Archives |
---|
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.
Contents
- 1 The importance of a friendly greeting
- 2 2009 Archive
- 3 2010 Archive
- 4 2011 Archive
- 5 2012 Archive (first six months)
- 6 References
- 7 WikiCake!
- 8 Comment
- 9 Adding cover images
- 10 Summary
- 11 Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica
- 12 As your optional poll has closed....
- 13 2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA
- 14 Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year
- 15 Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement
- 16 Band from Canada
- 17 Concern
- 18 Creating a page
- 19 speedy deletion
- 20 Please comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal
- 21 Tendentious Editing on Dorothy Kilgallen
- 22 Changing company page
- 23 Traditional Sports Of India
- 24 Please comment on Talk:Peyton Manning
- 25 From one old guy to another
- 26 Please comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington
- 27 Contested edit on Dorothy Kilgallen
- 28 Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence
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
References
WikiCake!
Comment
Is it possible that the creation of human beings by a higher power, whatever that may be, could be proven by the fact that humans are the only species on this planet that are de-evolved? Every other species evolves depending on environment. Humans have the unlocked ability to use 100% of their brains but they only use 10 to 15 percent.
If you wanted to prove the existence of another hand in our development isnt it plausible, or even undeniable, that the fact a human does not use all of our cognitive abilities is proof that humans are not within the realm of nature on this planet?
Thank you for your consideration.
No worries. I'm actually an easy going guy. I assure you though that in stalking me or my content you will have accomplished a truly boring feat. ;) Nice meeting you. D1s0b3y (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Adding cover images
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:
Summary
Media data and Non-free use rationale | |
---|---|
Description | Far Skies Deep Time cover |
Author or copyright owner |
Big Big Train |
Source (WP:NFCC#4) | http://www.bigbigtrain.com/pics/covers/fsdt.jpg |
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 (WP:NFCC#1) |
n.a. |
Minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) | Official album cover artwork from the artist's website |
Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) |
n.a. |
Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica
Greetings Cullen328! I hope the year of Our Lord, twenty-hundred and sixteen, has started out well for you! :-) Anyway, I was wondering if I could have your opinion on the Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica article? I first started working with problems regarding WP:OR and various linking issues, but the quality of sources is what I am more concerned about now.
In brief, the article is a list of figures deemed the saints of the religious denomination. However, the article relies largely on two sources: 1) Wasserman, B. J. (2007) Current List of Saints, and 2) Wasserman, J., Wasserman, N. & Crowley, A. (2013) To Perfect This Feast: A Performance Commentary on the Gnostic Mass. The first one is a .pdf file / a list published by GnosticMass.org, a site run by two "clergymen" of the denomination. The second source, is no different; it has the same authors as the website, and it's a WP:PRIMARY source describing their own belief system. I hate to say this, because it appears so highly bureaucratic, but we'd need WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY, WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and at the moment the article has none. Therefore, I've been thinking about a couple of solutions:
- To merge the article with Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica#Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. But do we really need to mention all the 75 "saints"? We would need sources that qualify for the merger as well.
- To nominate the article for AfD. Do we really need an article to enlist 75 "saints" of a religious denomination, especially if there isn't any independent secondary sources to discuss the subject? Is the topic area WP:NOTABLE enough to merit its own article in that case?
Well, these are the options that I've been thinking of. The article has been created in April 2006 when passing a new article must have been a lot easier. I'd like to invite Stealthepiscopalian to join the discussion as well. What do you think? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Jayaguru-Shishya. I believe that listing all 75 in the main article would be a poor idea, and share your concerns. Therefore, I support your proposal to take the article to AfD. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your quick reply, Cullen328! I'll wait for a day or two for the reply of Stealthepiscopalian first (seems like we are the only active editors at the rather a low traffic article). Heh, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I've familiarized myself with the guidelines and I have Twinkle at my side now to help me :-D Actually, I have few other articles standing in the line for AfD: 1) Cumbia sonidera (an unsourced article written in so bad English that it's hard to make any sense out of it)
, 2) Grady Louis McMurtry (an article to which I ran through the very list of saints we're talking about right now; created in December 2004, and has been tagged completely unsourced ever since October 2009), and 3) Yamantaka (am article that has been tagged for not having any sources that would verify ever since December 2008). - Well, it is always nice to be learning new things! Thanks for your opinion, I'll try to get started with the first nomination process today :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Status update: Urgh, my AfD nomination for Cumbia sonidera got re-listed for the second time, but I'll proceed to nominate Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica after the first AfD discussion is over. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick reply, Cullen328! I'll wait for a day or two for the reply of Stealthepiscopalian first (seems like we are the only active editors at the rather a low traffic article). Heh, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I've familiarized myself with the guidelines and I have Twinkle at my side now to help me :-D Actually, I have few other articles standing in the line for AfD: 1) Cumbia sonidera (an unsourced article written in so bad English that it's hard to make any sense out of it)
-
-
- Greetings again, Cullen328! I am glad to inform that the AfD nomination at Cumbia sonidera came to its closure, and the result was delete. I must say that I've learned a lot about the process along the way!
- Anyway, as I first asked your opinion in this thread about Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica#Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica in January 26th, I feel I'd be ready now for the nomination. I invited Stealthepiscopalian to join the discussion both on your Talk Page[1], as well as at the article Talk Page[2], but he has not given a response. I hope you can contribute if you had the time! I'll probably do the nomination tomorrow, and I'll keep you informed! Please have a pleasant weekend! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: Finally I got to nominate the article for AfD[3]. If you had time to have a look and leave a comment, that would be highly appreciated! Cheers and please have the best of the weekends! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
-
@Cullen328, I'd like to offer a counter toward the removal of this article. I feel that how little of an official sect might be, that it should have no bearing on the removal of an article accurately representing information about such sect. In reading the history of the discussion regarding the deletion of this article I see many factors being brought up that seem to have no grounds regarding the subject of removing it such as questioning why certain people are on the list. I'm afraid I don't see how that is relevant in making such a decision. Being that the grounds of deleting this article is simply on sources, I will make it a priority to update the sources to more qualified level such published works from noteworthy scholars. I will not remove Wasserman as a source considering Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source are "published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Wasserman is one of many authoritative individuals in relation to the subject of the Gnostic Mass and the Saints of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. D1s0b3y (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: @Cullen328, After going through the actual article I have found no unreliable sources on this page. When we consider the Wikipedia standard of Identifying Reliable Sources, I find no contradiction or unsuitable source at all. To comment only on some (as to not fill this page with repetitive information, Source 1 is Tau Apiryon, a Bishop of the Church itself and fully qualified to comment upon the central rite, The Gnostic Mass in which the saints are called. Source 2 is Hymenaeus Beta, the actual International head of the Ordo Templi Orientis of which the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is a part of. Source 3 is Aleister Crowley, the person who actually wrote the Gnostic Mass in which the saints are called. He also was the International Head of the Ordo Templi Orientis in which the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is a part of. Source 4 is Agape, which is the official and sanctioned news letter of the USA Grand Lodge of Ordo Templi Orientis. Source 5 is James Wasserman, also a Bishop of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica sited from his published work commenting on the Gnostic Mass. This particular citation is considered to be one of the most insightful and qualified commentaries ever made on the Gnostic Mass. I'm afraid if I list further that I may be simply beating a dead horse... The sources in this article are absolutely qualified, they meet the criteria of Wikipedia's reliable source as it is 1. properly cited to the piece of work itself 2. properly cites the creator of the content and 3. properly cites the publisher of the work. It goes even further as to assure the sources are qualified and even comprise a list of some of the most authoritative experts on the matter. I have supplied enough information above to allow you all to verify the sources are legit. comment added by D1s0b3y (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like the only edits of D1s0b3y are the commentaries here concerning Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica.[4] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Jayaguru-Shishya. That is correct. I just signed up about an hour ago, glad to be on the team. If the only grounds for removing the article are independent sources then I must say the article either needs them added or needs to be rewritten with a more rounded approach. However, from my experience on Wikipedia, independent sources don't appear to be a make it or break it qualification for articles. D1s0b3y (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- @D1s0b3y: (talk page stalker) You can't start a paragraph by saying you "just signed up about an hour ago" and then tell us what you think based on your "experience on Wikipedia". Independent and reliable sources have been necessary to make claims of notability for years as I've told aspiring editors like you over at WP:AFC. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Chris troutman. I'm not here to argue, nor is taking interest in a public discussion warrant name calling (just because there is a wiki link explain the name does not hide the fact of what it is, be better than that). I've used Wikipedia for years, I'm not sure why you equate singing up as a member the birth of my experience on the site. I am in total agreement with you that claims of notability requires a strong presence of independent sources. I don't disagree with you at all about that. I'll say it just once more that based on years of experience with Wikipedia, that independent sources don't seem to be a make it or break it qualification for articles on the site. Quite to the contrary, almost all the weight I've seen placed on sources are about qualified sources whereas independent sources are simply one form of many.
- Name calling? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, name calling. You have misjudged me with your TPS tag (yes I know it's a humorous page and not taken seriously, as most other forms of name calling). I am involved in the root of this discussion which led me to speak by countering the points brought up. I'm interested in the fate of this page so I'm indulging in the discussion. I have no interest in you personally or any other who has commented. Up until now (which will be rectified shortly) I've spoken on point to the discussion of the fate of the this particular article. But I digress. Do you have any rebuttals to the substance of my previous post other than the ones already voiced? D1s0b3y (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Name calling? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Chris troutman. I'm not here to argue, nor is taking interest in a public discussion warrant name calling (just because there is a wiki link explain the name does not hide the fact of what it is, be better than that). I've used Wikipedia for years, I'm not sure why you equate singing up as a member the birth of my experience on the site. I am in total agreement with you that claims of notability requires a strong presence of independent sources. I don't disagree with you at all about that. I'll say it just once more that based on years of experience with Wikipedia, that independent sources don't seem to be a make it or break it qualification for articles on the site. Quite to the contrary, almost all the weight I've seen placed on sources are about qualified sources whereas independent sources are simply one form of many.
- @D1s0b3y: (talk page stalker) You can't start a paragraph by saying you "just signed up about an hour ago" and then tell us what you think based on your "experience on Wikipedia". Independent and reliable sources have been necessary to make claims of notability for years as I've told aspiring editors like you over at WP:AFC. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Jayaguru-Shishya. That is correct. I just signed up about an hour ago, glad to be on the team. If the only grounds for removing the article are independent sources then I must say the article either needs them added or needs to be rewritten with a more rounded approach. However, from my experience on Wikipedia, independent sources don't appear to be a make it or break it qualification for articles. D1s0b3y (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
As your optional poll has closed....
2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA
You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016 |
Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016, for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! |
---|
Please comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement
Hi, I just saw that you're interested in making the Wikimedia movement more sustainable. I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta. I'd love to hear your ideas and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Band from Canada
Hello Jim. Can you help me to build a new page? I'm very new to this and there is a band that is from Canada that I would like to create a page on.
Livewire58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewire58 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, Livewire58, I really liked Guess Who and Bachman Turner Overdrive, so cool. Start out by reading Your first article and show me your best three examples of significant coverage in this band in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Concern
Hi there Cullen ~
I'm not active here anymore, so thought I'd drop by with a concern that perhaps you could weigh in on since you appear to have recently edited Jane O'Meara Sanders. The bit about her time at a 200-person college takes up essentially half of her bio. For reference, this well-rounded NYT piece gives the same information no more than 2 sentences. I would submit that WP's article is leaning heavily towards smear and in comparison, light on neutral, encyclopedic facts.
In this article, her time as president of the college receives no disclaimer at all, which is the norm, according to the articles I've surveyed. I wonder if the decision to feature heavily the negative aspects is due to the personal views of an editor here, as opposed to the actual relevance of this information and its weight in RS. Thanks for your time, petrarchan47คุก 00:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Petrarchan47. I share your concern about that article and tried to tone down the excessively negative coverage of her time at the college last month. It all creeped back in. I just removed the junk about Republicans speculating about fraud charges which I consider a BLP violation. I will try to keep a closer eye on the article and think about the best way to improve it and restore due weight. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I agree the issue is with weight. Either the mention of her time at the college is whittled down to match other details of her life and career (2 sentences or so), or we defer to RS and copy them - as we should - by not mentioning it at all, and if we do, it is without the cherry picked character assination attempt. I am likely going to take this to Jimbo, as this is the second bio I've run across in the past month here (and I'm not here often) that was literally half criticsm. There is no easy way to address this, but even he should not want this site becoming an attack site to spread misinformation and propaganda. i will note that both were bios of women, though I won't attribute any meaning to that. Either way, it is very upsetting to see people being attacked here; Wikipedia is the very first result in a search for Jane Sanders or any person or topic. Thanks for your help, and for letting me vent. petrarchan47คุก 20:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest the Biographies of living people noticeboard where editors interested in improving biographies hang out. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree the issue is with weight. Either the mention of her time at the college is whittled down to match other details of her life and career (2 sentences or so), or we defer to RS and copy them - as we should - by not mentioning it at all, and if we do, it is without the cherry picked character assination attempt. I am likely going to take this to Jimbo, as this is the second bio I've run across in the past month here (and I'm not here often) that was literally half criticsm. There is no easy way to address this, but even he should not want this site becoming an attack site to spread misinformation and propaganda. i will note that both were bios of women, though I won't attribute any meaning to that. Either way, it is very upsetting to see people being attacked here; Wikipedia is the very first result in a search for Jane Sanders or any person or topic. Thanks for your help, and for letting me vent. petrarchan47คุก 20:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Creating a page
Hello Cullen,
I have a question. So, there are two new football players in Bosnian national squad who do not have their pages. My question is, should I try to make them pages or wait until their national team debut. I've found a template for footballer's biography, it doesn't seem so hard.
Thanks! HenryChinaski91 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC) HenryChinaski91 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, HenryChinaski91. Sorry to be slow to respond. I have been very busy in recent days. Please read our notability guideline for footballers, which says, "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." Accordingly, I recommend that you draft the articles in your sandbox space or draft space, and then move them to the main space after the players have appeared in a fully professional game. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thank you very much for your time and your answer. HenryChinaski91 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
speedy deletion
Hi Jim, I am writing to you as i had my article deleted even when i provided references. The thing is, i have newspaper articles and physical evidence but there's no way or no one to help me out with this. Furthermore i have copies of the official documents from the governing bodies associated with it.
My question is, what is a independant geoscientist doing deleting pages that has nothing to do with his field of expertise.
Please let me know how i am able to fix this. if it is possible,i will email you all the necessary pictures/documents Much Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masha.Ukraina (talk • contribs) 13:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Masha.Ukraina. You should discuss the deletion with administrator Graeme Bartlett, who concluded that the article was a hoax. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Tendentious Editing on Dorothy Kilgallen
This has gone on for too long. I am about one more tendentious edit away from taking KathrynFauble to ANI and requesting a TBAN. Do you have any strong objection? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have no objection whatsoever, Ad Orientem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I will post a final warning on Kathryn's talk page as well as the IP she has been using. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Changing company page
Hi Jim,
I guess I've just about broken every rule there is...I realised after reading up on your helpful sections. First, I am writing about a company. It is a company I am heavily involved with.
However, I am not attempting to alter anything in a biased way but rather add historical events to the page and also reflect a change of ownership that took place 7th of March 2016. All this is visible on the page I altered but I don't seem to be able to move the page. The company is Strunal CZ, as which now is called Strunal Schönbach s.r.o.
I found a help section which showed a simple way of moving the page. Brilliant I thought. Then I don't have to recreate a new page for the same company as it has only changed owners and name but still does exactly the same as before. All the staff are the same, location the same although there is a new logo.
Is there a way of changing the "name" of the page to reflect the current real name or does it have to be done "the hard way".
Thank you very much in advance for your help and assistance.
P.S. I've contacted the user that originally created the page but have as of yet not received a response.
Kind regards, J-P. Olsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by TherealJPO (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello TherealJPO. Please post your suggested changes at Talk:Strunal CZ, a.s., along with links to reliable sources that verify the information Leave me a note here and I will make the appropriate changes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Traditional Sports Of India
Traditional Sports Of India is about to be speedy deleted. You can help by contacting the newbie editor. I would like to have the information in Wikipedia, but there are several problems to be overcome. Please don't bite the newbies. But we do!--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Dthomsen8. I see that the article has been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. As one of the most active Teahouse hosts, I try to keep "biting the newbies" to an absolute minimum. However, we have strong policy and legal reasons to delete copyright violations immediately. Someone who violated copyright out of ignorance may feel bitten if the violation gets deleted promptly but then on the other hand, they must learn this particular lesson if they are to have any hope of success as a Wikipedia editor. I do not know which newbie created the copyright infringing article, but if they asked me how to proceed, I would recommend that they read, study and follow the recommendations in Your first article, and I would try to offer that advice in a friendly, helpful way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- So there is no way to provide the information in that article without doing a lot of research and writing a new article free of copyright problems? That is more than I have the energy and time to do. Thank you for your prompt response.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- DThomsen8, the content, except for a few brief cited quotations, needs to be written in the editor's own words. See WP:COPYVIO for a discussion of this issue. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- So there is no way to provide the information in that article without doing a lot of research and writing a new article free of copyright problems? That is more than I have the energy and time to do. Thank you for your prompt response.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Peyton Manning
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peyton Manning. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
From one old guy to another
Happy birthday | |
From one old guy to another: happy birthday. Let's go and make some shit "free"--like healthcare and education. I'll pay my share for you if you pay your share for me. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much, Drmies. It is always nice to have a member of senior management stop by my little cubicle. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Legacy of George Washington. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Contested edit on Dorothy Kilgallen
Before I jump in on this one, what's your view of this edit? It's turning into a slow motion edit war. Unbelievably, I think I agree with Kathryn on this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, I do not have a problem with that edit at first glance. I am busy with paying work in real life right now, so do not have time to look deeply. Thanks for letting me know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am not very active on here anymore myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)