in, and I have worked with their products occasionally for over 30 years. So I have a bit of a conflict of interest. It seems to me that there are sufficient sources available to improve the article but I am not sure that I am the best editor to do so. Let me think about it a bit more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Jim, I understand. Take your time, it's okay to say no of course. I'll see what I can do in the meantime. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification of Citations and reference --- I don't think people at Wiki are paying attentionEdit

Dear Cullen328

Please bear with me - a bit pedantic, but I need to make a case. St. Matthew and the Angel Redux

This is not original research. This is revealing to the public and art community at large about a discovery that has been either foolishly, blatantly or simply overlooked. It answers and resolves a MAJOR & MONUMENTAL QUESTION as the final finished appearance of one of the most important pieces of art created by the master baroque artist, Caravaggio. His work, St. Matthew and the Angel, was destroyed in 1945 in Berlin. There were no known color reproductions of it made prior to its destruction (I cite this often). Every art critic and enthusiast assumed this after the war and said only a single black and white glass negative existed for reference. This was true until my sister, a master of art reproduction, researched the painting and managed to discover that there was indeed an overlooked detailed description in color written by a known art critic and museum curator, Hans Posse in 1909. Hans Posse went on to vet artwork for Adolf Hitler in the '30s. Quite notable.

Official East and West German documents (letters and translations) supplied by the Museum's discovery of the Posse essay were examined during the filming of three news stories of the artist recreating an accurate rendition (far better than the post-war work of others who simply guessed at the color scheme). The news broadcasts, local and national about that discovery in the context of a general, comprehensive interview specifically mentioned the discovery of the art critic's description.

Do you want to explain to me where original research comes from? I'm not making this stuff up. This is 30 years after the fact that I have felt the art community needs to know the truth. If it were not for my sister's "Original Research" into the solving of a puzzle, we would have been living with an inaccurate rendition of one of the most valuable pieces of art history. That would be tragic. The NBC nation Broadcast[1] was heavily researched prior to filming. Do you honestly think they are going to risk an inaccurate source?

I trust very much, you have or will take the time to review the videos (especially on the one specifically targeted on this solely on the subject by John Culea, KFMB news San Diego). Guidelines in Wikipedia allows me to use Youtube as a convenience to simplify tracking back 30 years. These videos are solid as recognized newspaper stories. By the way, I have a front page story on the San Diego Union[2] about another story written based on a story reflected in the NBC broadcast video (that also happens to mention the color description) cited in my Wiki sandbox. The newspaper story is on the Video's main story involving the mafia and corruption on a different subject.

I very strongly insist you watch this video[3] and tell me I am doing original research. Explain to me the difference of how the sources of what I am trying to reference are trivialized. I am explaining, through reference and proper citations (of TV news stories) how this came about, just in case there was any question to the origin.

In Wikipedia's own article on St. Matthew and the Angel[4] The very first paragraph, last sentence, is now untrue. I have documents and empirical evidence to contest that (including a reference to published news stories). Should I go and edit and correct what is written currently in Wiki? The first sentence under the heading of COMPARISON is also similar and untrue. If the article cites journals and books, then they are inaccurate and need to be updated and corrected. Like the blind leading the blind. Don't you think it is incumbent for my efforts to correct and accurately finalize the truth throughout the art world about the subject noted and be individualized? I fear if I started to correct Wiki's pre-existing article, it may create a firestorm. I have a lot of citations. I would muddy things up.

What do think? You know, not all news sources are accurate no matter how credible the publisher (NYT WSJ etc.) Non-political, non-editorials, front page articles are constantly being updated or retracted. The truth boils done to some empirical source. I know, I publish a Photo Journal about veterans. I know the media business. I am a professional photographer and expert in forensics. Wikipedia is a great starting source and as Wiki says, citation and reference. I have cited and reference this thing to death. I don't believe half of the editors bother to look at the news broadcast citation.

I am not angry just unclear about the guidelines of Wiki on how I am attempting to make things right. The finite rules to do anything in Wiki, I find most challenging but a learning experience. Respectfully, thank you for mentoring. B Baron (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, BARRY BARON. I read the article in the San Diego Union-Tribune and it does not discuss the color scheme of the painting that was destroyed in World War II. Instead, it discusses the missing reproduction of a stolen painting that your sister completed. Accordingly, it is worthless for establishing the notability of your draft article. Please do not waste my time having me read off-topic articles that fail to establish the notability of the topic of your draft.
You "very strongly insisted" that I watch that old TV interview with your sister, and I did watch it, as a courtesy to you. I need to inform you, though, that you have no right to insist that I do anything. I am a volunteer and I work on whatever I want on Wikipedia and ignore whatever I want and I am not your servant. That interview is not an acceptable source for establishing the notability of your family's theory about the color scheme of the destroyed painting. It should be obvious to pretty much everyone that a local TV anchor is not an art historian, and that particular TV piece is a human interest story and by no means a reliable source for an art history topic.
I watched that old video as you insisted, and in return, I expect you to read and study our policy forbidding original research, and read it over and over again until you actually understand it. There is nothing wrong with submitting original research to other venues, and academic researchers try to have such research published all the time and that is normal. But they do not publish their original research in Wikipedia. Instead, they publish this type of research in peer-reviewed journals of art history. It is forbidden to publish this type of research on Wikipedia, and that will remain true no matter how much determination you devote to the effort. So, go submit your family's original research to a reputable journal of art history and come back to discuss the matter once your article is published there.
As for the accuracy of sources like the New York Tomes and the Wall Street Journal, the reliability of any source needs to be judged in context, and for example, we reject newspapers like that for medical content and insist on review articles published in reputable medical journals instead. But those two newspapers are considered highly reliable for most uses, although we would greatly prefer articles or books written by recognized art historians for articles about Renaissance or Baroque paintings. Have any such art historians written about your family's theories? Or have any major newspapers and magazines with a reputation for accuracy regarding art history published such articles?
You claim that the sources now in the article are inaccurate yet you cite no reliable sources refuting those sources. Because you are not a professional art historian with academic credentials who has published articles about this topic and and neither am I, our personal opinions on the matter are utterly irrelevant. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to accurately summarize already published reliable sources. No more and no less. End of story. So, go publish elsewhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

  Administrator changes

  Harro5Jenks24GraftR. Baley

  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

  Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.


  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sofia CarsonEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sofia Carson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The Sustainability InitiativeEdit

Hello Cullen328: An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 09:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

High Noon and Die HardEdit

Lol, Dude you know that is the main reference and quote about High Noon in Die Hard. Should have just found the scene/quote on YouTube and put it in there yourself. Lol. But Ok I guess "Rules are rules". Still it's a bit pedantic to just plain revert it. Colliric (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not know that, Colliric. I have seen High Noon several times but have never seen Die Hard in full although I have seen some clips. Please read WP: Verifiability. It is the responsibility of editors who want to keep specific content to provide references. That is not pedantic. That one of the three core content policies that make this encyclopedia successful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

IP vandalEdit

You recently blocked 2600:1700:50D0:ECC0:8187:B24E:8969:FB4B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but have a look at the /64 and you'll see it's a much bigger and longer-term problem: 2600:1700:50D0:ECC0::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AlanM1. I am at work now and am too busy to look at this in detail. Please report it to WP:AIV. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done here. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


Article deletion and account absence problemEdit

Hi Jim,

I am the "IP user" that wrote a message on the Teahouse on the same subject "Article deletion and account absence problem". I really appreciate your comments and quick response on my issue. Please, restore a draft of the article for its improvement. Also do not hesitate to add more comments about the content of the article to make it neutral and accepted.

Thank you! --Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Stanislav Lohvinenko. This material is now available at Draft:Modern Stochastics: Theory and Application for you to edit and improve. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Adam Schiff's attempted collusion with RussiaEdit

Hi Cullen I was wondering why you deleted my work on Adam Schiff where I added his attempts to get nudie photos of Trump from the Russians? You said it was "POV-pushing". What point of view is that? I think we should leave it in there so we don't have someone make the mistake that we're letting our own political leanings get in the way of improving articles. (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your claim that this incident constituted "attempted collusion" is original research on your part. The article in The Atlantic says no such thing, and Schiff says he reported the call to security and law enforcement both before and after it took place. Your use of the phrase "nudie photos" in this context is further evidence that you are pushing a point of view and trying hard to make Schiff look bad, as opposed to writing a rigorously neutral biography of this person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how a prank call from two Russian radio hosts is an incident worthy of discussing in the biography of a nine term member of Congress who has been in elected office for 23 years. I consider the incident to be a triviality. These same radio hosts also pranked John McCain and Mitch McConnell. As far as I know, neither of those biographies mention those trivial incidents, and I would oppose adding it if anyone tried. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Cullen328".