User talk:Cullen328/Archive 59
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cullen328. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
You are cordially invited to Stanford University to celebrate Wikipedia's birthday
- I am delighted to invite you to the 2019 Wikipedia Day party at Stanford, which will be held on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, at 5:00-8:30pm.
- There will be pizza, cake, and refreshments; both newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome! We will have a beginner track with tutorials, and an advanced track with presentations, lightning talks, and tips and tricks. Admission is free, and you do NOT have to be a Stanford University student to attend.
See you soon! All the best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c)
For your interest
User persistenly adding dubious OR contents for years. 108.30.152.154 (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, IP editor. This editor has not been active since January 4. I see that several of their articles have been deleted, but on the other hand, several of their articles have been kept at AfD. I see them adding unreferenced content but I lack any expertise in or even familiarity with the topic areas they edit. So, I am unsure whether this is bad content, or whether instead it just needs references. Please let me know if they resume editing, and I will warn them at that time. I think that a warning is most effective if it is given shortly after the behavior, rather than three or four days later. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Road Warrios
Hi, Cullen. How are you? I'm HHH Pedrigree. Recently, you blocked an IP (81.137.62.113) for an edition in the Road Warriors article. The IP made a claim and was reverted several times by diferent users, myself included, since it was unsourced. The IP insulted other members of the project and now, he is removing a lot of the content of the article. He is removing unsourced material, but I think he is acting moved by reveange. What do you think, this kind of behaviour is positive? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Reading some WP:Policies, looks like Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't want to do any moves without advice, since the wrestling project is under general sanctions and has bad reputation in the ANI --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, HHH Pedrigree. Another adminstrator has blocked that IP editor for a week. Please let me know if the disruption resumes after that block expires, and I will give a longer block to whoever is responsible. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello. Thanks, I will find some sources, so this incident doesn't happen again. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, HHH Pedrigree. Another adminstrator has blocked that IP editor for a week. Please let me know if the disruption resumes after that block expires, and I will give a longer block to whoever is responsible. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Tamika Mallory
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tamika Mallory. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Re:ABBAlover11011 Block
Thanks for blocking ABBAlover11011, I was just about to put a request in WP:AE but I saw that you had blocked them. Since I'm a bot (according to them)
Pid:1011 - Kb03
>kill 1011
Thanks again, Kb03 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are welcome, Kb03. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
DRAFT:SNOOOZE
I copied Red Bull outline to provide information on my friend Hans' brand. How can I be more informative about the brand, without sounding like a promotional campaign as I linked all information and source code to support data, findings and ingredients (including full supplement facts and nutritional percent daily values)? Please help and what do you recommend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleyraz (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Wesleyraz, read the links I posted at the Teahouse, and then read and study Your first article. The article about Red Bull includes many references to significant coverage of that product in reliable sources that are independent of that company. Those are the type of sources required to write an article about a product or a company. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- In addition, Wesleyraz, your writing style must avoid any hint of promotionalism. Please read about the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
2019
 |
Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gerda Arendt. Happy New Year! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 | |
| Five years! |
|---|
- Five years precious today ;) - Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for that pleasant reminder, Gerda Arendt. Warm wishes to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are welcome, - extra thanks for having dealt with our founder! - I forgot to mention that the smiling user wrote the ultimate guide to arbitration, - if only I had known that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, Gerda Arendt. All who knew his work miss Shock Brigade Harvester Boris very much. As for Jimbo, I will say what I think is necessary. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are welcome, - extra thanks for having dealt with our founder! - I forgot to mention that the smiling user wrote the ultimate guide to arbitration, - if only I had known that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for that pleasant reminder, Gerda Arendt. Warm wishes to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Five years precious today ;) - Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- ... which follows rule 10 exactly ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Happy 18th birthday - Wikipedia day
I just got an email, because I have registered as attending, that the Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/Stanford Wikipedia Day 2019 -- this Tuesday January 15 -- may be overbooked. Already seven times the expected number of guests have registered. The email said non-Stanford affiliated guests, this includes me, my need to be turned away unless a larger venue can be arranged, and that I would be notified the day of the event with an update email. drum-roll... I'd like to get together with some Wikipedians sometime one way or another, one day or another. We shall see. --Rogerhc (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Ro Khanna editorializing
"... the vast majority came from California"
Do we really want to get into this? The vast majority were also maximum contributions of $2,700 from Silicon Valley CEOs and their husbands/wives. And if you count the PAC that his campaign finance chair set up... it starts to turn into a back-and-forth about whether or not he's a "good guy" when it's clear he funnels millions of dollars from millionaires and billionaires into his campaign. This entire article needs to be potentially locked and cleaned up. Wikipedia isn't for puff pieces about millionaire politicians. Asaturn (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- It is mandatory that you edit from the neutral point of view, Asaturn. Your comments indicate that you have an axe to grind. Take your campaign against "millionaire politicians" and their billionaire friends to a blog somewhere else. Wikipedia is not the place for your advocacy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Adding "but they were from California, the largest state in the USA, from millionaires and billionaires who own the largest tech companies in the world" is an attempt to editorialize away a distinction made in an article that reads like a puff piece. I'm just attempting to clean up an article that paints a guy who funnels corporate cash through SuperPACs as some sort of saint who wants money out of politics. Seems you should take your own advice here :) Asaturn (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are overtly pushing your own point of view which simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Cease and desist. Consider this to be a formal warning, Asaturn. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Formal warning, for what? You are trying to protect this guy's puff piece from containing facts about his hypocritical behavior. I'm done. Bring it to someone above you if you really want to continue to play this game. Wikipedia is for facts, not opinions. The facts are that Ro Khanna accepted maxed-out contributions from out of his district and funneled millions through a SuperPAC his own campaign finance chair set up for him... then tried to market himself as some sort of "NO PAC" guy. If he wants a puff piece, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Asaturn (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- The formal warning is to stop violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, Asaturn. Since you are continuing with this unacceptable behavior, I will have to get other experienced editors involved in this matter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Formal warning, for what? You are trying to protect this guy's puff piece from containing facts about his hypocritical behavior. I'm done. Bring it to someone above you if you really want to continue to play this game. Wikipedia is for facts, not opinions. The facts are that Ro Khanna accepted maxed-out contributions from out of his district and funneled millions through a SuperPAC his own campaign finance chair set up for him... then tried to market himself as some sort of "NO PAC" guy. If he wants a puff piece, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Asaturn (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are overtly pushing your own point of view which simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Cease and desist. Consider this to be a formal warning, Asaturn. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Adding "but they were from California, the largest state in the USA, from millionaires and billionaires who own the largest tech companies in the world" is an attempt to editorialize away a distinction made in an article that reads like a puff piece. I'm just attempting to clean up an article that paints a guy who funnels corporate cash through SuperPACs as some sort of saint who wants money out of politics. Seems you should take your own advice here :) Asaturn (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello, responding to an offer of help
Hi, you said on my Userpage to come to you if I needed help, and I do. First off...is this how I do this? Wacape (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Wacape. That message was as a result of a Teahouse conversation well over three months ago. I am happy to try to help you, but what do you mean by "this"? I do not understand what you are asking. Please be specific. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Elected Office Question
I served a four-year term on a county board of supervisors in the state of Mississippi, USA. There were various articles written by the local paper about my service in this capacity. I represented approximately 10,000 people. Will this qualify for an article as an elected official? Sincerely, Carl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlflanders (talk • contribs) 12:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Personally, I do not think so, Carlflanders, but it depends on the depth of coverage of you in particular. In most cases, editors will not consider routine coverage by local papers of the type that any supervisor receives to be evidence of notability. I am well aware that we have many biographies of elected supervisors in large urban counties with populations approaching a million. The smaller the jurisdiction, the more difficult it is to establish notability. Do other current and past members of your county's board have Wikipedia biographies? Have any of those articles survived the Articles for Deletion process? Please read WP: AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP: POLITICIAN. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
False Allegations and Violation of Wikipedia Policies Enforced through Bans
This TLDR conversation is over
|
|---|
|
Let's begin with you providing evidence that "it appears that I am not here to build an encyclopedia." 174.126.168.126 (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem. You are portraying Judaism's entirely plausible history of Daniel as if it was a myth, then you portray something like the procession of the stone idol Marduk down a street in Babylon as if it was fiction. Edit one to show that there is no evidence that Daniel was not a living person, and you get banned. Edit the other, and and you get reverted, because why exactly? Because you do have evidence that Marduk was a living deity who walked the streets of Babylon? But recall, we were beginning with evidence of the claim you made. The claim was not that I was critical of Wikipedia editors and articles. It appears we all are. The claim was that I specifically should be banned from from Wikipedia because I do not appear to intend to contribute to an Encyclopedia. You can speak as if you are a proponent on fair treatment of something, and then also be the instrument of unfair treatment of individuals and whole civilizations at the same time. That is the definition of iniquity. A source is A source, it is not in itself a "consensus of scholars". That is a clever way to avoid a consensus of editors or scholars though. I am also familiar with the NPOV article. That is why I edited the article. It was an article about one of the most important topics and figures in Judaism, and it was and still is very biased and demeaning toward Jews. If I am irate, that is why, compounded with the fact that the processes that are supposed to correct that are not working, any edits that remove the bias are instantly removed (and have been for 12 years), and then I am threatened with banning when I point out that very real, not imaginary, widely acknowledged bias, which exists not only toward Judaism, but all across Wikipedia on a host of thousands of different social, economic, political, philosophical and religious topics. Again, when someone claims the existence of an iniquity, the solution is not to punish the person who claims the iniquity, nor those who try to correct it. The solution is to determine accurately, speedily and diligently whether or not the iniquity exists, and then to rectify it if indeed it does. It does exist. This just happens to be one of those problems that organizations like yours tend to vehemently not want to solve once those kinds of behaviors become entrenched among those who control the organization. Again though, me "leaving your [Encyclopedia] alone" will definitely not solve the problem, and banning people who call attention to it and try to fix it will make it worse, and will further harm the organization and its mission. That is precisely the manner in which such problems in such organizations are typically perpetuated and worsened. "Would you sign up for an amateur American gridiron football team and then at the first practice session start hollering that it is a corrupt game and that association football (soccer) is the only game that deserves to be called football?" If it was a corrupt game, would I not be obliged to say so as soon as possible, and to try to root out the corruption? Yes, I would. It wouldn't be the first time either. I once did so with a disaster preparedness program in coastal California. I received a similar response, but I also most likely saved many lives and corrected the course of an organization that was not achieving its own stated goals. I had a similar interaction with the United States Army, but some organizations are too entrenched and too unwieldy to respond to even their own President, much less their citizens and their members. I've had similar interactions with dozens of organizations, I do not regret any, and in each, either the organization was remarkably improved, or decision makers were at least marginally influenced, or no harm was done. This practice is an ancient one, with a storied tradition, dating back at least to Moses' demands on the Egyptian Pharaoh (which is also a very plausible event, like those in the Book of Daniel, that should not be labeled as fiction, even if some aspects of the story were intentionally allegorical, and which is a precursor to all of the same themes told in a different setting and a different empire in Daniel). There is no evidence that Daniel did not live, and all source documents say he did. You cannot assume he did not, and you certainly cannot state the he did not live as if it was a fact, and as if all scholars believe that, while portraying a living, walking Marduk Babylonian deity as a fact (See: Nebuchadnezzar_II#Government_in_throne), when quite literally no scholars believe that, and while portraying the existence or non-existence of all similarly uncertain, un-provable and un-disprovable historical figures, from Homer to Numa Pompilius, as if we should at least accept the possibility that the only sources we have, which portray them as historical figures who did live, might have been telling the truth, since that is certainly what those who wrote the numerous sources we have appear to have believed. As for Gab, this is a case of a monopoly suppressing a competitor, and censors suppressing those who will not censor (which is arguably a means of a monopoly suppressing a competitor, since who wants to be censored if there is an alternative, especially if the censorship is directed against half the nation and is intended to secure rule over the nation). Allowing free speech is not equivalent to sponsoring the worst things people say. Believing that allowing free speech makes one a fascist white supremacist is a dangerous policy that is also highly iniquitous. It seems rather surprising to me that we are arguing about that on Wikipedia, but also inevitable in light of the aforementioned problems and tendencies that have arisen in the organization in the recent past (trends and problems which are not my personal theory, but the complaints and object of study for millions of people who have also reached the same conclusions that I have, and also feel that there is a bias, a tendency to censor, and a manipulation of information on Wikipedia and elsewhere in almost every major tech company that facilitates large-scale public communication, ad hoc group coordination or information dissemination). If you claim that anyone who allows free speech is a fascist and a white supremacist, and you make that the mandatory wording of your Encyclopedia,, what does that make you, and what does that say about your Encyclopedia, its administrators, its oversight processes, and its ability to publish only facts as facts, and opinions as opinions in a balanced way that shows both sides of the argument? It doesn't feel very nice to have those allegations put on your Encyclopedia that your Encyclopedia put on others, does it? It's not very constructive to dialogue either, is it? And which is more true, given the circumstances (truth being truth, not an opinion)? What were the informational and editorial policies of the German Nationalist Socialist Reich? Were they more similar to those of Gab or to those of Wikipedia, and which of those two platforms is moving more in the direction of Hitler’s government, and why? Why is it ok to compare Gab with fascists and white supremacists, but unacceptable to see if perhaps the label fits better on the organization that put that label on others? Who labeled who by those names, and why? Do you think it is just and right to label proponents of free speech as white supremacists and fascists? Do you think it is right to label one who wishes to prevent the de-legitimization of Jews and the presentation of degrading, offensive information about Jews on a public encyclopedia that is seen worldwide (and is very rarely edited by faithful Jews, who are relatively very few in number) as if that person who seek to remove such content is in fact doing the opposite, and is instead actively persecuting people on the basis of religion, stating beliefs as if they were facts, rather than seeking to prevent others from doing exactly that. Daniel's story is a plausible story that admittedly involves allegory, while polytheistic deities parading around in human form is not exactly plausible, so the former should be treated as plausible, and as a story that was told as a historical account of an actual person by the only sources we have of the account, and was and still is believed to be true by billions of people and by everyone who wrote the sources dating back thousands of years, though Daniel as a person's historicity is not provable or disprovable, that is how he should be portrayed, while the latter story of Marduk's procession through Babylon should be treated as an implausible superstition that is no longer believed by anyone today, much less by billions of people, even if it was once believed by millions of Babylonians thousands of years ago, so it should not be depicted as a statement of fact without any qualifications, as if the Wikipedia editors who wrote the article expect Marduk to walk through their own city's promenade at any moment, nor should the former story of the life of Daniel (which is so plausible that it really could happen in any city today, adjusted for the modern environment) be treated as if the Wikipedia editors have sworn statements from Belshazzar that Daniel did not exist, or as if those editors or their one or two sources who presume to know that he did not exist (without any supporting evidence) were present for the events or had other proof of his lack of existence. As you alluded to in a previous response, there is sometimes a tendency for Christian scholars (along with Muslim and Atheist scholars) to shed doubt on both Jewish beliefs and notably on Jewish history, usually for reasons that are not exactly scholarly or guided by facts, even when the Jewish beliefs and history are more plausible and more supported by evidence than many of their own beliefs and historical accounts, which is a practice that first began to be systematically and globally implemented on a massive scale when the Roman Empire adopted a particular sect of Judaism as their state religion, converted the pagan Pontifex Maximus into the Papacy, and declared that any version of their now-mandatory state faith other than their own interpretation (and their own historical accounts) was heresy and punishable by torture and death, an act which was at least partially motivated out of fear that the beliefs of the Jewish people, whose homeland had been sacked by Rome and whose people had either fled to Rome or been brought their in bondage as a result (as the historian and Jewish General Josephus was), were rapidly becoming the mainstream beliefs across all of Rome. This surprising and (to the Roman leadership) very troubling trend might have led to widespread and irreversible Jewish influence over Roman imperial society, and as a result was perceived as a competitor to imperial power, especially during the reign of weak emperors like Nero, as well as under particularly perceptive, adaptive, and forward-thinking emperors like Constantine and Theodosius, though the responses of the various emperors during that period were quite different from one another, according to the abilities and characters of the respective emperors. While Nero lit the Jews on fire and fed them to the lions, Theodosius took a more nuanced approach, dividing the Jewish population and the Christian population into separate religions (when previously they were all Jews with different interpretations of their common faith), sanctioning Christianity as state property under state rule, radically re-shaping it to fit the needs of the empire in the process, because Christianity accepted and aggressively recruited any and all Roman citizens who would join, as well as for it pacifist, submissive, non-rebellious, ideology that taught men to embrace and love their deaths and to fear no hardship, while pitting those masses against the faith they originated from and derived their core values and beliefs from, because the Jews were rebellious, highly selective, would fight for their rights and interests, demanded the right to self-governance, and condemned injustice, vice and corruption to the point of altering governments in order to address those societal ailments, ironically as the Romans themselves once did, before the once-free Romans were brought under the yoke of Empire. You may question my methods, my phrasing, and my edits. You can even ban me, or worse. That will not absolve your responsibility to correct the aforementioned inaccuracies, and yes, the iniquities, on your Encyclopedia. If you won't let me fix those problems and correct those iniquities, and you don't like my methods, then by all means, fix it yourself so I won't be morally obligated to get involved. Remove the "Encyclopedic" entries claiming that Marduk was a living walking deity who paraded around Babylon, remove the claims that there is some kind of evidence that Daniel never lived, and remove the false characterization that a website that allows free speech is therefore a platform for white supremacists and fascists. Nothing remotely like that belongs in an Encyclopedia, it is not true, and it is not just biased, it is incendiary, insulting and iniquitous. Isaiah thought his own country was a den of iniquity, as were most of those nations and people around him in his eyes, and he was right, at least in the opinion of the descendants of those whom he was most critical of (his own people). He also believed there were consequences for that iniquity which were unavoidable. For saying that in public, they sawed him in half.[1] Then they figured out he was right, wrote down everything he said, repeated it for generations, and sought to improve themselves and abolish their own iniquity because of what he had said. It was only after they had sawed him in half that they realized how slippery the slope they were on was. "For it is a rebellious people, lying children, children that refuse to hear the teaching of the LORD; That say to the seers: 'See not,' and to the prophets: 'Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy delusions; Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.' Wherefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel: because ye despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; Therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant." -Isaiah 30:9-13 Perhaps someone can learn something from those words. Some cultures, countries and organizations really are better than others. That's why it is possible to improve. Some listen to wisdom, adapt and improve. Others kill the prophet and then destroy themselves after a lengthy period of decline. That is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact, and it is also the consensus of scholars who are worth their salt and able to improve organizations and solve problems, even if such people are not the majority. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not entirely disagree with that, but I would argue that you must not quote scholarship as fact unless it also meets two criteria: 1. It is un-controversial among mainstream scholars, and 2. It is supported not by opinion, but by hard evidence. Without proof, it is a theory at best, and in many cases just an opinion based on an educated, though probably rather controversial, guess. This particular situation regarding the historicity of Daniel meets the latter case, where there is no evidence to support a certain scholar's claim that Daniel did not live (nor is there really any evidence to support his claim that he speaks for most scholars). There is zero evidence that Daniel did not live, and I acknowledge that there is not either any evidence that proves he did live, yet the only ancient historical sources say he did live and state the claim as a historical fact, a claim which has been continuously interpreted as fact by millions and eventually billions of people ever since it was first made. Even if that were the view of mainstream scholars that Daniel did not live, unless their conclusion is rooted in evidence that anyone can see and logically reach the same conclusion of those scholars based on that evidence, then it is not a fact, but only an opinion of "mainstream scholars", or in this case, of a very small number of scholars who claim to speak for all scholars, without providing any evidence to support that claim either. That point is secondary to the more important fact that the statement that Daniel did not live is not the view of mainstream scholars. Most mainstream scholars have not written papers claiming that Daniel did live, because there is not proof that he did. However, there is an enormous difference between believing that he most certainly did live because there is evidence that he did, versus believing that he may have lived, and that the only sources we have claim that he did live and state that as a historical fact, not as an allegory or a parable, and that there is absolutely no way of proving that he lived or not, because there is zero hard evidence to support either claim, although the story, when the allegories are removed, certainly fits with the broader contextual narrative of the history of the period that we do have hard evidence to support (the history of the Jews and Babylon at the time when the sources we have say that Daniel lived), and there are many later historical accounts of Muslims and Jews worshiping and continually moving the tomb of Daniel and his remains, from many different authors in many different cultures, places and times, which indicates that many people believed that Daniel really lived, and those beliefs persisted over thousands of years. Just because one or two scholars write an article, and provide no hard, definitive evidence to support their claims, does not mean that there are not literally millions of Bible scholars around the world who disagree with the statement that Daniel never lived. In reality, most Bible scholars believe that there is at least possibility that he is a historical figure, and they know that the historical sources claim that he was a real person, while no historical sources claim that he was not a real person. The reason why the only articles on the subject claim that he probably was fictional is because it would not make much sense to write a scholarly article about how Daniel's historicity cannot be disproven, even though it cannot be proven, since there is no basis for arguing either point, other than the written sources, and the whole world already knows what the sources say. Again, the mainstream, 4.2 Billion people, believe that Daniel was a real person. They just don't write articles about it unless they uncover real evidence, even though some people have decided to write articles making incendiary and baseless claims that he did not live, provide zero actual evidence, further claim that they speak for all scholars, when they do not, and when most scholars do not make such conclusions or write articles about them without actual evidence. Because there are only a few articles that say anything about the subject, you conclude that that is what all scholars believe, partly because those few authors say so, but that is not a logical conclusion or a conclusion supported by fact. Obviously, it would be bizarre if a thousand scholars wrote articles about how little evidence there is that Daniel did not live, so the absence of such articles is not and cannot possibly be interpreted as definitive proof that that is what most scholars believe. Most Bible scholars are indeed biased, but not in that direction, because most Bible scholars study the Bible because they are people who believe the scriptures, yet when they separate their biases from their scholarship, they inevitably conclude that Daniel's historicity is no less plausible than any other semi-legendary figure who is universally spoken of as a real person in all the sources we have, and Daniel should certainly not be treated as a proven fabrication while all other similar semi-legendary figures are treated as neither provable nor-disprovable, though plausible, and based on ancient accounts, most likely at least rooted in some degree of truth. If Daniel is treated so much worse than Numa and Homer, one can only conclude that there is a double standard that is extremely biased against Jewish beliefs, and one should not be surprised to discover that based on how common that practice still is and has been for millenia.174.126.168.126 (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
DRAFT:SNOOOZE
Thank you for your feedback and I will resubmit once I have followed your advice. I will review, re-edit and revise with a non-promotional lens and make acceptable according to the non-commercial POV. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesleyraz (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
About previously blocked user
I'm reaching out for some advice. There's a clearly very young new editor who has been adding unsourced material, getting reverted, then responding by lashing out on talk pages and removing content from (other) articles in retaliation against, I guess, the encyclopedia. They were taken to ANI previously, and you (rightly) handed them a 72hr block for this behavior. Sam Sailor has since reached out to help them, as have I, but they just say "sorry" and keep doing the same things. Another ANI and longer block might be inevitable, but are there other interventions you might suggest, based on your experience? I would hope to retain an enthusiastic new editor, but not at any cost. Thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- And they're back to adding unsourced material to multiple articles. Also, probably just a coincidence that a new account appeared during their block with similar biographical details, interests, and formatting errors (User:Star Goodkid was quickly indeffed for self-promotion). Thanks for trying. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, well. [1] Thanks for at least giving them chances, but it looks like it's not working out. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Please Explain What You Mean By This:
This TLDR conversation is over. Stop posting on my talk page, IP editor.
|
|---|
|
The conversations we have participated in on the Daniel talk page and on your talk page should not be concealed or terminated before we and everyone else has a chance to see and understand why the Daniel article is biased, why it is not at the level of quality that it should be, and how controversial and unsettled much of the material currently in the article is, while the article is presenting those highly controversial and unfounded opinions as if they were facts. The talk page exists specifically for the purpose of facilitating those kinds conversation, debates, and presentations of arguments and counter arguments. The Daniel article has serious problems that need to be corrected. In spite of that fact, and in response to my efforts to improve the article and remove its highly biased views that depict Daniel as a fraud without any really evidence to justify the accusation, you banned me, then concealed all of the two conversations that we had on the topic, which were very carefully and precisely worded, and sourced, and which cumulatively took hours to prepare. How do you justify that? There are millions, probably billions of people who share my views on the warped way that Daniel is being depicted in his Wikipedia article, and you are now as responsible for that as anyone is. Do you perhaps feel that you have a conflict of interest regarding this particular article, a conflict which might result in a need for you to recuse yourself from it? Do you perhaps have a deep-seated animosity toward Jewish traditions, values and beliefs, which is causing you to present those traditions, values and beliefs in a negative light in this encyclopedia, or to facilitate others' efforts to do so, in a way that makes it appear to the world as if Jewish civilization and history was and is a fraud? The fundamental issue here is the difference in the treatment of Daniel and his contributions to human civilization and culture compared with how similar semi-legendary figures and their contributions in their respective Wikipedia articles. Please address this, and ideally correct it, so that articles on Numa Pompilius, Romulus, Aeneas, Homer, Odysseus, Theseus, Lycurgus, and Jesus are not treated so differently and so much better than Daniel is in his respective article. I believe you have a duty to correct this (I feel that way on several different levels, for several different reasons). All of those aforementioned semi-legendary historical figures have disputed pasts, much of which was passed down orally for certain periods of time, and several have numerous accounts of their lives that conflict with or even contradict each other, but all of those figures except for Daniel are presented very differently, in a much more positive way, as the inspiring examples that they are of how to live one's live and achieve the highest ideals that man can aspire to, as stories that are at the core of our civilization, and are among the most revered chapters of our history, our most beloved and insightful philosophical teachings, our most sacred spiritual guides and our most popular literary works, because those figures, just like Daniel, are generally considered to be among the very best ideological contributions to our civilization that the world has to offer. Daniel's story is at least on par with those of all of the aforementioned figures, so why is he not depicted as they are? There is no statement about Jesus' life being historical fiction in the eyes of "mainstream scholars" in the top paragraph of his article, nor should there be, because an Encyclopedia should not be a place to lead an article with a line that will immediately insult a billion people and distract everyone away from the real value and content that they should find in the article. Why is there a completely different and far worse standard for the article on Daniel, and why is he (and all of the people who value his story and have learned so much from his life) treated in such a demeaning and contemptuous way? That is not neutrality. That is not Encyclopedic. Opinions are not facts, and facts should predominate in all Encyclopedias, while opinions should be grounded in fact and fairly, proportionately, dispassionately represented, but never in an insulting way that is not grounded in any real facts whatsoever, but rather is influenced by bias or perhaps even animus. The sources given in the article as it is often do not provide (or even have) evidence for their claims, and they claim to speak for all scholars without evidence of that either. If a person declares that they speak for almost all scholars, then they should cite almost all scholars, or at least scientific polls of almost all scholars. Otherwise, their claim is baseless, and is likely a rhetorical tool to solicit support for their own arguments, and nothing more. It is unlikely that there will ever be proof that Daniel did or did not live in the time he is said to live, or that he did the things he said he did, but regardless, that should not be the focus of the Wikipedia article on Daniel. The focus should be on the story of Daniel, his story's role and influence on society, the motivations behind the depiction of his story by the Jewish people in the way it was depicted, and the implications of his influence and his story on man and society, because that has always been what people who genuinely wish to learn from and apply what they learn from Daniel focus on when they read, study, discuss and write or speak about Daniel, rather than wrangling over questions that will never be answered, or vague suggestions that maybe some story or person somewhere else was vaguely related to Daniel (as the first source in the article does), and trying to draw some dubious and airy conclusions from that imagined possibility. The first two sentences of the article, for example, seem as if they were written by one person who adopts a position that Daniel's story is that of a truly great and honorable man, an ideal, a legend, whom we should learn from and base our lives and our societies upon, while the second sentence sounds as if it was written by a person who denies the possibility of the existence of any truly great man or ideal, and who seeks to undermine such concepts and ridicule their proponents. That is not a good start for a high quality article, although the first sentence indeed could be, if it was allowed to be. I would like to resolve this matter in a way that improves the Encyclopedia. All I want is a respectful article on Daniel that appropriately represents him as a semi-legendary figure who has been a great inspiration and a character model for literally billions of people over thousands of years (which really is the consensus of scholars and the general public),because that is who Daniel is, and that is his impact on our world, rather than an article that wrongfully minimizes and distracts from his enormous contributions to Judeo-Christian and Islamic society and thought. I believe this is not only what is best for the Encyclopedia and all of its readers, but what is required by Wikipedia policies and expected by Wikipedia's founders of Wikipedia editors. What would Wikipedia look like if the article for every figure that played any role in any religion or any ancient society, the details of whose life and works were somewhat disputable and uncertain, began with a claim that they were a fictitious character as if that were a fact, when no evidence existed for the claim, nor could any source provide such evidence, and as a result, and through the persistent influence of the authors of that vexatious beginning, the focus of the article became an inquisition into whether or not the figure the article was about was a fraud and a lie, with the implication that those who read and appreciate the story are the victims of some kind of deception? That is not what Wikipedia should look like. I do not think that silencing a person because they are taking days of their time to bring these serious issues to light and lend his assistance to correcting those issues, in a genuine attempt to improve Wikipedia, is an appropriate response. The article, as it is, is lacking in quality. If I were permitted to, I could make it into an article of the very highest quality, for the benefit of all mankind, but my work is being impeded for reasons that are detrimental to the creation of a great encyclopedic article. It is indeed a rather ironic response, since it is essentially the same response that Darius the Mede gave to Daniel, Pharaoh gave to Moses, King Manasseh of Judah gave to Isaiah, and that certain belligerent Israelites also gave to Isaiah, Moses, David, Jeremiah, and most of the rest of their greatest leaders, who still managed to have the most positive impacts on Jewish society and the Jewish People of any men who ever lived, and who later bestowed great blessing on the entire World many centuries after their death.174.126.168.126 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
|
Blocking me
Dear sir Cullen, stop blocking me every time I do something wrong, blocking me takes long and I'm an editor and you keep saying the singles of Phyno are unsourced stop blocking me sir, stop it or should I delete your edits just because I keep on adding unsourced things does not mean I should be blocked, stop this blocking thing, stop it now!!!!!!! 😔😔😔😔😔 Oreratile1207 (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oreratile1207, I have blocked you again because you are continuing the same behavior that led to your previous blocks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Check your email
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. — ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Cleaning up the 'Mothers of Plaza de Mayo / the Disappeared'
Hi Cullen,
Working in PNG, I am keen to contribute traditions, persons, establishments and histories of PNG. One area that intrigued me was 'Black Thursday'. Here is an article from their leading newspaper back in 2014 talking about it: https://www.thenational.com.pg/churches-push-women%E2%80%99s-cause/
Yes. They do wear black for Black Thursday. The women are deliberately wearing black corporate-wear today (Thursday 17-01-2019) more so because of a rise in deaths and abuse not long after Orange Day was celebrated a few months ago.
Not sure if I should create a page that talks about this day in PNG or if I should make changes or contribute to the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo article. Clearly the name 'Mothers of the Disappeared' inspired some people in the west like Bono. So I was wondering what contributions you and I could make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnginitiator (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello, Pnginitiator. I think that Black Thursday is the best place to mention this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I will include how PNG use the day and source that national news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnginitiator (talk • contribs) 02:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean...
I meannnnnn..... let him see.... he said i can edit. He even stated that in quora ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you can edit User:Jimbo Wales to add your foolish remark with its negative innuendo. And I can edit to remove it. I am just as free to edit that page as you are. Now, go do something useful, ImmortalWizard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Quick question: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia which side u take? ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I do not stake out an extremist position, ImmortalWizard. I am in favor of including content that is in full compliance with our policies and guidelines, and either improving or deleting content that isn't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah nice! I have issues with WP:ONESOURCE in WP:VPP and vandalism in WP:VPI. Anyways nice to meet you. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Cedric Wright.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cedric Wright.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jim. I was checking on external link usage in Norman Reedus when I remembered an exchange I had over these links with PhiladelphiaInjustice. It also reminded me of User talk:PhiladelphiaInjustice#WP:UP#NOT. This editor hasn't edited since 2016 for some reason, but they never really got around to addressing the problems with their user page. Do you think even at this point in time the page should be blanked or even tagged for speedy per WP:U5? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- I certainly understand your concern but my personal feeling is to leave this matter alone. It seems that this editor was at least potentially a productive editor. I would interpret this list as an indication of the type of topics they hoped to edit. Yes, they have not been around for a couple of years but who knows what is going on in their personal life? Let us hope that at some point they remember that they used to be a Wikipedia editor and decide to return. It would be nice for them to see their user page when they come back. If not, I see no real harm here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Other opinions may vary, Marchjuly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at this Jim. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight
First thanks for answering my questions regarding Greenhaven, Ga in a respectful manner. That is much appreciated. There is an external link on Greenhaven to Imagine Greenhaven which is the pro group for the proposed legislation. An external link to N.A.G. Neighbors Against Greenhaven and CCIOTG, the opposition groups, were not allowed. My question is if the article is to be neutral shouldn't there be a link to both pro and opposition websites be included?
TravelinFool 23:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable contention to me, TravelinFool, but I have not taken a close look at the content dispute. If the group is a significant player in community discourse about whether or not this city should be created, then an external link may well be appropriate. But you need to gain consensus on the talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
You are really very great
Thankyou so much for your constant support to all young editors like us. Ssaarraayyuu (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words, Ssaarraayyuu. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
About dashes
Hi, you might see the type of dash as trivial (and I agree with you) but this is something that's gone to ANI very many times, and even up to arbcom. There are easily hundreds of thousands of words in meta about types of dash. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=429209333#Hyphens_and_dashes I don't know what the right thing to do is, but it's a long running tedious flamefest. DanBCDanBC (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Re: Boots Riley
Hi Cullen328,
Could you tell me how I am violating the wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living people? I'm updating the political views of the person, which he shares openly on his social media platforms and they certainly seem important to him and relevant to understanding his point of view and art.
Thank you!
- Hello Valepop. You cannot use the highly judgmental phrase "murderous dictator" in Wikipedia's voice. You cannot draw sweeping conclusions from a tweet, which is a primary source. We need secondary sources discussing the tweets. And, you cannot edit war. Discuss this matter at Talk: Boots Riley. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Cullen328. I wasn't trying to edit war, I just thought that my edit hadn't gone through. I apologize!
I'm, however, confused on why there must be a source discussing the tweets when a person (Boots Riley) has made numerous remarks on social media that are very clearly and transparently in support of Nicolás Maduro and Hugo Chávez. I'm still new to this and thank you in advance for clarification.
Also, is there any way to request updates to a locked page? I've noticed that the page on Nicolás Maduro doesn't mention political prisoners or deaths caused at his command, while others with the same allegations (such as Paul Kagame) do have this information.
Thank you!
- "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
- Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."
- You cannot state as a fact that someone "supports murderous dictators" based on tweets expressing concern about the crisis in Venezuela. That is simply not going to happen. As for the other matter, Talk: Nicolás Maduro is the place to discuss that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)