User talk:Cullen328/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65 → Archive 70

Claude Ferguson Article

Hi Jim, I need help and I have a COI (I just learned that it is a bad thing). Now I should not edit it and try to cleanup it up.

The DDT Aerial spraying section is correct and has a published article 1977... “Ferguson still battling bureaucracy but tired of waiting” by David Hulen, IDS staff writer.. (Indiana Daily Student Bloomington, IN) .

It talks about his faulty diagnosis, his medicine and hospitalization with DRS names. I have emailed IDS to see if they can point me to it online but if it’s not how can I get it used as a citation, I have it in my hand. It states exactly what I wrote in the ddt section. It looks like someone else has shorten my ddt aerial portion again.

The off road vehicle section and the lawsuit section were created using newspaper article and a 2009 published article “Administrative Profile: Claude Ferguson Rosemary O'Leary Syracuse University... and her book :: “The Ethics of Dissent” includes an entire chapter “ When a career public servant sues the agency he loves: Claude Ferguson, and off-road vehicles in the Hoosier National Forest”.

I had included these in my reference section. That is now gone.

I only want to do what's right. Please bear with me and I do appreciate any help. Thank you! Carla Solowalk (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion - Article 'GlobalLinker'

hi @Cullen328. Taking this forward from Teahouse reference. References are reliable, independent and not press release. These are news in top newspaper.

Can I know what made you think these are press release, This will help me in improving the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksndls (talk • contribs) 05:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Aksndls. That is the conclusion that I draw from decades of writing, reading and evaluating press releases. Please tell me what your connection is with GlobalLinker. Are you an employee or a PR person by chance? I would appreciate an answer. If so, please read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Erich Brauer - Technical Problem

Hi, @Cullen328:. I am the creator of the page Erich Brauer, but when any onlooker checks the edit history and goes back to the earliest date, the article is listed as being created by User:Mag2k. The reason for this discrepancy is because, before I created the article, User:Mag2k had already made a "Redirect" for a different article, entitled Arik Brauer, and he used the name "Erich" for his redirect. How can I alleviate this problem, and have the article "Erich Brauer" shown in my own list of articles created? The same can be said about the article Beit Shearim, which I created, but because of an earlier re-direct in that name to the article Beit She'arim National Park, the article that I created is listed under the articles created by User:Ynhockey. Davidbena (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Davidbena. In all honesty, I have never run across this problem before. I am now working a long way from home and will be traveling for several hours when I am done. I recommend that you ask for help at Village pump/Technical. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Shorten

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Shorten. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

WooHoo!

Hey, Cullen328. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Mjs1991. Thirty minutes to go in my time zone, but Wikipedia runs on UTC, right? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, CAPTAIN RAJU. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

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

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Assistance

hello Jim i humbly ask for your assistance on the article am writing. i am new here and i dont know that much. can you please help me on the article am writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omafeni (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Omafeni. If you have some specific questions, I will try to answer them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2020 Bangkok

Hi Jim. I won't be going to Stockholm most unfortunately, because I really can't afford $3,000 just for 5 days in the far north of Europe. I'll leave that trip to the Europeans and the 70-strong WMF junket. But next year Wikimania is right on my doorstep. I hope you will be able to come. I will be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time. Regards, Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. I can't make any promises now, but I will certainly consider it. I already knew about 2020 but thanks for the reminder. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Lewis Hilsenteger

Hi Cullen328. You applied indefinite create protection on Lewis Hilsenteger. Would you redirect the page to Unbox Therapy, which I recently restored to mainspace. Lewis Hilsenteger is the co-creator and host of Unbox Therapy. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cunard.  Done Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Cunard (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fabiana Rosales. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Your eyes, please

Edit summary - the article is a relatively new GAC and was stable long enough that I decided to nominate it. Atsme Talk 📧 22:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Atsme. Those remarks were pretty snippy. It seems that the conversation has moved on since then, and it might be counterproductive for me to comment right now. What do you think? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
No, he's bludgeoning, and gaslighting while trying to push his POV, right at the beginning of a GA review that FunkMonk just accepted. What he's doing is highly disruptive. Take a look at the TP. Atsme Talk 📧 01:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I did take a look at the TP several times, and based on further comments have issued a general warning there, Atsme. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Changing username

How should I do it in case of privacy issue with old user name?Uziel302 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You simply cannot edit closed discussions to change the names of the editors involved. That is falsification. Please read Wikipedia:Changing username for the options available to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Cullen!!! Due to your supportive essay about using smartphone for editing,I am now successful in using the desktop site of Wikipedia.Thanks for your advice on Teahouse. Also,could you tell me how to gain the adminship on Wikipedia. Thanks,and waiting for your advice!! G-Force234 (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, G-Force234. I am glad that my essay was useful for you. As for becoming an administrator, please read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and the associated links. The short answer is that the community will expect well over a year of consistent productive editing which includes both high quality creation of encyclopedic content as well as constructive participation in the behind-the-scenes operations of the encylopedia. That includes things like vandalism fighting, evaluating new articles and participation in deletion debates. Community members will be looking for evidence of good judgment, a calm demeanor, a helpful attitude and good knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Cullen!! Hope to get advice from you again sometime.By the way,love your dog. G-Force234 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

contradiction of Poetics 13 and 14

Hello, I have another question as I start drafting. I went to my talk page and added a disclosure that the topic is close to me. However, the peer-reviewed work that I have done on the subject I no longer endorse, and plus it wasn't published. My opinion has changed since then. Currently, another scholarly piece I wrote is soon to be peer-reviewed. But it may not be published. Consequently, I would never include it in this Wikipedia draft, nor should any other editor who comes along mention my own research. Unless my academic article was published. Therefore, there should not be a serious COI issue in this draft. The article for now will only include researchers other than myself. Thanks.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Cdg1072. I suggest that you move the disclosure to your (now blank) user page, and elaborate a little bit if you want. You may find Wikipedia:Expert editors to be useful as well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did that--moved it to the talk page. There I clarified that I should be able to write about the other scholars opinions objectively. I won't be criticizing them, except in reporting where they have criticized each other--as Lessing did Dacier.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

There is another incident I would like to notify you about, and surprisingly it relates to this "contradiction" article idea. There are a few different strands going on in this incident I just noticed, let me outline briefly. (1)The first thing is: the person who made an irrelevant edit to the Aristotle's Poetics article, also owns the press that publishes his books--ExistencePS Press--and that press reveals only his works among its publications. While I'm not quite expert on Wikipedia regarding self-publication, again, the edit that he made was irrelevant. The place where it was made is a discussion of the etymology of the word "tragedy" near the beginning of the article on the Poetics. That etymology has nothing to do with the edit, which references Mr. Gregory Scott's book:
"The reason is that Aristotle says three times in the treatise that the protagonist can go from fortune to misfortune or misfortune to fortune; also in Chapter 14 the best type of tragoidos is that which ends happily, like Cresphontes and Iphigenia (presumably "in Tauris")! reference: Aristotle's Favorite Tragedy: Oedipus or Cresphontes? Gregory Scott, 2018, ISBN 9780999704912 or 9780999704905"
(2) my second point is, that Mr. Scott's book that he irrelevantly references there, is on the same topic of the article that I proposed to start, and that I've now completed. That Poetics contradiction issue, chapters 13 and 14. This creates a future concern. This editor (possibly Gregory Scott himself) has edited erratically in this one instance. And his book is not peer-reviewed. Is it likely he will attempt to edit the article I'm about to write? I am concerned that this could harm the article or be disruptive. In that article, I have used third-party sources, as historical fact, with no original research. Isn't the above comment irrelevant to "tragedy" etymology? Could it be deleted? That article has other problems, but this makes it worse. And what policy should be taken towards this editor, on the piece I'm about to submit?Cdg1072 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Cdg1072. The first thing that I want to make clear is that I have no expertise regarding Aristotle in particular or philosophy in general. I am a generalist Wikipedia editor and administrator, and my area of expertise here is this encylopedia. Here are a few observations: Scott's book appears to be self published, and I have my doubts that it is a reliable source. Scott's book was added as a reference on October 11, 2018 by someone using an unregistered IP address. There were four edits from this IP address in a 25 minute period, but there are no other edits from this IP address either before or since. I looked at Scott's website. He has a PhD but it does not seem to me that his academic career has been particularly prestigious. But hey, I only have a bachelor's degree and my academic career is pretty much non-existent, with the exception of a few unpaid guest lectures in college classrooms over the years. You are in a much better position to judge the reliability of that source than I am. If you agree that it is not a reliable source, then remove that content and that source. Was the person who added the source Scott himself? That is certainly possible but there is no solid evidence one way or another. Is this an "incident" worthy of concern? No, this was a brief flurry of edits nine months ago. It is barely worth talking about. If they were bad edits, remove them. I am not sure what you are referring to regarding policy about this editor on the article you plan to submit. You must be aware that any Wikipedia article can be edited by anyone at any time, as long as the edits comply with policies and guidelines. You will have no ownership stake in the article, and people could come along and modify it extensively. You must accept that possibility. Will Scott edit the article? I have no idea. If there are disruptive edits, you can count on me to warn the disruptive editor and block the person if they persist.
Earlier, I recommended that you add your COI disclosure to your user page. Perhaps you misunderstood. Your user page remains a blank red link, and the COI disclosure is on your talk page instead. Not a big deal, but a blank redlinked user page is the most common indication that an editor is a "newbie". Try clicking on the red link and adding something about you as a Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, it may be premature to go into this now, but while the article I wrote mentions Arata Takeda a few times (because he made some good points in his piece on the subject), the University of Chicago peer-review (a very reliable authority) I received in 2017 agreed with me that Takeda confused the positions of Dacier and Lessing on the subject. Yet I know of no way of permanently referencing that event.Cdg1072 (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Cdg1072. Anything of that nature must be backed up to a reference to a published reliable source. If the documents associated with the peer review are unpublished, then they cannot be used. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
But an individual ought not to attempt to alter the article by claiming that Takeda's opinion was correct. I guess they probably wouldn't.Cdg1072 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
In general, writing for Wikipedia about any subject, if one is talking about a particular theory about a larger issue, I take it that one doesn't have to use a third-party source to talk about this already third-party writer, on the subject. If the subject is, say, Fermat's Last Theorem, then Andrew Wiles as the author of the famous proof is a third-party source. So one doesn't have to find a newspaper article talking about Wiles to relate the story of his contribution. Right? This is what I would like to get clear on. Because in order to add a few more theories to the list on the Aristotle's Poetics contradiction, one has to talk about those third-party commentaries as if they were worthy of direct attention. That doesn't mean arguing against them, or analyzing their opinion critically at all-- its just means stating what they think. It seems most unproblematic to do this for the very oldest third-party commentaries--like Andrew Dacier and Lessing on Aristotle. When we get to recent times, there are just a few more, very few. I only added one from the 21st century, from 2012. It should not go further than this, unless the academic piece that I've written is published (and in that case perhaps I shouldn't be the one to include it in the Wiki on this.)Cdg1072 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Cdg1072. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I also suggest that you examine the sources in articles listed at Featured articles about philosophy and psychology and Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion. Those are articles that have gone through extensive review by highly experienced editors. You may also want to take a close look at the type of references used in Fermat's Last Theorem, Andrew Wiles and Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, although those articles have not undergone rigorous review. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I re-read the Reliable sources page and I think it confirms the scenarios I described in my question. The rules refer to the fact that sources have to be third party, but not that one cannot name third party sources in the text of the article.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
To clarify the question: fortunately, we do have Takeda as a third-party source in relation to Castelvetro. But when you get to Dacier and Lessing, it's impossible to use Takeda to describe them (because Takeda's view of them is incorrect)--which would otherwise be a great option to make it third-party. So I wrote about Dacier and Lessing simply by stating what they believed and citing to the text that they published. I could try to improve that, by including Lessing as a third party referring to Dacier, which Lessing did. And maybe use Vahlen as a third party referring to Lessing. So there may be a way to make this work.

I then went on and simply added the views of Ingram Bywater, John Moles, Stephen Halliwell, Sheila Murnaghan, because they are the basic views that have appeared throughout the 20th century. There is one third-party source talking about Elsa Bouchard, who has presented the most recent theory (2012). And it is a reliable venue: the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, the article by Andrew Ford of Princeton reviewing the book in which Bouchard's article appeared. These are some third-party relationships that could be used:

(1) Lessing referring to Dacier. (2) Vahlen referring to Lessing. (3) Moles referring to Bywater. (3) Bouchard could be used as a third party reporting Halliwell's view.

I'll attempt to go back and incorporate these more, if you think it's necessary. The list of contributing theories are not light commentary but serious novel attempts to address the issue.Cdg1072 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I have gone back and removed those extra citations I just added. I think I understand correctly that reliable sources themselves can be talked about without a further source referring to them.Cdg1072 (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Greeting

How are you Nnyo (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I am fine, Nnyo. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:GRAVEDANCING

If you could you look in at User talk:MarcelTheHippie, whom you recently blocked, and advise against FlightTime's gravedancing, which they are edit-warring to keep on the editor's page, with increasingly aggressive edit-summaries. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

This matter has been resolved, Serial Number 54129. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
So it has  :) thanks anyway! ——SerialNumber54129 17:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

re “Lets Discuss It”

Ok fine I’m out of line, this is not a hierarchy where I must respect only superiors. You respect everyone. John continues to revert the slightest edit (capitalization error) and only reverts my edits cause there not sourced, but why not the other stuff unsourced stuff. I don’t care that he is a highly respected editor or not the point is if he must revert me he must do it to other people. [[[User:Luke12334|Luke12334]] (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)]

Hello, Luke12334. Do not expect experienced editors to ignore capitalization errors or the addition of unsourced content, because that simply isn't going to happen. We do not have "superiors" here on Wikipedia, only more experienced editors and less experienced editors. John and I are more experienced than you, but you can also become an experienced editor if you take the time to learn how things work around here. Start by reading Assume good faith and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nobody cares which high school you graduated from. We only care about the quality of your editing. That's all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
So why is it that I can’t fix a simple capitalization error with out sourcing it!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke12334 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Luke12334. I reviewed your edits and none of them consisted of correcting a capitalization error. What are you talking about? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Check again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke12334 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I have checked all edits by this account, Luke12334. Were you logged out perhaps? Please state the capitalization error and I will make sure that it is corrected. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is a list of all edits made by the account Luke12334, just in case there is a misunderstanding. MPS1992 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Luke12334, I see that you tried to capitalize "Official Website" after our previous discussion. That violates Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style. Calling something an "official website" is not a proper noun. It is ordinary descriptive language that does not require captialization. Plus, that phrase is unnecessary and redundant in an infobox. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elon Musk

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elon Musk. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Fotile

Hello Cullen. Please restore the recently deleted page, Fotile, I'd improve it. Otherwise, it should goto AfD. Thanks. Störm (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Störm. You can work on it at Draft:Fotile. Please remove all of the promotional and marketing language and make sure that it is properly referenced. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

See User talk:TkwikihelperUS

Dear Cullen,
Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. If you could, please take a look at my talk page when you get a chance.
Thank you! TkwikihelperUS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.232.174 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:JkMastru

A user you recently blocked is back at WP:AN. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the indefinite block, EdJohnston. I agree 100%. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Indef Semi-Protect Request

Could you Indef Semi-Protect this page in my userspace, please? I protect all my userspace pages after some trouble I had awhile back, especially talk pages. Thanks, I do appreciate it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:10 on July 22, 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Neutralhomer. Can you either provide diffs about discussions of the need to protect these pages, or send me an email with the context? Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Not really. Most of them are marked as "user request in own user space" or Wikipedia:Protection policy#User_pages. Actual diffs are buried in other people's talk pages or ANI treads in God only knows where. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:53 on July 22, 2019 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, according to WP:PP, "User pages and subpages may be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists—pages in user space should not be automatically or pre-emptively protected." Please explain the need that exists. If your archived talk pages have been disrupted, then I would like to read the discussions about those incidents. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, there somewhere. Typically, I just ask and it gets done. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:27 on July 22, 2019 (UTC)

Can we discuss it?

Hello Cullen328. Can we talk here? Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 02:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Rong Qiqi, I have said all that I intend to say about your disruptive behavior. So, now the onus is on you to a abandon the disruption. I have no further interest in random back and forth about this, but if you have a very specific question, I will either answer it or tell you why I can't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry we crossed paths I already responded over at the other page. I have honestly tried to explain my point of view, I would appreciate it if you would explain your side because I feel treated unjustly. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 03:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Rong Qiqi, I tell you what: I believe that I have already given you an adequate explanation. If any administrator or any experienced and respected editor tells me that my explanation has been inadequate, I will elaborate at length. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You have adequately explained your side of the story. Now I have posted my side of the story over at Cyberpower678's page. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at that. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 03:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I have read your latest post there, and I remain concerned that you are not taking the warnings seriously yet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
From my point of view those "warnings" are false accusations and threats to abuse power. I don't actually care about the original discussion anymore; but I do think the meta-discussion would be worth having if you would be open to ideas for improvement. But it seems you have disappointed me. Oh well. Shit happens. Better luck next time I guess. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 04:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
So far, everyone who has commented on your behavior on Katherine's talk page has disagreed with what you are doing. Several administrators and several highly respected editors. Why is it that you have such a hard time assessing consensus? I will discuss any other issue with you when you have decisively abandoned your current disruptive behavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stop it. This is one of the limitations of communicating like this with written text, in turn and very slowly. You misjudge me completely, and you would be much kinder to me if we were (for example) videochatting so that you could understand my point of view more easily. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 04:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No. You have been warned by two administrators and other editors as well. Other administrators have commented on Katherine's page including a WMF board member. Everyone thinks you are wrong except you. Get the message. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I do, and I have for quite a while. I understand your perspective based on the information you have. But because you can't read my mind (retroactive mindreading over TCP/IP is a rare skill) you cannot understand my POV and how that has evolved (at least not without communicating). And if you could you would've acted very differently. I'm gonna do something more fun now. Have a nice day, Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 06:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps unsurprisingly it turns out I deserve an apology and you were wrong. See cyberpower678's page. Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 12:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Rong Qiqi, there is absolutely nothing on that talk page that would lead me to apologize. My warning stands. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
See this link and the text below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyberpower678#Editsummary
I used the correct dictionary definition that is in common usage for decades (at least) and then people wrongly interpreted it to mean something different based on some weird new subcultural thing. I said exactly what I meant, and the dictionary confirms I was correct. I am not an American teenager so my dictionary is Merriam Webster and not the Urban Dictionary. You can't really expect all foreigners on an international project to know all the slang that is used in British and American subcultures. Especially not that of subcultures they have no interest in joining.
A good comparison would be: If someone called Osama bin Laden a wicked man then they might mean the Merriam Webster definition of "morally very bad/evil" and not the Urban Dictionary definition of "cool". Rong Qiqi (talk) PRO-WIKIPEDIA = ANTI-WMF 00:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Rong Qiqi, I told you at the very beginning of this thread that "I have no further interest in random back and forth about this" and yet you persist in exactly that sort of behavior. Now, you are obsessing about dictionary definitions when it is crystal clear to everyone except you that the totality of your behavior on Katherine's talk page was disruptive and unacceptable. Now you zero in on word definitions trying to wriggle out of my warning and trying to extract an apology. I have warned you repeatedly and this is my last warning to you. Any further disruption from you will result in an immediate block. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Cullen. I apologize for barging onto your talk page like that. But after reading the thread and the one that apparently started it, I really got ticked off. I will walk off and let you handle it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, no apology needed. You are always welcome on my talk page, despite your unusual politics. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Jackson

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

User_talk:Error#🏴󠁴󠁨󠀵󠀷󠁿

Cullen, you know people, and people know you. I wonder if you or any of your colleagues can look at this and set my mind at ease--that this is not a total waste of time and electrons. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

1960 NSU Prinz II, the "luxury version"
I am sorry, my friend, but I cannot give you any such assurances. Despite who I think I know and who claims to know me, I have never even imagined nor pondered the notion of redirects for emojis. I do not much like emojis and consider them pretty childish, some more so than others. That one that looks like chocolate soft serve ice cream gives me the heebie-jeebies. But if there is an existing consensus among "emoji editors", to coin a phrase, that we ought to have redirects for emojis, then I would like to read that discussion. It seems odd to me.
In the editor's defense, they are interested in microcars, and I uploaded several pictures of such strange little cars to Commons after a recent visit to the California Automobile Museum. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard unpleasantnesses

Thank you for taking time out to involve yourself recently in admin noticebaord unpleasantnesses involving Vauxford and myself. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

You blocked an IP account on 25 July for vandalising the Phil Konstantin article. Please could you look at this diff as well: Special:Diff/907665599/907678871. TSventon (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I've Indefinitely blocked that editor, TSventon. Thanks for the report. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Smartphones

Interesting essay. I always thought smartphone editing would be wildly impractical but now I kind of want to try. Haukur (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Haukurth. I probably have 30,000+ edits by smartphone (including this one), and I almost always use the desktop site on my phone. I carry out all of my adminstrative functions by phone. The only thing I can't do is upload photos to Wikipedia from my phone. The Wikimedia Commons app works pretty well on my phone in recent months. I just hope that the WMF doesn't screw it up by trying to "improve" it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Advice on challenging editor

Jim, I appreciate how you deal with a variety of new and challenging editors, so I'm back for more advice. Recently an editor who was indefinitely blocked from Japanese Wikipedia [1] for an escalating series of battleground behaviors, copyright issues, and ultimately sockpuppetry, decided to try their hand at English Wikipedia. They're already doing the same sorts of things that got them in trouble at the other site, including making lots of tiny (often unsourced) edits to music articles, making many errors in language and formatting, copying between articles without attribution, and leaving messages like this [2] and this [3] and this [4] when other editors attempt to fix issues or warn them about behavior. Since they have a track record of this behavior, it's obviously not just a matter of explaining policies more clearly. (As I've been typing this, they've been editing Yūki Yoda to revert MOS fixes that were explained in the edit summary.) Have you run into this sort of situation before, with a blocked editor trying the same shenanigans at a different Wikipedia? Bakazaka (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bakazaka. Yes, I see lots of problems with that editor. Poor English language skills exacerbate the situation and complicate the assessment of other issues. But it does not look promising as a behavioral matter. I left a personalized warning that I hope will be understood.
As for the block at Japanese Wikipedia, I have never dealt with such a situation myself but have read about similar cases at administrator's noticeboards. Strictly speaking, that block has no effect here, but as a practical matter, a block on another major, well-administered Wikipedia raises a large flapping red flag in my mind.
Optional personal question: Do you read or speak Japanese? Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and if things continue or get worse, please let me know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that intervention. I sincerely hope they get the message and edit productively, as the articles in their area of interest could use some help. If someone needs to explain English Wikipedia policy in Japanese I'm not the one to do it, but I can read the Japanese sources I cite. Bakazaka (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again, Bakazaka. I may someday ask a question of you regarding a Japanese text, if you would not mind. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Bakazaka (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
PS the Japanese text currently on the editor's user page [5] declares that the result of your "discussion" is that you, Cullen328, are now responsible for completing all the edits that the user would have done, by the deadline the editor has set. The implication is that your supposed inability to add a bunch of DVDs and Blu-ray information (not least because you cannot easily import the Japanese DVDs and Blu-ray discs to use as sources) will lead to failure in this challenge, which will illustrate how valuable this editor is. There is also some chest-thumping about the value of being able to create articles, a reiterated complaint about Japanese Wikipedia, some self-aggrandizement (translates to, basically, "I deserve to be a big deal"), and some bluster about how there's no rule against insults in an edit summary, so they can't be blocked for that.
I will reserve editorial comment, except to say that my user name is a Japanese neologism combining fool + hill (starting out on Wikipedia, I had Sisyphus in mind), so referring to me as "the fool" in an edit summary is actually kind of funny. Bakazaka (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think I can provide some insight as to what this editor is getting at. This editor's major concern is the "Track Listing" section of the "Sakamichi Series" (Nogizaka46, Keyakizaka46, and Hinatazaka46), who typically bundles a DVD/Blu-ray disc with their single releases. It is true that it's very hard to buy their singles outside Japan, but the track listing information is also freely listed on the respective group's website. I think he wants Cullen328 in this case to add the DVD/Blu-ray listing information to articles without them yet (see this with it and this without it yet). I'm not absolutely certain, but I think that's what he means. ◢ Ganbaruby! 19:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: I recommend looking at the editor's history on Japanese Wikipedia for context. There they constantly battled with other editors to add information as it appears on official promotional material (websites, album sleeves, etc), even when that information was verifiably incorrect. The tone of the current user page message is defiant (you can't do this, I can, you can't block me, etc), which coincides with the behavior on Japanese Wikipedia that got them, and their multiple sockpuppets, indefinitely blocked. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bakazaka: I am aware that he’s blocked on JP. I’ll keep a close eye on his edits too. After all, he’s not the only diehard Sakamichi fan around here. ◢ Ganbaruby! 19:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have paid no attention to Japanese pop music since this hit song 56 years ago. Well, I did see Yoko Ono perform with her husband 49 years ago. In addition, I do not operate an "edit on demand" shop and that baloney on that editor's user page is really inappropriate. But I have thick skin and my main concern is the potential for disruption of the encylopedia. Now, I am going to study that message using Google Translate, and take a close look at the editor's recent contributions. Thanks to both of you for your input, Bakazaka and Ganbaruby. I really appreciate it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

On another matter, Bakazaka and Ganbaruby, I have written a new article on a Japanese topic, Kamifusen. I would appreciate any contributions or corrections to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: The article was an interesting read, and I made some major changes to the article. I narrowed the scope down to small kamifusen, since I felt like the part about the Akita festival would better be placed in the sky lantern article. I also took out some information that are extraneous, like the details about the door to door salesmen or the movies that mention kamifusen. Now, there's some concern about your sources, since there's only one left about kamifusen. I would try to find information about the history, which could be its own section. However, sources are probably in Japanese, a language that I can't really read either. I'll work on it when I find time. If there's anything else you need help with, let me know! ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Ganbaruby, please explain why you thought it necessary to remove all the content about the hot-air kamifusen of Akita, which is described in detail in several reliable sources? Are you arguing that these larger paper balloons are not actually kamifusen? It seems to me that the article is dramatically less informative and encyclopedic after your edits than before them. I really want to understand your reasoning. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Absolutely, let me explain. The toy and the large balloon are two distinct things: one is a small children's toy with physics-bending properties that doesn't fit in any article; the other is literally a sky lantern (where you will find I moved the relevant info). Both are just categorically called "kamifusen" in Japanese. The original lead provided led me to believe the scope of the article was about the former. Then, I've determined that the best course of action is to make the "kamifusen" article specifically about the toy while moving the sky lantern portion to its broader article, where there's more context and similar practices around the world can be found. However, I do think Bakazaka's plan could work as well. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the page before and after the recent large edit, it seems like there could be some confusion about whether the article is about the larger category of kamifūsen (the more generic term for balloons made from paper, including self-inflating version, origami version, hot air version), or about the self-inflating version specifically. The lead emphasized the specific version, while the main text had examples of the other kinds. I recommend reverting to the earlier, more inclusive version, and rewriting the lead to clarify that the article is about the larger category. As a practical matter, without access to Japanese-language books on the history of Japanese toys (or Japanese newspaper/journal archives) it would be difficult to source an article just on the self-inflating version. Note that in jawiki the article on these items was merged into a section in the "balloon" article [6]. Bakazaka (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Bakazaka and Ganbaruby. It was a mention of the self-inflating toy at the Reference Desk that motivated me to begin the article and the more research I did, the more information I found about the larger hot air version. So, I considered the article a "work in progress" and my intention was to work with the help of editors who speak or read Japanese to expand the article to cover the full range of kamifusen rather than to dramatically shrink the article. I have no problem with discussing the festival at Sky lantern but worth noting us that none of the sources call these devices sky lanterns. The sources call them kamifusen or paper balloons instead and I think that they should be described at Kamifusen along with other aspects of paper balloons in Japanese culture. None of the kamifusen sources I have read so far mention the Chinese equivalents, or any direct connections between the Chinese and Japanese versions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
A quick note: if you feed the term "スカイランタン" into Google, you'll find Japanese sources that use the term "sky lantern". That term is the phonetic spelling of "sky lantern" in katakana. Bakazaka (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Bakazaka, what I could find were promotional articles about the Tanabata Sky Lantern Festival, held in Osaka last year and in Kobe and Tokyo this year. These devices used in that festival have LED lights and are filled with helium. Those promoters do not seem to use the word "kamifusen". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert Payne photos

Dear Jim,

Thank you for replying so quickly.

Both photos are displayed on his website which was created by me through The Authors Guild, NY. They are also displayed on Amazon.com, Amazon.es and Amazon.co.uk Author Pages.

Both photos have been used on dust jackets.

They were taken years ago by a friend of my late husband. I assume the above will be enough for verification purposes. Would you let me know? Thank you.

Sincerely,

7payne9 (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 7payne9. Your comment leads me to believe that you are not the copyright holder for these photos. If you aren't, the photos cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. There is another way, though. Please read Non-free content - Images #10. Because your husband has died, one low-resolution photo of him can be uploaded here on Wikipedia, for use only in his biography. You would have to select the best of the two, and identity the photographer, the date of publication and so on. Follow the instructions carefully. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert Payne photos

Dear Jim,

I need to have both photos uploaded on the Robert Payne Page on Wikipedia. A publisher in Spain has used the photo taken circa 1960 on their dust jacket for La Espada del Islam. The other photo was taken in 1981 and was used on the dust jacket of The Dream and the Tomb.

I want to establish that it is one and the same person on Wikipedia as most people refer to it for whatever reason.

As for the copyright. Alexander Artemakis was a close friend of RP's. Photography was like a hobby for him; he did not have a studio. His main profession was something else. My husband always paid him for taking any photos. But they were not copyrighted with LOC.

So now, if I have two RP photos, one below the other in the right column, with name of photographer and dates, why should there be an objection?

7payne9 (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 7payne9. The objection is based on copyright law. Under the scenario that you describe, Alexander Artemakis (or his estate) holds the copyright to any of his photos of published since 1923, unless there is a written contract assigning copyright to your husband. The fact that he was an amateur does not matter. Amateur photographers are just as entitled to copyright protection as professionals. This is a matter of law, and Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. You cannot upload photos as freely licensed unless you hold the copyright. As I have already explained, one photo (not two) can be uploaded under the terms of WP:NFCI #10. Select the best of the two and upload it on that basis. I suggest that you spend a little bit of time studying Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Cullen328 Let's discuss it

03:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

7payne9, I see with a quick Google search that Alexander Artemakis was a published photographer whose work illustrated one of your husband's books, The Isles of Greece, which is held in at least one major university library. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert Payne photos

Dear Jim,

Since I can't have both photos on the Robert Payne page, I'm not going to upload either of them. The whole point was to show that the photos are that of the younger and older Robert Payne. Photo of the older RP has been on Amazon for a long time. Photo of the younger RP has recently been used on the dust jacket of RP's book by a publisher in Spain. In order to have the younger RP displayed on Amazon.es Author Page, I had to display the younger RP on Amazon.com (US) Author Page7payne9 (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC). But if you click on it, you will see both photos.

Yes, photographs by Alexander Artemakis were in The Isles of Greece as well as in a few other books by Robert Payne. Due credit was given to Alexander Artemakis in those books but the copyright to the whole book was always in Robert Payne's name. The rights to all RP's works were assigned to me with LOC when he died, as I was the beneficiary of the rights to all works by RP.

However, as I mentioned above, I'm not going to upload any photos. Wikipedia's copyright laws are very strict, which actually is a good thing. There's a great deal of misinformation on the internet.

Thank you again for your help.

With all good wishes,

Please comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_63&oldid=913295598"