Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 79

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 77Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81→Archive 85

Woodrow Wilson

Hi,

I posted an insert to the Woodrow Wilson page. Perhaps this was not clear but let me make it clear now.

I am not sure who peer reviewed the article but it is incorrect. The decison to indict Debs was made in the summer of 1918 before Wilson suffered a stroke. As president he was responsible. Debs's indictment was a major event during the Wilson Administraton.

Socialists and IWW members, and yes a few anarchists, were indicted under the Espionage Act for opposing the war and organizing peaceful strikes. It is slanted language to write that they were indicted for "sabotaging" the war effort. Furthermore, the attorney general at the time was Thomas Gregory, not Mitchell Palmer. The brief summary in the entry confuses the Palmer raids and the many arrests made by the Justice Department under Gregory during the war.

I did not just cite a source, I wrote the book. The topic of civil liberties during the First World War is one which I have studied extensively and about which I have published three books.

Frankly, I would think Wikipedia would be glad to have my input.

Rosalux1900 (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rosalux1900. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and especially the subsection WP:SELFCITE. You say that you are not sure who peer reviewed the article. If you read Talk: Woodrow Wilson where you posted, you can read the discussion above about the March 2021 GA review, and the uninvolved editor who passed it was User:The great Jay who signs as "Blue Jay". Through the article's history and the "Page information" link, you can easily learn who the most prolific content creators are. You describe the word "sabotage" as slanted language but surely you know that some sabotage was going on. I am not an expert on the period but German spy Eric Muenter comes to mind, although his attacks took place before the U.S. entered the war. Also the Black Tom explosion and use of Pencil bombs to attack munitions ships. Didn't anarchists attempt to bomb a cathedral?
If you want to have changes made to that article, then make a properly formatted edit request on the talk page, and disclose that you are trying to cite a book that you wrote.
I see that you are attempting to cite books you've written at International Rescue Committee, Ford Foundation and Industrial Workers of the World without disclosing that you are the author. Some administrators would just block you on the spot for spamming. I am going to give you a chance to change your ways. Disclose your conflict of interest when you cite your own work. You are familiar with the relevant literature. Cite the work of other authors as well, or other editors will conclude that you are here to promote only your own books instead of to improve the encyclopedia. You are not providing inline referencing but just a parenthetical note. That's not correct. Please read Referencing for beginners and format your references properly, with full bibliographical detail including ISBN numbers. Also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines, paying special attention to the three core content policies of Verifiability, the Neutral point of view and No original research. As an advocacy author, you may have trouble with neutrality. Deal with it, because it is mandatory here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that there is a Wikipedia biography of you, Eric Chester. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It does seem that Wikipedia is not interested in having authors contribute to Wikipedia entries. I will take this as a guideline and stop here. Your loss.

On the International Rescue Committee and IWW entries my books were already cited. I just added to the entry. The Ford Foundation entry was different.

It seems odd that you would refer to me as an advocacy author. Have you read my books? They are carefully researched. I try to call it as the evidence directs.

You have not answered my points on errors in the present Woodrow Wilson entry. Palmer was not the attorney general during the First World War. Thomas Gregory was the ag. Woodrow Wilson had his stroke after the war had ended. As president, he was responsible for the prosecutions of Debs and the IWW members. Having something peer reviewed does not change historical fact.

Your points on sabotage completely miss the point. As you point out, the Germans engaged in sabotage in the U. S. before the U. S. enteed the war in April 1917. This has nothing to do with the many dissidents who were prosecuted under the Espionage Act for voicing their opposition to the war effort.

Rosalux1900 (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Rosalux1900. You state It does seem that Wikipedia is not interested in having authors contribute to Wikipedia entries. That is absolutely incorrect, and many authors and academics contribute to Wikipedia and are welcomed if they are willing to comply with the simple policies and guidelines that have made this website trusted by hundreds of millions of readers. Please read Wikipedia:Expert editors to disabuse yourself of that notion.
I do not doubt that the article on Woodrow Wilson can be improved and errors about who was attorney general at a given time should be very easy to fix. I have already given you suggestions about how to make a formal edit request, and how to find out who the most active editors on that page are. But I am not an editor who is involved with the Woodrow Wilson article and I claim no expertise in World War I. I have read dozens of books about the American Civil War and World War II, but I am no historian and have never read a book about World War I except for a couple of novels. My relevant expertise in this discussion is in editing Wikipedia, and in its policies, guidelines and social norms. I am a generalist editor working on a very wide range of topics.
I certainly do not dispute that your books are carefully researched and I also do not think that is incompatible with advocacy. Some of the most memorable books I have read were carefully researched advocacy books. Of course I have not read your books. Why would you think that I would have, when I only learned about them a few days ago? I did read a bit about your books, though, and I have no doubt that they are valuable. I have a good friend, Tim Davenport, who is an expert on early 20th century American socialism, Eugene V. Debs in particular, and he is a long time Wikipedia editor who has written many articles here without major problems. You can find out more about him at User:Carrite.
I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Expert editors and then you can decide whether or not you want to be a Wikipedia editor on an ongoing basis. I am happy to continue this conversation if you decide "yes". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems that the crux of the problem is my contributing to wikipedia entries on the basis of my own books. Original research is the start of a process. The research then gets integrated into books and articles. Unfortunately it takes a considerable time for new research to be integrated into wikipedia entries. Furthermore, the editors of certain entries may not read material relevant to the entry. The Ford Foundation entry is a good example. My book on the Internatioal Rescue Committee has a section on the Ford Foundation that is pertinent to the wikipedia entry. It seems to me that my addition to the entry just speeds along the process of moving original research into wikipedia.

As I understand it, you are holding that I can contribute to wikipedia but without using references to my books or even adding the substantive content of those books. This makes no sense to me and I am not willing to participate on that basis.

Do you have the authority to make this judgment? How about putting me in touch with a wikipedia editor who does know about World War I and Wooodrow Wilson?

Rosalux1900 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Rosalux1900, I have never said that you are forbidden to cite your own work. I wrote Disclose your conflict of interest when you cite your own work. You are familiar with the relevant literature. Cite the work of other authors as well, or other editors will conclude that you are here to promote only your own books instead of to improve the encyclopedia. Does that say never? I referred you to WP:SELFCITE. Does that say never? I referred you to Wikipedia:Expert editors. Does that say never? Do not ascribe to me things that I did not say. Did you read those links? I hope so.
Are your books the only reliable sources ever published for the dates of service for the two attorneys general? I don't think so. Are book length biographies of Wilson worthless and only your books shed light on the era? I don't think so. Are you the only author to produce good work about civil liberties in World War I? I don't think so. Are you more familiar with those other works than I am? I'm sure of that. Cite them as well. Why is that onerous?
As for my authority as an administrator, I can take certain steps to enforce Wilipedia's policies and guidelines. Familiarize yourself with them. You ask, How about putting me in touch with a wikipedia editor who does know about World War I and Wooodrow Wilson?. I have already told you how to make a formal edit request at Talk:Woodrow Wilson. I have advised you to read the talk page where you can identify editors interested in this article. I have told you to use the "Edit history" tab at the top of the article and the "Page information" tab at the left to identify, with great detail, the contributions of every editor who has contributed to that article. Have you studied those aspects of Woodrow Wilson? If not, why not? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Revision to page Brand Extension

I joined Wikipedia to make improvements to the page Brand Extension. So far, I have had just pushback. I am the innovator of the concept and coined the term in 1979. I am frustrated that the page is just a bunch of academic references instead of a full explanation of the origin and the concept. I would like to suggest these changes but I keep meeting with resistance. Please let me know if I may be of help or if no one wants to change the page. Thank you Ed Tauber, Emeritus Professor of Marketing, USC RunFox79 (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RunFox79. I assume that you have already been asked to read Wikipedia: Conflict of interest. If you haven't already done so, please read Wikipedia:Expert editors and WP:SELFCITE. You should create a user page where you disclose your conflict of interest. Academic journal articles are the gold standard for creating a Wikipedia article. If you want to impeach the integrity of a specific source cited in the Wikipedia article, then take the matter to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. To propose changes to the article, write a properly formatted, actionable, well-referenced Edit request on the talk page of the article. Keep this in mind: you are probably the least neutral living human being on this topic, and Wikipedia articles are written from the Neutral point of view. This is a core content policy and is non-negotiable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

ok so lets engage in an iterative process to ensure the next image is allowed

https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/rs-12048-theedge-624-1375819415.jpg?resize=1800,1200&w=1200 is this one allowed?

it's on rolling stone, in a free article, which is accessible by anyone. i see that it attributes it to pete still, but it's not watermarked or anything.

or is it still not admissible?

Everything that is published in Rolling Stone or anywhere else is automatically copyrighted for 95 years. Period, very few exceptions, end of story. Copyright holders can choose to legally make their work freely available under an acceptable Creative Commons license, or similar license. But we require affirmative proof of such licensing. I can assure you that the chance that Rolling Stone would do that is zero. They make money off of their intellectual property and do not give up their rights lightly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Making an article or an image free to view online is not at all the same as making it free to re-use. If you make posters or t-shirts with that photo, Rolling Stone or the photographer would have every right to sue you. Using it in an encyclopedia is similar. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
that's fair, and i see what you're saying. but before i bug people who took the photo, what kind of license does wikipedia require? there are many kinds of CC licenses, no? are CC licenses that protect the copyright holder acceptable? this was similar to what i asked before. from the deletion discussion, other posters pretty much said the holder has to allow commercial (free) use. is this true?
Please see Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License which is by far the most common license - it is, in effect, the default standard. Any acceptable license will allow for commercial re-use, and that is mandatory for images of living people on Wikipedia. Personality rights may affect commercial re-use, but that is outside the purview of Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC):
alrighty my dude, i'll be asking them to license it under CC-3.0 and hopefully one of them bites. natkin was definitely not interested. i wonder if i may be better off buying one from pete still to use for wikipedia. too bad they only have a phone number, i'm not gonna call over this ;P
Buying a copy of a photo is not enough. You must buy all rights to the photo, which is a very different thing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
ok so here's an update. i have found someone who has great pictures, one of which would be PERFECT for the page. however he said he would allow it for "non-commercial" purposes. he also has a small 'copyright' ish text in the bottom corner. i think you would say this is not enough, right? essentially you'd say two things: no copyright watermark in the bottom corner, and that he *must* allow commercial use. but what i don't understand is what this means. it sounds like when you mentioned the "personality rights" thing, that you're not saying commercial use without compensating the original author. instead it seems like you're saying "no commercial use forbidden, but any profits accrued from such commercial use would fall outside of the purview of wikipedia", is that right?
Any license that does not allow commercial re-use is not acceptable on Wikipedia. My point about personality rights is that there are other implications of commercial use of images of celebrities that are unrelated to copyright. If you take one of the freely licensed photos of The Edge or any other celebrity and turn it into posters, t-shirts and coffee mugs, then that celebrity might sue you, but the basis of the lawsuit would be personality rights, not copyright. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
but does allowing for commercial re-use prevent you from getting any compensation, should this re-use involve some kind of monetary activity? it shouldn't, right? but then i assume this is where the personality rights stuff comes in because the actual artist can say 'that's me, who do you think you are making money off a picture of me?' kind of thing, right?
You can make money without legal problems by selling copies of photos of mountains, tigers, butterflies, planets or any similar thing you find on Wikimedia Commons, as long as you attribute the source in a credit line. But when it comes to photos of celebrities, you may have problems with personality rights. In this example, the artist (photographer) has no claim because they voluntarily licensed their work for re-use including commercial use. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
i'm not authorising the photo for CC-3.0. he allowed it to be licensed under CC-3.0 in our correspondence. i obviously cannot provide that license. that's why i uploaded it under CC-3.0. because in our exchange, he agreed to allow it. so do you want the email? asking him to register or engage isn't a fair demand. he gave a clear and unequivocal consent in email, and i explained it to him very clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.108.48 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
That is not sufficient. The license is a legal document and the only person who can issue the license is the copyright holder. You cannot obtain a driver's license for your friend. You cannot register to vote for your friend. Only your friend can do such things. There are over 50 million freely licensed media files on Commons, so people have done the right thing over 50 million times. I've done it hundreds of times myself for my own photos. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
If you want an email correspondence to be accepted for image licensing, I would read this and go through the process described there for receiving the proper permissions to use an image on Wikimedia Commons. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
it's been done. dr arnem engaged and consented. will one of the people respond via email with some formal approval that will coincide with the license being placed with the upload? THIS IS GONNA BE HYPE. minds are going to be BLOWN when they see THE EDGE in the 80s. you should have seen my face when i watched the live aid set for the first time like two months ago (it's probably been User:Y2kcrazyjoker4's breakfast material for the past 30 years). "i was like, who is that guy, why haven't i seen him before? that's not the edge.... THAT'S THE EDGE!!"
If your licensing efforts are successful according to policy, then so be it. But the extreme enthusiasm you are showing in your various remarks is inappropriate. Please read and fully absorb the Neutral point of view, a non-negotiable core content policy. The Edge is a great rock guitarist. He is not The Greatest Rock Guitarist Ever, or any unreferenced variation of that written in ALL CAPS! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability of Movie Characters

Hi Jim. We have notability guidelines for different topics. Right? Among them, do we have any specific criteria for movie characters. Im more into movie related stuffs. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 07:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla. Fictional characters must meet the General notability guideline. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction for further guidance. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. But why didnt I recive notification about your reply. If I didnt came here after remembering about my question, I wouldnt have known this Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 06:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC).

Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, I am sorry if I messed up the ping to your username. I hope you get this one. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah got this time🙂 (Is emojis allowed here.? I didnt saw anyone using it anywhere) Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 06:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Can you delete Planet Her so i can move the draft over there? versacespaceleave a message! 00:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, VersaceSpace.  Done Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. versacespaceleave a message! 01:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback Request

Hi there! I have recently made a request for an assessment of the article Puppetry of the Penis on various Wikiprojects. I have been editing this article for over a month for a university class, adding almost 3000 words, new sections, an infobox, media and more references for verifiability. I noticed you were a very active (and helpful) editor on Treehouse, and was wondering if you had the time if you could have a look at the article and provide me any feedback. Any general feedback would be much appreciated and possibly an assessment of the article for importance and quality. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rubyredgirl. That's a highly detailed article about something I had never heard of before. The "Tricks" section is unreferenced. There is also a problem with the New York Times quotation. I am a NYT subscriber and ran that quote through their search function without success. They did review the performance in 2001, THEATER REVIEW; A Couple of Naked Guys From Australia, but it was a very negative review. Best to check all your quotes carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The quote attributed to the Washington Post also appears inaccurate. Their 2003 review, 'Puppetry': Private Parts as Public Art does not contain those words, and it was also a negative review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to thank you so much for taking a look at the article and providing your feedback and detailed assistance. As a new Wikipedia editor I am extremely grateful. I have taken the suggestions you left on board and removed the "Tricks" section (I completely agree that it was irrelevant and unsourced, and as there were other referenced mentions of the tricks in the "Summary" section, I feel it is not necessary). I also removed the New York Times quotation as I tried to find a source to verify it but could not, thank you for picking that up! I also added the reference to the Washington Post review that you linked in the talk page to the attributed quotation. I did not find that before so very lucky you picked up on it! Again thank you, and let me know if there are any issues with my revisions. Rubyredgirl (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, Rubyredgirl. It helps that I subscribe to the NYT and WaPo. I suggest that you incorporate the actual NYT review, even though it is negative. Let me know if it is hidden by a paywall for you, and I can email you the text and bibliographic details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Streamingplug

This user has changed their name and is requesting unblock. I have asked them for their assurance that they will not be engaging in any sort of promotional edits. I have also asked them what sort of positive contributions they intend to make. Naturally I will be monitoring them.

Do you have any concerns or information regarding this block that I should take into account? I have read the deleted contributions. I will not be taking any action until I hear your response. Thank you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, they have demonstrated a lack of clue by giving me the oh so popular "It was not spam because..." response. I have declined their unblock request. There is no helping some people. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Emmanuel Macron on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Linking/Uploading 3 more MIMT reviews

Hello Jim - I have sent you three more articles to link for MIMT references, but if this is not convenient for you I can ask for other help. Thanks for all you have done to construct an entry for MIMT and teaching me the parameters - wish I had that conversation with you six months ago, could have saved a lot of time and agony. That's what I get for being a bad directions reader! Appreciatively, Stephen Rice aka: Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, thank you. I am working right now but I will take a closer look this evening. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Work is inevitable for most all of us! Thanks Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Hi Jim - I have now sent you two emails, each with three attached reviews to link. I was also trying to reach you about uploading the international release MIMT poster. I tried to upload on WikiMedia Commons, but I don't remember going through that much struggle. If I understand correctly, there is a way to upload specifically for one entry which is how I must have done it before. Here is the discussion from my talk page:

I am currently attempting to upload the foreign market poster, created and used by our distributor, Devillier-Donegan Enterprises. This business was closed over 20 years ago and there is no website to link. I have our contract with DDE, as well as sales receipts. I could email those as verification of our relationship but I don't wish to upload them. My partner and I hold the copyright for this movie and the poster was created for its sales. Please inform me as how to proceed. Thank you. Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If you don't own the copyright on the poster you want to upload, it really is neither here nor there that you own the copyright on related materials. Commons would be glad to have the poster if we can get a license from the current holder of its copyright. Probably you'd need to contact the OTRS team to sort out the issues about who is giving permission. I suspect this will involve more of a dialogue than you can handle through the release generator. But unfortunately if the work is "orphaned" and no one can find the copyright-holder to get permission, then our precautionary principle says we cannot accept that, and anyone who used the image would be in danger of the copyright-holder appearing and suing them. Failing the ability to clear rights, it is possible to upload non-free images to the English-language Wikipedia itself for use in an article. Commons is not involved in that: Commons hosts only free-licensed an public domain images. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC) One of the co-owners of Devillier-Donegan Enterprises, Ron Devillier is still very much alive. I just emailed him about our film. What is necessary to give his permission as the creator of the poster in service of distributing my film? Thank you. Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hope this is something you enjoy, because I'm taking up a lot of your time - with much appreciation, Stephen aka: Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thedevoutcatalyst. I am actually working right now to convert some of what you sent me into usable references. I do not think all of them are necessary, but I am poring over each article to see if it contains encyclopedic information. On the matter of the poster, the only person who can freely license a film poster on Wikimedia Commons is the copyright holder, and this is a firm policy. Nobody else. As alluded to by Jmabel, there is a policy that allows a non-free poster image to be used only in an encyclopedia article about a film (but not in a draft). See WP:NFCI for the details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jim - I was hoping to use information from those articles to replace sentences that I don't have citations for or just supply different information. The one Music Connection article allows me to talk a bit about the beginning of the project, as it was just an idea in March 1982.

If I understand correctly, I may be able to add the international version of the poster, but not while the article is in the draft stage. Thanks, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, with rare exceptions, only one non-free poster image is allowed in each article, and a non-free image is not going to be allowed if a freely licensed image is already present. Especially since there is no referenced content in the draft about European distribution. As far as images, your priority ought to be the licensing for the U.S. poster, which is also being challenged on Commons. Please keep in mind that a Wikipedia article about a film should focus on the film, and should not contain extensive content about the subject of the film, the producers and the director of the film, the production company and so on. Readers who want to know more about Thelonious Monk can click on that link and learn a lot more there.
So, the biggest issue at the moment is the large quantity of unreferenced information in the draft. If you agree, I can relocate that content to a second sandbox, clean up and organize what can be referenced, and move the article into the encyclopedia. The article can always be expanded in the future if you uncover more published sources. If not, then I do not think the draft is acceptable for publication. The choice is yours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, just carefully read everything you said. Good to know about the one poster. The main movie poster (black and white with purple) has a Songfilms International, Inc. copyright on it. I think I am making myself crazy with this and should defer to you. Please try to keep a reference to KCRW and Tom Schnabel in it, as he provided my musical education on Monk and championed the film ever getting a premiere showing. There is a lot of information about Chick Corea's involvement in promoting the film in the Harvey Siders article. The David Henderson article talks about Randy Weston bringing the French footage to us (we actually finished the film and then re-edited to include those two solo piano songs). SF Jazz did present the film 36 years ago, bringing in Jon Hendricks as emcee (that's already referenced). and lastly, a review talks about Jon Hendricks "lyrical narration" confirming he did set the whole script to rhyme. We fought an uphill battle even getting two premieres for this film and it has taken 36 years to finally be seen in the country where Thelonious Monk was born! That's it! I have passed it to you - thank you for your sensitivity. This has been a very emotional experience for me. Appreciatively, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst which of the references mentions "KCRW and Tom Schnabel"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, I've had that KCRW reference in my draft so long, I assumed it was there, but I don't see it either. While I was looking, I saw the "Japanese video cassette market" confirming the Japanese home market sale. There are many references to it being seen internationally, but I let go of listing all the countries a while ago. Thanks for your thoroughness. Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Good Morning Jim -

Well, I see where you are in the edit. I'm finally starting to really understand how Wikipedia articles work. There is no repeated information. You don't list the performers in the body of the text because they are all in the artist box. You don't say the film is a tribute with new performances because the film's subtitle says that. I have not seen your links to the first group of three new (old) reviews that I emailed you. These will give you your missing citations.

Johnson, Ted (March 8, 1985). “Thelonious Monk film in SF”. Contra Costa Times.

Henderson, David (August 1985). “Reassembled Melodies”. The Monthy, The East Bay’s Premier Magazine of Culture and Commerce. P. 41.

Siders, Harvey (May 6, 1983). “A Secular Monk Revisited”. Los Angeles Daily News. P. 34.

Thanks, Stephen aka: Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, I still have a lot of work to do. I will be summarizing the film and mentioning the performers and performances in the body of the article, based on what the sources say about the film. You cannot see all the work that I have done because I am developing some of the content in my own sandbox pages, and will move it into the draft when it is ready. I have moved the unreferenced content to User:Thedevoutcatalyst/sandbox2. Please be aware that I am traveling to a family event today to visit with my granddaughter, so will not be on Wikipedia much for most of the day. Perhaps I can work on it for a while this evening. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jim - I truly believe you are interested in making this article the best it can be within Wikipedia parameters. Thanks for everything AND FAMILY COMES FIRST - ALWAYS!!! Appreciatively, Stephen aka: Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Jim, It's wonderful! I can see how carefully you read those reviews. You crafted a beautiful description of the film and I'm so grateful for your patience in allowing me to go through the process of letting go! I could not be happier with the end result - that is quite a writing job! That IS the encyclopedia entry for "Music in Monk Time" and I have no intention of changing anything, only finding a secondary source to confirm the Swiss Film Festival. With gratitude, Stephen Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, I truly appreciate your kind words and I am proud of how the article has turned out. But it is you and your team back then who truly deserve the credit for creating a film that was reviewed so positively. I am sorry that your film didn't get on PBS nationally but it was really a pleasure for me to read all of the wonderful reference material that you sent, and to summarize it all in Wikipedia style and format. Please work to verify the licensing of the poster at Wikimedia Commons, but if you are not successful there, I can upload it here under WP:NFCI. It has been easy working with you, which is not true of a large majority of editors with a conflict of interest, who can be pains. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble even finding the Wikipedia Commons page where I tried to upload the foreign distribution poster. The poster you added is the official movie poster we had designed and printed. I did have the poster professionally digitized, and at the bottom it clearly says Songfilms International, Inc (copyright symbol) 1983. The photo is credited on the poster to Doug Quackenbush (copyright symbol) 1964. He is also interviewed in the film. The poster designer, Brian McCarty is also credited at the bottom of the poster. How do you suggest I proceed to put this to rest. Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, please go to [1] and follow the instructions in the red box. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Jim - I was going along with the Wikimedia instructions until I hit this part: I agree to publish the specified content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

This is our poster, and I don't want anyone reprinting, etc. It is not public domain. I certainly kicked the Wikimedia hornet's nest when I mistakenly uploaded that International poster. I just zoomed in on the encyclopedia image. You can clearly see the Songfilms copyright and the Douglas Quackenbush (photographer) copyright. Please advise, Thank you Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, Wikimedia Commons is a repository of public domain and freely licensed images that can be used by anyone for any purpose without asking for permission. Copyright still exists if the item is copyrighted but the copyright holder voluntarily agrees to waive all rights except attribution. All of this would have been explained to you when you uploaded those three items to Commons last May and July. This is a case where reading the fine print really matters because the license is a legally enforceable document. All three of the images have been tagged for deletion by a Commons administrator. You can do nothing and they will be deleted in about five days. Or, you can proactively ask for them to be deleted faster. Once the U.S. poster is deleted there at Commons, I can upload a lower resolution version locally on English Wikipedia under WP:NFCI #1. I think that I will add a portrait of Monk just so the article has at least one image. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never been good a reading the fine print. So yes, keep an eye open, as I will ask them to take it down ASAP. I will give little to no explanation if possible, as verbiage tends to get me in trouble. Thanks, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I asked for all three posters to be removed in the discussion page for the international poster. Should I open a discussion for the original poster and ask that it be taken down or is there another place to do that? Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Found the discussion page for the main poster and asked for it to be taken down ASAP - that was clearly the right place to ask. Thanks, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, I commented on Commons. Also, I added the upcoming SFJAZZ Center broadcast to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow! That is some really good news, Jim! I was going to send you the link to the SFJazz festival, but you have obviously already found it! Serious Thanks! Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jim - I just wanted to let you know that I am so proud to send people the link to the "Music in Monk Time" entry in Wikipedia. I am so happy you saw the value in our old movie and came to my rescue. I am forever grateful, Stephen Rice aka: Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, it is really kind of you to drop by after three days, and I am very pleased that you are recommending the article. Please let me know if you get your hands on the Stanley Crouch piece in the Village Voice. Too bad that there is no intact digital archive. Have you thought of asking the New York Public Library if they can send you a copy of the original? If the June showings result in any press coverage, please let me know about that as well. Hoping for the best. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I certainly will pursue your NYPL idea when I get a moment. I know of at least one interview lined up with the San Francisco Chronicle, which I will be able to send you a digital link to through my online subscription - ahh modern times, finally! Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Jim - Look what I just found! (sent to your email address) Can this printed publication support the Jon Hendricks only vocalist ever to record with Monk claim? Also sending you a copy of the original lyrics to a very touching song, along with the accompanying YouTube video, but that's just for you. Thanks again for everything! Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Good Morning Jim - I just checked the Wikipedia link as I was sending to a dear friend and saw the poster image had dropped off. I am going to email you the image, to make sure you have the one with the best resolution. Thanks again for all that you have done and are continuing to do. Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, I will have to reduce the resolution so starting out with the highest resolution is best. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll send you the fat one on WeTransfer in a minute. Thanks! Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Good Afternoon Jim - just checking to see if you were able to click on that link and download the poster file. I have been a WeTransfer recipient, but never a sender. Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, I need to do the image work on a desktop computer but I am not at my office at the moment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey it's the weekend, whenever you get to it, you get to it! I just wanted to make sure I did the right thing on WeTransfer to get it to you. Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jim - Saw that the poster is back up. Thank you for that. Did the WeTransfer file come through? I only ask because you can't really see any detail on the poster and when you click on it, there seems to be a dark spot on the bottom half and it doesn't enlarge. However, maybe this is how it has to be in non-Wikimedia uploads - and I certainly don't want to go there again! Thanks, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Good morning Jim - Here's a published account of SF Jazz’s original presentation of MIMT in 1985. SFJazz festival going virtual for second year in a row, this time with a twist.

https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/music/sfjazz-festival-going-virtual-for-the-second-year-in-a-row-this-time-with-a-twist

LaSalle, Mick (May 24, 2021). "SFJazz fest to be virtual with a twist". San Francisco Chronicle. Pg D1.

This message was sent via https://datebook.sfchronicle.com. Thank you,Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Me Again - just emailed you a 58KB version of the poster in case it's easier to upload than dealing with the the 4.5MB version. Thanks, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, when uploading a non-free image, we need to reduce the resolution to protect the intellectual property of the copyright holder. I used the WeTransfer image and was surprised that it was pretty low resolution. So, if I was to start with a higher resolution original, the final result will be higher quality. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm... now I'm wondering if I WeTransferred the wrong one. The one I sent to your email is 58KB. The WeTransfer file SHOULD HAVE BEEN 4.5MB??? I can resend if you didn't receive both. Thanks, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Music in Monk Time poster.jpg, I downloaded the WeTransfer file to my desktop computer, and using a simple graphics file, reduced it to 50% in height and 50% in width. The output I uploaded is: ‎(191 × 256 pixels, file size: 76 KB, MIME type: image/png). I have never worked with a WeTransfer file before and was surprised that it seemed pretty low resolution, but I have to work with what I have. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, the email one I sent you has better resolution. Let me do some homework and see what is happening when I upload to WeTransfer. I am using the free version, so maybe it gets changed. I will find a way to get you the 4.5MB file. Thanks again, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Jim - Got a message from WeTransfer that you had not yet downloaded the file. I forward that email to you with the correct link that expires in two days. It says the file is 4.25-4.5MB. Let me know if that is not the case. My partner Daria, dariajazz.com has the Pro version of WeTranfer, and with your permission, I will have her resend the file to you and see if the paid version transfers the full file. Thanks, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, I was able to download the higher resolution version, and it looks much better even when I reduced the resolution by 50%. Not sure what went wrong the first time but that website is new to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Jim - Looks WAY better! Thank you, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Jim - Last night the new poster download looked beautiful. Tonight it has reverted back to the old low resolution version with the black spot on the bottom when you click on it. What happened to the one you uploaded last night? Perplexed, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thedevoutcatalyst, the automated bot programs that patrol non-free images are enforcing the policy described at WP:IMAGERES. I had hoped that reducing the resolution by 50% would be good enough, but not so. The only way to include a higher resolution version would be to freely license it, which you have said you are unwilling to do. I can't do anything at this point because the issue has been referred to another administrator. It is out of my hands. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we are not freely licensing the poster (thank you for saving me from that misunderstanding!) so it is what it is. Thank you again for all your efforts to make everything related to this entry as good as it could possibly be. With appreciation, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jim - hope this message finds you and your family well. The SFJAZZ showings did well (by Jazz standards). The first Thursday streaming has covered the restoration cost, so my 25% share of the smaller, Sunday sales might pay for some groceries around here! Question: I have on-air broadcast copies of two radio interviews. In those interviews I talk about the origins of the project and the radio station, KCRW in Los Angeles. Do digital recordings of on-air interviews count as secondary sources to add material to our encyclopedia entry?

Hello, Thedevoutcatalyst. I am glad your screenings went well. Interviews are primary sources but they may have limited use in the article. See Template:Cite AV media for how radio shows are cited. Send me an email with the details, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Again - I am assuming that the prerecorded interview was preserved. I have requested a digital copy and if I'm successful, I'll send you the file as well. Thank you, Thedevoutcatalyst (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Antonio Peticov draft

Hey Cullen, thanks for the advice. I've gone through the draft once more to remove more purple prose and unsourced statements, as well as improve neutrality. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know your thoughts? This has been a tricky one for me as the standards for PT Wikipedia seem lower than EN Wikipedia, and at first I was way too reluctant to delete things from the original article, to the detriment of the translation. Actionactioncut (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


.

Search Engine Optimization

Well, you know what prompted my inquiry, since you partially blocked the editor in question from editing the articles that they created. My real question had to do with why he thought it was useful to move-rename the article on the opera singer in Wikipedia in order to improve his own Google ranking. I understand why he created an article about himself, which was then pushed back into draft space. That, as noted, will pop up to the top of the Google results. But I don't really understand how changing the name of an opera singer affects his ranking. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, although my mind reading skills are non-existent, my informed guess is that the horror film maker assumed that adding the middle name to the opera singer's Wikipedia biography, combined with writing an autobiography, would vault his own Google visibility to the top of the search results. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
In other words, there is some sort of mythology involved. There is no point in trying to provide a reasonable explanation for the unreasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing the Stub Template

Hi Jim, I have upgraded a stub record on the Australian painter George F. Lawrence and now I would like to remove the stub template/status. I have looked at Wikipedia documentation on this subject but I could not see how to actually remove the stub template, if that's the correct way to describe what I need to do. Any advice you can offer on this subject will be appreciated. Regards, Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHSydney (talk • contribs) 07:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GHSydney. I have upgraded the rating to start. It is now much better than a stub. Good work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Brian_Graham_(actor)

Hey Cullen328,

Which references should I focus on? What can save this page? He was a national level bodybuilder, is this enough? HeyitsmeFellen (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, HeyitsmeFellen, I have not evaluated the sources, but in general, seven paragraphs of critical assessment in the TV and movie section of a major metropolitan newspaper is vastly better than a two sentence event listing in some little known local publication. Your biggest problem is the glaring lack of neutrality in the prose. It is almost as if you are asking the reviewers to reject your draft, though I doubt that is your intention. Read some Good articles about actors to get a sense of the acceptable standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey, what if we put him as a bodybuilder? Like change the name? I also contributed to the deletion. I believe he passes WP:SPORTSPERSON. Also, how to nominate a conses? There is no fix criteria for bodybuilders in the notability page. HeyitsmeFellen (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
HeyitsmeFellen, I see that the article is now at AfD. You will have to defend it there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Okays! Will do my best! HeyitsmeFellen (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sunshine

Sunshine!
Hello Cullen328! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer, Cullen328!! Interstellarity (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Reference of Ancestry tree

I'm quite new in wikipedia edits. I made an ancestry tree of a notable person using information from wikipedia pages of her parents, and then their parents and so on. I was looking for some ancestry trees of other notable persons and there was no reference mentioned, so I published my edits without mentioning any reference. It got reverted by an editor without mentioning any specific reason. Then I added reference of a website and published it. And it also got reverted as the reference was not a reliable source. Now can I add other wikipedia pages of their parents information as reference? Mehenaz Tabassoom (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The answer is no, Mehenaz Tabassoom. Please read WP:CIRCULAR and WP:NOT. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Hi! I hope I can make a request having an entry for Vance Larena. he belongs to the same management with Kelvin Miranda and Jane De Leon. Thanks! Beautyscars (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Beautyscars. Your draft was deleted because it was overtly promotional. All content on Wikipedia must be written from the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

LowTierGod name

On the talk page for the LowTierGod article, you stated "There is nothing improper about using stage names, pen names, handles or any other type of pseudonym if that is what the person is best known as. There are countless examples on Wikipedia." Could you post some examples of articles of people who have changed their real name, which is known and recorded, but it only lists their pseudonym? I have only ever seen articles show such cases as 'Sneed Smith (Born Chuck Smith)' or something like that, or at least mention it somewhere in the article. An example that comes to mind is Tommy_Robinson_(activist). This man went out of his way to use the pseudonym Tommy Robinson and people use his real name as a gotcha to mock him, and yet his real name is plastered all over this page. Even if you consider this case different for some reason, I'd still like to know one of these countless examples you cite. --Bloodloss 15:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bloodloss. What really matters most here is policy and not examples and counterexamples. The relevant policy language can be found at WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources, where it says With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Later on, the BLP policy also says Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. As for Tommy Robinson, all you need to do is Google "Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon" and you can readily see that his real name has been published by many high quality newspapers in the United Kingdom, as well as in Israel, Ireland, Singapore and the United States. In the case of LowTierGod, I am unaware that his real name has been "widely published by reliable sources", but maybe you are aware of sources that I do not know about. The one thing that I do know with certainty is that people with a grudge against this person will not be allowed to violate policy when editing the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

First article

Hey there!

I'm about to publish my first article and wanted to let a seasoned editor know, so you can help me out if needed. Looking forward!Boozlebam (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:DRASTIC on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_79&oldid=1035524051"