Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 96

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97Archive 98→Archive 100

Thoughts on this

Hey, Cullen. I see you're active at the moment, could you give me your thoughts please on Readisten? There appears to be a somewhat good-faith reason for them being here, wanting to develop text-to-speech recordings, but there's no indication that's directly in the interest of Wikipedia. I've engaged them on their talk page but illicited no response yet. I'm finding it a little hard to gauge the next move. Obviously WP:UAA came to mind but i don't think a block is immediately warranted, but as i said i'm not entirely sure. Zindor (talk)

Hi. I've been editing over a decade and was pleasantly surprised to see you dox yourself with a real photo! Have never seen this before (not that I look at User pages more than a couple times a year). I salute you.

OTOH, I found your recommended page on editor behavior created (at some unspecified date) by user Antandrus TLDR. The first dozen or so "gems" of wisdom seem rather cloudy, occasionally snarky, and generally full of assumptions.

Regarding ketchup please have a look at the post I made a half hour ago on Talk. Martindo (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Martindo. Not sure why you chose to respond to an old thread instead of starting a new thread, but whatever. "Dox" is not a term that I personally use to describe a person telling the truth about their own identity on the internet. That has been my personal strategy for 30 years, and it has worked well for me. If you do not like the essay by Antandrus, then please feel to ignore it and not recommend it. As for your comment at Talk:Ketchup, I actually have nothing to say about that at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, I admire your boldness about the photo. Seems that dox can be a reflexive verb, but I wouldn't swear to that as being common usage. I chose to respond to this old thread because it seemed relevant and I was sure you'd get an alert about any change on your Talk page, so why scroll all the way down just to ensure new = prominent? Martindo (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I've got lots of photos to share with anybody who is sincerely interested, Martindo. Many people seem to yearn for anonymity online, and more power to them. I am not among them. I am a real person, not an avatar. Do you have a substantive question for me, or is this just idle chit-chat? Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Just idle, but your user page suggests you've been "here" longer than I have and attained one or more positions of responsibility. So nice to meet you virtually. No problem if you delete my part of this thread to free up space on your Talk page. Thanks for taking time to reply. Martindo (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually, Martindo, you have been on Wikipedia longer than I have, but who is arguing about 14 years versus 15 years? I am here only to build an encyclopedia. Got any ideas? Cullen328 (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
See new thread! Martindo (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Some Ideas to Toss Around to Improve WP

Yes, Jim, I have a few ideas. The part of me that tells my kids about black-and-white TV wishes we had more cultural history, or at least a way to included it with some verification method.

OTOH, I have recently come to question the solidity of "reliable source" while editing and reading some celebrity bio pages, such as Sharon Stone and Jacklyn_Zeman. In particular, stated claims about age when graduating high school -- in the case of Zeman, a friend of mine recalled her as one graduating class earlier than his, which contradicts some of her page.

Although guidelines allow some self-reporting on BLP pages, those who seek RS appear to rely on the reputation of the source, rather than the actual content. So an interview that is subject to faulty Autobiographical_memory (intentional or unintentional) is considered RS based on where it was published, not whether it was fact-checked. In the case of Stone, one RS appears to be an NYT fluff piece on "high IQ Hollywood actors" which itself has *zero* sources given -- it appears to be a compilation of interview-type material. Martindo (talk) 07:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Martindo. The recollections of a friend of yours are of no value according to the No original research policy. As for what people say in interviews, Wikipedia:Interviews is an essay worth reading, and WP:ABOUTSELF is some related policy language. As for the NYT coverage, we do not expect reliable sources to give their sources. You can discuss your concerns about those articles on their talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Jim, you seem to have conflated Talk vs Article. The recollections are evidence worth discussing in Talk to indicate that the Article content is offbase. I wouldn't dream of inserting them in text (analogous to "personal communication" as a citation in an academic article). I did discuss concerns in Talk after reading AboutSelf, which allows a "limited" amount of self-reference.
My point about RS is that the content itself is often unreliable, thus "white-listing" NYT while black-listing IMDB for celebrity birth dates, etc. seems illogical.
Another issue is DYK, which requires "significant amount of recent edits" thereby making fact-checking rushed. I have personally corrected a few of the blunders early this year. Did the people who made that policy think the typical user has read ALL of wikipedia and needs a flag to show what is "new"? There are tons of pages of trivia, history, science, etc. that I have never read, and pointing to any of them would be DYK for me, discovering a topic I'd never read about.
Come to think of it, my original post to one of your old threads did have an indirect purpose. I recall chatting offline with one of the editors who focus on Indonesia about a decade ago, but I forgot how we established contact without posting an email address on a User page. And last but not least, I will be 71 next month, so we're in a kind of cohort. Martindo (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Martindo, I didn't conflate anything. The recollections of some random unnamed person are not evidence of any value on Wikipedia. You are allowed to disagree with the consensus that the NYT is a generally reliable source, but you have to honor that consensus until you succeed in changing it. As for IMDb, it is largely user-generated content, and self promoting film industry strivers and con artists regularly post fabrications there. See WP:IMDB. As for DYK. I have not participated there for quite a few years, and consider it pretty much a waste of time. Happy early birthday. Cullen328 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Stepping back a bit, I wonder if there was something in the air around the time you and I started editing. I was a lowly writing adjunct at NYU spring semester 2008 when we specifically instructed students not to cite wikipedia in academic papers. I recall watching Stephen Colbert's segment on wikiality a couple years earlier, which in hindsight seems to have played a significant role in turning around WP policy to emphasize RS and NPOV -- I think most colleges began to accept WP references in term papers by 2010 or so. Ironically, Wales's vision of open editing seemed to have moved closer to Larry Sanger's vision of an encyclopedia written by academics and other experts. Martindo (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Martindo, I certainly remember Colbert's "edit the elephant article" stunts, but I do not member how much influence that had in my decision a few years later to begin editing Wikipedia. I had been heavily involved with online commentary about the 2008 U.S. presidential election which was then over, and the financial crisis of that era gave me, as a self-employed person, more free time than usual. My wife and I were involved with extensive preparations for our successful climb of Mount Whitney on September 11, 2009. I decided to work on articles about California mountaineers because I was moderately knowledgeable and experienced in that area, and owned a lot of books about it. I spent a lot of time, probably about two months, reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and looking deeply behind the scenes before I began active editing. As for your observations about Wales and Sanger, I disagree. Non-"experts" are still welcomed as long as they comply with policies and guidelines, and I believe that a large majority of productive edits are made by highly active non-expert volunteers. Larry Sanger, in my opinion, has a long record of being consistently wrong about Wikipedia in particular, and online encyclopedias in general. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
...because I couldn't find you a reissued passport  :) SN54129 18:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Cullen, I was just interested in the discussion, not intending to continue the ANI elsewhere. It was the seeming anomaly that interested me, rather than who made the claim. I apologise for offending you. SN54129 18:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

No offense taken, Serial Number 54129. I grew up in Detroit within a couple of miles of the border with Canada, and it was commonplace back then for people to cross that border without a passport. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Richard Reinhardt (author)

Hi Cullen, you might find this article interesting. It was submitted to AfC very poorly sourced so initially declined it but then got to checking around and found plenty of sources. With his focus on California history, I thought of you. S0091 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's very interesting, S0091. You have done a great job of improving the referencing. Thanks. I see that he collaborated with Baron Wolman, a rock and roll photographer whose work I know well. He has had several exhibitions in the Napa Valley, where I lived for nearly 30 years. By the way, in 2010, I did a major expansion of another rock and roll photographer, Ethan Russell. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Cool! Reading the article, Russell was certainly at the right place at the right time and had the talent to make the most of it. Wonder what he's up to now. S0091 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
S0091, here is a 2019 article about Russell. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Edward Vernon Arnold

Thank you for your comment on my draft. I'm happy to wait for the re-review, but would be grateful for your opinion on whether the external sources I have added are likely to be enough to establish Arnold's notability. RoachPeter (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, RoachPeter. Your lead section is too brief and does not adequately summarize the body. The first mention of his name should be in bold. Your reference list is overly reliant on his own work. Perhaps you can move the citations to his own work to a separate "Bibliography" section. Your "Education" and "Family" sections are unreferenced and therefore fail the core content policy of Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I hope the re-submitted version answers the points you made. RoachPeter (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
RoachPeter, it looks somewhat better. Your current reference #11 is to Prabook, which publishes user generated content. That is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I did not know that Prabook was not a reliable source. I have resubmitted with alternative source. RoachPeter (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

User:744 multiple 2

Misclicking again? :p --Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Bbb23, but somebody else immediately corrected my error before I had a chance to. We are good at cleaning up after Nazis. Less so for dealing with central Asian ethnonationalists. Cullen328 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Pwalk68 (02:48, 2 June 2023)

Hello who are you? --Pwalk68 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Pwalk68, I am just who I say I am on my user page. Who are you? Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox person 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 10:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to keep an eye on me as much as you want

But do not talk to me anymore. If you feel obliged to get the last word or something do it here on your talk page. I do not want you on my talk page, do not revert edits I make on my talk page. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Fine, CompromisingSuggestion. Since you are declining direct conversation, any further comments I make about your editing will be made in a broader forum where other experienced editors can see the conversation and comment. Let me know if you decide to stop actively avoiding scrutiny of your past edits. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Cool just if you dont mind at least tag me somehow I dont know if thats possible but I know im saying dont talk to me here anymore but if its something important just tell me so I can say something in my defense, at least I trust you'll not sink below that. Alright man, see you around, dont know why youre taking it this far over literally nothing but yeah have fun. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
CompromisingSuggestion, you cannot insist that I not talk to you and then come back and ask me to talk with you in certain vague, undefined circumstances. Adhering to this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines is not literally nothing but yeah have fun. This is a top ten website worldwide with roughly ten billion monthly page views. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Man we can be mortal enemies but if I sue you in court you gotta serve me, that's all I'm saying.I guess if it actually gets to be anything serious someone will notify me. Alright Im gonna stop replying now. And yeah, I think you're having fun being on a little power trip :) Its okay. CompromisingSuggestion (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from PieceOfCandy (05:22, 3 June 2023)

Hello, I have edited pages in the distant past but it has been a while. I'd like to get back into things by making a page for a band from the 90's that doesn't currently have a page. Any suggestions on how to start? Is there a template for the formatting of a page like that? Thank you! --PieceOfCandy (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, PieceOfCandy. The biggest mistake that less experienced editors hoping to write a new article make is starting out by writing down what they know and struggling to shoehorn it into Wikipedia's format. That is the wrong approach, as described in WP:BACKWARD. The successful approach is to first gather a list of URLs of reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. I am not joking. Those URLs are like gold nuggets. Everything else is like gravel, sand and other forms of worthless mining debris. Now, comes the hardest part. Do your best to forget and set aside whatever you know about the topic, the 1990s band in this example. Read the reliable, independent sources that you have identified, and neutrally summarize what they say. No boosterism, no fan language, no unattributed praise. Transform your URLs into fully bibliographic references. Referencing for beginners should be useful reading. Add those to your draft immediately after the assertions that they support. Your first article should also be helpful to you. You may want to consider improving some existing articles about similar bands of the 80s, 90s and early 21st century to get a sense of what is expected before diving into writing a new article. Good luck.Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

'Adminship'

What the hell is 'Adminship" and what is 'Bureaucratship'? Do you mean administration? This is typical of the oft-found low level of English sadly found on Wikipedia. T A Francis (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, T A Francis. I do not recall writing "adminship", but I admit there there is a lot of slang and jargon and abbreviations used behind the scenes on Wikiliedia. You can discuss the matter at Wikipedia talk:Administrators if you wish. Cullen328 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Survey

I was just about to proceed to the survey on how I use Wikipedia when it simply disappeared. I can't now find it. How do i get it back? T A Francis (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry, T A Francis, but I am unfamiliar with the survey you mentioned. Cullen328 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

User talk:CompromisingSuggestion

I find what you wrote in User talk:CompromisingSuggestion#June 2023 2 falling short of expected admin conduct. It reads like a response in kind. Whether you will be intimidated or will put their attorney in touch with yours is completely immaterial, and perhaps detrimental, to explaining the block and preventing disruption to the project. It's enough to just tell them legal threats are not allowed and are grounds for a block.

You also said You will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia until your legal action has been resolved but didn't mention the block may be lifted once the threats are "genuinely and credibly withdrawn". Your message strikes me as having the effect of escalating the situation rather than resolving or containing it. I suggest you reconsider. Nardog (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It was a step above a perfectly stoic, stone-faced reply, but a far cry from an escalation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
If it had been me, I'd probably have told CompromisingSuggestion to fuck off. Which is probably why Cullen is an admin, and I'm not. And given CompromisingSuggestion's behaviour, I'd say there are ample grounds to block them even without the legal threat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew some block was coming after the village pumpb and other threads. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Their behavior is neither here nor there. Have your attorney reach out to me would be grounds for immediate block in any other circumstance, and that they made their threat first is a mitigating factor but no excuse to respond in kind. You show you're better by staying civil, or you risk contributing to WP:SUPERMARIO. Nardog (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Nardog. I will remember your advice in the future. I left a follow-up message on their talk page clarifying that they have the additional option of withdrawing the legal threat. Cullen328 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2023‎ (UTC)
Appreciate that. I'd still suggest you tone the original message down, though I won't insist. (moot now that they've replied. 16:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)) Nardog (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

7 of diamonds

If you find the jack holding the 7 of diamonds it is worth about $10,000 Pwalk68 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Pwalk68, what is your point? Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean and who are you I want a different person Pwalk68 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Baccarat

A previous account you blocked for editing violations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrma626 seems to be back again under the following guise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPict and restoring previously prohibited edits. 2A0D:6FC2:45B0:FF00:A85E:AA6A:772D:D706 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. MartinPict is an established editor who works on a wide variety of topics. If you disagree with their edits, discuss the matter on the article talk page or directly with the editor. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Question on my first edit

Hello, I just started editing on Wikipedia, I thought it would be something interesting to do as volunteering - and my first edit was meant to be a par down of advertisement speak on the Weardrobe article. I'm worried I may have gone too far, it feels like a slippery slope, what do you think? Philocalyst (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Philocalyst. Welcome to Wikipedia. I have no problem with your edit, but I know nothing about that website and care nothing about fashion. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a good question for me then: How much research do you put into a topic before you make an edit? You have 50,000+ so it seems unrealistic to gain a master-level understanding of everything right? Philocalyst (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Philocalyst, before I write a new article, I read everything I can find about the topic and create references to the best sources. Then, I summarize the sources. I follow a similar procedure when I expand an existing article. But it does not require master-level understanding of topics to revert vandalism, correct typos, block trolls, vandals and spammers, or give advice to new editors. Cullen328 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Of which do you think is more important? When I'm deciding what to put my time into I like to set ambitious goals to get the most out of it. What I see a lot of, looking through top contributors' (like you) profiles I notice what's most heavily rewarded is a lot of small edits rather than a few serious efforts on a few pages. Currently, my first ambitious goal is to become an administrator. Since I find both satisfying, what do you think is the more effective use of my time, from a total impact POV and a community opinion POV? I would appreciate your input. Philocalyst (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Philocalyst, you should be aware that the community of editors who participate in Requests for adminship tends to be very skeptical of brand new editors who say they want to be administrators. In most cases, it is expected that candidates for administrator will have a well rounded edit history. Significant article creation and expansion, participation in deletion processes, anti-vandalism work, assisting new editors, and participation in communitywide discussions. A level head and a helpful attitude are expected. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I meant in a years time or so, your advice is appreciated, and I liked your shirt in the article you linked, [1] so I was surprised when you said you weren't into fashion - Weardrobe would have appreciated your influence in their Urban Outfitters campaign :) Philocalyst (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Philocalyst, I wear black t-shirts most of the time, but I wore a nicer shirt that day because I was being interviewed by a reporter. That shirt may have been a gift. I spend very little time selecting clothing. Cullen328 (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

A Hershey Apology for you!

The Capitalist forever has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

"Sorry for being a problematic editor in the past."The Capitalist forever (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Lou Papan image

Since you reverted my image change from a non-free image to an older free image, do you still suggest that the image should be from "when he was at the top of his game"? Because if so, we could probably use a larger version of the one used in his Assembly website. reppoptalk 17:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Reppop. I was not aware of the non-free status of that photo. I have self-reverted. We cannot use any non-free images if a free image is available. I wish we had a better free image. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

What it feels like for a girl

Hello, Jim. I hope you're doing well. I've tried staying away from that ANI thread I started, and put up wikibreak templates to try to take some distance from all this. I can't resist the temptation, though, to try to explain what I'm feeling around this to you specifically. I will neither try nor be able to change the minds of everyone who !voted a certain way in that thread, and I'll try not to argue about the logos of the case because I don't want to get further involved in it; but you have struck me as one of the most understanding editors I've seen around, so I would like to try to let you see my side of this.

It is not Roxy the dog's insult that upset me that much. I was quite unbothered by it, in fact, because at that point I was somewhat confident that this was a community that would stand up for me. No, it is the number of respected editors who would not. Attacks that affect transgender editors in all parts of the project are suggested to be remedied by barring the offender from one part of our encyclopedic content. And it feels painfully obvious none of this would be happening if I was not trans. It all comes across as if many people here put protecting an editor with a high edit count and long tenure over protecting editors who are transgender. That is what is the most painful when you're part of a marginalized group. Not knowing that you may be attacked, but suspecting that your community will not protect you. That is why I have stepped down my editing again just after coming back from an unplanned wikibreak, and that is why I am watching that thread closely and questioning to what extent I can keep being this rather invested Wikipedian. I dare even say that seeing what is going on is guaranteed to rouse similar feelings in other transgender Wikipedians.

Thank you. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Maddy from Celeste. I completely understand why many editors want Roxy the Dog to be blocked indefinitely and if that is the outcome, I will have no problem with it. I believe that a gender and sexuality topic ban is a very significant sanction and that adopting it is a step to defend our trans editors. I do not consider such a sanction to be "protecting" Roxy. I also understand the view that it is not enough in this situation.
I truly appreciate the thoughtful and reasonable tone you are taking here. I am saddened that you think that those of us supporting the topic ban but not the indefinite block are failing trans editors. I regret that. Even though we disagree on this point, I appreciate your contributions to the project, and hope that you will continue editing. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Comisar article

No, I do not know Mr. Comisar, nor have I ever spoke with him or corresponded with him ever. I do listen to his podcast on Spotify called Scam Junkie. In one of the episodes, he was discussing how Wikipedia would not talk about his acting career in his article. I didn't believe it so I went and checked out the Wikipedia article and it was true. I went back on Google and confirmed what I already knew that there were just as many articles written about his acting as with his conning. GQ magazine talks about his movie Tough Luck, and the producer Josh Etting was quoted saying that he was not a bad actor. IMDb has listed many of his acting credits in movies and television and I'm sure you know that they remove any credits that are not listed on the end crawl at the end of the movie. This is the only reason I tried to edit the article but it is locked For only certain editors. I just thought it was strange that no acting work was mentioned in the article and I thought I would check it out for myself, so if there is anything you can do to rectify this matter, I would greatly appreciate it. If not, have a nice day and keep up the good work on Wikipedia. Undertaker6666 (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

New wiki user help. What happens when a fellow user threatens you?

On the page Talk:Ya'qub ibn al-Layth al-Saffar, HistoryOfIran threatened the following? Is this allowed? What is WP:ANI?


"Don't make edits like that again, or I will take you to WP:ANI again. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)" Galaxy21ultra (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Galaxy21ultra. It is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh ok thanks for the info! I am unsure why HistroyOfIran is attacking me. He removed an academic source that I provided about a certain matter. He then accused me an edit war which he started. All while without me even knowing, tried to block me on another noticeboard by claiming I was another user who has previously been banned.
I dont think its worth making a report yet. However if I do on the WPANI, how would I do so? Simply by adding a new talk page section with the person in Question attached?
Also thanks for clarifying to me about deleting your own talk page. Thought that was not allowed my bad Galaxy21ultra (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I recommend that you try to work this out at Talk:Ya'qub ibn al-Layth al-Saffar. There are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. WP:ANI should be your last resort. The other editor is respected and very experienced. Cullen328 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes I dont think it would be fair to make a WPANI. Also he may be nice to you but he hasnt to me. it seems any sort or edit pertaining to religion in Iran, he deletes. Even if it is a historical fact with clear references, I see he deletes them or atleast disputes it heavily.
Also he is claiming I changed something on WPANI when I only were just made it aware of exactly what it is from you. I am so confused right now Galaxy21ultra (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I've come across a long-standing username that seems offensive but it is very long-standing...

I don't know if I should report it. Or not. The account has been around since 2005, in fits and starts. So I came here to ask for some advice... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here, with a friendly word of advice regarding usernames. Remember that many contributors may not be English speakers, and may have created their accounts first in other Languages, and may thus have names which are perfectly acceptable in that language. Or indeed, may be using their real name. Generally best handled sensitively, with no presumption that there is any intention to offend. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks AndyTheGrump, that is indeed possible/probable. Shearonink (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Shearonink. If you want to discuss this in confidence, send me an email. Let me know if there has been any disruptive editing. AndyTheGrump is correct on the need to take a close look. I looked at a username recently that appeared offensive. The editor is Nigerian and the username was an inoffensive phrase in Hausa, the most widely spoken language in Nigeria. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Misskatrina81

Hello, My name Is Elizabeth Jean Carroll. I wanted to tell you that @Misskatrina81 was very Innocent. She wasn't doing anything wrong. I'm just a writer. You can look for me on google :). Please, can you unblock Miss Katrina? I didn't wan't Miss Katrina to get blamed. Because she wasn't on here when someone was logged in as Miss Katrina. I'm Not sure who Katrina is. But, she's Innocent if that's what she told me :) 2600:1700:E429:2400:298D:EA77:9BAE:432D (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, My name Is Elizabeth Jean Carroll. I wanted to tell you that @Misskatrina81 was very Innocent. She wasn't doing anything wrong. I'm just a writer. You can look for me on google :). Please, can you unblock Miss Katrina? I didn't wan't Miss Katrina to get blamed. Because she wasn't on here when someone was logged in as Miss Katrina. I'm Not sure who Katrina is. But, she's Innocent if that's what she told me :) 2600:1700:E429:2400:4A41:6B9F:D4F7:8B83 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I accidentally typed that twice. Sorry about that :) 2600:1700:E429:2400:4A41:6B9F:D4F7:8B83 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not going to unblock Misskatrina81. Sorry. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
That's okay. 2600:1700:E429:2400:6DCA:4690:3241:A4FC (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi, I am notifying you of an ANI discussion that was requested by CompromisingSuggestion. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, 331dot. At this point, I have nothing to say there. If anyone has a question for me, I will answer. Cullen328 (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2023 (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. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential socks

Hi there. I noticed a number of accounts with very similar names that have been blocked, but not identified as socks. I noticed this first with some overlapping edits between the accounts ATCHAYAM TRUST (P.NAVEENKUMAR) and Atchayamtrust2014 (you blocked the second one). These are all the ones I suspect are socks (all blocked already, except one):

I'm not sure what the protocol is here. Should they be investigated and tagged as socks even if (almost) all the accounts are already blocked? Not sure if SPI is only concerned about accounts that are actively editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Drm310. If there is no ongoing disruption, I do not think any further action is required. Cullen328 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

A visitor from the past

Hi, Jim,

I watch the Move log to keep an eye out for move vandalism and couldn't help but notice that Miss Bono is back! (see the renamer's contributions). The name is slightly different (MissBono vs. Miss Bono) but it was a blast from the past see that username return. She was one of the first editors I got to know when I started editing regularly in 2013. I know you guys had a bond so I thought I'd let you know.

Hope you are having a good summer so far! Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Liz. I have been in touch with her occasionally over the years through Facebook, and am pleased that she is back on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from AbdullahJNU (13:06, 22 June 2023)

Sir with due respect, I would like to know about that how I would be a good Wikipedia writer --AbdullahJNU (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Probably a little late. Blocked for self-promotion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Aaa232355 (05:26, 23 June 2023)

Hello, Mr. Cullen

I need help in finding sources for my two drafts (Flora of Jammu and Kashmir, and Fauna of Jammu and Kashmir), can you help me find a few good sources?

Sincerely, अथर्व कॉल (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Aaa232355. I am sorry, but I know very little about Jammu and Kashmir, except that the area is exceptionally beautiful, disputed between India and Pakistan, and I have read about the history of mountaineering on Nanga Parbat. You will have to use your own Google and local library skills to find reliable sources about these topics. Cullen328 (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice.
अथर्व कॉल (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Close connection alert

Hello Mr. Cullen,

You provided some very helpful advice and edits to the Wikipedia page for Dan Theodorescu (Dan Theodorescu). I tried to make some later edits such as adding a hyperlink and removing an incorrect reference that he was the lead singer for a rock band. When these did not cause any issues I thought I was following the proper way to do edits.

Then this week I tried to add a major paper Dr. Theodorescu has published in the journal Nature and the edits were taken down because I did not disclose my affiliation with Cedars-Sinai (I apologize for my ignorance about this). But now the article is also saying a Major Contributor has a close connection with the subject. What can be done to fix this? Do I need to undo any edits that I have made?

Thank you for any help you can give. RKSatWork (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, RKSatWork. I recommend that you disclose your conflict of interest on your now blank user page, User:RKSatWork. Then, explain your edits at Talk: Dan Theodorescu. You can also discuss the matter with MrOllie, who has commented on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Cullen,
Thank you very much! I will take these steps.
RS RKSatWork (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

But me no butts

On a similar note for questionable names, when I was much younger, nurses would sign their charts first initial + last name. There was this nurse last name of Enis. Her first name was Pauline. . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra This sounds like the kind of thing Bart Simpson would prank Moe with. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra and LilianaUwU, way back in the 1970s, I had a good friend in San Francisco named Richard Gross, who was my best man when I married my wife in 1981. He told me that one school he attended called the roll in a "surname, nickname" format. So the teacher would chime out "gross dick!" every morning. See Gross (surname). Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Yoicks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The uproarious laughter provided no clue? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

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

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


I am being harassed.

Hello sir , @Shshshsh is harrassing me a lot regarding an addition. @Fylindfotberserk already approved my addition at first but the previous one has crossed all the limits of harrasment. I will like to request an competent executive to look upon this matter whether i did any wrong edit or not . If they find any wrong about my addition i promise that i will apologize. Here , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SANKURDAS?markasread=284645098&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Fylindfotberserk-20230628203000-SANKURDAS-20230628202200 I got approval from @Fylindfotberserk. It's that page where i made changes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridevi. SANKURDAS (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SANKURDAS. Reverting an edit is not harassment. The other editor expressed their opinion that the sources you cited were not reliable. Your next step is to discuss the reliability of the sources with the interested editors at Talk: Sridevi. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Sir please help me , I provided all kind of sources right there like reference from BOOK , MAGAZINE COVER , CNN-IBN'S BRANCH'S REVIEW and many more , still only two people are not getting enough about it . SANKURDAS (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
SANKURDAS, I am not familiar enough with the sources to evaluate their reliability. You should discuss the matter with editors with experience writing about Indian entertainers. Magazine covers are not reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
But BOOKS and CNN-IBN ? SANKURDAS (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Many or most books are unreliable. In general, the reliability of a book depends on the reputation of the author and the publisher, and how well received it was by expert reviewers. As for CNN-IBN, I am an American and have never watched that network. But the article indicates some problems with falsifications. The opinions of highly experienced editors who regularly work on Indian entertainment topics would be more valuable than my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Editor has been indefinitely blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that, Doug Weller, and I was not surprised. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Continued disruption at Talk:Cedar Point

"Thankfully, the article is already protected." says gonein60. Why "thankfully"???...exactly what did I threaten to edit in the article that deserved to be accused of trying to vandalize the article?? Wake up, dude. Maybe I can find someone on this site who can spot the true vandals on Wikipedia...and will assist me filing a dispute against @gonein60 for his blatant attempt to block any edits to articles that he controls.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:10AE:51F2:44A6:2253:48DC:38B6 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

My edits were 100% good faith, even including me removing my own inexperienced comments. So your block totalky violates Wikipedia rules. Whatever.

If talk pages aren't for comments about prior comments then why are the prior comments still visible?



A while back you assisted with this ANI thread for disruption and personal attacks by an IP editor. That editor has returned and has ignored multiple warnings to discuss specific improvements. Instead, they are persistently asking a general question, likely as an attempt to bait other editors into another lengthy discussion. You can see a lot of the wasted community time on display handling this editor at Talk:Cedar Point/Archive 2. Not sure if any action is needed at this point, but thought I'd bring it to your attention and get a second set of eyes on it. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, GoneIn60. Can you point to specific disruption that is going on now? Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
You can look at the history of Talk:Cedar Point to see the flurry of activity and walls of text that are being put up now. I think it's disruptive and a misuse of the talk page in an attempt to waste more community time, but I've chosen to ignore it for now. Thankfully, the article is already protected. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy 4th of July!


Colman2000 (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!  
 

Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

Colman2000 (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Colman2000. I have my American flag flying. 08:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For explaining here that we need to stop the nationalist infighting and focus on the content of the move, phrasing it better than I ever could. Keep up the great work. JeffSpaceman (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, JeffSpaceman. Speaking as an American, we need to remember that we are only about 5% of the world's population, and that there are major sports other than American football, baseball and basketball. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Note

Please see Ticket:2023070510000658. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Red-tailed hawk. I am not a member of the VRT. Please email me if this is something that I need to know about. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Adom (artist)

Hi Jim, Hoping you can help. User:Rift has been taking down notable links from the Boston Herald and adding a notice of not being notable back on, then locking the page. This is clearly an act of vandalism. This might be something that escalates and becomes a legal issue, Wikipedia is supposed to have the truth and show history and notability, it is not a hot spot for vandals. You blocked the wrong user from editing the page. I add facts and reference links. Please advise Martytanaki (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Martytanaki, please be aware that vandalism has a very specific and precise definition on Wikipedia. Read that link carefully. False accusations of vandalism constitutes disruptive editing. Do not go there.
Rift is not an administrator so how could they possibly "lock down" a page? Do you understand how Wikipedia actually works? The brief semiprotection of that page was due to sockpuppetry, and is nothing out of the ordinary. If the disruption continues, the protection of the page will be extended as long as necessary to prevent the disruption. As for the Boston Herald source, it consists of a single sentence reading His son was a guitarist and songwriter for the band from 1999 until 2004. That is in no way, shape or form significant coverage. It is a passing mention of no value in establishing notability, so I am not sure why you are mentioning it here.
By alluding to a legal issue, you are coming dangerously close to violating the policy No legal threats. So, be very careful. If you violate that policy, you are highly likely to be blocked from editing. Legal intimidation of your fellow editors is simply not permitted. I hope that you understand that now. Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

LTA?

That username screams LTA at me, but I've no idea which. Secretlondon (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Secretlondon. Which username are we discussing? Cullen328 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The one with a load of world leaders names in. User:DCMLŨ XijinpingVladimirPutinModi77 Joebiden Secretlondon (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that it is a bizarre username and likely to engage in disruption if they ever edit, Secretlondon. As for being an LTA, that's possible too, but I have no idea who. My general practice is to limit blocks of usernames that haven't edited to overtly obscene or threatening names, or impersonations. Feel free to block if you disagree. Cullen328 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I have a very high threshold for blocking usernames which haven't edited too. Secretlondon (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Civility concerns

Hi Cullen328, I was looking at your comments on User talk:Logrus9090 and I do honestly think you blew through WP:CIV at light speed. Whatever your (or my) feeling about Manifesting as a topic, it is a religious/spiritual one, and clearly one that user personally has a connection with. While a speedy revert of a guide to manifesting is a good call (and thanks for that), responding to the user in question with

Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans
"If actually reliable sources report on the self-indulgent foolishness that takes place on TikTok"

appear to be direct violations of WP:CIVIL, particularly on the grounds of religiously motivated direct rudeness (and, arguably, baiting). Note that Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans does not cover spiritual beliefs, but rather alternative woo. I'll concede that you have a good point when "manifesting" overlaps with science and medicine, though. Let's not pretend that manifesting as a spiritual practice hasn't at least had some small amount of interest from academic scholars (insofar as researching it as a thing, not efficacy, clearly).

That was very clearly someone brand new to Wikipedia making edits that won't fly, but by all accounts they were attempting to engage in good faith. They were making edits they shouldn't have, sure, but WP:BITE is a thing as well. Warrenmck (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at Logrus9090's first edit, made immediately before they started trying to edit-war their TikTok-based flimflam into Wikipedia. [2] If that isn't ChatGPT output, it is a darn good imitation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Fair point, but also not exactly relevant to civility concerns. I spoke directly at the person in question and got a reasonable reply. Going in swinging with personal attacks does not a great introduction to a civil discussion make. Warrenmck (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Warrenmck, a few points in response:
  1. I do not believe that this a religious topic, but rather it is "alternative woo", as you put it.
  2. Criticizing the practice and the associated TikTok content is not a personal attack. I did not criticize the editor individually at all. I stand by my description of much of what is on TikTok as "self-indulgent foolishness". That's a frank assessment of a source, which is what Wikipedia editors do every day, and is not a personal attack.
  3. Insisting on the use of reliable sources, instead of the credulous clickbait journalism that constitutes most of the referencing of that article is also proper conduct for a Wikipedia editor.
  4. I believe that the "Lunatic charlatans" essay is very much on point here, and accordingly, I will conclude with a quotation from that essay: Wikipedia's robust response to cranks, quacks, and charlatans is solidly in line with Wikipedia's foundational goals. Cullen328 (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
    I do not believe that this a religious topic, but rather it is "alternative woo", as you put it.
    Scholars of religious studies disagree. Please see "How Modern Witches Enchant TikTok: Intersections of Digital, Consumer, and Material Culture(s) on #WitchTok" in Religions. It's important to keep in mind that spirituality and religion can manifest in ways we're unfamiliar with.
    "Criticizing the practice and the associated TikTok content is not a personal attack"
    Your language is the issue ("self-indulgent foolishness"), not the criticism itself.
    "Insisting on the use of reliable sources, instead of the credulous clickbait journalism that constitutes most of the referencing of that article is also proper conduct for a Wikipedia editor."
    I agree and don't see how this relates to my reply, but at least we're on the same page for sources!
    "I believe that the "Lunatic charlatans" essay is very much on point here"
    It might be beneficial for us both to get a third party perspective on this, I can see both arguments. Nonetheless, I don't want to turn this into a debate. Warrenmck (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Warrenmck, I skimmed that article about #WitchTikTok and did not see any substantive discussion of Manifestation (popular psychology). Can you quote the specific passage? In any event, I am rightly skeptical, I believe, of an "academic article" that contains a howler like As mentioned, although many Witches interact with more subtle energies throughout the universe, many also interact directly with deities. As for turning this into a debate, you are the one who came to my talk page to accuse me of incivility. Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Unrelated to civility and manifestation: I looked through the #WitchTok article. I think that the howler sentence was actually intended to be a howler which is something I have seen from time to time in religious studies papers on New Religious Movements. On the other hand, I'm not thrilled the author chose MDPI as publisher. A more careful review might have asked the author to tone down the howlers a bit. :) jps (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration

Thank you for your response to my question about editors. Would you be willing to look over the pages? You would want to check the histories too, as I am a compulsive editor in real life and there are several preliminary versions. I realize in retrospect this was inappropriate, as well as unhelpful, but I'm not arguing for the right to be a Wikipedia editor, or for anything for myself. I am only suggesting that some of your current editors need heavy regulation. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_96&oldid=1170289383"