Ehsan Danish

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, 106, 107

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

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" or "Add topic" 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.

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

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

Nice work on Jules Eichorn. He's been needing an article for a while.   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

PS: Many editors create "sandbox" pages for drafting articles. For example, User talk:Cullen328/Sandbox.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 1 August 2009

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3

Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

hello jim, hope you are doing well. i am a beginner on wikipedia but i am auto correction user. i want to write an article on a ngo which is working very good in there respective field. a friend of mine wrote a article on that topic but it got deleted due to less third party source. can you suggest me something how to write an article which won't get deleted, also i have some credible third party source so i want to ask how can i mention them because they are external links. Devanshusharma569 (talk)devanshusharma569

Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

(Personal attack removed)

Hi Jim,

I am very new to Wikipedia. I got your feedback on the draft article located under PhoCoHaNoi. Thanks so much for your comments. I would greatly appreciate if you would spare some valuable time to highlight those parts from the draft that I need to pay close attentions to regarding the aspect that you raised. I know it would be a long shot to ask if you would even consider providing specific examples by directly editing them on the draft.

Lastly, I still do not know on how to submit the revision for review. I do not see any obvious buttons or pull-down menus from the Sandbox setting that would be able to allow to submit the article for review.

Thank you so much.

PhoCoHaNoi

Hello, PhoCoHaNoi. I am not going to edit the draft myself, because I want this to be a learning exercise for you. Here are a few examples of unacceptable wording:

• "celebrating the 73-year history of outstanding men and women"

• "pioneering contributions"

• "sustained leadership and strategic vision"

• "Exceptional services to innovation ecosystem"

• "stimulating small business innovation, meeting the Air Force and DoD R&D needs, broadening participation in innovation and entrepreneurship, and boosting commercialization"

• " So, as Dr. Pham looked back now, he brought systems-theoretic science and control engineering principles, together with teamwork and interdisciplinary to bear fruition in solving warfighter engineering problems, various areas of specific focus for increased activities in space control autonomy and space domain awareness."

It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor (you) to praise a person. Every trace of this non-neutral language must be removed. A Wikipedia article should never say "Person A is great!" Instead, it should say "Reliable source C reports that Expert B says that Person A is great", along with a reference to Reliable source C.

As for how to submit your draft, I will explain that when the draft complies with the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Hi Jim. I will deeply appreciate anything that you can do to help. How can I find out about other editors and send them messages? I recently looked for an article about The Italian Coffee Company that I had read years ago. However, I could not find it. I believe that this article should be available. I am a new editor and I have a big learning curve ahead of me. Maybe you can post to my talk page. I am user Mojosa17. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Hi!

Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out meta:Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup.

The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand workshops/learning sessions.

In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.

(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and Bittakea, Effeietsanders

You have been Notified because you were once involved in a similar discussion involving Founding Fathers.
There is a debate over whether to keep Category: Homes of United States Founding Fathers as a category. More opinions are needed. The discussion is located Here -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Hi Cullen! I'm considering writing entering an entry on an old English Folk Song. Do you have any advice for my first edit? --Jharo.palma (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jharo.palma. Any such article must summarize what reliable published sources say about the song. Your first article has some good advice]]. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Are you real human? --CTEKJIO (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CTEKJIO. According to my wife, two sons and granddaughter, I am a real human. Cullen328 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion definition of EViL is a return to living Eden with understanding of a past mistakes. How I can add this definition to page about evil? CTEKJIO (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CTEKJIO. Please be aware that No original research is a core content policy, and it says that the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Our article Evil summarizes what 70 published reliable sources say about the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why I can’t be seventy one? 73.171.63.248 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can. Write a book, expounding your views in sufficient detail and clarity to be worth commenting on. Find a reputable publisher willing to print and promote it. Have multiple recognised academic or similar experts on the topic matter publish commentary on the merits your views. Given sufficient recognition, you may then become a reliable source. You'll probably find it easier to get your work published if you study for a doctorate on philosophy and/or theology first. Good luck with that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom is right for a question. Can I add it to Freedom definition? CTEKJIO (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, CTEKJIO. What you wrote does not make sense to me. The answer is "no" unless you provide a reference to a reliable, published source. Did you read No original research? Do you understand it? Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, I'm new to the Wikipedia universe and want to grow into it. Want to contribute to topics that interest people, and also climb up the Wiki ladder. Some advise from a veteran to a novice is in order :) Time-is-wealth (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Time-is-wealth. You seem to be making a good start so far. You are consistently adding references to reliable sources, which is important. I know little about cricket or Hindu spirituality, which seem to be your main areas of interest along with Hollywood where I have more familiarity. I guess my main advice would be to stick to citing very high quality reliable sources, and tread carefully when editing highly controversial topics. If you have more specific questions, please ask. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, thanks for such a warm response. Hope you and your family are doing well.

If I had to ask one question, can you draw out a step by step guide for me to follow, in order to grow as a wiki editor, and do some fruitful work over the next few years.

PS: Like you rightly found out, my areas of interest are cricket and spirituality! Time-is-wealth (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time-is-wealth, there is no step by step guide because every editor (and human) is unique, with their own strengths and weaknesses, their own interests and motivations, and their own personality traits. I advise you to to take things slowly when getting involved with controversial processes and issues. Those who spend too much time wrestling with controversy often end up jaded and cynical. Spend time studying the written policies and guidelines, and especially observing the behavioral norms. Always keep in mind that our mutual goal is building and improving an encyclopedia, and everything else is secondary to that purpose. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Words of wisdom Jim. Thanks a lot for your time. Time-is-wealth (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Say hello, how do I edit my page --Obed official (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Obed official. Which specific page are you talking about, and what are you trying to accomplish? Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cullen328! You're assigend as my mentor, so I hope its okay that I contact you about this. I just wrote my first original wikipedia article. If you have some time, maybe you could review it and give me some feedback? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tropical_Forest_Forever_Facility --Benjamin1921 (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Benjamin1921. Your draft appears to be a pretty good start. The "Proposed Structure" section needs references and should be changed to "Proposed structure". Please clean up the red error messages in your references. For example, when you use the "Cite journal" template, you must provide the name of the journal in the "journal" field, which has been removed from your template for some reason. Cullen328 (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the suggested edits. Thanks a lot for the feedback! Benjamin1921 (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm questioning the decision about calling this speech a filibuster or not. The senate page states that filibuster is loosely defined, but Booker's speech does fit the qualifications of intent and actual delay of votes, just not during the debate stage of a vote. There are two other wiki pages, for Ted Cruz and Al D'Amato, that talk about filibusters that also don't meet the senate page's definition of a filibuster because they specifically did not intend to delay any vote and in fact did not delay anything. I think there should be consistency of either allowing the "loose definition" like it says for all of the speeches, or keeping consistent with a stricter definition for all 3 speeches. Could you weigh in?

Here's the page in question, and on the "talk" page I list some sources, including the wiki pages that use the word filibuster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker%27s_marathon_speech

Here's the senate page for filibuster that journalists are getting their definition from: https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm

Also, the general filibuster page lists all of these speeches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate --PinkSkies132 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PinkSkies132. As an adminstrator, I rarely make substantive edits regarding contemporary US politics because I prefer to stay uninvolved in case I need to step in as an administrator. As for Booker's speech, we should describe it the same way as the preponderance of reliable sources describe it. I have not done a comprehensive study, but it looks to me like most sources are not calling it a filibuster. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I more question the consistency of the use of the word filibuster than this actual speech. Sources (journalists) are relying on the senate page I linked as the definition, which makes this site factually wrong on other pages that also list filibusters PinkSkies132 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PinkSkies132, the role of a Wikipedia editor is to accurately summarize what the preponderance of reliable sources say about the specific topic, Booker's speech in this case. We are summarizers, not analysts. Other articles are "wrong" only to the extent that they do not accurately summarize what reliable sources say about those topics. If that is the case, edit those other articles to bring them into better alignment with the sources. As for the Senate page, that should be mentioned in the Booker speech article only to the extent that sources discussing Booker's speech discuss it. Consistency on such matters is not a goal of Wikipedia. If coverage by reliable sources of other long Senate speeches is inconsistent in their coverage with the coverage of this speech, then that inconsistency will be reflected in the various articles. So it goes. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the goal of wikipedia is not to be correct, factual, consistent, or reliable? I have misunderstood the entire project? PinkSkies132 (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PinkSkies132, the goal of Wikipedia is to provide the largest and greatest tertiary reference work in human history for free, which we have accomplished. The way we do that is by accurately summarizing what the preponderance of reliable sources say about a topic. The authors of reliable sources are people like professional journalists working under professional editorial control, university professors and scientists writing for peer reviewed academic journals, and well established authors with good reputations writing books issued by established publishing houses. It is their paid job and their social role to be correct, factual, consistent as you wrote, and since they are writing for reliable sources, Wikipedia's reliability derives from the reliability of those sources and the accuracy of our summarization. Wikipedia editors (most of whom are anonymous) are forbidden by the policy No original research from creating new knowledge or engaging in analysis or synthesis of knowledge. We are summarizers. No more and no less. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking anyone to make "new knowledge" on wikipedia. Since you don't want to be involved in politics I am feeling like you don't understand what I'm asking at all. The sources are all directing to a singular source themselves, and restating that source incorrectly. Other experts with published work are confirming that they are restating that source incorrectly. But it is helpful to know that wikipedia's purpose is for summary, not factual accuracy. PinkSkies132 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PinkSkies132, please read my words more carefully. I never said that I don't want to be involved in politics. As a matter of fact, I have been heavily involved in politics since April, 1968 when I drove to a large memorial service in Detroit immediately after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. I was 16 and had just gotten my driver's license a week or two before. And this coming Saturday, I will be attending what I expect to be a large political rally in Sacramento. What I said was that I rarely make substantive edits regarding contemporary US politics because I prefer to stay uninvolved in case I need to step in as an administrator. That is very different. As for the US Senate page, it is only four sentences long and is far from definitive. In one minute, I found eight whole books devoted to the Senate filibuster. Why would we rely on a four sentence source? Cullen328 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello mentor, I am running a YouTube channel named Meme Facts 786 (here is the link: https://youtube.com/@memefacts786?si=V8ygYI_LYoPBeyWU). I would like to contribute to Wikipedia and improve my editing skills. Can you guide me on the best practices for adding reliable information and citations to articles? --Amir1144ali (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amir1144ali. The first piece of advice that I will give you is that you should refrain from promoting yourself or your YouTube channel on Wikipedia. Self-promotion is not permitted. As for citations, please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Cullen328! Please know that I am a great admirer of your work. We need your expertise in reviewing and possible publication the article:Draft:Davi Santiago. I hope I can count on your support. Hugs! Etlevs (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Etlevs. Please remove or translate the sentence written in Portuguese. I am not familiar with the Brazilian media landscape and am therefore not qualified to review the draft. What is your personal connection, if any, with Davi Santiago? Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless my memory fails me, I believe the very first presentation of the Salem Witch trial course that was presented at UMass Amherst by Nissenbaum & Boyd actually occurred during the summer academic semester in 1969, and only photocopies of purportedly "original" court transcripts, personal affidavits and diaries were provided as classroom aids for classroom discussions. --Preter Anthony (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Preter Anthony. That is all moderately interesting but it is not a question and I am unsure what effect it would have on Wikipedia. We do not rely on the memories of editors, after all, but only on published reliable sources. Do you have a question? Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time,thank you. Now I know more about the Wiki mentoring and editing processes, thank you. 2601:18E:C082:F610:3060:4D17:EC0D:86B5 (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. If you are Preter Anthony editing logged out, please try to get into the habit of logging in to edit. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).

Administrator changes

• Giraffer
• Goldsztajn

Dennis Brown

• Cyclonebiskit
• Nohat
• Someguy1221

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

---

Would you care to explain how it is "complete baloney"[1]? You apparently feel very strongly about this and I would like to understand where that is coming from, suffice it to say that to me it isn't complete baloney. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the word "baloney", Horse Eye's Back, then I will instead say that the notion that Wikipedia editors are analogous to a group of physicians who are ethically and legally obligated to inquire about each others well being out of the blue in the midst of a disagreement is ludicrous nonsense. This idea of yours has no basis in policies, guidelines or behavioral norms. As the No personal attacks policy says in its second sentence, Comment on content, not on the contributor. You are speculating that the reason the other editor did something you disagree with is that they may be unwell. That behavior of yours is completely wrong. The other editor, Theroadislong, has said it sounds like you are trolling. Your comments are the functional equivalent of trolling and behavior like that must stop. Cullen328 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not in a disagreement with them. I don't disagree with what they did. I am not speculating that anyone is unwell, you're taking "health" too literally. I think you misunderstand the context of the conversation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) HEB, perhaps it's useful to reframe this as you misunderstanding the way your comments came across. If I were in TRIL's shoes, I'd have been annoyed at your tone too - even if that is not what you intended. If TRIL, Cullen, and I all took it a certain way, perhaps it isn't the best way to frame it to say we're all misunderstanding. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, you began by telling them that their decline of a draft doesn't make any sense and you are now claiming that you were not in a disagreement with them? That's a very strange way to agree. Gimme a break, and start making sense yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they arrived at the right conclusion (rejecting the draft) but their explanation didn't make sense in context. No disagreement at all, just confusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If its not what I meant you are misunderstanding it no matter how many of you there are... Thats why we have AGF. It also started with an agreed upon misunderstanding, TRIL believed that I was the article's creator and responded in kind, but I was not... It went downhill from there. I still don't get how they could review that draft and not realize that there was already a page for it but in the future I'm definitely going to approach it differently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me boil it down for you, Horse Eye's Back. Do not comment on another editor's well being unless they have already freely told you that they are ill. I hope that's clear. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is just different variants of English but for me "well being" doesn't have a a primarily medical/illness connotation, when I inquire about my friend's well being I expect "Tired" "Frustrated" "Hungry" "Distracted" etc not "Cancer" or something like that. For me those sorts of errors are generally the result of being tired, editing when I should instead take a break or go to bed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it might be an age thing not an English variation thing. I'm so sorry, you're much older than me so your experience with that sort of thing may well be completely different. I will take greater care when using that phrase in mixed company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC

Horse Eye's Back, stop the snide remarks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is intended to be snide. You would know if I was making a snide remark, it wouldn't be subtle (and I don't do facetious or sarcastic mockery as a rule). What I say should be taken at face value, even if that causes you to question whether or not I'm an idiot (I will certainly do and say idiotic things every now and again) but I don't do bad faith editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You had no good reason to express sorrow about my age, Horse Eye's Back. Before now, the only people who have brought up my age out of the blue on Wikipedia were vicious trolls. Don't be part of that crowd. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not express sorrow about your age. There is a comma between sorry and you're which radically alters its meaning. If you don't think its age or English variation why do you associate well being so strongly with illness? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the context of your comment. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a mind reader, what about the context of my comment made you think about illness? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I apologize for sticking my nose into a discussion on another user's talk page uninvited. However... HEB, I am going to gently suggest that this discussion has run its useful course and it's time to drop the stick and move on. See also WP:IDHT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, Ad Orientem. Thanks for offering your suggestion. Cullen328 (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in need of your professional opinion, here. What shall be shall be.Davidbena (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davidbena. I am sorry that you are going through the wringer at ANI. I will not repeat what others have said there although I agree with much of it, but rather, I want to point out what I see as a major problem with Beautiful captive woman, an article about Deuteronomy 21:10–14 in the Hebrew Bible. This aspect has not been commented on at ANI. In its current form, the article violates our core content policy, the Neutral point of view, which says articles must represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Emphasis added. The article is based pretty much entirely on Orthodox Jewish perspectives although there are 1000 times more Christians in the world than Orthodox Jews and Deuteronomy is a canonical biblical work for them as well as for the Jews. It lacks analysis by Conservative and Reform Jewish scholars. It lacks perspective by women scholars of the Hebrew Bible, which is particularly striking because of the subject matter. Susannah Heschel, Blu Greenberg, Anita Diamant and Tamar Frankiel came immediately to mind, since I own books by them. Susanne Scholtz wrote a book called Sacred Witness. Rape in the Hebrew Bible. Other women Bible scholars include Tamar Ross, Rachel Adler, Judith Hauptman, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Adele Berlin and many others. An acceptable article would certainly include commentary by at least some of them. Your narrow focus on the type of sources favored by Yeshiva bochurs has led you into a bind, it seems to me. I encourage you to ponder this issue carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If allowed, I will work to balance the article.Davidbena (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk later about that, Davidbena. Cullen328 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. BTW: On the Talk-Page, one editor suggested another three contemporary sources.Davidbena (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328, Thank you for your response on the Help Desk. I understand the extended confirmed restriction now and will follow the appropriate steps moving forward. I wanted to share some constructive feedback regarding the tone of your message. The phrase "please stop now for your own good" came across as threatening to me particularly given the context of the discussion, even if that wasn’t your intention. I’m here to learn and contribute in good faith, and I’d really appreciate it if future guidance could be framed more supportively rather than cause alarm. Wikipedia can feel intimidating to newer editors, and encouragement goes a long way. Thanks for your time, -Wikitekt Wikitekt (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen was not trying to "threaten" you, just trying to help you avoid being blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain of that and I most definitely felt threatened. I think the feedback is still warranted. More precise supportive language could avoid confusion and help establish a more supportive environment. Wikitekt (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitekt, my goal was entirely to help you avoid getting blocked. If you cannot see that, then I cannot possibly help you. Cullen328 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My goal in this thread was to provide constructive feedback that you requested on your page, not to get help. When I sought help, I received what was perceived as a threat. I think there is room for improvement on your end given that was the message I received even if that was not your intention. Wikitekt (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitekt, I have received all of the feedback that I need from 331dot, an editor who actually understands what is going on. Cullen328 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great news! It was not brought to my attention that 331dot was aware that I felt threatened by your post. But I'm glad to hear that 331dot was able to communicate that to you! Have a good day and stay positive!

Wikitekt, that was not what I said and not what 331dot said either. Please be careful to avoid mischaracterizing other editor's comments. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. That's a good point. I had interpreted your statement to mean that 331dot passed along all the relevant information and that you needed to hear when your comments were threatening to me. I'll be sure to avoid explaining to you when your comments are threatening to me in the future since, if I understand correctly, you do not need that feedback. Please correct me if I am wrong. Wikitekt (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I’ve shared my perspective and believe I understand yours. I think it’s best to end the conversation here. I hope you’ll consider my feedback. Best wishes. Wikitekt (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitekt, no matter how many times you repeat your false assertion, my comment was not threatening to you. It was good faith advice to you about how to avoid getting blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that my experience of feeling threatened is being dismissed. However, I don't see value in continuing this discussion. I’ve shared my feedback and believe it’s best we move on. Wikitekt (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will close(and no response is necessary) by saying that I can certainly understand that different people react differently to the same comment. But when someone tells you what they meant, you should assume good faith that they're telling you the truth and that people want to help you, not threaten you. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn from the dispute as I find the entire thing embarrassing and silly now. But I want to point out:

Why would I ever reference your grandson unless you brought him into the argument, and if you ever did that, why would you do it?

In any case, I would consider your grandson stillborn and not a fetus, and if you'd followed the argument closely enough, you'd know that

And I felt that the words "will not go over well" were an attempt at intimidation. If it did happen that my view of your grandson was that he was a fetus (it is not, but supposing), what would these words mean? What would happen to me when it doesn't go over well with you? Jersey Jan (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Jan, I thought that you said on your talk page that you were no longer interested in discussing this matter. You wrote I have no desire to argue about the issue any further and I for one do not intend to continue with it, so please make no attempts here. I made only a single comment there, honored your request and dropped the matter.

And yet here you are, two days later, arguing about the issue. What would happen in your scenario is that I would object, as should be clear from what I wrote. I explained to you by quoting policy that content disagreements are not vandalism. Now, you seem to be arguing that content disagreements are intimidation. I beg to differ, and encourage you to return to your stated position of April 10. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I did not look upon my comment here as re-opening the Tate fetus vs. stillborn infant Paul Richard Polanski debate. I don't desire to argue about that with anyone any further.

It just occurred to me belatedly to wonder why you would bring your personal loss into this when it doesn't even apply, and then use those words. I felt like maybe it was an attempt to shut me down. (I had decided not to pursue the argument, but you didn't know that when you made your initial comment.) But if you say that you were only explaining that you would object, okay, I'm sorry I brought it up. Jersey Jan (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we both move on instead of rehashing a single comment. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how to I make it know i am autistic on this --Sudokundogs25 (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sudokundogs25. Can you rephrase your question? How to make what? Cullen328 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it was for the other person who answered me. My mistake. Sudokundogs25 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to put Kendrick Nunn under the players column, but his name goes to the numbers column. Why? --Jim Kondylis (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Jim Kondylis, but I am not an expert in working with tables. Try the Village pump (technical), and say whether you are using the source editor or the visual editor, the mobile site or the desktop site, and so on. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I uploaded a very what I thought was great page and It was set for speedy deletion??? Why? --MusicCityWiki (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The draft about Hyrum Posey at User:MusicCityWiki was tagged for speedy deletion as WP:G11 (unambiguous advertisement or promotion) by one trusted editor and deleted shortly thereafter by an uninvolved, trusted administrator who agreed the tag met G11 criteria. Those two ordinary wikipedians had their own opinions about the assessment of "great page." I took a look myself and the page lacks any citation and any independent sources. The only links present are to the subject's personal website and to their personal Facebook page. I'm another completely uninvolved admin who wasn't there in that moment, but I would have tagged it the same way as the reviewer and deleted it the same way as the sysop. It looks written to promote the subject, not to detail the subject (who seems like a formidable artist who might actually qualify for notability, if only multiple independent and reliable sources directly detailing the subject were found and applied). BusterD (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I’m totally new to this and he is definitely a notable person, and there are plenty of references out there which I will try to include. MusicCityWiki (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For us, WP:Notability is a term of art. It has a quite specific definition which is quite distinctive from what we would normally refer to as notable. In order to determine whether a subject is notable, wikipedians need to see multiple independent reliable sources which directly detail the subject. I'm looking at https://www.grandmasterfiddler.com/fiddler-competition/judges/ as an example. It certainly directly details and is reliable in my humble opinion, but lacks independence (since they're detailing the subject to promote their contest; usually such bios are submitted by the artist themself or their team). This source does not meet the criteria and doesn't count towards NOTE. Here's another one: https://mainstreetmediatn.com/articles/dicksonpost/posey-picks-up-more-music-awards/ I'm seeing a lot of pages from this paper; it's a local paper which is not by itself an issue. I'd regard it as generally reliable, but it's an interview, so doesn't meet the independence or direct detailing criteria. Doesn't count towards NOTE, IMHO. The subject-specific (secondary) criteria is WP:MUSICBIO which is often quite difficult to meet. Everybody has a favorite artist, and everybody thinks theirs is famous, but few actually are. I know this is a lot to process, but this should give you some idea. Don't be surprised if you have difficulty. It's usually best for new editor to create the page in draftspace where you may work without undue criticism. A draft needs to be approved, usually through the WP:Articles for creation process. Don't be shy about asking for help. I'm not trying to discourage you, but I'd be dishonest if I said getting this subject in a Wikipedia page will be a simple matter. BusterD (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. How R U R.N.? --Klovdahl (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Hello, Klovdah. Please clarify your question. Cullen328 (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aap is field mein apna sawal likhenge — jo aap apne Wikipedia mentor se poochhna chahte hain. Yeh mentor aapko editing, formatting, citation, article writing, etc. mein help karenge.

Agar aap "Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States" article par kaam kar rahe hain, toh aapka sawal kuch is tarah ho sakta hai:

Sawal ka example (English mein):

> Hello, I am working on the article "Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States." I have written a draft, but I’m not sure if it meets Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and sources. Can you please review and guide me on how to improve it?

Ya agar aap citation ya formatting seekhna chahte hain:

> How do I properly add references to support facts in this article?

Agar Urdu mein poochhna chahein, toh bhi koi masla nahi:

> Salam! Main is maqalay par kaam kar raha hoon: "Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States". Kya aap meri likhi hui draft dekh kar batayenge ke yeh Wikipedia ke --Amir1144ali (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Amir1144ali. This is the English Wikipedia and all content and communication among editors should be in English here. If you want to write content in Urdu, then please contribute to the Urdu Wikipedia. You can find it at this link.

You mentioned a draft but I see no such draft in your English Wikipedia contributions. Where is this draft? Cullen328 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is my most recent edit appropriate for Wikipedia? should sections only be added when they are complete, or can i work on them piecemeal --Augustmarriage (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Augustmarriage. I am sorry, but Wikipedia articles should not include speculation or gossip. Please see WP:NOTGOSSIP. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --G1c1323 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G1c1323, that is not a question. Do you have one? Cullen328 (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you have overreacted on this discussion. Your last comment, "don't you dare tell me not to comment further" was a hostile response to, "I respectfully request that you don't comment further", as was "I will comment where I want and when I want." Most of the previous responses were going off on a tangent that was unhelpful and I kept trying to bring the focus back to try to get the information I was looking for.

I take it as a personal attack when I'm told I'm "disrespectful", that my view is "highly idiosyncratic" and "ill-informed", and when you make unsubstantiated inferences about my intentions, i.e. "work ... in other languages ought to be removed from the encyclopedia". You claim to have commented on my "idea", but you did it by making it about me rather than commenting on the concept in general, which is what I was looking for. (Consider that every sentence in your second comment started with "you" or "your".) I asked a simple question and rather than offering insight, you lambasted me for even daring to raise the question. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost writer's cat, complain all you want, but critiquing an editor's really bad idea is not a personal attack. Stop advocating for an idea that would be catastrophic for the encyclopedia and we will have nothing further to talk about. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Whether or not an idea is bad is subjective and therefore open for debate; meanwhile telling new editors they have a "really bad idea" is destructive to open discussion. You come across as having to be right and desirous of shutting down any opposing position. I'll accept that it was not your intention to be harsh, but I'm letting you know that it is how your comments were perceived, and I'm letting you know I felt personally attacked. I conveyed that in my first response, "I resent your assertion that I've been disrespectful", which you ignored. That was a clue that I was uncomfortable with your approach. Just as you can tell me "complain all you want, but..." (which I also consider uncivil), you can also carry on with your current tone if you want, but it doesn't come across well on the receiving end and your message is lost in your anger. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost writer's cat, you are mistaken because I am not angry. I do not need to be angry to refute a bad idea. Please take your energy and please do something useful: Write a Good article about a topic related to a country where English is not widely spoken. Perhaps you will learn through practice (Praxis (process)) why our core content policy, the Neutral point of view says that our responsibility is to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Please note that the policy does not mention limiting ourselves to English language reliable sources. Limiting ourselves that way would inject a new form of bias into the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Okay, well, I can't think of any scenario where "don't you dare" doesn't come across as angry. As for your accusation of my "bad idea", the farthest I got with any "idea" was that the directives are incongruent. I never said one was bad or good and never made any suggestion for change. Is that the "really bad idea" you referred to? Or were you editorializing what you assumed I was suggesting? It seemed like the latter—your assessments did not align with my comments or my intentions. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 10:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Errors they gave me…says you are my mentor just sign up here seems to be y sues I am ready to GIVE UP

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliablesources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Declined by DoubleGrazing 52 minutes ago.

Junkoh88 (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Junkoh88: since you pinged me (possibly inadvertently), I'll take the liberty of responding.

 Courtesy link: User:Junkoh88/sandbox

This draft is entirely unreferenced, and therefore also has no evidence that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. To add to that, the draft is quite promotional. This breaks a number of key policies of ours.

When we decline a draft, we give reasons for the decline. You're meant to then address those decline reasons, before resubmitting. Yet, after two declines, there has been no improvement in these areas.

And now that you mention this is your own biography, we can add conflicts of interest (COI) to the list of issues. Besides which, autobiographies are very strongly discouraged in any case; please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why that is. (You may also wish to read An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am new… Junkoh88 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Junkoh88: that's quite okay, we were all new once. Heck, I still surprise myself on a daily basis with how little I actually know! It's not important to be a 'past master' at Wikipedia, it's only important to keep learning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m quiting…thought I knew what I was doing and I never quit very often , I tried to add a notable people to my high school page and it took me down a giant not so fun a lot of work but amazing promo ha ha of my 100 book series…oh well that’s notable and my Emmy’s and 5 cartoons I produced…oh well got spit out Junkoh88 (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasted your time and mine thank you everyone I would rather spend my time on my books for kids bye Junkoh88 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Junkoh88: not at all, you haven't wasted my time, and hopefully also not yours.

I would also like to clarify that I'm not saying you aren't (potentially) notable, only that your draft does not provide evidence of notability. To say that someone is, for example, a Nobel laureate, is a claim of notability. To cite a reliable source proving this is true, is evidence of the same.

But if, as you say, your time and energy is better spent doing something other than editing Wikipedia, that is of course entirely your call. I wish you well in your endeavours, whatever they may be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]