User talk:Cullen328/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 → Archive 60

Candidates

Like I said before, claiming that keeping Mary Gay Scanlon's article will lead to thousands of campaign brochures is a slippery slope argument and wrong. There may be a problem with paid staffers creating articles for candidates, but I am not a paid staffer and that ought to be dealt with on a case for case basis. Despite what he said, User:Bearcat is using artificially inflated criteria, that a candidate needs to pass to have an article. WP:N and GNG are very clear, and while I agree that coverage that states "So and so is running for office" or "so and so won the primary" is not sufficient, articles that go into the background probably is a case for notability. I also don't think we need to have an article for every candidate in the US, despite what you and Bearcat are implying, but I think it is reasonable to have articles on important congressional seats - there are only 435 of those, and we can eliminates those who don't have any chance of winning and those that fail GNG. I have yet to see to consensus - case law, if you will - that candidates are presumed not to be notable unless they are the Jon Ossofs of the world. To give you an example of how stringent these guidelines (and linking to essays is not official policy), WP:NBASKETBALL does not say that a player has to be an NBA player to have an article, they have to play in one of the 6 top leagues of the world or be an award-winning collegian. Even granting this, there are many articles that fail this but are routinely kept at AFD because GNG and N supersede this. Like I said before, campaign promo articles may be a legitimate issue, and Mary Gay Scanlon's can be cleaned up if you think it is too promotional, but I don't think that deletion is the right approach. You can be free to disagree though, and I'd love to try to work out some consensus on the issue because I never heard that candidates for Congress were presumed not to be notable. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not using "artificially inflated criteria" at all — I'm using established Wikipedia consensus, right dead centre in the bullseye. I'll certainly acknowledge that I may be blunter in how I express myself than some other editors are, because I do have a pretty direct writing style, but I'm not even slightly wrong, or even slightly "off on my own bus", about what Wikipedia's consensus on politicians is — for one thing, if we left a special exemption in place for candidates in "competitive" or "high-profile" districts, then every candidate in every district would simply start claiming that their district was competitive or high-profile. So no, NPOL has to maintain a zero tolerance for biographies of as yet unelected candidates who can't be shown as notable for other reasons: if we don't, then we're nothing more than a political PR platform anymore, and may as well just call the whole thing off entirely. Bearcat (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Editorofthewiki. Thank you for stating your opinion so forthrightly, but I disagree with you deeply and profoundly. Yes, there will be a few cases where an unelected candidate receives a flood of detailed nationwide and international coverage, and in those cases, we can depart from our normal practice. This does not seem to be such an example. As for the point that you are making regarding basketball players, I rarely if ever edit such articles, and do not participate in basketball player AfDs. In my opinion, there are no significant parallels between basketball players and unelected politicians. Articles about unelected politicians are almost inevitably promotional until experienced editors without a COI run across them. On the other hand, articles about political races are far, far more likely to be policy compliant and written from the NPOV. I have participated in hundreds of political candidate AfDs and I am very familiar with these problems and what the usual consensus is in such cases. And that is to redirect to a NPOV article about the political campaign, adding brief, well-referenced NPOV biographical information about all of the candidates. In 58 days, Mary Gay Scanlon will probably win that election, and if she does, the article will be recreated promptly. How does it benefit the encyclopedia to deviate from our usual practices for 58 days? The cost, quite literally, is "opening the floodgates" to really, really bad content. Erosion of our quality standards is a constant existential danger. I acknowledge that you have a different point of view but I do not believe that you have thought this through. Accordingly, I will oppose your efforts to change consensus regarding unelected politicical candidates, and my opposition will be vigorous. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I absolutely have thought this through, thank you very much. Not sure that articles about policy races are more likely to be compliant, but I'll take your word on that one, maybe there is a problem with UNDUE weight. Can you give me some examples of similar AfDs? Just because Johnny Soandso ran for Pennsylvania senate does not necessarily make a good parallel. I'm simply asking for some examples of whether this is settled consensus or not. How does it benefit the encyclopedia to have an article on Scanlon for 58 days? Answer: people want to know who they are voting for, and Wikipedia, for all its faults, is a better, more neutral source than campaign websites. Notice I didn't write anything like "Mary Gay has fought for 20 years for children's education" or something along those lines. What you need to understand is that the result of the AfD has absolutely no impact on "opening the floodgates" to really bad content, whether keep or delete. There already is very bad content on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that some campaign staffer is not going to be dissuaded from writing an article because Mary Gay's article was deleted. Admittedly my reference to basketball players has little to do with candidates other than to show how there are different standards.
Re Bearcat: I'm sure you feel quite strongly that you are applying the guidelines without bias, and reasonable minds may differ, just like there can be a debate over whether some coverage is routine or not. I have no issue with blunt writing and I have not taken your criticism personally, I am less familiar with politician articles. I edit them occasionally, but they are not the bulk of my work. What I do have an issue with is the statement "So no, NPOL has to maintain a zero tolerance for biographies of as yet unelected candidates who can't be shown as notable for other reasons: if we don't, then we're nothing more than a political PR platform anymore, and may as well just call the whole thing off entirely." This is a false dichotomy between strict standards and being a PR platform, the best course of action (in my view) is a middle course. Sure, paid promotional editing is always a problem, but that's hardly going to go away soon. Also I do not want to keep articles on every candidate, and I recognize candidates could game the system by calling a race high profile, but we can be reasonable here and sift through the bullshit. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Editorofthewiki, you are just as capable of searching the AfD archives as I am. Go ahead and do so. You write "people want to know who they are voting for, and Wikipedia, for all its faults, is a better, more neutral source than campaign websites", which is true, but they are vastly more likely to get that neutral coverage at an article about the election campaign, which presents NPOV content about all candidates, not just the unelected candidate who assigns a staffer or volunteer to try to create a promotional Wikipedia biography. It is clear that you are not going to convince me, or vice versa. My opinion is firm and based on heavy AfD participation for over eight years. So, please pursue this matter at a wider forum, where a broad cross-section of editors can participate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. What is the best forum with a broader cross section of editors to pursue? I created a discussion at WT:AFD, but not many responded. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:$uicideboys restoration

Hi there Jim - not too sure how trustworthy the Wikipedia email system is so I'll leave this here!

Late last year I created a draft for music group $uicideboy$, but it was understandably not approved due to notability concerns. It was deleted by you in March this year after I elected not to resubmit.

However, following the release of their first studio album and their now sizable presence in the music industry, I feel that a review of the page's notability could be warranted, and as such it would be great to have access to this draft article I wrote - I would be more than happy to amend any details and bring the article back up to modern standard. May you please consider restoring this draft article? Thanks!

Regards, Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quazarrr (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Quazarrr. $uicideboy$ has been a very problematic topic on Wikipedia for several years. Articles about this duo have been deleted five times by five different administrators previously, and I deleted your draft. The title has been salted and only an administrator can create an article about this topic. So, please convince me that this topic is now notable by providing links to significant coverage in several independent, reliable sources. These sources must show that this group now meets WP:BAND. Unless you can convince me, or another administrator, that this group is now notable, there is no point to restoring the draft. It would be a waste of time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi there Jim, I'd be happy to. I am a casual follower of their careers, but unfortunately the group has many rabid fans eager to start up a Wikipedia page, resulting in rushed and substandard drafts. I believe this group easily passes WP:BAND:
1. They have gained coverage from some of the largest hip-hop publications - this includes extensive articles from XXL (perhaps the most influential hip hop publication in the world),[1][2] Pigeons and Planes,[3] Mass Appeal[4] and Oddysey.[5] They have also done multiple video collaborations with Genius.[6][7]Due to the self-imposed secretive nature of the group and dislike of mainstream media, their media coverage is very limited compared to other artists of a similar size.
2. Their debut album, released on September 7, has charted in seven major countries - the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Australia. This includes a debut at #6 of the US iTunes charts[8]. A previous EP released in 2016 debuted at #16 in the US iTunes charts,[9] and had a high of #17 on the Billboard rap charts.
4. They have attended dozens of prestigious international concerts, most of which they have headlined at. Some of the most prestigious include Rolling Loud (twice),[10] Woo Hah!,[11] and Bay Dreams (twice).[12] All headliners at these concerts have Wikipedia articles except for $uicideboy$.
7. They are considered to be a bastion of New Orleans music culture. While hard to quantifiably express, their influence is hard to ignore - they have 3.1 million monthly listeners on Spotify as of today, dwarfing all other acts from New Orleans excluding Lil Wayne. This is represented in their music - many song titles are references to streets and neighbourhoods in the NOLA area, and their latest album is titled I Want to Die in New Orleans. Adding to rule 7, they are the pioneers of modern cloud rap, and arguably the largest living artists of the SoundCloud rap subgenre after the passing of XXXTentacion. This can be evidenced from their astronomical streaming numbers.
Additionally, their YouTube channel proves the extent of their popularity in the hip-hop scene - they have eight music videos with more than 10,000,000 views, with their most viewed video Paris reaching more than 56,000,000 views as of today.[13] Thanks for your time! Quazarrr (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Quazarrr, I have restored Draft: $uicideboy$, based on your persuasive argument above. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Unfortunately after adding necessary references and notability claims and resubmitting, the submission was almost instantly declined, citing previous deletions and being contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia as reasons as to why the page should not be created. There's now no option for me to resubmit. In my opinion notability is absolutely not an issue - what's your opinion on the page being published? Cheers again, Quazarrr (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2017/04/suicideboys-interview-the-break/
  2. ^ http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2017/08/suicideboys-interview/
  3. ^ https://pigeonsandplanes.com/discover/2017/05/suicideboys-numbers-on-the-board
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PhS67RoJJ0
  5. ^ https://www.theodysseyonline.com/underground-rise-uicideboy
  6. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBRSbnUlGIk
  7. ^ https://genius.com/videos/Uicideboy-break-down-o-pana
  8. ^ http://www.itunescharts.net/us/artists/music/uicideboy/albums/i-want-to-die-in-new-orleans/
  9. ^ http://www.itunescharts.net/us/artists/music/uicideboy/albums/radical-uicide-ep/
  10. ^ http://www.rollingloud.com/
  11. ^ https://www.funx.nl/news/funx/31694-travis-scott-nas-kempi-en-josylvio-op-woo-hah-festival-2017
  12. ^ https://baydreams.co.nz/
  13. ^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU5AbNuMPGB491GcqXuzwKw/videos

Please comment on Talk:Keanu Reeves

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Keanu Reeves. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Tea house

Thank you for your suggestion on the Tea house, I thought that asking the subject would be okay on the tea house. Please advise me if I should be aware of the other situation Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please restore my rights to edit the Exide Wiki Page

Cullen328,

You were recently asked to lock the Exide Technologies Wikipedia page by an anonymous user: "leadfreekids." This editor, in addition to other like-minded editors, is only interested in posting "news" stories full of opinions, conjecture and incomplete information. Their agenda is to make Exide look as if all the company does is contaminate the environment.

The conduct and activities with respect to the lock-out, while allowing the disputed negative edits to remain – but not Exide's– gives the impression that Wikipedia intentionally picking sides. That is an unfair business practice that makes Wikipedia an active participant in the disparagement, defamation and denigration of Exide and in conduct designed to intentionally harm the company and its goodwill. It is a deliberate interference with Exide’s business opportunities and presents an unbalanced view of a company. At the very least, the company history should be first, not the lawsuits and edits by non-objective persons or editors with an agenda to destroy Exide. There is no precedent for this one-sided portrayal of a company on Wiki. In fact, there are other companies with negative events in their past and their pages are not dominated by anti-company, biased information (For example: BP Oil, Wells Fargo, Southern California Gas Co., etc.).

I would appreciate you remove the lock on the Exide Technologies page so the company can be fairly portrayed. Thank you. - DagnyDominique — Preceding unsigned comment added by DagnyDominique (talk • contribs) 12:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I protected that page because you were edit warring there, DagnyDominique. What is your relationship to Exide, please? If you have any financial relationship with Exide, then comply with WP: PAID now. This is mandatory. Then discuss your concerns at Talk:Exide. No, I am not lifting the protection. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon invitation for September 26!

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
Wikimedia Community logo
WikiSalon attendees

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 Did you know ... ?

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

Details and RSVP here (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) 02:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I formally apologize for my uncivil edits to Wikipedia a few years ago. I thought I was fighting against discrimination. But I realize that Wikipedia editors just want to keep Wikipedia safe and truthful. I do not advocate for any of the groups that I talked about and I oppose all ideologies that hurt others or are hateful and pseudoscientific. I will never discuss this again on Wikipedia. I am sincerely sorry. Please forgive me.

Frogger48 (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Please avoid any form of disruptive editing from now on. Given the circumstances, I am concerned that you edited James Cantor recently. You must be cautious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
O.K. I will no longer edit articles about the this topic. Frogger48 (talk)

Sardar Usman Buzdar

Hello Jim, Since we're discussing Nabil Gabol, I thought of seeking your opinion on this Murder controversy as well. Court found Buzdar guilty and convicted him in 2000 as per multiple RS. But at-least one news outlet recently reported that this is a case of namesake. --Saqib (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Saqib. The coverage should accurately reflect what the most reliable and most current sources say. If a clear majority of those sources agree that this is actually a case of mistaken identity, then our article should make that clear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Jim, as I said most of the reliable sources says he was involved in the murder. But in Geo News' programme Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Sath, it was noted that this is not the same person. Please see the news story here - published on Geo News website. No other RS except a tabloid-like newspaper published the claims of Geo News so I think we've minority views? --Saqib (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adam Milstein

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adam Milstein. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful copyedit at the new article I just created, Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk !

What do you think of Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk ?

Do you think that Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk will remain on Wikipedia as an article ?

Thank you,

Sagecandor (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Sagecandor. I believe that the book is notable, but other editors may disagree. No need to mention the title three times in a short post. Also, you do not need to argue for notabilty in the text of the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for your analysis, I hope you are correct ! Sagecandor (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I hope you are reading Wikipediocracy these days, Jim, there is an entire thread on Kavenaugh-related Wikipedia articles which I believe you would find most illuminating. Yeah, that's a hint. Carrite (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I rarely read that site, Tim, because I find the ratio of vile paranoid snark to useful observations to be way too high. But I took a look and entered "Kavanaugh" into the main search box and the forum search box. The only hit I got was mention of an industrial designer named Gere Kavanaugh. Obviously, I am not competent to search that site, so can you please send me a link? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I always hesitate to give WPO links because of the Crazy Ass Factor at WP, but this thread should be safe enough: LINK. Carrite (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's not going to be viewable unless you sign in for an account. Sign in for an account. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
So they have secret content that you need to be a member to view? I am extremely uncomfortable with that. I do not want any kooks threatening to kill my granddaughter, Carrite. I trust you 100% but not a lot of those folks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it's the exact opposite of what you think — it's an honorable section for controversial content stashed away from the Google search engine. Easily viewable, except you have to be registered to view it; thus the bots are kept out. I can certify that nothing bad will come of you by registering there, the powers that be are all upstanding folks. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I will take a look if they let me into their private clubhouse, but I am highly skeptical of that entire venture, Tim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

New editor user page

hi mate could you please have a look at this young editors user page, with the listing of classmates. I've asked them not to, but I don't want to scare them off. Flat Out (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Flat Out. It is always nice to hear from a friend from "down under", as the kids say. I have deleted that user page, and tried to be friendly to the user. But that page was not appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Making it easier to editing Wikipedia by smartphone

Hey — as a new designer & researcher at the WMF, specifically trying to learn about smartphone editing workflows, I found your essay on editing Wikipedia by smartphone extremely helpful. I am on the Reading Web team and as described in this year's Annual Plan we're working on making it "easier for someone to contribute productively to Wikimedia projects on a mobile device, leading to more mobile edits and higher retention". We're not working on the editor itself (another team is doing that), but rather all of the supporting elements that are fundamental to editing (history, watchlist, user contribs, etc.).

To start this work we're redesigning the navigation for logged-in users (potentially behind an opt-in "advanced" mode). If you have some time to check out our designs and leave feedback that would be fantastic, given your experience and insights. You can do so here.

Thanks! AHollender (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHollender (WMF) (talk • contribs) 16:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Connor McCormick

Hi Jim. Would you (or any of your many talk page watchers) mind checking Connor McCormick for WP:U5 issues. I posted something on this editor’s user talk about a week ago asking them to reassess the content on their user page, but never got a response. They seem to be using it as some sort of online diary. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. — Marchjuly (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome, Marchjuly. Yes, I deleted that user page, but I got distracted by real world events and forgot to let you know. Sorry. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Wow Jim. That went off the rails rather quickly. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Marchjuly, it turned into a train wreck. Maybe I should trim my user page, but not to that radical extent. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Why did you delete My wiki page and what happens if someone dose it to You (User talk:Connor McCormick) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
My deletion of your user page was proper and in compliance with policy. Your blanking of my user page was retaliatory and contrary to policy. That is why another administrator blocked you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Last call for RSVPs for Wednesday evening

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
Wikimedia Community logo
WikiSalon attendees

Hey, folks.​ Reminder:​ Wednesday evening ​at 6 ​is the Bay Area WikiSalon series​.​

Details and RSVP here (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) 06:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Not to nitpick but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cambridge_Optic&oldid=861242613 - "personal attacks against your fellow editors and an administrator" Why the specific callout of an administrator? Is attacking an administrator different than attacking a fellow editor? Aren't admins fellow editors too? Not trying to nitpick you into the ground but... wanted to know why the differentiation. --Tarage (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It was a simple statement of fact, Tarage, but I take your point. I will try to limit myself to mentioning that a given editor is an administrator only when it is directly relevant to the situation. Thank you for the feedback. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Page

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Page. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You're totally wrong about my motives

Not that this will make a y difference to the decision made - I just wanted to point out that any claim of a conflict of interest was false and baseless.

It's a fact the content i added was solely for the benefit of the wiki page. Putting my Twitter account on Wikipedia doesn't benefit me not one bit. For one I don't careless about followers and in fact about approximately once a year I deactivate my Twitter account and create a new identical account and so any followers I had are lost. I do that so as it is not on any block lists (it gets put on block lists just for having anonymous members follow it). So I wouldn't do that if I was trying to get followers.

Whilst my account was listed on Wikipedia I never made mention of it on Twitter, I didn't put it in my bio nor tweet about it as I didn't care less whether anyone knew it was on Wikipedia, I was just glad that if someone interested in bots looked at the Twitter bot page there was a good example of a Twitter bot rather than no examples which was the case before I with good faith added content which improved the wiki page. After adding my account to the wiki page, I even altered my Twitter bot to make it a better example of a Twitter bot solely for any readers of the wiki page; doing that does NOT benefit me as it means that I could never have my Twitter account verified as Twitter won't allow a verified account to have a profile pic that is automated to regularly change throughout the the day.

Maybe you wrongly think i would want to use my account being on wiki to get publicity for my business or website but I don't own a business nor website!

Maybe you wrongly think I wanted to get publicity for me personally as in myself be interviewed; well the fact is I'm never going to reveal publicly my identity as being the owner of that account as I'm actually being stalked by numerous anonymous members whom think it's funny to tweet vicious lies about me/my Twitter account as well as making false reports to the FBI anonymously about my Twitter account (part of the reason deactivate it a create a new one every year).

Having my account on Wikipedia could also get me targeted by trolls.

So yeah your TOTALLY wrong about my motives.

So much for volunteering to help Wikipedia... totally ungrateful! HardeeHar (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Amost every single highly experienced Wikipedia editor who takes the time to look at your pattern of editing will agree with me that you have a glaring conflict of interest, HardeeHar. We do not care at all about your assertions regarding your real intentions or your unverified claims about Twitter or the FBI. Editors who are here for the purpose of adding references to their own work here on Wikipedia have a conflict of interest. Period. End of story. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@HardeeHar:(talk page stalker) Cullen has it right here. Regardless of your intentions, when you add content to an article that is closely associated with yourself, such as something you built or developed, this is a conflict of interest. It's not really about your opinions or motives, it's about your relationship to the topic, which you have established. When you I find myself in that kind of situation, I usually just acknowledge that I'm probably not the best person to write about it, and I should ask or let someone else decide to add it or not. I JethroBT drop me a line 05:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So you're barnstarring sock accounts these days?

Really?

Wow.

Carrite (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I had heard nothing negative about that account at that time, Tim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
And, by the way, WPO approved my registration less than an hour ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
It's official. Carrite (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
As I said previously, Tim. I had heard nothing negative about that account at that time, and that is a fact. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sakaimover

I'm at a loss here. I feel like he's here for very much the wrong reasons but... I also have to wonder if he's trolling. He's doing everything in his power not to edit articles, including the sad practice of demanding barnstars from people he gave barnstars too. Might be a maturity thing? I don't know. I think I should disengage. I just wanted to let you know that whatever lesson he's learning from all of this, it is not the right one. --Tarage (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Tarage. Blocked 24 hours with another warning. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328 he's doing it again. He's reverting edits that aren't vandalism and then apologizing, and complaining that people telling him that he's being disruptive is "triggering". Can we get like... a ban from editing other people's user pages as well? I'm not a fan of him adding "Banned user" to random banned users who have no talk pages ala: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Duolingi&oldid=860935547
Really I want him to stop this nonsense campaign to become an admin by trying to be some sort of anti vandalism super hero when he doesn't even have experience editing normally... --Tarage (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
In fact looking at his edits, he went and added some stub infoboxes on a grand total of two pages and then went RIGHT BACK to reverting people and leaving increasingly aggressive anti-vandalism messages. He's convincing me very hard that he isn't here to build a wiki, but to become an admin for some sort of power trip. --Tarage (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a returning user; although I cannot immediately recall where I saw the familiar behaviour. Alex Shih (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen:? He's since "taken a wiki break". I'm... unconvinced this is going to stop. --Tarage (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Tarage and Alex Shih, I share your concerns about this editor, and have asked Sakaimover several questions on their talk page. Pinging TonyBallioni who recently declined their request for rollback. Tony, what do you think? Like Alex, I suspect this may be a returning user, although I do not remember who. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I’m 100% convinced this is a returning user based on the age of the account, how long it took them to make their first edit, and what that edit was (perfectly adding a reference). I don’t grant rollback with less than a month of observable experience, however, which is why I declined. As I’ve made clear in my RfA and to ArbCom, this is a second account, so I have no problem with it if done correctly, but my view is that if you’re a clean start, we can only assess based on what we see, which is why I declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm thinking too hard about this but... @Cullen: he's still adding banned templates to user pages. Creating the page in fact to do so. Yes, he is doing some editing, which is good, but at this point I'm just about ready to go to ANI and suggest a topicban from reverting vandalism... if that's a thing. He clearly is not ready for it, and his user page reflects that. He needs to stop reverting people all together unless it's specifically on the page he is editing. Am I wrong? I'll stop completely if you advise me to. I just hate seeing this pattern of behavior continue. --Tarage (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This post here does seem a bit suspicious given what others have posted above about this editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Wasn't gonna post on their talk page again but given the whole autism thing I felt laying it all out as plainly and bluntly as possible would be for the best. If this fails, I'm sadly going to have to take this to ANI. There's a good editor in there somewhere, but they can't seem to get away from this desire to play policeman. --Tarage (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at the comment that I made on their talk page, Tarage and Marchjuly. I would like to help this editor transition to being more productive and less disruptive here. Am I taking the right path? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I think so? I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing either. I just wanted to be as cut and dry as possible. The ball is in their court now. Like I said, I think their citation work is A+. If they just focus on that, I'll have nothing to complain about. But the vandalism reverting stuff needs to stop. --Tarage (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I have been watching this situation pretty much since the beginning, when some of SM's edits popped up on my watchpage. Like most, my initial inclination was towards either deliberate shit-disturbing or a serious CIR issue. It's easy to become suspicious, if not jaded, towards such behaviour, but in light of the Autism disclosure, we should AGF and with the assumption that they're telling the truth and act accordingly (avoiding repeated use of the word "claim" or phrases like "your superior brain"). They may have added the info about IQ and intellect due to fear of being thought of as "dumb" or "stupid". Age could also be a factor. They may have been hoping to impress you, Cullen. Ultimately, we have to watch out for the stability of the project, and if it turns out they're just some troll, at least we all took the high road. JMHO - wolf 23:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback, Thewolfchild. I appreciate it and will keep your comments in mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eugene Gu

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eugene Gu. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

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

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Your essay

Hey! I just read your essay on mobile editing, and found it extremely good and useful,since I also edit using a smartphone. Cheers :-) Knightrises10 (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Knightrises10. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Crean (explorer). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

More Vandalism

Hi Cullen,as you are an administrator I decided to report you that User:2A00:23c5:Bco6:D700:F9EA:8137:256B:EBE5 is causing massive disruption today and has received 4 warnings yet he continues his rampage.I request you to please look into this matter and block the user.Md.Ali25 (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Md.Ali25, can you please give me links to the articles that have been vandalized? I have been traveling and mostly away from Wikipedia. Please report vandalism to WP:AIV. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charles K. Kao

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles K. Kao. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Username Violation

Hi Cullen,I recently noticed there is a User whose username is Silentkiller888.I think the name Silentkiller is a violation to the Wikipedia Username Policy as it means threats and attacks.So think he should be blocked as he also made many unconstructive edits to film articles.I request you to please look into this matter.Md.Ali25 (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Md.Ali25. I understand your concerns but I am not an expert in username violations. I suggest that you discuss the matter with an administrator who is active at WP:UAA. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:RED Del Castillo

Hi Jim. I think you might have already deleted RED Del Castillo once before based upon User talk:RED Del Castillo#September 2018, but not sure if this latest version is the same as before. I was going to advise the user to move this to their sandbox, but figured I check with you first since there's no point in doing so if it's just going to be deleted again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. I cannot review the earlier versions because all of that content has been suppressed by an oversighter. My recollection, though, is that the earlier version was different and had a lot of personal information. So, please feel free to suggest moving this content to their sandbox. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse

Thank you for your help with answering my questions at the Teahouse yesterday. I left some other messages afterwords, so I'm not sure if you just didn't see them or have been busy with life, but I haven't got a response from anyone else - so when you get the time, I'd appreciate if you took a look at them. Once again, thank you. Clovermoss (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Page

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

Help

Hey Cullen,as I am new to Wikipedia I don't no many things.So I request you to please to please give me a introduction.I tried to consult the Teahouse but was unable as I am new.Satin17 (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Satin17. If you ask me a specific question, I will do my best to answer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Sons of Aesir Motorcycle Club

Hi Jim. Would you mind taking a look at Draft:Sons of Aesir Motorcycle Club to check and see whether (1) WP:DRAFTIFY was appropriate in this case, and (2) I did the move correctly if it was? I also left a message for the creator on their user talk explaining what I did, but may be you could clarify or correct any mistakes I might've made in my post. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I see no problems in what you have done in this case. Obviously, an article like this is not appropriate for mainspace, lacking any encyclopedic content. Maybe this MC is notable. I do not know. So, the draft could possibly be the kernel of a future article. Your message to the creator is very informative. Well done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking for Expert help

Greetings Jim, Wondering if you know of an Expert for Wikiproject templates and Category tree? For me, I have almost zero knowledge except how to do article assessments.

Chances are there is nothing "wrong" with WP 1.0 bot. Since it is driven by Category tree and Wikiproject templates - Looking for an Expert to fix. How to find errors? Also, is it only certain articles that are tagged incorrectly?

Details are at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Conflicting project tags. Many Wikiprojects are missing Assessment logs since October 8, 2018.

Thanks for your help. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JoeHebda. I lack such expertise. I suggest that you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Good luck. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Previously I had asked at VPT thinking the assessment bot was "broken". They logged that report at Github. I will try there again, this time focusing on possible errors with WP templates & Category tree. Thanks. JoeHebda (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on which you !voted, has been amended

In response to objections, I struck the two year moratorium thing at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#RfC:_Amendment_for_BIO_to_address_systemic_bias_in_the_base_of_sources. I'm notifying everybody who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Kashoggi

Propagandist is not a negative term (see any dictionary). It was his government job and does not violate the NPOV rule. 8675309 (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"Propagandist" most certainly carries negative connotations. The article talk page is the proper place to discuss this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, we don't use the same dictionary. 8675309 (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Signature change

I have changed the appearance of my signature. Barbara ✐✉ 11:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia

Hello User:Cullen328 It is great going through your profile to see such great contributions you made on Wikipedia, I am glad my HostBot suggested you to me. I hope you will make my stay on Wiki a nice one. I am ready to learn MrMawuli (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, MrMawuli. Please let me know if you have any specific questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure User:Cullen328, will keep asking questions anytime I meet a problem. Meanwhile check out my first contribution Draft:Queenda, is it right?? MrMawuli (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Some clarity, please

Cullen, while I appreciate that you openly acknowledged being involved re: MaranoFan's TP, I am still confused by your support of one editor over another as it pertains to the same iBan vio. I have since discovered this discussion which reflects a questionable past of block evasion/socking, so what I am now trying to understand is your justification for an early unblock when the same was not considered for Winkelvi. I compared the block logs of both editors, and something just doesn't seem right here, so I'm just trying to understand what I may be overlooking. I have no special interest in either editor - although I have exchanged a bit of levity with Winkelvi, etc. as I explained on MaranoFan's TP - but I find it rather chilling when one editor is treated differently from another by our trusted admins (involved or uninvolved, an admin is still an admin), especially considering both editors being equal in light of the 2-way iBan violation. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Atsme. Winkelvi overtly violated the interaction ban twice in recent months, and I found their explanations convoluted and unpersuasive. In this case, MaranoFan is claiming exemption due to WP:BANEX and there is some merit to that claim, in my judgment. Accordingly, I disagree with your conclusion about "both editors being equal in light of the 2-way iBan violation." I believe that Winkelvi's violations were far more egregious in this specific recent matter. As for MaranoFan's previous misconduct, they have been blocked for it, and warned repeatedly. I hope that this editor abandons disruptive behavior. If she doesn't, I consider an indefinite block likely, but we will cross that bridge if and when we get to it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_56&oldid=888962880"