User talk:Cullen328/Archive 85

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80 ← Archive 83 Archive 84 Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 → Archive 90

Season's Greetings

Hello Cullen328: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, You'vegotmail27 • TALK 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

You'vegotmail27 • TALK 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent IP block

Thanks for taking action here, but I had a follow-up question. This editor revealed their intentions of not being here to build an encyclopedia. They spent a vast majority of their time casting accusations, rambling through walls of text without any real substance, and scoffed at every opportunity they were given to collaborate and move the discussion forward. So I get that we're giving them at least one last opportunity to turn things around, but what's left in their wake is a lot of disruptive activity on these talk pages. Is there any justification in removing all this junk? I wasn't sure if this trolling behavior would qualify as a valid reason to. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GoneIn60. You ask some very good questions. You are free to revert any of this IP's edits that you believe are damaging to the encyclopedia. I would focus on their edits to articles. The general consensus is that IP editors should be given relatively short blocks, not so much in the belief that the person behind the IP address will "reform" but that the IP address might be reassigned to a productive contributor. Maybe equally idealistic but that is the operating assumption. If you see this IP resuming disruption, please let me know and I will re-double the block. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for [the block], but I think it needs to be longer than two weeks. This user with a different [IP range] was previously blocked for three months, and that follows other blocks. I think he/she/they have pretty much demonstrated that they will never be civil. I'd ask that you consider making it six months or permanent. The constant arguing, personal attacks, and complete inability to engage in civil discussion are making me weary. I can't imagine what it is doing to other contributors. It needs to stop.—JlACEer (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
JlACEer, if this person returns to disruption from any IP address or from a new account, let me know and I will block at that time for a longer period. Indefinite blocks of IP addresses are not supported by policy. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Guess who's back! Sent me a "thinking of you" note (diff). How thoughtful. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, GoneIn60. I have blocked that particular IP for 90 days. Let me know if that person rears their head in another form. Cullen328 (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your signature

Just wondering why you changed your signature back to the default on 20 November. Was it in response to a complaint that somebody couldn't find your talk page? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie333. No, it was because of an entirely unrelated technical problem that I could not figure out. I decided to go back to the default settings in my preferences, and that wiped out my old signature. And I have been busy moving from my old house to a brand new house 100 miles away, so haven't gotten around to restoring the signature. Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Wishing you well in Grass Valley, Cullen! I miss the old siggy too, but will be patient until you get settled and the new year and such passes. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hi sir, Are you able to help me get started on here? Any advice or help is appreciated Heavymetalmaniacforever (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Heavymetalmaniacforever. It looks like you are trying to add a reference link to an album review inside of a section header. We never add any links inside of headers. They go in the prose. Normally, you would add a reference to a review right after a sentence or two summarizing the review. Please see WP:CHEATSHEET for formatting tips, and feel free to ask more questions. You may want to try The Wikipedia Adventure which is an interactive learning game. Cullen328 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting questions

It occurred to me that if you would enjoy reading answers to those "interesting questions", you could ask him about them on his user talk page. --Andreas JN466 17:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Jayen466. For a variety of reasons, I am not interested in getting into a tussle with Jimbo right now. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
That's understandable. --Andreas JN466 17:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I myself have long been unwelcome on his talk page but have now mentioned the matter here. --Andreas JN466 13:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism by T0KY0T0WN

Next puppet of user "PolishBoyInUK", "PANORAMA.PL" etc ... see please her [1] 2A01:C23:9589:CA00:5C74:333D:CFAB:98D8 (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked. Favonian (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Opinions?

Hey - a few months back you blocked the user whose name is now user:D.C. at MAD Foundation Inc.. They seem, to me, to have learned their lesson - would you be okay with them being unblocked? Thanks. DS (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DragonflySixtyseven. I trust your judgment on this matter and will comment accordingly on their user talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Trickle-down economics on a "Economy, trade, and companies" 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 20:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:TobeyCMossGallery

Cullen328, thank you for your comment on my next-to-the-latest revision of Draft:TobeyCMossGallery. You said that it was "a lot of name-dropping and this is not a Hollywood Party". I understand that you might feel that way, but the gallery was like a realtor, who "makes" a market for a set of homes, where there is none before. The names "dropped" were a way to define a niche, a sub-genre, called California Modernism. If you look the term up, you hear most about architecture, Schindler, Neutra, not about the painters and sculptors surrounding it. That is what is historically significant about this gallery, creating something important in the Southern California art scene that did not exist before. Also, it was a way to connect disparate wikipedia entries into a more cohesive unit, an important purpose of wikipedia, to make connections. Thanks for allowing me to explain. DavidJMoss DavidJMoss (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DavidJMoss. The draft in question is Draft:Tobey C. Moss Gallery. The spaces and the punctuation matter. The list in the third sentence is entirely unreferenced and that is what makes it name dropping. An unreferenced list like this fails two core content policies, Verifiability and No original research. Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable, independent sources say in detail about the topic. There seems to be a shortage of truly independent sources that devote significant coverage to the gallery in your draft. The only one that I see is the LA Times article "Review: 'The Big 3-0! Thirty Years of California Modernism' at Tobey C. Moss Gallery". The rest are interviews, directory listings and discussion of various artist's work that simply mention the gallery in passing. A gallery is not considered notable just because it has exhibited and sold works by many notable artists. It becomes notable when the gallery itself receives significant coverage by multiple reliable, independent sources. You need more of them. So, when you write at the top of the draft that you think that you are 90% done, my estimate is closer to 30%. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Royalty 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 00:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you from DavidJMoss

Your comment is important because draft:tobeycmossgallery has several reliable independent sources but they are newspaper reviews. Arent they prohibited because they are copyrighted? 2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:B5 (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DavidJMoss. Please log in to edit. It is not a problem to cite copyrighted newspaper articles, and it is done all the time on Wikipedia. The issue is the significance of the coverage. Compare the two Los Angeles Times articles cited in your draft. The first article devotes significant coverage to the gallery, so reviewers would consider that a good source. The second article is primarily about Helen Lundeberg and is additional evidence that Lundeberg is notable, but the gallery is mentioned only briefly without any detail. Reviewers would consider that a poor source because it does not include significant coverage of the gallery. You need several more sources comparable to the first LAT article, which in my judgment is the only reference in your draft which provides solid evidence of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

Holiday cheer
Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 C. MarnetteD|Talk 02:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Joanna Simon (mezzo-soprano) 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 22:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Truly evil document

User talk:Truly evil document Hi there Cullen328! I want to report to you that this user has been continuously reverting my edits at Avianca Perú and has been giving vandalism notifications even though it is clearly not vandalism. I would appreciate some assistance. 106.214.81.165 (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That editor has been indefinitely blocked by another administrator, which is not a surprise. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)

Jim,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Interstellarity. I hope that 2022 is kind to all of us. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Cullen328! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

History of the Jews in Maine‎

Hi Cullen, I thought you might be interested in looking at this article, as well as the discussion I'm having with an editor who is interested in the article. I suspect you're better qualified than I to actually discuss the content issues. (I didn't even know we had articles like this.) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bbb23. There are lots of "History of the Jews in . . ." articles. It is mildly amusing that this article about a group of 22,000 people is significantly longer than History of the Jews in Los Angeles, a group of 700,000 people. History of the Jews in San Francisco, a topic I know a bit about, is a stub. The article has some essay like phrasing and lots of unreferenced details. I know very little about Maine as it is a very long way from California and I have only been there once for a few hours. Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Is there a reliable way to count the number of Jews in a particular place?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Bbb23, there are several organizations that make serious attempts to count them, including the Pew Research Center in the U.S. and the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sergio Della Pergola is a respected academic who has devoted his career to this question.
Synagogue membership is a rough proxy. Surveys show that about half of American Jews belong to a synagogue. So, if the synagogues in a given city have a combined membership of 5000, then the assumption is that there are about 10,000 Jews in that city. This clearly does not apply to towns that are ultra-orthodox enclaves, such as Monsey, New York and Kaser, New York whose populations are almost entirely very religious Jews. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Kiryas Joel, New York is another example. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. --A.S. Brown (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Huggums537 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Merry Christmas


Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Article classes.

Hi Jim. Now that I am unblocked, will you please help me find out what article classes I can change Tennessee Colony, Texas and Slocum, Texas to? I have looked on WP:WikiProject United States/Assessment#Quality scale and can't decide which ones fit. To reiterate, I do not want you to change them for me, I just want to get your opinion on them. Thanks. Colman2000 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Colman2000. I recommend "Start" for both articles. Neither is a stub but both need improved references. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Done. I just changed them. Thanks again. Colman2000 (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Bingbongman123, User:Return of the Bingbongman123

Looks like this blocked user is back as User:Coney Island Bing Bong and User:JoeByronbingbong123. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, and thank you. I have blocked the sockpuppets and their unreferenced edits have been reverted. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

AN/I Closure

Because I can no longer contribute to the discussion on AN/I, I am posting this same comment on multiple user's talk pages. You are one of those users, and I apologize for bringing this to your talk page instead. I am disappointed that the issue I posted on AN/I was closed so quickly, without giving me a chance to respond. Not everybody is on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. This was my very first time reporting anything to AN/I and, yes, I should have included more detail, and I apologize for not doing so, but now I do not have the opportunity to do so.

The very fact that Hammersoft assumes that I simply don't understand Wikipedia does not assume good faith (and, yes, there is the clear implication that it is my fault that I do not understand what Hammersoft doesn't actually state). The fact that I asked questions repeatedly that Hammersoft did not answer (for no specified reason) is uncivil.

I do not believe Hammersoft is trying to improve Wikipedia here. Someone who wanted to improve Wikipedia would help figure out how to get this notable information in the article, not reject it no matter what. And they would explain why they think Pantheos is not acceptable here while it is acceptable in hundreds of other articles. Whether or not this is uncivil by the Wikipedia definition of the term, it is uncivil by the definition of the word. On notability, I argue that the proposed addition is notable simply because of its direct connection to the SCOTUS case, an "unintended consequence" of it, just like Gavin Newsom's proposal to advance gun control in California based on the Texas law that it looks like SCOTUS will uphold. Every SCOTUS case is notable and unintended consequences of those cases are notable.

Hammersoft is very good at citing all sorts of policies. I don't like citing policies as they are frequently used as a fake "appeal to authority." For example, in Hammersoft's response, they cite WP:NOTSILENCE incorrectly. I did not say that their silence meant consent, nor did I chastise them for a general failure to respond. Not responding is their right. But they did respond and, given that, I said that their failure to respond to my questions and my attempts to confirm my understanding of what they were trying to say meant that I would assume they are incorrect. (Note: Hammersoft did what WP:NOTSILENCE says they shouldn't do — they repeated the same things without providing additional information.)

The discussion in AN/I is also tainted. Does Cullen328 refer to other religions as "guerilla theatre groups"? Or just The Satanic Temple? Cullen328's personal opinions on a particular religion they don't like — essentially an attack on that religion — are absolutely not NPOV and do not belong in this discussion.

I do not intend to make this minor addition to Wikipedia my life's work, but it exhibits one of the things I hate about Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be much better off if people spent more time figuring out how to add important and useful (and notable!) information to Wikipedia rather than trying so hard to remove things. It's sad. I will follow up with an RfC on the issue of whether Pantheos can be cited or not (note that I have already tried, unsuccessfully, to get Hammersoft to engage on this issue).

RoyLeban (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RoyLeban. The term "guerilla theater" originated with the San Francisco Mime Troupe", an acclaimed and beloved organization, so it is not an attack. The Wikipedia article about the Satanic Temple says it "has utilized satire, theatrical ploys, humor, and legal action in their public campaigns to 'generate attention and prompt people to reevaluate fears and perceptions'," which is almost identical to the definition of guerilla theater. Your conclusion that I "do not like" this group is completely incorrect. I share much of their skepticism about religious dogma. I just insist that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines be followed.
As for the 450 blogs that are hosted by Patheos (not Pantheos), their usage ought to be restricted just the way that any other blog is. You are asking for a special exemption for this blog and that is not going to be granted. Read WP:SPS until you understand it. You are free to bring this issue up at WP:RSN where I am sure that a consensus will emerge that this blog is not reliable for this claim. Experienced Wikipedia editors will always insist on high-quality independent reliable sources to back up any contentious claim.
If you hate Wikipedia and its well-accepted policies and guidelines, perhaps your writing efforts might be better spent at another website. I am concerned that you will end up blocked if you continue on this quest. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. There are many who discount The Satanic Temple because they are biased against it. They think they get to decide what is real and what isn't. I get irked by those people because I have had my own beliefs questioned my entire life (and, no, I'm not a member of The Satanic Temple, though I respect their science-based belief system). It seems I unfairly accused you of being one of those people. But I think you share the blame for poor word choice because I think many, if not most, would assume your comment was an attack. My knowledge of guerilla theater's origins (yes, I'm familiar) don't matter.
I'm familiar with WP:SPS. What I don't accept is that there are 911 references to Patheos (yeah, I kept spelling it wrong, oops) which are considered acceptable but one editor can say that this particular columnist (one of the top 6 on Patheos) is a blogger. Both Patheos and the Wikipedia article on Patheos say there are both bloggers and columnists. Patheos lists Hemant Mehta as a columnist. I don't pretend that I know what that actually means, but I do know that the current 6-year-old guidance is being questioned repeatedly, is marked as stale, and should be looked at again. I asked the question "what does Hammersoft know that the editors who put in those other references don't?" and they ignored the question. What I know is that Mehta's articles read like journalist articles, not like a blog. I know that they appear pretty neutral. And I know that Mehta is listed as a top columnist. Hammersoft, essentially, says that everything on Patheos is unacceptable.
I think Wikipedia is its own worst enemy, but it's essentially the only encyclopedia in existence anymore, so it is better than nothing. I try to improve it. In this case, I came across the article and thought, hey, this should be on Wikipedia, so I added it. I had no hidden agenda. I'm not stupid enough to think that either The Satanic Temple can magically change the name or that a referenced to it on Wikipedia makes anything happen in the real world. I felt it was notable as an unintended consequence of the SCOTUS case (perhaps it belongs in that article instead).
I could point to an article which is provably, factually wrong, but I just gave up and said f it. I won't point to it because I edited it under my earlier, anonymous account. The situation is basically that A implies B but B does not imply A. The only place to find information about B is on the A article and it says that B only exists in relationship to A. This is simply wrong. I created a B page, with lots of information, well and properly sourced, and I linked to it from the A page. The page was not perfect, but it was a great start. A particular editor disagreed, deleted the new page, attacked me, etc., claiming incorrectly that B was not possible absent A. It wasn't worth it, so I gave up. A dozen years later, it is still wrong. In another example, I cited from two books that I own, that are sitting on my shelf. One was by Dmitri Borgman, the other by Douglas Hofstadter, both of whom are well known. Doug is a friend who was my graduate advisor, but that's irrelevant. I quoted text and cited page numbers, etc. Another editor argued that they didn't have copies of these books so they could not be cited (one of the books is available in snippets in Google Books). I gave up. (There are many more examples on that page and it is much worse today than it was when I gave up editing the page.) The fact that Wikipedia allows these things to happen is a major problem, and it was one of the things that convinced me that anonymity was a bad thing. Many of Wikipedia's policies enable bad faith editing, and that is sad to me. RoyLeban (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, RoyLeban. Have you ever read the essay WP:TLDR? Check it out. Being concise is a virtue. I cannot comment on a lengthy anecdote about some article if you are unwilling to mention the article. Your comment that "Wikipedia allows these things to happen" is indicative that you still don't understand how Wikipedia really works (and why it is so successful). There is no central authority. I happen to agree with you that anonymity can be problematic but it is necessary for editors working under repressive regimes for example, or for people who would almost certainly be subjected to severe harassment for the work they do on Wikipedia. You can see that I voluntarily disclose a lot of personal information on my user page, and that has led to threats of violence against me and my vulnerable family members for the work I do here.
Now to the substance of the matter: There is NO significant coverage of this bullshit "renaming" in any reliable sources. Even if you redefine the bloggers blog as a "column", the column in question was indisputably based on press releases and official statements by the Satanist group, so it utterly fails to meet the standards of inclusion in an article about a National Trust for Historic Preservation site. It is simply not an independent, reliable source. So, furnish coverage in indisputably independent reliable sources, or drop the matter. Pushing this issue any further places you at a very high risk of being blocked. I won't block you myself because I am involved now with the content dispute. But you are carrying this bizarre campaign of yours from place to place all over Wikipedia, and eventually, an uninvolved administrator is going to say "enough is enough" and force you to stop by blocking you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@RoyLeban: I concur with what Cullen is saying. At Talk:Peace Cross, nobody is agreeing with you. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Request_for_comment_on_citing_Patheos, nobody is agreeing with you. In the thread you raised about my supposed uncivil behavior, nobody agreed with you. Not satisfied with the result of that thread, you started four different user talk discussions with identical content [2][3][4][5]. Unsurprisingly, of the three that have responded (including Cullen), nobody has agreed with you. Over the last six months, you've attempted to add information regarding "Satanic Peace Cross" three times and nobody has agreed with you. Cullen has noted there is a high risk of you being blocked. That isn't a threat. Cullen's made it clear they wouldn't block you because of WP:INVOLVED. I wouldn't block you either for the same reason. So, don't take this as a threat. We're telling you, based on experience from what we both have seen many times over the years, the behavior you are exhibiting could lead to a block. Let's assume for the sake of argument that your arguments in favor of Patheos and adding in "Satanic Peace Cross" are absolutely without flaw, scintillating demonstrations of the highest of academic thought, and so well sourced as to be beyond dispute. That would be the strongest case in favor of your position. Yet, every person to date at the article, at the talk page of the article, at WP:AN/I, and at WP:RSN has disagreed with you. It's likely that the only logical conclusion we could draw from such a circumstance (which, again, favors your position as much as possible) is that all of us who disagree with you are just too dumb to realize it. Given that, I think you have to see that it's time to drop the stick. None of your writings on this subject have convinced anyone, nor does it appear likely that they will. Please carefully read WP:LISTEN. It's time to move on. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: This might be the most reasonable reply I've seen from you. I appreciate that. I'll admit it was dumb to post in four places. I was frustrated that the AN/I post was closed so quickly (and I still feel you didn't treat me well, but that's the past). I wasn't thinking I was starting four discussions — I was trying to post four notices and I didn't keep it short. I should have posted in one place and added four small notices. On the more general issue, it's hard to drop something when I see people stating opinions as facts. I only posted the AN/I and the RfC after other people suggested them. If they were such a bad idea, why are people who claim to know more than me suggesting them?
And, btw, I added another reference to the talk page, an independent local news site. RoyLeban (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying the AN/I and RSN threads were a bad idea. I'm saying nobody is agreeing with you at them. It's time to move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

New Page - Sean Bush

Hi Jim,

I hope you are doing well and ready for the new year.

We last chatted back in October regarding the draft page for Dr. Sean Bush - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sean_Bush. As a next step, you had suggested I reach out to either the TeaHouse or to folks on the WikiProject/Science and Academia for a subject expert to review for notability. I'm a little delayed due to some personal issues but I'm happy to have heard back from @Shyamal and stated that the subject is notable but did not see an 'accept' button for the article. They left a comment on the draft page but wasn't sure what else to do at this point so I wanted to reconnect with you so you could see the comment.

What do I do now? Thanks, Nicole Beansalad3 (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

JSFarman has accepted the page. Thanks for your help and have a great new year! Cheers, Nicole Beansalad3 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Beansalad3 I saw your earlier Teahouse request while standing in a checkout line at a supermarket. Then I needed to drive home, cook dinner and relax a bit. I am very pleased that JSFarman has accepted the article, since she is an excellent editor here. I would have accepted it myself if she hadn't. Good work, and thank you for your patience. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jim, Not sure what the approach should be but I have noticed another user, Randykitty, has deleted several peer-review articles from Dr. Bush stating he was not the first or second author. As those are medical peer reviews they are often-times reviewed by multiple sources. This was also reviewed by Shyalam from the Science and Academia group. Can anyone just go in and delete content? Thanks and what's the best way to proceed? Just undo the deletion? Beansalad3 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Beansalad3, any editor acting in good faith can delete content that they believe is inappropriate. Randykitty is a highly experienced editor and administrator with far more expertise about academic writing than I have. Avoid edit warring and instead discuss the matter directly with Randykitty. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi Cullen328! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Viktor Fedotov

Hi! Why have you deleted the article about Viktor Fedotov? I've written it from scratch and so the old deletion discussion is not relevant. Alaexis¿question? 13:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Alaexis. I encountered this article while investigating a situation at Arbitration enforcement that resulted in another editor being blocked indefinitely. Your version of the article, in my opinion, made less of a case that this person is notable than the version deleted at AfD. If you disagree with my decision, than please discuss the matter at Deletion review. If there is consensus to restore the article, I will not object. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Alaexis¿question? 10:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Viktor Fedotov

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Viktor Fedotov. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alaexis¿question? 10:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy 2022! Happy holidays

Happy New Year!
Cullen328,
Have a great 2022 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2022 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2022}} to user talk pages.

– North America1000 16:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

ZENDESK

This matter should be discussed at WP:COIN, not here

Re: your reason for the Zendesk article revert, Wikipedia states their affiliation with Zendesk on the wikipedia donation page. I did not know how to reference that. 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this matter at Talk: Zendesk. Nobody cares about who donated or did not donate to our host, the fully independent Wikimedia Foundation. Such donations have zero impact on content. Maybe less than zero. Cullen328 (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
your response here seems entirely disconnected with the facts. Presumably Zendesk is paid by the Wikimedia foundation, for managing the public donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. So, as with any business and resulting potential conflict of interest, therefore such business relationships should be disclosed here at Wikipedia's article about Zendesk. Particularly due to Wikipedia's own policy of requiring editors to disclose their own personal potential conflicts of interest when editing articles in which those editors indeed have conflict of interest. Regardless that very few editors actually willingly disclose such personal conflicts of interest. But Articles about Wikimedia business associations certainly shouldn't be exempted from conforming with Wikipedia rules. Otherwise it is perfectly justifiable for Wikipedia contributors to edit Articles in which such contributors would technically be barred from editing. Anyway, it's no wonder that there is so much problem with paid editing on Wikipedia, if other administrators such as yourself, aren't willing to actively enforce Wikipedia's own policies about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
First of all, you need to provide a reference to a reliable source to add content to Wikipedia. Secondly, I asked you to discuss the matter at Talk: Zendesk and you have not done so. I knew nothing, personally, about the relationship between Zendesk and the Wikimedia Foundation, but just found out that they are a vendor of some online support services. Which reliable sources discuss a conflict of interest? If you believe that there is a conflict of interest, then discuss it at WP:COIN. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
In regard to your statement that you weren't previously aware of the relationship between Zendesk and Wikipedia or Wikimedia, I stated my source to you at the top of this thread. I may have also stated it within the reason for the Article edit, because I wasn't certain of how to properly reference Wikipedia or Wikimedia as being its own source. I had hoped some other editor would know how to properly add the reference. But instead it seems that most contributors to this site would rather simply delete edits of easily verifiable information, instead of doing a super easy quick Google verification. And, re. your suggestion to post to that specific Talk page, how can you be certain that anyone is watching that talk page? In the first place, there is already a related previous thread there, but which nobody ever acted upon. And secondly it seems that most Wikipedia contributors are far too busy being vandalism Janitors, than taking a few extra moments to assess worthwhile content. Meaning, that you alone may possibly have been the only chance for allowing that information into the Article. But you instead chose to simply disallow it. So as far as I am concerned now the Article can stay just the way it is. I am not going to put any more effort into making that specific Article a better Article so that it conforms to Wikipedia's own internal policies. Maybe someone else will contribute to it.

Oh, and I never stated that there was a known conflict of interest. That's immaterial to the disclosure of the relationship between Wikimedia and Zendesk. The whole purpose of disclosure is not dependent upon whether or not there is any direct evidence of any impropriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have completed a search for any coverage in reliable sources of any alleged conflict of interest and come up with nothing. Zendesk is a vendor of support services to the WMF. Many companies provide various services to the WMF. Should any article about any such company report that they do business with the WMF? I fail to see why. You had written "Zendesk is currently, 2021, directly affiliated managerially with Wikipedia financial donations." That provides zero information of value to readers and is extremely unclear. I do not know what more to say about this but if there are any credible reports of impropriety in this business relationship, then I will add it to the article. As of now, it is an utterly mundane business relationship unworthy of mention in an encyclopedia. You seem all worked up about it but unwilling to comment at the proper places for such a discussion. I am mystified. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I too am mystified, about what is so mystifying to you, about why it's important for disclosure about paid companies which are directly affiliated with Wikimedia. I'll try to explain it again. Wikipedia, itself, hosts an article here at Wikipedia, about a company that is doing for-profit work for Wikipedia and Wikimedia. So, for purposes of full-disclosure, that precise business relationship should be included in the Article. If maybe you perhaps don't understand the basic concept of full-disclosure, here is Wikipedia's own description of "conflict of interest". And notice that "The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of inappropriateness" which I tried to explain above, but you still seem to be improperly focusing upon proven wrongdoing, despite my above wording and Wikipedia's alternate wording below. ""A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party.

An "interest" is a commitment, obligation, duty or goal associated with a particular social role or practice.[1] By definition, a "conflict of interest" occurs if, within a particular decision-making context, an individual is subject to two coexisting interests that are in direct conflict with each other. Such a matter is of importance because under such circumstances the decision-making process can be disrupted or compromised in a manner that affects the integrity or the reliability of the outcomes.

Typically, a conflict of interest arises when an individual finds himself or herself occupying two social roles simultaneously which generate opposing benefits or loyalties. The interests involved can be pecuniary or non-pecuniary. The existence of such conflicts is an objective fact, not a state of mind, and does not in itself indicate any lapse or moral error. However, especially where a decision is being taken in a fiduciary context, it is important that the contending interests be clearly identified and the process for separating them is rigorously established. Typically, this will involve the conflicted individual either giving up one of the conflicting roles or else recusing himself or herself from the particular decision-making process that is in question.

The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of inappropriateness. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A conflict of interest exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that a decision may be unduly influenced by other, secondary interests, and not on whether a particular individual is actually influenced by a secondary interest.

A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."[2] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public officer. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favours for family and friends. These secondary interests are not treated as wrong in and of themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. Conflict of interest rules in the public sphere mainly focus on financial relationships since they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable, and usually involve the political, legal, and medical fields."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this issue is WP:COIN, not my talk page. As far as I know, WMF staffers are not editing that page, and the editor paid by Zendesk has disclosed their COI. This is a nothingburger unless you can find something solid that you have not yet produced. So, please do not post on my talk page again unless it is a link to a reliable source that describes this routine business relationship as a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. You seem to think that Wilipedia and the WMF are the same. This is false. Wikipedia predates the WMF and has complete editorial independence. The WMF has no involvement in routine day to day editing of Wikipedia articles, and therefore there is no WMF COI regarding this particular article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be making the issue far more complicated than it should be. Basically, Zendesk is financially profiting from Wikipedia volunteers. So surely it would be worthwhile noting that, in some very basic manner in the very least, within the Zendesk article. And regardless whether you personally have an opinion one way or the other, about Zendesk financially profiting from Wikipedia volunteers and Wikimedia financial donors. b.t.w. I obviously also disagree with your apparent assessment that this is not the forum to discuss this specific issue. All Wikipedia editors should take responsibility for their personal actions, rather than trying to axacerbate the problem by shoveling it off into some other forum. Especially because you already determined that my edit was not only made in good faith, but also verifiable. Your only stated objection to my edit's wording was my lack of a properly displayed ref. So, instead of you sending me off into another forum, wouldn't it be more suitable and reasonable for you to simply add one of the refs you easily discovered in the process of arguing with me? Or, if you perhaps object to the way I worded the edit, feel free to compose your own wording based upon your interpretation of the relationship between Zendesk and Wikipedia. But please don't waste other contributors' time by sending me to another forum for the sole purpose of you not having to take responsibility for you deleting my verifiable and good faith edit. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) IP User, you should not continue to post on a user's talk page after they've asked you not to. Please see the user talk page guidelines. Firefangledfeathers 03:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_85&oldid=1070006263"