User talk:Cullen328/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Emails v. 2.0

Hi Jim,

I wonder if you are receiving my emails. There was a problem with servers and I cannot check emails for 15 days. Let me know if you receive the ones I send you through Wikipedia. Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 18:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Miss Bono, I am getting emails from you. I have no way of knowing if I am getting every single one. I try to respond when I can, but it isn't always clear if you want a response by email or on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I just received the revised prologue, which I will be happy to copy edit this weekend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Next monday, when I have translated the missing paragraph I will email it to you. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 20:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Nice Work on answering questions at the teahouse! Today's Xtra (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Mentor?-

I was wondering if you could be my mentor. Please contact me with your decision at my talk page Here2HelpWiki (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)^User

What can I do?

As I told the people at the Teahouse... I am a new user, but not to the [software] that wikipedia uses. I am also an editor (one month and two weeks) for The New York Times. I am an EDITOR, i do not share any [opinions] of the New York Times. I was wondering, what could I do to help Wikipedia? Here2HelpWiki (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The possibilities are endless. We have over 4.3 million articles and the vast majority need improvement. The answer depends entirely on your own interests and motivation. I was an active mountaineer here in California in my younger years, so I started out by writing biographies of mountaineers. Take a detailed look at my user page to see the sorts of things I do here. You may have completely different skills and interests. This is an enormous project with an almost unlimited number of tasks to be completed. What interests you most? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just to give you an idea of how I started, I began by editing Game Boy back in 2006 because it was in a sorry state. Much later, I became interested in how deletion worked on Wikipedia (I knew it was easy to write stuff, but I didn't understand how stuff got removed, so I learned there were three different ways of doing it: speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and articles for deletion.). Recently, as I've become more familiar with polices and editing guidelines here, I've been writing more and closing discussions in which a neutral party is needed to evaluate consensus. But Cullen is absolutely right-- there's lots of things to do and there are many things to jump into that suit your fancy. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of paid editing

Where you see a variety of topics, I see a deliberate attempt to be random. Maybe he figured out some arcane way to make Wikipedia serve him up a bunch of random articles. Then that way, if someone accuses him of being a paid editor for Greening, he has a perfect alibi!

As for how I came to be aware of the article so soon after it was written, I don't recall exactly, it was kind of a coincidence. I think it was Oct. 24 I tried to create an article about Detroit Soup but Wikipedia just wouldn't let me. Then for some reason I tried to create one for Greening of Detroit and it wouldn't let me either, but I was okay with that. Then Nov. 7 I was trying to remember some other article and I was going through my browser history.

Detroit Soup is much more important than Greening of Detroit, but I guess everyone here disagrees with me on this Detroit Joseph (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking Glum :(

Hey Cullen. I thought that my background as a editor would help me succeed and help this website, but I see that there are different sets of guidelines and rules for Wikipedia. I have spent my recent daytime (I work as a editor at night) on this website, and the only things I have done are setting up a user page, setting up my talk page, and annoying editors like you with my questions. Have anything I could do that I won't screw up? Please reply on my talk page. Here₂HelpWiki_3-to-talk 17:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to edit Anonymously .

I have noticed that when I get an email about my edits it lists me as an Anonymous user. I would like my name to be connected to my edits. Can I do that ? I tried the pencil icon when I edited but it show by name in the middle of an edit and made a mess of the edit. Thank you. --FDLeyda 20:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDLeyda (talk • contribs)

Hello, I responded on your talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you FDLeyda 20:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDLeyda (talk • contribs)

Portal:U2 for peer review

• Portal:U2

Miss Bono and myself have requested a portal peer review for Portal:U2.
We would appreciate any helpful advice at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/U2/archive1.

I would also like to remind all members of WikiProject U2 (and other interested editors) that U2 Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for peer review (PR) by Dream out loud (t · c) on 10 November 2013; see discussion. Any feedback would be much appreciated!

Thanks in advance and happy editing,
pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of WikiProject U2. You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at Wikipedia:Portal peer review, you have contributed to the development of the portal, or you are an active member of WikiProject U2. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is valued at WikiProject Breakfast

Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. XOttawahitech (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Blue Link

Thank you for the information on Blue Link; it was very helpful.Roc N Rose (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is welcomed!

As I saw you on a list of WP:Judaism members, please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Category:European people by ethnic or national origin. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Assassination of Olof Palme

Hello Cullen, You make a great point about that fringe conspiracy theory. You've changed my mind and I will go now and re-delete that section. Thanks for your good work on the Philp Guarino article!

Sincerely Yours, Dr. B. Jones (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had already reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm

I don't agree, Cullen, if only because of balance. Anyway. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I keep forgetting to mention something to you, Cullen--something changed, either with us or with my iPhone, but editing while mobile has become a lot easier. Odd thing is, I have to sign in, which seriously limits my slumming opportunities! Drmies (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • What, dear friend Drmies, in the previous version of the lead, balances a phrase like "for being self-centered and for trivializing the realities of war"? Or do all reliable sources criticize his war reporting so harshly? If so, so be it. And if I am reading correctly, the article now contains a lengthy quote of a parody of his war writing, as opposed to an example of his actual writing about the war. There is a quote from his nature writing, though, which I found charming and reminiscent of some things that Norman Livermore wrote. I am promoting an article I wrote by mentioning Livermore, since if even one or two talk page stalkers take a look, I am happy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, the cat is out of the bag or, as the Dutch say, the monkey is out of the sleeve: you're a COI, perhaps even a paid editor! The new ArbCom will crack down hard on you. Unfortunately I am loath to pick a fight with you, one reason being that I don't have the book the quote comes from, and another my respect for your quest for neutrality: that must be a Californian thing, of which I'm jealous. I'll tell you one thing about Livermore: that name does not inspire a lot of confidence, since it is a bit sanguine. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I confess Drmies, the fabulously wealthy Livermore family (that is true) offered to pay me handsomely (that is false) to write a hagiography, I mean a biography, of their non-notable notable ancestor. I check the mailbox every day. It seems they welched on the deal. Feel free to block/ban/beat me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Funny how the checks I get always seem to bounce. That's a nice article, Cullen. If I have any advice to give (for future GA nomination) it's to add more in-line references and to consolidate (fewer hard breaks) that long middle section. In addition, there's the drawback of segmenting a career into chunks--his death is now part of a career segment. I have no easy solution for that. Ideally, a career is so short that it doesn't need to be sectioned, or so long that one can have a separate "life and death", and individual sections on notable career aspects. But what a life, though! Horseback riding, going to Stanford, serving in the state administration, trips in the wilderness... Drmies (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, I once had an appetite for brief (and sometimes one sentence) paragraphs. I guess I still do. And yes, it needs to be better cited, though the references are there. Perhaps I didn't yet understand the power of "ref name =" when I wrote this one. It was a long time ago, in Wiki time, where stunning misbehavior is forgiven and forgotten if it took place 15 months ago, back in the Wiki Pleistocene. Yes, he had quite a life. How many could claim that they had played baseball for Hitler, and won? And then buddied on horseback with Reagan? Who could ask for more? Maybe I should call him a "reactionary". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
            • No shots below the belt, Cullen: you know me better than that. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
              • No shots above or below the belt intended, Drmies, and I apologize if you took it that way. I am a lover, not a fighter. I hold you in the very highest regard, which means I am likely to agree with you about 98% of the time. Alas, 98% is not 100%. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Jewish descent

Just when I thought there was a consensus on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism that Jews were not, by default, Asian, there is a user of a different opinion who is reverting my edits removing these categories. I responded to him on the WP:JUDAISM talk page but it's clear he's going to plunge straight ahead. I don't want to get into an edit war.

What do you advise? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Countertops

Hey, I was not listing promotional content. The tile section under countertops BADLY lacks information about the numerous tile products that exist (lazy granite, benissimo systems, ez granite). The lazy granite site has more informative content on countertops that I've found out of the minislab solutions.

The website you linked to is a commercial site selling certain types of countertop materials. That isn't allowed here - period. Instead, cite neutral magazines like Consumer Reports, or cite published books about various countertop materials in a neutral fashion. Do not cite commercial websites in a generic article. That is simply not allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm. Okay good job discouraging new posters. Instead of improving the the article you're policing it. Keep it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denversasha (talk • contribs) 06:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason that I am very restrained with improving that article - I have a financial conflict of interest as a countertop professional. I have sought approval of my substantive edits in this field from disinterested administrators. But that does not prevent me from stopping new editors from adding promotional links. I welcome and encourage new editors, and am confident that you were acting in good faith. Why don't you read WP:COI and WP:PRIMER? Those will give you an overview of the relevant policies and guidelines. Then, we will talk. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the article in question here? I might improve it while I am waiting for some books to come in for History of public relations. I certainly have no COI with countertops - haha. CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, CorporateM. The article is Countertop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ewww, so much Original Research. No promises, but I will add it to my mental To Do list. CorporateM (Talk) 20:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeking your feedback as a first time contributor to wikipedia

Dear Jim, I am authoring my first Wikipedia article and am a nutritionist and health education teacher in East Palo Alto, CA. I recently came across an entrepreneur in silicon valley who is focused on health education and felt the urge to write my first article since he is trying to innovate in a field that I am passionate about. I have gained some feedback from a few others via the Wikipedia help desk, for which I am very grateful and have tried to incorporate all their feedback. There have also been many others who have graciously helped to improve the article by editing it. I came across your page via the Teahouse and wanted to seek your help/advice/feedback, given that this is my first wikipedia article. Would you please be able to provide any suggestions about how to improve my article at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bhargav_Sri_Prakash

Thank you in advance! (Chippadum (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC))

Hello Chippadum. Your references are bare URLs and should be reworked as full citations. See WP:REFBEGIN and more broadly WP:PRIMER for helpful hints. Which references best establish his notability, in your opinion? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jim, greatly appreciate the suggestion about reworking the references as full citations. I have looked through WP:REFBEGIN and WP:PRIMER and have deleted many of the references and have reworked the significant references that I thought established his notability per WP:REFBEGIN. I felt that the article about him by Bloomberg News established his notability the most and have therefore added it as the first reference. Does the ordering of the references make a difference? I am asking because many things about about him have been consistently reported on multiple independent sources on US and Indian media but I am not sure if the order of the references should follow a prescribed standard of priority. Would you please take another look and let me know your thoughts? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bhargav_Sri_Prakash Thank you again for your patient feedback/advice as I am still learning my way around editing articles. (Chippadum (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC))

Looks like your hard work and Cullen's helpful advice has paid off, as User:Nick has now helpfully accepted the article and it is now at Bhargav Sri Prakash. As an aside, the exact order of references doesn't really matter (the order is mostly dictated by the order of the facts they reference in the article). There may still be some problematic sources lurking in your references section, but at a quick glance it looks very good.

Have you heard of Wikipedia:Did you know? This article might be eligible.

On a humorous note, I've been seeing "Seeking your feedback as a first time contributor to wikipedia" on my watchlist for quite some time now, and each time I see it, I think that it's entirely inappropriate, because Cullen is not a first time contributor :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Demiurge1000 and Chippadum. Yeah, this somewhere around my twenty-three thousandth contribution, but who's counting other than some bot? Chippadum, Demiurge is right that, strictly speaking, the order of the references doesn't really matter, and should follow the order of the content in the article. But for the sake of practicality, I think that it is good to have a rock solid, substantial source as reference #1. Anyone reviewing the article will be convinced of notability promptly. Congratulations! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 i totally missed that undertone :) My apologies for suggesting Cullen328 was a "first time contributor"! Thank you to the entire community but especially to Cullen328, User:Nick and Jreferee for all your patient feedback and help! Really appreciate all your encouragement without which I would never have been able to finish my first article! (Chippadum (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC))

Hey, Chippadum, we were just joking around with you. You deserve a lot of credit for writing a well-referenced article in a short period of time, and getting it into the World's Greatest Encyclopedia (TM). I hope that you will stick around and write some more articles, and maybe pitch in at the Teahouse once you learn the ropes. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL...I definitely look forward to contributing more. Thank you again {U|Cullen328}} and have a great thanksgiving weekend! (Chippadum (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC))

Happy Thanksgiving

Fylbecatulous talk has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Thinking of you and your kindness on this day. Regards, Alice :) Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you very much, and I hope you have an enjoyable Thanksgiving. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hermann Bottcher

Jim Thanks for your life line. I have a huge ammount of material on this man, but the page was started by some well intentioned folks sometime in 2006 or so, with bunch of mis information. Slowly remedying that situation. Have a nice studio picture given to me by the family and love to post on the tittle page. I am somewhat down with the content (written stuff) I am 48 years old and can research and find anything and mean anything with the help of a good librarian. I live in SF CA. heading out to taKE a walk.

esteban...aka: stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by EstebanMartin (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello EstebanMartin. I find the story of this man's life very touching and inspiring. It would be nice to have the photo, but copyright rules are very strict. Maybe I can help you with that. Is the name of the studio on the photo? We should credit the studio and/or photographer. The "huge amount" of material needs to be evaluated, so that the citations in the article are to what Wikipedia recognizes as reliable sources. Accordingly, content from published newspapers and books is good. Family letters and recollections are not good. So, please tell me more, and thank you for working to improve Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

studio picture

This is a photo that was given to me by capt. Bottchers first cousin and only living relitive. I have the complete service record from the NMPRC in St Louis MO as well and hand written letters from people he served with and were with him the night he was killed in leyte. I have up loaded the picture just cant get it to a thumbnail size or whatever. It quite posssibly was private studio in Australia that took the picture. any suggestions will be helpfull. when you click on the currebt picture mine shows up. I did something wrong and worry to sound like a boot or child.

I am all for making wiki a better place and following copywrite rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EstebanMartin (talk • contribs) 21:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you say, EstebanMartin, the photo is probably copyrighted, and the copyright is probably held either by the Sydney photo studio/photographer or their heirs, or by Bottcher's family. In my opinion, (though opinions may vary), the photo should not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, since everything there should be indisputably freely licensed for use by anyone, anywhere. Instead, it should be uploaded to English Wikipedia under a "fair use" rationale as a portrait of a deceased person, for use only in that biography. You should not list yourself as "author" as you didn't take the photo. The language about the family donating it is not really phrased appropriately. I know that these technicalities may be tough for you to deal with, but doing it right ensures that the photo won't be suddenly deleted from the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Jim

I am getting it. not even sure if its in commons or not just wanted to place on front of the wiki page of Hermann Bottcher. There's always been an air of conflict aroudn capt. Bottcher as he faught in spain with the internationalist brigades and was possibly a communist/anarchist. This was a jacket that followed him to the grave. There as a complete "non-policy" policy about keeping lid on these guys. OK I will upload the picture once its uploaded to english only will try and place on the site if not no big deal. I am writting book on Hermann Bottcher shoudl spend time on that EstebanMartin (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:FAIRUSE and let me know if I can help. Unless you have reliable information about his politics, there is no need to mention that. I am well aware of the assumptions about the foreign volunteers who fought for the Spanish Republic. But Wikipedia is based on verifiable information. People will draw their own conclusions. The image is currently on Commons but I have my doubts that it will stay. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

making progress.

Jim

I get it now, will work up language that this picture is only for the bio section of this page only. never know someone could use this and make money or some other disstorded purpose. I am oversoming my fears of the wiki language and its noyt that hard. I first heard about Hermann Bottcher in 1985 and in a way this project mirrors my growth and maturity with both researcching and technology. There is "no way baby" I could have gotten this far sans a computer and printer. Well almost no way. any who. i will kinck some boxes/ tires and find out exactly how to word this Copyright (can that be abbrviated) I am in construction as well but a very ugly side: underground pipes and other things that get burried. I will send you a link of the web page that hosts all the primary source documents on capt Bottcher. I did the digging this old guy in utah put them up on line. EstebanMartin (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone could make money off this photo, EstebanMartin, but the proper way to handle a photo like this is fair use rather than a free Creative Commons license. Yes, I have things easy as compared to underground work or roofing for that matter. That being said, I work hard physically (and mentally) for a 61 year old, and drive long distances to make my bucks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Jim will migrate the picture to the FU section, it makes sense. sorry for the JV questions. I appreciae the hand holding. I have no doubt you work your back side off and the drive here in CA is what takes it out of you. I get now that its a 2 step process the up loading and the placemnet of the content. will send the link along later EstebanMartin (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Kokoschka image - possibly unfree file

Hi Jim,

I've responded to your comment at Kokoschka image - possibly unfree file and will do so the other files over the next few days.

It will be great to have a detailed explanation from you as to what constitutes "publishing" a painting in copyright law. That's something I really would like to see cleared up. Perhaps we could eventually insert some guidance about that in the relevant Help files?

Thanks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Jim, when you respond can I ask you to clarify just one little thing for me? You imply in your post that copyright of an art work begins with its publication in a book or magazine and these are the details you ask for in your post. But of course the copyright of a work is vested in its creator. That's common ground. It's the artist who owns the copyright. Even when she sells the painting she still owns the copyright. Are you saying that's not so until it's reproduced in a magazine or book? Can that really be so? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually I've just found that - "publication is not creation" under the Berne convention. So I will indeed have to prove publication before 1923 on those art works. Well, that shouldn't be too difficult except with the Luksch-Makowsky file, but that's already been allowed into Commons as I mentioned.

Sorry to be a nuisance. I'll do my best, all I can do. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You aren't being a nuisance, and I was drafting a reply when you mentioned the Berne convention. If an artist finishes a painting and sells it to a private collector without reproducing it in a catalog, the copyright clock does not start. If a photographer places a photo they took into their own private archive, the copyright clock on that image doesn't start. Only when these works are displayed and reproduced publicly in a catalog, poster or other reproduction, or published in a book, newspaper or magazine, does the copyright clock start. That is my understanding, but I am not a copyright expert.

I am, however, reasonably sure that it is incorrect to state on the file information page that the original publication date is 2013, and then go on to say that the painting isn't copyrighted because it was published before 1923. That just doesn't jibe. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As I've explained it was a mistake. I was labouring under the misconception that creation was publication. I provided the 2013 reference as proof of creation. I've answered your queries as best I can. I can only repeat that these are, for the most part, very famous paintings that were the subject of intense review in their time. It's inconceivable that they weren't illustrated in those reviews but I can't give you chapter and verse. You will have to apply to specialist historians with access to specialist databases for that. You're setting the bar too high here. I'll be interested to see if the community at large shares your concerns. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC),

I understand that it was a good faith mistake, and I urge you to correct the file information pages as promptly as possible. I am sure that you are motivated only by a desire to improve the encyclopedia, and I respect that. I had some image copyright problems myself as a new editor, and learned by making some embarassing mistakes. This is not personal in any way, and is not directed at you. Copyright concerns are not my specific concerns, but are a matter of the most serious policy concerns incumbent on all Wikipedians. And I assure you that if an editor with copyright expertise explains convincingly that my concerns are unfounded, I will back off immediately with apologies to all who have commented. But until we have a definitive opinion from an expert, I believe that I am obligated to ask tough questions. I apologize if this is difficult for you, and I hope that the images stay in the end. But only if the copyright issues are addressed properly. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the Original Publication I gave. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Paranoia

Greetings, Cullen328. Regarding the discussions we're having at PUF, I just wanted to let you know that I certainly didn't mean to call you paranoid, or insult you in any way. m:Avoid copyright paranoia is a very old essay here from the earliest days, and I was just referring to the idea that 100% certainty isn't always possible. We may have different opinions on how to apply policy in these particular cases (which we can discuss there), but I'm not discounting your views out of hand, and I don't mean to inadvertently insult you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't insulted, Quadell but do appreciate your clarification. I look forward to learning more about how various kinds of exhibition of a painting affect copyright, and would be grateful if you could direct me toward any guidelines or summaries of established consensus in that area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The most readable and thorough resource I can recommend on practical copyright issues is "The Public Domain" by attorney Stephen Fishman. You can preview the 6th edition on Google Books here, and I can't wait for the 7th edition, which comes out in May of 2014. Chapter 5, "Art", deals with your question, specifically in pp. 132–137 of the 6th edition. It describes that a work of art is legally published when any of the following occur: (1) Copies are made available to the public, as in postcards, brochures, lithograhps, etc. (2) The work is offered for sale to the general public through a dealer, gallery, auction, etc., whether or not it actually was sold. (3) The work is given away or sold to anyone (even a private sale) so long as the artist puts no legal restrictions on how the new owner can sell the work. (4) The work is exhibited somewhere in public where someone could sketch a copy or photograph it.

The entire book is really an excellent resource for Wikipedians, and I highly recommend it. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 16:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Quadell, I appreciate the book recommendation and the list of the various ways a painting can be published. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response to my question regarding Chris Potter (jazz saxophonist)

It seems I have cold feet about editing an existing article with so little knowledge of the process, especially when it requires deletion of material that is not cited. I have felt very comfortable creating new articles, which seems easier because I can be very strict about what is included based upon the reference material available. That being said the fact that I am uncomfortable digging into this article is the perfect reason to do it, and learn something.

So on to my question... If I read a paragraph in an article and can't find in line references to even something as simple as a birth date, Should that material simply be deleted or is there a way to flag the paragraph as having no references? It seems that it would be more appropriate than my searching for a reference to substantiate the claims. If what is written is listed on the person's own website, how does one decide if that information should or could be included in the article. I was under the impression that info from the person's website SHOULD NOT be included, and I did not use that info at all in another article that I started.

I appreciate your responses so far and any insight you could offer I will act upon to get higher on the learning curve. Scottsadventure (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You are asking exactly the sort of questions that new editors should be thinking about, and I hope that I will be able to help you understand these concepts more clearly. The concept of "notability" requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. "Notability" relates to whether or not Wikipedia ought to have an article about the topic. We are discussing biographies of living people, which have especially stringent standards under WP:BLP policy. So, in general, we need sources that are both reliable and independent to establish notability. But once notability has been established, we can use reliable sources that are not fully independent to flesh out the article. An example might be a biography of an academic scientist. We judge their notability based on how often their research is cited in scientific journals. Highly cited scientists are notable. A few notable scientists are covered in the high quality popular press, considered reliable, independent sources. But the reliable sources for biographical details about most scientists are not truly independent. They are profiles on university faculty websites, or biographical sketches on the websites of academic publishers, or in some cases, the scientist's personal website. We consider these reliable sources OK to cite for routine, non-controversial biographical details: date and place of birth, colleges attended, home town, spouses, and so on.

But editorial judgment is always required. If the "scientist" specializes in UFO contacts or hypnotic communication with the spirits of ancient Egyptians, and has a PhD degree from a "university" often called a diploma mill by reliable sources, then we can't trust that person's website for anything other than the fact that the sun rises in the east. And double check that. But if such a kook has been written up and ripped to shreds by many major newspapers and journals, they are notable. A notable kook, but notable nonetheless, and deserving of a Wikipedia article. But their website can't be considered reliable.

But even in the case of an indisputably notable and credible scientist, such as a winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics, we wouldn't use their own website for any evaluative claims, such as "the greatest", the "best", "breakthrough", "innovative" or any language whatsoever that any reasonable person could call promotional. Any such praise needs to be cited to a reliable, independent source.

Sorry for such a lengthy answer and I hope my observations prove helpful to you. My recommendation to you regarding the specific article in question is to edit the biographical section, removing not simple factual assertions but promotional claims I call "puffery". Then, cite the record company bio. Then take a break. Then check to see that the bio supports the claims in the article, and if not, try your Google or Bing skills to see if you can find something reliable. A good exercise, if you so choose.

Feel free to ask me questions anytime. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

For information on how to tag an uncited factual claim as needing a citation, please see WP:Citation needed. It is easy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Johntosco

Hello Cullen. I have decided not to continue y reply to your comments on the talk page, because I would like a reply to my question of whether a popular science book can be considered a secondary source or not. Neither you, nor anyone else has replied. Concerning your statement about me not wanting to commit to a neutral point of view, yes, I'd like to reply. Neutral point of view means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. So, as far as I understand, but please correct me if I'm wrong, including a primary source from a reliable peer-reviewed medical publication should override a popular science book whose contents relating to the article have never been published in any such publication. But you have not answered this fundamental question. I thought what was important was the reliability of the article and its sources, but I may be mistaken.Johntosco (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As I explained to you much earlier at the Teahouse, I have no medical expertise. I addition, I have no interest in this specific topic. It seems to me that the issues have been explained to you by many editors but I could be wrong. The best way to show that you are committed to NPOV is to avoid any editing that can be construed as pushing a point of view. That's the best advice I can give. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, but I don't think the issues have been explained by many editors as you say. If you want we talk about other edits in other articles some other time, but I've found that it is easier in wikipedia to deal with one problem at a time, so please indulge me and let's talk about the article in question: shiatsu. Editors - on this article - have pointed out that I could not publish something because it was a primary source that went against secondary sources. Editors have pointed out that I could not undo original research because it was not original research, but have not explained why.

From my point of view, first, it seems that I have to justify ALL my edits, while other editors can get away with laconic statements such as "not relevant" or "against secondary sources" or "against consensus" without explaining HOW it goes against consensus (when I don't see any scientific consensus), and second, if we talk about editing that could be construed as pushing a point of view, I think you should look at all the edits done and undone by Alexbrn, McSly and Bobrayner (edits by Rowland of Shaftesbury, and a very long etc). One might be tempted to say that THEY are not committed to a neutral point of view.

Now, that is why I think my question - which nobody has answered so far - is important. And forgive me for saying this, but instead of talking about the supposed issues explained to me (which relating to this article have not), you could look at wikipedia's definitions - you don't have to be a medical expert - and tell me what you think.

You could also have a look at the history of the editing of the article in question and see that some people are so bent on having their definition published, that nobody else can even provide proof which contradicts their POV (yes, POV since they are not providing proof as far as I can see)Johntosco (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please allow me to repeat my earlier point: I am not interested in Shiatsu, do not want to read the material in question, and prefer to work on other things on Wikipedia. I am a volunteer and get to choose which articles I work on, based on what interests me. I do not want to spend my time dealing with fringe medical topics. The editors already at work on that page, several of them quite experienced, are exactly the ones with whom you should be discussing your specific concerns about a specific source. Try to build consensus. That's the way Wikipedia editing works best. Good luck to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

BLP Concerns Tila Tequila

Let me know what BLP concerns there are and how best to remedy them. If the description was too subjective lets remedy that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.63.167.133 (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This poor woman had a brain aneurysm last year and has long been mentally unstable. WP:BLP requires great sensitivity, and we don't devote sensationalistic attention to her bizarre ravings. Please discuss this on the article's talk page where all interested editors including Flyer22, who reverted before I did , can also comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quieting words at the site, care to deal with other jewish sock puppets trashing my site at "Self-Replicating Machine" where jewish media thugs have long threatened to sue me on Wikipedia and have not been banned and stolen my patented technology and good name, threatened to kill me, had me arrested and hacked my email and getting away with it in plain view? (just curious to see how you might react to all this and test your ethics, if any)

fraberj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.246.53 2455432123453@#$%#@%%^ 10:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish you well, and encourage you to seek capable, caring medical attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia editing or the etiquette in writing on people's pages, but I also think that Tila is suffering from schizophrenia. I'm not sure if she has been properly diagnosed though, as it seems from her writing and behavior that she is unmedicated. Roastporkbun (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I really desire to be the translator from start to finish

i want to be the translator for the article from start to finish and then allow others to proofread it and get feedback from them. that is why the question of 'locking' arose. Emekadavid (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Normally, you would work on a translation in a sandbox page. It is unlikely that anyone else will notice your work until it is done. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thank you very much for the Hanukkah bush. Warmest holiday greetings to you and yours, MichaelQSchmidt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering one of my film roles was "Winter Man", some might have called it a "Chrimbus Bush". Be well and have a safe season. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse

Thanks for the reply, I replied there. Matty.007 20:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You have been holding the fort at the Teahouse very well, especially when the amount of active editors reduces with the holiday season... Matty.007 20:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Matty.007. I enjoy helping out at the Teahouse, whenever I have a few minutes available to help out here on Wikipedia. I appreciate your kind words. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - You are invited!

File:Csaky madonna.jpg

Hi Cullen328! The first Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 in San Francisco. Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Wikipedians of all experience levels are invited! Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors. Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here! SarahStierch (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

SarahStierch, thanks for the invitation. It sounds like the perfect way to start February, so ChesPal and I will try to attend. By the way, I noticed that the local venue is part of the California College of the Arts. I added some content to Frederick Meyer, who was the founder of that college nearly 100 years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jacque Fresco

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jacque Fresco. 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, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

XNA Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport

Thanks for the apology about Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport - airport code XNA - I am sorry that there seems to have been a misunderstanding.

I only edit anything on Wiki very occasionally, usually spelling or stuff such as the present edit under discussion. I am not anxious to become a full-fledged editor, but I appreciate Wiki very much and as a literary historian I like the information I find to be as accurate as possible.

The claim that Southwest was to serve the airport came to me through airliners.net, which is not necessarily always accurate, but mostly so., civil aviation nuts so to speak. This is the thread in which it is discussed and, as you will see, reference is made to the Wiki info being removed and restored:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5947861/

More importantly, Southwest has announced its schedule for next summer and no mention is made (so far) of serving XNA. It does not appear in the forward schedules nor on the airline's route map as in this link:

http://www.southwest.com/html/cs/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html

It is, of course, always possible that Southwest intends to serve XNA one day, but again, it has not announced any intention of doing so. I have been to the "talk" page:

Talk:Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport

But I have not been able to work out how to provide you with this information on that page. Marinerpacific (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Marinerpacific. To comment in the conversation at Talk:Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport, simply click on the "edit" tab there and write your comment as you have done here. That would be helpful since you have specialized knowledge that I lack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cullen328. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
Message added 22:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

(again per above) 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 23:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		helping resolve Articles for deletion/Territorial disputes of India and Nepal LADave (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You definitely went the extra mile with User:Bladesmulti!

Thank you very much, LADave. I try when I can. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Pratyya ^(Hello!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Pratyya Ghosh. Since I am a Jew, I don't celebrate Christmas, but am happy that so many of my friends and neighbors do. So, to them and you, I offer a cheerful "Happy Holidays!" Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a christian too. But religion isn't a fact in friendship that's I believe. This wish makes a friendship stronger and also it banishes the distance between different religions. Happy Holiday to you too. Have a good and remarkable holiday. .--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2014, Pratyya Ghosh. But various religions and cultures have their own New Years. Much of the world celebrates it in nine days. The Chinese have their own, with firecrackers and dragon dances. Those of us who call themselves Jews have Rosh Hashanah in the autumn, and we eat apples and honey in a less spectacular way than the Chinese. There are many similar celebrations worldwide. Let's all collaborate to improve this wonderful encyclopedia in 2014, free for every English speaker everywhere to read, and study, and edit and improve. That's the best way for us Wikipedians to celebrate all of our holidays. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you are right. Even we have a Bengali Calender and New Year. But that doesn't matter. Happy 2014.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 05:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Cullen, and Happy 2014! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rosiestep. It is great to hear from you. Happy Holidays! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year

	Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year
	Happy Holidays, Cullen328. Thank you for making this year on Wikipedia more fun, educational, and productive. May this coming year bring you love and peace. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Cullen328/Archive 8. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by EvergreenFir (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Ok. I'm really new.

Cullen328:

Along with a few colleagues, we're working on putting up new entries for New Testament scholars (like myself) who are contributing in parallel fields. My model for this was Craig Blomberg's entry.

I uploaded a pic for the entry but ran into a small copyright error that I think I've fixed. The photographer is sending in the full email.

Right now there is a flag on the entry (Gary M. Burge) that says it needs secondary sources, no doubt to verify that statements of publications are correct. I've added a few of these. Is this enough? If so, do I go onto the "view history" page and click "undo?" I'm not sure what to do here.

This page is a test case. And if all goes well, I may like to add some of our other 20th century New Testament scholars to wikipedia who have been overlooked.

I like your welcome! This is a complex world you guys live in.

I assume if you respond, it shows up in my notifications??

Thanks.

Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMB3 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gary GMB3 and welcome to the complex world of editing Wikipedia. Though I am a Jew, let me offer Merry Christmas greetings to you. I welcome people of good faith of all traditions to the world of Wikipedia editing.

I see that you are in a somewhat precarious position here. It seems that you have decided to write an autobiography which is highly discouraged although not explicitly forbidden. Please read our guideline on conflict of interest, as that is also applicable to your situation. Biographies of scholars must meet our guideline on academics. Please be prepared to make a convincing case that this article complies. I am not an expert in evaluating academic notability here. The editors with expertise tend to be very strict. You may qualify under our guideline for authors instead. Please study that guideline.

In general, we need citations in an article to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to demonstrate notability. Independent academic citations to a researcher's published work in peer reviewed journals also count for academics. I do not see independent sources in the current version of the article, so consider this article at high risk of deletion. But again, I am not an expert in academic biographies. I am more of a generalist editor.

If I can be of any assistance in orienting you to the complexities of Wikipedia editing, please do not hesitate to ask. In conclusion, I would like to recommend the Primer, a useful handbook for new editors. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)