Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:22, 11 February 2015

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome to my talk page I use the name Cullen328 on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages when I first started editing. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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

Oddfellows

Greetings Cullen328! I was wondering if you could take a quick look at this Oddfellows article? What I see problematic in the article, is that there is the same source used 19 times, and the source is actually the very website of the Oddfellows organization. More than that, the reference (reference No. #1) seems to be a {{dead link}}, linking to the Main Page of the organization's home page, therefore incapable of verifying any claims.

Well, at least that's how it was before the most recent edit. Now an individual citation is linking to three different sources (still, reference No. #1). All of the sources link back to the Oddfellows own website. One of the sources is still the very same {{dead link}} as mentioned above. Anyway, I don't find the organization's own web site really as an independent and reliable source, and linking to three different sources at once seems highly unorthodox to me. This has been discussed with the involved editor, User:Pdfpdf. He has partly agreed with this: he acknowledges the problem with the independency and reliability of the sources, but don't really see why linking to multile sources in one citation would be problematic.

You are much more experienced editor in these matters, and therefore I'd like to ask you two questions:

1. Is it okay to include more than one (in this case three) sources to one reference (one of them falls under {{dead link}} / {{fv}} / {{or}}?
2. Should one tag a piece of text or a source everytime it appears, or only once (this time it is tagged in the footnotes)? In the MEDRS articles I've used to see, that the source is tagged everytime it appears.

Personally, I clearly belief that "Odd fellows / Oddfellows" meet all the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as an internationally active friendly society. Therefore I've been in support of tagging the dependent sources, so it'd help to catch the attention of other users. I think the current article would suffer decisive damage if the current sources were just plainly removed.

I hope you can dedicate a tiny little piece of your time to see this one. Cheers! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jayaguru-Shishya. Yeah, that article is a mess. It seems to be a mash-up of an article about the Manchester group in the UK and every group that uses the name "Oddfellows". Since the IOOF based in the US already has an article, I think this article should focus on the Manchester group and briefly mention the others in passing.

Of course, it is unfortunate that most statements are cited to the group's own website, and so I recommend that independent sources be given prominence to the extent possible. Such problems are common in articles about social groups. Pretty much everything in articles on Roman Catholic topics will be cited to Catholic sources. General books about the history of fraternal organizations would be best, and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica can be cited for the early history.

Referencing should be consistent and simple. I haven't examined those details. The "ref name =" function allows a reference to be defined just once, and cited repeatedly. Efforts should be made to find alternatives to dead links. Failing that, leave them for future editors to work on. Google may have digitized hundreds of millions more old books in a few years.

I do not feel the need to tag sources that lack independence unless the notability of the topic is in question. That is not the case here. Personallly, I would not use the group's own website for all that ancient history claptrap. I have little patience for that. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that cleared a lot Cullen328. I agree, the "independency of sources" isn't the main problem here, and I've been quite a "soft liner" here (although there's been discussion on the Talk Page about finding better sources).

Anyway, there's still one piece of technicalities that I keep wondering: that is, mentioning multiple sources in one citation. For example,

The name Oddfellows refers to a number of friendly societies and fraternal organisations operating in the United Kingdom. It also refers to a number of Lodges with histories dating back to the 18th century.

Where ref goes as follows:

So, this is practically the reference now that appears 19 times in the article. I agree with you totally: "Referencing should be consistent and simple.". Unfortunately, I don't see this very simple. It can be viewed in a more clear form at the article (ref ), where you can easily see that it is linking to three different sources.

Sorry for the mess at your Talk Page xP Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem with the "mess", Jayaguru-Shishya. I see more clearly now what you mean, and I do not think I have ever seen that citation style before. My instinctive reaction is "one citation for one source", but I do not know if there is a specific guideline against that type of citation. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328! I discussed with the user and the citation style has been fixed now. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Means of disambiguation and reliable sources

Greetings! I'd like to ask you a couple of questions more, if you don't mind :-) I've currently brought up to discussion a couple of problems with the lede at Talk:Oddfellows#Problems with the lede. In a nutshell, we had the following third paragraph in the lede:

Note that there are, and have been, a number of different Orders of Oddfellows in the UK – refer to Societies using the name "Oddfellows" for a list. One of them, The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited, uses the trading name "The Oddfellows". Thus, there can be ambiguity when referring to "the Oddfellows".

I brought up two main concerns: 1) The paragraph seemed to be written for disambiguation purposes, and 2) it might have included {{OR}} as there were no sources provided. For disambiguation, I proposed the following neat and nice hatnote:

For the possible {{OR}}, I suggested that we'd use a source, e.g. "According to X, there has been a number of different Orders of Oddfellows in the UK, and those can be easily confused. These orders include..." instead of relying solely on any single editor alone.

I appreciate that the user responded to the concern, but I am not entirely satisfied with the source he gave in the most recent version of the article to "verify" the third paragraph of the lede. This is because the given reference actually links to the front page of "The Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society Limited", and more specifically, the very bottom of the page (along with notes about trademark issues etc.). Moreover, it doesn't say a word about the ambiguity of the term. That's why I still think that we should just use a hatnote (like in many other articles) to solve the problem, and not to add unsourced / poorly sourced paragraphs.

Well, like I told to the editor already before, I don't see this as a content dispute, but purely as a matter of WP:MOS (well, and a bit of reliable sources now). I suggested him that we could ask for a neutral opinion at the very WP:MOS, but I thought it could be smart to ask an opinion from a more experienced editor first. What do you think? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jayaguru-Shishya. I agree completely regarding the proposed hat note. An independent source for the variety of UK groups with similar names would be best. Lacking that, references to the relevant web pages of several of the groups is preferable than to just the largest of the groups. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328, and thanks for your answer! I carried out the changes in the lede but I am afraid there's gonna explode soon. I tried to discuss the problems with Pdfpdf, but it seems he wasn't too eager about it =F ...

Anyway, a great thanks for your help! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Palmdale

Hi Jim, I'd like to do an article about The Battle of Palmdale. Here is one of my sources http://blog.usni.org/2009/11/13/flightdeck-friday-the-battle-of-palmdale . In have 2 other good sources and some really good original photos I can use. I believe it is notable enough because it shows how poorly we were to able to protect ourselves against the ominous Soviet threat. What do you think? Samf4u 17:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Samf4u. I don't know about the other two sources, but I have my doubts about whether the blog post is a reliable source. I notice that it quotes an unnamed LA newspaper, suggesting that the writer is using an unmarked clipping. Also, the word "battle" is used. tongue in cheek. Be careful to avoid original research about the relationship to broader geopolitical issues. I don't think the risk of a Soviet air attack on LA was high in 1956. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and your opinion. Samf4u 22:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim, May I ask you to review The Battle of Palmdale ? I value your opinion and any criticism would be welcome. You can call me Eric if you like, it being my real name. Samf4u 03:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that you have done a very good job with the article, and I really enjoyed reading it, Eric. I made one minor edit. My main criticism is that the references are now poorly formatted. Please refer to Referencing for beginners. Then go over your article several times, being sure every factual assertion is referenced, and that you are comfortable with the wording of each sentence. I think the article may be worthy of the Did you know section on the main page. Well done. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll work on the references. Samf4u 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tor Network

Hi Cullen, many thanks for the reply to my query in the Teahouse. You mentioned a Tor network. What is that?Noughtnotout (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Noughtnotout. Let me emphasize that I am not by any means an expert in online computer security. However, as far as I know, Tor is free software that can be used to create a highly secure computer network. Please see Tor (anonymity network) for the details I do not understand. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

But will it affect normal editing or editing of a semi-protected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noughtnotout (talk • contribs) 06:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Because highly motivated vandals, block evaders and sockpuppets may abuse Tor networks in an attempt to evade scrutiny, those who edit from such networks are held to more stringent standards. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim

Thanks for the help on my newness at w. I have learned a lot lately. Can you help me here? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Welcome to the Teahouse, PhilipofJMJ. It seems that you tried to add unreferenced information, including the statement "See other Wiki articles by philipofJMJ on wikipedia."We never use one Misplaced Pages article as a reference for another. No respected Misplaced Pages editor ever promotes their own article work in article space. I am proud to say which articles I have helped improve on my own user page. But it would be entirely inappropriate to do so in an encyclopedia article. Please take this as a lesson. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I am learning a lot by these responses. Thanks. philipofJMJPhilipofJMJ (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ It seems that there is a clear contradiction at different pages of Misplaced Pages. That is why I said that. For example: on Pope Sylvester I's page, he is said, correctly said, to have baptized Constantine the Great. I said as much, and all was erased, preferring to have the error remain on other pages, that, he was baptized on his deathbed by a heretic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipofJMJ (talk • contribs) 04:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, PhilipofJMJ. Please do not type a big long string of characters on Misplaced Pages. That is not acceptable here. I know nothing about Pope Sylvester and Constantine. But I do know that you are obligated to cite reliable sources. If there is a "clear contradiction" between different pages, then discuss how to resolve that contradiction on the talk pages of the various articles, bringing forth reliable sources for discussion. Maybe you are the first to notice the contradiction, maybe not. But you need to resolve such contradictions in a professional way, citing reliable sources, as all editors are expected to do. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Jim: I now have at least 2, very good, references for my project. When you have time, could you please help me get them moved from the talk page to the main page? Where to start? Either the main page on Saint Constantine The Great, or the main page of Saint Pope Sylvester I. Thanks, Jim. Sincerely, philipofJMJPhilipofBVM (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC) PhilipofBVM (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello PhilipofBVM. The sources you propose are not reliable sources as Misplaced Pages defines that. They are fringe self-published sources. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

relax and recharge
Thank you, Jim, for truly thinking that Misplaced Pages is the greatest thing since sliced bread, for quality articles (that you don't own) on the Sierra and its people, such as Cedric Wright, for rescuing articles, for welcoming and helping new users, for mentoring and encouraging those who leave to "reconsider", "take a break for a while whenever you need to", "relax and recharge", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 721st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the reminder, Gerda Arendt. Hearing from you makes me feel very good, and also makes me wish that I was a better German language student back in high school. I have that terrible American affliction of failing to master any language other than American English, though I dabble poorly with several others. Would you be willing to help me translate a challenging passage from medieval German to English? Cullen Let's discuss it 08:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I am better in English than in medieval German, but I would look ;) - If you want to help me you can look at Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her (not my article, but I link to it), and the request to merge the 2007 specialised infobox hymn to a more modern and general template (link on top of the other). I am on vacation, therefore brief, looking for today's candidate for Precious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I did a tiny bit of copy editing there. I can't help more, as I am neither Christian, nor a musicologist, nor a template expert. I recognize my limitations. I wish you a wonderful vacation, Gerda Arendt. I will dig up that German passage soon. It is not a rush. Cullen Let's discuss it 09:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be a Christian to say something in the move request, and it might even help to support a merge of a special template ;) - a hymn is a composition, no? (Some of the opposers possibly never used the template. I tried. It's not useful.) There was a little edit war over it on the hymn in question, did you see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Louis Lesser

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Louis Lesser. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Please assist

An article I created, Town of Salem, is currently being discussed for deletion at the AfD. Can you please help me save the article? The discussion is ongoing at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Town of Salem. I will appreciate it, as I know you have helped save articles from deletion over the years. Thank you, Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 04:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I will refrain from commenting at the AfD since I don't want any accusations of canvassing. If you can bring forward some significant coverage of the game in reliable, independent sources, then I will help improve the article. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages.

When editing Misplaced Pages, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

No edit summary. Gasp!

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! NeilN 06:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, NeilN, I appreciate the helpful advice, and will work hard to raise my edit summary percentage, but math and logic tells me that it will never quite hit 100%. Thanks for motivating me to re-read Robert L. M. Underhill. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN, this came up at my RfA, to my detriment. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

205-2-3 ain't bad :-) In fact, it's pretty phenomenal. --NeilN 16:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the 205 were me and Cullen, you know, and our families. The two opposers, that was kind of funny. The one opposed cause I wouldn't have the other blocked. I still don't like throwing around blocks. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The two opposers are also currently banned/blocked indefinitely. I smell a... CABAL!! --NeilN 21:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Advice on mentor program

Hi, Cullen. I wonder if I could ask your advice. We have a new editor who has been having problems with his articles being deleted for copyright reasons. I left a message at his user page, and he says that he would like to deal with a single human. That made me think of the mentor program. I see now that an associate has posted a banner on his (user page) -- professor and university historian at the University of Colorado. Do you think that the mentor program would be appropriate for this, or should I send him directly to Moonriddengirl? She's the expert on this, and has been very good in the past. Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I made some comments on the user's talk page. It is kind of a mess because he is clearly acting in good faith, but going about things in a way that attracts scrutiny. I hope Mike V can get involved. As an administrator and OTRS volunteer, he may be able to expedite things. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I notice that his account is blocked. Hopefully Mike V can help get this situation straightened out. I left another note saying that once it's established that these documents are public domain then probably we can get some of his articles back (and get the block lifted). – Margin1522 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the fundamental issue is whether many of these these people are notable or not. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This editor was blocked from January 4 to January 16, Margin1522, and was unblocked by . . . Mike V. Please see this. He is not currently blocked. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was pointed out earlier. I missed it. About the notability, we shall see. To tell the truth I haven't read them yet. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Straight over his head

Laughed at your comment at WT:Teahouse but I think the recipient will completely miss the point. Nthep (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You are probably right, Nthep, but at least I was motivated to read our article The True Believer. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse Question

Hello, thank you for provide help for my question before and I'm sorry to bother you again on your talkpage. If you have time, can you please help with my follow up questions here ? or can you please refer me to appropriate place that can help? Thank you so much. Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I made additional comments at the Teahouse in response to your questions. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse discussion

Thank you for your opinion. I am just frustrated with Hans Barbosa, who keeps adding those bonds. It was very helpful for another person's opinion. Thank you. Buscus 3 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Since no other editor supports adding those forgeries, I don't think you have much to worry about, Buscus 3. Stop by here any time. Cullen Let's discuss it 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

:P Ok will do. Buscus 3 (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Curious!

Hello Jim, I recently submitted my article Hostyle Gospel that was rejected two weeks ago. I reached out to other users and administrators and got tips on how to improve my article. One user even went as far as browsing over the article and reformatting the entire article so it would be ready for resubmission. I'm still new to Misplaced Pages and I don't know as much as the other gurus, but how long does the process of a resubmitted usually takes? Thank you Graceking123 (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Graceking123. I looked at your draft and I have problems with the notability of the group, and especially with the "Reception" section. The Journal of Gospel Music source is a reprint of a blog post. Blogs are, in general, not reliable sources. The Brain Magazine reference from France is a very brief passing mention, in a general article on Christian rappers. It is a "name check". It is not significant coverage useful for establishing notability. It may just be that this group is not yet notable, if this is the best you've got. As for the AfC backlog, it is severe. Many weeks in most cases. I suggest you reach out to the two previous reviewers for additional input. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Vitamin B12

Jim, I was looking at this article on my cell and stuff in the info box looks odd, and there's a weird template on the page--which may be one of those mobile markers. Last edit was by an IP, apparently. Can you have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, Boss. I don't use the mobile site, which protects me from all such bugs. The article looks great using the desktop site on my Android HTC One M-8, but, yeah, when I pull up the mobile site, there is the word "Smiles" plus a lot of what looks like gibberish. That garbage is actually coding called Simplified molecular-input line-entry system. "Smiles" is the acronym. It's a code for displaying a graphic image of a molecule. Please don't quote me because my programming skills are almost non-existent, but it looks to me that there is a mobile site bug that isn't displaying that function right. Maybe the geniuses over at the Village Pump can help out. Fixing it is WAY above my pay grade. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I posted at the Village Pump. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Insertion of an image

Hello Jim, I uploaded an image (Logo) and the apropriate copyright tag to be inserted in the posted article. It is not there yet. Is something missing? (https://en.wikipedia.org/International_Committee_on_Technical_Interchange_for_Space_Mission_Operations_and_Ground_Data_Systems) Cheers Joachim Spaceops (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Spaceops: You have asked the same question at the Teahouse where I have responded to it. It is not recommended that you ask the same question on several pages at the same time. Best, w.carter-Talk 11:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oddfellows (2015-01-25)

Thanks, but ...

Honestly, I don't understand your problems. And also honestly, I don't think you understand my problems.
I'm sure that with mutual good faith and attempts at communication, we might succeed. But also, ...
To be brutally honest, this isn't my highest priority - I have many other interests that I'd rather be devoting my time and effort to. But after 7 years of effort, I'm very uncomfortable with the article being changed to give an impression which is both inaccurate and misleading.

I hope you find the above useful and informative. Meanwhile, thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Pdfpdf. I don't have a "problem", whatever that might be, regarding this article. I was asked for my opinion by another editor and I gave it. Here's my view: the article defines the topic as the various groups called "Oddfellows" in the UK, and then proceeds to devote considerable attention to Oddfellows groups outside the UK. And when discussing the groups within the UK, it seems to devote disproportionate attention to the Manchester group. I think that it would be a far better article if its clearly defined topic was the Manchester group. Currently, it seems jumbled and spawling to me. That's my sincere opinion, and I see no need at all for a confrontational tone in edit summaries or elsewhere. I am a very cooperative fellow. Cullen Let's discuss it 16:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Goodness gracious me! If you're not careful, you'll get a reputation for being reasonable and rational!!

Thank you. I found your reply very useful. I'll think about it, and get back to you.

I am a very cooperative fellow. - So it would seem! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I am glad to see that you have engaged in discussion, Pdfpdf. It seems, however, that my edit where I added a disambiguation hat note got reverted by you again. That's the very edit in regards of which I asked Cullen328's opinion. Anyway, your ES went as follows:

rv ALL of these matters have already been discussed and addressed. These edits are simply your opinion. There is NO basis of fact behind them, and you re NOT supplying any. PLUS, there are inaccuracies in what you have added. WP:BRD

I am sorry to hear you feel that "the edits are simply my opinion, and have no facts behinds them". I have discussed the problems at the article Talk Page though (here and here). Not just do I think that a hat note is a good way to disambiguate, but currently the 3rd paragraph (used to disambiguate as well) is {{OR}} and lacks of any references. That's another reason that speaks on behalf of a hat note instead of the current extra paragraph in the lede.

What's the way forward from here? Pdfpdf and I seem to be the only "active" editors present at the moment. I don't want to engage myself in any further reverting, and edit warring probably isn't on anyone's list. I hope that Pdfpdf would stay at the article too, since he seems to have to have some expertise on the subject that is valuable. Any suggestions? Cullen? =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Johann Hari

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Johann Hari. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjusting pilot start date - WP:Co-op

Hello Cullen328,

I'll be putting out a formal update sometime soon, but I wanted to inform you that I've decided to push our start date back to mid-February rather than in January. There are number of reasons for this, but the biggest factor is that we are now facing the hard work of implementing our designs on the Mediawiki interface. It's a limiting environment to work with from a web-building perspective, and the team that worked on the Teahouse can offer similar testimonials to these challenges. We also want to make sure there is time for us and for you to test the environment out, ask questions at our project's talk page, and give us a little time to make any last changes before we start inviting editors to the space. If some of you know you will be unavailable during this time, it's totally fine if you need to bow out for the pilot. But we do need all the mentors we can get, so even if you can take the time to mentor just one or two editors, that would be fantastic.
Thanks a bunch, I, JethroBT on behalf of Misplaced Pages:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Advice needed re conflicting edits

Hi Jim, as you probably saw from my question to Missvain, I've tried to educate myself by reading various WP guidelines for developing good articles and avoiding common problems, but I'd like some advice as to a number of issues, the main three being: 1) the best process for making changes when I believe existing edits are not consistent with WP guideliness, but would require substantially changing or reverting some existing edits, and 2) best communicating with someone who is offended by changes to their contributions (even if I give WP reasons for the change) and then simply reverts any changes and personalizes it. I've noticed that experienced editors that I've interacted with (e.g., User:SusanLesch are very professional and give logical reasons why they want to make changes to what I've written or edited. However, looking at other sites I've noticed that some editors appear to take edits very personally and respond very defensively. 3) When the other person doesn't engage in a discussion, but just makes reverts, what is the procedure? Any advice? Thanks.

Hello Civlaction. Am I correct that you are asking about a hypothetical future conflict, as opposed to an actual dispute that you are involved with? If so, here are my thoughts:

1. If you believe something needs to be changed, the general rule is to be bold and change it. Provide references and explain things in your edit summary. If your change is reverted, discuss the matter on the article's talk page. This is what we call the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, if the article is about a highly controversial topic, or a rapidly developing news story, or just in the midst of intense editing, caution may be in order. Review the talk page to see if the matter has been discussed previously. See which editors have been both active and level-headed, and ask their opinion. Never engage in edit warring, and always try to build consensus.

2. Dealing with problematic editors is always a challenge and a bit of an art. Personally, I believe that is is usually best to ignore signs of defensiveness (at least early on) and to engage in a polite, professional fashion. Always remind yourself that there is no "perfect way" to write an article, and always try hard to understand the other opinion. If the matter is not extremely important, consider letting it be. But if you truly believe that changes are needed, propose them on the article talk page. Seek allies among other level-headed editors.

3. Repeated reverting is edit warring, which is forbidden except in very limited circumstances, such as fighting overt vandalism, removing copyright violations, and dealing with obvious attacks on living people. We have administrative noticeboards to deal with these various behavioral issues. Since you are a new editor, I recommend being slow to go to the noticeboards, since they can be highly adversarial. Try informal dispute resolution first, and ask for advice from experienced editors. One of our core assumptions is that productive, good faith editors will win out in the end over problematic, confrontational editors. This takes patience, often called the "long view".

These are my opinions, which reflect my personality and 5-1/2 years of editing. Other opinions may vary. Please feel free to ask any question at any time. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the sage advice. That approach makes sense to me and I will plan on following it. If I have further questions I will take you up on your offer and contact you. Thanks again for taking the time to counsel.--Civlaction (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Civlaction, and my invitation to return to my talk page at any time is sincere. Thank you very much for setting out on the path to being a productive Misplaced Pages editor. We need people like you. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. I chimed in there. Cullen Let's discuss it 17:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

for noticing. It's an old post, very old, must have been from the days when I still had a sense of humour. I'm amazed that it's suddently got so popular. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's a meme, my friend, and also quite funny. Your current firmness is entirely appropriate. I read much more than I comment on. By the way, I think about the emails we exchanged quite often. All in good time. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So do I, so do I. In the meantime I think I'm going to try and raise my pay grade and have a shot at CU to be able to look for more lost socks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Kudpung, roaming around in cyberspace, scrutinizing IP addresses. That sounds . . . fascinating, infuriating, possibly boring. But it is work that needs to be done by trustworthy people. I trust you.

By the way, there are a few behind my dryer. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking for guidance

Hi Jim!

I feel I should be calling you Mr Cullin or Sir Jim or something similar given your contributions to Misplaced Pages! I trust though that you are happy with Jim. :-)

The reason I am writing to you is that I am a very new User of Wiki. Well new in the sense of being a contributor.

Yesterday I inserted my first ever post under the section Selfie called nowie. I was never expecting it to simply “get approved” as this is my first attempt at writing for wiki. I would however really areciate your feedback in terms of what I need to change / add to the article in order that it might be approved?

Thank you so much for your time.

CassieNen (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello CassieNen, and thank you for your kind words. The reason I reverted your edit is explained at WP:MADEUP. You should also read WP:NOT and WP:NEO. The basic principles of Misplaced Pages are described at WP:5P. Read some of the links you will find there. Feel free to ask additional questions after reading that material. Cullen Let's discuss it 16:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for review : Draft:Ed DeCosta

Hi Jim,

I know it's been a while but I was hoping to share with you the improvements I have made with the article I am working on. It was recently declined however the admin who did so gave me awesome pointers to improve the article and resubmit.

Perhaps you can enlighten me with something I have been struggling to get answers for. My research on the subject led me to conclude that most of the articles about him is geared towards the teachings of his book, Ascend : A Coach's Roadmap for Taking your Performance to New Heights.. His publication has been comprehensively discussed on numerous media. Do you think it would be wise to create an article about the book first?

I really appreciate your assistance and thank you in advance for taking the time off your busy schedule =)

Pmanz2014 || Let's Connect 11:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Pmanz2014. I notice that you posted a similar question at the Teahouse, and I made a comment there. Though you have toned it down a bit, the article still reeks of promotionalism. That family photo resembles the ones that politicians send out on glossy postcards right before election day. Why the heck did you think that was appropriate? You preface all the substantive content with this promotionalistic junk about the various people who interviewed him or wrote about him or whatever. That kind of stuff is very irritating to most experienced editors, who have seen it all many times before, and do not like it. My recommendation to you is conciseness and scrupulous neutrality. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the book, please read WP:NBOOKS. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Adminship?

I'm sure you've been asked this before, but I'm too lazy to trawl through your talk-page archives: Would you have any interest at all in becoming an admin? There are always drama-free (or nearly so) tasks that need to be done, and a fellow old fogy would be welcome. Deor (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Deor. I have been asked and I do have an interest, but I have some family issues to resolve first. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood—sorry for bothering you. Deor (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not bothering me in any way, shape or form, Deor. Feel free to visit my talk page at any time. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

List of compilers question from Teahouse

hi Cullen,

thanks for inviting me to your page.

For reference yesterday I was user LADSoft but had my name changed to KoalaSleeps for the obvious reason. I had posted in the teahouse about the compiler I want to write about and you had left your comments about the state of every college student under the sun turning out a buggy homemade compiler. I couldn't really argue with that lol!

Just out of curiosity, how do I find the compiler's list talk page so I can see what other concerns people have?

For fun I did a google search tonight and found the compiler mentioned on several pages that aren't mine, dating all the way back to 2007. While most of those pages are individual users or chats and may not meet the definition of reputable, the compiler is listed on both www.freeprogrammingresources.com and www.thefreecountry.com/compilers. I didn't see seen any reviews though, just blurbs about the compiler's existance and what basic features to expect from it.

here is a list of the sites:

http://www.willus.com/ccomp.shtml Feb 2015 has a blurb about the compiler

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=6631 Feb 2007 compiler is mentioned in a discussion about assemblers that come with compilers

http://www.freeprogrammingresources.com/cppcomp.html undated has a blurb about the compiler

http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml undated but based on content was last updated in the 2013-2014 time frame, has a blurb about the compiler.

http://texteditors.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Orange_C_IDE may 2014, quick mention of compiler and MSDOS editor

http://www.bttr-software.de/forum/board_entry.php?id=8631&page=0&category=all&order=last_answer&descasc=DESC#p9203 August 2010, discussion about the compiler in an MSDOS forum.

For comparison this is my site:

http://ladsoft.tripod.com/orange_c_compiler.html

I am wondering if this is enough to make the compiler interesting for Misplaced Pages? Thanks for your help!KoalaSleeps (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello KoalaSleeps. I can answer one of your questions with confidence. In general, every page on Misplaced Pages has an associated talk page. There are a number of ways to view Misplaced Pages, "skins" they are called, but in general, there will be a menu strip at the top of your view of the website. One of those choices will be "Talk". Click on that. In this particular case, the talk page is located at Talk:List of compilers.

As for all those websites you linked to, I am not in a position to evaluate the reliability of those websites. I am not a professional programmer, but rather just a guy who took a few programming classes 35 years ago, getting A grades rather than D grades, but took a different career path. My technical knowledge is WAY out of date. Instructions on how to evaluate the reliability of a website or other source can be found at WP:RS.

Please be aware that quite a few editors here are strongly opposed to any edit that can be construed as self-promotional. Do not be surprised if other editors take exception to you editing about your own compiler. Their comments may be "unfriendly". Cullen Let's discuss it 04:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm New! I Just Posted LORRIE GOULET : : Need Wiki Sherpa!

Dear Jim,

Thanks for being so generous with your knowledge - your enthusiasm and commitment are very inspiring.

I'd appreciate your help on getting "Lorrie Goulet" reviewed and improved. Lorrie is one of our greatest living American artists - not just a scupltor and painter, but a philosopher and poet. A team of volunteers here in NYC have been working with her going through a vast archive she has built in her beautiful studio in Chelsea. Many of the papers, photos and films about her and her husband (Jose de Creeft) are in the Smithsonian and other institutions which we'll be visiting over the next few weeks to further enhance the story. We are working on a few books and documentaries and were surprised Lorrie didn't have a Wiki years ago.

Cynthia

Hello Cynthia Artin. Please remove the promotional material from your user page. That page should introduce you as a Misplaced Pages editor but the current version promotes your business interests. I have read Lorrie Goulet and agree that the artist is notable. Thank you for starting the article. Please be aware, though, that it is essential and a matter of policy that a biography of a living person be properly referenced. Every factual assertion should be cited to a reliable source, in the form of inline references. Please see Referencing for beginners.

The list of exhibitions and museum holdings is excessive and should be trimmed to the most important. Each entry on the list should be cited to a reliable, independent source. Her education should be described in prose, not list form. Currently, the article looks way too much like a curriculm vitae instead of an encyclopedia article. Misplaced Pages is not LinkedIn, nor is it a repository for the kind of brochures that art galleries hand out praising the artists whose work they sell. Accordingly, any praise or evaluation of her work must be cited to an independent expert source. Every direct quotation must be cited.

I recommend trimming the article by about 50%, an exercise which will result in a much leaner, fact based style. The article will be better for it, in my opinion. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

OK Jim, thanks again! Finally figured out the various comments on my own page and cleaned them up (re-posting with a mea culpa and simple explanation of what I am doing 'here.')

I will simplify the Lorrie Goulet page and add citations and such over the weekend, and also respond to others who are concerned with my ineptness!

Thanks again!

Cynthia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia Artin (talk • contribs) 23:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please help me.

Jim. My name is John Shine, Hello and thanks upfront.

I am the owner of a company called Kornukopia. We are are free learning management system for schools. I have learned to rely on wikipedia for myself doing research. I believe Kornukopia can really help some needy schools. My problem is that my entry keeps getting deleted.

Almost all the other options for LMSs are listed on wikipedia for Learning Management Systems. See below. https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_learning_management_systems

But every time I try... Deleted.

WP:G11 Main page: Misplaced Pages:Spam Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. See Misplaced Pages:NOTFORPROMOTION for the policy on this.

I have gone so far are to basically repeat what one company did.. Still deleted.

what can I do? I am in one way promoting, but in the other I think that a reference to learning management system that does not include our service is not a complete entry for all providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornukopia123 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Kornukopia123. I suggest using our Articles for Creation process to create a draft of your article. Experienced editors will give you specific feedback about the content after you submit it. One thing that's important - your company needs to be covered in independent published sources (e.g., newspapers, magazines) to show it meets Misplaced Pages's definition of notability. See WP:CORP for more info. --NeilN 21:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Kornukopia123. I see from your talk page that you have been advised to change your username. I agree with that advice, and suggest you do so promptly. Since your article has been deleted, I can't see the specific promotional problems. But it is clear that you have a conflict of interest, and should not write an article about your own company. Almost every single new article I have ever seen about a company or organization written by someone employed there is promotional. Uninvolved editors work constantly to remove promotional content. This is an encyclopedia and our articles need to be neutral and based on independent sources. Just because you see mediocre articles about competing companies doesn't mean we should have a mediocre article about yours. If your company is truly notable, we should have a good, policy-compliant article about your company, and either get rid of or improve those other articles. You should use the Articles for creation process going forward. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, NeilN. It is always nice when you stop by. Cullen Let's discuss it 22:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I like it here. It's friendly :-) --NeilN 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted photographs on Lorrie Goulet page

Can you take a look at this please User_talk:Cynthia_Artin#Photographs Should the photographs be tagged for deletion? Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow to respond, Theroadislong, as I have been distracted by family matters. Since the photos are gone, I couldn't comment on them in detail. I tried, though, to make a supportive comment about sourcing. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I have had more pleasant and enjoyable conversations with you than any other editor on Misplaced Pages. You are one big reason why I keep editing, because you are so encouraging to me.   Bfpage |leave a message  21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate that, Bfpage, especially since we had a minor disagreement. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It is precisely the times that we disagree that I learn the most from you.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jemima Goldsmith

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jemima Goldsmith. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I expressed my opinion there. Cullen Let's discuss it 00:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied

Just an FYI, replied to you (with an edit also) re GamerGate vs USU. You might want to read it - we've got a dilemma on our hands. MicBenSte (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding the point on the talk page, MicBenSte. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

It took me a while but here is a burger for that terrific answer at the teahouse. Top notch. Very in formative. DangerousJXD (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why, thank you very much, DangerousJXD. As a Jew who keeps kosher, I can't eat a real beef cheeseburger. I can eat a kosher beef burger without cheese. I can eat a veggie burger with cheese. I can eat a salmon burger with cheese. And my rabbi approves me enjoying "virtual cheeseburgers" and also movies featuring entertaining animated pigs. So, thanks a lot. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)