User talk:Cullen328

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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

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


The importance of a friendly greeting

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

Please offer your thoughts

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

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

Your climber biographies

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

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

2009 Archive

2010 Archive

2011 Archive

2012 Archive (first six months)

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3



Adding cover images[edit]

Hi Jim,

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


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

As your optional poll has closed....[edit]

2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA[edit]

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

--Circa73 (talk)

Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota[edit]

Hello Cullen328,

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

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

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

Thank you,


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

Holiday card[edit]

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

2017 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA[edit]

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

--Jscarboro (talk)

Page Link[edit]

I just don't get it[edit]

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

You've got mail.[edit]

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

Neutral and due weight Comment[edit]


Article deletion and account absence problem[edit]

Hi Jim,

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

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

Hello, Stanislav Lohvinenko. This material is now available at Draft:Modern Stochastics: Theory and Application for you to edit and improve. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jim, many thanks again for helping me out with the article. At first I was confused, because I could not find promotional phrases you mentioned in the Teahouse post - I have not noticed that you had deleted them. Again thanks for that. I have recently added a few more minor changes. Eventually I do not want to edit the article any more. So, I will appriciate your review of the draft and comments if it seems to be accepted by Wikipedia.Thank you! P.S.: just duplicating the message from my talk page.--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Stanislav Lohvinenko. I have submitted the draft for review. You can improve the draft while you are waiting for the review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Stanislav Lohvinenko, the draft is unreferenced at this time and will not be accepted without references. Please read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Cullen328. Thank you for submitting the draft for review and your comments about references. I have not found information about this journal in other sources exept for scientific databases: Current Index to Statistics, Index Copernicus, zbMATH, Scilit, Directory of Open Access Journals, Publons. May these sources be added as references?--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Stanislav Lohvinenko. I have no experience writing articles about academic journals, but what I do know is that an unreferenced draft will be declined. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) and also fully developed Wikipedia articles about other well-known journals in this field or similar fields, and see how they are referenced. That should be helpful to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks!--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity[edit]

You cited community exasperation with a certain editor's use of the F word in a recent block, but were you basing that exclusively on the then recently closed ANI thread? Because that evidence was tainted by the tendency of much of the community to assume all other factors remain equal, and they would have likely said something very different had they been assuming the editor who filed the report was a sock. Also (and I'm not sure how aware you are of these circumstances) the editor in question recently came off a three month self-block, as a result of exasperation with the community following another ANI thread that was closed because the OP was a sock troll, and there the community consensus was actually more to the effect that context matters and that the editor in question had the right to tell editors who were clearly harassing him to "F off", and a subsequent discussion at Talk:Civility came to the same conclusion, that context matters and that particular editor had been the victim, not the victimizer. (And I say this as someone who has been quietly, non-pushily, encouraging both that editor and another with similar problems to clean up their language for years.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor sandpaper damage to my thumb
Hello, Hijiri88. Your premise is incorrect. I did not block the editor in question for dropping F bombs, and cited no such exasperation about F words. I blocked them for 31 hours specifically for an edit summary that consisted of an allusion to sexual violence including a dildo, sandpaper and hot sauce. For what it is worth, I am a construction worker using power tools to earn my living and use sandpaper almost every day. I have a sandpaper abrasion on the base of my left thumb right now and certainly would not pour hot sauce on such a fresh wound, although I am a big fan of Tabasco sauce used properly in American cuisine. I even have a classic Tabasco sauce poster hanging near my kitchen. Maybe someday I will be able to visit Avery Island.
I consider allusions to sadistic sexual violence to be vastly more disruptive than tossing around the F bomb. I was a 1960s hippie and pretty much gave up using the F bomb when I was 17 years old because many of my foulmouthed buddies over-used it. As my 67th birthday approaches, I would not block any editor for dropping a big fat long string of F bombs, even though I consider that behavior immature, ineffective, counterproductive and a waste of electrons. But not blockable according to current community consensus.The troll and/or sock was blocked indefinitely and that was correct and proper. But even trolls and socks are human beings. They should be blocked, reverted and ignored, not subjected to graphic allusions of sexual violence. Nobody deserves that. Not even Charlie Manson. An indefinite block with almost zero hope of being unblocked is surely a more serious sanction than a 31 hour block. So, I stand by my block.
One thing that you (and anyone else interested) should know about me is that I am a man of relatively few words, but that, when I speak about something consequential, I have pondered and studied the situation for hours or days, and sometimes for weeks or months. Although I have slipped a few times, I think that it has been rare when I have hammered on an issue ad nauseum, repeating myself endlessly with minor variations for the thrill of seeing my words dominate a debate. That behavior is far too common on Wikipedia talk and project pages. Please do not mistake my laconic nature for a failure to do serious research. I am fully aware of the history of the editor I that blocked for 31 hours. Thank you.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen. I won't thank you because I think 31 hrs is a short block, but I think you are a wise man because had you not acted, I think there would have been grounds for an immediate request for arbitration, as two turbulent ANI threads and one RfC is enough failed dispute resolution in my view. Your story was nice. My grandfather (RIP) was a construction worker, who was building the first nuclear power plants in Finland and who had permanent issues with his back and hearing because of the work. So that's certainly a warm feeling I got from it.--Pudeo (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, since you ask, I was actually close to a 72 hour block and had even typed out my block message that way. Then I took a look at the editor's block log and was a bit surprised that it was so short. That's when I decided on 31 hours instead.
I had been aware of the discussion previously that day but I was working for money off-Wikipedia and only had a few minutes to read. By the time I could sit down to study the matter, the other editor had been indeffed and the ANI discussion closed. But I did not consider the behavioral matter on the other side resolved, so that is why I issued the block.
Thank you for your kind words. My grandfather was a farmer/carpenter of Norwegian ancestry who helped build the massive Hanford plutonium processing facility in the state of Washington during World War II. He had no idea what the place was for, only that it was top secret. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyone interested including Pudeo can read Hanford Site for a description of where my grandfather worked during World War II. Since he was born in 1881, he would have been about 62 when he started working there about 1943. He was a product of rural Northern Idaho who had never met a black man before the war. He told my mother, the youngest of his seven children, who would have been 14 or 15 years old at that time, that he had learned that black war workers were just as hard working and just as patriotic as anyone else. I am proud that he was so open-minded. I knew him as a child and according to my memory, he was a genuine craftsman and a kind and loving man. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 10:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


I am sorry that I sent kitten messages to the Wikipedia editors who my disruptive behaviour has effected in the past with the message "I was origionally Frogger 48, I want to start off fresh from my past mistakes." Please forgive me. I just wanted them to know that I am sorry and I want to start off on the right foot. ABCD5798 (talk)

Trolling, NOTHERE or CIR? I'm not quite sure but I would support blocking. No improvement to anything on the project and messing about on peoples' talk pages. Not sure what the problem is but an evaluation of the edits is telling.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
ABCD5798, what are your plans to actually improve the encyclopedia? Or are you here just to fool around? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to help improve the encyclopedia. Sorry for my behaviour before. It won't happen again. ABCD5798 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Go improve some articles, then, and leave people alone. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
O.K. ABCD5798 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC)[edit]


You are removing quotes from a primary source. Specifically, you are removing the 8-21-2017 "Reaffirmation of Objectives" from the UDC that explicitly states that the UDC opposes racism.

While the article cites at least two third party sources that accuse it of white supremacy it is only fair to include the UDC's denial of the charge. Exclusion of that denial leaves the reader with the impression that the UDC agrees with the charge, but it does not. If the organization endorsed white supremacy then it would not deny it.

The link below documents that the UDC opposes racism at its own website——a primary source.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You must gain consensus on the article talk page. Reliable sources report that this group has been white supremacist since its founding. The article is about the entire history of this group, which has long glorified the enslavement of black people and cheered the Ku Klux Klan's terrorist activities for many years. Extremist groups routinely deny their own extremism. On Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources are preferred to primary sources from extremist groups. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Richard Spencer quotes him as saying he is not a White Supremacist, but instead favors the formation of an American White Ethnostate. In contrast, the UDC's denial of White Supremacy is not even acknowledge even though it is their official position. Nor have they stated a desire to form an American White Enthnostate as has Spencer. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia is going to permit Richard Spencer to deny that he is a White Supremacist, it is only fair to extend the same courtesy to the UDC. It is not as though I am suggesting that the opinions of the SPLC and James McPherson be deleted.

As I said previously, you need to gain consensus at Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy, which is the one and only proper place to discuss the content of the article. We cannot come to a consensus agreement here on my talk page. Please note that at Richard B. Spencer, there are currently four references to independent, secondary sources reporting on Spencer's denials that he is a white supremacist. Current references 3, 4, 5 and 6. Instead of proposing an edit based on UDC's own website, you should find comparable coverage of what UDC now says in independent, secondary sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not know how to go about getting a consensus at the UDC Talk page. This is all new to me.

However, I note that at least one of the Wikipedia's "Further Reading" sources does, in fact, cite the UDC's denial of racism. Thus, it presumably is a "reliable" source in the Wikipedia context.[3] If so, then the page should include the denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not know how to indent my comments. Can you tell me how to do that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You gain consensus by proposing a well-referenced addition on the article talk page that is in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. I suggest that you begin by reading this post by an editor of the Encyclopedia Virginia. That's the proper approach to this topic. Experienced Wikipedia editors are likely to feel much the same way. You indent by beginning your comment with a colon ":". Adding more colons indents further. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixing the Lal Vijay Shahdeo article[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I made some changes to this article. I cleaned up a particularly problematic paragraph and added wikilinks to those mentioned works that had Wikipedia pages on them. I did not add another source that I had mentioned previously, as I did not know whether it would fit into the article. I am creating a new header for this on your talk page as the old one seems to have been abandoned. Diamond Blizzard talk 17:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on that article, Diamond Blizzard. I do not have time to take a close look right now, but I will look later. Whenever an earlier conversation has been archived, please feel free to open a new thread at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...[edit]

...that I invoked your words at SMC's user talk page in the ANI discussion - you are indeed a voice of reason. I think I shall stay away from further discussion in the interest of not increasing my blood pressure, for I can't really handle the victim blaming discourse. Have a good rest of Friday! --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea, you can quote me any time you want. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


In reference to: Special:Diff/885703726#Transphobic_rant

I would to inform you (in a transparent way) of this conversation. ―MattLongCT -Talk- 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MattLongCT. I was aware of that conversation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, just making sure. My apologies :) ―MattLongCT -Talk- 21:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


If you don't like deletion debates, don't read them. When 50+ people are canvassed by someone, with blatant lies about transphobia, to multiple different deletion discussions, you can expect some of the resulting material to repeat the same points, since people are going to inject the same knee-jerk !votes based on the lies the canvasser told them, and the rebuttal points are necessarily going to amount to the same counter-arguments. If you think I enjoy having to do that, you're quite mistaken. But the Signpost editor is busy fighting a bogus ANI, and its editor-in-chief has essentially refused to engage other than for a short quip, so there is no one involved to argue the other side but myself, which obviously results in my sig coming up more frequently that either of us would like. Let's see how you react next time someone canvasses up a really nasty campaign against you personally. How will you like to be told to just shut up?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In my ten years of editing here, I have never once engaged in such a bizarre spate of repeating myself over and over and over again. But then again, I have never set out on a deliberate campaign to infuriate people. You must certainly see your own behavior as useful and/or righteous. I am sorry but I do not share your assessment. Please make no further attempts to try to convince me. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.


  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of article[edit]

Can I request you to delete the article User:Sons of Antiochus VIII? It is an accidental user page I made when trying to create a Wikipedia article. Векочел (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Possibly the request for deletion is just this redirect. There is no crisis or hurry. MPS1992 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Векочел. I deleted the redirect for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictures for Alison Chadwick-Onyszkiewicz article[edit]

Hi Cullen, I noticed you added the photo of Arlene Blum taken at a fundraising event for the American Women's Himalayan Expedition. I wrote an article about another member of that expedition, any chance you have a photo of her too? --Spacepine (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Spacepine, thank you for reaching out. I took that photo of Arlene Blum at the Marmot Mountain Works store in Berkeley, California, at a fundraising event before the expedition. That was in 1977, I believe, and Arlene Blum was the only member of the expedition there that evening. I made a donation (I do not remember how much) and got a t-shirt and later received a post card from base camp, signed by Alison Chadwick-Onyszkiewicz and the other members of the expedition, including Vera Watson. Because of the tragedy, I kept that postcard all these years, and it is a little personal treasure of mine.
Because Alison Chadwick-Onyszkiewicz is dead, you can use a low resolution image of her under WP:NFCI #10. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Best wishes to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! That sounds like a great experience - I'll have to get one of those t-shirts.
I didn't consider that there might be fair use rationals for her image. There are pictures on Arlene Blum's website - but she may have a commercial interest in them... would that apply here? --Spacepine (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, Spacepine, the commercial value of a relatively low profile person who died over 40 years ago is nil, and if you use a low resolution version, then it should comply with policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Re: Let's discuss it[edit]

Thank you for your response. I will read up on the article and the training you suggested. I noticed my infobox - personal has been removed. Were there errors in that as well? Do you have a specific infobox template for recording artists? I'm seeing most are very similar. With the page now being a draft, how do I make it into user page? Is that possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7light7 (talkcontribs) 03:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 7light7. Perhaps you misunderstand what a user page is. It is completely different from an encyclopedia article. Your user page should describe your work and your plans as a Wikipedia editor. It can be brief and to the point. You can describe who you are in a sentence or two and that your goal is to assist in writing a Wikipedia biography of you that complies with our policies and guidelines. Your fellow editors will respond well to that.
It seems that your goal is to have an encyclopedia article about you on Wikipedia. That is why I moved your content to draft space. Because it is a draft of an encyclopedia article which is not yet ready for the public encyclopedia. I am helping you because I think that the encyclopedia ought to have an article about you.
I encourage you to delay thinking about infoboxes. The quality of the list of refererences to reliable, independent sources is vastly more important than infoboxes. If you write an acceptable draft that summarizes the reliable sources, then other editors will be happy to take care of the stylistic points for you. So please spend your Wikipedia time reading and studying about reliable sources and also consult Referencing for beginners. Also read and try your very best to understand the neutral point of view. This is the policy that is most difficult for people writing about themselves to understand. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation[edit]


Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please participate to the talk pages consultation - link update[edit]

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m back and I’ll now restrict myself to only certain wiki pages[edit]

So as you know I was temporarily blocked because of my editing spree but now that I have returned I’m gonna limit myself to only a certain amount of wiki pages that fit my terms. So now instead of going on a rampage across various pages I’m now only gonna edit wiki pages that correspond with these geographic locations on this map

However some countries such as Afghanistan are not listed on the map but have government institutions such as the Ministry of Defense that clearly use the American English spelling format therefor I will help myself to editing wiki pages that use the incorrect spelling when referencing the Afghan ministry.

I’d just thought I’d let you know in case you ever come across me again. Acemaster77 (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Acemaster77. No, you do not get to set the terms. If you engage in combative edits regarding contentious Afghan ENGVAR issues, you will be blocked. So, stay entirely away from this type of editing if you wish to keep editing Wikipedia. Instead, make the type of edits that everyone would agree are productive for the encyclopedia. Restrain yourself. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In relation to your reply[edit]

I apologize in that I cannot respond properly because I am currently on mobile, it won’t let me for some reason, it just keeps saying error.

Anyways my reply: What ENGVAR issues are there with Afghanistan? They Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan uses an S instead of a C so therefor I would technically be correcting it since it was originally spelled incorrectly. Acemaster77 (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ask yourself why you care so much about such a triviality, Acemaster77, and why you are so focused on this type of triviality? Go spend a good solid month improving the encyclopedia in ways utterly unconnected with this triviality, and then come back to my talk page to explain why this triviality is so damned important. If you think that the contemporary American involvement in the politics of Afghanistan justifies American English variations in all contempory Afghanistan articles, then gain widespread consensus for that. Otherwise, back off please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems that I have offended you in my question but note it was not my intention to do so in anyway and therefor I apologize, clearly you have no interest in this discussion so let us end it here and agree to disagree. I hope that any possible future encounters will not end in hostilities like this and hopefully we can look at this event as a thing of the past from bygone days, with that have a good day.Acemaster77 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
No, Acemaster77, what you seem not to realize is that I care nothing about the substance of your trivial content dispute. Nothing whatsoever. I care only about avoiding disruption and ensuring that our content complies with our policies and guidelines. If you engage in further disruption about ENGVAR matters, you will be blocked. If you do not abandon your ENGVAR hobby horse and do not move on to productive editing, you will be blocked. I hope that I have expressed myself clearly. Have I? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)]
I already gathered from your previous reply that you have zero interest in the conversation whatsoever, restating that you simply don’t care is not gonna help any of us. If you feel personally attacked or antagonized from my response then I apologize (like I have before) and hope we can look at this event as a thing of the past, there’s no need to escalate this further then it needs to. And with that have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acemaster77 (talkcontribs) 07:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Invitation from Roxy's Ruler[edit]

Greetings. You had a Let's Discuss link on a discussion page for AfD for Roxy's Ruler. I have been a little tied up catching up to editors comments and have not responded to your invite. I have just entered a lengthy Keep/Merge entry and am pretty well done on that side of the page. So this is a response to your invite to discuss. How are you doing? Bbrout (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I am fine, Bbrout. What would you like to discuss? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Um, I guess it's my mistake. I was asking you the same thing. My bad. Bbrout (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

...for your eyes on Polish Hill, Kansas. I edited out the what I thought was a racist tone about the neighborhood being all Mexican. That is why you didn't see it, I took care of that right away. Thanks for the heads up on the other sources. I am going to add those sources to the search template. Another apology...I will go to the article's creator userpage. This was a good thing-being wrong. That meant the article was viable. Thanks for all your help. Best Regards, Barbara 19:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Barbara (WVS). I appreciate you reaching out. However, I do not think that "now is almost exclusively hispanic" is racist when discussing the ethnic makeup of a neighborhood. Of course, it needs a reference and a capital H. Just my thought. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it acceptable for one user to remove another user's comments from the talk page?[edit]

Qwirkle removed the following comments I posted on the Ghost Ship fire talk page, and I don't think he should have done that. I was responding in good faith to comments from another user about me possibly having a conflict of interest. If a user is allowed to change the talk page comments of another user, it seems to me that the entire editing process can be corrupted. Here are my comments as I originally added them and just now reposted them.

I want to see full, fair and accurate information on this page, and I do know a lot of people who were personally impacted by this. Although I don't know anyone who died, so many people around Oakland did know one or more of the victims that a huge number of people have been touched by this tragedy. I have tried to be unbiased in my changes and comments, but the users Qwirkle and NorthBySouthBaranof aren't even trying to be fair or unbiased. Qwirkle clearly is biased and also extremely disrespectful of the victims and their friend and families, as seen by this revision history comment. "No, no attempt was made to rescue them because they were obviously already dead, donchaknow." Making fun of 36 dead people is not acceptable behavior. Qwirkle also gave no references to back up that statement. ANd Qwirkle's comment "Looking at the smoke conditions and the probability, the survivability of what the smoke was doing, if we were going to find anybody, they were going to be in that initial 25 to 50 feet from the front door and the initial hose stretch" seems to indicate they are a firefighter and potentially were even involved in the Ghost Ship firefighting effort. NorthBySouthBaranof admits to being a firefighter, and therefore has a definite conflict of interest. Their fellow firefighter Bowron's behavior may amount to manslaughter and they are obviously trying to protect him and the reputation of their profession. Both of them seem to have unacceptable conflicts of interest. This is a very important page, 36 innocent people died and James Bowron may have killed them through negligence or outright malice. 36 families lost loved ones. 2 men may spend the rest of their lives in prison, and this page says things about them that are not based on evidence. P37307 and Cullen328 have no apparent conflict of interest, and I would trust them to make edits much more than I would trust Qwirkle or NorthBySouthBaranof.Russ Tilleman (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Russ Tilleman. The comments that you are making about James Bowron place you at risk of being blocked for violating our policy regarding biographies of living people. I urge caution. I am too involved in this situation to use my powers as an administrator. This situation is already being discussed at WP:ANI in a thread called "Some eyeballs on 2016 Oakland warehouse fire". I encourage you to comment carefully and thoughtfully there. In my opinion, you are heading down the wrong path. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm new to editing here, and I am trying to follow the rules as well as I understand them. Is it acceptable for a user to swear at another one in the talk pages? Qwirkle has starting doing that. I think the Ghost Ship fire page should be locked down somehow and only edited by unbiased, experienced users. Especially because the trial is about to start and it is expected to be extremely confrontational.Russ Tilleman (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to "God damned" in response to your monumental BLP violation, then Quirkle was entirely correct. If there is something else, give me a link to it. I repeat my recommendation to you to discuss this at WP:ANI. If the article is subjected to ongoing disruptive editing, it will be protected (locked) at that time. Again, I urge caution in making accusations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I will look into the WP:ANI, I am not familiar with that. There is still the issue about the end of the article stating that the Ghost Ship fire was caused by "purely negligence", without any references. The official Origin and Cause report clearly states "The fire classification is UNDETERMINED." and lists arson "the introduction of an open flame, either intentionally or carelessly, cannot be eliminated" as being just as likely as electrical "a fault or failure of the electrical system cannot be eliminated." The defendants may spend the rest of their lives in prison, and Wikipedia should not be making unsubstantiated statements implicating them during the trial. In addition, the lead prosecutor, who spent the last 2 years putting the government's case together, abruptly quit his job of 20 years this week, less that 3 weeks before the trial starts. I think is an important aspect of the criminal prosecution and should be included in the Wikipedia page. I may find other details as I read through the page more closely. Is someone at Wikipedia going to remove the "purely negligence" statement?Russ Tilleman (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it; thanks for pointing it out. However, if you wish to continue editing, it would be wise to follow the advice you've been given so far. ansh666 22:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

At this point, I am happy to just point out errors and let other people fix them, if that is OK. For example in the sentence "A large number of victims were trapped on the second floor by smoke filling the stairs and because the pile of pallets used as the front stairs was likely burning." the reference makes no mention of the stairs burning and I have never seen any witness reports of that stairway burning during the evacuation phase of the fire. And the sentence "The front stairway, made from a pile of stacked wooden pallets, was initially reported as the building's only stairway." is not accurate. Page 15 of the Origin and Cause report states the front stairway "was constructed of various wooden planks and wooden studs, as well as portions of wooden pallets at its top where it accessed the second floor." So it was not "a pile of stacked wooden pallets". In the sentence "A total of four fire companies went inside in an attempt to attack the fire and find survivors, but were withdrawn after they reported that the second floor was well ablaze and the roof was threatening to collapse." the reference says nothing about the companies attempting to "find survivors". The reference also says nothing about any report that the roof was threatening to collapse. It only says that the roof collapsed "after 29 minutes" which is a long time into the fire. In the sentence "Oakland Fire Department Search and rescue personnel deployed drone aircraft using thermal imaging that unsuccessfully searched for survivors after a roof collapse made entering the scene unsafe." The references state that drones were used after the fire was out. Saying they were used "after a roof collapse" is very misleading because it implies they were part of the initial firefighting effort rather than a recovery-phase examination of the gutted building.Russ Tilleman (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, the section "Building Problems" makes no mention of the Oakland law in effect at that time requiring the building to be inspected annually. See "And those are just the buildings that caught someone’s attention. Many commercial buildings throughout the city have never been inspected, according to records of 179,000 inspections performed since 2010 obtained by this news organization, despite city law requiring that it be done annually. After the Ghost Ship fire, the requirement was changed to every two years." So the lack of a Fire Marshall inspection was not just an oversight, it was an illegal act.Russ Tilleman (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Russ Tilleman: It's probably better for you to discuss any specific concerns you have about the article on it's talk page because that will be where editors working on the article or interested in the subject matter will more likely be. Normally, I'd suggest you'd be WP:BOLD and just improve the article yourself; however, you don't seem to want to do that so maybe WP:CAUTIOUS is a better course of action. Not much is going to be resolved here on Jim's user talk page, and continuing to post here will only further fragment whatever discussion takes place or is currently ongoing. Before posting on the article's talk page, it might be a good idea for you to look at or review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for some hints on how to best use an article talk page. A little thing such as properly indenting a post might seem trivial, but does improve readability and it can help avoid confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle has been swearing at me on the article talk page and in general behaving in a hostile manner there, such as making fun of the deaths of the victims.Russ Tilleman (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Russ Tilleman, please read what Marchjuly wrote above, because that editor is correct. The only appropriate place to discuss the article content in detail, and to suggest changes to the article is Talk:2016 Oakland warehouse fire. That is the precise purpose of that page. As for Quirkle, you need to discuss any concerns you may have about their behavior directly with that editor, and if that fails, there are various forms of dispute resolution available. It is considered very bad form to go around talking about other editors behind their backs. I am aware that Quirkle said "God damned" to you and used the phrase "donchaknow" in expressing the opinion that rescue possibilities were hopeless. If that is all you have, drop it and move on. That is well within the acceptable bounds of discussion between editors here. If Quirkle said something worse, then produce the evidence. You are welcome to discuss Wikipedia editing, policies and procedures in general here on my talk page, but detailed discussion of article content belongs on article talk pages. Please do not try to discuss article content here any more. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will move over to the article talk page. I forwarded Qwirkle's behavior to the defense attorneys in case they want to subpoena his/her personal information as part of their investigation into wrongdoing by OFD and their search for a possible arsonist.Russ Tilleman (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Russ Tilleman: Moving to the article talk page is a good idea, but you really really really really need to be very careful about making statements about anything related to off-Wikipedia legal action either directed at Wikipedia or other editors per Wikipedia:No legal threats because such statements are one of the fastest ways to get your account blocked by an administrator, especially when you make them on the user talk page of an administrator (FYI, Jim is an administrator). I would strongly suggest that you avoid thing indirectly or directly posting anything which might be seen as a violation of this particular Wikipedia policy; otherwise, you will find yourself becoming a topic of discussion at WP:ANI. It would be wise for you to strike through that part of your post and not repeat it on any Wikipedia page again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly, will you do me a favor and ask an uninvolved administrator to evaluate the situation? Though the above comments look troubling to me, I am involved with the article. Plus it is late at night where I live and I worked hard today. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Given the subject matter, Russ Tilleman might be in the same time zone as you and thus has also turned in for the night. He hasn't edited since making that last post; so, perhaps its better to wait and give him a chance to clarify/redact that part of the post first. If he just leaves the post hanging, or makes a similar statement again, then ANI is always an option. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I was going to add a uw to his user talk, but someone else already did. Once again, it's probably best to see how he responds before moving to ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Red Tent (film)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Red Tent (film). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned you[edit]

I mentioned you in a request for community imposed Tban re user Bought the farm. Your input is not specifically needed or requested, but would be welcome if you wish to offer comment either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Debate vs disruption[edit]

I thought it best to not respond because I have since learned that diffs taken out of context, especially groundless accusations of aspersions, can be damaging when accumulated over time, grouped and presented in bulk so I left the discussion. I also believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I know you to be a good teacher based on your work at WP:Teahouse, regardless of who ends up being your student. Atsme Talk 📧 00:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and making me aware of that conversation, Atsme. Yes, leaving conversations that show no sign of heading toward any form of agreement is often the best course of (in)action. If things get out of control, please let me know. Thank you as well for your kind remarks about my work at the Teahouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Vlad Sandulescu[edit]

Hi Jim. Would you mind taking a look at this editor's contributions? So far, this person hasn't edited anything other then their user pages, mainly just creating userboxes or adding a "strange" wall of text to their user talk, etc. They have been also uploading images to Commons (their account is currently blocked for repeated copyvios), but only just to add files to their user pages. Finally, they might also be Vlad Sandulescu Mary. Do you think there's anything of concern here that goes beyond the user adding non-free files to their user sandbox? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. Wow. That's all pretty strange but I am not seeing any disruption of the encyclopedia itself. The copyvios are a great concern and a block is appropriate if they continue. Please let me know. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

page Sam Shockley[edit]

All this becomes a bit too difficult for me. I am actually not good at this at all. Yes, I have documents from the Archive in San Francisco San Bruno and from Ernest B. Lageson, son of one of the prison guards of Alcatraz also some data. I also have written permission from him to quote from his books. But I see that apparently that is not enough. The bar is set too high for me, a pity because what was on the page before I canged it, so far was of little value and not entirely true also. I would like to finish the page but now I only see opposition. I had asked for someone to guide me but I don't get that also . I fear that all this will be too difficult for me and for a lot of people with me, why you make it so difficult?. with kind regards Linda texelLinda texel (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Linda texel. I gave you guidance at the Teahouse and am willing to give you more guidance. But you have to be willing to try to follow our policies and guidelines. Refererences to reliable published sources are necessary because otherwise people would make things up. You do not need written permission to summarize what appears in a reliable source. But you need to cite the book in a reference. Title, author, publisher, publication date, page numbers, ISBN number. Give me that information for one book and I will format the refererence for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Linda texel, here is an example of a properly formatted reference.[1]

Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sir. Books are; Title:  Alcatraz Justice. The rocks's most famous murder trail. Author: Ernst B. Lageson. Publisher: Creative Arts Book Company, Berkley CA. ISBN 088739-408-6. copyright 2002 by E.B Lageson. Volume 337 pag. Language Eng. Crime/History. And book 2 is: Title: Battle at Alcatraz; a desperate Attempt to Escape the Rock. Author: Ernest B. Lageson. Publisher: Addicus Books Inc. ISBN 1-886039-37-2. volume 284 pag. Language Eng. Date 1999. Crime/History. I hope I this is the info you need. with regards, Linda texelLinda texel (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Linda texel (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of photographers[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of photographers. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lageson, Ernest B. (1999). Battle at Alcatraz: A Desperate Attempt to Escape the Rock. Addicus Books. ISBN 9781886039377.