User talk:Cullen328/Archive 53

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

The Mitford Family - Nearly 1000 years of history

Usefulenergy (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Hello and bonjour Jim. Greetings from France! Many thanks for your time and thoughts and much appreciate your reply. I am like most, a new comer to posting anything on Wikipedia and would greatly value your advice and what to do, if anything can be done without becoming a major time consuming project? Here goes!

Reference - The original, mainline Mitford family of Mitford, Northumberland. Nearly 1000 years of history. (Hugh Mitford Raymond book).

This was to try and attempt to put an end to years of misinformation, ambiguities, contradictions and diverse explanations when it comes to the Mitford family. It would appear there are many “Mitford specialists” out there? Understood we can’t escape from a degree of confusion on occasion. There are 100s (perhaps 1000s) of people who can link their family ancestry and pedigree to the Mitford family. Inadvertently, mistakes have been made and these tend to get passed on. However, there is only one main bloodline of the Mitford clan over the past 976 years. I am the last of that mainline. We are the Mitford mainline family and not the Mitford girls etc. All other Mitfords are sub and / or junior branches.

My intention is not to wave flags nor drift along the lines of arrogance but to, once and for all, put the Mitford record 100% straight. As legal descendant and an heir (Mitford Estate Act 1854, Houses of Parliament, Westminster, London, a copy of this is printed in the book), that was the reason I wrote the book “The Mitford Family, nearly 1000 years of history”. To reiterate – to set the record straight – and finally to put the true facts of my family, the original mainline family in the public domain from 1042/1066 to now. It took ten years of in-depth desk and field research to get it factually correct.

Up to 2016 it had not been done before. It is the first time my family (myself) has published this official, total in-depth account of the entire mainline from its origin in 1042.

As I live in France, not the UK. I chose a small Newcastle publisher close to my family village of Mitford to publish this book. He did a small, hard back print run of the book and unfortunately we don’t have the time, staff, funds and network to send copies to national media, magazines, expensive marketing and PR etc. To be honest, most are not interested in boring history books about very old English families. It was not intended to be a best seller, but rather as an accurate, well researched reference document of the Mitford family of Mitford, setting the record straight.

Up to when I popped my head above the parapets of Mitford Castle (the ruins of…..) and the death of Brigadier Edward (Teddy) Mitford, last squire of Mitford (my next of kin) the Church of England and many others have been quick to the fold with changes, statements etc. Over the years I have noticed that Wikipedia has provided incorrect understandings, nuances and ambiguities of the Mitford family. As you will perhaps note in your records many changes, frivolous ambiguities, adjustments and flowery statements have evolved over the years. Many have been corrected. I have no intention to keep a record of all this as don’t have secretaries, archivists, librarians, personal assistants at hand as do many others, nor do I have the money and time. The least I could do was say thank you to Wikipedia in three lines on page 11 of my book. Kindly appreciate I have no desire to become part of any public debate or crossfire with any specialists or the “Mitford specialists”.

Without going into a long diatribe since WW2 (Unity & Diana with Hitler etc) the Mitford name has been overrun by other Mitfords, Deborah Mitford, Duchess of Devonshire was the last of the Mitford girls, I am last of the Mitford bloodline since 1042. Hundreds of best selling books have been written about the Mitford girls/sisters, films made, records and DVD's, the girls themselves have written well over 50 titles and best sellers themselves, not one of the Mitford girls has ever visited Mitford! They represent a junior branch along with other branches etc. All these books cover the frivolities, scandals and activities of the Mitford girls, not where they came from! The Mitford girls represented a summit of extravagance, paradox and complexity. A contrast of wanton, high-pitched aristocratic frivolity to the totally opposite true, humble and democratic endeavors of the rest of this extraordinary family. So well explained in my book.

The Mitford family and its links are vast and extensive. The name is found all over the world, streets, hospitals, buildings, lakes, rivers, etc, the list is endless and has nothing to do with the Mitford girls!

To reiterate the above… my book represents the official statement of the original democratic, mainline Mitford family of Mitford, Northumberland since 1042 and its members, activities and achievements, where the Mitford name, family and dynasty started to where it is today. All very best wishes and very many thanks. I raise a glass to you! Hugh.

Hello Usefulenergy. Perhaps everything that you write above is true, but I have no way at all of knowing. Here on Wikipedia, we summarize what reliable, independent sources say about a topic. Because you have written a book about your own family, your book is not independent of your family. You admit that the publisher is small and did not even bother to mention its name, which is "Zymurgy Publishing". I can find nothing online that indicates that this small publisher has a reputation for rigorous editorial control and fact checking. I looked for reviews of your Mitford book written by professional reviewers or published in historical journals. I found none of that. As you pretty much acknowledge yourself, your book has not received a lot of attention. Then, I looked at the draft article mentioned on your talk page, which has been declined. This draft is very promotional and seems intended to help sell your books, as it begins by listing all of them including the prices and a link to a bookseller website. That's advertising and that's contrary to Wikipedia policy. Your draft article presents itself as an autobiography although it largely consists of short biographical sketches of some of your distant relatives. There is almost no biographical information about you, the purported subject of the article. Please be aware that writing autobiographies is highly discouraged on Wikipedia, and any such drafts will be held to a very high standard. You clearly have a conflict of interest about your various books and the Mitford family. Please read and study the various links I have given you, and also Your first article, which has plenty of good advice. In conclusion, Wikipedia is not the place to "set the record straight". Instead, we summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic, and I see no evidence that your Mitford book meets that standard. Sorry for the bad news. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jim and many thanks for your reply. Well understood. Many thanks indeed; it is perhaps clear you perhaps miss the raison de etre and perspective of what I am trying to explain. Perhaps incorrectly....? However, the book is there in the public domain to say "this is the original Mitford family and what it stood for. When and if I get paid I will receive £1 less tax for each book that sells for around £16. It is not an advertising drive as you assume? More to make people aware. Totally apart from the Mitford girls! One of your colleagues suggested moving it to the Wikipedia "Mitford family" page (with reference)! Do you realize just what he has said? That page is dedicated to the Mitford Girls/sisters, a junior aristocratic BRANCH of my family! Perhaps totally inappropriate?

My family is not titled, we are not lords, except of the manor, what we are is the ORIGINAL MITFORD FAMILY SINCE 1042. I hold the legal archives of the Mitford family, stretching back through the generations...... nothing to do with those of the Mitford girls! Wikipedia has no mention whatsoever of the ORIGINAL MITFORD FAMILY and activities, achievements etc. This is my book. That is why I contacted you. Evidently it would appear and very sad that Wikipedia is unable to understand and or appreciate this for the benefit of others to lend understanding that the Mitford family does not consist of 6 frivolous sisters? Myself, most very certainly not chasing money or fame etc! Just someone trying to put my family on record OVER AND ABOVE THE BLAST and reality that a duchess can do at the flick of a finger. She was a charming person! Hugh My apologies for your time and once again very many thanks indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usefulenergy (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Usefulenergy. I cannot verify any of the factual claims you assert so they are of no use to me as an encyclopedia editor. Most likely, the editor who said your book would be appropriate for use in Mitford family did not realize that you are the author and that the publisher is minor. And, the Mitford family article starts with a one paragraph section on the family history, before focusing on the famous sisters. Your draft article is written like an advertisement and you do have a conflict of interest. The family article can definitely be expanded, but because of your COI, you should restrict yourself to making suggestions at Talk: Mitford family and providing references to truly reliable, independent sources to support your proposed changes. "Wikipedia" does not understand or appreciate anything. Content here comes from the work of actual human volunteer editors who do our best to comply with our well-established policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Paolo Restani's editing page

Good morning @Cullen328,

thank you for your answer. I'll follow your advice and I was wondering if you could help me to edit my page on Wikipedia.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Paolo Restani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolo Restani (talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, I received a message from Paolo Restani as well. This is the said target Paolo Restani - as per message/discussion at Editing to Paolo Restani's page which you have helped to advice. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Dave Min

Thanks for bearing with me through the AfD. I think it was a fairer process and now it will be easier to defend the deletion. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Disclosure correction

Hi, Jim. I got your message; I'm genuinely sorry for the error. I honestly don't recall making any changes or edits to the article since talking to you about the disclosure, but I apologize. Is it considered an 'edit' when I ask questions or dialogue on talk pages? I looked back on my Contributions history, and that was all I could see I had done -- if I missed something, please let me know so that I can make sure not to make the same error again.

I have added the disclosure to my User page; do I need to put it anywhere else, or will my User page suffice? Thank you for your help. ARynan (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

An edit is any change you make to any page on the encyclopedia, including user talk pages. You posted an inquiry on another editor's talk page without making the disclosure, ARynan. Paid editors are allowed here but are expected to follow our policies and guidlines scrupulously. You should be aware that many experienced volunteer editors are deeply opposed to paid editing, so you should be very careful. I suggest that you also disclose your status as a paid editor on the talk page of any draft or article that involves your clients, and in any substantive conversation with other editors about such articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize that; I'm sorry. I'll be more careful. Just to be clear, though: for the article in question, I am not being paid monetarily; do I need to be specific about that in the disclosure, or does it make a difference? Also, where is the talk page of the article? I can't seem to figure out where it is. It's probably right in front of my nose. I'm sorry to keep asking so many questions. ARynan (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: Found Article Talk page and added Disclosure. I want to be clear that I am not receiving any monetary compensation from this, so should I specify that in the disclosure? ARynan (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

If this person has ever paid you, or if you expect to be paid by him in the future, or if you think your work here on Wikipedia will be beneficial to your career, then the disclosure is appropriate. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joy-Ann Reid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joy-Ann Reid. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick block please

93.86.101.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism after final warning. Block this jerk forthwith please. Singing the name of a deceased editor in multiple places is far too trollish to stand. Please roll back edits also. John from Idegon (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd posted this at AIV, decided to take it to the first active admin I saw on my watchlist. That's you. Thanks, Jim. John from Idegon (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that I was distracted by other matters, John from Idegon. Thanks for jumping on it, NeilN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. John from Idegon (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you can do me a favor and have a word? [1], [2], [3], [4] The editor may have brought a valid issue to light regarding Phillip Cross but their attitude leaves a lot to be desired. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

78.26 took care of it. Thanks 78.26. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Civil War regions

Thank you for your interest in the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). There is much written about slavery, but more could be covered about restrictions on black citizenship (which black communities might be more aware of that repression, beyond just slavery), plus add sources. Continuing the list: Of the 15 U.S. slave states in 1860, the Confederacy was formed in February 1861 by the lower 6 Cotton States (SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA) plus TX joining on March 2, 1861 (Texas Independence Day from 1836). The other 8 slave states (VA, NC, TN, KY, AR, MO, MD, DE) remained in the Union during the Battle of Fort Sumter in April 1861, but there were also more states, as exceptions. The "free state" of New Jersey had legacy slaves all during the Civil War, only freed by 13th Amendment in mid-December 1865. The new state of West Virginia (WV) had resident slaves, and gained statehood as a Union slave state, giving emancipation only in February 1865, ~2 months before the end of the Civil War. Plus Washington, D.C. had Union slaves all during the first year of the War, to be freed after 1862 by compensated emancipation, which might have taken a long time there. The New Mexico Territory, which attempted statehood in 1850, had Native-American slaves which should have been freed during 1862, but the system of peonage evidently trapped them, until the Peonage Act of 1867, with statehood delayed until 1912. Nearly 100 years later, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson signed anti-peonage laws to close similar loopholes in 1960s masked-slavery, where people were still held captive by economic circumstances. Although the main focus has been 1861-1865, there were methods to disguise slavery for over a century longer. So the whole subject is completely fascinating, with dozens of Wikipedians writing about each aspect, but again, more is needed about restrictions against free blacks or others, as it seems slavery was followed by an immigration problem against freedmen. More later.-Wikid77 (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikid77, please do not post any more evasive, irrelevant and tendentious baloney on my talk page. I asked you a specific question and you answered evasively, ignoring the core period when the Confederacy was flourishing, and brought up its earliest days and things that happened after Appomattox. New Mexico? 1912? LBJ? Do you think I just fell off a turnip truck? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77, I've reviewed your comments at JW's talk page, and I'm sorry to say that I cannot be sure that your pose as an ignorant naïf is just a pose. I can only say that I hope it's just a pose. E Eng 11:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

REMINDER: Bay Area WikiSalon is Wednesday, June 6

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

When: Wednesday, June 6 at 6:00 p.m.

For details and to RSVP, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, June 2018 (note: we are meeting at the new WMF HQ at 120 Kearny Street!)

See you soon! Niki, Lodewijk, Ben, Stephen, and Wayne | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Howdy

Per your revert on this, please clarify. Nakon 05:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Coyote is of Sephardi Jewish descent and Ashkenazi Jewish descent, and therefore the Jewish descent category is correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

螺钉

Hi Cullen - just a polite note to let you know that I've unblocked this user, as I think they're unlikely to repeat the behaviour that caused the block. All the best, Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Yunshui. I appreciate your note and have no objection to your decision. Please keep an eye on their editing for a while. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Succession to the British throne

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Succession to the British throne. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case opened

You 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/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem question

Thank you for your response. I am a loss when stating a fact is a proble. The Palestinians authorities are recognized by the U.S and most western nations as terrorists. that should be sufficient. KirinMagic (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I too have found it troubling when stating a fact is a proble. E Eng 01:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't find an appropriate image for "proble", EEng#s? John from Idegon (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately the lead image from Cartman Gets an Anal Proble is nonfree. E Eng 02:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Attempts at humor aside, the fact of the matter, KirinMagic, is that the Palestinian Authority was created as part of the Oslo peace process. Despite its severe internal problems, the United States and other western countries have given billions of dollars of aid to the Palestinian Authority over the years. The Israelis have working day-to-day security arrangements with the PA as well. In conclusion, you are wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Junípero Serra

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Junípero Serra. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Block Indefinitely

Please block User:Emilyiship'05 indefinitely because this user's is giving threats on her talk page . Clockist (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?

You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lawrence Liang

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lawrence Liang. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Jim, Thanks for your comments on NeilN's page. I didn't really appreciate the bad faith assumptions about my AE request. One thing that came out of it is that if I unfortunately see comments like that that make me feel something is off, I'll get a second opinion. Since apparently NeilN trusts your judgement, I hope you don't mind if I ping you on the offchance I see a comment or attack that perhaps warrants attention. Thanks,Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sir Joseph. You are welcome to ask me for second opinions, and I will give an honest response. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Shorten

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Shorten. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, hi, um, how does one subscribe to the feedback request service? Can anyone sign up? And do the updates always go to one's talk page?

(Sorry - I am very much n00bsauce.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Sanders (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Charlie Sanders. Yes, any editor, no matter how new, can sign up to give feedback. Just offer constructive suggestions. Please read the details at Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast reply, Cullen328, and apologies for my slow one.

I will definitely check out the article you've kindly recommended - I majored in Linguistics at university, was Deputy Editor of the student paper, and now I help to draft (and to argue various interpretations of) Legislation, so I have an established record of not contributing much but always being the first person to form an opinion on others' contributions. :D I see that my question above is 'unsigned' - I don't know how to create or attach a signature on here! Isn't that terrible?! I feel really impolite! That said, I've been eyeing your sign-off, and I'm going to try a little bit of alteration and see if I have cracked what is essentially my first 'coding', lol… ^HerRadicalness Change my mind, change my life. Am I allowed to do that, with the name replacement? If not, is there a way to change my username so that it's not my IRL name, or to have one username for my contributions and another for… correcting people's grammar and stuff, like the great big grammar fascist that I am? Also, is this a thing? Charlie Sanders (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Charlie Sanders. You add your signature to your talk page posts by adding four tildes to the very end of the post. It looks like this: ~~~~. Please read Wikipedia:Signatures for details, including how to customize a signature. In my opinion, an all-red signature is not a good idea because it signals that you have no user page, and you do. It also signals that you are a newcomer. If you want to conceal your real world identity, then abandon your current account and start fresh with a new, anonymous name. I do not recommend using two accounts. Though not forbidden, it is tricky to manage proper use of multiple accounts and you may get blocked if you violate the complex policy. Start by reading WP:MULTIPLE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Cullen328. I'm trying to remember to use all the information you've squished into my brains! Is it even appropriate for me to be asking all these off-topic questions in poor Bill's discussion thread? Him being my very own potential Prime Minister and, in fact, someone I have known through work (both before and after his move into Federal Politics, in different capacities), I feel a bit mean for disrupting his Topic like this. I also feel some smug satisfaction, but I senae that Wikipedia is not a place wherein this is reasonable motivation for anything! So, this thread, these questions, ensuing advice column: acceptable? Undesirable? If the latter, how best to move such a digression, and to where? Or is it serving a porpoise where it is, by answering questions that your future visitors might have? Charlie Sanders (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Charlie Sanders. I am always happy to answer questions about Wikipedia editing and I also recommend the Teahouse for editing assistance. However, it is best to start a new section for new questions, by clicking the appropriate button at the top of the page. This thread is now about five weeks old. As for Bill Shorten, I know almost nothing about Australian politics. Sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Bill Shorten is the Parliamentary Leader of the Opposition, which means that his party has the next-best claim to a majority of the numbers of MPs in the House of Reps; if the current Party of Government had one or two fewer spots, the handful of 'more progressive' people in the HoR from the minor Parties would throw their support behind Bill Shorten's mob and the current Prime Minister would lose his job and his conservative-types Party would lose Government and become the Opposition. The Opposition's job is to form a 'shadow Ministry' to mirror the Government's allocation of portfolios, and to question every decision made by the PM and the Ministers of the Government, and to put forward what *they* think should be done instead of what is being done, and how they'd fund it and what a bunch of mooks the current lot are and how terrible a job they're doing at running the country. Bill Shorten is very good at being the Opposition Leader because he has the luxury of not being beholden to his professed policy preferences, given that he's not actually doing anything right now. When elected to Government, former Opposition Leaders very nearly always end up continuing to implement the same policies as the people before them, because changing things in real life is harder than shouting it at people during Question Time or saying good quotes to the Press; it is also good to be able to keep blaming the previous blokes for as much as possible for as long as possible so that it's more likely you'll be elected for future terms in which you can also uphold the status quo for the porpoises of staying in power - one has to keep the bad guys out! Can you tell I am a political scientist rather than a politician? :D Charlie Sanders (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the mini-seminar on Australian politics, Charlie Sanders, which I liked reading even though there is a lot of it I do not understand. After all, as an American, I must devote much of my waking hours and limited brainpower to understanding Trump. Perhaps you have heard of him. He hung up on your prime minister. I like the word "mook" which is almost unknown in the U.S. although I think it resembles the noun usage of "mope" here, which is outdated. Think of a clueless follower who poses as a bit more sophisticated than he really is, and hangs around the fringes of organized crime or precinct politics, pretending to be more important than he actually is. Of course, Americans are thoroughly familiar with the word "bloke" although we never, ever use it unless we are imitating Brits or Aussies, for a laugh. We say "guy" or "dude" or "homie". Anyway, I enjoyed your presentation and thank you for it. Glad to know that you are always thinking of porpoises. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Finding a porpoise in life is commonly purported as a prerequisite for happiness; I'm not entirely convinced - I tend more towards 'we otter do what makes us happy and healthy - gnuing who we're meant to bee will follow.' I understand the huge amount of extra brainpower required to comprehend this Trump fellow - if ever there was a stooge, this is him. I did lol when you mentioned the phonecall incident - our news cycle dined out on that one for about five full days. I'm actually chuffed that our Prime Minister received that honour so early in the farce - I'm pretty sure the opinion polls reflected an increase in Mr Turnbull's approval rating after that! I rather enjoyed the clip someone edited together of the reactions on the faces of each of the leaders of the x number of UN member nations when they were informed of Trump's election victory. That moment's glimpse of their true feelings before they managed to re-compose their diplomatic facades, collated one after another, one second each for 1xx seconds… genius. I'll try to find a link for you - we must take levity from this situation wherever we can find it! :D Charlie Sanders (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you as always, Charlie Sanders. Thanks for making me smile. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleting potential politicians

in the teahouse you referenced that we should remove any potential politicians from the wiki. But what about Glenn Jacobs, and Terry Gerin from the wiki as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blair277 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Blair277. Although my knowledge of professional wrestling is negligible, it looks to me that those individuals were notable as wrestlers before they entered politics. There are many cases of notable entertainers or generals or authors who later entered politics. My comment does not apply to such people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's politics, Jim, but not as we know it! Given my established awesomeness at 'politicks and stuff', I propose that a) most 'politicians' are 'notable' in their respective fields before they head into the murky depths of 'politics' (or at least they think they are, and someone else thinks this is an opportunity to move them on so that they can be notable in their field/move them into a role where they will be notable by default and thereby acquiring some convenient and grateful coat-tails), and that a way of establishing whether a 'potential politician' is notable would be whether or not they have a Wikipedia page on the basis of whatever notability they had prior to their interest in politics (or is there a lower bar for notability in a previous field if their notability as a potential politician is sufficient, and perhaps Wikipedia needs to develop an 'intersectional notability' standard calculation; b) Charlie Defines… Pt 1. 'Potentiality'; c) Charlie Defines… Pt 2. 'Politician'; and d) Charlie Defines… A Christmas Special: Defining 'Politics' with special guest Judge Judy! Okay, so my previous reply raged out of control and disappeared up several of its own vortices, so I've cut'n'pasted it to my own talk page and I invite you and any or all of your friends and family to crack open some Swedish Fish and come watch me attempt to define the definition of some criteria which constitute a subjective perception of what even is a 'politician', other than that they are a person (or potentially another intelligent animal, depending on our definition of 'politics') who engages to an undefined extent in 'politics', which is… Stay tuned! Charlie Sanders (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Academic Studies Press

Hi, Cullen328, Good day. Advice needed. I agreed on the ground it is a serious academic publisher and published notable books which it deserves a place in Wikipedia as compared to thousands popular culture article exist in Wikipedia. If there is practice which I am not aware of that Wikipedia would be OK to improve the article as with a WP:BEFORE found not WP:RS to establish (as per Wikipedia guidelines), I am more than happy to withdraw the nomination without delay as my nomination is based on the said guidelines. Do advise. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, CASSIOPEIA. Nominating an article for deletion is entirely optional and you should exercise good editorial judgment when you decide which articles to nominate for deletion, which articles to try to improve, and which articles to leave alone. Like articles about journalists, articles about publishers can be difficult to reference properly, since the vast majority of Google hits are to primary rather than secondary sources. In my opinion, publishing the works of highly notable authors and publishing books that won awards from highly notable organizations are strong indications of notabilty. It might take a very lengthy Google search using a variety of sophisticated search terms to find references that could be used to improve this article and demonstrate notabilty more convincingly. But since we have an abundance of articles about obviously non-notable topics, I recommend that you prioritize that type of article in your deletion work. I will leave it up to you to decide whether or not to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328, I understand and agree with your rational as I feel the same and at times find articles exist in Wikipedia mainspace are deemed so trivial in comparison other notable subjects which do not meet Wikipedia guidelines. I did not intentional seek on deletion article, but came across this article when I did NPP review and just follow the guidelines. Thank you for the info. Appreciate it. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your NPP work, which is very important, CASSIOPEIA. Please remember that guidelines are not policies, and that good editorial judgment is the most important trait of a productive Wikipedia editor. You are developing that, and I commend you for your work here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your encourage Cullen, and good to know I could use my editorial judgements, which I didnt aware I could do so, instead of merely follow the guidelines given. Thank you for the advice and info. Have a good evening. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Following guidelines is important but not mandatory, CASSIOPEIA. If you do not truly believe, in your heart of hearts, that a particular article should be deleted, then do not nominate it for deletion. Just pass it by. There are plenty of other articles to review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

OK noted and thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The jacket caper

Just curious... what do you think the whole Melania jacket thing is about if not politics? ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Atsme, I had drafted this note earlier but decided not to post it. But since you are here at Cullen's page, and my note was about what Cullen said, I'll go ahead.

Atsme, Cullen made a good point at the Melania Trump talk page. He objected to your repeated attempts to change the subject, from Melania and the jacket, to the FBI and collusion and Strzok and whatever else you had on your mind. And he was right; those were not productive comments. They were not only very POV but completely off topic, whether in an attempt to change the subject, or just because those issues were so foremost in your mind that you couldn’t help yourself. I guess I have gotten so used to this from you, that I hardly noticed; it took a newcomer to the page to say “hey, wait a minute!” Anyhow, since those comments are not related to the subject, they will carry no weight in determining consensus. P.S. I see that you also mentioned Strzok at an equally unrelated discussion at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. How many other unrelated discussions do you intend to mention him in? --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, this encyclopedia covers politics, so I fail to see the relevance of your comment. Politics, after all, is the process by which we govern ourselves. I also do not understand why you are bringing your observation here, rather than the article talk page. Although I disagree with MelanieN about the content in question, I do agree with her that Strzok should be discussed at the Strzok talk page, Russian "collusion" at that talk page, and so on. Melanie's jacket should be discussed at Talk:Melania Trump, and so on. Please conduct yourself accordingly going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Cullen, we cover politics but we are supposed to use editorial judgment. The essay, WP:Editorial discretion, is spot on. As for criticism of my analogy, I have to ask, when did it become unacceptable to use analogies during a TP discussion to demonstrate the difference between notable encyclopedic content vs not notable, gossipy material that belongs in Cosmopolitan or Fashion Today? I have to laugh - MSNBC is referring to the jacket caper as the new Yanny vs Laurel debate. 😂 The analogy I used demonstrated the stark contrast between the jacket VS what is happening inside one of the most important federal agencies in the U.S., especially after it was revealed that an FBI agent was romantically involved with a NYTimes reporter. D'ya think maybe there's a COI there? Regardless, as editors, we don't need 20 different RS for inclusion of important material - one RS is all that's needed. The jacket caper is clearly NOTNEWS #2 - doesn't matter how many sources are covering it. It was a one-time deal, she wore it boarding the plane, and took it off when she went to see the children. See my comment at the TP, as it also links to RS that speak to her work with children. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, was there anything at all unclear when I told you that this discussion belongs at Talk:Melania Trump and not here at my talk page? Was I insufficiently forceful? When I ask for the conversation to take place elsewhere, I mean it, and I expect you to honor my request. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Cullen - actually you were not clear - but I understand now. Good night. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Patrick Treacy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Patrick Treacy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Celebrating 9 years of editing

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, Mz7 (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Cullen328, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgj hpjm 16:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday

Hey, Cullen328. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Kpgj hpjm 18:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling with publication deadlines...

You are hereby invited, on behalf of The Signpost editorial team to submit an article on Kayfabe. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

And what would that deadline be, Kudpung? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That was a great pun, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง; Yes please Cullen328, you have a kindly manner about you and would be perfect for an article on newbies or something related to that. And thank you for participating in the comments section of the humour article. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 16:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Copy deadline around 27/28 July. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I will do it, Kudpung. Please nudge me occasionally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Go here. Locate the coloured table. See the line with the pink 'Opinion', click the 'Start article ' button and it will create a page template for you and reserve your place in the queue . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

It's too soon even to put district info in commented out? Figure it's safe to take that route and uncomment after she wins. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 01:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, HangingCurve. Yes, it is way too soon. The right time for such an edit is when the polls close in November. I agree that it is highly likely that she will win, but I oppose predicting that here on Wikipedia, even with edits that are not visible to readers. In my opinion, it is presumptuous and an indicator of advocacy. Please be careful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Need help with an editor

Pvqnp940a (talk · contribs). The CIR is strong with this one, but if we can at least get him to use edit summaries and to accept input from others he might avoid a trip to ANI. Could you perhaps try to speak to him on his talkpage? He has so far responded negatively to contact from anyone: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I'm going to invite NeilN and Doug Weller as well. Softlavender (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2018

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Dream and Hijiri88 are both valued editors who seem to have a personality clash. They are not children. Your threat to block them for a "very lengthy period of time" is out of line with what the community said at last nights ANI. If Hijiri88 continues to try to interact with Dream, the next step should be an IBan. Should you carry out your threat, then depending on the circumstances that lead any possible future ANI entry, it could be clear miuse of tools.

Hopefully the drama is now over, but if not, please leave handling it to others. As you endorse Cullen's heavy handed warnings, this goes for you too Alex Shih. Thank you.FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, FeydHuxtable. If these two editors are adults not children, then they will act like adults going forward as opposed to acting like petulant children. In that case, my warnings to both of them will be moot. If not, I will block either or both, based on my interpretation of the severity of the disruption. My warnings were not based on "last night's ANI" but rather a very long history of disruptive behavior by both editors. I disagree with you quite profoundly that I should leave enforcement to other administrators (although if they notice disruption and act before I do, that is fine with me). I will use my tools as I believe best for the encyclopedia and will not be deterred by editors who are inclined to coddle disruptive behavior. I suspect that Alex Shih feels much the same, though that adminstrator can say whatever they wish. Thanks anyway. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. FeydHuxtable, the community is governed by policies and behavioral guidelines, not personal opinions. If you disagree with Cullen328, myself or any other administrator's assessment of consensus and handling of disruptive editing behaviours, you are more than welcome to express your opinion and solicit comments at the proper venue. Alex Shih (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

About your comments

Regarding this edit: (1) Please stop talking about "the community" as if it consisted entirely of yourself and the people who edit at ANI. Those people are not the community. They are not even close to being a representative sample of the community. (2) To complain that any dispute keeps reaching ANI is to completely miss the point. The main problem is that the drama board exists in the first place. ANI is a disruptive forum. The very existence of ANI creates disruption that would not otherwise happen by providing a venue for it. The correct solution is to shut down ANI. Then there would not be a venue for this sort of thing. Problem solved. (3) I am completely fed up with your mishandling of this situation. James500 (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello James500. You are entitled to your fringe opinion that ANI discussion does not reflect the will of "the community" and you are also welcome to go to the community to request that ANI be shut down. But in favor of what alternative?

One year ago, I agreed (reluctantly) to put myself forward before "the community" at RFA. I was quite honored to be approved by "the community" to use administrators powers by a vote of 316 to 2, with 3 neutrals. I am not bragging but just stating that fact. Accordingly, "the community" has given me the power and the mandate to enforce community norms when I choose to use those powers in a controversy, guided by our policies as I interpret them.

So, feel free to try to convince me, with actual evidence, that my warnings do not reflect community norms. I am open to persuasion. Otherwise, I have nothing further to say to you on this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(tpw) James500 For what it's worth, I completely endorse Cullen328's warnings as the proper handling of this situation and reflects the consensus from previous discussions; if your idea of proper handling is to shut down ANI, might consider drafting a proposal at WP:VPR instead. Alex Shih (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's open an ANI thread on the subject! E Eng 14:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Let's not and say we did, EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not wishing to pile on here, but in my experience Cullen328 is scrupulously fair and open, and is frankly the sort of quality admin that I merely aspire and hope to be. If ANI was closed, the discussions in it would still happen, but in an ad-hoc environment where it would be harder to gauge true consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)