User talk:Cullen328/Archive 54

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 52

→

Your message to another editor

Your message to Hiri is apparently being ignored by him and he is now asking me for definitions on my Talk page of what "personal attacks" mean at Wikipedia. When he previously contacted me on this I referred him to the definition which you provided him in your message to him yesterday but that is not enough for him. He is now continuing to ask me further questions on this same issue again. Could you glance at this link and mention to me the best path to take, since I do not think that I should engage with him any further on this matter having already quoted your reply to him here: [1]. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JohnWickTwo. Thank you. I have reviewed those discussions and reinforced my earlier warnings to Hijiri88 on their talk page. Please let me know if you see disruptive behavior in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sending him that message. The GA review which was disrupted by him is currently reaching final stages and the 3 nominating editors feel that the review process may have been tainted by that disruption and are requesting a second opinion regarding the length of the article as being too long by the standards of WP:TMI. Given the complex history of the edit disruption to this GA assessment, may I ask if you could do a read through of the article and offer a second opinion on whether the article is too long with too much detail or not. Another editor, Yintan, has previously posted a template asserting it was too long at its 250Kb size and he was opposed by the 3 nominating editors who removed his template which stated that the article is too long and with too much detail. I am trying to remain as neutral as I can on this review for Black Panther (film) and am interested for a neutral second opinion from you since you already know the disruption background which interrupted this review process. Is the article too long and too detailed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JohnWickTwo. Because I gave adminstrative warnings in connection with this article, and because I might need to use my administrator's tools going forward, I do not think that it would be a good idea for me to comment on that content. I would then be involved. I have not read the article and do not plan to. As a general rule, I prefer concisely written articles rather than articles with a lot of detail. Defining how much detail is "enough" rather than "too much" is a matter of editorial judgment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about mobile editing

Hi, Jim! I know that you do most of your editing on a smart phone and have written an essay about it, so maybe you can answer a question for me. I am traveling, so sometimes my phone is my only access to the internet. I am very frustrated when I use Wikipedia on the phone. Every time I access WP I switch to desktop mode and log in, clicking the button to stay logged in. But the next time I go there, even if it's an hour later and to the same WP page still in my browser, I find that it has logged me out and switched me back to mobile view. Is there something I can set, in my preferences or something, so that it keeps me logged in and in desktop mode? Thanks! --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MelanieN alt. I am currently using a Google Pixel 2 XL. I usually have several tabs to Wikipedia pages open on my phone. One of them is to the mobile site home page and I leave that one alone. The others are to the various pages on the desktop site that I am editing or actively watching. Those stay on the desktop site, and I rarely find that I am logged out. Perhaps your operating system is a bit different or your ISP has different security protocols from mine. Sorry you are having those problems. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Kayfabe

Thanks for giving me a lead on a future Signpost article. I've been reading the biographies of 'wrestlers' and am quite puzzled/shocked. They are very humorous. But not funny to those who follow this sort of thing. I already have a talent for stumbling into contentious articles. I pay the price for taking the risk in the creation of the humour article poking fun at Wikipedia. My Signpost contributions were presented as 'evidence' at my recent presence at ANI to bolster the idea that I am a detriment to the encyclopedia. Television plot lines are very funny but poking fun at people is very, very risky and has never ended well for me. But I do have a couple of questions that may help set the stage for the possible future article on Professional Wrestling (PW).

Is PW a topic area that tends to draw editors into unproductive debates?
Are there a lot of editors who are blocked or banned because of their activity, article or talk pages, PW?
Is an editor more likely to be blocked if they edit articles about PW?
Is there a way to find out how many editors have been blocked or banned because of their contentious/non-collaborative editing of PW topics?
Is there a way to find out how many editors have created lots of socks just so that they can better influence the content of PW topics?
I was sorely tempted to edit the article on Dwayne Johnson because the sections about his wrestling career are bizarre and filled with puffery. I won't touch them. Is editing PW topics an excellent way to increase the probability of being blocked or banned?

Next sincere question: Are the independent sources sufficient to establish notability of you as a WP editor? I've found and have read the sources but perhaps you need a few more?

Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 00:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barbara (WVS). I apologize for taking so long to respond. Your post raises a lot of issues and I feel like I am walking through a minefield in trying to answer all of your questions.

First of all, I made the suggestion about a humorous article about kayfabe because you have developed a specialty of writing humor for The Signpost and I thought that it was a topic that could be presented humorously in the context of the recent decision to put professional wrestling (PW) articles under discretionary sanctions. Although I sometimes find your humor articles to be droll rather hilarious, I do enjoy reading them. My suggestion was intended, at least in part, as an olive branch, since I have been critical of your editing in other contexts.

After I made that suggestion, I was approached by Kudpung and asked to write an article, which I took to be a request for a serious news article as opposed to humor. After all, I do not think that I am well-known here for my sense of humor, although I can occasionally draw a chuckle from my immediate family and closest friends. So, now I am confused whether I am writing a serious article or helping you write a humorous article, so perhaps Kudpung can clarify. Either way is OK with me.

In all honesty, I do not have good and accurate answers to some of your questions, so must speculate a bit instead of offering confident answers. I am neither a PW fan nor an editor who has done much work in that topic area. I admit that I expressed my opinion quite forcefully at the AN discussion that led to discretionary sanctions on PW, but that does not mean that I have any special expertise or even any strong interest in the topic area. My main interest is only in preventing disruption to the encyclopedia.

"Is PW a topic area that tends to draw editors into unproductive debates? Are there a lot of editors who are blocked or banned because of their activity, article or talk pages, PW? Is an editor more likely to be blocked if they edit articles about PW? Is there a way to find out how many editors have been blocked or banned because of their contentious/non-collaborative editing of PW topics? Is there a way to find out how many editors have created lots of socks just so that they can better influence the content of PW topics?" Those are all questions that require expertise in data analytics to answer and I do not have that expertise. What I can say is that there have been ongoing controversies about PW articles that led to discretionary sanctions being imposed. I took a close look at only one PW article that was discussed at AN, and in my opinion, that article has a lot of problems. Since then, I have examined a few other PW articles and have seen predictable problems there as well. The main problems that I see are an overemphasis on the details of plot lines, and presentation of fictional elements as if they were factual. Plus credulous acceptance of unreliable sources as reliable. This is pretty much the same thing that I observed about 55 years ago watching black-and-white PW TV shows in the Detroit of my childhood. Most of the other kids believed that it was all real, and I was the intellectual killjoy who kept pointing out that it was all fake, or "scripted" as I would say today.

In the wake of the imposition of discretionary sanctions, I have kept my eye on discussions about PW, and have chimed in a few times to clarify matters, from the point of view of an uninvolved administrator. But my perception is that the serious editors in the PW topic area "got the message" and are trying to clean up those articles. I do not want to butt in excessively as long as I perceive that progress is being made. I blocked a disruptive PW editor today, based on an ANI report. Maybe I will get involved more forcefully if a serious problem breaks out again.

As for your question about my "notabilty" as a Wikipedia editor, that question makes me very, very uncomfortable. The independent coverage of my editing is local (though entirely unsolicited), and the Toronto coverage is an interview. I have considered myself a low-level activist public figure for over four decades but I have no interest in promoting the idea of a Wikipedia biography about me, and I see a lot of negatives and very few positives for me if someone was to try. So, without going into any further detail, I will decline to comment further because it makes me feel awkward. I hope that you understand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't apologize for a late reply! I am working in slow-motion mode these days and certainly don't expect others to prioritize responses to me. I will honor your 'feelings' of awkwardness and won't begin my FA on you and your editing. You are a humble fellow and like me, you have no problem with being your 'real' self on WP. So please just know you have my admiration of how you conduct yourself. Also, I need to be the one to apologize. I really don't like taking up so much time and effort on talk pages and will try to just ask one question at a time. Being called 'droll' is really a compliment. I have never expected to be called 'hilarious'.

So...I think this topic is still fascinating and with your information I don't feel so hesitant in writing about it. I can see an issue of the Signpost having two or three articles on this topic. One serious (with all the drama and statistics) and one humorous. I have figured out a way NOT to offend folks who like the topic and work hard on improving articles in this area. Clue: "Project Professional Wrestling merged with ANI..."

Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't intend to open up a can of ~~worms~~ words, Barbara (WVS) with my suggestion for an article on professional wrestling in The Signpost. I personally have no interest in the topic whatsoever, but from my work as an admin I can certainly confirm that its Wikipedia articles are a big problem area. The edit wars and trolling are often as much a farce as the faked bouts in the ring, the main difference is that our encyclopedia is intended to be informative rather than entertaining. Enter The Signpost - the only place we can let our hair down somewhat and provide our editors with some opportunity to express themselves in prose that would normally be prohibited but which offers a good read. Some of the questions above are easily answered and we do have people who are good at quarrying for the stats that would be needed:

Is PW a topic area that tends to draw editors into unproductive debates?

Yes

Are there a lot of editors who are blocked or banned because of their activity, article or talk pages, PW?

Yes

Is an editor more likely to be blocked if they edit articles about PW?

Yes - but only if they get on the wrong side of the ring.

Is there a way to find out how many editors have been blocked or banned because of their contentious/non-collaborative editing of PW topics?

Yes - just load an article's history and scroll down noting all the editors who are highlighted as being at least currently blocked - there's a script that does this in User:Kudpung/vector.js (I can't remember which one it is. Best to install them all, I found them to be the most useful of all the scripts). Otherwise needs some painstaking research as does all journalism. Start at the PW cat(s)

Is there a way to find out how many editors have created lots of socks just so that they can better influence the content of PW topics?

Is there a way to find out how many editors have created lots of socks?

I was sorely tempted to edit the article on Dwayne Johnson because the sections about his wrestling career are bizarre and filled with puffery. I won't touch them. Is editing PW topics an excellent way to increase the probability of being blocked or banned?

Yes - but only if one gets on the wrong side of the referee.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. I think this topic can be covered in a congenial way and I do think the Signpost is the place for it. Perhaps in the August issue... We could even highlight the Project PW to show the good side of things and interview editors who work hard on this topic. Let me know...

Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not personally bothered either way Barbara. You can write it, Jim can write it, or it can be a joint effort. My interest during the short time I will be E-in-C is in keeping the Signpost going, and with its new 'magazine' content ensuring that it is a compelling read. One way to get users to read read the boring but important news and tech items is to regularly provide a diversity of content, some of which is easy reading and entertaining - once readers know that, they will look forward to each new issue, something I'm sure Bri is well aware of . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS) , The "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" is an option in user prefences. It's an extremely useful tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Patanjali Ayurved

Back again! Can you move this article to the editor's draft space or does it need to go through a deletion discussion? Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 11:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Barbara (WVS). I recommend AfD if you believe that the article does not belong in the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Feeling harassed

I know you think I've been feeding the drama here, but I do feel harassed. I don't want to be seen as creating more issues for the community to deal with (this is actually why I waited until I couldn't take any more before opening the initial "mental illness" ANI thread, and why I have not to date opened any community discussion about the behaviour on some of those comic book movie articles), and possibly get blocked. What do you suggest I do if in the future I feel harassed by these editors?

I'm asking you because you've been the most involved here of other admins recently, so I thought you might be able to tell me what you think should happen going forward, except maybe some others who already agree with me so I'd just be talking into an echo chamber. I know it's not a good idea for me to keep trying to deal with issues like this solo, as it results in me getting frustrated and acting out like on that GAN and AFD you observed. But I don't know what else to do short of jumping straight to ANI, since a lot of the time there is no content dispute that can be addressed at DRN or with an RFC or the like, and jumping straight to ANI means I'm back into the "feeding the drama" and "creating issues for the community to deal with" mess.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Hijiri88. My suggestion is to avoid editing or watching articles and topic areas that cause you to get frustrated and "act out", as you put it. If "comic book movie articles" cause you frustration, then let other editors deal with those articles. There are plenty of other articles that need attention. Find non-controversial topics where you have knowledge and ability (which should be easy since you speak Japanese), and where argumentative people do not congregate. Look back on your past editing experiences where you have done indisputably good work without conflict with others. Do more work in those areas. When you are interacting with other editors, read your comments carefully before hitting "publish changes". Could a reasonable person construe your words as combative, snarky or overly-critical? Are your words on topic, or do they re-hash past issues? If so, rephrase them so that everyone perceives your comments as constructiive and helpful. Only then should you hit the blue button. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That's good advice that I intend to follow.

I have to wonder about "let[ting] other editors deal with those articles", though. Every time I have brought a specific problem to the community's attention, there was unanimous or near-unanimous agreement with me (last summer I asked at WikiProject Film and RSN about using the term "ensemble cast" and last winter at MOS:Film and ... I coulda sworn MOS:TV [?] about the phrase "shares continuity"; the only editor who disagreed in the former case was a troll who has since been effectively site-banned, and the only editor who disagreed in the latter was one of the editors on that GAN). No one seems to be actively trying to fix these pages, though, either because they are (unlike me) not interested in the topic, or they (like me -- a fact I can't stress enough) don't want the drama.

All that is to say that I'll definitely try to cut back on my own activity on them (my gut has been telling me to do so for some time, particularly since I regained the ability to edit Japanese articles, and now I've got a third party seconding my gut), and I just hope others will start to pick up the slack.

Thank you again, and happy editing! :-)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 violated your instructions

He is following my contributions and arguing with me again. [2] Before posting there he said on a talk page "but per Cullen's warning I can't revert them or ask him about them without fear of being blocked solely for the action of interacting with him" [3]. Note also I never said "illegal Mexicans" or "illegal Latinos", I simply pointed out everywhere else on Wikipedia "illegal immigrants" was used so should be in that article also. Dream Focus 22:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

DF, you and I are not subject to an interaction ban. Cullen !voted for such a ban, but the majority of participants did not, as the close made clear; if Cullen were to attempt to implement such a sanction against community consensus by threatening to block either of us for the mere act of interacting, that would be an abuse of his admin tools. You were blocked for continued harassment of me, not for the mere act of interacting with me.

I considered sending this message to Cullen given that it was him who said that I didn't need to monitor your edits because other editors were aware of the problem and would deal with it, but decided against because I thought Cullen had previously threatened to block me for simply being aware of your edits (something he's actually not allowed do, per the above). I'm pretty sure that, despite Cullen's promise that he and others were monitoring your edits, the only reason User:EEng (who has edited Tony's talk page but not that article) noticed your problematic edit and reverted was because I noticed it (in the process of checking to see if you were still badmouthing me, as you did here) and left a message on Tony's talk page. And your edit did clearly re-add the problematic "illegal Latinos", "illegal Mexicans", "illegal groups" and "illegals", and referred to United States citizens as "legal residents".

Cullen, would you please clarify for DF that he and I are not subject to an interaction ban, and my concerns with his edits (plagiarism, POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, auto-!voting in AFDs without checking the sources he's citing, etc.) were valid? I understand if you don't want to do the heavy lifting of monitoring his edits and keeping them in-line yourself, but please don't tell me that others are doing it and I don't need to. I know I don't "need" to and probably shouldn't for the sake of my own sanity, but until someone removes email access from the editors who are going around emailing people who don't like me (see here) I think I should probably be forgiven for being a little paranoid and occasionally checking the public contribs logs of said editors who don't like me. (Note that my not monitoring said contribs closely enough was precisely why it took me more than three weeks to notice this -- I likely wouldn't have been subjected to at least eight bad-faith hounding and battleground accusations in the interim if I had noticed that first and called him out on it immediately; asking me to subject myself to this harassment is hardly fair.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You are BOTH getting close to harrassing the various administrators you are dragging into your petty childish dispute. It is completely possible for you BOTH to just ignore each other. My dad was a pretty smart cat. He gave me one really solid piece of advice: "There's only two things in the world you have any control over - how you yourself act, and how much you allow how others act to affect your life." This is clearly an issue engendered by BOTH your behavior. Just leave each other the fuck alone and quit making your immaturity everyone else's problem. Sheesh. John from Idegon (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Nothing would please me more than leaving DF the fuck alone, but someone (else!) really should be making sure he stops describing non-fiction books as "novels", stops describing natural-born US citizens as "legal residents", etc. (and someone should remove email access from this guy, and tell this guy to stop harassing me, etc.); are you volunteering to do (some of) that? Call me "petty" and "childish" if you want, but everything I do here is motivated by a desire to build a high-quality free encyclopedia, and I would be all too happy to bow out of any particular aspect of that work if someone else were willing to pick up the slack; EEng did a bit, but apparently only because I pointed it out to him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Working in the areas I work in, I understand that, probably better than most. But dude, that globe we use for a symbol doesn't sit on your shoulders. There is now, and likely always will be, a ton of crap content on Wikipedia. If trying to fix that gets you to a point where you are having issues, even if they're not caused by you, just back off. Eventually, karma, or other's interest, or the great spirit, or total anhialation of the human race will take care of it. Meanwhile, you got friends and family, and Wikipedia can suck eggs. It's 105° in the high desert today, and me and my boy have been blasting each other with squirt guns all day. Hope you have a better tomorrow. John from Idegon (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus and Hijiri88, both of you are displaying disruptive behavior right now, and I am warning both of you to desist. Disenage, back off, return to your corner of the boxing ring, go to the dressing room, shower, get your wounds bandaged, get dressed, go home, and have a cold refreshing beverage. There is no interaction ban, but disruptive editing is not allowed. Both of you are responsible for your own very bad behavior here, and both of you are obligated to stop it now. Neither of you are essential to this encyclopedia. Ponder that for a while. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I did not engage him, I ignored him and posted a single message here thinking he violated what you told him. He seems determined to follow me around, talk about me in places, and then ramble off subject and mention his conflicts with others that have nothing to do with me at all(as he did above). To clarify, he can follow my contributions around and edit where I edit, and there is nothing I can do about it? Unless someone specifically tells him not to do that, he will keep doing it. Dream Focus 02:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

So, Dream Focus, I see that you have decided to ignore my sincere advice, and continue your disruptive and combative behavior right here on my talk page. Duly noted. Stop it now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Cullen328 or EEng or someone else uninvolved might want to check me in this, but isn't repeated IDHT evidence of a failure in CIR? Just thought I'd put that out there. John from Idegon (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

In the Hijiri-DF wars to date, the casual observer will have found it easy to ascribe plenty of fault to both sides. But this thread is quickly revealing who can't drop the stick. E Eng 03:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked Dream Focus for their disruptive behavior in this dispute. That does not mean that Hijiri88 is blameless. But that editor has clearly been trying to reign in their behavior, which I appreciate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree 100%. E Eng 04:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Devin Nunes

Please stop adding erroneous information, especially in violation of biographies of living persons policy, to articles as you did on Devin Nunes.

Please remember that IPs are human too. The IP editors who have challenged [4][5] the material acted appropriately. It's the registered editors who have have been reckless. Politrukki (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki - You're not being very collaborative. Perhaps try gaining consensus for your edits on the article talk page, rather than handing out spurious warnings to experienced editors.- Mr X 🖋 15:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Jim, I'd appreciate your view (for or against) on an AfD discussion at Access Humboldt. Broadcasting isn't my usual territory Flat Out (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Down

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Down. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon invitation for July 25!

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Periodically, on the last Wednesday evening of the month, wiki enthusiasts gather at the Bay Area WikiSalon series to munch, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We allow time for announcements, informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Bring a friend! Kid/family friendly. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. This months focus is reliable sources!

We will have beverages (including beer and wine) plus light snacks (maybe pizza too!).

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

See you soon! Avik (User:Quantumavik), Lodewijk (User:Effeietsanders), Ben Creasy (User:Ben Creasy), Stephen (User:Slaporte), and Wayne (User:Checkingfax)
(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

365 days of Adminship

Wishing Cullen328 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Kpgj hpjm 02:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Kpgjhpjm. It has been a long time since I have seen Wikipe-tan.

As for you, EEng, don't you know that I edit on a smartphone not a laptop? This is 2018, ya know? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Then , you and I are pretty much related , you edit with a smartphone and I edit with a tablet .

Kpgj hpjm 11:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Andrew Brunson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andrew Brunson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Your Request for Discussion

I wrote to WP:TH about the page belonging to Nieca Goldberg. I stated that I was a retired cardiologist and you said that that did not matter, the editing skills mattered. First, sorry I got the author wrong-I don't see how that happened- but if one is writing about a medical professional do you think that it is terribly old fashioned to think that someone with professional knowledge knows more about what is meaningful and what is not than a layman? There was also a question on WP:TH "How do we know you are who you say you are?" I would be happy to post a CV (first I have to find it or rewrite it) on Dropbox or elsewhere and send you a link. I am afraid it would be up to you to check the databases or make the phone calls to verify the information. At the risk of being redundant and annoying: Dr. Goldberg has not been responsible for any remarkable advances in medical science. Stating that she appeared on Dr. Oz is in questionable taste in the medical community. For a practicticing physician to blow her own horn like this means only one thing to me even though the Tea House may disagree. Nicodemus (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Oldsilenus. I am not interested in your CV but rather I am interested in the quality and accuracy of your editing. Do not try to send me your qualifications because they mean nothing whatsoever to me in the context of your Wikipedia editing. I am sure that your past patients appreciated your training and experience but I am not your patient.

You ask "do you think that it is terribly old fashioned to think that someone with professional knowledge knows more about what is meaningful and what is not than a layman?" That may be a reasonable opinion in other contexts but it is not compatible with the editing model that has made Wikipedia the #5 website in the world. Our success is based on the fundamental principle that anyone can edit this encyclopedia as long as they comply with our policies and guidelines. We summarize already published reliable sources. We do not publish original research such as scientific journal articles or any other content that requires formal academic training. Instead, we summarize articles already published in reliable sources. An intelligent 17 year old can do that as well as a retired cardiologist. That intelligent 17 year old can contribute to articles about cardiology or theoretical physics or Egyptian archeology or advanced computer technology as long as they summarize published reliable sources accurately.

When you say "For a practicticing physician to blow her own horn like this means only one thing", then you are accusing this physician of either editing her own Wikipedia biography or having someone else, either paid or unpaid, edit her biography on her behalf and according to her instructions. The editor who wrote the biography denies knowing the physician and says that they were motivated to write the biography after reading a book she wrote. So, you are accusing two people of lying but you are presenting no evidence other than your personal hunch. I concede that you may possibly be correct but it is also possible that the other editor is telling the truth. Therefore, you are climbing out on a limb here. Accusing people of misconduct without presenting convincing evidence is considered to be very bad behavior here on Wikipedia. So, I recommend that you either present solid, convincing evidence of misconduct or drop this line of argument. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Webster

I just wanted to get back to you and tell you that I modified the Webster page this morning. I imagine that we may agree to disagree on many things. Nicodemus (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Image of Constance Savery

You have suggested that rather than use the rough sketch of Constance Savery in Wikipedia Commons, I use an old photograph. Although I have had access to Savery's family records, including many photographs, these tend to be undated, and the photographer is rarely indicated. I don't have a single photo for which I am certain the copyright has expired. Frankly, I find the necessary steps to avoid copyright infringement difficult and exhausting.

But my frustration is not your concern. I will see what I can do. I do appreciate your prompt reply. Might I not use the sketch while seeking the better image? Anobium625 (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Anobium625. If you use a photo under the terms of WP:NFCI #10, then there are no concerns about copyright. We as Wikipedia are acknowledging that it is a non-free (copyrighted) image and that is OK because it is limited fair use for an educational purpose. The best type of photo in this situation would be a book publisher's promotional photo, which is obviously intended for such purposes. You can do whatever you want, but I cannot support use of the sketch. I appreciate your effort, but I consider the sketch quite amateurish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. Your reference to WP:NFCI #10 was very helpful. I won't try to defend that sketch. There are worse ones on Wikipedia, but I assume that means they don't belong either! I have located two photographs of Savery that were printed as advertising by publishers, one in an independent flyer and one on a "…we want you to meet" page in the magazine where one of her serials was printed. How do I go about moving a scan of the better one to the Wikipedia page? Anobium625 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Anobium625. Please use the File Upload Wizard. Follow each step carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

As the dentists say, "That wasn't so hard, was it?" Many, many thanks! Anobium625 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well done, Anobium625. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

OK Now I'm Really Confused

I saw your note about a good faith edit and reversion. I am lost. Are you saying that this referenced item should have been put on the Talk Page and "eventually" it would have found its way into the article? I DO understand the point that having people edit mature articles willy-nilly is a dangerous thing. This article is hardly complete or mature. The error, I'm afraid, was rather obvious. I am asking for the future. In the case of a prior article that someone "corrected" whose primary language was clearly NOT English, I put the corrected grammar on the talk page. After a month it was still there and nothing was done. It had to do with an arcane network protocol, and I really wanted someone to check my work. After a lot of grief I finally found someone who "took care of things." This means he went to the article's page changed it (and took credit for the change). That is one reason why I assumed that it was OK to post the place of death directly to the artiicle's page. Nicodemus (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Oldsilenus. If you see an obvious error and can cite a reliable source, then simply make the correction, providing the reference. If you are reverted, then that's the time to discuss things on the article talk page. There is no need to let such matters languish on a talk page. Be bold and make the correction. If you have criticisms of an article but do not want to make changes yourself, then post on the talk page. If no one responds quickly, you could leave neutrally worded notes on the talk pages of other editors who have made substantive contributions to the article in question, asking for input.

I am not sure how you define "willy nilly", but anyone can edit almost any article at any time, as long as they follow our policies and guidelines. The only exceptions are the very small percentage of articles that are protected, usually due to persistent vandalism. If you see grammatical or usage errors because an editor is not a native English speaker, just make the corrections and move on. There is rarely a need to discuss grammar corrections in advance. If an article is not complete, feel free to expand it.

You also need to evaluate the visibility of the article and the pattern of editing. Articles like Donald Trump or Syrian Civil War have heavy traffic, heavy editing and heavy participation from dozens or hundreds of passionate editors. Tread very carefully there. Articles on more obscure topics may receive almost no attention, and may have been created by now-inactive editors. Feel free to improve such articles at will, but always be prepared to discuss with other editors if they disagree with you.

As for someone who "took the credit" for an edit you suggested, please be aware that such an edit appears in the edit history of whoever made the edit. Do not think of it as "credit" but rather an objective log of who made which edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Cullen, your patient explanations are a model to us all. E Eng 00:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks About Webster

It seems that I misconstued the message that I received. My only beef about the other fellow doing the edit is I see Wikipedia awards "points" for things. I am not active enough that it matters but I thought that his actions after my work was poor form. I am not really a complainer despite what our last few conversations may lead you to believe. Thank you again for your help! Nicodemus (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If it indeed turns out, after all these years, that Wikipedia awards points for things, then I have been the victim of a most cruel deception. E Eng 02:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

EEng, I tried to monetize my service award but the local pawnbroker told me that it wasn't worth the electrons it was created with. If you lived near San Francisco like I do, instead of Cambridge or wherever you actually live, you could drop by the WMF office and get some lapel buttons, refrigerator magnets and the like. Also, some wonderfully tasteful brochures printed on recycled paper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User talk:2601:540:8200:D52E:78B0:F4DB:51C5:6CAA

Could talk page access be protected from IP edits for the rest of their block? Various IPs keep asking for the Wikia block to be removed, so the page isn't being used for valid unblock requests here. Thank you. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If Wikia Staff would unblock me or I could talk to Wikia Staff about my block I would leave people alone on wikipedia, I want to be unblocked, that's what I want and if I was unblocked you wouldn't hear from me then.--2601:540:8200:D52E:44E8:11F4:9C7C:4AC5 (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

IP editor, are you the kind of person who starts screaming at the Chevrolet dealer when your Ford breaks down? That is irrational. Wikpedia has zero connection with Wikia. Your continued posts here on Wikipedia about Wikia are disruptive and counterproductive. Stop that behavior now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling with words

FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed a couple of typing errors which I hope is OK. One thought, is that "these accounts" (near the end) is not very clear as to what accounts are being referenced. "many wrestling editors are devoted to maintaining" is mentioned a little before that, but an account being newly created but also being devoted to maintenance seems something of a paradox. Would "many of the accounts of these editors are relatively recently created", or something along those lines, work better? MPS1992 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks better now. MPS1992 (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

I just wanted to thank you for once mentioning it at ANI, it was a good read. —Paleo Neonate – 16:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Grass skirt AFD comment

Thank you for your detailed comment on your !vote at the AFD for Grass skirt. You stated; " we do not deal with that long problematic history by deleting an article about a notable topic, but rather by improving the article using the highest quality sources". I would have preferred a redirect but yes, I was willing to see this article deleted and the subject expanded elsewhere, such as Hula. We often handle situations and articles where the generic term has a more direct history, by merging and redirecting or by deletion and merge. That, in itself is uncontroversial. I have always appreciated your advice and words and take seriously anything you have to say in regards to either my behavior or my contributions as I also feel about the overall community. I understand consensus as well as most of the general guidelines as well as policies and advice pages. You know I am not an unreasonable editor or trying to push an agenda. I have a very open mind and in general can even be said to be helpful with content disputes.

Some further detail

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

But as I learn about things, such as history or genealogy, cultural practice or even protests and politics I share the sources and information on Wikipedia. I begun learning a great deal about hula and the cultural costumes of the dance from kumu hula (hula teachers) and other practitioners of Hawaiian culture as well as many other subjects from on my own like Pa'u riders and the Kamehameha Day celebrations. I believe I have an understanding of Hawaiian culture, having lived there, being of Native Hawaiian ancestry and having a huge ohana of extended family that include both people I interact with and people I have never met but read a great deal about. I have no particular bias for or against Hawaii. Almost everything I know I have learned over the last 5 years since I began reconnecting with Hawaiian culture. It is by no means the only subject I write on however, I have found many instances where mistakes have been made in Hawaii related articles and where I have been asked to look into an article involving a claim of a living person. Some of it has just been information that is summarized badly or referenced incorrectly however, in the last year or so, I have had a professor of Hawaiian history contact me (Edit:This person is a Wikipedia editor that uses their real name but was overwhelmed by our many policies, guidelines and different types of protocol so reached out to me as a Wikipedia editor with a general interest in Hawaii related articles that has interacted with the other editor) to ask assistance in correcting a claim being attributed to him as well as copyright issues regarding images uploaded to commons and used on Wikipedia that incorrectly dated several works by a modern artist as historic public domain works. Sometimes it is just a small thing. For instance regarding a biased wording to the Kalakaua article I kept getting reverted when I removed the original research and explained that the article never stated or implied the use of the term I removed. But this has been something I have noticed a real issue with involving the use of sources on Hawaii related articles. A lot of these issues come from the same editor who truly seems to resent my making any sort of change to their work but who's understanding of Wikipedia, while flawed continues to improve. But, regardless, there is a pattern of this editor making claims that go much farther than what the sources have said and have involved both copyright and claims about a living person that were not accurate and very much upset the subject written about.

Yes, I made mistakes over the Grass skirt revert but the revert never even gave me a chance to work and that as well is a pattern I have found from this editor. While I truly try to avoid them, they tend to jump in and revert me or begin feverishly editing around my contributions in a combative and sometimes bullying way that only makes me fight harder to defend my work. The editor has no block log but still has a history of many different kinds of issues that have been disruptive as well as not understanding certain parts of guidelines and policy and not having a willingness to fix their past errors of content. I believe we still have several articles that refer to the Hawaiian term for a district chief in place of what is the accurate term, meaning supreme ruler

Now, why am I bothering you about all of this? Because an ANI was started today but removed, that attempted to topic ban me from Hawaii related articles by an editor that works closely with the other editor. In an edit summary removing the notification they stated to the effect "another time, another place". So, I am preparing by at least giving you a background to the Grass skirt situation and informing an admin about a few issues I have dealt with in regards to their contributions in just the last year. This is a very simplified explanation without detail or diffs but I will begin preparing them going as far back as needed as I am sure this is going to come back up again and nothing is as black and white as that ANI put it.

--Mark Miller (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Mark Miller, and I know that there are two sides to the story. I will keep what you have said in mind. I have no doubt that you are a productive contributor but you need to avoid getting too emotionally invested in this sort of thing. The bottom line, though, is that "grass skirt" is a notable topic in popular culture, in anthropology and in the history of human clothing. We need a decent NPOV article about this topic, not deletion. Consensus on that point is increasingly clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am emotionally invested but I do know what you are saying and why it is important. I am extremely frustrated by the tactics used by this editor and the manner in in which they insert themselves with little or no regard to guideline and policy (although they are getting better). I try to avoid the editor but encourage interaction when it is normal and productive but even that can be challenging at times. In some cases you have to have museum information not published in book form. Having actually been to Hawaii with the intent of doing Wikipedia "field work" (Edit: Wikipedia "meet up". It was planned nearly a year in advance on Wikipedia with TParis that I was hoping to make it out to Hawaii and if I made it while he was there, he would assist me with seeing sites of Ford Island, an article which we improved together to raise to FA and other areas needing military personnel to accompany guests. I have not uploaded all of the images but a good deal of them are at Commons) I was able to resolve a content dispute in regards to the identification of a painting in the Bishop Museum and identify several copyright protected, contemporary works uploaded with inaccurate license information. I honestly don't think this is an emotional situation. I do need to avoid allowing myself to become upset or outright frustrated in comment but there do seem to be personal comments that discuss me as an editor or inaccurately describe my intent as was done here. By the way...its a costume/clothing and I have experience as a seamstress, some expertise on the subject of fashions, fads and period clothing in general and am a member of project fashion. There is a also a good deal involving the Tiki culture that I have contributed to and done extensive research for that also involves this subject. Simply put, I have many different topic/category contributions that make the subject of interest to me more than just about Hawaii or Hula. Now, having said all that, I still don't agree that it's notable enough for a stand alone although I agree it is notable in pop culture. I don't feel it is truly notable within anthropology or the history of human clothing in that it doesn't have an etymology such as the term Temple with historic roots in ancient times. To me, it seems purely descriptive. I saw enough others with similar opinion that perhaps, when fully fleshed out as much as possible there may be more input about whether a source is simply using the term or is discussing the term and if those such mentions should be excluded. When guidelines and policy are followed a bit closer it might look a little clearer one way or the other. Since it is not going to be deleted, it should be edited to improve it. I can do that without causing disruption.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2018

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse Host

I've been reading the replies of Coryphantha, a relatively new editor, to questions in the Teahouse. Before I 'do' or 'say' anything anything to this editor, I would like your take on this. I am 100% certain they are acting in good faith, but the advice just doesn't seem accurate. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 18:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Barbara (WVS). Can you please be more specific about your concerns? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

this. Barbara ✐ ✉ 18:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), I guess that my mind-reading skills are weak today. I would really appreciate it if you would explain what you mean. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not giving you enough information. As a more experienced Teahouse host I value your opinion regarding a newer and helpful editor - Coryphantha who has provided the following advice to an even newer editor - Lu Brito. Lou Brito states:

"What are the steps to begin working reviewing articles? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lu Brito (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)"

Coryphantha replies with:

"Lu Brito Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I'm guessing you are asking how you can get started reviewing articles since you haven't created any articles yet. A lot goes into article review, first of all a user has to be gain some experience. You have to have had a WP account for at least 90, which you've achieved, and have at least 500 uncontested edits. At this writing, you have 13 live edits, 60% of which are on your user pages and 15% have been at the Teahouse. After you've gained some experience, then you can apply for new page reviewer rights which you can read about here: here.

"Incidentally, what was the reason you added the code <includeonly> on your talk page? I left you a welcome template and it didn't show up, I had to use "edit page" and post the template above your code. That makes it very difficult for WP users to communicate with you. It might be more helpful if you removed it."

"When posting on talk pages and at the Teahouse, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. I signed your post for you. Coryphantha Talk 02:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)"

Thank you for taking a look at this. If you prefer not to reply I can ask another host. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 20:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), yes, I read all that previously. Please explain how the advice is inaccurate, as you said originally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you don't believe there is an issue, that is good enough for me. I took a look at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers and perhaps it is just a matter of a typo (90 days rather than 90). Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the editor should have said 90 days, Barbara (WVS), but that seems minor to me. Perhaps you could have left a little note of correction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Cullen I do think that there's a lot to learn before they can begin reviewing articles, Lu Brito should gain experience first. If I'm wrong about this I'd be glad to take it back and apologize, some of the information I mentioned came directly from this article: Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, the link of which I did provide but maybe it wasn't clear enough. Coryphantha Talk 22:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, Coryphantha for suggesting that you did something wrong. I was asking Cullen328, an experienced Teahouse host to take a look at your response. I appears that I may be the one that needs to be more accurate and not you! Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 00:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS) Thank you, I did leave out the word "days", which probably threw the whole thing off. Thank you again. Coryphantha Talk 01:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joan Freeman (Irish psychologist). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chiyo Miyako

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chiyo Miyako. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)