User talk:Cullen328/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 → Archive 65

I'm sorry about the Jeff Sessions thing

Look, I understand if right now you look at this and think something like "Oh my god, that Jeff Sessions idiot is back again to spread more of his nonsense. Looks like I have to block him again." To be honest with myself, that is a fair thing for you to think with how awful my history has been on here. However, it has been almost two months since this whole thing happened. I have come to recognize my mistakes and simply want to apologize and explain what I was thinking at the time. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and read this. I assure you that I have changed and for now on will make nothing but productive edits that make Wikipedia a better place.

Let me start this off by saying that I fully deserved the original blocks I received. I was blocked for spreading my personal theories about Jeff Sessions and saying that pages about him should be edited to fit those views. Yes, I handled this terribly originally. I should of recognized that the purpose of Wikipedia was to report what reliable sources say, not to spread the theories of the people editing. I didn't understand that original research was not allowed. At the time I was a new user and did not fully understand the mission of this site. My mistaken thinking at the time was that Wikipedia should always state the things I think are true, rather than what was actually proven. I fully apologize for the issues I caused and the time I took up. I deserved those blocks. After this I educated myself on the rules and purpose of the website and came to understand what I did wrong.

When my original block ended I was determined to make these mistakes right. In the discussion about my edits on your user talk page, I conceded that Jeff Sessions' party affiliation should not be changed to Democratic, and that I was wrong and stubborn for claiming that it should be. I said that I was done pushing my theory and would not argue about it anymore. However, I did say that because there is doubt about Jeff Sessions being a Republican, then it is simply not a proven fact. It is disputed, making it a political theory. The article shouldn't unequivocally state a political theory as a fact. Wikipedia rules make clear the theories should be stated as what they are, theories. The argument I was making was simply that the claim that Sessions is Republican should be stated as a theory rather than a solid fact.

Although I still stand by that above argument and would like to hear your response to it, I originally stated it poorly. It seemed like I was still spreading my personal theories. I wasn't, but it looked like it. So I was blocked again for spreading my personal theories and arguing about it. I was not doing that at the time, but I make it look like I was, so being blocked was my fault. I should have waited and expressed my opinion in a better way.

I then made another mistake. After being blocked that time, I made an unblock request. I should have not done this and should instead of waited it out until my block expired to discuss this issue further. With my history on the website at the time, I looked bad and everything I could say in an unblock request could easily look like either me trolling or begging. Also, I made previously made unblock requests for my original block that were awful nonsense, so I understand why you guys were sick of these. So after the block request, you guys gave me mercy and decided not to extend my block. I sincerely thank you guys for not extending it, that was a very nice thing to do when I looked so bad. Instead you guys simply block my access to my talk page. Looking back I am honestly glad you did this, if you didn't I probably would have made myself look worse and wasted your guys' time. Thank you for showing me mercy.

After my talk page access was removed, I realized that in trying to correct my past mistakes, I ironically made another mistake. I decided that I would wait for another month or so after my block ended to again try to correct what happened, so that I have more time to think about it and that I wouldn't look so bad. So here we are today.

In conclusion, I promise that I will not spread any more personal theories on Wikipedia. If I do, you guys have the right to immediately block me. I understand why you guys blocked me multiple times and I am not mad at you. I would actually like to thank you for showing me what I did wrong in the first place and helping me become a better editor. Your misreading of my comment that lead to him blocking me the 2nd time is not your fault. It is mine because I should have made the comment clearer, and it looked bad due to my history of arguing about this. My only request is that you consider my argument that Jeff Session's Republican affiliation should be stated as theory rather than a fact. You can disagree with me, I would just like to see a response. Thank you for dedicating your time to this site and being such a productive editor. I promise that I won't be annoying about this issue any more. I hope to help edit more articles in the future and to be a productive user here. Who knows, I may even create a few articles! 67.181.231.129 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Sessions joined the Young Republicans as a college student back in the 1960s and has been a Republican ever since. There is nothing in his long years of involvement in politics that indicates any deviation from loyalty to the Republican party. I can find no commentary or analysis by reliable sources anywhere that calls his membership in the Republican Party into question. Yes, he had a falling out with the current Republican president and lost his job, but that does not make him suddenly not a Republican, unless he decides himself to quit that party. These are the facts and it is not a "theory" in any way under the sun. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Jim.. thank you for your kind advice on publishing a comment on deletion. I am about to see what happens. Tony HER KNIGHT (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You made your point very effectively, HER KNIGHT. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Avonite

Hey Jim, hope all is well.

I recently stumbled upon a page called Avonite because of a promotional editor. The page seems to be in very poor shape so I looked through the history to see if I could find a better version. While I didn't find a better version, I did find there was an AFD on this page [1]. I know it was a long time ago but are you still interested in improving this page? I have absolutely no experience, knowledge, or interest in this topic but I cannot leave it in the form it is now. I can try my best but as you said, you have more experience and knowledge on this topic. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, HickoryOughtShirt?4. Sorry to be slow to respond, but I traveled from San Francisco to Miami today, and have been distracted. I am not the most objective person regarding this topic, because this brand name is very familiar to me in the industry I operate in, and I have worked with their products occasionally for over 30 years. So I have a bit of a conflict of interest. It seems to me that there are sufficient sources available to improve the article but I am not sure that I am the best editor to do so. Let me think about it a bit more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Jim, I understand. Take your time, it's okay to say no of course. I'll see what I can do in the meantime. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Clarification of Citations and reference --- I don't think people at Wiki are paying attention

Dear Cullen328

Please bear with me - a bit pedantic, but I need to make a case. St. Matthew and the Angel Redux

This is not original research. This is revealing to the public and art community at large about a discovery that has been either foolishly, blatantly or simply overlooked. It answers and resolves a MAJOR & MONUMENTAL QUESTION as the final finished appearance of one of the most important pieces of art created by the master baroque artist, Caravaggio. His work, St. Matthew and the Angel, was destroyed in 1945 in Berlin. There were no known color reproductions of it made prior to its destruction (I cite this often). Every art critic and enthusiast assumed this after the war and said only a single black and white glass negative existed for reference. This was true until my sister, a master of art reproduction, researched the painting and managed to discover that there was indeed an overlooked detailed description in color written by a known art critic and museum curator, Hans Posse in 1909. Hans Posse went on to vet artwork for Adolf Hitler in the '30s. Quite notable.

Official East and West German documents (letters and translations) supplied by the Museum's discovery of the Posse essay were examined during the filming of three news stories of the artist recreating an accurate rendition (far better than the post-war work of others who simply guessed at the color scheme). The news broadcasts, local and national about that discovery in the context of a general, comprehensive interview specifically mentioned the discovery of the art critic's description.

Do you want to explain to me where original research comes from? I'm not making this stuff up. This is 30 years after the fact that I have felt the art community needs to know the truth. If it were not for my sister's "Original Research" into the solving of a puzzle, we would have been living with an inaccurate rendition of one of the most valuable pieces of art history. That would be tragic. The NBC nation Broadcast[1] was heavily researched prior to filming. Do you honestly think they are going to risk an inaccurate source?

I trust very much, you have or will take the time to review the videos (especially on the one specifically targeted on this solely on the subject by John Culea, KFMB news San Diego). Guidelines in Wikipedia allows me to use Youtube as a convenience to simplify tracking back 30 years. These videos are solid as recognized newspaper stories. By the way, I have a front page story on the San Diego Union[2] about another story written based on a story reflected in the NBC broadcast video (that also happens to mention the color description) cited in my Wiki sandbox. The newspaper story is on the Video's main story involving the mafia and corruption on a different subject.

I very strongly insist you watch this video[3] and tell me I am doing original research. Explain to me the difference of how the sources of what I am trying to reference are trivialized. I am explaining, through reference and proper citations (of TV news stories) how this came about, just in case there was any question to the origin.

In Wikipedia's own article on St. Matthew and the Angel[4] The very first paragraph, last sentence, is now untrue. I have documents and empirical evidence to contest that (including a reference to published news stories). Should I go and edit and correct what is written currently in Wiki? The first sentence under the heading of COMPARISON is also similar and untrue. If the article cites journals and books, then they are inaccurate and need to be updated and corrected. Like the blind leading the blind. Don't you think it is incumbent for my efforts to correct and accurately finalize the truth throughout the art world about the subject noted and be individualized? I fear if I started to correct Wiki's pre-existing article, it may create a firestorm. I have a lot of citations. I would muddy things up.

What do think? You know, not all news sources are accurate no matter how credible the publisher (NYT WSJ etc.) Non-political, non-editorials, front page articles are constantly being updated or retracted. The truth boils done to some empirical source. I know, I publish a Photo Journal www.waveourflag.com about veterans. I know the media business. I am a professional photographer and expert in forensics. Wikipedia is a great starting source and as Wiki says, citation and reference. I have cited and reference this thing to death. I don't believe half of the editors bother to look at the news broadcast citation.

I am not angry just unclear about the guidelines of Wiki on how I am attempting to make things right. The finite rules to do anything in Wiki, I find most challenging but a learning experience. Respectfully, thank you for mentoring. B Baron 70.95.57.3 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, BARRY BARON. I read the article in the San Diego Union-Tribune and it does not discuss the color scheme of the painting that was destroyed in World War II. Instead, it discusses the missing reproduction of a stolen painting that your sister completed. Accordingly, it is worthless for establishing the notability of your draft article. Please do not waste my time having me read off-topic articles that fail to establish the notability of the topic of your draft.
You "very strongly insisted" that I watch that old TV interview with your sister, and I did watch it, as a courtesy to you. I need to inform you, though, that you have no right to insist that I do anything. I am a volunteer and I work on whatever I want on Wikipedia and ignore whatever I want and I am not your servant. That interview is not an acceptable source for establishing the notability of your family's theory about the color scheme of the destroyed painting. It should be obvious to pretty much everyone that a local TV anchor is not an art historian, and that particular TV piece is a human interest story and by no means a reliable source for an art history topic.
I watched that old video as you insisted, and in return, I expect you to read and study our policy forbidding original research, and read it over and over again until you actually understand it. There is nothing wrong with submitting original research to other venues, and academic researchers try to have such research published all the time and that is normal. But they do not publish their original research in Wikipedia. Instead, they publish this type of research in peer-reviewed journals of art history. It is forbidden to publish this type of research on Wikipedia, and that will remain true no matter how much determination you devote to the effort. So, go submit your family's original research to a reputable journal of art history and come back to discuss the matter once your article is published there.
As for the accuracy of sources like the New York Tomes and the Wall Street Journal, the reliability of any source needs to be judged in context, and for example, we reject newspapers like that for medical content and insist on review articles published in reputable medical journals instead. But those two newspapers are considered highly reliable for most uses, although we would greatly prefer articles or books written by recognized art historians for articles about Renaissance or Baroque paintings. Have any such art historians written about your family's theories? Or have any major newspapers and magazines with a reputation for accuracy regarding art history published such articles?
You claim that the sources now in the article are inaccurate yet you cite no reliable sources refuting those sources. Because you are not a professional art historian with academic credentials who has published articles about this topic and and neither am I, our personal opinions on the matter are utterly irrelevant. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to accurately summarize already published reliable sources. No more and no less. End of story. So, go publish elsewhere. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sofia Carson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sofia Carson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

High Noon and Die Hard

Lol, Dude you know that is the main reference and quote about High Noon in Die Hard. Should have just found the scene/quote on YouTube and put it in there yourself. Lol. But Ok I guess "Rules are rules". Still it's a bit pedantic to just plain revert it. Colliric (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not know that, Colliric. I have seen High Noon several times but have never seen Die Hard in full although I have seen some clips. Please read WP: Verifiability. It is the responsibility of editors who want to keep specific content to provide references. That is not pedantic. That one of the three core content policies that make this encyclopedia successful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Sustainability Initiative

The Sustainability Initiative

Hello Cullen328: An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 09:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal

You recently blocked 2600:1700:50D0:ECC0:8187:B24E:8969:FB4B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but have a look at the /64 and you'll see it's a much bigger and longer-term problem: 2600:1700:50D0:ECC0::0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AlanM1. I am at work now and am too busy to look at this in detail. Please report it to WP:AIV. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done here. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Adam Schiff's attempted collusion with Russia

Hi Cullen I was wondering why you deleted my work on Adam Schiff where I added his attempts to get nudie photos of Trump from the Russians? You said it was "POV-pushing". What point of view is that? I think we should leave it in there so we don't have someone make the mistake that we're letting our own political leanings get in the way of improving articles.99.50.80.96 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your claim that this incident constituted "attempted collusion" is original research on your part. The article in The Atlantic says no such thing, and Schiff says he reported the call to security and law enforcement both before and after it took place. Your use of the phrase "nudie photos" in this context is further evidence that you are pushing a point of view and trying hard to make Schiff look bad, as opposed to writing a rigorously neutral biography of this person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see how a prank call from two Russian radio hosts is an incident worthy of discussing in the biography of a nine term member of Congress who has been in elected office for 23 years. I consider the incident to be a triviality. These same radio hosts also pranked John McCain and Mitch McConnell. As far as I know, neither of those biographies mention those trivial incidents, and I would oppose adding it if anyone tried. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Dear Cullen. I would like to find out why you just reverted my submission on the administrator noticeboard. I am 100 percent not a sockpupert and want my unfair block to be lifted. I left several messages on my talk Loved150 after I was blocked by an admin based on an assumption. since all my messages on my talk have not been attended to, i logged out so I can post with my IP because I really honestly do not deserve to be treated as an outcast because an admin made an assumption to block me. please read through the message I shared and which you reverted on the administrator noticeboard 102.145.213.168 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

See Category:Requests for unblock where it is still active but you will only harm your chances by jumping around as an IP evading your block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
You are evading your block and engaging in sockpuppetry by editing as an IP while your account is blocked. That's a really bad idea. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear Berean Hunter and Cullen328 I just read your messages and submit my sensere apologies for editing while logged out. I will never do it again. I just felt having fallen into a misfortunate outcome as I am clearly not a sock and wanted someone to look into my issue. I ended up logging out to post as an IP which i should never have done. Your advises above are highly noted & I eill never again post as an IP, i will wait until someone unblocks me so I can edit with my account rather than posting to share again here as an IP. Thank you for the advise 102.145.213.168 (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
It appears that the master account is User:Ohmy45, and you should be requesting an unblock through that account. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Since you are around ...

... Any chance of you blocking Lumix Myself (talk · contribs) who is way over 3RR at Punjabi Shaikh and keeps blanking/commenting out notes/warnings on their talk page. There's a bit of commentary at User_talk:Bishonen#This_week's_best_rant. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Sitush. I did not know that you were from India but somebody told me so. Just kidding.

 Done Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Question for Sitush

Why are you asking someone to block me when I didn't do anything wrong? I simply said that I disagree with your edit you can't simply list Punjabi Shaikhs as people that are Indian. Shaikh is an Arabic name and majority it's diaspora expands to Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and some Middle-Eastern countries. Can you explain your reasoning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumix Myself (talk • contribs) 07:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Do not ask questions of Sitush on my talk page. I explained the reasons for your block on your talk page. In brief, you need to abandon your confrontational attitude. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"Citation needed" comment

Hello, thanks for being here for us! How does one add comments like "citation needed" and the like? I have not been able to figure that out. Thanks! Maiden of the lilies (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And how is an article marked as a disputed article? Maiden of the lilies (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Maiden of the lilies. Please see Template: Citation needed and Template: Disputed for the documentation, which explain the simple wikicode. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Have a great day! Maiden of the lilies (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW

The most recent block you did, you did not put a block notice on his talk page. Just letting you know.--TheWinRatHere! 16:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did, Thewinrat. Thanks for stopping by. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lal Vijay Shahdeo

Hi! I noticed you deleted this article as G10. I saw it before it was deleted, and while I know there was a lot of vandalism and BLP violations (which is why I requested protection) the article itself, when not vandalized, did not seem to me to be an attack page, and it had sources. I'm just wondering why you deleted it then. Thanks! Diamond Blizzard talk 17:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Diamond Blizzard. I probably should have taken a closer look. I will be happy to restore the article as a draft if you will clean it up. I will be busy off-Wikipedia for a few hours. Let me know. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I have some work, but I should be back in about an hour at the most. Then I can try to clean up the article for some time. Diamond Blizzard talk 18:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Diamond Blizzard. I am sorry to take so long to resolve this matter but my wife has been ill and I have been devoting my attention to her. I restored the article as a draft, reverted to what looks to me to be the last unvandalized version, and moved it back to article space as Lal Vijay Shahdeo. Can you please look it over and let me know if you see any problems? Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm back! Okay, so I looked over the article. It isn't an attack page anymore, thankfully. However, there are potentially some notability problems. The first two sources do focus on him in detail, but they both are from Times of India (even though it is first listed as IndiaTimes and timesofindia, but this could be a simple reference writing mistake). The third source seems to be his own company's website, so it isn't independent and can't establish notability by itself. The paragraph it is used as a source for may need some cleanup, although it isn't a direct copy or exceptionally promotional. The fourth source does seems to be okay, as it is about serials he is directing and mentions Shahdeo himself significantly. Most of the mentioned filmography does appear in the sources. However, it is true that there are no inbound links to this article, and none of the films have links. I'm not sure whether this means he is not notable. In general, it seems quite difficult to find sources, especially English sources, from a Google search on most Indian movies and shows. Some of the mentioned works do have Wikipedia articles, but those articles and this one just have no links to each other.
As for COI/promotion concerns (which are common in this type of article), there aren't that many, especially after the BLP violations were removed. One account called User:Lalvijayshahdeo made two edits to this article, but neither of them seem to be significantly a problem. From a quick look, I can't detect anyone else who seems so obviously connected with the subject in the article history. The creator is User:Dsp25, who may be connected to someone called Deepakk Sunil Prasadh, whose article was edited by this account, but as far as I can tell, Prasadh and Shahdeo are not connected beyond being Indian film directors. I'm not totally sure on what to do now, as I'm not really experienced on notability, especially in the Indian media area (which usually seems to have a lot of problems). Some possibilities: put links between the Wikipedia pages for the mentioned works and this page, use this source: http://jharkhandstatenews.com/article/top-stories/968/film-showing-naxal-problem-coming-soon/ which mentions Shahdeo in the article. Diamond Blizzard talk 20:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced/unconstructive

Jim, I ran across an editor (Mynameies) some time ago that had been creating unsourced and factually incorrect articles, and making unsourced edits despite repeated warnings from multiple users. In some cases I (and other editors) have simply done the work to source the articles, in some cases bots and speedies have taken care of the contributions, and in many cases I (and other editors) have simply reverted the additions. But the editor continues to log in occasionally and make unsourced BLP edits (e.g. [2] [3] [4]) and the occasional outright vandalism [5]. The many warnings on their talk page about these and other problem edits go unheeded. Would you mind taking a look? If not, no worries. Many thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bakazaka. This editor has only made eight edits this month and just two in recent days. Consider their edit to Eric Mabius. They changed the birthplace to East Texas, Pennsylvania and you reverted to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. But the reference says only Pennsylvania, so how do you know that Harrisburg is correct? Verifiability is a core content policy. I am not inclined to block at this time, and instead recommend more detailed attempts to engage on their talk page. If their editing gets really disruptive, let me know and I will take another look. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I left Harrisburg because it is consistent with a source cited elsewhere in the article. But I hear what you're saying. Thanks for taking a look. Bakazaka (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

I am sorry that I sent kitten messages to the Wikipedia editors who my disruptive behaviour has effected in the past with the message "I was origionally Frogger 48, I want to start off fresh from my past mistakes." Please forgive me. I just wanted them to know that I am sorry and I want to start off on the right foot. ABCD5798 (talk)

Trolling, NOTHERE or CIR? I'm not quite sure but I would support blocking. No improvement to anything on the project and messing about on peoples' talk pages. Not sure what the problem is but an evaluation of the edits is telling.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
ABCD5798, what are your plans to actually improve the encyclopedia? Or are you here just to fool around? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to help improve the encyclopedia. Sorry for my behaviour before. It won't happen again. ABCD5798 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Go improve some articles, then, and leave people alone. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
O.K. ABCD5798 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

You cited community exasperation with a certain editor's use of the F word in a recent block, but were you basing that exclusively on the then recently closed ANI thread? Because that evidence was tainted by the tendency of much of the community to assume all other factors remain equal, and they would have likely said something very different had they been assuming the editor who filed the report was a sock. Also (and I'm not sure how aware you are of these circumstances) the editor in question recently came off a three month self-block, as a result of exasperation with the community following another ANI thread that was closed because the OP was a sock troll, and there the community consensus was actually more to the effect that context matters and that the editor in question had the right to tell editors who were clearly harassing him to "F off", and a subsequent discussion at Talk:Civility came to the same conclusion, that context matters and that particular editor had been the victim, not the victimizer. (And I say this as someone who has been quietly, non-pushily, encouraging both that editor and another with similar problems to clean up their language for years.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor sandpaper damage to my thumb
Hello, Hijiri88. Your premise is incorrect. I did not block the editor in question for dropping F bombs, and cited no such exasperation about F words. I blocked them for 31 hours specifically for an edit summary that consisted of an allusion to sexual violence including a dildo, sandpaper and hot sauce. For what it is worth, I am a construction worker using power tools to earn my living and use sandpaper almost every day. I have a sandpaper abrasion on the base of my left thumb right now and certainly would not pour hot sauce on such a fresh wound, although I am a big fan of Tabasco sauce used properly in American cuisine. I even have a classic Tabasco sauce poster hanging near my kitchen. Maybe someday I will be able to visit Avery Island.
I consider allusions to sadistic sexual violence to be vastly more disruptive than tossing around the F bomb. I was a 1960s hippie and pretty much gave up using the F bomb when I was 17 years old because many of my foulmouthed buddies over-used it. As my 67th birthday approaches, I would not block any editor for dropping a big fat long string of F bombs, even though I consider that behavior immature, ineffective, counterproductive and a waste of electrons. But not blockable according to current community consensus.The troll and/or sock was blocked indefinitely and that was correct and proper. But even trolls and socks are human beings. They should be blocked, reverted and ignored, not subjected to graphic allusions of sexual violence. Nobody deserves that. Not even Charlie Manson. An indefinite block with almost zero hope of being unblocked is surely a more serious sanction than a 31 hour block. So, I stand by my block.
One thing that you (and anyone else interested) should know about me is that I am a man of relatively few words, but that, when I speak about something consequential, I have pondered and studied the situation for hours or days, and sometimes for weeks or months. Although I have slipped a few times, I think that it has been rare when I have hammered on an issue ad nauseum, repeating myself endlessly with minor variations for the thrill of seeing my words dominate a debate. That behavior is far too common on Wikipedia talk and project pages. Please do not mistake my laconic nature for a failure to do serious research. I am fully aware of the history of the editor I that blocked for 31 hours. Thank you.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Cullen. I won't thank you because I think 31 hrs is a short block, but I think you are a wise man because had you not acted, I think there would have been grounds for an immediate request for arbitration, as two turbulent ANI threads and one RfC is enough failed dispute resolution in my view. Your story was nice. My grandfather (RIP) was a construction worker, who was building the first nuclear power plants in Finland and who had permanent issues with his back and hearing because of the work. So that's certainly a warm feeling I got from it.--Pudeo (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, since you ask, I was actually close to a 72 hour block and had even typed out my block message that way. Then I took a look at the editor's block log and was a bit surprised that it was so short. That's when I decided on 31 hours instead.
I had been aware of the discussion previously that day but I was working for money off-Wikipedia and only had a few minutes to read. By the time I could sit down to study the matter, the other editor had been indeffed and the ANI discussion closed. But I did not consider the behavioral matter on the other side resolved, so that is why I issued the block.
Thank you for your kind words. My grandfather was a farmer/carpenter of Norwegian ancestry who helped build the massive Hanford plutonium processing facility in the state of Washington during World War II. He had no idea what the place was for, only that it was top secret. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Anyone interested including Pudeo can read Hanford Site for a description of where my grandfather worked during World War II. Since he was born in 1881, he would have been about 62 when he started working there about 1943. He was a product of rural Northern Idaho who had never met a black man before the war. He told my mother, the youngest of his seven children, who would have been 14 or 15 years old at that time, that he had learned that black war workers were just as hard working and just as patriotic as anyone else. I am proud that he was so open-minded. I knew him as a child and according to my memory, he was a genuine craftsman and a kind and loving man. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 10:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Article deletion and account absence problem

Hi Jim,

I am the "IP user" that wrote a message on the Teahouse on the same subject "Article deletion and account absence problem". I really appreciate your comments and quick response on my issue. Please, restore a draft of the article for its improvement. Also do not hesitate to add more comments about the content of the article to make it neutral and accepted.

Thank you! --Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Stanislav Lohvinenko. This material is now available at Draft:Modern Stochastics: Theory and Application for you to edit and improve. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jim, many thanks again for helping me out with the article. At first I was confused, because I could not find promotional phrases you mentioned in the Teahouse post - I have not noticed that you had deleted them. Again thanks for that. I have recently added a few more minor changes. Eventually I do not want to edit the article any more. So, I will appriciate your review of the draft and comments if it seems to be accepted by Wikipedia.Thank you! P.S.: just duplicating the message from my talk page.--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Stanislav Lohvinenko. I have submitted the draft for review. You can improve the draft while you are waiting for the review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Stanislav Lohvinenko, the draft is unreferenced at this time and will not be accepted without references. Please read Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Cullen328. Thank you for submitting the draft for review and your comments about references. I have not found information about this journal in other sources exept for scientific databases: Current Index to Statistics, Index Copernicus, zbMATH, Scilit, Directory of Open Access Journals, Publons. May these sources be added as references?--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Stanislav Lohvinenko. I have no experience writing articles about academic journals, but what I do know is that an unreferenced draft will be declined. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) and also fully developed Wikipedia articles about other well-known journals in this field or similar fields, and see how they are referenced. That should be helpful to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks!--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC)

Jim:

You are removing quotes from a primary source. Specifically, you are removing the 8-21-2017 "Reaffirmation of Objectives" from the UDC that explicitly states that the UDC opposes racism.

While the article cites at least two third party sources that accuse it of white supremacy it is only fair to include the UDC's denial of the charge. Exclusion of that denial leaves the reader with the impression that the UDC agrees with the charge, but it does not. If the organization endorsed white supremacy then it would not deny it.

The link below documents that the UDC opposes racism at its own website——a primary source.

https://hqudc.org/[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.253.34 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You must gain consensus on the article talk page. Reliable sources report that this group has been white supremacist since its founding. The article is about the entire history of this group, which has long glorified the enslavement of black people and cheered the Ku Klux Klan's terrorist activities for many years. Extremist groups routinely deny their own extremism. On Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources are preferred to primary sources from extremist groups. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Richard Spencer quotes him as saying he is not a White Supremacist, but instead favors the formation of an American White Ethnostate. In contrast, the UDC's denial of White Supremacy is not even acknowledge even though it is their official position. Nor have they stated a desire to form an American White Enthnostate as has Spencer. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.253.34 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia is going to permit Richard Spencer to deny that he is a White Supremacist, it is only fair to extend the same courtesy to the UDC. It is not as though I am suggesting that the opinions of the SPLC and James McPherson be deleted.

As I said previously, you need to gain consensus at Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy, which is the one and only proper place to discuss the content of the article. We cannot come to a consensus agreement here on my talk page. Please note that at Richard B. Spencer, there are currently four references to independent, secondary sources reporting on Spencer's denials that he is a white supremacist. Current references 3, 4, 5 and 6. Instead of proposing an edit based on UDC's own website, you should find comparable coverage of what UDC now says in independent, secondary sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not know how to go about getting a consensus at the UDC Talk page. This is all new to me.

However, I note that at least one of the Wikipedia's "Further Reading" sources does, in fact, cite the UDC's denial of racism. Thus, it presumably is a "reliable" source in the Wikipedia context.[7] If so, then the page should include the denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.253.34 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not know how to indent my comments. Can you tell me how to do that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.253.34 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

You gain consensus by proposing a well-referenced addition on the article talk page that is in full compliance with our policies and guidelines. I suggest that you begin by reading this post by an editor of the Encyclopedia Virginia. That's the proper approach to this topic. Experienced Wikipedia editors are likely to feel much the same way. You indent by beginning your comment with a colon ":". Adding more colons indents further. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gc_LgPlwyg&t=1s
  2. ^ https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/entertainment/visual-arts/sdut-caravaggio-nativity-reproduction-2016mar12-story.html
  3. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCqHeJetGZo
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Matthew_and_the_Angel
  5. ^ https://hqudc.org/
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer
  7. ^ https://www.thedailybeast.com/time-to-expose-the-women-still-celebrating-the-confederacy

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixing the Lal Vijay Shahdeo article

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I made some changes to this article. I cleaned up a particularly problematic paragraph and added wikilinks to those mentioned works that had Wikipedia pages on them. I did not add another source that I had mentioned previously, as I did not know whether it would fit into the article. I am creating a new header for this on your talk page as the old one seems to have been abandoned. Diamond Blizzard talk 17:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on that article, Diamond Blizzard. I do not have time to take a close look right now, but I will look later. Whenever an earlier conversation has been archived, please feel free to open a new thread at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

...that I invoked your words at SMC's user talk page in the ANI discussion - you are indeed a voice of reason. I think I shall stay away from further discussion in the interest of not increasing my blood pressure, for I can't really handle the victim blaming discourse. Have a good rest of Friday! --bonadea contributions talk 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea, you can quote me any time you want. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Note-x

In reference to: Special:Diff/885703726#Transphobic_rant

I would to inform you (in a transparent way) of this conversation. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MattLongCT. I was aware of that conversation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, just making sure. My apologies :) ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 21:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"Repetitiveness"

If you don't like deletion debates, don't read them. When 50+ people are canvassed by someone, with blatant lies about transphobia, to multiple different deletion discussions, you can expect some of the resulting material to repeat the same points, since people are going to inject the same knee-jerk !votes based on the lies the canvasser told them, and the rebuttal points are necessarily going to amount to the same counter-arguments. If you think I enjoy having to do that, you're quite mistaken. But the Signpost editor is busy fighting a bogus ANI, and its editor-in-chief has essentially refused to engage other than for a short quip, so there is no one involved to argue the other side but myself, which obviously results in my sig coming up more frequently that either of us would like. Let's see how you react next time someone canvasses up a really nasty campaign against you personally. How will you like to be told to just shut up?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

In my ten years of editing here, I have never once engaged in such a bizarre spate of repeating myself over and over and over again. But then again, I have never set out on a deliberate campaign to infuriate people. You must certainly see your own behavior as useful and/or righteous. I am sorry but I do not share your assessment. Please make no further attempts to try to convince me. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Can I request you to delete the article User:Sons of Antiochus VIII? It is an accidental user page I made when trying to create a Wikipedia article. Векочел (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Possibly the request for deletion is just this redirect. There is no crisis or hurry. MPS1992 (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Векочел. I deleted the redirect for you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_60&oldid=891469268"