User talk:Cullen328/Archive 62

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

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

http://laroucheplanet.info

Hi Cullen328. You mentioned that this website does not meet the wikipedia standards for a reference. I agree it is self-serving, odd, biased and unreliable in its assertions, and should not be used as if it were independent NPOV attestation of facts. However, that is not why or how I was referencing it as: I referenced it to demonstrate that the things I was saying that LaRouche(et al) did in fact say what I claimed: it is primary evidence not an independent reference. In the same way that an article on Mein Kampf might include quotes from it, or an article on Hitler might include a reference to an online version of Mein Kampf, without in doing so endorsing or seeking to promote. (The added difficulty with the LaRoucheans is that although they bignote themselves, and their ideas are very influential on the renascent fringe, the ideas are rarely quoted or discussed by anyone serious or independent; I have no intention of linking to a site called Storm Front to demonstrate that there are non-LaRouchean references to some idea, as you will appreciate.)

So I wonder if I am mistaking putting primary evidence as a reference, where your comment assumes a reference will only be to respectable commentary, more or less NPOV. Maybe a big fat "CONTESTED" is appropriate. What is the Wikipedia approach for this? I could not see a clear answer.

Thanks for taking the time to look at the edits; I hope that an anti-LaRouchean as well as a LaRouchean will consider them historically correct, even if they would spin events and characterizations differently. My hope was to balance the scatty historical material with more thematic material, because I think LaRouche has been tremendously influential not just for people who buy into his conspiracy theories and "energy-flux density" teleology, but also those who pass on half-baked versions of the fully-baked madness... LaRouche as a generator of conspiracy theories will disappear, but many of his ideas will continue haunting our politics, cherry-picked by this and that anti-establishment faction. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Rick Jelliffe.That website is an advocacy blog and simply not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. Please read WP:BLOG and discuss the source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you disagree with my interpretation. Stormfront is also unacceptable for obvious reasons. Wikipedia editors cannot cherrypick quotes out of Mein Kampf. You are wrong about that. If a historian who is an expert on the rise of Hitler discusses a passage in Mein Kampf, then we can mention that historian's interpretation of the passage, and quote it while citing the historian. LaRouche and his cult and his theories have been discussed extensively in actual reliable sources for 50 years, at least since the Columbia University protests in 1968. Summarize reliable sources only, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the comment. So you are saying that Wikipedia cannot contain references to primary sources? Which are intrinsically "unreliable"?? I will read more, because this makes no sense to me at all: an article on the Bible should not reference a Bible, an article on a poem should not have a reference to that poem, etc. And, to be specific, his key concept of energy-flux density has simply not been discussed widely: show me where, please and I will happily use that as a reference.

Now in particular, I draw your attention to three things in the pagemWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard:

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. I believe it does.

Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. So specific facts *may* be taken from primary sources, e.g. in this case where there are no viable secondary sources (apart from StormFront etc).

To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. So for quotes, primary sources (even horrible ones) *are* best. It goes on to make the distinction between quotation and analysis, which is what I think I am following (however imperfectly): Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source I think I have not done analysis, e.g. to say LaRouche's claims to discuss why energy-flux density is a ludicrous or credible idea. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, Rick Jelliffe. No, I am not saying that Wikipedia cannot contain refererences to primary sources, as long as the material is uncontroversial and not self serving. So, it is OK to use a company website for the name of the current CEO and the headquarters city, but not for claims of the CEO's brilliant leadership. It is OK to use an actor's website for the city where they were born and the high school they graduated from, but not for claims of their incandescent talent. However, it is not OK in my judgment to use an advocacy blog for coverage of an extremely controversial political movement. Your point about quotes is not relevant here since the website in question is an anti-LaRouche blog, not a LaRouche controlled site.

Articles about Biblical topics should rely on the interpretations of modern biblical scholars not on one of many varying translations of the Bible. Articles about poems should rely on the critical analysis of literary scholars, not on the text of the poem. Articles about the LaRouche movement should rely on the interpretations of published reliable secondary sources which are independent of the LaRouche movement, not on advocacy blogs.

Again, I urge you to file a report about this specific source at WP:RSN. That is the appropriate forum to determine consensus on this issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Vandalizing wikipedia

Hello Cullen328, I'm sorry for the trouble I caused in Wikipedia, I promise not to vandalize things again, Thanks for welcoming me back. I was wrong to attack you and other editors. I'm really sorry for that. Oreratile1207 (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Oreratile1207. Please clean up the mess that you made at Sound Sultan. Those bare URLs are ugly and a table looks malformatted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Messing sound sultan

Fine, okay Oreratile1207 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Olivia Jade

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Olivia Jade. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 07:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I've responded, Doug Weller. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Can't locate your message...

Hello Cullen328, I received a notification of a message but silly me I can seem to figure out what it is... Can you help direct me please? Thank you!LorriBrown (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, LorriBrown. I did not leave a message. I simply corrected a minor wikicode error on your talk page that prevented a section header from displaying properly. Good work on Joan Almond, by the way. I have written several biographies of photographers myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328. Thank you! That is a high complement coming from you for sure. :- )LorriBrown (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:Arint and his edits on PewDiePie vs T-Series and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PewDiePie vs T-Series (2nd nomination)

Hi Cullen328. If all the issues are resolved for now, would it be a good idea to close the discussion? Regards, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Optakeover. It is best to wait for an uninvolved editor to decide that the discussion is over, and to close it. There should be no rush to close discussions, in my opinion. Other editors may have insights to offer about the situation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Do

you know of any active editor, fluent in both English and Spanish? ∯WBG^converse 20:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, Winged Blades of Godric, the one I knew best has retired. Take a look at Category:User es. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course, Jim means this link, but I am surprised no-one has an easy fix for this problem yet? We just need a search function for a user in that category who has edited within the last week, and also is a member of the equivalent User_en category. Simples? MPS1992 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, MPS1992. Yes, I imagine that somebody could write a tool that would identify currently active editors who claim to be fluent in a given language. However, I am an encyclopedia editor not a 21st century certified code monkey. My programming was limited to a bit of Punched card COBOL mainframe business management work plus writing educational programs in Microsoft BASIC for operation on a TRS-80. This was work I did as a college student roughly 40 years ago, so I have fallen behind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

4kb DRAM, cassette tapes, punch cards.....; bygone golden days:-)

Whilst intersecting categories is easily doable, there does not exist any category of users who have edited in the last week. This can be done externally though; will spare some time later. ∯WBG^converse 15:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, Alexf? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Did not know that Alex was a Spanish speaker:-( I have emailed Nihlus in the meanwhile. Let's see:-) ∯WBG^converse 15:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Alguien llamó? (You rang? -- Insert Lurch impersonation here). -- Alexf^(talk) 19:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

other users with same name

Jim, thanks for the quick and edifying response. so, i normally use the name "bruce hyman", sometimes strung together without the space. when i tried to use this as my wikipedia username, it was rejected. i then tried my amazon username "sophocles", which was also rejected. however, afaik, neither name is actually in use by a wikipedia user. i dont really object to using my middle initial, it's just not my norm... so this is not a massively important thread, just a minor curiosity. again, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucefhyman (talk • contribs) 01:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Brucefhyman. I see that you are not too fond of capital letters, like e.e. cummings and k.d. laing. However, for technical reasons, Wikipedia usernames must start with an uppercase letter. Therefore, neither "bruce hyman" nor "sophocles" are valid usernames. However, there is a registered User: Bruce Hyman who made one edit in 2009 and also User:Sophocles exists, who made two edits in 2005. You may find Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to be interesting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Finney Ross

Thank you Jim for your reply!

I've been told it is all archived (whatever that means). It has been a very long time. I took screen shots of everything. I'll be happy to send those to whomever would like to see them if I can figure out how to. Best, Todd DavisVintagedirtbiker (talk) 03:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Vintagedirtbiker, please furnish the usernames of the adminstrators who abused you, in your opinion. Forget the screenshots. We work with diffs, as has already been explained to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again Jim! I will try my best to understand how to use the "DIFF". As explained previously I suffer from Aphasia which makes comprehension very difficult. It will take me some time to go though all the screen shots to get the names and then to try and use the "Diff" you instructed me to.

I do appreciate your patience and courtesy!

Best, Todd DavisVintagedirtbiker (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Vintagedirtbiker, if you have a disability, then just focus on the usernames of the adminstrators who abused you. Any experienced editor can track it down if you just give us the usernames. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Yushancun Cable Car Aerial Tramway entry

Hi Cullen

Thanks for your advice on my entry for the remote Yushancun Cable Car in Hubei Province, China.

I have removed the Daily Mail as a source which is fine as many regard their style of news as tabloid journalism where stories emphasize the sensational and as you note they referred to the tramway as a zip line.

So if there are no sources to reference then what should be removed from my description? I only have 2 paragraphs that describe elements of the Yushancun Ropeway that are essentially self evident. I can remove the "650 meter span" and the "350 meters above" but after that what else would need to be removed that is not self evident?

My area of expertise in China is high bridges of which I update the world's highest bridges Wiki page every year since China now has more then 60 of the world's 100 highest bridges and they are largely hidden from Western media but I also thought two of China's most unknown tramways that rank among the 10 highest tramways in the world should be known to those who enjoy the Aerial Tramways Wiki group.

If the paragraphs of the Yushancun Cable Car are whittled to nothing I fear this entry will be just a title and a few photos but I guess that can be good enough for those Aerial Tramway fans who come across the entry page.

Thanks,

Eric

Hello, HighestBridges. You can use Chinese language sources but the article must be based on reliable published sources. As discussed previously, original research is contrary to policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A desktop is big and expensive?

You commented on The Teahouse that "desktop version" implies you need a "big expensive heavy computer". Actually, my desktop was cheap. My first one did cost as much as a smartphone (I don't think there were smartphones then) but the second one was cheap in every sense of the word.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Expensive" is in the eyes of the beholder, Vchimpanzee. What I was trying to convey is that when most people see "desktop", they think it will not work on a smartphone. It does. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understood. I just wanted to point out a desktop can be cheap.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:53, 4 May 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, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

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

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Cameron11598. I have implemented the other security recommendations but do not feel comfortable with 2FA at this time. I found the original message a bit disconcerting and really appreciate this new message. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, thats understandable. But if you have any specific questions about 2FA I currently use it and would be happy to provide any answers I can. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Hypersensitive

While you're right that GM was wrong to mock in this instance, there is little doubt that the person he was mocking is hypersensitive, drama-seeking and hypocritical. I really do not understand why we tolerate their rants, nor why if they are so concerned about their safety and privacy etc they feel it is a good idea to post things anywhere on the web, be it Wikipedia or somewhere else: once it is out there, it is out there and the trolls, tunnel-visioned etc will not let it go. I've tried to explain this in the past but they won't have it and keep carping on about historic things (and slandering other people): every time, for example, the 2010 affair is raised by them, some new contributor is going to think "what was that?" and start digging. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment of the situation, Sitush. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Block/Ban

Cullen, Please go ahead and block/ban me please. Thank you.

Hello Coherbia. If the vandalism has stopped, I am not going to block you. Please consider editing productively or just abandon this account. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

young user and personal details

Please could you take a look at User:AlexCruz289 - I think some of the personal details should be redacted. thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As you probably know by now, Theroadislong, an oversighter redacted it before I could investigate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes thank you, is there a preferred way to report these issues when they arise? Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to look at the various administrative noticeboards such as WP:ANI, WP:AN, WP:AIV and WP:UAA, find an administrator who is currently active, and reach out directly to that person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

To be clear: use these boards only to find an admin to contact privately -- don't post on such boards, which draws more attention to that which should remain hidden. The top of WP:ANI has handy reminders on what to do. E Eng 14:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Theroadislong: Another thing which sometimes works is to email Wikipedia:Oversight per WP:BLPPRIVACY to let an OVERSITER know and then follow up by adding links to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion or even WP:UPYES if the content ends up being redacted to try and explain why it was removed. Not everyone claiming to be nine years old on their user page is nine years old, but providing more info just in case can be helpful and may help stop them from simply re-adding it again (which seems to might have been the case here). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm back!!! Nice try!!! -- AlexCruz289 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@AlexCruz289: welcome back. Please be aware that the other editors here are only trying to help you. They do not want you to get into trouble. Some other editors who are less friendly or less understanding, say mean things about contacting police or other authorities. That would be silly, so I hope they don't do that. But, perhaps you would find Wikipedia more fun to edit when you are a few years older? Maybe ask your parents what they think. MPS1992 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations, MPS1992. This user needs to seriously consider whether they are mature enough and properly prepared to edit Wikipedia productively. AlexCruz289, I am more lenient than many other editors about very young people contributing to this project. I believe that every editor should be judged only on how well their contributions align with our policies and guidelines. That is why I am concerned about the various warnings and negative comments expressed by others on your talk page. If you choose to continue editing, do so cautiously and carefully. If I see future disruptive editing by you, I will block you. Please take my warning seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen328. Please see this for a warning I left for Alex a while back after having to suppress several edits on multiple occasions. AlexCruz289, the warning still stands, by the way. —DoRD (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the conversation, DoRD. I appreciate your input. AlexCruz289, take these various warnings seriously, please. You are skating on thin ice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Juan Guaidó

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Juan Guaidó. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd like you to do some admin stuff please.

In re this. I see you've dealt with him before. I'm thinking CIR. He's only 11, has been here 6 months and has been blocked multiple times. Enough. John from Idegon (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked him several times before, John from Idegon, so am not averse to blocking if needed. But I do not see any specific and recent disruption that rises to the level of an indef. Please keep me posted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @John from Idegon: They apparently spent part of their last block making the same type and quality of edits under a different account (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oreratile1207/Archive), so it's not like it actually stops them anyway. Bakazaka (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

John from Idegon and Bakazaka, you have convinced me. I have blocked indefinitely. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just old school but an 11 year old spending that much unsupervised time on a computer seems like an issue for the authorities. John from Idegon (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern, John from Idegon, but editing productively as an 11 year old is of no concern. It is the disruption that matters, and in this case, the evidence of sockpuppetry while blocked was the determining factor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long: Kopano01, with some similar interests and the most obvious possible first edit. Bakazaka (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Reported at SPI, here. John from Idegon (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

And back again as Ratiboy02. Bakazaka (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Latest SPI here. Bakazaka (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bakazaka, I have indeffed this latest incarnation. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lady Louise Windsor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jim, can we talk about hounding of new members?

You responded to me on Binksternet's talk page about expecting users to provide references.

This was in relation to an edit war on the Japanese internment page where users were removing the name of the General who was leader and planner of the internment.

The user clearly states the information is already cited, and a quick review shows that indeed it is. The reports from 1943 and 1944 and the Supreme court case source all show him as the leader and planner of the internment. Yet it was repeatedly removed and nobody bothered to check.

This and several example were posted as proof of disruptive editing when in fact it was the other users being disruptive and the new users were simply attempting to correct very clear disruptive edits to articles. This is incredibly discouraging to new users when this happens and they are brow beaten and accused of breaking the rules when they are actually trying to help.

In a second example an edit war broke out on the Albert Speer page because an admin was posting a source that clearly claims to be able to read the thoughts of historical figures. This can be confirmed by googling the book, as its publicly available. The source does indeed claim to be able to read the thoughts and cites this as proof. This is clearly not a valid source, yet the member was punished and then temp banned for pointing out the behavior of the admin.

This is incredibly discouraging to new users when nobody will even read their responses before ignoring them and making unfounded statements against them.

Hello, IP editor. I do not know what you mean by "new members". Wikipedia does not have members. As for hounding, that is a serious allegation that requires solid evidence but you have not provided any evidence at all. You mention a user but do not provide a user name. You mention a general but do not provide the general's name. You mention a Supreme Court case but do not provide the name of the case. You do not even provide a link to the specific article that you are talking about. You report unfair conversations but provide no links to those conversations. You claim that a source used in the Albert Speer article is based on "mind reading" but fail to provide any links to reviews of the source in published reliable sources that accuse the author of mind reading. You do not even provide the title of the source or the name of the author. It is mystifying to me why you take the time to post this vague, unsupported list of complaints on my talk page. The point that I was trying to make on Binksternet's talk page is that Wikipedia editors are expected to provide links to reliable sources in support of the arguments that they are making, and to conduct their discussions with clarity rather than vagueness. If you think a certain published source is unacceptable because its author engaged in "mind reading", then go to the Reliable sources noticeboard with published evidence from respected critics and historians that conclude that this source is not reliable for the assertions. Do not bother to base your critique on your own personal opinions because that is not how Wikipedia works. We reject all forms of unpublished original research carried out by Wikipedia editors. Your failure to provide specific names and links makes it impossible for me to evaluate your concerns any further at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, at the back of my mind, I know who this is - it's an evading blocked or banned editor. But I just can't remember who it is at the moment. I'll let you know if it comes to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Got it, see User talk:DbivansMCMLXXXVI and this ANI discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

And now see User talk:2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see WP:AN#DbivansMCMLXXXVI community ban? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Guestbook

Hi, Just wondering if you wanted to sign my Guestbook, which is located on my User Page

many thanks,

- JJBullet (Talk) 13:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page. UI agree with your about FDR, and to a large extent about Obama. However, I disagree that the opening section of the article on Trump should characterize him as a pathological liar and racist. That is way over the top. JohnTopShelf (Talk)14:15, May 21, 2019 (UTC)

JohnTopShelf, where does it say that? I don't find it. BTW, RS do describe him that way and we have a whole article about his notorious and well-documented antagonistic relationship to truth right here Veracity of statements by Donald Trump‎. This quote is a pretty good summary of the situation: "The president is possibly the single most unreliable source for any claim of fact ever to grace the pages of WP." -- MPants 04:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Like the worst blacklisted sources here, Trump is only reliable for his own opinions, never for facts, and he often denies and reverses his own statements to gain points with his base. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Have a nice day! JohnTopShelf (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Reference Desks

Hi Cullen. At the Language Reference Desk on 30 May you wrote “Can you define pedantic dogmatism? You seem good at it.” Please read Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#Content and tone. In particular, please read the third paragraph, the one beginning “Questions usually attract more than one answer ...” The third paragraph makes a number of valuable recommendations and, with the greatest respect, your edit quoted above appears to me to disregard them all.

Please familiarise yourself with the Ref Desk Guidelines and either observe them or go to the appropriate forum and argue your case for changing them. Happy editing. Dolphin (t) 13:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Dolphin51. I will try to be less snarky. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Air Force Amy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Air Force Amy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Shut this down?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll#Shut this down?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Pheasants (wank and otherwise)

Just to let you know, the bit with you being called a pheasant by the Reddit types was a reference to an incident on an episode of WWE Raw a couple years back when, at a taping in England, someone showed up with--and got on camera--a sign reading "Roman is a Wank Pheasant." Nobody really seems to have any clue what the hell a wank pheasant actually is, but the wording (plus getting it on television right next to Reigns as he made his through-the-crowd entrance) made people laugh enough for it to have gone memetic among wrestling fans. Don't be shocked if someone calls you a plank next, since Becky Lynch made that the latest big meme after calling an opponent a "total plank" in a similarly non-sequitur promo recently... rdfox 76 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the insider information, Rdfox 76. Very amusing. I stopped watching professional wrestling about 55 years ago, so I am behind the times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GoodWeave logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GoodWeave logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

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

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback on Boogaloo dance article

Hi Cullen328!

Thanks so much for taking the time to review my article. I was initially thinking of re-editing the Electric Boogaloo article, most of the research I've read says Electric Boogaloo added new elements to the previous Boogaloo dance style I am writing about, and current Electric Boogaloo references do not mention the Bay Area dance phenomenon, so I am seeking to bridge this gap based on research available. Being from the Bay Area, do you remember seeing this dance phenomenon in the late 60's/early 70s? I would love to check out any coverage of reliable sources you might recommend!

Re: internet accessibility, I am culling research from published books, magazine articles. The most accessible sources would be recent public radio coverage. Would you have examples of accessible reliable resources? I can also find recent media outlets and scholars who have written about this topic. The topic on Boogaloo done in Oakland is found on YouTube pages but I've read Youtube videos are not reliable sources, are there any exceptions? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatisOne (talk • contribs) 07:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, PatisOne. Please try to get into the habit of signing your talk page posts. Don't rely on robots to do so for you. I truly do not know whether "Boogaloo" and "Electric boogaloo" are sufficiently different topics to have separate articles. My knowledge of the differences between dance genres could easily be written on a 3X5 card although I do recognize the terminology. What I do know is that is far better to have one good comprehensive article about a topic than two poorly written and poorly referenced articles about the same general topic. Such a process of improvement might involve a new, broader title for the article, deleting "Electric" for example. I am not trying to prejudge an outcome since my expertise is limited. Instead, I am trying to suggest a productive way forward. In the end, summarizing what the best reliable sources say is our goal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Spanish supercentenarians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Spanish supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John from Idegon (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, John from Idegon. I have replied. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of German supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A star

		The Civility Barnstar
		Keep up the great work! Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 20:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Lubbad85. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

UPOL

Hi, Cullen! Would you be willing to reconsider your block of this user? I know UPOL is somewhat vague (I often question things while doing ACC) and I tend to be on the side of "block and as questions later" but I really do not think that this is a upol violation, though I welcome your opinion on this. Duncan Foster isn't notable or well known as a unique name. The editor in question has made only two edits, both of which are to talk pages seeking help or instruction and 3 months apart. I also don't believe that a mere mention on an article is suitable to say that it qualifies under any of the relevant policies and it's also generic enough that WP:REALNAME isn't really applicable. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Praxidicae. I am sorry but I disagree with your interpretation. The editor is claiming that he is a film/TV director (which seems likely) but there is a significant enough risk of impersonation that I believe it is appropriate for the editor to confirm their identity by email. I will not object if another administrator disagrees with me and unblocks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Robotics and Visual servo

Hi Jim, not meaning to be aggressive but I'm genuinely confused. Several articles now have prominent COI banners which I don't see as warranted.

Visual servoing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a *major* contribution by me (but I do have a close connection with the subject). I see only 3 edits by myself, in total I added 1 reference to myself, 3 to others, and 1 to a no longer existent 2004 workshop paper collection which I can no longer recall the authorship of. This seems in the spirit of wikipedia. Yet the banner which went on today is apparently related to my behaviour, and this seems out of all proportion. Most of the references to my work were placed there by others. I also don't see that I made a major contribution to the page. The bulk of it is by user Arbusmar.
WP:SELFCITE, I don't understand this. Is it a guideline or is it something I put in the page? I'm struggling with the documentation here.
Robotics Toolbox for MATLAB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), can you provide guidance on that issue as well?

Hello, Peter.corke. As for the COI banners, discuss them on the article talk pages and with the editors who tagged the articles. I am sorry if the backlash against your edits is excessive, but conflict of interest is a major problem on Wikipedia, and some editors specialize in fighting it. WP:SELFCITE is a subsection of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is a behavioral guideline. Just do your best to follow that advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism

DDB9000 (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Hello Jim,

First sorry for taking so long to respond. I was in the other room watching a TV show. The small TV next to my desktop computer died a little while ago, do I can't do both at the same time.

First of all the bot may not like 'did cut' but for the "Low Spark" page, THAT WASN'T ME. That was what was there before - I changed (or rather tried to) to make it say something similar to what is said (again, not by me) on the "Shoot Out" page... " Like its predecessor, the original jacket for the Shoot Out LP had its top right and bottom left corners clipped"

What I said on the "Low Spark" page was that the cover had its top right and bottom left corners clipped, and that the image gives the effect of looking like a three-dimensional cube. That page has now reverted to the "die cut" version, so that can't be the reason. I specifically changed it because the cover does not really meet the definition of die cut as that generally means there are holes cut into the cover - like The Rolling Stones' "Some Girls"

I think that it must be that I made so many changes, by making continual errors, saving and then going back to edit, and then saving, and, well... rinse and repeat.

As for references, well many them are right in the next room where I have all the LPs, and many CDs and singles and other stuff. I have been collecting records since the late 1960s and I have original UK pressings of all the original Traffic albums, except the 2nd (eponymous) album, of which I have a rare Canadian first pressing.

Of course, I do know about Discogs, I'm there all the time, but when I look at some of these pages I don't others stating where they got their info from. Speaking of which, I just looked and nowhere on the "Low Spark" main page is the cover configuration mentioned. Nor is it mentioned on the main page for "Shoot Out" except in a comment. If you go to the South African versions of those albums, those pages DO point out that the covers are NOT cut.

In other changes I made, I added info, like the fact that original UK and some European versions of "The Low Spark of High-Heeled Boys" << have a hyphen in the name of the album and song on the labels, while the actual names do not. Again, nowhere does Discogs say that, and other than checking each version's pics, you wouldn't know that. Am I expected to post links to each of those labels as proof?

On the page for "When The Eagle Flies" I added that the album (previously listed as only being on Island) was released on Asylum in the US and Canada. This was the result of a deal between Island where they let Asylum for the US, and Island got Bob Dylan for the UK. I added that note. I don't believe I can find a link to a story on the net from 1974 about that.

I guess what I'm saying is that many of these thing to me are just things I know are true cause they are on my shelves.

When a recent box set of Traffic LPs was released I communicated with another collector about an issue with a mono UK version of the 2nd album that nobody's ever seen. Finding proof that it never existed. I fixed that info on the page a few weeks ago, but not signed in at the time.

I have looked at the pages that I painstaking fixed that have mostly reverted, and in virtually all of then, the previous info from others (like the 'die cut') do not have any references links to them at all. Not to be picky, if all these others have been getting away with no proof, why should bear the burden of having to look up things I know my heart?

I AM PROUD of the changes I made as I want Wikipedia to have the best and most correct info as can be. If people, not bots, actually read what I wrote as opposed to what was there, they could see how much better I made the pages. Now, I feel like the whole concept of Wikipedia has been lost by the powers than want to ban.

David

Hello, DDB9000. Bots are absolutely necessary to protect the encylopedia against vandalism although as I said earlier, they are not 100% effective. I regret that the bot made a mistake in your case. I tried to give you a plausible explanation of what happened and explain the importance of references to you. I understand that you are a serious collector but the content you add to Wikipedia needs to be properly referenced. It is a process of continuous improvement. If you see other unreferenced content, consider adding a reference. No administrator wants to block or ban editors. We do it only when it is necessary to prevent disruption to the encylopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The policy that drives the need for references is Verifiability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock?

Just noticed a new editor pop up on Jewel Changi Airport. Newly created account and hitting some familiar pages. Any suspicions that User:A339 could be a sock of User:Ineedtostopforgetting whom you have blocked a couple of times recently? Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I knew you would pop up again. You just love following me around do you? Yes, it's another account of mine. I initially forgot the password for this account, which is why I created a new one. However, I've managed to remember it and have returned to editing on my main account. I assume 'sock' means 'sock puppetry', so I took a look at the article for it. So let me say something, The account was made at a time while this account was unblocked, so I'm not evading a block. (an admin can check this) I'm not using that account for edit warring (you can see the edits), or avoiding 'detection' since admins can check IPs anyway, being disruptive/problematic, violate community standards or policies, being biased in my edits to support my edits on this account, creating an illusion of support, trying to sway opinion to another side and finally trying to distort consensus. So this is my explaination, I'm not misleading nor deceiving anyone either. Thanks. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ineedtostopforgetting, and welcome back from your retirement. Please declare your alternate accounts on your user page. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

Hello, could you please explain why you reverted my edit on Chelsea Manning's page? The only explanation you gave was that it was "unnecessary" but I disagree. "Female gender identity" is inaccurate because female is a sex, not a gender. This causes confusion, which is why I felt the quotation marks and note of clarification were necessary. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Abbyjjjj96. Please discuss this matter at Talk: Chelsea Manning and gain consensus for your change there. Please also note that Gender states in the lead paragraph: "Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation)" I understand the distinction made by John Money and those he influenced in the social sciences, but this is a biography reporting on the person's claims not an article about those distinctions from a social science perspective. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)