User talk:Cullen328/Archive 80

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

→

Archive 85

Tea

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Cheerful Squirrel (talk) has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Cheerful Squirrel. Administrators get crap sometimes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your excellent work on the Duchess potatoes article, it’s clearly a lot more detailed and better sourced and the topic is surely notable in anyone’s book, even though this particular foodstuff is sadly out of fashion. I was thinking about improving it myself, so you’ve saved me a lot of time, thanks again! Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Alexander K. Tyree has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Cullen328. Alexander K. Tyree, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with Digital Currency Articles

Hey there Cullen! I Would like to get some help and knowledge from an experienced editor like you for my Wikipedia Article on a Digital Currency i.e. Bitspawn. Bitspawn is a company that provides a platform to esports/gamers to ensure credibility of tournaments and their payouts. They recently introduced their own digital currency called the Bitspawn Protocol (Ticker: SPWN). I want your opinion whether to go for the article creation of the company or the digital currency itself? Also, based on your experience right off the bat what do you think are the chances for this topic to be approved by Wikipedia? Would appreciate your time and consideration alot! Thank you.

Some press regarding Bitspawn: 1. https://esportsinsider.com/2020/07/behind-bitspawn-interview/ 2. https://medium.com/cyberfi/cyberfi-samurai-ido-bitspawn-in-the-spotlight-4d09a047a21e 3. https://www.financebrokerage.com/bitspawn-protocols-much-awaited-ico-will-begin-soon/ 4. https://www.ktvn.com/story/43837162/bitspawn-gets-financial-backing-from-moonwhale-ventures-a-venture-capital-company 5. https://solana.com/ecosystem/bitspawnprotocol 6. https://fxcryptonews.com/bitspawn-whitelist-open-esports-tournament-revolution-ido-on-samurai/ 7. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitspawn-protocol/ico/

and many more similar articles by different sources..

Inzy321 (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Inzy321. I lack both the interest and the expertise to determine the notability of a cryptocurrency. I can tell you that press releases like the KTVN source and interviews with company figures are worthless for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness, Gerda Arendt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Steve Benassi

I read Israeli news everyday, all day, for over a decade, Haaretz, JPost, Ynet, does that make me an antisemite? I know more about the Israel-Palestine conflict than you will ever know. I was pro Israel until this ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada#Sharon_visits_Temple_Mount. Here is what is happening today ... Google Evyatar ... four Palestinians were shot this month trying to stop illegal Jewish Settlers from stealing their land. If you think the media and Wikipedia covers Muslims, Christians, and Jews equally and fairly you are blind. SteveBenassi (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, I do not care what you read everyday, all day. What I know for sure is that this is a formal request for you to stay off my talk page, with the only exception being notifications required by policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

What is that bullshit? Cullen, I'll have you know that I pet my dog every day. Drmies (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Lockheed YO-3 Quiet Star

Hi Jim, Did some minor editing on the Topic. Need to correct the topic title to correctly read Lockheed YO-3A "Quiet Star."

I watched the tutorial on citing sources. It could take a long time to do this correctly.

THX Kurt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringingo (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ringingo. I suggest that you discuss this article with BilCat, who is knowledgeable about aviation topics, and has edited this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Lockheed YO-3

Hi Jim, BilCat is on vacation. Trying to figure out all this navigation.

Hello, Ringingo. You do not need to start a new conversation. Just continue the existing conversation. Every Wikipedia editor can take a vacation any time they want. But BilCat has been pretty active in the last 48 hours. People can edit Wikipedia while on vacation. I know that I do, within limits. Have you asked BilCat for their explanation, or read their edit summaries? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

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

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Slavery image inaccurately titled

Hi Jim, regarding your comment on my edit request in Talk:Slavery -"The description of the image on Commons says, "Gniezno Cathedral Door - detail. Saint Adalbert of Prague pleads with Boleslaus II, Duke of Bohemia, for the release of Christians slaves by their masters, Jewish merchants" " I am not sure what you mean by "on commons" - does this mean that this has been cited or approved by any related journal or academy. Seems to me that it was just written there with no proof whatsoever. Please also take a look at the detail, which does not portray any Jewish symbols on the merchants or any other character in the detail. Please also note that the facial features of the slaves are almost identical to those of the merchants. Moreover, this is a 1956 image from an unknown photographer, so who exactly determined with such conviction that these are Jewish merchants?

Ronen רונן סיגן (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, רונן סיגן. I was referring to Wikimedia Commons where the image is hosted. I am unfamiliar with Adalbert of Prague and Boleslaus II, and have little knowledge about how Jews were portrayed in the artwork of that region and era. I was simply providing the full description associated with the image, and I express no opinion about the accuracy of that description. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I checked the articles on Adalbert of Prague, and Boleslaus II in Wikipedia, and there is nothing there that supports the description of the detail (excluding the same picture of the detail). Please also take a look at the detail, which does not portray any Jewish symbols on the merchants or any other character in the detail. Note that the facial features of the slaves are almost identical to those of the merchants. Moreover, this is a 1956 image from an unknown photographer, so who exactly determined with such conviction that these are Jewish merchants? Also nothing about this in

(talk page stalker) I can’t say I know much about the matter either, and I have no idea about the credibility of the book from which the image was sourced, but I observe that the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia’s article “Slave-Trade” says “St. Adalbert gave up the Prague bishopric because he could not free all the slaves of Jews …”. The article does not identify said slaves as Christian, but pagans were apparently considered fair game for enslavement by the authorities of the time. Admittedly sources over a century old are scarcely ideal, but in this case I think it’s safe to say at least that the JE would be most unlikely to be propagating an antisemitic canard, and it does still seem to be relatively well regarded today.—Odysseus1479 23:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Odysseus1479. First of all, the text below the image in states "Adalbert of Prague accuses Jews of the Christian slave trade against Boleslaus II." This is a much more extreme statement than "St. Adalbert gave up the Prague bishopric because he could not free all the slaves of Jews" that is stated in . Secondly, the same sentence in the Jewish encyclopedia mentions Jewish slaves, but the existence of Jewish slaves in that era is totally omitted from the Wikipedia article on slavery ("while the countess Judith of Ladislaus paid ransom-money for some Jewish slaves the day before her death"). Thirdly, if you read the same paragraph in the Jewish encyclopedia article, you will also note that in that era Jews were forbidden to own Christian slaves ("a decree was passed that Jews must not possess Christian servants or slaves"). Fourthly, the Wikipedia article specifically states that there were also Viking, Arab, and Greek merchants involved in the slave trade during the early middle ages in that part of the world (it actually lists Jews as the 4th in the list). So therefore, the image may actually not depict Jews or Christian slaves.

@רונן סיגן: this page is not the best place to delve into the details of the question; much better at the article Talk page where interested editors are more likely to contribute. But briefly, I did not intend to make an argument to keep the caption as is, just to say that it appears at least plausible. I’ll comment further there.

A couple of side points: please remember to log in to post in discussions, and to sign your messages. I did not receive a “ping” from the above, because notifications are only issued when a username is linked over a four-tilde signature in the same edit. Also please indent your replies by prefixing one more colon than the post you are responding to has.—Odysseus1479 03:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi, I need some advice.

I hope your doing well. So, I paid this wikipedia publisher company to write an article for me and create a profile. I posted about the company yesterday on Teahouse. Many came to the rescue saying that it may be a scam. I already paid them $800 but, I just wanted to know if the draft they created even has a chance to be approved by Wikipedia. One volunteer already offered to take a look at it. What would you advise me to do and how should I move forward with getting a wiki page about my company? I want to do it the right way.

Should I add our MSDS sheet? Does third party testing of my products formula help the page? And does certifications (ex non gmo verified) also help my page?

Pc0803 (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Pc0803

Hello, Pc0803. It is a scam. No doubt about it. I looked at the "draft" that you posted on Maproom's talk page. That is terrible work that comes nowhere close to being an acceptable Wikipedia article. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There are no "profiles" on Wikipedia. We have encyclopedia articles. Your MSDS, testing and certifications are of zero value. The only thing that matters is significant coverage of your company in reliable, independent sources of national or regional scope. That's all we consider important. So, my advice is to promote your business elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

'ATTACK"

so me standing up to the misogynists are "attacking"? its because Im black woman right? i see how it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaxhy (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Miaxhy. Please be aware that Wikipedia:Civility is a policy, and it is one of the Five pillars of Wikipedia. If you have solid evidence that another editor is a "racist misogynist", then present that persuasive evidence at WP:ANI. Hollering such accusations to intimidate other editors is unacceptable. If you persist, you will be blocked from editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I said what I said, and ill happily make another account cause yall white men really got us black women messed up.

Miaxhy, if you continue with personal attacks and edit warring, you will be blocked. If you evade the block by creating other accounts, those accounts will be blocked. You are welcome to edit this encyclopedia, but only if you comply with the policies and guidelines. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi Jim AwesomeAubergine (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Postman Pat

Thanks for revdel-ing those revisions of Postman Pat. Can you also delete this one? Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Aoi,  Done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi, Jim,

I've had a dispute today with editor Germanico5468504 who, without explanation, is blanking or tagging articles connected to Víctor Jara for speedy deletion or turning them into redirects without any rationale at all. I posted messages on his talk page but since I have reverted most of his edits connected to these articles, I consider myself involved. I have advised him to use AFD or PROD if he wants to see these articles deleted but he seems to want to take a quicker approach to removing content concerning Jara who is an important figure in Latin American political history as well as an important musical artist. It's puzzling because he has also worked on improving the main article. If you could also keep an eye on his/her edits, it would be appreciated since I'm also getting in edit warring territory here. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, Liz. I've given that editor a warning about proper deletion procedures, and made a comment on Binksternet's talk page. I've put the relevant articles on my watchlist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander K. Tyree

On 13 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alexander K. Tyree, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alec Tyree (pictured) won two Navy Crosses commanding USS Bowfin, and his voice now speaks to those who visit the museum ship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alexander K. Tyree. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Alexander K. Tyree), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Suryakant Bhoi

Sorry to have disagreed with you on this matter. I felt that letting it stand without action was detrimental to the community. I have given the user every opportunity to be unblocked.

Regarded the uninformed editors that were restoring the content, I don't see an attempt to communicate with them. I don't know enough about that particular slur to inform them myself.

I hope you are not upset at me choosing to take action in this case where you have declined to take action. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, HighInBC. I am not upset with you because I very rarely get upset with anything on Wikipedia. I can name a handful of exceptions but there is no need to go into those details at this time. Since you don't know enough about this particular slur, then I suggest that you read at least the lead sections of a few articles such as Untouchability and Dalit and Scheduled caste. The way that these people have been treated for thousands of years is shocking and despicable, and makes Jim Crow status look like a fleeting triviality, which it isn't. Discrimination against these castes is illegal and unconstitutional in India, but remains commonplace. So, we have a case where a newbie made a newbie mistake, and was given a standard Twinkle warning about legal threats. They did not double down and they did not object and they did nothing further that was disruptive. They did nothing further at all. I responded by editing the article to remove the ugly slur against what I presume is their ethnic group, and tried to improve the article a bit. You indeffed them 7-1/2 hours after they were warned even though they did not violate the warning. Please note that WP:NLT does not require a block and asks administrators to look at the underlying situation.

As for why I didn't communicate with the editors who restored that "untouchables" bullshit, the fact of the matter is that I have a small business to run, and I am in the midst of arranging for mortgage financing for my retirement home, and I spent hours on the phone with bankers today, and I am preparing to sell a house I have owned for nearly 18 years. Plus, I hurt my back yesterday carrying a heavy box while preparing to move. To say that I have a lot on my plate today is an understatement.

So, I am not upset but perhaps a trifle disappointed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For what it is worth after another admin complained I have welcomed any admin to reserve this action if they think it is appropriate to do so. Perhaps I am wrong. I do think it is important that users don't feel they can be threatened but I also accept there are other interpretations. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Hello C. Thanks for blocking 172.218.144.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I removed the personal attack on Ponyo from their talk page. If they restore it the will need access yanked. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, MarnetteD, thanks. I never claimed to be a great vandal fighter, but obvious is obvious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks C. I didn't know if you were still editing so, as their nonsense continued, I did add a report at ANI. That can be closed or even removed - whatever you think best. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In all honesty, MarnetteD, I am multitasking right now. Watching cooking shows with my wife and one of my sons, snacking, drinking a cocktail, and checking in on Wikipedia and my work email from time to time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Much much more fun. Good for you. Best wishes to the whole family. MarnetteD|Talk 05:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	You have restored my faith in Wikipedia. Thank you Mcbzen (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

AGF

Hi Jim, I'd like to ask you if you are "assuming good faith" with me, as you've made a few comments that to me imply you aren't. For one you brought up "trolls attacking and vandalizing" Low Tier God's page in the context of my sourcing question - I have never done anything of the sort. I'm aware that others have, but I have not, and I feel like all my discussions and contributions thus far support that I'm not a "troll" that is trying to "attack and vandalize" him. Even the edit you made citing NPOV I don't feel was accurate as it was the RedBull Esports article that was cited that the "infamous" language came from, so it was their description of the event, not mine, but that's a very minor complaint that I only cite as evidence of you not "assuming good faith" with me, in aggregate with these other examples. On that note, I've not claimed to have a consensus regarding his legal name, yet you went out of your way to tell me that I didn't have one as if I had. I'll also point out that I have not tried to insert his legal name into his article - like I said to you the other day, my motto is "measure twice, cut once", so this is me "measuring" before attempting any "cuts". So, I think that's about it, but I've assumed good faith with you and would hope that you would reciprocate. Thanks and have a good night. Gill is trash (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I have treated you politely and will continue to do so. My comment about "trolls attacking and vandalizing" the article in question was completely true but not directed at you in any way. If you were vandalizing, I would have reverted you and given you a vandalism warning, and if you persisted, I would have blocked you. I have done none of that. A large percentage of the new editors adding to that article have been indefinitely blocked as trolls and vandals. But not you because you haven't done anything like that. I will admit that I am concerned about your singular focus on LowTierGod and your persistence in trying to add his "government name" as he called it in your Dropbox snippet. Tell me this: Why do you care so much about this that you are willing to write endlessly argumentative and repetitive posts about it? Are you here to improve this encyclopedia or to obsess about this trivia? You are clearly intelligent. Please give me an intelligent and informative answer. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Gill is trash, as for the "infamous" revert, a word like that is extremely negative and heavily loaded, so it should not be used in Wikipedia's voice unless that type of terminology or close synonyms are widely used by many reliable sources. I do not think that word belongs in the article that way, but if consensus is that it is appropriate, it should be in quotation marks and should be attributed to RedBull Esports in the body of the article. Previously, there were three references at the end of that sentence, only one of which marginally justified that word. We must clearly distinguish between Wikipedia's voice which must be rigorously neutral, and the opinions of commentators, which must be presented in a way that makes it clear that it is one person's (or company's) opinion, rather than widely accepted as true. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Gill is trash, I just read that Red Bull source again and it is a passing mention of less than one sentence and includes no commentary on the so-called "infamous" grudge match. This is very thin soup for inclusion of contentious material in a biography of a living person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, everyone has to start somewhere, right? And for me I guess that “place” in the context of Wikipedia is this subject. Really this is only a “singular focus” for me in that it’s a topic that I happen to be knowledgeable on that hasn’t already been covered extensively on Wikipedia. I have many, MANY other topics of interest, but most of them have been thoroughly explored here and I doubt that I can contribute much else to them. LTG, being both a relatively new topic and with limited documentation from which to reference, IS something I feel that I can help contribute to, and yes - in the interest of improving the encyclopedia for the public good. That’s something I believe in quite strongly, and while I haven’t been a much of a contributor over the years, I have been a frequent donator. I guess to answer your question directly, I am not singularly focused on this, it's just that I'm new to editing and this is where I have begun my journey, as it's a place I feel that I can actually contribute something. I think in due time I will probably contribute to other areas as well, this is just where I have happened to start and thus it seems like it is a singular focus for the time being.

As for why I am “endlessly and repetitively” arguing this, well that's because I feel that I’m right, per the policies I’m citing, and I enjoy healthy and rigorous debate. I work in a field that deals in legal documents and agreements, and I quite enjoy the process of interpreting these documents to ascertain what is or isn't within the scope of an agreement. And believe it or not, I’m also interested in this because of the broader implications on future articles about live-stream personalities. Being that this is a relatively newer medium that unlike other user-generated content IS often ephemeral, I can see this being a recurring issue with people wanting to reference information from a live-stream that may not be available to view after a period of time, and I feel like having a way of dealing with this (even if the policy needs to be amended to cover it) would probably be worthwhile. Maybe now isn't the time, but maybe it is. Or maybe this helps serve as a catalyst or reference for addressing it later on. The point is I think it's worth discussing for more than just how it relates to "low tier god", but like I said, I think my interpretation of the policy NOW is valid.

Beyond that, I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility and accountability - in both negative AND positive contexts - which obviously pertains to matters of identity. Low Tier God - and now Wikipedia - views himself as a public figure. He is also pursuing an acting career, and I would argue that virtually everyone knows that line of work comes with increased scrutiny and interest in ones' personal life. If Low Tier God proves successful is his goal of becoming an actor, there WILL be increased scrutiny and interest in his personal life and his legal name WILL get reported on, just as it does with every well-known actor that adopts a stage name - especially since his legal name is already widely known and available to view across the internet - so again assuming he is successful, then it's only a matter of time before there are enough sources on record that there won't be any reasonable case against its inclusion in his entry. Despite that, I still feel like my interpretation of the policy is valid, and I'm trying to argue this solely on that merit, and maybe I'm wrong but I feel like much of the opposition to my arguments aren't based on merit, nor are they based on the relevant policy interpretations, but rather on perceived motive, which is obviously tainted by the past attacks by the trolls that you mentioned, and the fact that I'm a new contributor with no reputation. While I get that reputation is an important component in any online community, and I'm sure it is even more valued in the administrative circles of Wikipedia, that doesn't mean someone can't come out of the blue with no reputation and still put forward a solid argument or interpretation of policy. I don't think it's fair to dismiss this or place undue burdens of proof on me (beyond what is required per the policy for this type of information) just because I'm new or haven't made any other contributions. I do not believe that anyone legitimately questions that this excerpt was originally sourced from one of his public live-streams or that it is not authentic, despite its low quality, nor do I believe that anyone has any legitimate reason to doubt his claim in regards to his legal name, and thus far all the objections to it being used as an archive of a source have all been contrary or irrelevant to the applicable policy. I do realize that it's not only a question of whether it was actually sourced from his stream or not and that there are other implications to consider, but while I am trying to address all those other considerations directly I'm not sure that I'm being given the benefit of the doubt, or that people are AGF with me about this. In fact SOME of the opposition to the information SEEMS like it's being done in bad faith, likely under the misguided belief that I'm just a troll, even though I feel like everything I have done or said has thus far demonstrates the opposite. As for trolls' past behavior pertaining to Low Tier God, it's unfortunate that idiots try abusing Wikipedia in this way, but it is what it is, and he is far from the only person who's been the victim of people trying to attack via Wikipedia editing. Regardless of that, just because someone has been the subject of trolling doesn't mean that some of the things cited by trolls aren't legitimate for inclusion, they just often aren't very good at understanding the system and its policies. With that said, and regardless of all the other salacious edits or accusations that have been made about him, I think there is a valid argument to be made for including his legal name, and that is why I'm trying to just stick to the facts on this and not even acknowledge any past attacks which again taints the debate around the subject. I'll also add that this is the ONLY additional thing that I think can be justifiably included on his topic at this time. Like I said on my Talk page, I have looked for other sources about the subject and there simply isn't anything else that isn't already there, so whether this effort dies or succeeds, for the time being it's the only thing omitted that I feel could even be considered for inclusion. I do not have a laundry list of other things that I'm trying to add - there just isn't much documented material about this subject on record at present to even consider.

In conclusion, hopefully I've given you the intelligent and informative answer that you requested. I'm happy to continue this conversation here or in the noticeboard, and I'm also happy to elaborate on anything I've said at any point. One specific thing I'll mention again is that I have read COPYVIOEL and I fail to see how it disqualifies this content. I fully understand that direct linking to copyright violations is not allowed, but again I don't believe a direct link is required to adequately cite the INFORMATION contained in this archived content. Again referring to WP:SELFSOURCE which explicitly allows for information from self-published sources pertaining to themselves in articles about themselves, and explicitly allows for content posted on social media sites - which this was. It does not say the content must remain there indefinitely. Aside from all that, it seems like you aren't giving any consideration to the usage here, which I would argue constitutes fair use. I've taken a few second excerpt from the original source that was hours in length, for the purpose of RESEARCH & EDUCATION on the subject, not for entertainment which was its original purpose. It also meets all 4 factors for determining fair use: The "purpose" of the use is for nonprofit & educational purposes, the "nature" of the work is for a factual purpose, the "amount" and significance of the portion used is de minimis, and the "effect" of the use on the potential market is nil. Thus, I believe it is still valid and fair game to be used as a citation for the information contained therein. Gill is trash (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Gill is trash. As you have seen, no experienced editor agrees with your interpretation of the policy, so I suggest that you ponder that, and think about the intent of the policy. I cannot even imagine how such a reference would be written appropriately. How would a reader verify the content? As for "fair use", Wikipedia's standards are much higher than what is allowed by law or commonplace on the rest of the internet. You may well be right that genuine reliable sources will report on his legal name in the future, and the matter can be addressed again at that time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

My contention is that they're not interpreting the relevant policy - that being Self Source. They are trying to apply the rules of other policies to this one, and while that may be fair for an article that isn't about the subject, the fact that I'm suggesting it be used in an article about the subject in question is what makes it OK in this case - PER THAT VERY POLICY.

As for how you would go about writing the citation, I imagine that it would be cited in the same way that ephemeral television broadcasts were cited, treating the live-stream as though it were a news or other type of broadcast that may have only happened one time. Is that really such a crazy thought? How would a reader verify THAT content, if it were only broadcast once? These days a lot of old TV content has been made available on demand, but not EVERYTHING ever broadcast, and I guarantee there are citations to one-off broadcasts like that currently on the platform. Why couldn't this be treated the same way? And if your answer is that this wasn't published by a reputable source like a TV broadcast was, again I'm going to point out that the Self Source policy covers this and allows for the content to be used on the page of the subject in question. Gill is trash (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

To expand a bit more on what I said regarding citing a one-time broadcast - how is information from a source like that even being referenced if it were only broadcast once? Are we thinking an editor transcribed it in real-time straight from the broadcast for the purpose of using it in a Wikipedia citation? Clearly that seems ludicrous. I think we would both agree it is likely being referenced via an archived copy or transcription, which for an ephemeral broadcast may very well be a violation of copyright unless it constitutes fair use, but I'm guessing that for such a purpose a reader (and Wikipedia as well) would be much less concerned with the archived material being a copyright violation than they are whether it actually contains the information being referenced - wouldn't you agree? Have I made no valid points here at all? I mean jeez, give me SOMETHING for all the time I've spent articulating my position. Gill is trash (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In 12 years of editing, I have never once seen a one-time broadcast used as a reference when there was no copy available at a copyright compliant archive. I certainly have never cited any such source. I interpret "archive" to mean an institution with a reputation for accuracy and compliance with copyright laws. That is why millions of YouTube videos are not acceptable - they lack editorial control and often violate copyright. To me, an archive is something like the Pacific Film Archive that you can visit and inspect documents and media files. I have been there. Your assumption that Wikipedia is unconcerned with copyright violations at archives that we use to verify content is completely incorrect. We are forbidden by policy from using such sources on Wikipedia, and if I advocated such usage, I would be removed as an administrator. It is not permitted, ever. You seem to think that the Dropbox thing is a workaround, and that if a handful of Wikipedia editors see the snippet, then it is verified. No, verifiabilty needs to be available to every reader. Three things that productive, long-term editors take very seriously are verifiability, BLP policy, and copyright problems. I agreed with you when you said that reliable sources might publish this fellow's legal name in the future, and that it would then be OK to add to the article. But I am not going to pretend to agree with something just to be nice. I will give you credit for for being persistent and trying to persuade people. But, at some point, you have to accept that you did not persuade, and move on to something else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to be "nice", or to pretend to agree with something that you don't actually agree with - I'm asking for SOME credit for making a valid point or two. Even if I don't get that, I'll manage. I'll be disappointed in the intellectual honesty of this place as a whole, but I'll get over it. I'm not saying you have to agree with everything I've said - maybe the copyright point is not compelling, but I would find it hard to believe I have made no other valid points in everything I've typed over the last few days, beyond just the thing about this all maybe being inevitable if LTG ends up becoming more famous than he is now. Regardless, I'm the new party here and I am not one of those people that can't ever concede a point, so maybe what you say is true regarding the sourcing of broadcasts. Alrighty then - I was only bringing that up as an example of how material like this MIGHT be cited because you posed that question. It's not apples to apples being that there are no complete copyright compliant social media archives like the copyright compliant media archives you mentioned, but the citation could still be a permutation of that. If that isn't the right answer, then how are Self Sourced citations from social media pertaining to that policy dealt with currently? Or, is it the case that despite the Self Source policy existing, no one has EVER been able to successfully cite a subjects social media to date?

This is really what I find so frustrating about this, since my question on the noticeboard was closed, despite me not getting answers for many of my questions or responses to the questions asked of me, (how convenient), and the global answer given was "Reliable Sources only, please". Well, excuse me for "rehashing" but the Self Source policy is PART of the RS policy, is it not? And it allows for exactly this type of information in an article when it is about the subject in question, doesn't it? Well, being that I actually perused the Teahouse, and I happened to notice that YOU sir (and my apologies if "sir" isn't your preferred honorific) are listed as the top host, and being that your stated concentration is to help "mentor new members", then please, mentor me Jim - mentor the F out of me in fact. How is this NOT covered by Self Source? What is that policy even there for, if not something like this? I can't even imagine on what grounds such a self-assertion would even be challenged, and by whom - what reason do you or anyone else have to challenge the accuracy of that information? Is "Dale Wilson" such a ridiculous name that it COULDN'T possibly be real, like a Seymour Butts or Amanda Hugandkiss? Do you know the subject personally and that his legal name is something other than what he claimed? Or do you doubt that he himself actually said this and the footage has been doctored in some way? Come on. If that is how things are scrutinized here, then how exactly did you verify that the tattoo in the photograph that you referenced wasn't photoshopped and that it was actually the subject and not some look-alike? This is why I say like I feel I'm being opposed in bad faith. If this were someone else making a random yet relevant statement about themselves, who would have good reason to challenge it, and why would it not be eligible for inclusion under the Self Source policy? Other than BLPPRIVACY of course, which I don't think applies given the context of how he said this, but whatever. Is the answer that THEORETICALLY it COULD be used under Self Source, but the copyright issue with the clip I provided prevents it from being used as a reference and makes it non-reliable? Because again that would be different than the answer I received on the Noticeboard, stating RS only. Again, to me this sure seems to fit the criteria of an RS under the Self Source statute, but if the only thing stopping it from truly being an RS is the copyright matter, then fine. Or, if the issue is that it's ephemeral and can't be referenced, than I'm going to say that is a bigger problem with larger implications across the site that is not addressed by the current policy, and probably should be addressed at some point considering how large the live-streaming community & its audience have become. I feel like I'm offering so many valid arguments or challenges to this and am not sure which one is really the top-level issue that would need to be cleared for this to apply. Well, you claim to be a mentor for new editors - so please, I'm a new editor - Help me understand. Would this be an RS if it weren't a copyright violation? Or does Self Sourced content need to be readily available online and NOT in an archived format? If that is the case, then the policy COULD and I would argue should be amended to make that clearer and easier to satisfy, especially concerning ephemeral content like live-streams. If not, then it seems like the Self Source policy is BS and should probably just be deleted since it will never be deemed "reliable". Gill is trash (talk) 01:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am growing weary of explaining my assessment to you over and over and over again, but I will give it one more try. If this content was recorded in a genuine archive with serious editorial control and a reputation for accuracy, one that would be widely considered by experienced editors to be a reliable source, then I would have no problem with including it. But it isn't. Evanescent stuff from the livestreaming community is analogous to two guys shooting the shit at the local barber shop. I cannot add "Joe Blow's real name is actually Max Brown, because somebody at the barber shop claiming to be knowledgeable told me so". We need to be able to direct our readers to an actual reliable source for that, whether available online or through libraries or used book sellers or actual institutional archives. You ask about the arm tattoos. Yes, in theory, someone could have photoshopped that, but we tend to accept properly licensed images on Wikimedia Commons unless and until their provenance is called into question in a convincing way. I did a Google Images search and found several images in several poses showing those same tattoos. So, unless you are prepared to offer a well-reasoned argument that this freely licensed image is an elaborate multi-image fabrication, drop it because you are wasting my time. You are very proficient at saying the same old thing over and over in slightly different words, but please do not be tendentious. There are about 1100 administrators on Wikipedia. You are free to try to find one who will agree with you, but I think that will be a daunting task for you. We take verifiability and BLP and copyvio very seriously. Please drop this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

Hi, I hope you are well and it's good that we're both still contributing years later. Is Encyclopedia Britannica considered a reliable source? I'm trying to source Nauruans, which has possibly had no sources since 2006! Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Rubbish computer. Please read WP:TERTIARY. Secondary sources are preferred but if they are unavailable, tertiary sources are OK. Encyclopedia Britannica is considered reliable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Mountaineer Roger Baxter-Jones

Hi Jim, I know you will be extremely busy so I am loath to intrude on your time. Given your interest in the history of mountaineering I'm hoping you might have a very brief moment to look at this draft page Draft: Roger Baxter-Jones, which was declined on the first submission with no plausible explanation, and so I resubmitted it at the start of April and am still awaiting a review. It's a short page with what I believe are solid sources. I created a imlar page for French climber/skier Georges Bettembourg whcih was similarly rejected by the same primary review and on resubmission immediately accepted, so I think there was an issue with that primary reviewer. With much appreciation, Cabrils (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cabrils. I agree that Baxter-Jones is probably notable, and that the reviewer who declined your draft last December is problematic and subject to a variety of editing restrictions. The problem is that the sources easily visible online are either not independent or just passing mentions. Your second paragraph is unreferenced so that should be corrected. It would be useful to include a few quotations of one or two sentences in length from the offline sources that would help clarify his notability. What are your two best sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If you can address the points that I have made, then I will accept the article for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jim. I've added some quotes as you suggested, although the page is not as replete with sources as I'd like either, but without access to some of the hardcopy books it's about as best as I can for the time being. The best 2 online sources would be this and this. Even so I do feel it meets GNG and am buoyed that you do too. thank you again. Cabrils (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cabrils. Sorry to be so slow to reply but I have been unusually busy lately. I am glad that your article made it through the AFC process. Well done! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank YOU for your help sir! Cabrils (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Cullen328, thank you very much for helping out the user on my talk page. I really appreciate your kindness. My apologies for not doing a better job. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ashleyyoursmile, no need to apologize because you did just fine. I was just motivated to add some additional details. I appreciate your kindness, too. I miss your excellent UAA reports, but that's one of the reasons that you are an administrator now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kinds words. :) In fact, I do miss reporting to the UAA. But I hope I have been of some help as an admin. Ashleyyoursmile! 06:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Without a doubt, Ashleyyoursmile. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 06:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July corner

June continued ... last year's flowers match the image on the user page nicely, see? - DYK that her last reply to me was in a thread Green for hope? - The DYK set in honour of Yoninah appeared yesterday, including Psalm 85, with the kiss of justice and peace - we wrote that together.

Fourth of July: Brian's birthday, remembered in gratitude for his unfailing inspiration and support - remember the Chapel - the missed - the music? - Can I interest you in a user's first FAC, Carillon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. The carillon I know best is Sather Tower at UC Berkeley, which can be seen and heard for many miles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! The one I know best is Marktkirche, Wiesbaden, and Belgium is full of them, only no travel in a long time, - fond memories, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The Marktkirche has a very elegant design, Gerda Arendt. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Location of lovely concerts, singing and listening. - More music: 2 songs, the morning song - about rising from being down, in more than one sense - is a GA, - there should be more given my initials, but I also want to care for articles of those who recently died (now Esther Béjarano), and psalms in memory of Yoninah, - more missing than there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work on Esther Béjarano. Thank you, Gerda Arendt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I still feel that there would be more in German, but I change subject daily, + more music, cello sonatas and anew song about a feast - a dear family member remembered today when she would have been 122 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

This

HI Cullen. What do you think of this? It's a declared paid editor who seems to feel they can insult our new page reviewers while pushing a dubious article. --- Possibly ☎ 17:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked this paid editor for their personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Cullen328 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, CAPTAIN RAJU. I am still very grateful and truly honored that the community trusted me to become an administrator. I appreciate your reminder. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Source

Hi Jim.. I have added a source in a column of list Indonesia at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Shooting section article per WP:V. But a user removed that source (see: [1]), and a user said that a reference column is not needed per MOS style guide for WP:NOLYMPICS (see the discussion in the last page: [2]). Is it ok to remove that source? And if an article doesnt have a prose and source to support the list, is it ok or not ok to add source in a column? Im sorry for my bad English, and i hope you can help me. Thank you. Stvbastian (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Stvbastian. Your English is fine. You are correct that WP:V strongly encourages adding a reference to a reliable source. I am not familiar with the MOS for Olympics articles, so follow whatever that says. But the reference to the reliable source should be restored, perhaps in the prose section. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AmorLucis (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

May I ask you the kindness to help me with my article?

Hi Cullen328, how are you? I am writing because I would need some help to complete my article: I am not native English speaking so I really would appreciate if you could help me a bit. All the best, Gingeksace (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gingeksace. I noticed that there is no article about Menotti Lerro on Italian Wikipedia. Perhaps you should write an acceptable article in Italian and then later translate it into English. I know nothing about Italian poetry, by the way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot... At this point I would really appreciate if you could give a hand to polish a bit the article from the point of view of grammar and Encyclopedic tone. I worked quiet a bit now on this article and it would be nice to complete it. Kind regards,Gingeksace (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gingeksace. I did some copyediting and cleanup. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! It has been very kind from you. Have a beautiful day. Best wishes, Gingeksace (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you make a tiny mistake in a recent block you've issued to someone?

I've noticed from this recent log, you blocked that said troll for 3 hours, not indefinitely, so I'm only asking if you could fix that (that is, if it was a mistake). DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that error, DarkMatterMan4500. The block is now indefinite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nicki Minaj 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 03:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I am confused

Hi :@Cullen328: I recently help Wikipedia by adding budget of movie along with reference but one user remove the editing along with warning of suspension. What I do know thanks

Hello, Oneyatri. Do you understand the difference between "budget" and "gross"? Do you understand the importance of providing references to reliable sources that verify the content that you add?. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)