User talk:Cullen328/Archive 69

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 ← Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 → Archive 75

Dr. William Longshaw

I read the J.D. Gateway United States Naval Medical Bulletin January 1913, where it is written that my cousin was born in Manchester, Virginia. This is false information. I have proof that my cousin was born in Manchester, England and came to the States as a 5 year old boy. It is the 1841 census of Manchester England. How do I upload the 1841 Census that gives proof that he was born in England? I am frustrated to say the least.

Mrs. Lorraine Longshaw Harrietha Ontario Canada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longshaw (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As I have told you several times previously, Longshaw, the proper place to discuss this matter is Talk:William Longshaw Jr. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Have Brought Attention to the White Supremacist Agenda being Pushed on Wiki, but I Need to Prove it’s Racist?

There is an article on here called White Ethnic with comments dating all the way back to 2009 that discuss its racist nature.

I’ve made multiple attempts to improve the page grammatically, in terms of diction, correcting obvious logical fallacies, correcting claims about religions and individuals that I know to be fallacious, and by limiting its claims to only what is cited.

However, I’m told this article is “noteworthy,” and that I must prove the racism of an article that is not to Wikipedia’s standards from the gate.

There is always discussion. Hitler also had books published, and indeed his works had a very vile and racist agenda. Noteworthy?

Arguably so, but that does not mean he should be given space in Wikipedia without being tagged or flagged in some way that denotes (very early and visibly for any reader) that he was and his ideas were very racist and existed with an intent to do harm to others.

Why is this article still in existence after over a decade of editors commenting on its racist nature? There is no way to improve an article on a nonsensical theory with conflicting definitions that originated only to push white supremacist agenda.

That is the link, by the way. The concept of race is a societal construct with no basis in science, notably Biology, and should be noted as such everywhere. (This was already supported via citation in Teahouse and is supported by evidence found in the sequencing of human DNA, which is a relatively recent scientific undertaking.)

In particular, the concept of races within the “caucasian” race dates back to Hitler, who broke down the “white race” into distinct “races” on the basis of width of nose, color of eyes, color of hair, and even stature. This is noted on other Wikipedia pages discussing terms that resulted from white supremacist philosophies and agendas, but here there is no acknowledgement of it in addition to the article being below bar.

What is the stance on quality of a source within Wikipedia? Could I cite Mein Kampf and have whatever it claims considered valid and also noteworthy because it’s a published work that exists in print and online?

I’m not just running to the most extreme example, sorry. I know people often do that, especially with Hitler. I’ve the most familiarity with Hitler as a point of comparison, as German Language & Culture was my minor in college.

Can I cite an article that is an opinion piece within a publication political scientists classify as far right but have it taken as a reasonable source for an encyclopedia?

Can I cite myself as an educated individual who studied German Language & Culture from the age of 14 and has (unrelated besides a minor) educational credentials? If I publish an article online somewhere?

If it requires further explanation to make it clear that the concept of white ethnicity is a fallacious one, I can provide that with a long list of sources. It’s discredited in biological science, and it’s been discredited by historians who will tell that it’s sole purpose as a concept has always been to create perceived divisions that “justified” slavery and other class divisions as well as tracing when its use as a term began in particular societies.

My own ancestors would have been “white ethnics” as it’s defined by most its users, so I’ve certainly no personal motive to rail against this page. Objectively, it just has no validity unless being discussed as propaganda for certain vile agendas. Kitkat9311 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be disingenuous to say all of your changes are grammatical in nature. in fact you removed a sourced portion in that reading "These cultural and religious differences helped them retain a strong and separate identity from the rest of America." Some of the changes are fine, removing sourced material without due reason or discussion on talkpage less so. [[1]] is the edit that blends grammer and content changes, let me explain a little further. Your experience with Mike Pence is irrelevant. For us it is considered unreliable testimonial. If you can find a reliable source to replace the one that is on the info you took out you'd have less of a problem. Still would need to discuss on talkpage though. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Kitkat9311, as I have told you previously, the proper place to discuss the shortcomings of this article is Talk: White ethnic. That is where you can gain consensus for any changes. Not here.
Of course, Hitler's major works such as Mein Kampf are notable. This is an encyclopedia of all notable topics, not just the positive ones. But just because a source is notable does not mean that it is reliable. Understanding the difference is important for a Wikipedia editor. We cite reliable sources in Wikipedia articles, not notable sources that are unreliable. We do not cite Weekly World News, for example.
Wikipedia editors do not care very much about your educational background. How can we verify that? What matters here is the quality of your edits, and how well they comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There are high school students who are very good editors and folks with PhD degrees who fail because they adopt a "know it all" approach in a collaborative project based on consensus building.
You can cite yourself only if your work has been published in a reliable source with professional editorial control. As for the far right source you alluded to, take that to the Reliable sources noticeboard, and start by searching the archives there.
Another thing that you should be aware of is that Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, and that the neutral point of view is a core content policy. There are plenty of places on the internet where you are welcome to blog or opine about your personal views regarding white ethnic identities, but here on Wikipedia, we summarize published reliable sources and should not stray from that task.
The reason the article still exists is because the topic is notable, and Wikipedia has over six million articles about notable topics. Some of those articles are about controversial theories, and those articles will stay if the topics are notable. So, take your critique to the specific article talk page, as I have previously advised. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Mabrur Rashid Bannah for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mabrur Rashid Bannah is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mabrur Rashid Bannah (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I almost mentioned you at Jimbo talk

Hi Jim,

Nothing too serious here, but I thought I should mention that I referred to you on Jimbo's talk page. It's supposed to be humorous.

Thanks

Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Smallbones. I think I will go block some spammers now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

YGM

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.

Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I have Done.) 03:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing Help

Hello Cullen328, Thank you for responding to my 'cry for help' I appreciate your offer and suggestion of wanting to discuss my situation. As I am unfamiliar with the procedures of Wikipedia, I am not sure if my situation is complicated or not, someone as experienced as your self may be aware of a simple solution. I would like to explain my situation to you as briefly as possible and wonder if there is an alternative method of communicating with you, either by e-mail or even telephone ? I would be very grateful if one of these mediums might be possible please. ( I live in the UK) Could you please let me know how we can proceed further. Many thanks. (Nulius in Verba 13) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NULIUS IN VERBA 13 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, NULIUS IN VERBA 13. In general, I prefer that communication about Wikipedia take place right here on Wikipedia. If there is a legitimate need for confidentiality, you can use the "Email this user" function on the menu on my userpage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Help me to edit

Hi Cullen328, Thank you very much for your response, I hope you will bear with me because I've looked on your 'userpage' and cannot find a 'menu' or anything that says 'e-mail this member'. Could you please give me more accurate instructions on how to find these sections. sorry Many thanks for your help & patience. Nulius in Verba 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NULIUS IN VERBA 13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, NULIUS IN VERBA 13. No need to start a new section. Just continue the conversation in the existing section. When using the desktop site, there is a menu on the left side of any page. On the userpages of editors who have email enabled, as I do, there will be an "Email this user" option. If you are using the mobile site, you can scroll to the bottom of the home page, and can switch to the desktop site there. The easiest thing, of course, would be for you to ask your question right here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Repeated creation of promotional content by User:Suryanankur

Hi Cullen328, This User:Suryanankur is involved in repeated creation of articles that are subject to conflict of interest (COI) after multiple warnings as evident from the editor's talk page. Currently, the person has created self-promotional article evident from strong similarity between Ankur suryan and User:Suryanankur and its contents. In the past too the editor has created pages about his/her agency. Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 05:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The user has also just created a socketpuppy account User:Rahuljimodi. Incident has been reported by me at WP:UAA and WP:AIV and also at WP:SPI by another editor. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Amkgp. Thank you for bringing this situation to my attention. It seems that other administrators have already blocked two accounts. If I am active at the time, I will help with any other attempts to create sockpuppet accounts or engage in disruption. If I am not available, file a report at WP:SPI. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Cullen328, Sure, Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 06:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Amkgp, you are welcome. If you ever need the services of an administrator, please feel free to reach out to me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Cullen328,  Thank you very much! ~ Amkgp ✉ 07:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with Harassing User

Thank you for your comment on the report on ANI. I totally understand that I may have approached the report the wrong way as I continue to learn more about how wikipedia operates and I appreciate your positive and supportive response to it. We do have someone on our leadership who is a regular wikipedian but I believe she is of course only one person and struggling to keep up with providing support for us after the training she provided mostly having to rely on responding to our mistakes instead of being able to continue to proactively train us. On that note I'm more than happy to get constructive feedback of how to improve our pages. The problem I'm having is not that the actual edits he's suggesting are wrong. It's a continued focus on what we're doing only. His entire recent history before I started complaining about him was solely focused on us and our campaign. Had this been it I wouldn't have thought much of it but he started all of this through comments on social media about how raising awareness for marginalized populations is not what we should do instead we should raise awareness for everyone. So I guess all of this is to ask what if anything from a wikipedia standpoint can I do about this? If his tagging and edits are technically correct but the motives behind his approach to our campaign are really the problem is there anything we can do from wikipedia? After posting my initial comment I am starting to feel like there isn't. As such I've spent more of my efforts working through other channels on educating him through people he knows and respects as we've tried to challenge him on his biases but since he doesn't know any of us personally I don't think he's as receptive. While approaching this from an attempt at educating him and trying to push our campaign forward, we have actually taken seriously the content of his edits and have worked to improve our sourcing, have improved how we're communicating to new editors about what will be expected, etc. So to me there are 2 separate issues. One the wikipedia editing we are grateful for the help and are working to improve. The other is the behind the scenes issues and I'm struggling to figure out the best way to approach it from wikipedia if there is even a way. I hope that makes sense and again I appreciate any help or advice you can give. Even if that advice is that there is nothing I can do about it from wikipedia and I just gotta let it go and keep trying to get better at editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve42382 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Steve42382. Sorry for being slow to respond but I have been heavily involved with an important real-world project off-Wikipedia today and haven't had the time to respond until now. The thing that makes this situation especially complex and problematic is that it seems that the behavior that you perceive as racist, misogynistic harassment took place on social media platforms off-Wikipedia. To be completely frank, I have neither the expertise nor the interest to look into stuff that happens on Twitter or other places like that. I did complete a quick evaluation of the editor's work on Wikipedia and note that they have 12,058 edits going back to 2016, that a large percentage of their edits are to mainspace articles instead of the "drama boards", and that they have never been blocked. Their area of specialization seems to be extreme sports, in particular auto racing. So, my quick evaluation did not uncover any instances of improper behavior but maybe if I looked more deeply, something might turn up. I understand from the ANI discussion that some private evidence may have been turned over to the Arbitration Committee, so, if this editor has actually engaged in racist, misogynistic harassment of your edit-a-thon off-Wikipedia, then ArbCom will have to decide what action to take. I think that it is best for me to step aside from this specific investigation, and hope that ArbCom does a good job dealing with this particular matter. More generally, I believe that it would be wise for you and your edit-a-thon colleagues to focus on quality. In particular, drafting potential articles in draft space or sandbox space, and only moving articles to main space when they are well enough developed that nobody will doubt the notability of the topic, the neutrality of the writing, or the quality of the referencing. This is the standard that I have always followed, and to date, none of the 90 articles I have written has been deleted or even seriously challenged. On a personal note, I wrote a biography of a woman, Miriam O'Brien Underhill, who was a pioneer in women's participation in the extreme sport of mountaineering. If I can be of assistance in ways other than this specific investigation, please let me know and I will do my best. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Spamublocks

You probably know this already, but for some of your spamublocks, there are still some associated G11 userpages to be deleted. I was reviewing the filter logs and found some to delete, but you had beaten me to the block haha. Examples of some of the pages that should be deleted too: 1 and 2. Best, SpencerT•C 21:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Spencer. When I block an editor in a situation like this, I prefer to leave it to another administrator to delete any associated pages. That is my personal practice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand WP/I need help

I am fairly new to this and I tend to get very emotional. I hate it. And now I hate myself because of "Listen, nobody cares at all about your previous experiences with "old mentality" scientists and telling such unverifiable anecdotes does you no favors". What should I do? I mean I really want to explore the subject and add the relevant information... because there are people out there that don't think it as fringe, like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.[2] I feel like when I start talking about these subjects I am getting into a spiral of thoughts. This is very weird. And since you seem to have an interest in Wikipedia behavior: User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior, I think it would be responsible for me to ask for advice. I can't seem to drop the stick, it's annoying and I think it's turning into an obsession. And whenever I bring this up I am being labeled as an idiot. This situation very much sucks for me and I can't seem to be able to stop it. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

And now I just found out about this [3] ... This is really not helping... PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, User:PhysiqueUL09. I see that you make a disclosure on your userpage about a certain condition, and I sympathize. My father had a similar condition but was able to largely overcome it due to good medical care and force of will. I sometimes say that when he died, he had no enemies and many living friends, and many assets and no debts other than the previous month's Visa bill. I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. I am only a college educated construction worker with scars on my hands who comes home dusty and sweaty. So, I cannot know whether what I say will be helpful to you or not, but I hope that it will not make you feel worse. I have been editing Wikipedia as a hobby almost every single day for almost eleven years, and for me, the work I do here brings me a sense of calm and satisfaction almost all of the time. Even on days when I have blocked quite a few obnoxious vandals and racist trolls. That is because I always keep the big picture in mind - the broad goal of improving and defending the encyclopedia.
The first advice that I will give you is to be very careful about editing regarding topics where you are heavily invested emotionally. For example, off Wikipedia, I am passionately interested in American politics on a day to day and even on an hour basis. If you were a Facebook friend, you would know exactly where I stand. But here on Wikipedia, I try to limit my editing on contemporary politics to less than 5% of my work, and try really hard to stay away from anything that gets me riled up emotionally. That is because I treasure the neutral point of view, and it is almost impossible to write neutrally when you are feeling passionately about the topic. In particular, spinning out one's personal political theories is perfectly OK on social media, but not on Wikipedia article talk pages.
I will give you another example that relates to COVID-19. I got very interested in the rapidly spreading outbreaks in meatpacking plants so I spent many weeks working on Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States, which required me to spend a lot of time reading very dispiriting accounts of how the virus has ravaged this industry and the lives of countless workers. I am proud of the work I did on that article but a time came a couple of weeks ago when my anger against the giant meatpacking corporations was rising and I found myself crying when reading personal descriptions of the premature deaths of workers infected on the job. So, I decided to step away from that article for a while, and instead am working on some topics about California history before the Gold Rush, which do not agitate me like the pandemic sometimes does. Cayetano Juarez is my most recent article, and I am now writing an article about his home, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.
In addition, I want to encourage you to talk to your health care providers and to your closest friends and relatives who have offered you good advice in the past. It would be sad if you did something that prevented you from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Either edit in your area of physics or maybe, as I have done recently, about local history, or some other non-controversial topic that grabs your attention. The research about the origins of this coronavirus will continue without you or me even paying attention, and I am sure that the article that is bothering you will be updated accordingly once really high quality sources about the matter are published. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
PhysiqueUL09, I am pinging you again because I made a typo on my first attempt. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your good words. No worries, I have been talking to everyone involved with my condition, especially recently because of all the anxiety caused by this damned thing. I will try to distance myself from it again. I just posted something on WP:RSN and I think it will be the last of it. I was so happy when I made my last edit in Industrial radiography and I still have a bunch of tabs open to references for it. I feel like I can't understand why my behaviour is considered disruptive. I don't know if it's the condition or not. I made very little direct edits recently on the pages I was involved. I thought that the talk pages where kind of a "safe space" for someone like me. It very much isn't. I know that the research about the origin will continue without me, but I feel compelled to write about it so that it is not forgotten. My life was going so well before all of this. I'm sorry if I'm getting personal now, but I had so many hardship with my condition in my life and worked so hard to get where I was before the pandemic. I want all this BS I have been reliving recently not to be in vain. This is not the place for this. I will stop. Please help me making sure that I don't get a WP-wide ban please. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not you get blocked, PhysiqueUL09, is determined by your own behavior in the future. Perhaps you might benefit from a topic ban from COVID-19 articles, but I wouldn't want to impose that on you at this time. As long you do your best to stay in control, I will be supportive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I will try to keep it to a non-emotional, cool headed minimum. I think that my post in WP:RSN is a good start for now. And I think it's a good idea that I don't edit those pages directly. I will work on that for sure. I think I might go to the adopt an editor thing... I don't know how it's called. But maybe having someone with experience to answer my questions before I do stuff would be a good idea for me to get protection against myself. Anyway, thank you very much. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
PhysiqueUL09, Hello, just stopping by from the WP:RCP. I wish you luck. No, there sadly is no "safe space" on wikipedia, but, if people are well aware of your issue, I think that'd help some. I recommend putting it in a Template:Notice on your userpage instead of buried below other text. Also, I recommend making it clear at a glance that it's Bipolar II. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
further note, we do have Template:User_mental_health, which may also be applicable, but i'd prefer the notice over the more general mental health box. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonythedwarf

PhysiqueUL09, I do not know if adopt-an-editor is active these days, but I can tell you that I will do my best to answer any reasonable good faith questions you might have about editing Wikipedia, including its social norms. One norm that you should be aware of is that article talk pages are for discussing specific proposals to improve article content based on specific reliable published sources. They are not for generalized speculation about the topic or guesses about what might be reported by reliable sources in the future. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, PhysiqueUL09: To extend Cullen's offer, I will do the same, I'll be open to answering questions as well. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, Cullen, i'm watchlisting your talkpage, hope you don't mind. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
You are always welcome here, Moonythedwarf. Be well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both, this is very appreciated. I don't think I am having an episode as of right now. I talked with my MD last week. If you look at BP2, I don't lose touch with reality. I just get very intense about stuff I do. I think that "altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them" from the template is exactly what is happening sometimes. Its dumb because it's already hard for me to understand people irl but I still go and get myself into those endless wall of text discussions with other people here. Sometimes making a fool of myself. When I'll be on my desktop computer tomorrow I'll be looking to add a proper notice to my user page. It's kinda shameful for me though and that's why I tried to bury it. I'm scared I am losing credibility because of it. I feel like my points may be valid, but the way I present them is not. And it affects my credibility. I don't know... What happened is that I started feeling insulted because they relegated this to the fringe. I felt that they were condescending and were taking me for a conspiracy nut. I try as much as I can to get the idea out of my head, but I can't stand the lab incident theory being ruled out here, while it's kinda not ruled out in the outside... Correct me if my perception is wrong, but right now I feel like I can't even talk about it without fearing a sanction. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

PhysiqueUL09, the lab incident theory has not been "ruled out" here, and will be included promptly if it is confirmed by truly reliable sources. Speculation is entirely appropriate elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a breaking news site that reports on such speculation, especially in articles about critically important public health issues. I am old enough to have been reading material from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for well over half a century, and I like the publication very much. But it is an advocacy publication and these are advocacy pieces. They are not reliable sources for the origin of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. I do not think any experienced editor would think they were. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

See, I did it again. It's like a stain in my head. It's probably caused by the push back I received for the inclusion of this. It was basically: "no, it's fringe". I hate that kind of answer. Like when parents are saying no to a child only for the sake of teaching them. It's insulting! It felt like those users where saying I was in the same boat as those Illuminati/flat earth people... And now they are all bringing back my first block that happened a few hours after I created my user page. Saying that I did not change, that I am still a danger to WP or something. They talked about me behind my back on top of that. Was there any proposed change in WP mentality? Like promoting real discussion instead of just having a bunch of people throwing etiquette and editing rules (WP:STUFF) at each other? It's as if the less you know about the rules, the more you risk being blocked. The more people are knowingly being obnoxious at you. Just gloating in their rules knowledge and sending messages to admins to get you blocked asap because you are new and you did your first 3rd revert. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Only you, PhysiqueUL09, have any control over your emotional reaction to feedback from other editors. Why would you "hate" someone's opinion that, based on currently available published sources, an explanation for the origin of a virus is "fringe"? If an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources currently disagree, then the theory is by definition fringe at this time, but we all recognize that research in this particular field is developing and changing rapidly. Please do not ascribe bad motives to highly experienced editors who disagree with you. They are not consciously being obnoxious and are not gloating. They are just trying to defend the encyclopedia by adhering to its policies and guidelines. I had no trouble understanding those basic principles when I first started editing, because I took the time to read and study them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ooh and what do you mean by advocacy? I don't really understand. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

To me, it is self evident that this is an advocacy publication. I like advocacy publications but very rarely cite them on Wikipedia. Our policy, after all, is the neutral point of view, which is the opposite of advocacy. Please read Advocacy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, ok, It's only that I was thinking more about something like green peace when thinking about advocacy. I thought that advocacy was limited to organisations rather than publications. Very good to know though, thanks. And for your other response I was talking more about the fact that it was told to me like: "No, because of reasons I don't care to talk about" anyway I am starting again. Whenever I speak about this subject I get into these rants without even realizing it. It is also noticeable in my last comment. PhysiqueUL09 (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Help me to Edit

Hello again Cullen328 Please excuse me for what appears to be a complete lack of knowledge on my part of the procedures & workings of Wikipedia. I have spent many hours trying to find the section you have directed me to. I have looked on your 'User page' and can see what looks like a menu, but there is no "e-mail this user" option. I have switched from the 'mobile' version to the 'desktop' version and still cannot find this option, so I am now at a loss at how to proceed further....please forgive my inability to even make progress, in what seems to be a 'simple' step.If I were to communicate with you in a forum that is open to the public, I am mindful that it may have unforseen consequences, hence my caution and my desire to have confidentiality to begin with.Is there any way to direct me to this "e-mail this user" option in a more basic & simpler way. I do appreciate you trying to help me. tahnk you. Nulius in Verba13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NULIUS IN VERBA 13 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, NULIUS IN VERBA 13. The only thing that I can think of is that you probably have not enabled the email function in your account. In order to send and receive confidential email through Wikipedia, both users need to list an email address in their "Preferences" section at the top of their page while logged in. Please read Wikipedia:Emailing users for complete details. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Pinging NULIUS IN VERBA 13, as I made an error in notification. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328, I hope you are keeping well. I notice that you have edited the Wikipedia page "Jeeves of Belgravia Ltd" (JOB)particularly relating to the founders of the Company and can see that the names in the main body of the text are different to the names mentioned within the "Panel or Box" on the right hand side of the page. All of the names listed as "founders" are referenced accordingly, but they are contradictory and possibly confusing.

May I ask, if information were available concerning the founders of (JOB)which were part of the public statutory records for the Company, registered with Companies House in the UK and freely accessible through a web site, would it be permissible to use this web site as a reference to be cited? If this is possible, how should this information be formatted so that it complies with Wikipedia's strict criteria for 'referencing and reliable sources' guidlines?

The information on the 'public statutory records' regarding the founders of "JOB" is irrefutable and concurs with the details of your edit (and its citings)and with the original information which appears on the "JOB" page when it was first published in 2019 (since edited)

If it is possible to cite this web page, would it then be possible to edit the right hand panel of the Wikipedia page, so that the founders names were restored to the original published version?

Would you subscribe to the view that information contained within recognised 'public statutory records' supercedes those that are published in newspaper articles and would therefore be a more reliable source to be cited?

Your reply to these issues would be very much appreciated. Thank you NULIUS in VERBA13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NULIUS IN VERBA 13 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, NULIUS IN VERBA 13. I just changed the names of the founders in the infobox of the article Jeeves of Belgravia. This accurately summarizes the references to reliable sources now in the article. Secondary sources are preferred to primary sources like listings in official databases. Please be careful to be accurate when you mention a Wikipedia article by name. We have no article called Jeeves of Belgravia Ltd. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328, firstly, my apologies for not mentioning the Wikipedia article correctly, I shall be more careful in future. Thank you for amending the article, your assistance and input is very much appreciated.NULIUS IN VERBA13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NULIUS IN VERBA 13 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The Teahouse - my query about child pornography

You have just deleted my query without any reply. Your edit summary says 'not appropriate'. Where should I direct my query? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sweet6970, please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Child protection. The details should not be discussed in public. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm still baffled as to what I should do. This image is currently on the Wikipedia article Slavery in ancient Rome. I deleted it, but another editor has reinstated it, saying that the deletion was censorship. (This editor is NOT the same as the editor who added it, who only made one edit and was blocked for some other reason.) Are you saying that you agree with me that the image is inappropriate? Please - advise me in detail as to what I should do. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Sweet6970, I sent you a link that says "Reports of editors attempting to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or otherwise breaching trust and safety, should be made to the Wikimedia Foundation by email: legal-reports@wikimedia.org. Reports of issues concerning images should be sent to the same email address." Emphasis added. Did you read that? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I read it. Am I supposed to ask Wikimedia Foundation whether this image is child pornography? and meanwhile, leave the image on Wikipedia? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Sweet6970, yes, you should contact the staff attorneys if you think that an 1888 painting by Charles W. Bartlett should be removed. If you think that the painting is pornographic, then stop drawing attention to it in public, and let the legal staff take a look. That's their job. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Sweet6970, opinions on what constitute pornography vary wildly everywhere, and Wikipedia is no exception. There are ways to hide images that you find offensive but I'm not personally familiar with the nuts and bolts of how that works. Perhaps Jim is. In any case, I highly doubt an image of a 19th century painting that depicts nude and semi nude adults and children in non sexual poses will ever be labeled pornographic. Pretty sure WP:NOTCENSORED will apply. You should look into a tech solution to hide images you find personally offensive. John from Idegon (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: Thank you for your suggestion, but I don’t want my viewing to be censored. Many images on Wikipedia irritate me because they are anachronistic – but this is the only one which also makes me feel physically sick. I am adopting the low-tech solution of not looking at the article. But I still think the image should be deleted. It is not only disgusting, it is also irrelevant to the article. It has nothing to do with ancient Rome. It is about 19th century paedophilia. I don’t understand how the fact that the painting is old could somehow make it not pornographic. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 07:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we discuss your warning?

You addressed a comment to me, that closed with "and I must warn you that you are at risk of a block for violating WP:BLP if you make any further efforts that might facilitate the harassment of a living person.".

Your signature says "Let's discuss it". Can I take your signature at face value?

I don't think I have facilitated the harrassment of a living person.

Will you allow me to remind you of what WP:BLPNAME says? BLPNAME recommends caution, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed..."

Well, in this particular case, this individual's married name HAS been very widely disseminated. A google news search for her married name just gave me almost 23,000 hits. An ordinary google search just gave me 269,000. If her name has already been very widely disseminated, is it still your position it meets the criteria for BLPNAME protection? I suggest that excising her married name from wikipedia's article space will not provide her privacy with any meaningful protection. I suggest that obfuscating her married name isn't even what she is attempting to do.

It is not the name she went by during her ten years of marriage that needs to be protected. What needs to be protected is the name she wants to start using now that she is divorcing her notorious husband. That name has not been widely disseminated, and I fully agree we should not use it.

I wrote further about other elements of your warning. But her married name in that URL was what triggered your warning, right? Geo Swan (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, what triggered my warning was your willingness to link to an obviously unreliable source in a discussion of a sensitive matter where the woman's attorney has said that the family has received harassment and death threats. You know better than that and your failure to acknowledge that above is very troubling. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

what is wrong with the orginial led sources of Miscegenation

why did you change the lede sourcing, and can you please explain why your new sources are better than the original? Gooduserdude (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not add any new source at all, Gooduserdude. I reverted to the previous version and asked the IP editor to gain consensus on the talk page for their proposed change. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

All the sections of my entry were deleted, and my write up just below the head were rewritten not to my liking.

Hi, Cullen. Is this normal or pure vandalism? I feel offended. One editor threatened me that if I reverted I will be blocked by Wikipedia. --Tigmo9098 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tigmo9098. I guess that this has to do with The New Federal State of China. Here is my advice to you. Do not engage in edit warring behavior. If you persist in edit warring, then yes, you may be blocked from editing. Do not accuse other good faith editors of vandalism. The word "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, and content disputes are not vandalism. Do not add sources to Wikipedia that are not accepted as reliable sources. For example, I have serious doubts that websites controlled by Steve Bannon are reliable sources. You can always ask at the Reliable sources noticeboard. In conclusion, please do not assume that people who express concerns about the article are doing something wrong. Read Assume good faith, which is an important Wikipedia behavioral guideline. I have a question about the title of the article. The banners pulled by planes over New York mentioned "Federal State of New China". Which wording is correct? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

sorry, i posted this with the wrong user

sorry you not the person who made the changes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miscegenation&type=revision&diff=963095702&oldid=963082378 it was user:Darren-M i should talk to Gooduserdude (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with a newly created article?

Hello Cullen - I am searching for administrative assistance with John Lester Johnson, an article I created on 4 June. Here is my issue: upon the new article being moved from my Sandbox into mainspace, the Sandbox talk page was moved with it and is now part of Talk:John Lester Johnson. Those messages have absolutely nothing to do with the new article, and I note also that the new article's history contains edits not to it, but to that earlier project in my sandbox. I am uncertain how to 'correct the record,' so to speak. Should I, or even can I, simply delete all the "wrong" TP messages, or should they (and the faux article history entries) be returned to my Sandbox, a step that I assume can only be performed by folk like you? I would have asked the person(s) who moved the article into mainspace, but I do not know who that is. If you are unable to help me, that is of course perfectly fine, as this problem is not exactly of critical importance. If you can suggest another admin who might be able to help, however, I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JoJo Anthrax. I suggest that you delete all the irrelevant talk page comments. In the future, set up a distinct sandbox subpage for each article you are working on, (which is what I do), or use draft space. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank for for the rapid reply. Now that my Sandbox is (permanently?) re-directed to John Lester Johnson, I will in the future follow your good advice and create a new subpage for each new article. I should have done that in the first place, but telling people of such features is why you get The Big Money, right? Thanks again. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
JoJo Anthrax, there is no redirect at User:JoJo Anthrax/sandbox. You can blank your sandbox if you wish, and use it for other purposes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Help with revising rejected bio article

Good Day Jim, and thank you for the offer to allow me to benefit from your experience in editing. If you don't mind, I'd like to to start with the external link/citation issue. I have done as you instructed and thumbed through the guidelines on external links. All the links in body text will be eliminated and converted to citations, as per policy. However, the matter of the lists of publications in the article remains foggy in my mind. Should those for which I have located links remain external links, or should they all be converted to footnotes. Or alternatively, is the bibliographic information provided in the lists sufficient, such that neither a link nor a citation is required. The same dilemma arises in the case of the list of book publications. Much obliged for your enlightenment. Regards Mischievousgnome (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mischievousgnome. I do not have expertise in writing biographies of academics. I may have only written one. But it is important to think of the article as a biography of a person, not as a curriculum vitae or as a résumé. I would not try to list all or even most of the person's publications, but rather the selected few described as most influential, widely cited, extensively reviewed or award winning. The complete list belongs on the person's own website or the website of their academic institution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Right, I'll get to work paring down the lists. Meanwhile, for those that are kept, should there be external links, citation footnotes or just the publication (i.e., no link or footnote)? Thanks. Mischievousgnome (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello again Mischievousgnome. These should not be formatted as citation footnotes, because they do not support specific content in the article. Provide complete bibliographic information. Personally, I would not oppose a link to a published journal article or to the official webpage of a book, as long as that is done in a limited way and does not look like an attempt at promotion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Then it is agreed that I will cut down the publications to a comfortable minimum and retain the external links now applied to these. If there are no other issues with links, we come to the other matter, namely, the tone of the article. The referee was of the opinion that the text was not composed in the formal style of an encyclopedia entry. Would you be so kind as to point out any instances where the style criterion is not satisfied and suggest alternative phrasing? Note that the quoted segments (superlative transformation, Grand Old Man of Science and Technology, lasting impression of textbooks) were added after the rejection. (CampusVarta website is blacklisted for some reason.) So I wonder if the style requirement would disqualify this quoted material. Thanks again for your advice and guidance. Mischievousgnome (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Mischievousgnome, I agree that there are problems with tone. I searched online for the "Grand Old Man of Science and Technology" statement and found nothing. If this was a common description, then I would expect to see several mentions of it. As for Campus Varta, I have no idea why that website would be considered reliable for any such assessment of a scientist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The statement "His research led to the discovery of the effect of magnetic fields on wear in ferro-magnetic materials and he was the first to observe chaos in mechanical systems" is cited to introductory material in a paper he wrote. That is not acceptable. A completely independent source is needed for that type of assertion. You include an external link to "Everybodywiki". That is not a reliable source and should be removed. As a matter of fact, it is the exact opposite of a reliable source. The section on "Literary pursuits" is entirely unreferenced. Do not include any unreferenced content. Either add a reference to a reliable, independent source that verifies this section, or remove it. Go through every sentence and remove anything that is uncited, or anything that comes across as promotional. By the way, Alfred Russel Wallace is often called the "Grand Old Man of Science", not your guy. You should wikilink Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Your first reference does not verify the claims about Ghosh, as it is just a description of the department, and as far as I can see, does not mention Ghosh. That's deceptive. I think I have spent enough time looking at your draft, because the deeper I look, the more problems I see. Are you a paid editor? The declaration on your user page indicates so. If so, do your paid job correctly. It is very presumptuous of you to ask volunteer editors to help you clean up your poor quality work when you are being paid and the rest of us aren't. Very frustrating. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed enumeration of issues. I will follow your advice and put each statement under the microscope. Please know that I am sorry if you have experienced frustration, and that you erroneously assume I have been hired to ghost write. Interesting that you should mention Wallace. Just as he complemented Darwin with his insistence on the role of the environment and the Wallace effect, so, it might be said, Ghosh complements Newton. Good day and godspeed. Mischievousgnome (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
"Ghosh complements Newton"? That statement is preposterous anywhere on Wikipedia, including my talk page, unless you cite a reliable source. Reliable, independent sources are like gold on Wikipedia. The assessments of individual editors are of no value at all. Mischievousgnome, as an editor with a declared conflict of interest, it is time for you to get serious and improve the quality of your editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Cullen and Mischievousgnome, compare the essay Wikipedia:Buy one, get one free. Bishonen | tålk 09:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC).

Sockpuppet investigation for User:Syun respect for music

Hi Jim, there's a new suspected sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Syun respect for music. Since you dealt with the master last time, would you mind taking a look at this one and let me know what you think? ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 16:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi Cullen, Apologies, I don't know how to make myself a signature or where or how to comment. Is there a tuitorial for that? Or can you explain to me a bit? Apologies once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs) 04:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cathradgenations. Start by reading Wikipedia:Signatures, and let me know if you have any questions. You can generate your basic signature by ending all of your talk page comments (not article edits) with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Try to get into that habit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Wasuwatanabe (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, You helped me navigate and load an image onto the Henry Kulka site, which I appreciate. I have other non-free images which need to be inserted onto the site, though am struggling to do so. I have loaded another image onto the site however someone has wrongly stated that the image is not relevant to the text - this is untrue, it is an image of a model which was never realised. I have attached another lengthy rationale to it, should I be using a short non-free template to it instead? Are you able to help me navigate through these issues? Thank you!

Hello, Wasuwatanabe. I do not believe that either the photo of the house or the photo of the architectural model meet the very strict criteria for non free images so I cannot help you. I do not understand why these old photos cannot be freely licensed. You also have a misunderstanding of permission for non free images. No permission is required if the image meets the criteria. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the copyright holder has given us permission to put it on wiki in order to illustrate something that could not be done otherwise. So Wiki readers only opportunity to see the structure is under the non-free use term, otherwise they won't get to. It seems a fair trade for the copyright holder to limit the proliferation of their property but generously share the image on wikipedia, the subject which is the structure. Is there no one I can appeal to defend this argument? Wasuwatanabe (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasuwatanabe, the photo simply does not comply with WP:NFCI and that is policy. We cannot have non free images that do not comply with policy. You can ask another administrator but I think they will all agree with me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your help. Wasuwatanabe (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, After you requested that I stop uploading images I have. I have sent through to the permissions team emails to verify permission granted for these pages, however had no response from anyone. The images are going to be deleted in the next day or so. What do you suggest I do? I have removed the images from the wiki page but have the file URL's. Any help would be great! Thank you.Wasuwatanabe (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Wasuwatanabe, I suggest that you do one of two things: Your first option is to forget about using these photos on Wikipedia, and allow those image files to be deleted. Your second option is to upload them to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable Creative Commons license. That's what I have cheerfully done with hundreds of my own photos, some of which I took well over 40 years ago. Trying to cobble together your own unique licensing scheme as an evasion of established image use policies is simply a waste of volunteer time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen, I appreciate your suggestions. The permission holders have allowed the images to be free for use (bar one image which is currently on the isite). I used the tag

— Attribution 4.0 license and had sent the verification email for the other images. Is the problem that I have uploaded them through the wikipedia site rather than wikimedia commons? Wasuwatanabe (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_69&oldid=1139760648"