User talk:Cullen328

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

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

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

The importance of a friendly greeting

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

Please offer your thoughts

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

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

If I may suggest, now that you've posted the Eichorn article the draft below might be deleted. It's your talk page to do with as you like, but it's a bit hard to edit around.

As for formatting and pictures, a good way to learn is to look around at other articles to see what you think looks best. It can be helpful to break up long blocks of text into subsections. Perhaps it'd be possible to split the biography into two or three eras. Other than that, the formatting is usually kept fairly plain. As for photos, it's easy to upload them: the trick is in finding photos with appropriate licensing. If you have any personal photos then those'd be fine. There are might be pictures of the peaks he did first ascents on in the Wikicommons. File:Cathedral Peak.png is a so-so pic of Eichorn Pinnacle.

As before, feel free to ask if you have any questions. There are several editors here who are mountaineers or just admirers of the Sierra, so you're in good company.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Your climber biographies

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

I'll second that. Nice work on Allen Steck and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know who you are planning to write up next but if your taking requests I think Peter Croft (climber) could really use a page. If you ever have any questions please ask. Thanks again for your great additions.--OMCV (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Justin and OMCV. I am beginning work on Tom Frost and Glen Dawson. Comments on Norman Clyde would be welcomed. I will defintely read up on Peter Croft, OMCV. I am still "learning the ropes" in Wikipedia, to use a climbing analogy, and have all sorts of things in mind. My biggest challenge right now is getting permission to use images. My next biggest challenge is hiking to the top of Mt. Whitney with my wife in ten days - she's never been above 12,000 feet except for the train ride up Pikes Peak. As she's 56 and developing arthritis in her toes, it will be an accomplishment if she (and I) complete the Class 1 feat. Jim Heaphy (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Debra and I made it to the summit of Mt. Whitney at 2:20 PM on Friday, September 11. Jim Heaphy (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2012 Archive (first six months)

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3

WikiCake!

Paleocemoski has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Thank you so much for helping me with my many questions on Teahouse!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Adding cover images

Hi Jim,

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

2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA

You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016			Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016, for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! --Circa73 (talk)

Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27

Please join us in San Francisco!

Panel discussion at a recent Wikipedia & Journalism event.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello Cullen328,

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

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

Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you, Bowen

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

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, Cullen328!

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

2017 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA

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

Page Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_Nucleus

Shmuly Yanklowitz

Hi, Cullen. I was disappointed to see you reverted my removal of fluff promotion at Shmuly Yanklowitz as "Unexplained removal of referenced content." Yes, all the "content" by Yanklowitz's PR machine is "referenced" but it's also exceedingly trivial and promotional. (An IP had reverted all my removals, and another IP then partially reverted them, to be quickly reverted by you.) None of the IPs explained anything they did, but, well, I did (admittedly not very fully in that particular edit summary). Compare also Sir Joseph's revert of some more, and more recently added, fluff, and see talk. That's a pretty promotional article IMO, and various experienced editors are always struggling to resist its tendency to record every last action and pronouncement of Yanklowitz's. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC).

Hello, Bishonen. Thank you for the heads up. I will be much more careful with this article in the future. I saw an IP reverting with what looked like a misleading edit summary. My apologies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Boorish behavior or not?

You're an experienced admin and I know you followed a certain sorry debate a few months ago, so I'll ask here. I tried to remove what seemed to be the worst of the personal invective posted by the same, anonymous editor in the Talk:Requiem_(Duruflé)#Infobox discussion, i.e. "How patronising and obnoxious your comments have been. So dismissive of all opinions except your own." Another editor believes that such comments are nothing but "a judgement on the tone of [my] comments", a judgement he explicitly stated he agreed with. Does this kind of verbiage fall under WP:TPO or not? ("Removing another editor's comments is...allowed...[such as] harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling.") Is this something we want to encourage by allowing it to remain up? I'd appreciate your input. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It certainly does not fall foul of TPO- unless we apply it far more stricly than we have, and in which case, we apply it to all even-mildly "patronising and obnoxious" remarks, wherever they came from. Further: This discussion was five months ago. So: really? But, you want to hear from Cullen, so ignore me  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The remarks from the complaining editor aren't exactly warm and fuzzy; drivel vandalism-all of this toward the IP editor who made the remark back then. Guess you're still trying to stir the pot re: Cassianto as you did here-again after the fact. We hope (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The vandalism of that particular IP editor (posting under many IPs, in fact, as he admitted) had been pointed out by others before me. Mine was simply a reminder of the IP's past behavior. The whole attitude by the anti-infobox column in that discussion was terrible; the IP was joining the general mood. As to Cassiano, the time lines were simply misread. But do keep trying to shift the blame on the side that was on the receiving end of the boorishness. It was both surprising and funny to stumble across such fanaticism about inboxes. :-) The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This matter is stale, The Gnome. I suggest that everyone involved drop the matter and move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Merely trying to seek precedent. I can see the demarcation lines somewhat more clearly now. Thanks, Cullen. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I took the time to read that entire five month old thread, The Gnome. My frank opinion as an editor is that it was all an enormous waste of time, and that you were partly responsible. I think that all lengthy infobox debates are a waste of time, and I think less of the judgment of editors, both pro and con, who get all obsessive about infoboxes. I do not deny that the blame is shared, and that the IP editor was the worst. Deny attention to trolls.

Many of these editors make excellent contributions elsewhere, but this compulsive infobox warring is bizarre and counterproductive, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I was dropped (well, bot-summoned) into that field of battle without any idea whatsoever of the history of it. "All this beef about a couple of [expletive] infoboxes"! As to me being "partly responsible," I confess to sarcasm; the most I can be accused of and the least one can do when faced with a barrage of personal insults (not just against me) that goes on unimpeded, e.g. "[you are] fairly low on the IQ scale", etc. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There's "sarcasm" and then there's down right trouble making, which you seem to be rather good at. There was no other reason to reply to a seven day old comment, which required no response, other than to stoke an otherwise extinguishing fire. Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a very valid point, Cassianto. I call that type of remark "stirring the pot". Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, Gnome is now edit warring his unconstructive comment back in. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, we are all keen to move on with this and improve the project elsewhere. It's obvious that Gnome is not here to build the encyclopaedia with moronic comments like this and is doing his/her best to keep the toxicity of that discussion alive. Cassianto^Talk 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not on Wikipedia every hour of the day and cannot be presumed to be following everything of interest in real time. This is just the reality of having a life beyond this project. Hence, the belated comment. There has been no "edit-warring": I simply reinstated my comment, per WP:TPO. I invite you (and everyone else) to check the language I use in every discussion I ever participate and the kind of language used by editors such as Cassianto! (Even here: "moronic comments", "not here to build", etc, not to mention the "low on the IQ-scale" insult I mentioned before!) There have been in that sorry discussion a sadly great number of comments that truly "made things worse", yet they were allowed to stay up. This is precisely the kind of toxic environment I warn the other editor about. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not exacerbate that toxic environment, The Gnome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I shall abstain from discussions on other talk pages for about a week or so. I'd hope this would assist in removing the toxicity but this is clearly not achievable. To reiterate: Admins, IMVHO, should be more proactive and start clamping down whenever lack of civility and assumptions of bad faith rear their toxic heads. It's the only stance that makes for a constructive environment; I've been an admin in a number of quite busy message boards for a number of years and FWIW this has constantly been my experience. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kenny Biddle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kenny Biddle. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

WebIT.pk

Revert back page WebIT.pk . As it has a significant importance in web field — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpstudio13 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gpstudio13. That was an entirely unreferenced article. Do you have a connection to the company? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe

I'm happy with "many" - I didn't use it because you were opposed to using a quantifier, but if you're happy with "many" it works for me. - Bilby (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good compromise, then, Bilby. Thanks. We need to find a very fine line between demonizing and excusing these charlatans. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand fully - that's my concern. It is easy to become too positive or too negative, and what we need is NPOV. My feeling is that a completely neutral but accurate account of someone like Wolfe is the best way of convincing people of the problems with their views. - Bilby (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I Have Been Refused the Right to Post on Wikipedia

I have replied at User talk:Maria567. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Richard Chang

Hey Cullen328,

Thanks for your comments. They were elucidating and helpful.

You mentioned that Forbes Magazine says the Taiwanese Richard Chang is a billionaire, so your working assumption is that he is the most notable of the world's Richard Changs. Well, just because he has money and is a billionaire doesn't automatically make him the world's most notable.

If you want to use that kind of criteria, what about this Richard Chang, who is an art collector who lives in New York and Beijing? He has collected some of the world's most expensive art, and sits on art and museum boards around the globe, so one can assume he's a billionaire too. Check out this Wall St. Journal article on him.

I don't want to start a heated debate. You had a link in your comment that said, "Let's discuss this." I'm just offering some more thoughts to chew on.

Thanks, Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiechang2002 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Richiechang2002. That is very interesting, although I cannot read the whole article because of the Wall Street Journal pay wall. Why don't you write well-referenced articles about every "Richard Chang" that you believe to be notable? Except yourself. Then, we can create a disambiguation page that lists them all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, there is a very big difference between a working assumption and a final conclusion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is the bias here?

As regards your recent comment, I don't understand why you encourage some editors by arguing for them when they have made gross edits from the beginning (like on January 15 reverting 5 edits at a time against a supposed "concensus" which seemed to me to include only his two close collaborators). Some came to my defense but where overwhelmed, in one case by an editor who wants to go nameless. Then on January 19 he reverted wholesale again, admitting that he hadn't taken time to check all the refs. Should this make me confident of his neutrality, that he's not trying to impose the ultimate in rigidity on school cases of his own choosing? Jzsj (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jzsj. You seem to be here to promote Roman Catholic theological concepts and Jesuit schools. (I realize that this specific high school is not Jesuit). I am here to create a neutral encyclopedia. I am a generalist editor and administrator. I support John from Idegon because I have interacted with him many times on articles about many topics for several years and I am sure that he has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. You need to be very careful about violating the neutral point of view by inadvertently adding content that uninvolved editors see as promotional. Wikipedia is not the place to promote any religion or ideology. If I was you, I would write or expand some articles about Jewish or Muslim high schools or Hindu or Buddhist theological concepts, for example. I do that kind of thing all the time and work on articles completely outside my realm of personal experience. That type of experience might give you a greater appreciation of the critical importance of neutrality when building this encyclopedia.

To be clear, I have nothing against Jesuit education although I am not a Catholic. I attended a Jesuit high school for three years and graduated from a Jesuit university.

I highly recommend that you allow experienced uninvolved editors to keep this Wikipedia high school article neutral, and that you promote this high school through social media or in any other way you choose off-Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your present outlook on what's going on, and your past collaboration with John of Idegon. But please take the following into consideration. I have been attracted to improve articles on other Christian religions and on non-Christian religions. I am not a gung-ho Catholic intent on promoting Catholicism or Catholic schools. (During my nine years in Nigeria and Zimbabwe I was impressed in my hospital ministry by the interest of Muslims to be included in my prayers with Catholic patients, and I would like to do whatever I can to improve the lot of the Palestinians ... .) But here I am simply trying to give a clear picture of these schools, so that readers don't have to go to another article to learn what's happening at this school, good or bad. I have expressed this in my mentions of Georgetown and, like in my earlier appeals for an explanation, no response was given: this would lead me to conclude that while I am open to learning in this process, they are intent on (effectively) diminishing the importance of the Cristo Model as exemplified in this school. Why else would they eliminate everything on clubs and spirituals while leaving the big spread with the very mundane sports list, ignoring the directive that prose is preferred over lists. In entirely eliminating the clubs they contravened the directive that what is mentioned in the infobox should ordinarily be mentioned in the article (the publication).

I'd also like to know where it says that, especially for short articles like this, one may not consolidate some of the entries in the infobox, like mentioning the number of teachers under the two-line entry of student to teacher ratio. There's a great diversity in the way school infoboxes are used and as long as they give a clear summary of what's significant about this school, is slavish following of some singular model absolutely required, and if so where are we told this. As I read the article on infoboxes the principle of succinct presentation of information is just as important as some complete uniformity in how infoboxes are used.

My motive for pursuing this one example is not any special attachment to this school, or to Catholicism or Jesuitry, but I do think that it's for the good of all to make the success of the Cristo Rey Model as clear as possible. What I am hoping for from this dialogue is that even experienced editors like John from Idegon do not get your unqualified support when they are not showing respect for others but rushing through reverts with little sensitivity to the good intentions and valid contributions of those they are reverting. If they don't have time to give specific references for their changes, then their work may be seen as high-handed, and rightfully resented. Jzsj (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The group who are suggesting guidelines for articles on schools, unlike the Wikipedia:Core content policies and Manual of Style, makes no mention of "common sense" application of their suggestions. Do they really mean to claim more authority for their " advice and/or opinions" article than is claimed on authoritative Wikipedia pages like the two referenced above.

Also, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Advice pages we read that "most articles are within the scope of multiple WikiProjects, and seek(s) to avoid conflicting advice." But there is no project to advance the publication of articles on "social justice". I see the Cristo Rey Model of school spanning the schools and the social justice areas and not fitting into the tight categories of those looking only to standardize all school articles. I commend their efforts to improve school articles but I think less rigidity in advancing what they see as ideal and more willingness to show respect for other opinions would better serve the overall good of Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"Authority" regarding content matters comes from the consensus which emerges from discussion among those who are interested in the specific topic or the specific guideline, and who step forward to discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages, Jzsj. It seems to me that the high school article ought to comply as closely as possible to established standards on school articles, and that broader philosophical issues can be discussed in the article about the Cristo Rey Model. Your job is to make your case to all interested editors and win consensus. I encourage you to avoid describing your opponents as some sort of organized cabal unless you have irrefutable evidence. Editors who work heavily in the broad topic area of high schools are dealing with thousands of articles highly prone to vandalism and promotionalism. It is both understandable and wise for them to try to enforce consistent standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate your effort to explain your opinion in greater detail, and I apologize for pigeonholing your areas of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

As for infoboxes, they are the cause of much unnecessary arguing on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Unless there is a compelling reason to deviate, editors should stick to the established parameters and how they are described in the template documentation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered opinions on all this. I will continue my discussion on the Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School page and hope to find more serious engagement than I encountered early on there, as when I made a distinction about post-nominals that are not honorific and I got a heated response that seemed to characterize such entries as "crap". Then when I explained myself the discussion was abandoned, and the reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies is either irrelevant or inconclusive, with some support of what I am proposing. I'll resume discussion there, hoping for meaningful and open engagement. The responses so far seem to reflect the attitude "we have all the answers and you must comply", with some of the few references to policies being overly general and inconclusive (as in this post-nominals case). Jzsj (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Delete or FFD?

Hello!

I ran into a lot of images which have invalid licenses. The user uploads many almost daily but the trouble is, they're improperly licensed. Here's what I've done so far at FFD. Unfortunately there are many more yet to do; most have been taken from the National Portrait Gallery and have copyright notices as well as information about the photographer. This makes the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag invalid. Should I start tagging them as speedy deletions or continue loading them to FFD? (What a mess!) Thanks, We hope (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

More of a mess than you might think. Take a look at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, especially the later parts. Apparently a painting from 1794 does not acquire a new creative license in 1994 just because a photographer points a camera at it. MPS1992 (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, We hope. I will not comment on the substance of the issue because I am unfamiliar with the relevant details of UK copyright law. I wonder where the information comes from claiming that these photos were taken before 1948. I recommend discussing the matter at the editor's talk page and at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion, where editors with expertise can comment. If this does not resolve the matter, you could take it to WP:ANI, but please exhaust other alternatives first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

I really don't want to take this to ANI and doubt discussion would help as the user contends this is the correct use for that license and removes FFD tags. The only answer for now seems to be to just keep listing them at FFD because the files will have a discussion even if the uploader continues removing the tags. We hope (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

How to fix friend's page?

Thanks for the help! How should the language be adjusted? And adding the image wasn't how the warning was triggered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenelleman (talk • contribs) 03:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Stevenelleman. A human editor (not a bot) called Atlantic306 noticed the problem with the photo, fixed it, reviewed the article and added the tag. We are discussing Atul Singh. An experienced editor, Dr.K., is in the process of cleaning up the article right now, and I thank that editor for taking an interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way I can help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenelleman (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Stevenelleman. You can leave specific suggestions for improvement at Talk: Atul Singh, but I recommend that you do not edit the page yourself, because your friendship creates a conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James D. Zirin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James D. Zirin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Not sure if you're online, but could you please take a look at 109.48.210.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He/she has spent the last ~24 hours making dubious edits regarding large(st) animals, and won't respond to discussion. Not sure if it's deliberate vandalism or a child with a book about large animals and no idea how Wikipedia works. nagualdesign 21:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, nagualdesign. I have blocked the IP for 31 hours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. nagualdesign 21:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Wbm1058#Failed page-swap

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Wbm1058#Failed page-swap. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Hello, Usernamekiran. I think it is best to let another administrator more experienced with complicated page moves fix this problem. I have never done anything more than a one step move. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the quick reply. Fortunately wbm fixed it. Sorry for the trouble. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all, Usernamekiran. I know my strengths and weaknesses. Stop by here any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. And I still owe you a proper reply from your thank you note regarding your RfA! —usernamekiran(talk) 01:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kusala_Bhikshu

Thank you for your quick reply, Jim.

I can certainly clean up the external links and put them in a separate section. Thank you for that guidance.

I would like your help on the other issue.

Venerable is a traditional term for a Buddhist monk in the this tradition. (like "Father" might be used in Christianity) Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heng_Sure

I have read the guidelines on notability.

I do not understand why The Los Angeles Times, Voice of America, Public Radio International, and the UCLA Oral History Archive are not considered reliable, independent sources. Of the articles listed, footnotes 6 and 10 are completely focused on his work. I was using the other sources to show verification of his other activities.

Should I only use these two sources and remove the others? Should I remove any reference to his awards?

Kusala Bhikshu is very well known in Southern California. He is one of the earliest American-born ordained Buddhist monks and was the first Buddhist Monk to work as a police chaplain. He is well known for his years of community service and his use of music to work with young people. He is respected nationally for his work on inter-religious dialogue. He was chosen to be included in UCLA's Oral History archives.

Is there a way to revise or shorten the text that would clarify his notability?

Thank you for any more specifics you can help me with, EluckringEluckring (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Eluckring. I agree that reference #6 is the best of your sources, but being a police chaplain is not a very strong case for notability. Reference #10 has no text and appears to be a radio interview with this person. Interviews are not independent sources. If he is "very well known" then it should be easy to find much better sources which discuss his life and career in detail. "Respected nationally" is your subjective judgement which is of no value on Wikipedia unless a reliable source uses those words to describe him.

The most important Wikipedia lesson that I can offer you is that our personal opinions mean nothing here. Quite literally, all that matters is what the reliable sources say, and everything we add in an article should be an accurate summary of those sources.

Passing mention of the topic in reliable sources is not sufficient. We need significant coverage, and we take the word "significant" seriously.

As for "Venerable", we simply do not use these honorific terms on Wikipedia. We do not put "Father" before a priest's name, nor "Rabbi" before a rabbi's name, nor "Dr." before a physician's name, nor "Professor" before a tenured academic's name. If you run across that anywhere, remove it as I do. We refer to people by their surnames only, after the first mention of their full name. There are very few exceptions, such as "Doctor Ruth" and the "Dalai Lama", which are almost universally used in reliable coverage of these people, but those exceptions are rare.

In conclusion, notability on Wikipedia is a product of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. If the sources are poor, then the topic is not notable. It is that simple. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Kusala Bhikshu

Dear Jim,

Thank you again for taking the time to review and respond to my questions about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kusala_Bhikshu I really appreciate your help.

I now understand what you are saying about the removal of the term Venerable. Thank you for explaining.

I have also re-read the descriptions of "reliable", "independent", primary, secondary and tertiary sources and I understand your concerns.

If you can answer a couple more questions, I would be grateful.

I think there are a few appropriate sources for some of this draft.

I'm thinking to focus the article on the community service work with the police, health care and teaching the English speaking children of immigrants.

Since source #6 is ok, this person was the first Buddhist police chaplain in California and the 2nd in the whole country, which has a growing Buddhist population--I hope in tandem with the following that indicates notability.

Source #8 This seems to fit the source requirements as a publication documenting the significance of his contributions to diversify the spiritual patient care at hospitals.

Can you explain if this is not an accurate interpretation of the source guidelines?

Source #10--? From a Wiki page about a similarly notable Community Service person in Los Angeles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Boyle A radio interview is listed. The interview I listed is with Public Radio International, which seems to be at least on par with the national radio interview used in this wiki entry.

This along with source #9 would seem to fit the source requirements to verify his work with the English speaking children of immigrants.

Does that work?

In summary, If I keep the first three lines of the entry, remove the biography section, and then revise the Community Service to reflect what's above, would that work?

In the long term I am hoping to create a series of entries about people doing notable community service to reach across religious divides.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, EluckringEluckring (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

ANI comments

Hello Cullen, and thanks for your input at my ANI posting. Turns out mine was a fool's errand last night, showcasing a broad range of blunders and ignorance on my part. I later realized that I'd neglected to leave a notification on the IP's talkpage. Then this morning I see that you rightly point out that I should not have kept restoring the test edit warning template. I was focused on the fact that the IP just kept blanking the page without discussing, and I did not realize that individual IP editors enjoy the same level of sovereignty over their talkpages as registered users. Annoyed by the IP's uncollegial behavior, I saw only combativeness in his/her repeated edit summary not test edits, rather than reading it for comprehension. All I can say for myself is that my road to Wiki-embarrassment -- and wasting admins' time -- was paved with the best of intentions. Thanks for your understanding, and sorry for distracting you from other matters. Eric ^talk 16:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Eric. Consider it a learning experience. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Initially posted on the wrong page....

A tps saw my comment on the wrong Cullen TP...*lol*...Anyway, following is the explanation in response to your question on my TP: ^{13:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)}

...Wow - what a chore. Looking at the steps that were taken, I doubt I could've fixed it on my own. Hope that answers the question you asked on my TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme. That Libtard AfD got all tangled up. By the way, the only reason that I am Cullen328 is that plain old Cullen was an active editor in 2009 when I got started, so I had to pick something else. And then that person never edited again. Oh, well, that's how things go sometimes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Question I want to ask

Hi Jim! I thank you for the awesome input you are giving me. As a new editor on Wikipedia, I really enjoy contributing here as I have used Wikipedia since I was a kid, and I also really appreciate how you are helping me become a better editor on here. I have a question I want to ask you. On this website, does it show here that this populated place is either a neighborhood or subdivision of the city of Temple Terrace, in Florida? I am not really making an article about this, I just wanted to ask about this, because I have been wondering about this. Also, I don't think this exists. If this is on the map, then does it count as a populated place? If you scroll in, the pushpin points to a house. Does this classify as an existing populated place? Thank you for reading, and please tell me what you think. Colman2000 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Colman2000. The Geographic Names Information System lists Mendoza, Florida as a "populated place" with an ID number 2484255. They report their source as "A GIS dataset provided by MyTampa.Gov concerning Subdivisions" in 2008, so perhaps it is a subdivision. A populated place is defined by GNIS as a "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes."

All that being said, my Google search outside GNIS comes up empty. There are Mendoza streets in Florida and Mendoza subdivisions in other states and countries. So, it is of no significance to Wikipedia. Perhaps the subdivision was never built because of the economic crisis of 2008-2009, or perhaps the subdivision was renamed for marketing reasons. Those are my guesses. I hope that this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, Jim! I agree with all that you wrote above. To tell you the truth, I have actually read what the Geographic Names Information System classifies a populated place as. I also agree with you that it is probably a subdivision, but I'm not real sure. I also wrote above that I am not creating an article on this topic on Wikipedia, nor am I planning on doing that. I agree that it is not significant to add to Wikipedia. I also have no idea why it was classified as a subdivision, either. Either way, thank you so much for the input. Cheers! Colman2000 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

For an amusing example of this sort of thing, take a look at Lombard, California, Colman2000. That location is in the northern part of the city of American Canyon, California, and I live in the south-eastern part of that city. I have probably driven by that area a thousand times in the last 26 years, and it is a light industrial and warehouse area where there are five parallel railroad tracks, and this is by no means a major railroad. Nobody lives there though a few live a couple hundred yards away. It seems that various railroads call it the "Lombard Yard". In all the time I have lived in American Canyon, I have never once heard anyone mention "Lombard" and have never seen it mentioned in our local newspapers. And yet it has a GNIS listing, a Wikipedia article and it shows up on Google maps. Though I find it a bit strange, I have no problem with it. Maybe some researcher will run across mention of a California rail facility called Lombard, go to Wikipedia, and we can be a resource. And if that researcher publishes more details in a reliable source, the article can be expanded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I know! I just looked up those articles, and I actually agree that I find that really weird. To me, I think that article adds little value to Wikipedia. I actually used to live in San Jose when I was a little boy. Thank you for the example. Cheers! Colman2000 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to your Recommendation

Your recommendation: DHT863, you need to bring forward reliable sources that support the changes you want to make. There is no way under the sun that any experienced editor will agree with your "alternate paragraphs" proposal. This entire article will be the product of consensus among all interested editors, and you are just one of them. So, your job is to build consensus if you want to change the article. This is a collaborative project based on consensus. If you persist in referring to other interested editors as "the opposition", you cannot possibly achieve your goals. Wikipedia simply does not work that way. Cullen328

• Hello Cullen, So what has happened to Wikipedia? I never had to do "consensus" before. The places I edit have obvious flaws and if not that obvious then I explained the problem on Talk page. You guys have a serious problem of Nazi administrators and uneducated trolls. I don't like this at all and very very strongly recommend that you do something to reverse the damage these people are doing. I'm sick of making a minor edit and getting it reversed without any suggested improvements or helpful corrections and especially coming from people who can't even discuss the problem. This is horrible. It is disaster. Have you done anything to address this problem? Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, DHT863. Please read our core content policy Verifiability which says "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Then, please read our core content policy No original research, which says "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Then read our policy Consensus, which says "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." Then, read our behavioral guideline Assume good faith, which says "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." I suggest that you start by retracting your remark about "Nazi administrators and uneducated trolls."

If you want to continue contributing to this wonderful collaborative project, you need to follow our policies and guidelines. That is the best advice that I can give to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• They are minor edits my friend not major sections. Each one of you guys make up a different criticism as if the other is not there. You never explain what it is except order me to go read something that is pages long. I could have written everything in the policy guidelines myself because of six years of college where the fundamental lesson you are taught is exactly the policy here also. You are behaving in an orchestrated manner of obstruction. Where are you getting all this crap. Say something that is intelligent. What are your credentials for intellectual achievement? You are acting like a troll. It is evil to behave like a dictator. There is no editorial decision making when it comes to minor edits. I assume good faith but you guys all deny the same respect for my edits. You can't keep referring to the policy as hard fast rules. The lead to the policy says they are only guidelines. Lesson: do not erase/destroy/remove/revert other people's hard work and "assume good faith" by improving or correcting others efforts. Not one person has treated me in a cordial or polite manner so I have to assume you are all ganging up on me in an attempt to crush my efforts. In some human way you must respond without dictating a rule. -- DHT863 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, DHT863. I know that you are feeling frustrated, and I am sorry about that, but you need to accept the fact that Wikipedia operates by consensus. If your edit is challenged by any other editor acting in good faith for any reason, then you need to provide reliable sources and negotiate to reach consensus. This is not optional. It is mandatory, and is the basic reason that this project is successful and read by billions of people. Most of your edits are not minor. See Help:Minor edit for the definition. Please stop insulting your fellow editors. Just stop that behavior now. Start collaborating. Try kindness. That's how you accomplish your goals on Wikipedia. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Can you point out one article where consensus was settled? There are lots and lots of serious edits going on without any visible consensus. The five pillars say nothing about consensus. All the basic directions say jump in, be bold, assume good faith, build on pervious edits. But all you say and all those people tracking me are not in that spirit. You have got to understand that Wikipedia does not operate by your believes about consensus. I have gone to other articles and made minor edits only to be reverted - that is outright sabotage. Who are you? Are you claiming that something has changed because it was not like this a few months ago? Every time you refer to a help article it is insulting because there is a ton of info none of which applies in my particular case. You need to focus on the specific line item because I can not decipher what your meaning is. Please forward my comments to your boss. I need to talk with someone of higher authority. Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

DHT863, we do not have such a thing as settled consensus on the full content of any article although articles which have gone through rigorous peer review and have become Featured articles come closest. Instead, we come to consensus about specific proposed chunks of content, such as a sentence, a paragraph or a reference that is in dispute. If you make a bold change and no one objects, then all is well. But if you are reverted, you must provide references and reach consensus. In my initial response above, I gave you the standard summaries of the various policies and guidelines that are applicable. Every policy and guideline has a brief summary at the top. The principles are simple, and interact quite elegantly.

To find out more about me, click on my username and read my userpage. I have no boss. I was elected as an administrator by the Wikipedia community because the community agreed quite strongly that I have a good understanding of our policies and guidelines and can be trusted to enforce them fairly. No administrator is above any other administrator. We work as a team. I can assure you that any other administrator will give you the same advice as I am offering and some of them would probably be less diplomatic than I am trying to be here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Violations_of_Five_Pillars --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the info. I used to be a big supporter of Wikipedia but I simply can not accept these rules. I can not accept uneducated trolls being given the power over my life time of hard work. For your own self respect I recommend that you do not publicize your connection to Wikipedia. From now on I must say that Wikipedia is trash and you're welcome to it. Sorry but this is so offensive to me that I must say good bye. -- DHT863 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You really should read WP:NPA and WP:COOL. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and we are expected to keep WP:CIVIL in mind even when we disagree over content. Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING or getting our own way. You are always welcome to comeback editing if you are willing to be WP:HERE and edit according to relevant policies and guidelines. You are also welcome to suggest changes to these policies and guidelines on their respective talk pages or even at WP:VP/P, but you should really not be casting aspersions on other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect history for Why Buddhism is True

Hi Cullen328,

Recently I asked about my article for Why Buddhism is True in the Teahouse and you moved it to the mainspace along with the history from my sandbox (thanks!). The only problem is that I had used the same sandbox for a different page before and now everything in the history from Oct 30 and earlier is not for the same article. Anything that can be done about this?

Cheers, Gazelle55 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gazelle55. I can clean that up for you in a few hours. I am busy with my real world job right now. In the future, you can create a separate sandbox subpage for each new article draft. To do so, go to your main sandbox page and add a slash after the URL, followed by a draft name that you can remember. In this case, it could have been "/WBIT" for the initials of the book. Then, only the history of that subpage will be moved. I have hundreds of such sandbox subpages. There is no limit as long as you are using them to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Could you please do something about User:Mfwitten and his/her persistent edit warring at Graham Hancock? Cheers. nagualdesign 22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just so you (both) know, I have reported them here. --bonadea contributions talk 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bonadea. nagualdesign 22:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

User has been blocked for a week. nagualdesign 22:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of "relativizing proofs"

Here is a (hopefully less caustic) discussion of Jimfbleak's deletion of the article "relativizing proofs" in 2005. Cullen328 I should probably study Wikipedia policy in more depth. I have read various policies here but I would honestly welcome your help in understanding it better. I don't mean to be hostile or invective. I am passionate about the subject, is all. So here's the gist of my question: How do you know he was right to delete the *entire* article, according to Wikimedia foundation policy? I understand that we need to be careful not to plagiarize, but why delete the whole thing? You say tha they don't allow us to be "conservative" — why is that? I don't mean that we should leave plagiarized material on the site - that would cause huge problems, and rightfully so. What I meant by expressing a desire to see moderators be "conservative" in their deletions is: please, please moderate with an intent to preserve what public-domain knowledge can safely be preserved — and to keep what important knowledge can be kept safely. Deleting the article is harmful to the study of P vs. NP and other problems in proof and computational complexity theory that depend on an understanding of relativizing proofs. I'm not qualified to even begin to write it myself... but the concepts that were in there are important. I can't even find evidence that the page was copyrighted in the first place. The url that the deletion cites, http://www.alishehab.com/2013/05/p-versus-np-problem.html now just redirects to the home page at alishebab.com, which appears to be a news site.

So, it seems the chain of events is as such: Alishebab.com wrote an article on P vs NP. Then, an inexperienced or careless Wikipedian copied some or all of the text from that article into the Wikipedia article. That was a bad idea on their part, and it's good that Jimfbleak corrected it. It was rude of me to be so snide in my initial post, but the action of one inexperienced editor copying material into the article shouldn't doom the entire article! I have a difficult time believing that the entire "relativizing proof" article was taken wholesale from the alishebab.com website. It isn't even a mathematics website, it's just a news site. It's difficult to tell exactly what happened, because the original article that was infringed upon is as inaccessible to me as the wikipedia article that was deleted as a result! I just want to see the parts of the article that weren't infringing brought back, so that I can study the subject. Anything you can do to point me in the right direction would be appreciated.

I read your reply on Jimfbleak's talk page, asserting that the article wasn't "up to snuff" for other reasons besides just the copyright infringement. That being said, I am curious as to whether an entire article would actually get deleted for a single infringing portion? Kemery720 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)