User talk:Cullen328/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

A good answer

Here's what I hope is a good answer. Thank you.

As evidence, I offer diffs and basic comments from the last three weeks of editing, in which the diffs indicate issues of WP:HOUND ("Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia ." " The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason.") and issues of WP:TEND ("Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed." "Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline" "There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.") Also WP:TEND includes "Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors" "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors."

Repeated issues of HOUND and TEND began after 08SEP, increased on 11SEP and unfortunately reappeared again on 30SEP. As the WP quotations above specify, WP:HOUND can disrupt the project with no overidingly constructive reason, and WP:TEND can be interpreted as bad faith effort.

Interestingly, of the six million plus pages in English Wikipedia, a group of four pages with diffs occur - on subjects directly related to Chinese human and religious rights abuses in Tibet - where HOUND and TEND by editor occur. And interestingly, a group of three of the four page are also specifically included in a recently discovered US State Department 26APR2019 statement: "On April 25, we marked the birthday of the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who has not appeared in public since he was reportedly abducted two decades ago by the Chinese government at age six. The United States remains concerned that Chinese authorities continue to take steps to eliminate the religious, linguistic, and cultural identity of Tibetans, including their ongoing destruction of communities of worship, such as the Larung Gar and Yachen Gar monasteries." [diff from CTA, haven't dug through US.gov site yet [1]]

The group of pages where diffs indicate patterns of HOUND and TEND include:

• Sinicization of Tibet: Where attempts to use talk, assumption of good faith to build CON with editor, began on 08SEP[2], then continued on 09SEP[3], and on 10SEP[4]. These efforts were followed by repeated TEND after again editing text here[5]and here[6]and here[7]and here[8]and here[9] which were mischaracterized as "deft hackery" and revertedhere[10].
• 11th Panchen Lama controversy is a page with edits from 15Jun[11]. The editor had never edited page before[12], but on 11SEP2020, editor reverted multiple edits from June, to an earlier version of page with numerous factual errors and POV issues here [13]. Another attempt on early 14SEP to use talk for CON is here[14]. By late 14SEP, assumption of good faith is officially weakened due to ignored errors in content, which also support POV of page subject's abductors; as recommended in such cases, I reverted here[15]. TEND and HOUND are indicated again by editor's revert here[16]. Editor does not address WP:V and WP:RS issues, so this revert [17] follows. Editor doubles down, reverts again, and incorrectly cites BLP category ban for a Bio with non-living category page here[18]. Eight hours later, editor coordinates BLP note on page[19] which effectively protected content with multiple serious errors on a BLP page. On 29SEP, effort again made to assume good faith here[20].
• Yarchen Gar is another page never edited by editor before 06SEP. The first revert by editor is here[21] where a Facebook source is untouched, but a source Tibet Watch is deleted. Basic info is deleted in opening, including the words 'Tibetan', 'nuns', and 'with both Tibetan and Han Chinese students'. Deletions were reverted on 11SEP [22], but kept editing and was again reverted while all RS & sources were deemed "advocacy groups" in editors opinion. Editor adds detailed geography notes [23]. Here's an attempt to use talk[24] and a request to stop reverts on 17SEP[25], but editor did not respond to the good faith requests, which meet the definition of interpretation of bad faith effort in TEND. Editor responds instead with another revert[26].
• Larung Gar is another page not edited by editor before 06SEP[27]. The page is related to Yarchen Gar page in subject, and in RS on international concerns of persecution of nuns and monks; both pages were reedited by editor. Here's the 06SEP revert of Larung Gar by editor[28]which deletes NYT RS, replaces Tibetan people's name with Chinese versions, reedits text associated with BBC RS, and deletes source and text from Free Tibet while pushing opinion that source Radio Free Asia should be basically deprecated.
• WP:RSN: To settle matters while still hoping for good faith, topics were opened on 17SEP[29] and[30] on RS & sources disputed by editor and editor's opinions. In these topics, editor again indicates HOUND and TEND in the 2nd thread, while later inappropriately calling for a double block in the 2nd topic. CON on 2nd topic states general policy on sources, but makes the point that reliability of each source has not been established separately.
• With these guidelines, fresh edits were undertaken again on 30SEP at Yarchen Gar here[31] with a reference to earlier bad faith effort which meet TEND definitions, and here[32] and here[33] and here via RS Buddhist Door[34]. Editor again reverts before examining RS and calls for a block in an edit summary[35] which signifies HOUND and TEND by editor are continuing. The lack of RS review by editor before revert was noted as was editor's history of blocks for feuding, here[36]. Editor again reverts here[37] while wrongly claiming "You have been told Tibet Post is not a WP:RS", but the RSN review did not specify that finding. Next, editor re-ads a South China Morning Post source provided by me[38], a re-adding that supports the interpretation of bad faith effort, since the earlier revert was therefore made without review and meets the definitions of HOUND and TEND. The re-adding also indicates editor's TEND issues are based on POV (the apparently non-independent Scmp POV fails to mention fully the notable topic of the demolitions, and includes a tone slightly disrespectful to the nuns). Editor's revert was undone, bad faith/feuding cited among other issues here[39]. An image of Yarchen Gar was added here[40].

To address other related topics, I would like to add that while the editor has said the reference to previous blocks is "intolerable"[41] I took editor's more experienced lead to include mention of the feuding block [42], based on the editor's mention of the BLP parameter ban (see diffs) - if following the lead was a mistake, I apologise. I would also add that I hope the good faith efforts made at Sinicization of Tibet and 11th Panchen Lama and their diffs might clarify any misunderstanding in regards to a Tea House thread, where quotations from those talk pages and good faith efforts were used: "The first sentence states clearly that Sinicization of Tibet is a term used by critics of China; then, the rest of the page is largely written from the POV of China, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases." and "Those statements don't address the serious issues. Goldstein's bias diff [1]; Rice, Kissinger, and Albright do not change the issues. Also in the first paragraph are non-standard references to the Chinese government, as in "Chinese leadership" and "leadership in China". Twice. Hum." After a requoting, a light-hearted but possibly poor attempt at joking (humbly offering AKGG as possible WP policy) was made. No personal attacks were intended towards editor, nor was disrespect towards policy at all intended - I apologise if I caused a misunderstanding. But, editor exhibited more HOUND instances by following into that request for help, and into another helpful discussion afterward.

I trust the copious amounts of diffs and this very lengthy response to be good enough to explain the interpretation of bad faith effort by the editor. I also trust that the good faith edits I've been providing as a recently joined editor to the project are as apparent, if not more so. Thank you most sincerely, and I look forward to continuing the editing.Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, all of your comments and those diffs show that you have a powerful point of view regarding the conflict between the Chinese government and Tibetan Buddhism. Editing from the neutral point of view is mandatory and editors who are unable to edit neutrally end up with editing restrictions and blocks. I suggest that you voluntarily remove yourself from this topic area. If instead you continue on the same path, I think that it is likely that you will end up with a topic ban or even an indefinite block.

Examples of your extreme POV pushing language are in the diffs above:

"Attacks on 'Culture' and forced changing of 'Demographics' are obvious weapons in China's arsenal of destroying and subjugating Tibet."

"the motion to remove the nearly frothingly pro-China apologetic p.o.s. article."

I find it hard to understand why you chose to draw my attention to your POV pushing. I encourage you to change your course of action if you hope to continue editing Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Cullen, and your time. It's worth noting that those examples are from talk, not from text entered into pages, and are responses to editor's extreme pushing of opinion in page and talk, which might be couched in a less raw fashion. The majority opinion expressed in those two examples have been gained from RS and from sources read since becoming an editor, which fully describe "Attacks on 'Culture' and forced changing of 'Demographics' are obvious weapons in China's arsenal of destroying and subjugating Tibet." As in, the earth is round. Various RS and sources also go further to include the term "cultural genocide", which is another way to describe the same phenomena. The specific quotation is taken from a talk response to editor's pushing of minority opinion on Sinicization of Tibet that cultural genocide has been debunked - based on an academic source's opinion of the number of magazines currently published in Tibet. In RSN topic 2, ICT et al (archive diff here for International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post, et al[43] ), editor continued pushing same opinion again, threatened blocks against 2 editors for disagreeing, and the thread debunks editor's opinion. With these diffs, HOUND and TEND by editor have been illustrated, likewise editor's POV pushing.

Since the quotations are balanced by the minority POV pushing of editor, I ask if you would please reconsider the advice of not editing the topic area, since the page edits adhere to NPOV and majority opinion, and include RS and sources repeatedly deleted by editor via TEND. What seems to be the issue is expressing opinion on talk, which is permitted. Likewise, @El_C advised me to "tone it down", advise which I've definitely followed since those opinions were expressed almost a month ago on 08SEP-10SEP.

I'm curious as to what advise or block the editor in question has received for HOUND and TEND, if it's appropriate to ask. Thank you again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• IMO an extremely bad answer. Someone please protect the other editor from this ongoing harrassment by PDC, as I cannot. —valereee (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to restate the editor's minority opinion appears to be behind their HOUND and TEND. I'd also suggest editor be advised to not edit pages if their pushing of minority opinion, and rejection of NPOV and its supporting RS/sources, and rejection of CON, cannot be checked. As the diffs show, I follow those policies in the articles and attempted repeatedly to use talk for CON with editor. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes an editor is blinded to their own POV pushing in their zeal to demonize editors with a different POV. That seems to be the case here, Pasdecomplot. You seem to think that the Chinese POV is so reprehensible that it should not be described neutrally in this encyclopedia. You are wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Possibly there's a misunderstanding: Chinese POV, as pushed by editor, should be described but with balance, especially since it's a minority opinion. Pushing a minority opinion does not create balanced encyclopedic knowledge (and the editing attempts for NPOV in Sinicization of Tibet are a good example). Providing diffs illustrating why there are policies against HOUND and TEND is not a zeal to demonize, I'd say. Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi protected

Hello, I read your reply shortly before and that's why I have asked you how I edit semi-protected pages and what problems I face while doing it, so please help me to do so. Eroberar (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No index tag on new article

Just wondering what is going on, but some how frustrated about getting your article not index by the search engine bot Amah Chibundu I think it has no index tag. Just hope you could help Lynn (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Lynndonald, correct the subject's name in the article and I will move it to the correct title and approve it for indexing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amah_Chinbudu Lynn (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Lynndonald, not what I meant. See my reply to your teahouse post, and we should continue there, because we are being kinda rude to Cullen. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

WIPO and Francis Gurry: disruptive deletion and censorship.

Hi, I noticed your deleting the data about Francis Gurry and reasoning it by unreliable source of information. On the contrary, the reputable sources such as the Sidney Herald, the New American, etc. name Francis Gurry, and point to his being involved in corruption, his sanctioning attacks on media, retaliation, etc. WIPO official document also states that under WIPO Administration under FG sanctioned retaliation, and it this finding was substantiated.

I see no reason for deleting this information with justification that it is unreliable. I expect constructive discussion on the matter, if not, you will be banned from editing the page without any further notification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBroadwide (talk • contribs) 05:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, BBroadwide. You must gain consensus for the contentious material you want to add at Talk:Francis Gurry. This is mandatory. The article talk page is the proper place to discuss the proposed content changes, not my talk page. As for "banning me" from that article, that is frankly an absurd statement. I am an administrator and am fully conversant with the relevant policies. With all due respect, you are not an administrator and have no power to ban me from anything. You are a new editor with a lot to learn. Take it slow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

WIPO and Francis Gurry: disruptive deletion and censorship.

Hi,

Back you your last note that i have to "gain consensus for the contentious material".

Please be advised that information added is not falling under "contentious material". Mr. Gurry's attack on press, corruption and retaliation and cover up of sexual harassment and assault was reported through different reliable sources: - The Sydney Morning Herald: , - - The New American: - Inner City Press: - The VICE media outlet - Government Accountability Project:

Retaliation findings against the whistle-blowers was substantiated and documented and is was confirmed at the WIPO Program and Budget Committee

The claim about "contentious material" is not substantiated. I expect a constructive discussion on the matter

Furthermore, you also stated that i have no right to ban you from editing as you are the administrator "As for "banning me" from that article, that is frankly an absurd statement. I am an administrator and am fully conversant with the relevant policies. With all due respect, you are not and have no power to ban me from anything"

If you are the administrator and you keep claiming that information provided and based on the reliable source is "contentious material", the only conclusion is that you intentionally disregard the data to make sure that violations committed by Mr. Gurry and his Administration are not exposed and covered up, which is a censorship.

BBroadwide (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

BBroadwide, I am not "the administrator", rather I am "an administrator", just one of 1138 of us. Indignant protests about censorship will get you nowhere. I told you previously that the proper place to discuss this matter is Talk:Francis Gurry, and yet you have returned to my talk page, which is the wrong venue for this conversation. Was I unclear the first time? Consider this a formal request to discuss the content dispute on the article talk page, not here. Start by studying WP:BLP and the previous talk page discussions.

I live in California and my bedtime is rapidly approaching. I will take another look at the article talk page tomorrow morning. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

References

WIPO and Francis Gurry: disruptive deletion and censorship.

This conversation makes is not constrictive and disrespectful Instead of providing constructive feedback, I see just groundless assertions and disrespectful behaviour. --BBroadwide (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

BBroadwide, you are still not discussing the matter on the article talk page. Why is that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

AnnonomoysMusicTeam

Hi. You softblocked there account, but I recommend a hardblock. They were spamming(see draft), and team accounts. But I understand if you wanna keep your softblock. Just a suggestion. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP. "Anonymous Music" is a Nigerian record label with a focus on afrocentric music, so I doubt they would be starting a one sentence draft about an Indian musician. That one sentence was not spam, although promotion may have been their ultimate goal. I suspect that there is no organized group, but rather that someone just thought the name sounded cool. The thing that is clear to me is that team accounts or names implying shared use are not allowed. That's why I softblocked. I hope that makes sense. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It does now. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Afc decline - Draft:Camden Monarchs - Please guide with my actionable solution

Dear Sir, My Draft:Camden Monarchs is declined, I need your guidance in reference of Archived Teahouse Questions link given below
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1077#Draft:Camden_Monarchs_Afc_is_declined
Please note, post my comments I have not received response from Usedtobecool ☎️
That's why I am seeking your expert help.
with regards. Vsp.manu (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Vsp.manu. Just wondering. Are you being paid to write this article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Vsp.manu, I am sorry, I did not get your ping then, I did this time. It appears you didn't sign it right, your post at the Teahouse. I looked at the three sources you listed there, and I don't see it coming even kinda close to meeting WP:GNG. Unless there is a special rule somewhere that makes clubs member of the ABA inherently notable (WP:NTEAM doesn't say which sports may have such rules), I think you'll have to wait for the organisation to receive more independent coverage. Cullen, as an American, may be able to say more about notability in American Basketball, or you'll have to ask at WP:WikiProject Basketball. Though, I don't expect the reviewer DGG would have missed anything; he is second to none when it comes to evaluating drafts. Looking at the draft, the sources you gave, your other drafts (like this one, which I might have CSDed instead) and the fact that you have not declared any WP:COI, it may be time to give up on this one, because if you keep posting around, you are liable to meet an admin who blocks first and asks questions later with users who seem to have only worked on topics that one might get paid for writing about. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

If there's anything I am not particularly competent with, it's sports. even American sports. But this is a semi-professional team, and I do not thing we ever consider these notable. I'll check if I'm wrong, because I might be. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Like DGG, I am not a big sports fan (except for mountaineering), although I watch probably four or five professional games a year. I am somewhat familiar with professional minor league baseball, including the Sacramento River Cats. As for semi-professional basketball in the U.S., I did not even know that was a thing. I doubt notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

William Heaslip

Hello Cullen328 -- thank you for getting back to me with your suggestions. All of those sources are actually in the book you referenced. I am one of the two authors. It represents over 15 years of research. I am embarrassed to say it never occurred to me to source the information as from the book rather than the actual sources. Attribute that to inexperience! Thank you for recognizing that he is notable along with Clayton Knight. There is information about CK in Wikipedia but more for the historical role he played with the Clayton Knight Committee pre-WWII. I will go back and reference the pages in the book for sources. Again, thank you for your kind assistance and consideration. Best regards, Sheryl Fiegel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiegel (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Safiegel. That's interesting. Since you are the author of the book, you have a conflict of interest about this topic. You need to declare that. I suggest you place a notice on your userpage and the talk page of the draft explaining your relationship with Heaslip. The only references that can be used on Wikipedia are published, reliable sources. Since your book was issued by an established publisher with a good reputation, it is a reliable source. You cannot use unpublished letters, interviews, archives or documents, although those are perfectly acceptable when writing a book. This encyclopedia has different standards. Please carefully read Your first article and feel free to ask me additional questions at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jim -- Thanks for getting back to me. And thank you for mentioning the conflict of interest. When I first got my account at Wikipedia, I saw that and then I couldn't find it again to make a declaration. Could you please direct me to how I can make that important change? Navigating through Wikipedia has not been easy. Today, I finally got approval on the text from the artist's son who is in poor health and isolated in a retirement home - he had no recommendations or changes to suggest which is great. That is most unusual but honestly that really wasn't even the question. I have been trying to get his permission to use a photograph of his Dad in the article. I have some art images I can use freely but felt people always want to see what someone looked like. I will keep working on it -- unfortunately there is poor access to direct communication with him because of COVID - lots of intermediaries. Again, thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sheryl Fiegel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiegel (talk • contribs) 20:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Safiegel. I can help you with adding a photo after the article is in the encyclopedia. By the way, you do not need to ask for permission or approval from the subject's son. That is unnecessary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to get back to you so soon but I didn't want you to think I wasn't listening to your suggestions. Where is my user page? -- when I click on my user name it says I don't have a user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiegel (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Safiegel. When you click on your red-linked username, an edit window will open. Add your disclosure there and click the "Publish changes" button. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jim -- I think I added the disclosure. Please let me know if it's not where it is supposed to be. BTW, I passed the article by the son as a courtesy. The families of both of these artists have been really wonderful throughout the process and I am grateful for their cooperation. Again, thank you so much for sharing your expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiegel (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Safiegel. I suggest that you add the fact that you are working on an article about Heaslip. By the way, there is no need to start a new section to make additional comments. Just edit the existing thread. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Phone number?

Is Patrick 08068897507 having an apparent MTN Nigeria telephone number in his username a problem, given what may be self-promotion on his user page? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting possibility, AlanM1. One interpretation is that it is a random string of numbers. A shorter string of numbers is part of my username, by the way. I suggest that you consider tagging the page under WP:G11 or WP:U5. Since I offered the editor advice at the Teahouse, I will refrain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

The prefix and length are consistent with a Nigerian mobile and we know he's Nigerian (or promoting one) so I don't think it's random. My question is, if so, is the phone number in the username a problem? I.e., is it a "promotional username" for reporting to WP:UAA? I assume we're giving him a day or two to follow the instructions about the user page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 12:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, personally, I would not block for a username violation. WP:UAA is supposed to be for blatant violations of username policy. I suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names as a better venue if you want broader input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Contact Resistivity and Circular Transmission Line Method

The Google article you referenced was my main reference for subsequent work at JPL. I actually had a special device made and used it to measure contact resistivity, sheet resistivity, and modified sheet resistivity. A much earlier technical paper by H. H. Berger is also referenced in my article and was an excellent review article on the whole field of contact resistance. My work and results have been published in an international conference in Perth Australia and elsewhere, so there are no copyright problems. I have carefully written the article and tried to follow Wikipedia guidelines but have done as much as I can and need help in submitting the article or someone else to take on the task of editing it to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Dale R Burger (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Dale R Burger. I already gave you advice on this matter at the Teahouse, where I wrote: "It appears to me that the topic is notable. Please be aware that Wikipedia has very different standards than academic writing. Please read Your first article. You may want to consider the optional Articles for Creation process, especially if you are not prepared to be scrupulous about following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As stated above, anything you contribute should be your own original writing in the vast majority of cases."

There were plenty of links for you to read and study. There are ample help resources available for your use and you already know about the Teahouse. You have the expertise and the motivation to do the work. Feel free to ask questions but you are the best editor for this task, so I encourage you to get to work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

IP ADDRESS

Greetings! Sir Cullen.

Please, how do I fortify my account to avoid being blocked again due to the usage of my IP address by an unknown user? Kambai Akau (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kambai Akau. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sir. I will. Kambai Akau (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I went through the link and adjoining links. I initially thought there was a definite way one could block others from accessing one's IP address, but it seems not so. I may return to it again so I can apply for the "by-pass" account, just in case. Kambai Akau (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:René Descartes 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 06:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza 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 17:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mons Massicus

Wikipedia recognizes that there are multiple issues with this article. I am writing because I would propose renaming the article. Mons Massicus is the Latin name for the mountain. As the author states the modern Italian name for the mountain is Monte Massico. I believe that it would be more consistent with English Wikipedia conventions to use the modern Italian name for the article. This is what is done in the Falernian wine article. I do not know if renaming the page would raise eyebrows with the editors, and I wish to ask. I dislike denigrating any other author’s work, but there seems to be some confusion, or at least a mixture, between ancient Roman and modern Italian land area names in the article. Running your mouse over his link for Campania brings up a map of the modern Italian Provence of Campagna. Its area is much larger than the area that the Romans referred to as Campagna. One may see this by placing one’s mouse over the link for Latium in the article. This brings up a Roman map used in the Latium article showing the ancient limits of Campania, Latium, and the position of Mons Massicus. Please note the area marked Falerunus Ager (Field of Falernian). It was here that the grapes for Falernian Wine were grown. There is no Mount Falernus according to the standard work on ancient geography. There are other problems in the Falernian wine article which I will address later. As always, thank you for your advice.

Nicodemus (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Oldsilenus. The article is based on a 1911 source. Later today, I will do some research and see what more contemporary English sources say about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Oldsilenus, after completing a Google Books search, I agree with you that the Italian name is much more common in English language sources writing about the modern era, and that the Latin name is mostly limited to books about antiquity. Accordingly, I reverted the redirects and moved the article to the Italian title, which I conclude is now the most common English language name. Can you expand the article and add more sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

     Thank you. I can certainly try. For one thing, I have to determine in which province the mountain is currently in. Grapes are still grown there for wine Articles often state that it is on the border of ancient Latium and ancient Campania because its importance lies in the ancient wines produced there. A note could be made of this.

Nicodemus (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I found that Italian Wikipedia has a superior Monte Massico article to ours This article is not perfect, but it is an improvement. I believe that I can further improve it. While I have translated some of the Italian, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to ask Wikipedia to translate the entire article since we have an article of the same name. Could you consider obtaining a translation of the Italian article to replace ours, and I will improve that one. Thank you. Nicodemus (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

GoogleArchiveBot and CybersecurityWiiki

Thank you for banning User talk:GoogleArchiveBot. It appears the same user is making similar unconstructive edits as User talk:CybersecurityWiiki. Could you check into it, please? Thanks. --Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked that sockpuppet, Jeremy Butler. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jeremy Butler (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

More on Monte Massico

I believe that you may have missed my October 18 post to our discussion under "Mons Massicus" on this talk page. It was short and I will repeat it: I found that Italian Wikipedia has a superior Monte Massico article to ours This article is not perfect, but it is a vast improvement on ours. I believe that I can further improve it. While I have translated some of the Italian, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to ask Wikipedia to translate the entire article since we have an article of the same name. Could you consider obtaining a translation of the Italian article to replace ours, and I will improve that one? Thank you. The advantage for me is that if I put this translation in my sandbox it would probably go through review as a new article.You already know that it is a published Wikipedia article (admittedly with some faults). I would be glad to correct those.

Nicodemus (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Oldsilenus. You cannot write or translate a new article because English Wikipedia already has an existing article. You should simply improve the existing article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you but I found elsewhere that there is a tag

which supposedly should do this work for me.

Oldsilenus, tagging the article is not improving the article. Please read WP:Translate and work to improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

move this draft

Hi, how can we move a draft to the main space? I wanted to move this draft to the main space. I added as many restrictions as I could. please,If you can move it to the main space.--Do me follow (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Do me follow. Because your account is not yet autoconfirmed, you cannot move drafts to main space. I think that Articles for creation is a good choice for your first article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, now what do you think of move a draft because I have added as many resources as you can, do you think it is suitable for creation?--Do me follow (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Do me follow, as an American, I know very little about association football or soccer. The notability guideline is WP:NFOOTY. I would prefer to have an editor familiar with that topic area evaluate your draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer.--Do me follow (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Alpine four-thousanders

Hi Jim, Hope all's well with you. We're having a discussion about renaming the List of Alpine four-thousanders and I wonder whether you might like to give a view on the matter as the repercussions of this renaming extend to the US and the term "fourteeners". See Talk:List of Alpine four-thousanders. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Ericoides. I commented there. I am doing as well as can be expected under the current bizarre circumstances, and hope you are also. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre is the word, and thanks for your input on the Talk page. Ericoides (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi Cullen. Given this, could you revoke talk page access please. Robvanvee 06:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not to worry, all sorted! Robvanvee 13:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you had to go through that, Robvanvee. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Changing the username

Hello friend. You commented on the username depicts violence, which is an absolutely true fact. It was a friend who created this account. I have submitted to change it to Atlantis7177. Can you please tell how long it will take for the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assassin7177 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please be patient. It will happen soon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Image

Can I add a picture of a school on the page of said school? There is no picture of the school in the page currently. Icreatedthisusername (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Icreatedthisusername. If you took the photo yourself, then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons and it can then be used in that article. But you cannot use most photos that you find online, because they are restricted by copyright. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Bongino

I don't understand this edit. The fact isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, and it should. -- Valjean (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Valjean. I am not an expert in Bongino's ancestry, but I would like to make the following points: In the lead sentence of a biography, Wikipedia normally identifies the nationality of a person but not their ethnicity. An exception might be if their ethnicity was central to their notability, which is certainly not the case here. If an enthnicity is mentioned in a biography of a living person, that assertion must be cited to a reliable source. I did a very quick search for a reliable source that says that Bongino is African-American, and all I found was him denying it, and claiming to be of Italian ancestry instead. So, what reliable source calls him African-American? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Enlightening response! I wasn't aware of that rule about the lead sentence. Without RS confirmation we can't write it, and, come to think of it, I shouldn't be surprised he denies it considering his war with BLM. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Another possibility, Valjean, is that he denies it because (as far as he knows at least), it isn't true. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course. -- Valjean (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

22K watchlisted!

Jeez, I was thinking I should start culling because I just reached 5K. —valereee (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Valereee. A lot of them are old AFDs and a lot of them are inactive pages. But I enjoy scanning the list, looking for "interesting developments". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

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

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

CLevic

Hi. Draft:Clevic aviation and space is clearly fictional, but nobody has responded to your CSDG3 tag in four days. Any idea why? This search points to simpleplanes.com, where it is tagged "fictional", plus it seems to be a "build your own fictional plane" site, where a user with the same name as the user who created it here (TheDerpingMemes) created it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello AlanM1. I am surprised it is taking so long. I have added a note with additional information to the CSD tag. I hope that works. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Kenneth Saclote

You have blocked Kenneth Saclote before. I made a last-ditch GF effort to get them to communicate [44] but as far as I can tell, they are unable or unwilling. Their talkpage is just filling up with more and more warnings, and the meaningless disruption continues. Would you please look into it? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bri. I've blocked for a week with a warning that the next block may well be indefinite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Baron Trump

You G10'd it, but I think that was based on just the last edit to the page, which was vandalism. It's a longstanding redirect, I think rather it should just be restored and permanently protected. I can do it, but figured I'd drop you a line first. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Amorymeltzer. I doubt the value of a disambiguation page with just two entries, one of which is a spelling error. It is definitely a vandalism magnet, but if you want to bring it back and permanently protect it, then that's fine with me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a reasonable dab or even {{R from mispelling}}, and gets used so at the very least should be discussed. I've gone and done it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with improving a Stub

Hello! I am a student at The University of Sydney and I am completing a Wikipedia editing course. We have chosen a stub to research, edit, and improve. I have chosen Lagos University Teaching Hospital as the stub to edit. I am currently adding information to the article and I would value your input and advice with the work I am doing. I appreciate your help. Thank you! Creatorhj244 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you please help me fix edits on German Wiki to match English Wiki?

Can you please help me fix edits on German Wikipedia to match English Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cp147 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, Cp147, but my German language skills are poor. What article are you talking about? Please explain why you think it is important that things "match". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for a reply and for such a quick reply. They should both match the physical CD liner notes, as well as many many other citations such as record label websites, etc., etc. but only the English Wikipedia has the correct album credits. Is there anyway I could please email you privately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cp147 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Cp147, I still don't know which article you are talking about. This is not a matter that needs confidentiality, so I prefer to discuss the matter openly here on Wikipedia. If there is a problem with a German article, then please edit it to fix it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I did that by using an online translator but they denied my edits. I truly believe someone is doing this on purpose. I really need to talk to you privately and then I can easily give you my 6 great citations that should settle this matter once and for all (including images of physical CD liner notes and record label website info. about credits). It will also show how wrong it was that someone denied my edit and they should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cp147 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Cp147, machine translation is a bad idea unless you speak both languages quite well. You are responsible for the accuracy of any translations that you do. I do not want an email and I have no interest in seeing the liner notes or anything else. I don't even know which article you are discussing. If you are blocked on the German Wikipedia, then you must follow their block appeal process and file a properly formatted unblock request. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Cp147, which account are you using on the German Wikipedia? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diva_Destruction Extra names of people that should not be next to a 2006 album title are the same names in English or in German (the album title is also in English). They are names of people that should not be there in that one very and short easy to translate sentence. If you pull up that same 2006 album title in the English Wikipedia you will see there is one and ONLY one name for all the credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cp147 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Cp147, which account are you using on the German Wikipedia? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe I was logged in at all. I tried to make the Oct. 13 edit. If you click on the header word just to the right of "Lesen" you will easily see my Oct. 13 edit. I also see that is says "Marking: Visual Processing" when I clicked in other categories. Does that mean it is being held for a "visual" review and maybe there is still hope it will be accepted? Have you looked at the page yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cp147 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Cp147, please edit logged in when you have an account. Yes, I read the page using Google Translate, which is not highly accurate but gives me a good idea of what the article says. I also read the English article Diva Destruction, which has a lot of problems. I cannot help you with any problems on the German Wikipedia, and cannot evaluate the quality of your edit since I do not read German fluently. You need to get help on the German Wikipedia, not here. Why don't you work to improve the English article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A mention

You've been mentioned at User talk:Sumit banaphar. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)