Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 98

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100→Archive 104

Want to have honest discussion about Wikipedias guidelines and policies.

Hey! Jim nice to meet ya! names Hulk576 wanted to thank you for that ban I appreciated it, it's nice to know that you'll get banned for having honesty, But tbh this is an important question to you Jim? Do you believe Wikipedias policies and guidelines protect the community/site or does it allow frequent abuse of power on the platform?. To me personally I feel as tho the sites guidelines and policies are doing the site a "injustice" how so? Well take for example me! I was just trying to do an honest edit at first then it spiraled outta control albeit on my part but that was only due to the fact that I was being threatened for constantly changing the disinformation. Which I know is considered an "Edit War" which I'm aware of. To me this site now is Flawed exponentially and it's a crying shame Jim because it should be an open source platform where anyone can contribute no limitations; the freedom of speech and expression that soo many English/other countries experience.It should be a platform where the 'little guy' has as much say/jurisdiction as an 'admin' it seems almost like to me Jim that no matter what the 'little guy' nowadays can't do 'Honest Edits' without somebody whose higher up shutting them down for no reason and the talk pages tbh are utterly useless. They are terribly formatted, terrible place for honest discussions, and to use THAT!!! for trying communicate on changes for the article is honestly quite nonsense. This site can improve and be better, how so? First off, noone should throw their power around unless 100% justified on a case-by-case basis.Second, the need for a change from talk pages to a dedicated group messanger app like discord or a Wikimessanger something like that instead of that ineffective talk pages would be more effective in communicating an honest and open discussion. Three, The site as a whole really need to change from open source overly complex site to something simplistic for amateur/newbies that can take advantage of the sites accessibility in the form of for example, writing an article for a major newspaper publication in that format just straight editing the words not "codes" would be more effective. For this site to continue without asking for donations every five seconds it needs to make itself "accessible" and have freedom of speech to everyone without little to no limitations. And thats the main question Jim in what way of your 14 years and being an admin do you believe Wikipedia can improve on to become a better, reliable, trustworthy, accessible site then it is now?

Thank you! for reading this And have a good day! Hulk576 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Hulk576. First of all, let me remind you again that I blocked you for personal attacks and harassment, which are not permitted on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is in no way, shape or form a free speech platform. Wikipedia is not a blogging or social media platform or a place for debating issues or advocating for causes. Please see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Wikipedia is, instead, a structured, collaborative project to create a cost free reference work, namely, the most comprehensive encyclopedia in human history. Enforcement of the policies and guidelines that you reject is the very thing that allows Wikipedia to be widely (although not universally) trusted, and ranked for many years as a Top Ten website worldwide, usually about #7. By now, I think that it should be clear that your vision of what Wikipedia ought to be is far different from mine. I find talk pages easy to use. I find wikitext also known as wikimarkup easy to learn and easy to use. I am all in favor of changes to the software that make the site more accessible and responsive. But I will vigorously oppose any efforts to transform Wikipedia into an almost unregulated, anarchic free speech site. There are plenty of places like 4Chan and Kiwi Farms and Twit X and countless others that allow trolling and flaming and ranting and raving and hallucinating. I find it refreshing that Wikipedia is not at all like that. Wikipedia is a place for serious people to write and improve neutral and well referenced encyclopedia articles. Nothing more. Speaking as an administrator, I do not throw my power around with no good reason, and in my experience, administrators rarely do. I impose blocks to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Period, end of story. When blocked editors promise to correct their behavior and avoid disruption, I readily agree to unblocking them. So, let's agree to disagree. I hope that you find another website that allows you to freely express yourself as you wish. Cullen328 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed

You wrote at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1199#Unresponsive editor that I have to be extended confirmed to edit the entry. I didn't have the time to reply back then and now it's archived, so I'm posting it here:

Am I not extended confirmed? Sure, I do not have the magic pixie dust in the database that says so, but I've made 1,346 edits since December 2022, so, for all I care, I meet the requirements, and have as much right to edit P:CE as anyone else. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

ECP is only available for registered editors, not IPs. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
This sounds like a distinction without a difference. What is the difference between a person editing Wikipedia through an account and a person editing Wikipedia through a static IP address? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
No, IP editor, the distinction is very real, and is a matter of policy. Wikipedia:Protection policy is what I mean and WP:ECP is the shortcut to the relevant section of the policy: That right is granted automatically to registered users with at least 30 days' tenure and at least 500 edits. Emphasis added. If you want that user right, then register an account, make 500 edits, and you will then have that right if your account is over 30 days old. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The distinction is purely technical: it makes sense to assign flags like extended confirmed to named accounts because the person behind the account (usually) never changes, but it does not make sense to do so for IPs, because many IPs are dynamic and one cannot be sure that the person editing today is the same person who received XC yesterday. As I've explained, this is not relevant in my case, because the IP is static. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
You can object to the policy all you want but the policy still stands. As an individual administrator, I have no power to override such a clearcut policy, and the software does not permit it at this time. If you want to propose a change to an existing policy, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the place to do it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) IP: The distinction is real. A registered account is assumed to represent a single individual no matter where logged in from. An IP address might be one individual, but if you edit from somewhere else, your IP address is different. Furthermore, you don't own your IP address, you cannot reassign it at your will, you cannot take it with you if if you leave the country. All those things you can do with a registered account. An account represents a person, an IP address does not because you do not control it. Your IP belongs to your internet service provider. The extended confirmed user right is intended to apply to the person, not your specific location. Furthermore, it is technically not possible for an administrator to change the editing rights of an IP address (I just tried it in your case, it says 'There is no user by the name "User:93.72.49.123".'). If you are interested in the technical capability to assign user rights to IP addresses, the place to propose it is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for feasibility questions, and the policy page as Cullen suggested for policy questions. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Viewing deleted article

Hi, could I please see this article Vernon Jones (actor) that was deleted. I was the creator of it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Davidgoodheart. If you activate email in your preferences, then I will send it to you. Please let me know. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

a little help, please

Hi. Another user suggested I ask you this question after I posted it earlier today...any help/advice would be much appreciated.

I love Wikipedia; I make a small monthly donation, despite being broke, because I believe in the principles of Wikipedia & because I use it on a regular basis, often several times a day. It’s my ‘go to’ resource for info on the various topics I’m interested in.

But there is one aspect I find extremely frustrating: saving articles & then accessing them later.

I mostly use the Wikipedia app on my phone (Android…relevant?) & can save articles but only seem to be able to access them again if I’m at the “Featured article” page where there’s a ‘Saved’ button at the bottom left. If I’m anywhere but there, either at a saved page or at a new article, the ‘Saved’ button says ‘Save’ instead (either dark grey if the page is already saved or white if not) & there doesn’t seem to be any way to access my saved articles from there. I can’t see any way to have my ‘Saved’ list open at the same time as other tabs (which would be really handy!!) or even to go to my list without closing all open tabs AND closing & reopening the whole app, which then reopens at the “Featured article” page. There are many times when I want to be able to easily switch between multiple tabs e.g. a new, unsaved, & a saved article, so the way it seems to be at the moment almost (but not quite) makes the ‘Save’ function useless.

Also, there doesn’t seem to be any way at all to save pages if using a browser apart from bookmarking as with any other page.

So, my questions are:

• Is there a way to easily switch between saved/unsaved (or saved/another saved) articles? Is there maybe a guide somewhere to using the Save/Saved functions in the app? (Is anyone working on development of this function?...I’d happily do it if I had the skills…actually, what skills would I need?).

• Is there a save function when accessing Wikipedia in a browser & if so, where is it?

Thanks Jeffkes Jeffkes (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Jeffkes (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Jeffkes. I am sorry but I cannot help you with problems using the app because I edit using the desktop site on my Android smartphone. There is no "saved article" function on desktop. Instead, I use the "watchlist" function, which gives me a continuous feed of recent edits to articles and other pages that interest me. You might get an answer at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
👍 thanks anyway! Jeffkes (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Tushar INBOXARMY (12:48, 14 September 2023)

I want to make a company's wiki page live how to do so? --Tushar INBOXARMY (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Tushar INBOXARMY. Writing an acceptable new Wikipedia article is extremely difficult for an inexperienced editor. I suggest that you spend at least a few weeks improving existing articles first. Then, read Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you work for the company in any capacity, then you must make the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking for a resolution for this?

Hello Jim, I would like a resolution to this whole dispute between me and Jeffro77 I've been providing circumstantial evidence to the figures in the JW article. and yet I'm being threatened for nothing other than doing things the right way on wikipedia here's the threat "You are being disruptive and will be reported soon if you continue".[Jeffro77]

Here's my evidence:

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/how-many-jw/

Here's Jeffro77's evidence:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20110815/Questions-From-Readers-2/

This is the very problem with Wikipedia that I stated in my earlier talk with you the constant abuse on this platform makes it hard for editors like me to contribute in anyway even while giving extensive evidence in the talk page. It's honestly quite demoralizing that no matter what you do, you can't win for nothing when you have the facts but they just get constantly shut down 😔 Hulk576 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Hulk576. I am not going to get involved with the content dispute, because I have dealt with you as an administrator including blocking you, and administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. You've been blocked twice and you should try to avoid a third block. You yourself have contributed to the "constant abuse" that you mention.
In order to make a change that sticks to a Wikipedia article, you must gain consensus for any disputed edits. This is mandatory. If you cannot gain consensus by persuading other editors interested in the article, then there are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Use them appropriately. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
You imply I've contributed to "constant abuse" while having 0 power on this site? Aka admin or lower
Btw there was a consensus between Wiki Editors: Anachronist, Throadislong
The threat of banning for simply referencing something in and of itself is that very "Constant Abuse" I was mentioning. Essentially you get shutdown for actually questioning someone of a higher status on Wikipedia. If that ain't corrupt idk what is? Hulk576 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Hulk576, the "higher status" you mention is imaginary. More experienced editors welcome the participation of newer editors, as long as their contributions are persuasive and in line with policies and guidelines. As a matter of policy, administrators have no more power to affect content than the newest editor. The abuse in question came from you hurling insults at editors who have a good faith disagreement with you about content. It is very difficult for many new editors to succeed while working on topics where they have strong personal feelings. As another editor commented, you should be very cautious about treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Threats of a ban are not "good faith disagreement" which is were I did throw insults. While I understand Wikipedias not a battleground and I wouldn't it to be, I believe if have the correct information you keep on being persistent with it because of nothing else who else is gonna do it
I made the mistake earlier of "telling it like it is" which your generation is fully aware of.
But recently I have shown self restraint as to not let my emotions get in the way of trying to have a civil debate which is allowed on this platform. Hulk576 (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Issuing a warning that certain types of misbehavior may lead to a block is not a "threat", Hulk576. It is a statement of fact and commonplace on Wikipedia. Pursue dispute resolution, please. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you send me links to Wikipedias policy's and guidelines and really anything else so I can read them and learn this stuff plz thx👍 Hulk576 (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Hulk576, please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and refer to Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
This nonsense is getting ridiculous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes, it's ridiculous. I've just warned Hulk576 that if they don't stop the aggression I'll block them from the page. Bishonen | tålk 09:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC).
Can something be done about this person? See User Talk:Jeffro77#I would like to talk to you in private?—Jeffro77 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Jeffro77, I have blocked the editor for two weeks for that intimidating discussion on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn’t necessarily expecting it to go straight to another block, but the behaviour doesn’t seem to be improving. As the editor has been blocked, I won’t revert their changes at the article, but when I’m not on mobile device I will attempt to refactor the disputed material to see if I can strike a balance between accuracy and the editor’s POV.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
You are welcome. Pressuring you like that on your talk page crossed a line, after the editor's weeks of battleground behavior, two previous blocks and several warnings. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
And on it goes: [1] Should probably be blocked indef as utterly devoid of clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, the editor has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a negative level of clue? 'Devoid of clue' no longer seems an adequate description... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, I was pretty good with math in high school and college, but a negative number like this is "beyond my ken", to coin a phrase. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please show me how to publish a sandbox

Please show me how to publish a sandbox 92.40.204.68 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Stop all vandalism and register an account. You will then have access to your own sandbox page. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Wi Spa controversy

Hi Jim,

You reverted my modification of the Wi Spa controversy article. I have no problem with your opinion that Los Angeles is known worldwide. However, I like to ask you if you also intentionally removed again my addition of the year in the section headings and at some other places – I can't find a reason for that in your edit summary. I would like to insert these mentions of the year again, but want to follow WP:BRD, thus I'm asking you.

--Cyfal (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Cyfal. I do not think that it is necessary or desirable to repeat "2021" so many times when the year is clear from the chronological context. But I do not feel strongly about that. Think about why you believe that so many mentions of the year improves the experience for readers. I will not revert. Cullen328 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
The main reason inserting the date was that the contents box in this article looks strange giving the day and month only. However, maybe you're right that when reading the article from top to bottom mentioning the year again in each section is a bit too much indeed. I will think about it and leave it as it is for now.
Thank you for your answer
--Cyfal (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hulk576

Would it be possible to link me to the legal threat. My eyes went cross trying follow all that. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Deepfriedokra. Here's the diff. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. OCD filing and clerking, you know. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, happy to be of assistance. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

draft:Aliasing (factorial experiments)

Dear Jim,

I'm writing regarding your response in Teahouse (Archive 1198, Aug 28) to my query about this draft. I responded to that response and haven't heard back. You left a few of my questions on the table, and I wasn't sure if (a) you are still thinking about them, or (b) you think that you've given me enough of a response and I'm to proceed without further help. If it's (b), I'm afraid I'm still in the dark about a few things, and the editorial process in Wikipedia seems so haphazard (compared to what I'm used to in publishing) that I'm afraid I'm going down an infinite loop.

Sincerely, Jay

P.S. I don't know if you looked at my talk page in the draft, which explains the need for this article. I really want to see this through. Johsebb (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Johsebb. I gave you some specific suggestions for improvement in late August and another editor concurred. You said that you would make changes in response to those suggestions, but I can't help noticing that you have not edited the draft since May. I also notice that you have not resubmitted the draft for review. My recommendation is to edit the draft extensively in response to the feedback you have been given on the draft itself and at the Teahouse, and then resubmit it. You cannot expect Teahouse hosts who are generalists to provide detailed input about advanced math topics. Perhaps you can connect with editors who have those skills at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I had intended to wait until I had further information before making any edits, so as to avoid piecemeal changes, but I'm happy to proceed. Unfortunately I may not be able to get to that for the next month.
I hadn't made any edits since May as I was awaiting an editorial decision.
I thought I had tagged this article for the WikiProjects in Mathematics and in Statistics (though not Computing), and was expecting (or hoping) that it would automatically be viewed by one of those editors. I guess that doesn't happen automatically.
Finally, can you describe to me the difference between having an article "rejected" and having it "decined"? Johsebb (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Johnsebb. "Rejected" means "No. Never. Not going to happen. Stop trying." On the other hand, "Declined" means "Here are the fundamental problems with your draft. If you can edit it and solve those problems, then resubmit."
I encourage you to edit the draft, at least a little bit. Drafts that have not been edited in six months are routinely deleted.
As for members of WikiProjects reviewing your draft without being asked? That is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely in practice. Cullen328 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification about rejected/declined. Also, I've received word that someone in the Math Project has put out a call for editorial help with my draft -- if that's because you put in a word for me, I greatly appreciate it.
I'll do my best to make some initial edits asap. Johsebb (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution in Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad

Hello Cullen328. Since you are an admin, can you provide Third opinion facilitate dispute resolution at an ongoing content dispute in the talk page of Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad? Thanks! Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 9:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Shadowwarrior8. Administrators have no special power to resolve content disputes and I lack deep knowledge of the Bashar al-Asaad topic area. I recommend that you list the dispute at WP:THIRDOPINION. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tim Ballard 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 14:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

obvious block evasion

Obvious block evasion on your recent block of 206.45.2.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) by 2605:b100:1108:7b82:a1d8:d608:bafa:a1e9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Meters (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Meters: WHOIS for the IP addresses: 206.45.2.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2605:b100:1108:7b82:a1d8:d608:bafa:a1e9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are in different locations (Ottawa and Montreal respectively) but the same provider (Bell). How is this "block evasion" if the IPs are in different locations—roughly 200 km (120 mi) apart? The "block evasion" reasoning may not be accurate because an anonymous user in Ottawa can't just magically be in Montreal to evade a block; a drive from Ottawa to Montreal takes just over two hours. Eyesnore 03:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Eyesnore, IP-based geolocation services provide 55 percent to 80 percent accuracy for a user's region or state, according to one website I consulted. There is not much unusual for a block evader to share Ottawa and Montreal IPs. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Congrats

100,000th edit award
Let me congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Cheers, — Montanabw(talk) 16:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

John Lennon's Rolls Royce

A very enjoyable read. I thought we had articles on just about every Beatles topic imaginable - always fun to discover a new one! Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Pawnkingthree. In all honesty, I was surprised to learn two weeks ago that the article didn't exist, so I just started plugging away at it, and it was a lot of fun to research and write. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

A user that you encouraged to stay on Wikipedia

A little while ago you made this comment[2] on the talk page of a user who said that they were ceasing to edit on Wikipedia. From my experience of Obsidian Soul's editing, I disagree with your sentiment that it would be nice if they continued to edit.

I am not referring to the angry comments and bad language on talk pages (see Talk:Austronesian peoples for plenty of that). On that talk page you will see that I eventually started checking sources used and found that they did not confirm the article text in the slightest. This revelation coincided with a complete disappearance of Obsidian Soul from the talk page. Looking elsewhere it is easy to suspect that their standard editing technique is to quote three references for an unsupported fact. It is unlikely that another editor will gain access to all three, so the "good faith" assumption is that the fact in question is in whichever cannot be checked. That is the time-consuming process that I started. I found misrepresentation of sources in each case that I researched in this way. That, of course, is with someone who is a relatively prolific editor who attacks any other editor who disagrees with them (justified or unjustified).

We cannot know if the misrepresentation of sources is deliberate or accidental. I suspect there may be an accidental element as sources are not read accurately. Search for this criticism "Your changes CONTRADICT W.H. Scott, because he is actually contesting the sentence...." on [3]. It appears that Obsidian Soul is misreading a source. I have found similar with trying to get Lakana illustrated correctly, both in its own article and in Austronesian peoples. There seems to be no understanding of the subject.

I appreciate that droning on like this might make me sound vengeful. All I am trying to do is make clear that in some cases one has to go to a great level of detail to discover that there is something wrong with someone's editing. In this instance, my view is that Wikipedia will be a better encyclopaedia without input from Obsidian Soul. Obviously this is a disappointing conclusion, but one that I cannot avoid. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, ThoughtIdRetired. I respect your opinion and you may well be correct. As I said back then, I lack the subject matter expertise to wrestle with the content disputes. I was trying to offer encouraging words to an editor clearly under a lot of stress. Since the editor has been inactive for five plus weeks, it may be a moot point. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. I think I probably raised a relatively unsolvable problem, as it seems to be relatively rare for an editor to check others' text against sources – they tend to do this only if they disagree with the article content in the first place. Subject matter expertise can be a problem for many articles that rely on just a few editors, many of whom do not want to tackle the "difficult customer".
For me, I suppose its a problem shared is a problem halved. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Oshane$23 on Assumption College of Davao (00:47, 2 October 2023)

What is an SBA --Oshane$23 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello,Oshane$23. You need to provide additional context. Read SBA which lists many meanings. Or did you possibly mean WP:SPA? Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Horsetown, California

Jim, what do you think of this? Drmies (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, it is a poorly written and poorly referenced article about a notable topic. Although I have visited Shasta County many times for tourism and mountaineering purposes, and once to see an annular eclipse, I know relatively little about the history of gold mining there. By the way, I just got a book in the mail about the history of a major gold mine just a few miles from where I live in Grass Valley. It is called the Idaho-Maryland Mine, and it operated for 106 years and produced a staggering amount of wealth. Cullen328 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from JohnStuart1982 (14:50, 5 October 2023)

Hey, how do I stop my edits from being overwritten? --JohnStuart1982 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, JohnStuart1982. Be careful to write neutrally and provide references to reliable sources that verify the content that you write. Cullen328 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hofbrau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from LL09876.54321 (19:34, 9 October 2023)

Hi, How am I supposed to create a Wikipedia Profile for a public figure? How do I edit and etc.? --LL09876.54321 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LL09876.54321. Please read the notability guideline for people and Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Giving thanks

Hi @Cullen328 thanks for your help on Teahouse. I was successful in adding a "profile photo" after figuring out how to bypass the warning from Commons. The thread was removed so thanking you here. Markkennedy2 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance, Markkennedy2. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection in the page "Wahhabism" - part 2

Hi, Cullen328. We had discussed about this before. I had requested a permanent semi-protection in the page Wahhabism and at the time, you protected the page temporarily for a 1-month period , saying that you would consider a "longer-time" incase the disruptions continue.

Well, it seems the disruptive activities in this page persists. As soon as the protection period expired, a bunch of new accounts removed content from this page and I didnt notice it after more than a week. Only after I noticed, I could revert (here).

Cullen, I have been working on improving this page for more than 2 years. During this period, the page was semi-protected for around 3 months (May to August 2021). As soon as it expired, the disruptions re-started. I was certain that the latest restart of disruptions which emerged after the expiry of protection settings, would also occur.

I think the problem here includes various new accounts making sectarian edits and persistence of Systemic Bias within wikipedia. For starters, there is also a cultural divide since there is a lot of obscurity/confusion when the word "Wahhabi" is used in Western languages/linguistic. You can read the article Wahhabi (epithet) to have an insight on this. Without academic-level expertise, this page will certainly be biased and dumbed-down. Hence, this page needs to get permanently semi-protected to maintain quality, really.

Thanks!😊 Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 8:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Shadowwarrior8. I have semi-protected the article for six months. Cullen328 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen328. But I really think that article needs to be permanently semi-protected. It is a significant topic. I am certain that when this protection expires 6 months later, there would still be IPs and new accounts to disrupt that page (due to reasons explained in my previous comment).

I have a proposal: Protect the article permanently.

This article is a vast topic which needs to be expanded with academic accuracy. It covers more than 275+ years of Arabian history. Muwahhidun (Wahhabi) movement influenced the rise of numerous Muslim Emirates and Sultanates in Arabia, the most famous being the 3 iterations of Saudi Kingdoms in various periods. It also had a wider impact across the Muslim world.

Empires such as the British labelled numerous Muslim religious movements that opposed European colonialism as "Wahhabi". This imperialist practice continues in contemporary contexts, in various areas of geo-political competition and inter-state propaganda.

Many Europe & American-related pages are permanently protected because those topics are perceived by various historians as important to the history of those region.

"Wahhabism" is a prominent topic that sheds light on the past 275+ years of history of Arabian Peninsula. Over the course these centuries, the region underwent lots of socio-political changes and revolts inspired by the Muwahhidun religious movement. Therefore, the topic of "Wahhabism" needs to be studied and deserves recognition.

Taking into account these factors, would you permanently semi-protect the "Wahhabism" page? (I am certain that once any temporary protection gets expired, that article would get back to being disrupted by IPs and new single-purpose accounts.)

I also clarify that my proposal aims to improve the article (as well as other articles related to this topic) and is not to advance any "gate-keeping" agenda. Thanks for reading! Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Shadowwarrior8, this is the relevant policy language: Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors.. Vandalism or overtly disruptive editing would need to be far more frequent and persistent for indefinite semi-protection to be justified. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Help please

Hello Jim, This is my first attempt to write on a topic which is mentioned for the first time in Wikipedia 2023 and I seem to be going round in circles. The topic overlaps other issues and I wonder whether we could have a chat please?

Many Thank Granny-Grumble 14th October 2023 Grannie-Grumble6.9 (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Grannie-Grumble6.9. We can discuss your concerns here. Please be specific. Cullen328 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello Cullen 328,
Thank you for replying to my message.
Very difficult to be specific at this point.
Will have to leave it for now,
Many Thanks
Grannie-Grumble6.9 Grannie-Grumble6.9 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Advice on uncooperative editor?

Hello Cullen328! I came to your talk page because I'm looking for some advice. Please be advised that I am not asking for you to get involved with the situation directly, I am just stumped on what's the right protocol and need some help. To cut the crap and get to it;

There is an editor on this music related page I was working on that will absolutely not accept anything other than their version of the article, while being passive aggressive and uncooperative. Beforehand, they were also fighting with another editor that wanted to change the article as well. WP:OWN may apply here. I've tried everything I can to solve the content dispute, with a lengthy talk page discussion where I show that the article text they insist on has a SYNT issue, to listing it on the 3O *and* NPOV noticeboards, to bringing it to an RfC.

Neither of these have resulted in more editors and building proper consensus. Additionally, I've had WP:INTIM threats on me, with the other editor saying "I don't agree with your changes. That's that." and "I will file a report against you if you don't stop this."

What do I do? I have no intention of bringing it to ANI because I'm only concerned about the content; I have no interest in getting this editor punished or sanctioned. I just want to figure out how to solve this content dispute with this editor in a win-win way. Have a nice day! :) PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

PHShanghai. The bottom line is that you must gain consensus from other editors interested in an article if you want to make changes to that article, and when there has been opposition. No consensus means no change. Are you familiar with the full range of dispute resolution options available to you? The amount of bickering among editors working on certain pop star articles is astonishing, and for some reason, almost all the battles have to do with women pop stars. I notice that you edit pretty much exclusively in that topic area. Let me remind you that there are vast areas of the encyclopedia where you can make real improvements to the encyclopedia without dealing with the constant arguing that takes place at these ever changing pop star articles. So, my friendly suggestion would be to move on from your pop star focus, and become a generalist editor. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Cullen328, where can I find those places that have other editors willing to give consensus appropriately? Is DRN allowed for my current situation? I am careful not to ask individual users as that may be canvassing. I agree that the topic area for female popstars is loaded with overly worshipping fans who have issues taking criticism and aren't necessarily used to the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia.
That being said, it might be counterproductive for these OWN editors to keep POV pushing while those interested in actual constructive editing are chased off to other topics because of said uncooperative behavior. The onus shouldn't be on the constructive, cooperative editor to accept rude and intimidation behavior. Well, now I'm just complaining about a widespread systemic issue and there's nothing that can really be done about it :/
As for me personally, I don't have any subject expertise on other topics like that; I do have an interest in editing biographies of famous people, broadly construed (so not just pop stars) and I will take your suggestion to seek more articles to improve. For my current situation with this dispute, I will look into more methods of conflict resolution soon. Thanks! PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
PHShanghai, you have not told me what the specific dispute is, and I have not looked closely enough at your edit history to figure it out on my own. Accordingly, I cannot tell you what form of dispute resolution is best for your current situation. I suggest you ask yourself why you care so much about the dispute, whatever it is, and whether your time might be better spent elsewhere. But that's just my personal opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
As for Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in edit wars, PHShanghai, that is a ridiculous essay, because no editor should ever participate in any edit war in any way, with any argument whatsoever. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cullen328: The dispute is currently at Kylie Minogue on the talk page. The said OWN editor has exhibited some uncooperative behavior. I really don't care as much about the dispute because the page doesn't seem to be that popular anyways page view wise and "protecting" a famous person's reputation is not in my interests, However, the thing that does irk me is when I reply with sources and then I get questioned if The Guardian and Rolling Stone are proper reliable sources. I linked the RS page.. still no convincing. It is such a nonconstructive environment.
I had been trying to do WP:BRD on the page but unfortunately they reverted to the same version that had spelling mistakes and grammar issues every time. Then I would take their feedback into account and try to build upon it; still reverted. I gave up. It is a frustrating environment and I'm not surprised others have complained this editor acts like this. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

PHShanghai, I still have no idea which editor you are complaining about, because I see several highly experienced editors disagreeing with you on that talk page. I also do not understand why you care so much about all that trivial stuff. Why not go edit articles about butterflies, asteroids or your home town instead? Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, Huh? Which ones? Plural? It's primarily Hotwiki being uncooperative. Like I said already, I'm fine with dropping the stick as the OWN issues of that person are something out of my control; regardless, I was here to ask for advice from an admin on solving a dispute that followed protocol. I will take your advice into account about DR.
I have already said that I do edit other topics, and don't take this the wrong way but those may be the three worst examples as they require a level of scientific knowledge that I do not possess. Also the last one would most likely just get me doxxed off-wiki.
I appreciate the sentiment but I do know which article topics (besides these popstar articles) I can edit well without having any issues. If I tried to edit anything entomology related it probably wouldn't look like very good content. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
They were only suggestions, PHShanghai. There have been countless times that I have written or greatly expanded articles about topics that I previously knew little or nothing about. After all, our role as Wikipedia editors is simply to accurately summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. It is the authors of reliable sources who are expected to be subject matter experts, not Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair point. I agree, and that's also why some of my other goals include upgrading article qualities to GA or FA. Besides that though, the presence of such tendentious, "fan" editors in the afromentioned topic space of women in music makes me sad. I see your point. Thank you for your time! PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I just pinged you

Apparently it will not be possible to improve that article. Oh well.

However I would like for you to explain to me, please, what prompted you to intervene, because I was actually grateful and ventured back onto the talk page and did some work, until I realised that you left all of the rude remarks and rev del'd my attempt to explain that yes I know what a translation is and no it is not a copyvio and why would he think I need to be instructed in this?

It seems to me like a reasonable question.

So.... I think that you and I must be looking at different parts of the elephant. Please explain. I am not mad, just baffled, and back to where I was yesterday, thinking that I maybe should find a safer job with better pay. Also, I rewrote the answer on the talk page so many times I got logged out and didn't realize that until after I hit send. I've overwrittent the IP, but I would appreciate it if you would remove it from the history. It's at the end of the long section where he is explaining to me what a source is. For some reason.

Because BEANS would rather not explain my concern about this here, but will send email if you would like me to. Elinruby (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

or maybe someone else did the rev del? If so please let me know so that I can ask *them* what they were thinking. LMK, thanks. Elinruby (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Elinruby. If I had any idea which article you are talking about, I might be able to answer. I truly don't know. I got no ping. I deal with dozens of articles and dozens of editors on any given day. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC).
Thank you for the courtesy of your answer. I am not seeing much of that these days. As far as the ping is concerned, if you didn't get a notification, I suppose it is possible that dyslexia kicked in and I transposed the numbers in your username or something. Seems plausible. I'll look into it sometime tomorrow, and btw that post was intended as a heads up slash explanation of why, not an accusation, if it came across that way.
As for the IP revdel request, I may have found a temporary alternative, and it occurred to me that the ISP can no doubt reallocate it anyway. I'll probably circle back and ask you something about that, and/or your part of the elephant, once I have double checked that my understanding of other parts of those events is not also in error:) Not until tomorrow at the soonest though...mañana problem for the moment, and have a good evening, sir. Sorry to disturb you Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello again, Elinruby. You are still not giving me any clue about which article you are discussing. Why is that? Cullen328 (talk) î02:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC).

I thought you might be eating dinner or something is all. Also, it is embarrassing to make mistakes when asking someone wth ;) If you're available to look, then please do. Do you remember posting at François Rabelais yesterday? It went on from there, and it's coming across like.... Like if I were to hang out on your talk page and remind you every ten minutes that you are required to sign your posts. And then hatted whatever you said. And explained to you that you need to "behave", which is a quote, btw.I realized today that he may be confusing me with Scope creep but that's stretching AGF pretty far and seems a);pretty hard to do and b) just as inappropriate if so. Scope creep is also not in need of instruction. This has been going on for a few days now, mostly at the site we don't talk about. Apparently we are "targeting" the article. Screenshots of you want them. I'll be online another hour or so, will check back. I actually clicked into Wikipedia by mistake but am dealing with messages since I am here Elinruby (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, now I finally know that you are talking about François Rabelais, where I made one single solitary talk page comment encouraging editors to avoid bickering. I have had no previous or further involvement with that article whatsoever, and my comment was inspired by the participation of another "well-known" editor, not you. From that comment, you seem to have drawn the unwarranted conclusion that I had revision deleted some unknown content, which I certainly did not do. I had kind of guessed, in my own mind, that you were referring to some highly contentious 21st century (or 20th century) topic, as opposed to the biography of a 16th century satirist. That's precisely the kind of article which could be improved collaboratively, and I am truly mystified why it is suddenly attracting the attention of some editors who revel in bickering and disgreement for the sake of disagreement. Please do not be among that crowd. And if you post on my talk page in the future, please let me know exactly what you are talking about, instead of leaving me "twisting, slowly, slowly in the wind", to quote a phrase from the Nixon era. That wastes my limited time, and my even more, my limited mental energy, which is my most precious resource. Cullen328 (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I gathered that from your obviously genuine confusion and that is why I sugge efiested manana I apologize for any inconvenience confusion or harm to your mental energy, as a small reward I offer an answer to your not-quite question. There were three editors Apparently I was there to add the Oxford University Press quote calling him the first great French prose writer. Scope wanted to dig into the books, and apparently the other editor wrote the article that is there. I havete already declared it impossible to work on the article and please note that I say this coaxed an update to the casualty figures for the Russian invasion of Ukraine past a very cough disparate group of editors, and just yet again made suggestions about the deadlocked Lithuanian volunteer units. Yes I agree that it is a ridiculous place to edit war, but here we are, and no, not only can't currently be edited in any meaningful way I am not willing to go through this for even the French Shakespeare. I *have* in the past be known to unleash some sarcasm, but that was over attempts to say for example that Russian soldiers were really shy and timid guys who absolutely never did any war crimes in Buchq or Mariupol or anywhere else for that matter. Please have a good night and be assured that while I plan to try to figure out what happened to the talk page exactly Ibam no longer trying to use it because, see above, it cwnnit be done. Thank again Elinruby (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Rodvival711004 (18:06, 25 October 2023)

Hello Cullen382, I want to publish my father's biography he was a Spanish Mexican Artist. I already have a power point presentation that may help me set this up. Can I send you the presentation so you can comment on it for me. The presentation is in Spanish. --Rodvival711004 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Rodvival711004. The PowwePoint presentation is of no value on Wikipedia, because it is self-published by someone with a conflict of interest, and I do not speak more than a few basic words of Spanish. Start by reading the Notability guideline for creative professionals. Then read Your first article. The most important thing to keep in mind is that an acceptable Wikipedia biography summarizes the significant coverage that reliable, independent published sources devote to the person. You must leave out things that you learned through your relationship with your father that are not verified by reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Bennytax1 (15:47, 26 October 2023)

Hello, thanks, I would like to add my biography to Wikipedia, I would appreciate your input. --Bennytax1 (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Bennytax1, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I'll follow your advice, thank you 2600:1700:5EC0:9870:51CE:E24C:15EB:F128 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for John Lennon's psychedelic Rolls-Royce

On 26 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Lennon's psychedelic Rolls-Royce, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Lennon liked to tell how an older woman lost her temper when she saw his psychedelic Rolls-Royce (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Lennon's psychedelic Rolls-Royce. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, John Lennon's psychedelic Rolls-Royce), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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) 00:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Hook update
Your hook reached 38,585 views (1,607.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Re: John Lennon's psychedelic Rolls-Royce

In June 1985, the Cooper-Hewitt Museum decided to sell the car, which was auctioned by Sotheby's in New York, and it was purchased by Canadian businessman Jim Pattison for US$2,299,000. According to Sotheby's, this was the highest auction price for a car at that time. Pattison used it to promote Expo 86 in Vancouver. In 1987, Pattison donated the car to the Province of British Columbia, where it was exhibited at the Transportation Museum of British Columbia until 1993.

This is literally giving me goosebumps. I could swear I saw this car in person, sometime between 1985 and 1993, but it was in California. The only car show I remember going to at that time was the Hillsborough Concours d’Elegance, but it could have just as easily been another one. Am I having a flashback to a parallel universe, or did this happen? Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: I just remembered, I was in New York in the fall of 1989, but I don't think the car was there anymore. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Viriditas, I am glad that you find the article interesting and are now exercising your "little grey cells", as Hercule Poirot used to say. I am unaware of the Rolls ever being shown in California, but not everything from those days is online. Did you possibly see it at a Ripley's Believe It Or Not museum? Cullen328 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Who knows? This was just a random madeleine moment, and I thought I would share it with you. In other news, I'm making my way through Altered Carbon right now, and it makes great use of involuntary memory as a significant part of the flashback narrative. Probably one of the best uses of it that I've ever seen on screen. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
October songs
my story today
I approved pic and hooks, sorry about what developed later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I will comment on the DYK nomination after I have absorbed the unexpected dispute. Cullen328 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I began talking to Jenny, not wanting to ignore her comments - I just had no time yesterday to even read them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Today, my story is about a place that inspired me, - musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Good to see the car pictured on the Main page today. - I have a composer on the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I thought of Brian Bouldton today, and his ways to compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_98&oldid=1187592980"