Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 88

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90→Archive 95

Article writing guidance

Hey Jim, Hope you're doing alright. I just joined Wikipedia community and am very my current concern is to write and publish on Wikipedia. I know that we are not allowed to publish any promotional or advertising material about us or our company. But then I saw a few companies having Wikipedia pages. I want to write on Wikipedia and also want to create a page of my company (IF POSSIBLE) knowing that I will choose my words carefully not to make my writings an advertising or promotional tool. I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE, TO GUIDE ME THROUGH.

I will be obliged.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexabreu110 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Alexabreu110. Your first step is to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, which is mandatory. Then, read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), paying special attention to the requirements that the company must have received significant coverage in reliable, published sources that are entirely independent of the company. No company website or social media. No interviews with company insiders. Nothing generated by press releases. Read User:RoySmith/Three best sources and let me know what the three best sources are that devote significant coverage to your company. Then, start studying Your first article. You must use the Articles for Creation process, writing a draft to be reviewed by experienced editors. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis Comment

thanks for that. Too close to home. Elinruby (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Good block on Vpha

Hey! Just a quick comment since I missed the original ANI discussion started by Qiushufang: Vpha is probably a sock of Introductionneeded (blocked May 2021), who previously operated the sock OutrageousAnger (blocked September 2021).

For example, see

So that was a good block in terms of Vpha's behavior, but this is probably just one in an extended series of block evasion socks. — MarkH21talk 09:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that "Vpha" is probably short for Victor Pham. Hah! — MarkH21talk 10:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Good work, MarkH21. I am completely convinced. Let me know if you see any new socks popping up on those or similar articles. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there an SPI? Vpha, Changeanew, Introductionneeded, 2215rt are all CU-confirmed and blocked. Damage in articles needs to be undone. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks for finding those! I don't think there is an SPI, but maybe one should be formally opened for these results. Don't forget about OutrageousAnger in the list of CU-confirmed socks. — MarkH21talk 23:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ha, sure--but, ah, make sure you list it when you file that SPI? ;) Please go ahead and file that: their persistence warrants it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Drmies: Done! I opened it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Introductionneeded, although I just realized that Changeanew is an oldest discovered account so it will soon be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Changeanew. — MarkH21talk 00:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Zaid Jabri

Hello Cullen328!

There is a problem with the article I wrote. Maybe you have time and the opportunity to help me and thus also the project Wikipedia ; o)

So the reason for the rejection of the article is to name an already existing entry about Syrian-Polish compositor Zaid Jabri. I looked at the existing page Zaid Jabri and found that the page you mentioned was rejected a year ago and has not been edited by the author for 5 months, although the page is not ready in terms of content and methodology. For this, my variant of the page User:WLDMR/Zaid Jabri is extensive in terms of content, source-based and finished.

The person Zaid Jabri is internationally recognized as the leading modern Syrian composer. He is named and linked on several pages at English Wikipedia. Articles about him are published in German and Russian Wikipedia. It's time to present it in English Wikipedia as well. He is a bridge builder between European and Oriental traditions. This person is of great importance for the development of Arabic Syrian music. This area (culture and music) as well as the region itself are fundamentally underrepresented in the cultural context on Wikipedia and on English Wikipedia.

I ask you for a solution.

Thank you!

WLDMR (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WLDMR. The solution is for you to edit the existing Draft:Zaid Jabri, removing unteferenced material and adding the well referenced content from your draft. Once you have transformed the existing draft into something acceptable, then submit it for review. Cullen328 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response!
I like to work on the article, but it was rejected not because of the content, but because of another article with the same name about the same person Zaid Jabri. This other article is over a year in the Draft. He was rejected a year ago. The article has not been edited for at least 5 months. This is blocking the article I wrote User:WLDMR/Zaid Jabri.
Is there a solution for this?
This is articles written by me User:WLDMR/Zaid Jabri
This is an article from another user Zaid Jabri
Thank you! WLDMR (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
WLDMR, I already told you what to do. Take the good content from your draft and transfer it over to the older draft. You can edit a draft written by someone else. That draft has priority since it is older. Make the older draft a high quality acceptable draft and then submit it. I hope you understand me now. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Your comment

In your comment here [1]. You went on another editor's talk page to, what appears to be, you threatening to sanction me. Yet, you & I both know that I've done nothing to be sanctioned over. All my edits are in good faith, all my questions are in faith, and I'm very civil. No reason not to be civil, we're all volunteers here. I feel every volunteer editor here operates in good faith, even you. But if you were threaten me, or were trying to punish me, or trying to sanction me for editing in good faith, asking questions in good faith, and being civil; then I can't stop you. The editor in question has over 19,300 edits and has published 7 projects - that's a pretty "solid track record." As far as that article goes, there is an edit button that can remedy the concerns of other editors. Next time you have something to say to me, say it on my talk page, not another editor's talk page. Oh, I almost forgot, thank you for confirming that, no matter the "autonomy," the rule does not say "English edits" only, and maybe it should - you know - to avoid any confusion.BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison You are aware of the DS [2] in this topic area. You said I was threatening you [3] by giving you the notice. No, I wasn't [4] I gave you that notice to make you aware of how you should act in this topic area, to prevent you from being sanctioned. After all of this [5] and this [6] and this [7] where even the editor you advocating for pointed out to you that they have only 339 edits (right here -->[8]... you restart this "English only" absurd at one of the administrators talk page who gave you friendly advice to be careful? How on earth, you are allowed to continue with this behaviour is beyond me. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
PS - and here too! [9], [10], [11] just to get another identical answer from additional editors [12], [13]. (!) - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I stand by my comment. It was a legitimate warning. Cullen328 (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: & @Cullen328: That rule was established to prevent vandalism being injected into articles about the Holocaust. It wasn't established to punish & silence our European colleagues with 19,300 edits from editing. To mitigate & prevent vandalism, the rule says, "All IP addresses" who reach "500 edits" will get EC protection. And in another spot, this same rule says "A registered editor" who reaches "500 edits" will "automatically" get EC protection. It makes perfect sense for it to apply to "all IP addresses" & all "registered editors" - that's how you prevent vandalism.
You are assuming it means "English edits" only. EL C said he has "limited knowledge" and then EL C very kindly went on to tell me his assumption of the rule - just as you are assuming. My assumption is based on the exact wording of the rule. Your assumption is based on words that aren't in it.
Furthermore, it would make absolutely no sense for this rule, on this specific topic, to be for "English edits" only. People who live in Eastern Europe, live at the site of the Holocaust, have more relatives that were personally in the Holocaust, have far more painful and real memories of the Holocaust, and have far more knowledge of the finer details of the Holocaust than you or I could ever posses.
So when our eastern European colleague has over 19,300 edits with well over 500 edits on WWII history, & has published 7 articles - they have proven they're a solid editor on this topic & they've proven that they do not to vandalize articles on that topic (which is what the rule was established for).
To reiterate, the rule was not established to punish or silence our European editors who have over 19,300 edits, it was established to prevent vandalism on this topic. And given that's the rationale for the rule being established, it makes perfect sense that it applies to "all IP addresses" (which is exactly what the rule says).
For everything I stated herein, I strongly believe the rule does not apply to "English edits" only, because if it did, it would say it. Therefore, I strongly believe your assumption is mistaken. And if I am wrong, so be it; but if I am wrong then someone should re-write that rule for clarity for our European colleagues who want to share their articles on en.wiki.
Below are Links To The Rules
  • Here [14] the rule applies to "All IP address" (not English only editors)
  • Here [15] the rule applies to "A registered editors" (not English only editors)
  • Here [16] the rule applies to "Accounts that have been registered for at least 30 days" (not English only editors"
Based on the criteria from the actual wording of the rule, I firmly believe the editor in question meets all of the requirements. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi, BetsyRMadison, you may not be aware of this, but extended confirmed is not just a Wikipedia term of art--it is an actual permission implemented and enforced in the Mediawiki code itself. It is automatically granted to registered users who have 30 days' tenure and 500 edits on the English Wikipedia specifically, not counting edits on other projects. The description pages don't specify English Wikipedia because the code itself does that. And this is by design, because each project and language on Wikipedia has very different rules and standards, so experience on one project does not necessarily translate to expertise on another. So, no, the 30 days and 500 edits requirement is specific to enwiki. These aren't assumptions; they are factual descriptions of how extended-confirmed works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I will be concise: You are incorrect. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey

Hey 328, you are without question a very powerful force site-wide & i note most people who are opposing Tamzin cite your rationale as the reason, I’m still mourning the death of a loved one so I didn’t have the luxury of time to read your rationale but I believe it has something to do with politics, hey Cullen, don’t you think you are being a little too harsh on her? They have a clue, they have the right temperament, in the famous words of TonyBallioni "they aren’t a jerk" and they have demonstrated a clear need for the tools, so I’m quite shocked that a political view of theirs should be used as a reason to deny her the bit. I do understand some may think she’d be biased but shouldn’t we support her first due to her proficiency and see if or not that becomes the case but until such a time I’m indeed baffled that a political stance should be a reason to pillory her over. It is my candid opinion that the Wikipedia editor and her real life need not be interpreted as one and the same. For example, I’m Swedish, but I live in Nigeria (I’m a citizen now) I have lived here for more than two decades now & I’m very much prejudiced against the Nigerian government but that is just me in real life, but on wiki I never let my real life philosophies interfere with editing Nigeria related articles, I believe Tamzin should be given a chance to serve. It is my thinking that we as a collaborative project complain about the gradual atrophy candidates willing to RFA but unfortunately we still are the ones stifling candidates and making RFA's toxic (I’m not referring to you) but this is a common occurrence which tbh is saddening, i for one just like Praxidicae & Serial Number 54129 do not or may never RFA due to diverse reasons, I can only speak for myself but the toxicity and the fact that it would impede my anti UPE work is the reason I won’t RFA. Note that I have been asked 5 times now to do so I have always refused due to the aforementioned reasons. In summary I guess what I’m trying to say is, we need to give her a chance. Celestina007 (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Celestina007. I am so sorry for your loss, and I hope that as time goes by, your memories of your loved one will bring you comfort.
With a few hours to go, Tamzin has 78% support and will be the third administrator to receive over 300 supports. I am one of the other two. I opposed for one specific reason and do not think that I was harsh. The candidate seems otherwise qualified and she will have her chance. I will happily collaborate with her in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, I really appreciate them. Pertaining Tamzin, I’m equally delighted you have shown good faith and may collaborate with them moving forward. Celestina007 (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

is requesting unblock at UTRS appeal #57763. Setting aside why everyone else is wrong, what do we need to hear from him? Can we carry an (unlikely) adequate request to AN. I found that talk page, with all the cross talk, incomprehensible. Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Deepfriedokra. Wow. I do not handle UTRS appeals, but if Neutralhomer wants to go to AN (or ANI - they mention both) I suggest that you copy it over there. Let the community decide. Cullen328 (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Just another rant about how everyone done him wrong at UTRS. I no longer know what changes to expect of him. I saw nothing coherent on his talk page. Just jibber-jabber and cross-talk. Has he been to AN? Has he coherently addressed the reasons for his block? Ever? I gave him a standard "describe the reasons for your block, etc" message and recused. Just need a little insight into what is needed. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, I have been frustrated by this editor's behavior for quite a few years. I barely know what to say. But if Neutralhomer insists on a high visibility appeal to the community, I suggest that you give the editor that. I personally assess the chance of success as very low. If you start the conversation, I will restore talk page access for convenience during that process, but I will revoke it again if they return to ranting. Keep me posted. Cullen328 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I too have been frustrated for some time. Not holding my breath. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, I was about to start a new section myself and then saw this. I just got up and am pre-coffee—was writing on a personal project, went to bed v. late—and left a response to Neutralhomer without checking lower down his talk page.

I am bewildered by the AN(I) requirement; we established that he isn't community banned, and the last discussion, I had the impression Floquenbeam had copied the unblock request over there simply and solely because NH asked him to, not because it was a precondition for unblock. I still see Floquenbeam referring recently at NH's talk to the possibility of a patrolling admin unblocking without a noticeboard discussion. As I have told NH, I may be wrong about the procedural requirements, and I do see other admins, including Nosebagbear in the latest decline, writing as though it's required at this point.

I disagree with your assessment that he's been ranting. The latest bunch of statements about being treated unfairly is in response to Star Mississippi, and remember he's on the autistic spectrum and so may genuinely not understand what he's doing wrong in his unblock requests and on his talk page. (I presume you realize I'm being intentionally vague to avoid spoonfeeding, as well as there being the very real possibility I myself couldn't frame a suitable unblock request; it's hard.) I saw him genuinely trying to engage with the community's concerns, and the stuff about the standard offer also shows him trying to follow the rules so that he can contribute again. (And let it not be forgotten, his article-space contributions are valuable.)

I came here to beg you to look again and reconsider, especially since I set off his latest talk-page expressions of frustration by saying I was sorry he didn't get unblocked. The time stamps are a bit mixed up, and there's been a bit of bear-poking (undoubtedly well intentioned). But in addition to a plea for understanding and mercy, absent egregious personal attacks, wouldn't it be better for him to talk frustratedly or not on his talk page than for him to clog UTRS?

I will now drink coffee. You guys are the admins. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:≤27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, I am not saying that taking the appeal to AN or ANI is required, but rather that is what Neutralhomer is asking for at UTRS. I understand that you disagree with the word "ranting". Would unproductive rambling be more accurate? Neutralhomer has been going on and on and on for ten days and a lot of people have spent a lot of time responding and the editor just continued. I am not going to unblock Neutralhomer myself because I consider it highly likely that we will experience another major blowup the next time the editor gets drunk, stoned, indignant or a combination thereof. But another administratrator is free to unblock if their assessment is different than mine. As for clogging UTRS, this editor can be blocked there as well. I will read the conversations again. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I just read it all again, and my perception is that everything that Neutralhomer has written since April 20 amounts to trolling. At UTRS, Neutralhomer has accused every administrator involved with this matter of acting in "bad faith" and with "malice". Is that what you think? Cullen328 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Argh. That would definitely qualify as ranting. The timeline as I see it is: NH waited till 4/20 and then made an unblock request that was a mere placeholder, togther with a statement indicating a lighthearted approach—4/20 fun. He pinged me, the blocking admin, and someothers, including another non-admin who had indicated they might support. Intertwined discussion ensued, with at least one respondent taking the light-heartedness for untoward flippancy. The unblock request was replaced with one that rambled but like his previous declined unblock request, started off on point. After 4/20 was over (I believe), back and forth led Floq to state he was unwatching; NH thereafter only repinged him with apology, when he felt necessary in his refinement of the open unblock request, which was done at my urging that he tighten it up. As well as venting against Floq and repeating that he didn't know what was expected of him in an unblock request (with reference to UTRS conversations that I obviously can't see) NH expressed disappointment with the person who he had expected to support his unblocking. He then stated that he'd tried his best and what would be, would be (the "4/20 is over" section.) After a few days during which my impression was that all was quiet on the talk page (but I may have missed further exchanges), Nosebagbear declined the unblock request, his decline wording implying that like NH he thought a noticeboard discussion of it would be required, and giving as reason that the talk page discussion suggested NH wouldn't be able to acquit himself well in such a discussion. Discussion later flared up again after I expressed my disappointment to NH; Star Mississippi, who had taken part in the earlier discussion on the page, responded to his response and NH lashed out in response. Meanwhile, I was sleeping like a sack of potatoes.
No, I don't see trolling. (I saw trolling, eventually, in the responses of the newish editor NH got into trouble for defending, so I'm not entirely naive). I see a lot of venting and personalization, and over-generalization; in at least one of NH's talk-page statements over the last 10 days, the entire community, me included, was attacked as against him. And if you have the stomach for it, compare the real ranting that led to the block with the statements over the last 10 days. My personal assessment is that he's not only trying, he's there, except he keeps going off-track. And this noticeboard requirement may be insurmountable for someone on the spectrum and can't stop himself reacting to poking with insults toward admins (general and specific) and the community (as a whole and as makers of the rules).
What I was hoping for was an admin suggesting an editing restriction, such as 1RR and help templates/mentorsship if he gets into a dispute in article space (he specializes in an area, US radio stations, where expertise is thin on the ground and both promotionalism and misguided fannish edits are possible annoyances) or perhaps more apposite given what led to the block, an agreement not to post to the noticeboards concerning disputes in which he is not personally involved without first receiving clearance from the unblocking admin or a mentor (on-wiki or via e-mail). But there is a school of thought among admins, including Nosebagbear and I think Beeblebrox (who had thought the last discussion had led to a community ban; I spearheaded the effort to get that decision rescinded) that his unblock requests have to go to a noticeboard, which would render my train of thought irrelevant. You folks are the admins. And now that he's apparently been hurling abuse at UTRS, it may be moot anyway.
Again, sorry to be a buttinsky. And I won't ping Floquenbeam or anyone else because as I say, it may be moot. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
You are not being a buttinsky, Yngvadottir. Far from it. I take administrator accountability seriously. In the end, you just have a more sanguine view of this editor's potential to contribute productively without disruption than I do. If an administrator considering unblocking asks my opinion, I will offer it. If an administrator decides to unblock, I will not object. And if a few years go by without significant problems, I will be happy to admit that I was wrong. Cullen328 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for listening. But I (personally and in all admitted ignorance) hope someone reverts the talk page access suspension; from what I understand, NH doesn't do well in that environment and is more likely to craft an acceptable unblock request on his talk page. Plus that serves as a place for him to eventually demonstrate he can remain collegial in the face of what he perceives as unfair responses. (I saw him getting better at that; that's a major basis of my being more sanguine, as you say.) However ... I was never a whizz at process. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I have been an administrator for almost five years, and I still do not consider myself a whiz at process. Far from it. Often, I feel like a newcomer, even though I have been an administrator for over 20% of the history of the project, and an active editor for about 60%. There are many complex areas that I leave to others like IP range blocks and sockpuppet investigations, and many other technical things. Sometimes, I read discussions for a long time and do not act because I am not fully confident about the proper outcome. Then, when I do act, Neutralhomer accuses me of being a "drive by administrator" as if I am obigated to join into the verbal give and take before using my administrator's tools. Then there are idiosyncratic things like the fact that I had assumed that I would enjoy closing AfD debates before and during my RfA. After delving into it, I concluded that I didn't much enjoy closing AfDs although I having enjoyed offering my assessments at AfDs. Who knew? And I never imagined that I would end up patrolling WP:UAA so often. But that turns out to be a place where a lot of spammers, vandals and trolls are identified, and I block them there all the time, for the good of the encyclopedia. I do believe that I have a pretty good track record of assessing the conduct of editors who do not consciously wish to be disruptive, but end up being disruptive because of certain uncontrollable or difficult to control elements of their individual personalities. Lots of people on Wikipedia enjoy the hobby of criticizing administrators, and there is much that can be said about the worst and most obsessive of those critics. As for the best among the critics, I welcome good faith criticism and have a pretty thick skin. If somebody makes an apt, incisive point about anything that I have done as an administrator, I will certainly reconsider and readjust my conduct based on that feedback. Until then, I will continue carefully evaluating the conduct of problematic editors that come to my attention. I will always try to avoid overly aggressive administrative behavior. I will always be responsive to feedback regarding my actions, and if the ravages of aging result in me losing that ability, I would expect the community to remove my permissions. As for special treatment of those "on the spectrum", I am completely in favor of welcoming editors that identify that way, as long as those editors comply with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. Just today, I learned that a highly experienced editor I know self-identifies that way, which I never would have expected based on years of interaction. I guess that is because that person controls their behavior, and this other person has had repeated difficulty conducting themselves appropriately. Cullen328 (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again. You've been an admin longer than I was, not to mention more active in the role, although I fell into UAA, also; I found it soul-destroying. In any case, I may have come off more critical than I intended to be, and I'm all the more sorry NH is apparently hurling brickbats. I think I've made my case; thanks for considering it. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I also don't see you as a buttinsky, @Yngvadottir. You've gone above and beyond to help NH, which is commendable. I'll be honest, I'm not sure what beyond my saying No got me on his bad side. I don't even care about the lame personal attacks from him, but then he pivoted to outright lies. He deserves a chance to request to be be unblocked, we all agree with that. Where I think he isn't clear is bullying admins into demanding we unblock isn't within polite behavior. And then we hit the spiral in UTRS. Oddly enough we had only minimal history before that. I think the only reason it "had" to go to AN* is that no one seemed inclined to unilaterally unblock. Maybe procedural, or maybe (as was the case with me) I didn't think he merited an unblock.
He has now emailed ArbComm and Wikimedia, but I'm concerned that he doesn't understand the underlying issue: no one has a right to edit. Le sigh. What a mess. Star Mississippi 17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the fact that Neutralhomer can't respond at his talkpage & wouldn't be able to respond at AN or ANI, may well be his best chance at being reinstated. Letting others argue for his reinstatement, would be his best chance. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, you may be right, but I have already said that if someone copies over an unblock request on behalf of Neutralhomer to ANI or AN, then I will restore the editor's talk page access, so that any comment the editor wishes to make, can rapidly copied over to the noticeboard in question. Just as long as the editor does not misuse their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps tomorrow, I'll copy his unblock request at WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
GoodDay, just let me know. I live in California and might sleep in on a Sunday morning. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I would also say that if his case is posted to AN or AN/I, he would have to have his talk page access restored so that he can respond there. And isn't that unblock request now closed? Yngvadottir (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe he's had two such requests denied (the first one is messed up, some how). I'm prepared to copy his 'next' request, if/when Cullen328 unblocks his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from JonahHale (22:10, 5 May 2022)

How can I check notability of a person for Wikipedia page --JonahHale (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JonahHale. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people), which says People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Cullen328 (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this [17]. I was distressed by that conduct. Your comment helped. Regards - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you are welcome. Cullen328 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Doug Weller. I will think about it. Cullen328 (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Heads up re blocked user

Hey, I don't know if this is a thing to check into or not, but going through the new user feed I spotted User:CorruptPolitican having been created by User:Tasmanianisation - who you blocked not long ago as a VOA. I'd assume the additional account should get dinged as well in a case like that? Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Tony Fox. I am surprised that these two accounts are connected, because Tasmanianisation is account creation blocked. I wonder how that happened. But CorruptPolitican hasn't yet edited. Strange. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
From the log, looks like they created the new account ten minutes before you blocked them. Planning ahead, I guess! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Aha. Interesting. Let's both keep an eye on that account and block at the first sign of shenanigans. Thanks, Tony Fox. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Well lookie there. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Nunavut1234 (21:39, 11 May 2022)

hi Cullen328! Im Nunavut1234 so i like editing and looking articles up. i know im new so i do changes btw --Nunavut1234 (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Nunavut1234. What is your question? Cullen328 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank's for your copy edits on Lucy Westlake, I wrote it in a rather short period of time, and your cleanup has helped a lot! Sea Cow (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Sea Cow. You did a good job starting an article about a fascinating young woman. I took a look at your user page and noticed that you are the main author of Osprey Packs. So, here is my anecdote. Like Westlake, I too am a mountaineer, although much less accomplished. I climbed the west face of Mount Shasta in 2007, at age 55, which was both grueling and gratifying. I used a 30 year old backpack that was extremely uncomfortable. Two years later, my wife and I climbed Mount Whitney, California's highest peak. While preparing for that climb, I bought a new Osprey pack, and it was excellent. We made it to the summit on September 11, 2009, shortly after I started editing Wikipedia. So, I have very positive feelings about Osprey. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm heading on a backpacking trip myself this summer, with a Osprey pack, so I'll be crossing my fingers it holds up well enough. I'm going up a bit smaller mountain then you, my peak of the trail is about 12.4k feet above sea level, with a much smaller 2.7k prominence. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) Sea Cow (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Have a wonderful trip, Sea Cow. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Qaismj (05:41, 17 May 2022)

Hello I need to create a page for my company , how to do that on your platform? --Qaismj (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Qaismj. Wikipedia does not have company pages. Instead, we have neutral, well referenced encyclopedia articles, many of which are about notable businesses. This is not a "platform"; it is an encyclopedia. When you say that you "need" to create a page (or article), experienced editors will push back. Your personal needs are of no interest here and you should not discuss your "needs" any further. All that experienced editors care about is improving the encyclopedia, not the subjective needs of any individual editors. There is a very structured successful process for writing new articles, which is described at Your first article. With regards to companies, the established standard is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Read that carefully, because experienced editors take it very seriously. If you have any direct connection to the subject of your article writing, then read and comply with Conflict of interest, and if applicable, the mandatory Paid contribution disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:MINORS

Hello! Awhile back I noticed this edit [18] which sadly was unchallenged for a month. It happens, and who watches essays anyway. There's been some disruption this year, but not at RfPP level. However, because of the sensitive topic, it could be a good idea to put a greylock on it anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I have semi-protected that page for a month. Let me know if you see any further disruption. Cullen328 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Will do! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician) 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 04:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Help on publishing notable article and association

Hi Jim, Good day. I just submitted my draft article regarding the nonprofit association AMASS Association Friends of Cancer Patients (Arabic Name: جمعية أصدقاء مرضى السرطان -the Arabic word “AMASS” means in need of help and assistance) is a Saudi Arabian volunteer-based, non-profit, charitable organization that aims to provide psychological and moral support to cancer patients and their families, and to educate and spread health awareness to the community about the disease and the importance of early detection.

It was declined by one of the admin of wikipedia. I would like to ask your help to make it better to meet a standard for official Wikipedia page please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amasssaudi (talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Vexillologer (01:06, 23 May 2022)

Hello --Vexillologer (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello to you too, Vexillologer. However, "Hello" is not question. Do you have a question? Cullen328 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I created a draft Draft:Tayabas Western Academy but there is an existing article with the same name Tayabas Western Academy. How can I delete my draft? Vexillologer (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Vexillologer, place the following speedy deletion tag on the first line of the draft:
{{Db-g7}}
That indicates that the only author is requesting deletion. Read WP:CSD for more information. Cullen328 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

U5

Hi, Jim. I see you used a WP:U5 speedy deletion tag in draft space, not user space, at Draft:The Game Clone theory. Was that a mistake, or an intentional application of IAR? JBW (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. It was a mistake. You are correct that WP:G11 applies instead. Thanks for pointing out the error. Cullen328 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Great response

You gave a great response to User:ItsAmmon over at the Teahouse (== what the freak? ==). You regulars at the Teahouse and Help Desk are awesome. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Cullen328 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparent block evader on Salvatore Cordileone

Hi - since you were the blocking admin, notifying you of this recent edit. Don't want to revert myself as not sure if it would be considered edit warring. Might want to semi the page. Funcrunch (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Funcrunch. I semiprotected for a week. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

block evasion on your block of 108.48.147.41

108.48.147.41 (talk · contribs) was blocked at ANI and eventually at RR3 for three months, including talk page access for edit warring and threatening to sock and continue the edit war on Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware). The user is now using 2600:4040:21D4:700:FC88:1F33:57BA:5840 (talk · contribs) to continue the discussion on the original IP's talk page. Meters (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Meters. I blocked the fresh IP. Cullen328 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
He's persistent, now evading on 2600:4040:21d4:700:ac91:8658:2682:9819 (talk · contribs) Meters (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
There's no other IP traffic on that /64 range. Meters (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). A /64 range is normally one person. I've extended Jim's 6-month block to 2600:4040:21d4:700::/64. Bishonen | tålk 07:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC).
Thanks. Meters (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Advice on an AFD

Hey there. I'm looking for advice on an AFD I participated in that is coming up on its seven days, but that I think could use some more eyes after discussion kind of stalled. I don't want to get dinged for canvassing, but I do have some concerns about it that I'd definitely be expressing if I wasn't involved. I've already left a notice at a related WikiProject that has not generated any response. Would you have any suggestions on how I could get more input without being perceived as canvassing? Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tony Fox. Not being a mind reader, I do not know for sure which AfD you are referring to, but I did see one that you are involved with that seems to be subject to brigading by SPAs. They could be sockpuppets or they could be meatpuppets but it seems highly unlikely that three brand new accounts would stumble almost simultaneously on an AfD debate, all claiming expert knowledge. I tagged the comments by the SPAs and would be inclined to count on the closing administrator to detect baloney. I certainly will not close that AfD, because we could both be accused of misconduct, and that would be unpleasant. But maybe that is not the AfD that you were alluding to. I recently moved to a new house and do not have immediate access to either my Crystal ball or my Ouija board, both of which are hidden somewhere in a gigantic pile of cardboard boxes stacked up in my new garage. As for drawing in opinions from other editors, sometimes the picture is clear to uninvolved administrators and more input is not really required. I am, after all, the eternal optimist. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm probably being too cautious about canvassing, honestly, I'm still finding areas of the place that have become more stringent and careful about misconduct. I do appreciate you taking a look - I do find that your insight is always helpful, and I agree that in this case it's likely that uninvolved admins will make a good call. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 02:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, Tony Fox. It is good to hear from you. Please feel free to drop by my talk page at anytime, to discuss the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Yusuf Tansalic (09:07, 1 June 2022)

Hi


I need our company google descp. How do I do it ? Can you give me some information? --Yusuf Tansalic (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Yusuf Tansalic. Wikipedia has no direct connection with Google. If you want to write about your company, then you need to make the mandatory Paid contribution disclosure. Then read the NCORP |Notability guideline for companies. If your company meets that guideline (most companies don't), follow the instructions at Your first article to write a draft, and submit it through the Articles for creation process. Cullen328 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Aaa232355 (15:03, 1 June 2022)

Hello Mr. Cullen

This is more of a in depth question about Wikipedia as a whole. The question is what is the point of the free encyclopedia? Why should we invest in Wikipedia? --अथर्व कॉल (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aaa232355. Please read Wikipedia. I am not sure what you mean by "invest". This is a volunteer project. Cullen328 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You guys ask me to give you a tip every few years. अथर्व कॉल (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aaa232355. You must be referring to the Wikimedia Foundation which provides the servers and programmers. Wikipedia volunteers work independently and have no direct connection to the WMF. Cullen328 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Dwimu KB (14:07, 3 June 2022)

Textile technology in medieval India --Dwimu KB (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dwimu KB. What is your question? Cullen328 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Cbinetti

European Colonization of the Americas I got blocked over one word. I asked for help before the block but DeCausda and Doug Weller got Bishonnen to retaliate against me. If my disabiltiies are not obvious by now, I do not know what to say. Much of the so-called disruptive behavior is disabled behavior. I am not allowed to edit a single word because a few people are so invested in defaming people by using the ahistorical concept of settler colonialism. If I cannot edit this page, I will never be able to edit the biased mental illness page, which conflates all mentally disabled people with the mentally ill. This is all upsetting me greatly. I can barely function. I just want to be unblocked and allowed to have some say on the European Colonization of the Americas. I am a political science phd and expert in these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Cbinetti, the proper place to request an unblock of your page block is on your own talk page. Wikipedia articles summarize what the range of reliable sources say about the topic, and my understanding is that the word settler is commonplace among academics who study colonialism. Appealing to your own expertise is unpersuasive on Wikipedia. Instead, effective Wikipedia editors identify and analyze reliable, published sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Heads-up about editor

Hi. There is this editor Zaathras who is not playing nice. In a thread I opened about the number of paragraphs of the Donald Trump article, they started accusing me, I requested the editor to use my talk page for the accusations, but ignored me and kept the off-topic situation, derailing the discussion. I noticed that Zaathras has a trend of not playing nice with other editors.Thinker78 (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thinker78. There are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Boushaki cosmological operator

Hello Jim,

This page: Boushaki cosmological operator

is nonsensical and not sure who created it.

It should be removed.

Thank you Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishak1967 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mishak1967. Boushaki cosmological operator was created on May 21, 2022 by Authentise, a relatively new editor who has been quite active in recent months, and who seems to be very interested in you and your work. I have no expertise in physics although I am an interested lay person. I cannot competently assess this article myself. But I went to Google Scholar and searched for the string "boushaki cosmological operator", and there were no results. So, I have my doubts about this article. Strong doubts. I suggest that you read Articles for Deletion, and begin a deletion debate following the instructions you will find there. Identify yourself and please try to explain briefly and in terms that non-physicists can understand, why this article is not useful. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of further assistance. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Seregadushka on User talk:JBW (09:07, 15 June 2022)

unreasonable deletion of the article "Joseph Moshe, a microbiologist" --Seregadushka (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Seregadushka That article was utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia and violated several policies. You can try Wikipedia:Deletion review but I don't think you will have any success. Cullen328 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Return of the DarkShineMan

Hi Cullen328, I hope you are well. I noticed you had previously banned DarkShineMan. I think he has resurfaced as Restless9, who appeared shortly after DarkShineMan was banned, his edits follow the same pattern and there is a slight focus on Greek football teams again. I would hazard a guess this is the same person so I thought I would drop you a quick note. Kind Regards Footballgy (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Footballgy. I have indefinitely blocked that obvious sockpuppet. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

excessive vandalism

excessive vandalism in List of most-streamed songs on Spotify Tirso Gutiérrez (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tirso Gutiérrez. Please file a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_88&oldid=1099514478"