User talk:Cullen328/Archive 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 ← Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 → Archive 80

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
  • A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
  • A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
  • There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Honest Question - Wanting guidance

So since I am attempting to "start fresh" on my Wikipedia journey with the ban and all, I have an honest question. I feel like the mistakes I made months ago keep coming up in discussion after discussion and multiple admins just called all of them disruptive. One time back in December, an admin warned me (for the edits) but the other editor got warned for bringing the topics up after they were already talked about. Today was a perfect example of how I can't escape that past. I truly feel like multiple editors just hold grudges and no matter how I improve, they won't like me ever. Something I did back in October of 2020 shouldn't be relevant for discussions 7 months later especially since I have technically received "punishment" (the ban) for them. If they get brought up again, can I just contact an admin to quietly warn the editor bringing them up or would that not be the right move? I want to know what I should do since at the current way it is going, there is 0 chance for me to go anywhere on Wikipedia when editors with years of experience brings up things I have done months ago and uses them against me. I want your honest opinion of what I should do in those situations. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor's entire edit history and block record are always subject to review and comment by other editors, although as time goes by, long past problems are taken much less seriously by most editors. If you think that an administrator would warn another editor for looking at and accurately commenting about your past problems, then you are wrong. As for these being in the distant past, you posted a disruptive thread about Fram (not my favorite editor but 100% correct in this situation, and a net positive) at WP:AN that led to you receiving a topic ban, and that was in the past day or so. I have been editing for almost 13 years, so to me, problems from seven months ago are "very recent" as opposed to "a long time ago". My advice to you is simple: avoid controversial topics with a ten foot pole, do not create crappy articles, edit neutrally, and comply scrupulously with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ponder the things that have gotten you into trouble, and bend over backwards to avoid future trouble. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Elijahandskip. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

How to report a website that posts wiki pages as their own?

hello? jim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSlowSapper20 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


ok wow i thought this was like DM haha. can i delete this? i'm an idiot, i'm sorry. SuperSlowSapper20 (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SuperSlowSapper20. Please read Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, especially the section on non-compliance. I don't always answer immediately, and will be going to bed pretty soon here in California. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

administrator of the Russian segment of Wikipedia nicknamed Sigwald

Hi, Jim. Just repeating the message. I just want to ask, until when will the administrator of the Russian segment of Wikipedia, nicknamed Sigwald, violate the rules of Wikipedia?

Besides: 1. Sigwald is not competent about the articles it deletes. 2). Sigwald is politicized. 3. Sigwald is subjective and biased. 4. Sigwald is biased towards the authors. Who is important to Wikipedia, Administrators or Authors? Konstantine Gunin (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Konstantine Gunin. If you think that administrators on the English Wikipedia have any authority or power on the Russian Wikipedia, then I am sorry but you are wrong. The two projects are independent and separate. You must discuss any complaints you have about Sigwald on the Russian Wikipedia. Talking about it here is a waste of time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328 Hello Jim! Well, please give me any contact (s) of people who have authority on Russian Wikipedia. I found you easily, thanks for that! But I cannot find anyone who is responsible for Russian Wikipedia. It looks like Russians are better off writing articles in English. However, not all Russian people are linguists like me.
Konstantine Gunin, I am sorry but I cannot be of much help. I do not speak or read Russian, and I do not know anyone there. The only Wikipedia I know well is English Wikipedia. When using the desktop version of any Wikipedia including Russian, there is a menu list on the left side of the screen and you should be able to find help resources there. If you edit on mobile, scroll to the bottom of the screen and click on desktop. That version works fine on mobile. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

So Let's Discuus It

Re: Horse Eye's Back
Did you even read my exhibit? HEB accused me first of "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations", which is completely untrue and also would be a huge deal in my country (not sure about WP). Had they done so IRL, I would have filed a legal complaint. I (edit: initially WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)) stopped short of actually accusing them of trolling (which for some reason seems to be a bigger deal on WP than what he's done to me), but they had already made 1/2 dozen of posts insisting that their definition of annexation (requiring full subjugation of indigenous populations) had to be the only one, even though no one else agreed with them. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@User:Cullen328 Even if trolling or not might be a subjective call, the other stuff HEB wrote about me were untrue, unwarranted, and carry serious implications. Still waiting to see if you have an actual set of standards upon which you are basing your judgment. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
WikiwiLimeli (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, WikiwiLimeli. I hope that you are not denying that you wrote "trolling and spreading lies" because that is easily visible in your edit history. I am acting as an administrator and express no opinion at all about the content dispute between the two of you. I am neither saying nor implying that the other editor's behavior has been exemplary. But "the other guy did it too" defense is one that I reject quite forcefully, and I was looking at your behavior, not the other editor's. Other administrators can look at other editor's misconduct if it exists. So here is the bottom line: You can correct your own behavior and refrain from unfounded personal attacks on other editors, or you can continue with that unacceptable behavior and be blocked. It is that simple, and I hope that I have been clear. The choice is yours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
On another matter, WikiwiLimeli, if you ever talk about "legal complaints" about another editor, you will be at a very high risk of being blocked from Wikipedia until your lawsuit is resolved by the courts, or the legal threat is unambiguously withdrawn. Please read and study WP:NLT. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Dear Cullen328, please do not take words out of context. I wrote "Please stop trolling and spreading lies" only after HEB specifically said about me "Your repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations is unhelpful as well as offensive", which has zero evidence and would have serious consequences for me if it were to somehow turn up in-real-life. My response was neither unfounded nor an attack, as you have mischaracterized. It was a request solidly based on HEB's unprovoked false accusation. I'm sure you understand the difference betweeen unfounded attacks and well-substantiated statements. Neither did I threaten anyone with legal complaint. In fact, I mentioned legal complaint only under the premise that had HEB made false accusations about me IRL, i.e. not on Wikipedia. I always strive to be on my best behavior; however, that also means appropriately defending myself against groundless accusations. Hopefully this helps clear up your misunderstanding. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
WikiwiLimeli, I see that you have chosen to double down on your personal attacks and legal threats. Stop now. If you continue you will be blocked. Stop it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

MacySinrich

I would have given her the benefit of the doubt if she just took a break after blanking our convo on her talk, but this leaves me but to take it that she's outright ignoring us, which may be a sign of WP:NOTHERE in addition to mere WP:CIR. I suggest an indef. Nardog (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Nardog, do you have any idea what MacySinrich is trying to accomplish with those edits? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
She's reducing the number of columns by merging some of them into larger categories, e.g. Bilabial & Labiodental → Labial. One could argue those divisions are redundant if you already know which IPA symbols represent which type of labial sounds, but I don't really see the point since that verbosity helps define the value of each symbol as used for that particular language, which may or may not correspond to the canonical cross-linguistic one in the IPA chart. There are sometimes theoretical reasons to favor or disfavor lumping certain sounds together (allophony, free variation, distinctive features, etc.), but this depends on each language, and I doubt she's consulting literature for each article. If it was just to eliminate empty cells, I'd find that ill-motivated. This is precisely the type of situation where the use of edit summaries would help a lot. Nardog (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Nardog, I respect your expertise in linguistics, and I too am irritated at this editor's failure to use edit summaries. I have to be very cautious about a long block, though, and want to see a bit stronger evidence of actual disruption, especially because I know relatively little about linguistics. Please keep me posted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I get that. Could a shorter block for failure to WP:ENGAGE be in order? Would it be a good idea for me to give her a "final warning" for not providing summaries? Nardog (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, she does communicate when another editor engages with her, Nardog. Providing edit summaries is a good practice that should be encouraged, but it is not mandatory and failure to do so is not a blockable offense. You can certainly encourage her to use edit summaries and discuss your concerns about her recent edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
On another matter, are you aware of any "text to voice" online tool where a user can paste in some IPA and hear the actual pronunciation? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
There is ipa-reader.xyz, which uses Amazon Polly. There is a user script, User:IagoQnsi/ipareader, that integrates ipa-reader.xyz on Wikpedia pages, but it looks like it only supports English. My PlayAudioNow may be useful on pages that already have audio demonstrations on Commons, like Help:IPA. Nardog (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Annnd she's back. In these edits, she's mistaken voiced consonants for the tenuis ones and added /ɣ/ which doesn't occur in the language. Sol505000 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sol505000. I am also pinging Nardog. I am a bit handicapped here because I have no training in linguistics. Both of you do, and I trust your judgement about her errors. But I cannot say myself with confidence that her edits about the Mazahua language (just the most recent example) were disruptive because I know zero about the topic. I never heard of the language until 20 minutes ago. I do not know if there is ambiguity, or if she is flat out wrong.
So, what I need is for one or both of you to engage with her on her talk page and ask that she stop making incompetent edits, or however you wish to phrase it. Feel free to ping me. And we will see how she responds in March, 2021 to concerns from experts (you) about her work on languages and linguistics. If her response is uncooperative, I will certainly consider an indefinite block. But I want to see what she has to say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There. Sorry for the delay. Sol505000 (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
She's blanked her talk page. Before doing so, she replied with this, which doesn't address the issue of mislabeling voiced consonants as tenuis. She's also talking about some source that has never been mentioned in the phonology section. This edit summary is equally nonsensical, I'm not questioning the phonemic status of any of those consonants (besides /ɣ/ which Macy added to the table) but their being tenuis. A tenuis consonant is, by definition, voiceless, and [ɡ β z ʒ ɣ] are all voiced. Sol505000 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Sol505000 and Nardog, I have issued an indefinite block. Please feel free to comment if she makes an unblock request. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Need to undo a redirect---next steps please (Following up)

Hi Jim...am I doing this right? In regards to your question, I am merely using the universal we. The account is not shared, as I am the account owner and the logistics manager for the individual I am trying to create the page for. Using we in the collective sense since the intention that "we" have is for *me* to create the page.

Regarding the redirects for discussion---does this mean that it does not fall under speedy deletion? Or regardless it needs to go through that page?

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatochip3000 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Potatochip3000. I see. When you said "we", you meant you and your employer. You are a logistics manager for that person and therefore you are a paid editor. You must immediately comply with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You must use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to write a draft that you must submit for review by an uninvolved, experienced volunteer. Do not worry about the redirect and do not attempt to change it. If your draft article is accepted, the redirect can be dealt with at that time. And stop using "we" to refer to yourself. It will just attract additional scrutiny to your editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

 Thanks  // Timothy :: talk  22:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You are most welcome, TimothyBlue. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Would the following constitute a short article?

Hi, thanks for your message. Would this constitute a short article. Unfortunately the best source was published in 1970 and so there would be the additional problem of copyright which would prevent me publishing the entire letter which is spelt out over six pages of the book. Would this do as a short article?

== Appendix 2 of "General Washington's Dilemma" by Katherine Mayo == followed by:- It should be noted that the New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company 1938 edition of General Washington’s Dilemma by Katherine Mayo, does not have an Appendix 2. For anyone wishing to access this appendix, which has a first-hand account of the drawing of lots, it would be necessary to access the London, Jonathan Cape, Thirty Bedford Square, 1938 edition. Here will be found Lieutenant and Captain Henry Greville’s {2nd Foot Guards) letter to his mother, dated 29 May 1782, in which he writes:[1]

I can assure you my mind was in a very uneasy state for above half an hour while they were calling out the Lots, during which time we sat in a Circle, where there was almost a dead silence observed...

Mayo's book was republished in 1970 by Kennikat Press and Annex 2 devotes 5 pages to the entire letter, along with a short letter from Asgill to Greville, which follows on. [2]

Anne (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Arbil44. Which independent, reliable sources devote significant coverage to this appendix? If they don't, then it is not possible to write an acceptable article about it. We do not address readers with instructions in any Wikipedia article, so phrasing like "it should be noted" or "for anyone wishing to access this appendix" are not appropriate. Short quotations from the letter itself are entirely appropriate, as is a neutral summary of the entire letter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on this with some amendments and will include the coverage given to this appendix in the Lancaster Journal of 2019, but I've spent all day on this and have had enough for now. Anne (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I need to take a different approach to this, so my questions need to be asked elsewhere, thanks.Anne (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Using Universitiy website for Notability of its Academics

Hi User:Cullen328, can a university website serve as a reliable independent secondary resource to establish notability for its faculty academics? ThanksWisdomwiki 40 (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wisdomwiki 40. The problem is that such a website is not independent, which is required by the WP:GNG. That type of content is useful for fleshing out the biography of an academic whose notability has already been established, but not for establishing notability. If you are claiming notability under WP: ACADEMIC, then the most commonly accepted claim to notability will be the frequency of academic citations to the person's peer reviewed papers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

help me in approving my article

hi good evening Mr heaphy . i found your profile on wikipedia as a mentor and volunteer in helping new editors on wikipedia . i need help in this procedure . can you please help me finish my article . my article is: about a person = masoud shafaghi best regards neda sajedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neda.sajedi (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Neda.sajedi. Please read Your first article. Your draft relies too much on primary sources that are not independent of the person you are writing about. Notability is established through references to reliable, independent secondary sources that devote significant coverage to the person. You also need to remove all promotional language. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Notification of Debresser AE action appeal

Debresser has appealed an arbitration enforcement action which you levied against them, and as they are blocked are unable to notify you. If you would like to comment, the thread is located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement appeal by Debresser. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Joordan Peterson

Hi Jim,

I just responded to a Jordan Peterson Talk entry, where you suggested the question to discuss the issue of self-description of Jordan Peterson and my take on reliable sources. This is my first entry, so please apologise if I make beginner mistakes. I tried to articulate the delicate issue to the best of my abilities. I responded as such:

Yes, in general a self-reference can not be enough to declare oneself they way one wants. This applies to both Peterson and unreliable sources. It is reasonable to consider a tenure university professor with decades of peer-reviewed scientific track record risking his face and reputation a more credible source than a faceless online-magazine like "Pacific Standard" taken as reference below, where an 1-click research reveals the overlying company: "The Social Justice Foundation" (self-reference). I strongly suggest to restrict the references, whether Peterson or publicist, to direct quotations or the well-established internationally known Press (BBC, NYT, ...) with a foundation-year way before the emergence of the huge amount of hard to differentiate mis- or disinformation, preferably the year 2000 or even sooner. Again, I would not consider the reference to the online-magazine "Pacific Standard" a reliable source in our age of mis- and disinformation. It takes 1-2 days, today to set-up such a online-magazines without known well-established publicists. Such references should not be cited here as they are just as controversial as a self-reference. Furthermore, the perception of Peterson among the press varied a great deal, both in reception and over time. It is thus central to keep the references up-to-date. An example which does represent what I consider a fair and up-to-date evaluation is from the NYT: The Jordan Peterson moment. I believe that this is a credible and up to date source to start from. There is not a single reference to 'far-right', 'alt-right', or 'right'. Instead the article points to Petersons cultural, humanistic, psychological, phylosophical world-view. The whole message is overall positive.

Should the page include the wording 'far-right': I have yet to find any evidence for the 'far-right' stigma which doesn't come from an obscure faceless magazine or some close-minded protestor shouting slogans and hiding within the masses. Is there any credible up-to-date reliable reference? I did not find any. The above left-tending NYT article says no. Let us turn the question around: What would Peterson have to say to not be smeared 'far-right'? The answer should not be an left/right ideological statement. This is precisely what he is saying!

I would not include it blundly with the intent to smear and silence, due to lack of any(!) credible referentiable evidence; instead I would include the following line of argumentation:

  • Without doubt... the overwhelming majority of people who are familiar with his content knowns that his position is clearly not 'far-right/left' or 'right/left'. He dedicated decades of his life to studying what such type of thinking will lead to when the left/right-ideologists go too far. In a very vage sense or low resolution, one may understand his interpolation between chaos and order as an equilibrium between left'ish- and right'ish thinking (or psychologically inbetween the devouring mother and tyrannical father), even though this is vastly oversimplified.
  • What Peterson is articulating is the cross-cultural mechanism which stabilised humanities societies from falling into right- or left totalitarian self-destructive pathological societies. When coming from a simple left/right world-view, left-pulling forces take his correction from going too far left as what a suppository 'right-puller' would do. In the left/right binary worldview the pull toward the central equilibrium is hard to distinguish from the pull of covert radical 'far-right' ideologist - unless you listen to him!
  • But Peterson worldview is not binary Left/Right - it's a dichotomy dating back to the earliest known stable civilisations Sumer, see 'Tiamat' and 'Marduk' in "Maps of meaning". He also relates it to Nietzsches Apollonian/Dinosonian dichotomy- and affirmation of life. Peterson is trying to tell the protestors about this stable equilibrium each individual must find within himself, such that one does not fall prey to left- or right self-destructive identity politics. He doesn't even see them as 'enemies' as they see him - in fact he gently corrects people who formulate their questions to be more understanding.

Numerous universities have come forward over the years to allow a civil discussion to clarify Petersons position. However, mobs of protestors made it at first almost impossible to allow Peterson the chance to state his case. Consider for example the protest at Queens University, or the disaster at MacMaster. Innocent until proven guilty - rallying mobs to prevent Peterson to even state his case should be alarming to any free society. Not everyone is interested in engaging in a civil discussion. It is much easier to keep ones box-like thinking and simply smear a stigma on someone to scare people away or be associated.

  • Leaving the stigma 'far-right' on this page without articulating his position takes a side of people smearing a reputation, such that they do not need to allow free-speech. It is simpler to smear his name (burn his book/information) instead of having to confront the possibility that a tenure Ivy league Professor risking his name and reputation might know something they could need to prevent shifting into a pathological society. Peterson is not some average guy on reddit hiding his identity behind some fake profile and big mouth. Before the 'controversy' he already was an extremely successful tenure professor who taught at Harward Ivy league. It's a shame that mob of protestors refusing to engage themselves nor allow others a civil discussion and hiding behind flag of an ideology which lead to hundreds of millions of deaths in the past century (see MacMaster incident), should not be able to smear this page with 'far-right', when they have no clue what Peterson's position is.

As with other pages of prominent people Wikipedia should not allow people to smear the name of Peterson and passively picking the side of a shouting mob contributing to the inhuman treatment of J. B. Peterson. Wikipedia should not allow vague and lose references trying to sneak vicious formulations and 'far-right' stigma with a one-line reference to some obscure online-magazine self-referencing their own bias or some protestor not just unwilling but so deep within their ideological way of thinking that they became unable to consider the possibility that they might go too far by impeding free-speech and promoting compelled-speech.

  • One tragic aspect of the situation is that Petersons message is very hard to articulate correctly this leaves few other possibilities than self-referencing to Peterson. His message has depth psychological aspects which must leave chaotic/creative room for interpretation at some places at other places the message must leave a tyrannically orderly "no" for any room for interpretation.

It takes time for people to understand and catch up. The New York Times did. And they did not call him controversial at all but "one of the most influential thinkers of our time", which is positive - it implies there is a valuable message. Wikipedia should not enable people to smear Ivy leave accredited tenure professors! Let's be reasonable the NYT is considered rather left democratic trending; It would never write this about a 'far-right controversial figure'.

Best wishes, Derek1155 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Derek1155. I see that you posted essentially the same material at Talk: Jordan Peterson, which is the proper place to discuss the content of that article. Posting the same material in two places is not helpful. To be frank, I have zero interest in a lengthy analysis of everything you wrote about Peterson. The point I made at that talk page is a simple one. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable, independent sources say about a topic, and what those sources say about Peterson is much more relevant than what Peterson says about himself. This is a matter of policy and will not change. If you believe that a specific source is not reliable, then file a report at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Here is a friendly suggestion: Take a look at Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. It is far better to post a request that says, "I propose to change Sentence A to Sentence B because it better summarizes Reference C". This concise approach is much more likely to be successful. Let me close by saying that my participation in that article is as an administrator rather than a content editor. My interest is in assuring that policies and guidelines are followed, and that disruption is prevented or stopped promptly. I don't care about the content issues. I hope this clarifies things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Jim. Thank for for being so straight forward and clarifying things. Since the page was marked as controversial I mistakenly assumed to expand the discussions on the subject in Talk: Jordan Peterson instead of directly proposing changes... sorry for that. Take care Derek1155 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:JP Sears on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Revision-deletion request

Hello! Thanks for protecting Richard Grenell - some particularly dedicated vandals. I was wondering if you could revision-delete the vandalism that one of them left on my talk page repeatedly (User talk:Ganesha811. Another kind user already removed it, but it would be great to revision-delete the pornographic material that was added. The diffs in question are as follows: 1, 2, 3. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry you were subjected to that, Ganesha811, and thank you for your contributions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328, thanks! No worries, part and parcel of dealing with trolls and morons. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

About Yorkshire Terriers - In The British Isles Today

Hi

Apologies for any beginners error.

Actually this is a piece of work which is from Our Dogs about Traditional Yorkshire Terriers. Traditional Yorkshire Terriers Are Great. It is from an interview made with me published within Our Dogs. An industry magazine. The thing is we are seeing information within The Yorkshire Terrier section within Wikipaedia which is definitely not about A Yorkshire Terrier but about another breed altogether. Why did this material stay in but mine get thrown out. Who decides. Just wondering. Any help appreciated. Classicyorks (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello: Classicyorks. A properly formatted reference for such an article will clearly identify the publication, and will include the article title, the author, the date of publication and a link to an online version. If the article is not available online, it will include the page number. If the publication is not well known, the city where it is published is helpful. If the publication is a book, the ISBN number should be included.
The people that decide what gets included or excluded from a specific article are the editors interested in that article, through the process of consensus. There are currently 6,273,581 articles in the English Wikipedia and many of them have problems. Wikipedia is a work in progress. You are welcome to work to improve Yorkshire Terrier but you must do so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If a more experienced editor reverts one of your edits and you do not know why, simply ask politely on their talk page, and you will probably get an answer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Me, my wife and my dog Dexter at Wikipedia World Headquarters
Cullen, I hope this situation won't deteriorate into WP:HOUNDING and WP:BITEy behavior. EEng 05:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I love Terriers, EEng#s, but especially those of the Boston variety. You live near there, don't you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Private information! Doxing! Revdel! Oversight! EEng 17:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm in big trouble now, EEng. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

draft Ricardo P Lloyd

Hi Jim I know your experienced with Wikipedia. Please help get Article Ricardo P Lloyd approved it is still in drafts. All relevant information and sources are there. Johnbary129 (User talk:Johnbary129lk) 16:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Johnbary129. Your draft does not convince me that this person meets the notability guideline for actors. The references are a mess. Please read Referencing for beginners and clean them up. External links do not belong in the body of the article, and should be removed. Much of the content is unreferenced and should be removed unless it can be verified. Your first article should be useful, but your biggest challenge is to demonstrate that this person is a notable actor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Remove protection of Aimee Challenor article

Right now the article is a mess. I've worked on several controversial topics and I have never seen this level of protection. Requesting edits is the most cumbersome way to get an accurate article, semi-protection gets rid of 90% of trolls and BLPers, and we can easily revert unsourced claims. I don't see any consensus building attempts, I just see random requests approved by admins WP:OWNing, contrary to all Wikipedia standards. --Loganmac (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Loganmac. This is a matter that you should take up at User talk: Deepfriedokra, the talk page of the administrator who protected the article. Failing that, you are free to make a request at WP:RFPP. As pointed out previously, this is a rare case where too many extended confirmed editors chose the path of disruption. I am not going to unilaterally undo the decision of another administrator acting in good faith. That's the path to chaos. In the mean time, the edit request process is a viable way to offer input into the article content. Wikipedia is not a breaking news feed.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

why my this image is deleted jim please help

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:G2-MeghnaPatel_19-02-17_0306.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 i have mailed all details of work but still got deleted ?Hardyisback11188 (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Hardyisback11188. You will have to discuss this with an administrator at Wikimedia Commons. I cannot help you with anything on that site. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Paul Erdős

A question both deep and profound,
Is whether a circle is round.
In a paper by Erdős,
Co-authored in Kurdish,

A counter-example is found. Anon, but I've a shrewd idea who wrote it; he has no WP article, and I doubt one would stand up.

Did your reading lead you on to the ideas of Erdős number and the mildly surreal Erdős–Bacon number?

Back on topic. I've stayed out of WP:ANI#User:KIENGIR even though we've interacted four or five times. The first was when he made a really good minor improvement to one of my articles, by knowing that during the Austro-Hungarian Empire what is now Slovakia was then called Upper Hungary. I can't remember the reason for the second, but I do remember suggesting that his heritage of what became the Slovak minority in Hungary after WWI following the Treaty of Trianon (1920) might give him a unique and valuable perspective among English Wikipedians. Our later exchanges were cordial, but may have stopped when he realised that I wouldn't be railroaded into making changes.

Those anecdotes said, anyone who suggests (like KIENGIR) that the Nazis weren't fascist or that the Hungarian Arrow Cross Party weren't rabid antisemites needs a serious attitude adjustment. Narky Blert (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for some interesting anecdotes and links, Narky Blert, especially the clue about the pronunciation of Erdős. I had no idea. It is a sad truth that many editors who end up indeffed or banned have a lot to offer the encyclopedia, but are unable to moderate their unique behavioral quirks that cause excessive friction with others. Stop by any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm told the rhyme isn't perfect (it doesn't have to be, it's a limerick); and yes, it's a pity. Narky Blert (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I make a template userbox?

I made this userbox and I want to make it a template in "Humour." How do I do it? The WP:TEMPLATE page is a little vague to me.

BRAINThis Wikipedian is smarter than you!

xdude (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, Xdude gamer, but I am not skilled in template editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Sorry to bother you :) xdude (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

2019 World Figure Skating Championships

Cullen, the IP disruptively editing the article above has returned, now adding a highly inflammatory version of events. She's been reverted twice in a short period of time and there's no reason to think she will stop her reverts, much less use the talk page. We've resumed discussion, but she won't participate. The article needs longer-term protection to stop the disruption. Thank you! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User personally attacking me on my talk page

Hi Cullen328, I’m HelenDegenerate. Thank you for blocking Nbb.7 the vandalism-only account, I appreciate it. I wanted to tell you that I left another report on Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism, about a user that was not only edit warring, but personally attacking me on my talk page. I’ve been looking for an admin to help me for over an hour. Could you help me? They won’t stop warring until someone stops them. HelenDegenerate (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Revdelete request

I found copyrighted content on Lugnuts' talk page. Would it be okay if you delete it? It's hard to miss. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Scorpions13256. I understand your concern, but I would like you to find another administrator to do it. First of all, my experience with redaction and revdeleting is limited. Secondly, I am aware that the editor in question has been in emotional turmoil lately. If I screwed things up, it might make matters worse. I hope that you understand. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not him. It's from another another editor. He found it funny. I will find someone else though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Questionable source?

Hi Jim. Given you previously reverted here for unreliable source/s, what are your thoughts regarding this latest source? Robvanvee 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Robvanvee. It seems that the author has been a professional rock and roll disk jockey for 20 years, so I think that is an acceptable source for this specific claim. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Cheers Jim! Robvanvee 21:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

How to add an existing biography

Greetings , i would like to know how to add an image to an existing biography Kairo owethu (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Asked (again) and answered (again) at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Kullanıcı İsmi disruptive edits

Hello Cullen328, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to point out some recent, potentially disruptive, editing by editor Kullanıcı İsmi who you seemed to have had experience in the past. Namely, the editor in question added a separation line into the infoboxes of almost four dozen Syrian civil war battle articles so to separate the al-Nusra Front from other rebel groups. As per established parameters, the separation line is reserved for those who are fighting against the same enemy, but are not fighting as allies. These groups fought side-by-side as allies during the battles. Furthermore, Kullanıcı İsmi went as far as to remove sourced content and its sources (such as BBC News) in a few of the articles as well without any explanation. He seems to have done this in the past as well. He marked almost all of his edits as minor, which they are not. I think an eye should be kept on Kullanıcı İsmi's behavior and action considered if it continues. He seems to have been blocked three times already in just one month since starting to edit, but apparently to no effect. In any case, your help on resolving the issue in a way that would be beneficial to all if possible would be greatly appreciated. Cheers and have a great day! EkoGraf (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EkoGraf. Please describe the issue at User talk: Kullanıcı İsmi, and provide a link to the established parameters you mentioned. Ask the editor to comply. If disruptive editing continues, let me know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I see that HJ Mitchell has indefinitely blocked this editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The parameters were quickly established through discussions between editors close to the start of the war back in 2011 or 2012. So not sure if I would have been able to find the relevant discussions that far back. After the parameters were agreed upon, for the past 10 years, all editors involved knew of them and followed them when creating and editing the Syrian war battle articles. So I could have called in the others to explain them as well. But in any case, seems his editing, in combination with his past behavior, has indeed been deemed too disruptive leading to a permanent block. Thanks again! EkoGraf (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
EkoGraf, if you expect other editors to abide by certain parameters, then you must be prepared to provide a link to discussions among editors that established that consensus. Otherwise, the consensus cannot be enforced. All those conversations from ten years ago are in the archives. You may want to do some research and save the links in your user space. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I might do just that so its saved up for the future. :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
you are a great editor dude. Defwe12ShotFranzFerdinand Defwe12 14:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Help please

Am new here trying to create a profile for my paint production company - EBULUX PAINT NIGERIA LTD... it’s a registered paint production company located in Abagana, Njikoka LGA, Anambra State Nigeria... I really need a template where I will be providing this information in sequence. Thanks Ebulux Paint (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion About Minecraft Movie

When i was talking with Notch, he said the film was completed and set for Release on 10 April 2021. He also said that many Minecraft YouTubers were set to make cameo appearences. I found no sources, but I do trust considering he is the creator of Minecraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyGaming999 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, CodyGaming999. I have no idea who "Notch" is, and I do not care. We go by what reliable, published sources say, and in my Google search, I was not able to find any reliable sources that say anything about a release date, or even that principle photography has begun. The film has been in development for years with many problems. If the movie was going to be released in a few days, the entertainment media would be covering it heavily. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Fwiw, Notch = Markus Persson. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Remember what I asked in the tea house? I would like you to answer my two questions about Affenpinschers here

1. On Akc’s popularity rank, Affenpinschers rank 148 out of 197, definitely meaning that they’re rare/endangered.

2. Should affenpinschers be classified as a pinscher? The other pinschers have a slender body, pointed ears, a long snout, and are usually Black and Tan. The affenpinscher shares none of these characteristics, and looks more like a black wire haired Pug.

Answermeplease11, why would you possibly think that I know anything about affenpinschers or are able to answer your questions? I never heard of affenpinschers until now. I suggested that you ask at the Reference desk. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Mobile editing

We might've found the editor most dedicated to editing on a smartphone- User:CejeroC, who has managed to make 8.7k edits exclusively on the Android mobile app. The only problem is that they don't seem to know that their talk page exists... Padgriffin (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Padgriffin, this is a monumental failure by the Wikimedia Foundation. Very sad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Padgriffin, I have opened a discussion of this sad story and the underlying problem at User talk: Jimbo Wales. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

TPA

Hi Cullen328. Could you revoke talk page access for MAC Seal and Rubber Components? This shows that they have no intention of stopping their spamming. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Notable Gretsch Players

Hi Jim, I understand why you reverted my additions of notable Gretsch players. The reference links I provided were sort of placeholders while I find better ones. However, I would like to point out that this sort of thing is inherently a little difficult. It is well known, for example, that Elvis owned a couple of Gretsches - there's even a Wikipedia article listing them by serial number. And in other cases, such as Bono, there is even a photograph of him playing his Gretsch on the very article we're talking about. So I propose that we come to a better agreement of what constitutes a reliable source - to wit, some of these players are so well-known to have played those instruments that no external source is really needed; it's just that obvious and uncontroversial. I look forward to your thoughts. Cheers. Arjuna (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Arjuna909. With all due respect, your proposed agreement is not acceptable. If something is "well known", then it should be very easy for you to provide a reliable source. These people playing Gretsch instruments may be well known to you but not to me. This is not "the sky is blue" and "the sun rises in the east" territory. It needs a good reference. Verifiability is a core content policy that requires citations to genuine reliable sources and what you call "placeholders" are forbidden by policy. So, find the reliable sources first, and then write and add the new content. That's the proper order. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand your position - though it's curious how a photo of a famous artist holding a Gretsch instrument on the very article under discussion does not create a self-evidently true verification in and of itself. However, you are correct that better sources were needed. I have now gone back, found unimpeachable citations, and added most of the names back. Best regards, Arjuna (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Arjuna909, a photo of a famous musician playing a certain guitar at a moment in time is not proof that that person favored that particular guitar or this brand of guitar. Many professional musicians try out a wide variety of instruments. What we need in order to include content connecting a musician to a certain brand or model of instrument is a written (not photographic) reference by someone like a musicologist or a professional music critic making that connection. High standards like this result in a much better encyclopedia. I like Bono and saw U2 perform once, but will only believe what type of guitar he favors when I read it in a reliable source. I paid much more attention to the performance than the brand labels on his guitars. The risk of promotionalism is high for this type of content, so excellent referencing is required. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Bono in fact collaborated with Gretsch on a Bono signature edition guitar (see: https://gretschguitars.com/gear/build/hollow-body/g6136i-bono-falcon-hollow-body-with-cadillac-tailpiece/2411409846. Demanding a 5 sigma proof seems a bit overkill, but there you go - if you wanted dispositive evidence. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Wilful bias

Hello Jim, It may be that this question is for another place but I have yet to find it. The page foreskin suffers from total bias, particularly the section on sensitivity. The citations include eight from one source, Professor Brian Morris (biologist) who I claim to be wholly unreliable and possibly discredited. (His page has issues also) I am not alone in that claim as the talk page there shows. He advocates compulsory circumcision and his views are extreme, while not being mentioned at all on his own page. The article has a great many photographs (too many?) which could cause offence and should have provision not to be seen. It contains a reference to circumcision in the introduction. (arm contains no detail of amputation). The section on sensitivity ends with what reads like a rhetorical flourish. The editor says he believes any debate on sensitivity is over. He only makes citations to evidence that support this point of view. To my mind the page needs a "This page has multiple issues' warning and preferably some good neutral editing. If you can use your best judgement and then please point me to the right place to report that would be a start. Thank you.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thelisteninghand. I am not interested in editing this article. I suggest that you begin by reading Dispute resolution. To determine whether a source is reliable, please use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For issues of neutrality, use the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I do not consider the number of images to be excessive, although the art images add little. As for a provision to not see the images, that is a non starter. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take it up on neutrality. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mayo, UK edition, pp.265-266.
  2. ^ New York/London: Kennikat Press, 1970 pp 263-268
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_76&oldid=1142947798"