User talk:Cullen328/Archive 27

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 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Hello Cullen328.

Your good reputation in Wikipedia triggers me to ask for help. Can you help make this biography publishable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar

Thank you in advance?

Juvetorre (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Juvetorre. Your draft article has lots of problems, many of which are common to new editors. I am not sure if this person is notable or not. That's because I do not see, at first glance, significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. You should do everything possible to make it easy for a reviewer to see those sources, and place no obstacles in their path. Your current draft has many such obstacles.

Your draft has a large number of references and they are presented as bare URLs, which makes it difficult for a reviewer with limited time to assess notability. First, format your references properly and flesh them out as explained in Referencing for beginners. Secondly, and this is my opinion, you have too many references that I suspect are of low quality. Far better to have six really solid references than 36 mediocre references. Do not expect a reviewer to look through a large number of poor quality references to find a handful of value. It is your job to separate the wheat from the chaff, not the reviewer's.

The vast majority of YouTube videos are worthless as references. The exception are those on the official YouTube channels of reputable news organizations. Eliminate all other YouTube references.

The photo is almost certainly a copyright violation as it is lifted from a copyrighted CNN broadcast. You claim rights as author but those rights belong to CNN not you. Get rid of it.

The external links are massively excessive. Normally, a biography of a living person will have only a single external link, to their own website. It would be rare to have more than two or three in a good article about a person. External links of any type are not allowed in the body of the article. Eliminate them.

We don't create our own Tables of contents. Instead, we create sections by putting two equal signs before each section heading, and two equal signs after the section heading. When you have three or more section headings, the wiki software will create the Table of contents automatically.

A Wikipedia biography is not a resume or a curriculum vitae. It is not appropriate to list a bunch of court cases that a lawyer has been involved in, unless reliable, independent sources have written extensively about the lawyer's role in those specific cases. Every substantive claim should be referenced to a high quality reliable independent source.

In conclusion, please ponder your motivation for writing this article. If you are Omar Garcia, please see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you are a friend or family member, please read WP:COI and follow its recommendations carefully. If you are being paid to write this article, then you are obligated under Wikipedia's Terms of service to disclose this openly. Undisclosed paid editing accounts are routinely blocked. If you are writing this article simply because you are interested in this person, without any of the motivations I mentioned, then please disregard this paragraph.

Let me know when you have addressed my concerns and I will take another look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328 Thanks for replying to my question on Tea House. I have submitted an article using article wizard but its not visible. Can you suggest what should I do next?Te-mktg (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence whatsoever of a submission under the username Te-mktg unless it was deleted by an administrator. Did you get any deletion messages? Did you submit under this account or another? Please be precise about exactly what this submission was about. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking more closely, I see that an article about Kamal Sagar was deleted by an administrator as a blatant copyright violation. Soiry, you cannot copy content from another website to Wikipedia. This is illegal and is simply not allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, here is my submission link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Sagar Please suggest if this is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Te-mktg (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that your submission is a copyright violation and will be deleted soon. You are not allowed to copy things here, other than brief quotes, in quotation marks. Everything you submit must be entirely original writing in your own words. Read all the messages on your talk page very carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Simon Collins. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I just posted here. Curious if you could weigh in on it? Victor Grigas (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I revamped the layout & added more sources & his books to the Ed Viesturs article just as I did with Peter Hillary's last yr, & then promptly forgot about it. Looked in & Viesturs is still rated start-class (alas, I only got to C-class with Hillary) &, unbelievably, seeing as he's the premier American mountaineer, rated low-importance as well. Sorry to bother you, but I get lost in the plethora of unhelpful Help pgs around here, & I've no idea how to submit Ed for review so he'll no longer be start-class, as I think I've done enough to at least get him up to C (maybe a bit higher; I can dream :-D). You submitted it for me with Hillary (thanks), but I'd like to figure out how to be able to do that myself rather than popping in to put another job on your plate. Would you mind giving me a destination? Can't seem to find that. Thanks in advance! ScarletRibbons (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (edited to sign & erase IP, because I got apparently got logged out after clicking Save)

Hello ScarletRibbons. The wikicode for the quality and importance ratings is at the top of the article talk page. You can change those as you see fit. Formal reviews are required only for Good articles and Featured articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

TYVM for getting back to me so quickly. I clicked thru the template where it said *for instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation*, & it says because it's a biography, the template can only be changed by admins or template editors (of which I am neither). Clicked thru some more stuff & did find a pg where I could insert articles at the bottom of a long list & request assessment, which I've been looking for in vain (who knew there was so much stuff to find behind a template?). Something else said I could request a peer review only if an article was already at B-class. So I did finally find all that stuff, TYVM, but unless I'm not understanding what it told me correctly, my options seem to be limited to an assessment request. ScarletRibbons (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to edit the template itself, which would affect thousands of articles, ScarletRibbons, but only the data fields for this particular article. That is routine. There is no need for an independent assessment unless you want a GA or FA review. Any editor can re-rate below that level. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

I had submitted an article 'Lon Safko' however unfortunately it was declined. Now I want to delete this article. Can you please tell me the process to delete this article?

Regards,

Ayazf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayazf (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ayazf. Remove all the content from your draft, and replace it with this template code:

{{Db-author}}

An administrator will delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:M. T. Carney. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen,

Thanks for previous comments.

Can you please take a look now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Omar_E._Garc%C3%ADa-Bol%C3%ADvar

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juvetorre (talk • contribs) 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, Juvetorre. The biggest problem with your draft article that I see at this time is that the majority of your references are formatted as bare URLs. I recommend that you flesh out those references as described at Referencing for beginners. Proper formatting makes it much easier for a reviewer to zero in on the best references, and conveys an image of competence and professionalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Any thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 21:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, CorporateM. I commented there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason I thought of you is because it was very similar to a discussion we had recently. The editor was making assumptions and mis-interpreting my comments, because my disclosure caused them to see everything through a COI lens. CorporateM (Talk) 18:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

For that, I apologize, CorporateM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Jim! I'd like to ask you a question concerning the references to Google books. See, in the article Vajravārāhī user Skyerise has been reverting all the citations to the exact Google books sources[2][3]. However, I ran into a fellow editor at the article, and we've discussed the topic at User talk:Ogress#Religion in South Korea. We both, Ogress and I, find the statements by user Skyerise somewhat confusing. I have also discussed the matter directly with user Skyerise at User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#Google Books.

In a nutshell, the issue has been discussed at:

1. User talk:Ogress#Religion in South Korea
2. User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#Google Books

I'd like to ask for your opinion on this as you are a more experienced editor. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jayaguru-Shishya. Please see WP:BOOKLINKS for guidance. I agree with you and disagree with Skyerise on this matter. There is a big difference between a link to an informational Google Books page showing the text of the book page plus bibliographic information, and an Amazon page for the book which is purely a commercial tool for Amazon to sell a copy of the book. A Google Books link is entirely appropriate in the URL field of the "cite books" template (or alternate citation styles) while adding the ISBN number to the template allows readers to obtain the most detailed information about obtaining the book, either by purchase through a mass-market commercial bookseller, or a used book store, or through a library. If the text of the book is hosted on another website (especially for books in the public domain, such as those published before 1923), then that can be added in place of the Google Books link, if it provides more useful information to our readers. If you look at a random selection of Featured articles and Good articles, you will see that many of them include links to Google Books in their references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking into this and giving your opinion. I really appreciate that! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh boy... Sorry to bother you again, I thought this was settled but apparently it is not[4]:

Oh, and here is the state of the article on 21 April 2015 immediately before you began most recently to edit it. Note that it does not have Google Book links. I did not remove them, it was you who added them. As there is no discussion on the talk page indicating a consensus to do so, I was completely correct to remove them, and then go ahead and fix other problems like the broken isbn, duplication of the same reference, etc. I still request that you start the talk page discussion about the Google Books links. Otherwise I may very well remove them again in a few days. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

or[5]:

You are simply wrong. Adding Google Books links is a change to the citation style. CITEVAR is very clear that you need to get consensus. Why are you so opposed to simply taking the time to get consensus on the talk page? I am happy to allow consensus to be implemented once it has been reached. There is no deadline. You don't have to add any URLs right this minute You are also violating WP:BRD, the "bold, revert, discuss" process. You were bold, I reverted you, where's the subsequent discussion on the article talk page which is what WP:BRD required you to start back in April when you were reverted??? Certainly it's clear that there is a disagreement between us. The only way to resolve that is to involve other regular editors of that specific article by starting a discussion on the article talk page, but you simply refuse to do so, even though to do so is not difficult and causes you no harm whatsoever. Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue has nothing to do with WP:CITEVAR; as far as I am concerned, all the distinct citation styles allow linking. The discussion burst in flames again at a new section at my Talk Page, User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#Google Book URLs. Should I ask for an administrator to take a look, what do you think? I've been trying to assume good faith with the editor - although I am getting rather frustrated as well - and I hoped she would understand with less efforts. She has been reverting on the same material over seven times already, and that's why I'd like not to take her on trial immediately since I still hope she will get to understand. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that both of you are in danger of being blocked for edit warring, Jayaguru-Shishya, and both of you should be discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(Pinging Jayaguru-Shishya because of typo in earlier comment)

That's what I keep telling him, but he insists on discussing it everywhere but the article talk page. He doesn't seem to understand that all the regular editors of the article get a say, but unless he informs them of his intent and reasons on the article talk page, they are simply in the dark. Skyerise (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, Skyerise. I notice that you have also failed to open a discussion on the article's talk page, and that you too have been edit warring. You are an experienced editor who must surely know that edit warring is not permitted, so why are you doing it? I disagree with your comment that "Adding Google Books links is a change to the citation style" because every citation style allows adding Google Books links without any change in style. I do not understand your opposition to Google Books links since they are routinely included in the references of Good articles and Featured articles throughout Wikipedia. Frankly, I am mystified by your stance on this issue, but will certainly try to understand your reasoning, if you will offer it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, just maintaining the status quo. The edit is disputed, it is the obligation of the editor proposing the change to open the discussion and get consensus for it. An editor maintaining the status quo is under no obligation to start the discussion: I'm not going to do it for him. And both BOOKLINKS and CITEVAR are red herrings. The issue is his not following the pretty standard BRD process. 'Any' disputed edit should be taken to the talk page, not wikilawyered all over Wikipedia. Venue shopping? What's so hard about him starting a discussion. It's not just about me and him, it's about all the regular editors of the article, but he simply won't engage them. Skyerise (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly maintaining the "status quo" over and over again is the classic definition of edit warring, Skyerise. Failure to start a talk page discussion exacerbates the offense. I still see no logical explanation from you for your opposition to Google Books links. Consider me a new "regular editor" of Vajravārāhī who supports adding Google Books links to the references in the article. I will start the talk page discussion. Any further edit warring will be reported to WP:EW. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to send the message that it's okay to refuse to start a discussion in the proper place when the change an editor wants to make is disputed, by all means go ahead. Skyerise (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, the message I want to send is that edit warring is not allowed and that both of you should stop your edit warring, and instead make your case at the talk page discussion I just started. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. After having a few days off from Wikipedia and giving a second thought about my actions at Vajravarahi, I could remember these wise words by user BullRangifer at article Acupuncture (boldings added):[6]

There is nothing in my comments which allows for continued edit warring, so the block for edit warring is entirely proper. Lack of collaboration is part of the problem here. Trying to force one's edits through, against the objections of other editors, never works. [...] I hope that Klocek learns something from this. One can even be 100% correct, and even have all the RS on one's side, and still get blocked. I'm not implying that's the case here, but telling it like it is. One must collaborate or one has no success.

I admit that I've been rather stubborn by sticking to the WP policies and guidelines. And no matter which one of us has been right or not, Skyerise and I have still engaged ourselves in an edit war. On my behalf I'd like to apologize for that. I will discuss the issues at the article Talk Page in the future. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well said, my friend. I commend you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

But when he left us forever, due to cancer, he was loved and respected by many people, and had no enemies and left no debts. Only loving friends

Your father must have been an amazing person! Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, yes he was. My dad was an unpaid amateur artist from his late teens to age 72, who never sold or "displayed" a single work of fine art but gave away countless works. Many are still around my home and the homes of my siblings and his grandchildren. He was a painter, a sculptor, an art furniture maker, a stained glass artist, and in his final years, a writer of hallucinatory fiction. He earned his living as a draftsman, a construction subcontractor and project manager, and an owner of a custom cabinet shop. The projects he loved best were schools, museums, churches, hospitals and clinics. He devoted his life to outfitting and beautifying the places where people are at their finest, or in their final days. He died in a hospital that he had provided the cabinetry for, about ten years previously. He was not notable because no reliable sources wrote about him. He never sought publicity but rather a good reputation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Viriditas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in taking time to clarify my issue. The issue in Vikrant Class Aircraft Carrier is that there has been no official announcement or even a trusted public info whether there are going to be any future carriers under Vikrant class or INS Vishal is the last. So the issue is how to represent this in Infobox of the page, As "Unknown" or as "2".If represented in the first way, some editors feel it neglects the planned versions . But representing the second way would mean "2 carriers only planned". Please express your views in this issue on the talk page of this with a solution you propose.Regards--M.srihari (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Hello Jim,

Help please. I am new to wikipedia and surely lacking sufficient skills. I finished a new article on a new subject matter "Virtus Economic Theory and Model". I used the wizard to write it. It is currently in Draft form and wished to know: a) what happens next? b) how do I (or someone else in Wikipedia) transform this article from a Draft status to a live one? c) how can I benefit from someones more experienced to look over/edit the draft - do what is necessary to turn it into a formal article.

Many thanks and all the best. bfvolve 17:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfvolve (talk • contribs)

I have a link to the Central Kentucky News Journal at http://www.cknj.com/content/public-record-may-26 for Thursday May 22, 2008, which describes Marriages "Cassandra Marie Wain, 21, of Monroe, Mich. and Dakota Louis Meyer, 19, of Hawaii", which should corroborate the PDF marriage license report listing the actual marriage date.

On the 17th of May 2008, Dakota married Cassandra Marie Wain.^{[1][non-primary source needed][2]}

KarenJ503 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)KarenJ503

Hello KarenJ503. The clerk's office listing is a primary source, and the local newspaper blurb is a simple reprint of that primary source with no secondary coverage. In my opinion, those sources are not yet adequate to add that information to the article. It is not Wikipedia's job to break a scoop. My hunch is that actual news coverage will be forthcoming. Be patient. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll follow your advice. There will be interest in a heretofore unrevealed marriage. It wasn't mentioned in Dakota Meyer's book "Into the Fire: A Firsthand Account of the Most Extraordinary Battle in the Afghan War". Others have been attempting to follow up on this marriage documentation, to find documentation of a divorce if any, dates and location for the principals. If they are successful, you're right, there will be "actual news coverage" albeit of the tabloid variety.

KarenJ503 (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)KarenJ503

I have been awarded the Great Question Badge and Teahouse Host Badge, but on the host profiles section of the Teahouse under my profile it only says Teahouse Host Badge is there any way you can add the Great Question Badge as well? Regards -- TeaLover1996 (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Hope this is finding you in good health & spirits. I wrote you a note on my talk page a couple of days ago. We had shifted our conversation over there back in July 2014. At the time, you mentioned you get pinged if I place your URL in it. I'm not rushing you, I'm just writing this here in case this didn't occur because of the length of time I haven't been here. When you get a chance take a look at User_talk:Rjc1#Hello_Jim.2C_I.27m_back._.28May_2015.29 Thanks and best wishes -- Rjc¹ Respectfully 11:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, let me be very clear. I have not suggested Paluzzi was a member of the Abstract Expressionism Movement. What I have suggested is that his work in the late ‘50s and early 60s was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I received this suggestion from a professor of Art History at the school from which Paluzzi received his two degrees. What I also suggested was that per edits by JNW there are no published references as to Wilke, Wols or Zao Wou Ki being part of the Abstract Expressionism Movement or that their work was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I also suggested that Modernist contradicted himself by deleting Romul Nutiu for not being an American when there are a number of non-Americans on that list. I do apologize if I have created a fuss, but I am an academic, and I believe in FACTs and in doing so, I may have offended Modernist who is defending what he considers is his own article. Sirswindon (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sirswindon. In my opinion, stylistically similar artists do not belong in Abstract expressionism, especially if that is based on an unpublished observation by a professor you talked to. Doing so would violate Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If other editors have made contradictory edits, then discuss and resolve the contradictions. If other entries are unreferenced, you have several choices: find and add a reference, or tag the listing as needing a reference, or remove the item from the list. Or move on to something else.

Facts are wonderful things but facts only belong in a Wikipedia article if they are cited to an independent reliable published source. It is bad form to point to other poorly cited things to justify a lack of a reference in content you add. Fix or remove the other content, depending on which best improves the encyclopedia. And properly cite everything you add. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and I do agree with what you just wrote. I am now trying to find if any authority has published something about artist Paluzzi’s early work being stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. Now to what I also did which was reversed by Modernist. There are Artists in the list in Abstract Expressionism titled: Other artists (significant artists whose mature work relates to the American Abstract Expressionist Movement) where in their individual articles there are no references as to any of their work having been related to the AEM.) I removed their names (Wilke, Wols and Zao Wou Ki) but Modernist replaced them without providing published substantiating references. Shouldn’t Modernist be held to the same standard as I am being held? I suggested that the intro be modified to read: “significant artists some of whose mature work,” but that was ignored. I am trying to be a respectful editor, but it is difficult when the discussions are one sided. Sirswindon (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It can always be difficult to edit an established article about a broad topic with a range of opinions in the published literature. It takes, above all else, patience. Hey, I love art including the major abstract expressionists but don't think I have ever heard of the three artists you mentioned above. I have an aunt who has painted in that style for decades but is a minor figure at best. So I am not a topic expert, just a fan. Instead, I think I can claim some modest expertise into the social dynamics of editing Wikipedia. I have written a number of biographies of individual artists, which I enjoy because the topic and the structure is so clearly defined, and when writing about lesser known (but still notable) figures in art, a single editor can shape the article in most cases, and if anyone else notices, the response is usually thanks as opposed to combativeness. That kind of stuff is my niche. But certainly you knew, based on what your own user page says, that it was incorrect for you to try to inject Paluzzi into that AE article based on your unpublished verbal conversation with some unidentified college professor. That's not how we roll here, and is 100% certain to cause an experienced editor to be highly skeptical of your input into that and related articles. So, I recommend to you the power of apology and humility. Acknowledge that you made a mistake. Familiarize yourself with the highest quality survey sources covering AE. If you want to argue for removing some artists from that listing, show that you are conversant with the best quality sources about those artists. Strive always for a friendly and collaborative working relationship with other editors active in the area. In other words, conduct yourself at all times as collaborative encyclopedist, not as a fighter. That's the best advice that I can offer, Sirswindon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328; I've commented on the above at Drmies' page, where the same note was left by Sirswindon [7]. I don't think it's honest, especially as one of the most recent tacks is to pass of his latest series of edits as following my example, something I couldn't distance myself far enough from. Thanks, JNW (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter May (disambiguation). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim, local Santa Barbara News Press writer James Wapotich ran a story about the 2014 event and the events name change from SBER 100 to Santa Barbara 100. We are not the Santa Barbara Century

Newspaper and Web-newspaper (post-event): http://www.adn.com/2011/05/01/1839869/juneaus-roes-wins-title-at-california.html http://presidiosports.com/tag/santa-barbara-endurance-race/ http://www.frequency.com/video/geoff-roes-wins/5855331 http://running.competitor.com/2011/04/news/geoff-roes-running-inaugural-100-mile-race-this-weekend_26247 http://www.race360.com/running/races/detail.asp?eventid=15734 http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=1476&nid=53710

Magazines: http://devononeil.com/Stories/Anita%20Ortiz%20Issue%2074.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Gilcrest (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328,

Your application for a Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library was approved last August, but we have no record of your having completed the process to claim your account. If you still want access, please let me know. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're not interested and the account will be given to another applicant. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello HazelAB. I was busy with other things then, and got distracted. Can you please send a link to the sign-up instructions again? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

As it relates to Meghan, I can show you various articles where she has now dropped her last name and gone back to Agosta.

Here are some of those:

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/08/19/canadian-olympic-hockey-hero-meghan-agosta-joins-vancouver-police-department/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/meghan-agosta-pauses-hockey-career-to-join-vancouver-police/article20718192/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/meghan-agosta-of-team-canada-hockey-joins-vancouver-police-1.2739417

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/22/olympian-meghan-agosta-vancouver-police_n_5860860.html

Here is her personal twitter page as well

https://twitter.com/MeghanAgosta

I hope that this satisfies what you need.

Thanks

--SenatorBF (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello SenatorBF. The first two sources you provided mention her by her married name. Is that the best you've got? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim

I have a problem from the Quebec Department of Justice website. They have broken links.

http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/generale/sep-div-a.htm

If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and you see this:

  • Department of Justice Canada Clicking on this icon will take you to another website.

The registration of a waiver of partition of the family patrimony, of the value of acquests, of community property or to register the cancellation of such a waiver, to register a divorce judgment, the annulment of a marriage or the dissolution of a civil union, a legal separation (or a separation as to property):

   • Registre des droits personnels et réels mobiliers 

To avoid duplicate proceedings for divorce in different courts across Canada:

   • Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings Clicking on this icon will take you to another website.
     (Department of Justice Canada)

The guide entitled "When a Couple Separates":

Both the Department of Justice Canada and Central Registry of Divorce Proceedings links don't work. I don't know what to tell you except that her ex husband who she is in divorce with is in Quebec and she is in British Columbia where she is now a police officer.

--SenatorBF (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me make something clear, SenatorBF. If you can furnish a reliable source that says the marriage is over, then we can include that in the article. I sincerely wish her the very best in her new life and her police career, and do not wish to be unkind to her, or anyone else, in any way. But this is an encyclopedia, and we need reliable sources to report that a marriage has ended. Surely you can see that taking the word of an anonymous source (like you) would open the door to cruel deception by trolls? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen,

I am a sports agent, with an office here in Los Angeles. I see that you live here in California as well. The principal of my business is to try and make my clients happy. I was asked by Ms Agosta to have her name changed since she has gone through the process. I will have to ask someone else on Wikipedia about this, because she wants this to be removed.

My company is called American Group Management and have been in business since 1996 and represent over 20 Olympic athletes. www.agm.us . There is no point or relevancy to make a change or to troll as you are staying as an anonymous source since on our site with the other athletes we work for it has each of their names on it.

--SenatorBF (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to know if a article i might make will be alright to make. Its about my school Manzanita elementary school. I have lots of information on the topic but they all come from one website and i wanted to know if one source was enough to start an article? Also can i use a yearbook as a referance? i would be very gratefull if you could answer my questions thanks. JrolesGuy (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello JrolesGuy. In general, we do not have separate articles about elementary schools, but instead list them in school district articles, or sections of articles about education in cities and towns. Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES for more information. You.May want to consider editing or creating an article about the school district that runs your school.

An article should be based on coverage in reliable sources. Since the guideline says "sources" in the plural, there should be more than one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thx JrolesGuy (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

how do i know if im auto confirmed because i've been on wiki for 4 days and made over 80 edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by JrolesGuy (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@JrolesGuy: Hello there I'm TeaLover1996, usually autoconfirmed accounts are after the account has made 10 edits and has been on Wikipedia for at least 4 days, however this can be different in some circumstances, for more information please read Wikipedia's access levels for autoconfirmed users If you still need help you can ask at the Wikipedia Teahouse or you can ask me at my talk page. Thanks and happy editing TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made a mistake on my Teahouse profile, is there anyway i can edit it to correct my mistake? TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello TeaLover1996. Go to WP:Teahouse/Host landing, find your profile there, click "edit", and make whatever changes you want. You can add badges there as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I have started a draft for this article at User:Rubbish computer/Composed salad. Rubbish computer 16:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jim,

I want to create a wikipedia page about 'EPISTOP'. This is a long-term, prospective study that evaluates clinical and molecular biomarkers for epileptogenesis in a genetic model of epilepsy - tuberous sclerosis complex. This research project is funded by the European Commission through the 7th Framework Programme. My question to you is whether this subject is suitable to be included in the wikipedia encyclopedia.

More information about this project can be found on the website: www.epistop.eu

Best,

Chloë — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe.scheldeman (talk • contribs) 09:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chloë. I am not an expert in evaluating the notability of medical related topics on Wikipedia, which is a very tricky area which requires the highest possible standards to ensure that our readers are not misled in any way. Please read WP:MEDRS to develop an understanding of our standards in the area. In my opinion, our best editor in this field is Doc James. Maybe he can comment or recommend another editor with expertise in this area. I encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia, but know when it is best for me to defer to the expertise of other editors I trust. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hum. Not sure. I am finding nothing on pubmed discussing this study. Are there independent sources that discuss this study specifically? Or significant media discussion? There are of course a number discussing this area of research generally.

Will ask for further opinions at WT:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear, The reason why there are no articles published yet, is because the study is currently ongoing. And actually is in its starting phase. Best, Chloë — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe.scheldeman (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

In that case, Chloe.scheldeman, it is too soon for a Wikipedia article about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe.scheldeman (talk • contribs) 14:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Freddie Gray. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328:

Have taken an exploratory step or two, in particular was able to contact Plasmic Physics on the "Methyl Radical" article and he said he thought he had made the statement and added some reference to his statement so that was good for both me and the next user, but would now like to make another request to a different article "Electromagnetic Spectrum" and do not know how to make a request to the general supporting sudience. So perhaps you could lead the way. The request is for the article "Electrtomagnetic Spectrum", that someone add an additional scale to the second graphic, a scale for electron-volts, eV or KeV, in addition to the Frequency and Wavelength Scales. Thanks for the time and consideration. Chem4EngrChem4Engr (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Chem4Engr. Start by leaving a note at Talk:Electromagnetic spectrum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jim,

Reading the Wiki section on POV, NPOV disputes, I realize I need to be sure what I have written is formulated correctly and used with the proper tag. There is much Wiki documentation in this regard. After reading it, I'm not sure whether to use the POV or NPOV tag at the head of the page. Since the Exeter Wiki page problem deals with breakage of NPOV Wiki guidelines, omission of facts, etc. I am thinking the NPOV tag would be best. I was wondering if this is correct and you concur. Also, when should I place the NPOV tag on the main Exeter_incident page, and exactly where on the page?

If you can, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at several paragraphs I placed on the Exeter incident talk page , and possibly make any suggestions you think are appropriate to both formulating my concerns, and drawing other editors (including fringe area adjudicators) into a discussion concerning those things. Is it detailed enough? Anything else I should be doing to conform to Wiki guidelines?

Thanks in advance for your time and expertise.--Rjc¹ Respectfully 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rjc1. I see no reason to tag that article, and have commented on the talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A user keeps inserting "(Really?)" into my thread title even after reverting him. See diff1 and diff2. How do I handle this?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The first step in such situations, VictoriaGrayson, is to let the other editor know that you do not appreciate such behavior, and ask them to stop. Their talk page is the best place for that. Always conduct yourself politely as the "better person" in such situations. I am not explaining any official policy so much as offering my personal advice to you, as just another editor. If you have further problems with the other editor, please feel free to let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Review by, and input from experienced editors is kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I commented there, Ad Orientem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have gotten a good response from the RfC. There were only a handful of editors looking at it before and I think a lot of the usual AfD editors were intimidated by the long comments near what is now the top. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

On an article which I have recently edited, a user disclosed that the article was written with a COI and specifically stated who had (allegedly) done this, through an external link. I thanked the user for sharing that the article was promotional, not neutral and written with a COI without having seen that the external link identified a specific person, instead thinking that it verified that a person close to the subject had done this without identifying them. I apologise for anything I have done wrong, unintentionally. The link identifies the person without verifying it was them. I am not sure if I should disclose the article name but will do so if asked. What should be done about this? Rubbish computer 14:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Ping me when you reply to this. Rubbish computer 15:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to answer, Rubbish computer. I am on a brief vacation. Please follow the instructions at WP:OUTING. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Cullen328! My contribution over through the Car Wash at the History section was deleted because of COPYVIO, then again, I remade the sentences out of my own words using little research over through the internet. Can you please check it out in My Sandbox? Thanks. CryOceD (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello CryOceD. I do not consider that Australian car wash finder website to be a reliable source. We are looking for sources with professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. Closely paraphrasing a source is still a copyright violation. Cite your sources as you work so it does not look like original research. And write in a clear neutral English encyclopedic style. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)o

Whoops, I forgot to add references, so if I add the references back, will it be eligible to put it in the Car Wash's history? CryOceD (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Only if the references are to truly reliable sources, and if your content is a well-written summary of the sources, instead of a paraphrase, CryOceD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't received your email yet, Liz. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe check your spam folder? If you have a Gmail account, sometimes they don't deliver Yahoo! Mail. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I do use Gmail and have checked everywhere including spam without success, Liz. Please try again. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I sent you a much briefer version of the email again because I don't have a copy of the original. This isn't the first time I've had problems with an individual with a Gmail account, my Wikipedia emails don't seem to go through, I think they are filtered out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your team, mercilessly deleted the pages created by me last month. Your team didn't have any proper reasoning for this incorrect deletion. At that time, I had mentioned that you and your team have clearly allowed other's fraud pages to survive...and I had provided you few fraud pages too.. One more such a page for you... where were your patrolling team when the page was creating, existing without any reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayadevan%27s_system

Only three ref have been provided, all three fake... What is your opinion about this fraud? And yes, check the 'Hitavada' wiki page tooSillyLilies (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no "team" as I am an individual editor working alone. I have no interest in researching those topics you mentioned. I work only on what interests me. Your comments indicate that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. If you truly believe that any specific article is a fraud, then you are free to nominate it for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for having my back. Rosiestep (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Any time, though it is clear that you can speak for yourself. Having no beer in the house at the moment, I poured myself and my wife a shot of whiskey instead. I will buy a six pack tomorrow and say a toast to you then. I need to cut weeds for a couple of hours and an ice cold beer will taste great after that. I think you know that my wife and I hold you in very high regard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328, I hope I am not interrupting your vacation again and sorry if I am. Underneath a question I posted at the Teahouse concerning where to find articles with no lead sections (which has been answered), I answered a question. I am aware that competence is required to do this and I would like to know if this answer was sufficient and/or if it would be wise for me to not answer any more. I will take no offence at being advised to not answer questions and if I cannot I may see if I can do so again at a later date, when I have gained further experience. Your help is appreciated, Rubbish computer 15:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Rubbish computer, my vacation is over, so no problem. Your Teahouse answer was factually correct, but it would have been a bit more helpful if you had commented specifically on the references in the other editor's draft article. I asked another new user to stop answering questions recently, because they were doing a poor job of it. Just be sure that your answers are correct, friendly and responsive. All will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your feedback. Rubbish computer 17:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)