User talk:Cullen328

I don't live on Cullen Ct, but I like the street sign

If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia by smartphone, I encourage you to read my essay, Smartphone editing. Thank you.

Welcome to my talk page I use the name Cullen328 on Wikipedia, but you can call me "Jim" because that's my real first name. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the old comments from July and August of 2009 that follow the "Contents" here, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome when I first started editing Wikipedia.

The importance of a friendly greeting

Hello and welcome to my talk page. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the comments that follow from July and August of 2009 readily visible, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome here on Wikipedia when I first started editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please offer your thoughts

I would appreciate comments and suggestions on any contributions I make. I am learning.Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on Jules Eichorn. He's been needing an article for a while.   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may suggest, now that you've posted the Eichorn article the draft below might be deleted. It's your talk page to do with as you like, but it's a bit hard to edit around.

As for formatting and pictures, a good way to learn is to look around at other articles to see what you think looks best. It can be helpful to break up long blocks of text into subsections. Perhaps it'd be possible to split the biography into two or three eras. Other than that, the formatting is usually kept fairly plain. As for photos, it's easy to upload them: the trick is in finding photos with appropriate licensing. If you have any personal photos then those'd be fine. There are might be pictures of the peaks he did first ascents on in the Wikicommons. File:Cathedral Peak.png is a so-so pic of Eichorn Pinnacle.

As before, feel free to ask if you have any questions. There are several editors here who are mountaineers or just admirers of the Sierra, so you're in good company.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: Many editors create "sandbox" pages for drafting articles. For example, User talk:Cullen328/Sandbox.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 1 August 2009

Your climber biographies

Hey Jim, just wanted to say welcome and thanks for your contributions to the Sierra Nevada climbing history articles. You're filling a niche that's been missing here, I look forward to working with you. --Justin (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. Nice work on Allen Steck and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know who you are planning to write up next but if your taking requests I think Peter Croft (climber) could really use a page. If you ever have any questions please ask. Thanks again for your great additions.--OMCV (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Justin and OMCV. I am beginning work on Tom Frost and Glen Dawson. Comments on Norman Clyde would be welcomed. I will defintely read up on Peter Croft, OMCV. I am still "learning the ropes" in Wikipedia, to use a climbing analogy, and have all sorts of things in mind. My biggest challenge right now is getting permission to use images. My next biggest challenge is hiking to the top of Mt. Whitney with my wife in ten days - she's never been above 12,000 feet except for the train ride up Pikes Peak. As she's 56 and developing arthritis in her toes, it will be an accomplishment if she (and I) complete the Class 1 feat. Jim Heaphy (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Debra and I made it to the summit of Mt. Whitney at 2:20 PM on Friday, September 11. Jim Heaphy (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2012 Archive (first six months)

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

working on a new page

hello jim, hope you are doing well. i am a beginner on wikipedia but i am auto correction user. i want to write an article on a ngo which is working very good in there respective field. a friend of mine wrote a article on that topic but it got deleted due to less third party source. can you suggest me something how to write an article which won't get deleted, also i have some credible third party source so i want to ask how can i mention them because they are external links. Devanshusharma569 (talk)devanshusharma569

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

(personal attack removed)

(Personal attack removed)

Request of Help on "Just the Facts" Tone

Hi Jim,

I am very new to Wikipedia. I got your feedback on the draft article located under PhoCoHaNoi. Thanks so much for your comments. I would greatly appreciate if you would spare some valuable time to highlight those parts from the draft that I need to pay close attentions to regarding the aspect that you raised. I know it would be a long shot to ask if you would even consider providing specific examples by directly editing them on the draft.

Lastly, I still do not know on how to submit the revision for review. I do not see any obvious buttons or pull-down menus from the Sandbox setting that would be able to allow to submit the article for review.

Thank you so much.

PhoCoHaNoi

Hello, PhoCoHaNoi. I am not going to edit the draft myself, because I want this to be a learning exercise for you. Here are a few examples of unacceptable wording:

• "celebrating the 73-year history of outstanding men and women"

• "pioneering contributions"

• "sustained leadership and strategic vision"

• "Exceptional services to innovation ecosystem"

• "stimulating small business innovation, meeting the Air Force and DoD R&D needs, broadening participation in innovation and entrepreneurship, and boosting commercialization"

• " So, as Dr. Pham looked back now, he brought systems-theoretic science and control engineering principles, together with teamwork and interdisciplinary to bear fruition in solving warfighter engineering problems, various areas of specific focus for increased activities in space control autonomy and space domain awareness."

It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor (you) to praise a person. Every trace of this non-neutral language must be removed. A Wikipedia article should never say "Person A is great!" Instead, it should say "Reliable source C reports that Expert B says that Person A is great", along with a reference to Reliable source C.

As for how to submit your draft, I will explain that when the draft complies with the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Sending Messages to Other Editors

Hi Jim. I will deeply appreciate anything that you can do to help. How can I find out about other editors and send them messages? I recently looked for an article about The Italian Coffee Company that I had read years ago. However, I could not find it. I believe that this article should be available. I am a new editor and I have a big learning curve ahead of me. Maybe you can post to my talk page. I am user Mojosa17. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

ZENDESK

This matter should be discussed at WP:COIN, not here

Re: your reason for the Zendesk article revert, Wikipedia states their affiliation with Zendesk on the wikipedia donation page. I did not know how to reference that. 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Please discuss this matter at Talk: Zendesk. Nobody cares about who donated or did not donate to our host, the fully independent Wikimedia Foundation. Such donations have zero impact on content. Maybe less than zero. Cullen328 (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC) your response here seems entirely disconnected with the facts. Presumably Zendesk is paid by the Wikimedia foundation, for managing the public donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. So, as with any business and resulting potential conflict of interest, therefore such business relationships should be disclosed here at Wikipedia's article about Zendesk. Particularly due to Wikipedia's own policy of requiring editors to disclose their own personal potential conflicts of interest when editing articles in which those editors indeed have conflict of interest. Regardless that very few editors actually willingly disclose such personal conflicts of interest. But Articles about Wikimedia business associations certainly shouldn't be exempted from conforming with Wikipedia rules. Otherwise it is perfectly justifiable for Wikipedia contributors to edit Articles in which such contributors would technically be barred from editing. Anyway, it's no wonder that there is so much problem with paid editing on Wikipedia, if other administrators such as yourself, aren't willing to actively enforce Wikipedia's own policies about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC) First of all, you need to provide a reference to a reliable source to add content to Wikipedia. Secondly, I asked you to discuss the matter at Talk: Zendesk and you have not done so. I knew nothing, personally, about the relationship between Zendesk and the Wikimedia Foundation, but just found out that they are a vendor of some online support services. Which reliable sources discuss a conflict of interest? If you believe that there is a conflict of interest, then discuss it at WP:COIN. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC) In regard to your statement that you weren't previously aware of the relationship between Zendesk and Wikipedia or Wikimedia, I stated my source to you at the top of this thread. I may have also stated it within the reason for the Article edit, because I wasn't certain of how to properly reference Wikipedia or Wikimedia as being its own source. I had hoped some other editor would know how to properly add the reference. But instead it seems that most contributors to this site would rather simply delete edits of easily verifiable information, instead of doing a super easy quick Google verification. And, re. your suggestion to post to that specific Talk page, how can you be certain that anyone is watching that talk page? In the first place, there is already a related previous thread there, but which nobody ever acted upon. And secondly it seems that most Wikipedia contributors are far too busy being vandalism Janitors, than taking a few extra moments to assess worthwhile content. Meaning, that you alone may possibly have been the only chance for allowing that information into the Article. But you instead chose to simply disallow it. So as far as I am concerned now the Article can stay just the way it is. I am not going to put any more effort into making that specific Article a better Article so that it conforms to Wikipedia's own internal policies. Maybe someone else will contribute to it. Oh, and I never stated that there was a known conflict of interest. That's immaterial to the disclosure of the relationship between Wikimedia and Zendesk. The whole purpose of disclosure is not dependent upon whether or not there is any direct evidence of any impropriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC) I have completed a search for any coverage in reliable sources of any alleged conflict of interest and come up with nothing. Zendesk is a vendor of support services to the WMF. Many companies provide various services to the WMF. Should any article about any such company report that they do business with the WMF? I fail to see why. You had written "Zendesk is currently, 2021, directly affiliated managerially with Wikipedia financial donations." That provides zero information of value to readers and is extremely unclear. I do not know what more to say about this but if there are any credible reports of impropriety in this business relationship, then I will add it to the article. As of now, it is an utterly mundane business relationship unworthy of mention in an encyclopedia. You seem all worked up about it but unwilling to comment at the proper places for such a discussion. I am mystified. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC) I too am mystified, about what is so mystifying to you, about why it's important for disclosure about paid companies which are directly affiliated with Wikimedia. I'll try to explain it again. Wikipedia, itself, hosts an article here at Wikipedia, about a company that is doing for-profit work for Wikipedia and Wikimedia. So, for purposes of full-disclosure, that precise business relationship should be included in the Article. If maybe you perhaps don't understand the basic concept of full-disclosure, here is Wikipedia's own description of "conflict of interest". And notice that "The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of inappropriateness" which I tried to explain above, but you still seem to be improperly focusing upon proven wrongdoing, despite my above wording and Wikipedia's alternate wording below. ""A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial or otherwise, and serving one interest could involve working against another. Typically, this relates to situations in which the personal interest of an individual or organization might adversely affect a duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of a third party. An "interest" is a commitment, obligation, duty or goal associated with a particular social role or practice.[1] By definition, a "conflict of interest" occurs if, within a particular decision-making context, an individual is subject to two coexisting interests that are in direct conflict with each other. Such a matter is of importance because under such circumstances the decision-making process can be disrupted or compromised in a manner that affects the integrity or the reliability of the outcomes. Typically, a conflict of interest arises when an individual finds himself or herself occupying two social roles simultaneously which generate opposing benefits or loyalties. The interests involved can be pecuniary or non-pecuniary. The existence of such conflicts is an objective fact, not a state of mind, and does not in itself indicate any lapse or moral error. However, especially where a decision is being taken in a fiduciary context, it is important that the contending interests be clearly identified and the process for separating them is rigorously established. Typically, this will involve the conflicted individual either giving up one of the conflicting roles or else recusing himself or herself from the particular decision-making process that is in question. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of inappropriateness. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A conflict of interest exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that a decision may be unduly influenced by other, secondary interests, and not on whether a particular individual is actually influenced by a secondary interest. A widely used definition is: "A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."[2] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public officer. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favours for family and friends. These secondary interests are not treated as wrong in and of themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests. Conflict of interest rules in the public sphere mainly focus on financial relationships since they are relatively more objective, fungible, and quantifiable, and usually involve the political, legal, and medical fields."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC) The correct place to discuss this issue is WP:COIN, not my talk page. As far as I know, WMF staffers are not editing that page, and the editor paid by Zendesk has disclosed their COI. This is a nothingburger unless you can find something solid that you have not yet produced. So, please do not post on my talk page again unless it is a link to a reliable source that describes this routine business relationship as a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. You seem to think that Wilipedia and the WMF are the same. This is false. Wikipedia predates the WMF and has complete editorial independence. The WMF has no involvement in routine day to day editing of Wikipedia articles, and therefore there is no WMF COI regarding this particular article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC) You seem to be making the issue far more complicated than it should be. Basically, Zendesk is financially profiting from Wikipedia volunteers. So surely it would be worthwhile noting that, in some very basic manner in the very least, within the Zendesk article. And regardless whether you personally have an opinion one way or the other, about Zendesk financially profiting from Wikipedia volunteers and Wikimedia financial donors. b.t.w. I obviously also disagree with your apparent assessment that this is not the forum to discuss this specific issue. All Wikipedia editors should take responsibility for their personal actions, rather than trying to axacerbate the problem by shoveling it off into some other forum. Especially because you already determined that my edit was not only made in good faith, but also verifiable. Your only stated objection to my edit's wording was my lack of a properly displayed ref. So, instead of you sending me off into another forum, wouldn't it be more suitable and reasonable for you to simply add one of the refs you easily discovered in the process of arguing with me? Or, if you perhaps object to the way I worded the edit, feel free to compose your own wording based upon your interpretation of the relationship between Zendesk and Wikipedia. But please don't waste other contributors' time by sending me to another forum for the sole purpose of you not having to take responsibility for you deleting my verifiable and good faith edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:43CF:C9B0:E08C:8FBA:EC58 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC) (talk page watcher) IP User, you should not continue to post on a user's talk page after they've asked you not to. Please see the user talk page guidelines. Firefangledfeathers 03:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Maine‎

Hi Cullen, I thought you might be interested in looking at this article, as well as the discussion I'm having with an editor who is interested in the article. I suspect you're better qualified than I to actually discuss the content issues. (I didn't even know we had articles like this.) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bbb23. There are lots of "History of the Jews in . . ." articles. It is mildly amusing that this article about a group of 22,000 people is significantly longer than History of the Jews in Los Angeles, a group of 700,000 people. History of the Jews in San Francisco, a topic I know a bit about, is a stub. The article has some essay like phrasing and lots of unreferenced details. I know very little about Maine as it is a very long way from California and I have only been there once for a few hours. Cullen328 (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reliable way to count the number of Jews in a particular place?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23, there are several organizations that make serious attempts to count them, including the Pew Research Center in the U.S. and the Jewish Agency for Israel. Sergio Della Pergola is a respected academic who has devoted his career to this question.

Synagogue membership is a rough proxy. Surveys show that about half of American Jews belong to a synagogue. So, if the synagogues in a given city have a combined membership of 5000, then the assumption is that there are about 10,000 Jews in that city. This clearly does not apply to towns that are ultra-orthodox enclaves, such as Monsey, New York and Kaser, New York whose populations are almost entirely very religious Jews. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Kiryas Joel, New York is another example. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Huggums537 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Merry Christmas!

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. --A.S. Brown (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 15:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Article classes.

Hi Jim. Now that I am unblocked, will you please help me find out what article classes I can change Tennessee Colony, Texas and Slocum, Texas to? I have looked on WP:WikiProject United States/Assessment#Quality scale and can't decide which ones fit. To reiterate, I do not want you to change them for me, I just want to get your opinion on them. Thanks. Colman2000 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Colman2000. I recommend "Start" for both articles. Neither is a stub but both need improved references. Cullen328 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. I just changed them. Thanks again. Colman2000 (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

AN/I Closure

Because I can no longer contribute to the discussion on AN/I, I am posting this same comment on multiple user's talk pages. You are one of those users, and I apologize for bringing this to your talk page instead. I am disappointed that the issue I posted on AN/I was closed so quickly, without giving me a chance to respond. Not everybody is on Wikipedia 24 hours a day. This was my very first time reporting anything to AN/I and, yes, I should have included more detail, and I apologize for not doing so, but now I do not have the opportunity to do so.

The very fact that Hammersoft assumes that I simply don't understand Wikipedia does not assume good faith (and, yes, there is the clear implication that it is my fault that I do not understand what Hammersoft doesn't actually state). The fact that I asked questions repeatedly that Hammersoft did not answer (for no specified reason) is uncivil.

I do not believe Hammersoft is trying to improve Wikipedia here. Someone who wanted to improve Wikipedia would help figure out how to get this notable information in the article, not reject it no matter what. And they would explain why they think Pantheos is not acceptable here while it is acceptable in hundreds of other articles. Whether or not this is uncivil by the Wikipedia definition of the term, it is uncivil by the definition of the word. On notability, I argue that the proposed addition is notable simply because of its direct connection to the SCOTUS case, an "unintended consequence" of it, just like Gavin Newsom's proposal to advance gun control in California based on the Texas law that it looks like SCOTUS will uphold. Every SCOTUS case is notable and unintended consequences of those cases are notable.

Hammersoft is very good at citing all sorts of policies. I don't like citing policies as they are frequently used as a fake "appeal to authority." For example, in Hammersoft's response, they cite WP:NOTSILENCE incorrectly. I did not say that their silence meant consent, nor did I chastise them for a general failure to respond. Not responding is their right. But they did respond and, given that, I said that their failure to respond to my questions and my attempts to confirm my understanding of what they were trying to say meant that I would assume they are incorrect. (Note: Hammersoft did what WP:NOTSILENCE says they shouldn't do — they repeated the same things without providing additional information.)

The discussion in AN/I is also tainted. Does Cullen328 refer to other religions as "guerilla theatre groups"? Or just The Satanic Temple? Cullen328's personal opinions on a particular religion they don't like — essentially an attack on that religion — are absolutely not NPOV and do not belong in this discussion.

I do not intend to make this minor addition to Wikipedia my life's work, but it exhibits one of the things I hate about Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be much better off if people spent more time figuring out how to add important and useful (and notable!) information to Wikipedia rather than trying so hard to remove things. It's sad. I will follow up with an RfC on the issue of whether Pantheos can be cited or not (note that I have already tried, unsuccessfully, to get Hammersoft to engage on this issue).

RoyLeban (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, RoyLeban. The term "guerilla theater" originated with the San Francisco Mime Troupe", an acclaimed and beloved organization, so it is not an attack. The Wikipedia article about the Satanic Temple says it "has utilized satire, theatrical ploys, humor, and legal action in their public campaigns to 'generate attention and prompt people to reevaluate fears and perceptions'," which is almost identical to the definition of guerilla theater. Your conclusion that I "do not like" this group is completely incorrect. I share much of their skepticism about religious dogma. I just insist that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines be followed.

As for the 450 blogs that are hosted by Patheos (not Pantheos), their usage ought to be restricted just the way that any other blog is. You are asking for a special exemption for this blog and that is not going to be granted. Read WP:SPS until you understand it. You are free to bring this issue up at WP:RSN where I am sure that a consensus will emerge that this blog is not reliable for this claim. Experienced Wikipedia editors will always insist on high-quality independent reliable sources to back up any contentious claim.

If you hate Wikipedia and its well-accepted policies and guidelines, perhaps your writing efforts might be better spent at another website. I am concerned that you will end up blocked if you continue on this quest. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. There are many who discount The Satanic Temple because they are biased against it. They think they get to decide what is real and what isn't. I get irked by those people because I have had my own beliefs questioned my entire life (and, no, I'm not a member of The Satanic Temple, though I respect their science-based belief system). It seems I unfairly accused you of being one of those people. But I think you share the blame for poor word choice because I think many, if not most, would assume your comment was an attack. My knowledge of guerilla theater's origins (yes, I'm familiar) don't matter.

I'm familiar with WP:SPS. What I don't accept is that there are 911 references to Patheos (yeah, I kept spelling it wrong, oops) which are considered acceptable but one editor can say that this particular columnist (one of the top 6 on Patheos) is a blogger. Both Patheos and the Wikipedia article on Patheos say there are both bloggers and columnists. Patheos lists Hemant Mehta as a columnist. I don't pretend that I know what that actually means, but I do know that the current 6-year-old guidance is being questioned repeatedly, is marked as stale, and should be looked at again. I asked the question "what does Hammersoft know that the editors who put in those other references don't?" and they ignored the question. What I know is that Mehta's articles read like journalist articles, not like a blog. I know that they appear pretty neutral. And I know that Mehta is listed as a top columnist. Hammersoft, essentially, says that everything on Patheos is unacceptable.

I think Wikipedia is its own worst enemy, but it's essentially the only encyclopedia in existence anymore, so it is better than nothing. I try to improve it. In this case, I came across the article and thought, hey, this should be on Wikipedia, so I added it. I had no hidden agenda. I'm not stupid enough to think that either The Satanic Temple can magically change the name or that a referenced to it on Wikipedia makes anything happen in the real world. I felt it was notable as an unintended consequence of the SCOTUS case (perhaps it belongs in that article instead).

I could point to an article which is provably, factually wrong, but I just gave up and said f it. I won't point to it because I edited it under my earlier, anonymous account. The situation is basically that A implies B but B does not imply A. The only place to find information about B is on the A article and it says that B only exists in relationship to A. This is simply wrong. I created a B page, with lots of information, well and properly sourced, and I linked to it from the A page. The page was not perfect, but it was a great start. A particular editor disagreed, deleted the new page, attacked me, etc., claiming incorrectly that B was not possible absent A. It wasn't worth it, so I gave up. A dozen years later, it is still wrong. In another example, I cited from two books that I own, that are sitting on my shelf. One was by Dmitri Borgman, the other by Douglas Hofstadter, both of whom are well known. Doug is a friend who was my graduate advisor, but that's irrelevant. I quoted text and cited page numbers, etc. Another editor argued that they didn't have copies of these books so they could not be cited (one of the books is available in snippets in Google Books). I gave up. (There are many more examples on that page and it is much worse today than it was when I gave up editing the page.) The fact that Wikipedia allows these things to happen is a major problem, and it was one of the things that convinced me that anonymity was a bad thing. Many of Wikipedia's policies enable bad faith editing, and that is sad to me. RoyLeban (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, RoyLeban. Have you ever read the essay WP:TLDR? Check it out. Being concise is a virtue. I cannot comment on a lengthy anecdote about some article if you are unwilling to mention the article. Your comment that "Wikipedia allows these things to happen" is indicative that you still don't understand how Wikipedia really works (and why it is so successful). There is no central authority. I happen to agree with you that anonymity can be problematic but it is necessary for editors working under repressive regimes for example, or for people who would almost certainly be subjected to severe harassment for the work they do on Wikipedia. You can see that I voluntarily disclose a lot of personal information on my user page, and that has led to threats of violence against me and my vulnerable family members for the work I do here.

Now to the substance of the matter: There is NO significant coverage of this bullshit "renaming" in any reliable sources. Even if you redefine the bloggers blog as a "column", the column in question was indisputably based on press releases and official statements by the Satanist group, so it utterly fails to meet the standards of inclusion in an article about a National Trust for Historic Preservation site. It is simply not an independent, reliable source. So, furnish coverage in indisputably independent reliable sources, or drop the matter. Pushing this issue any further places you at a very high risk of being blocked. I won't block you myself because I am involved now with the content dispute. But you are carrying this bizarre campaign of yours from place to place all over Wikipedia, and eventually, an uninvolved administrator is going to say "enough is enough" and force you to stop by blocking you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@RoyLeban: I concur with what Cullen is saying. At Talk:Peace Cross, nobody is agreeing with you. At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Request_for_comment_on_citing_Patheos, nobody is agreeing with you. In the thread you raised about my supposed uncivil behavior, nobody agreed with you. Not satisfied with the result of that thread, you started four different user talk discussions with identical content [1][2][3][4]. Unsurprisingly, of the three that have responded (including Cullen), nobody has agreed with you. Over the last six months, you've attempted to add information regarding "Satanic Peace Cross" three times and nobody has agreed with you. Cullen has noted there is a high risk of you being blocked. That isn't a threat. Cullen's made it clear they wouldn't block you because of WP:INVOLVED. I wouldn't block you either for the same reason. So, don't take this as a threat. We're telling you, based on experience from what we both have seen many times over the years, the behavior you are exhibiting could lead to a block. Let's assume for the sake of argument that your arguments in favor of Patheos and adding in "Satanic Peace Cross" are absolutely without flaw, scintillating demonstrations of the highest of academic thought, and so well sourced as to be beyond dispute. That would be the strongest case in favor of your position. Yet, every person to date at the article, at the talk page of the article, at WP:AN/I, and at WP:RSN has disagreed with you. It's likely that the only logical conclusion we could draw from such a circumstance (which, again, favors your position as much as possible) is that all of us who disagree with you are just too dumb to realize it. Given that, I think you have to see that it's time to drop the stick. None of your writings on this subject have convinced anyone, nor does it appear likely that they will. Please carefully read WP:LISTEN. It's time to move on. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: This might be the most reasonable reply I've seen from you. I appreciate that. I'll admit it was dumb to post in four places. I was frustrated that the AN/I post was closed so quickly (and I still feel you didn't treat me well, but that's the past). I wasn't thinking I was starting four discussions — I was trying to post four notices and I didn't keep it short. I should have posted in one place and added four small notices. On the more general issue, it's hard to drop something when I see people stating opinions as facts. I only posted the AN/I and the RfC after other people suggested them. If they were such a bad idea, why are people who claim to know more than me suggesting them?

And, btw, I added another reference to the talk page, an independent local news site. RoyLeban (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying the AN/I and RSN threads were a bad idea. I'm saying nobody is agreeing with you at them. It's time to move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Bingbongman123, User:Return of the Bingbongman123

Looks like this blocked user is back as User:Coney Island Bing Bong and User:JoeByronbingbong123. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, and thank you. I have blocked the sockpuppets and their unreferenced edits have been reverted. Cullen328 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

New Page - Sean Bush

Hi Jim,

I hope you are doing well and ready for the new year.

We last chatted back in October regarding the draft page for Dr. Sean Bush - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sean_Bush. As a next step, you had suggested I reach out to either the TeaHouse or to folks on the WikiProject/Science and Academia for a subject expert to review for notability. I'm a little delayed due to some personal issues but I'm happy to have heard back from @Shyamal and stated that the subject is notable but did not see an 'accept' button for the article. They left a comment on the draft page but wasn't sure what else to do at this point so I wanted to reconnect with you so you could see the comment.

What do I do now? Thanks, Nicole Beansalad3 (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

JSFarman has accepted the page. Thanks for your help and have a great new year! Cheers, Nicole Beansalad3 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Beansalad3 I saw your earlier Teahouse request while standing in a checkout line at a supermarket. Then I needed to drive home, cook dinner and relax a bit. I am very pleased that JSFarman has accepted the article, since she is an excellent editor here. I would have accepted it myself if she hadn't. Good work, and thank you for your patience. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Not sure what the approach should be but I have noticed another user, Randykitty, has deleted several peer-review articles from Dr. Bush stating he was not the first or second author. As those are medical peer reviews they are often-times reviewed by multiple sources. This was also reviewed by Shyalam from the Science and Academia group. Can anyone just go in and delete content? Thanks and what's the best way to proceed? Just undo the deletion? Beansalad3 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Beansalad3, any editor acting in good faith can delete content that they believe is inappropriate. Randykitty is a highly experienced editor and administrator with far more expertise about academic writing than I have. Avoid edit warring and instead discuss the matter directly with Randykitty. Cullen328 (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Viktor Fedotov

Hi! Why have you deleted the article about Viktor Fedotov? I've written it from scratch and so the old deletion discussion is not relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 13:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Alaexis. I encountered this article while investigating a situation at Arbitration enforcement that resulted in another editor being blocked indefinitely. Your version of the article, in my opinion, made less of a case that this person is notable than the version deleted at AfD. If you disagree with my decision, than please discuss the matter at Deletion review. If there is consensus to restore the article, I will not object. Cullen328 (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Alaexis_¿question? 10:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Viktor Fedotov

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Viktor Fedotov. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Alaexis_¿question? 10:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks Hi Cullen328! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes

Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Oversighter changes

Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes

Opabinia regalis

Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy 2022!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXXII Lunar Calendar

Cullen328,
Have a great 2022 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2022 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2022}} to user talk pages.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Questions with respect to your ArbCom case request statement

Hi Jim. You are an editor with whom I agree the vast, vast majority of the time. In this case, I do not agree with you, but I trust you, so I wanted to ask you about the statement that you made at the current ArbCom case request. First, some background – I blundered my way into this train wreck by engaging in a COIN thread where I saw what looked like an obvious conflict of interest. Nobody invited me to participate – least of all Icewhiz. I did, however, read about the ArbCom case that ended Icewhiz's wiki "career".

I get it; he seems like a pernicious troll and harasser to me. Reading the material he wrote, though, was a different experience. He did, after all, catch a glaring error in Warsaw concentration camp, and he fixed it, by and large. The article is a more accurate reflection of reality today thanks, in part, to his efforts. My general take on Icewhiz is twofold: first, he deserves his ban – if he didn't deserve it when he got it, he damn well deserves it now; second, he made valuable contributions. I mean, he accrued 38,000 edits on his main account before he was blocked. They can't all be bad, on a purely probabilistic basis, if nothing else. He accrued 22,000 more on Eostrix, an account that was so productive/beneficial that it was nearly unanimously elected to adminship. I'm going to take a moment to reiterate again that I absolutely agree that he should not edit Wikipedia again. But what of the existing edits? Are they all automatically bad because of the guy who made them? I don't agree. That leads me to the substance of my disagreement with you, and to my questions.

1. Whether or not Icewhiz is the ultimate root of the disagreement regarding editor COI with respect to articles about themselves, is that point not worth considering? Why do we have to disregard (what I think is) common sense because a banned user beat us to the punch years and years ago? More specifically, even if recognizing this COI suits Icewhiz's somewhat masturbatory purposes, why shouldn't we do what's right? I am postulating here that there is a COI, based on Nableezy's closure and on the fact that ArbCom has made it clear that they have no desire to address this specific application of WP:COI.
2. Setting aside for a moment the prospect that the source was unduly influenced by Icewhiz directly or was just plain wrong, shouldn't discussion of editor COIs be free of bludgeoning the same redundant point about potential links to a banned user? Are we to expect weaponization of sockpuppet accusations to become the norm in discussions where a banned user has previously participated? What is the actual impact of this socking, in your experience? In mine—a sock or two gets caught and their comment(s) get(s) struck by another user; I see it on deletion discussions perennially. What is the benefit of ramming through this point in a discussion 10-40 times each per interested user, and why should we tolerate that to any degree?
3. I indulge, I admit, perhaps a bit too often in drama boards, more often reading than commenting. My characterization of the community's attitude is that we seldom condone misbehavior, even when there is a valid reason for frustration on the part of those charged with misconduct. Could you help me understand your perspective regarding harassment of users and subsequent lashing out? Do you feel that we should give broader leeway to someone who hypothetically has become embittered or vitriolic due to past abuse?
4. Lastly, and to cement some of the points I discussed above, why should we not simply ignore any future Icewhiz involvement in disputes and act like he's not there? I would suppose he will get bored and leave. This is the crux of my disagreement with your statement: you feel – and I beg you to correct me if I'm wrong – that the real issue is Icewhiz, while I feel that the real issue is that the toxic environment left in his wake has festered into a tar baby of a topic area that allows, through deliberate neglect and averted gazes, severe abuses of neutrality and original research to flourish. Would you please clarify your point of view?

In closing, thank you in advance for your patience. This turned into half a rant and half a sincere request for advice and guidance. As one final point that I couldn't squeeze into the above rigamarole naturally: I don't even consider Haaretz that reliable of a source. It's certainly not on the same level as the New York Times. I do, however, think that editors mentioned in sources must, on the rare occasions when that happens, stay out of discussions concerning them. Thanks again, Jim, and I hope you read this with my sincerity and good will in mind. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, AlexEng. I did not discuss whether the contributions of LTAs should be kept or reverted, so I an not sure why you brought that up. Much of what you say seems to be a reiteration of WP:DENY, or the revert-block-ignore pattern that is an everyday part of the work of administrators. That approach works well with the routine "69420UrMomIsGay" type of trolls but I think that you are misunderstanding or underestimating the perniciousness and danger of the obsessive type of behavior displayed by Icewhiz and other LTAs. The flawed Warsaw concentration camp article was cleaned up promptly when the problem was uncovered and neither of the two editors that Icewhiz targeted tried to impede that cleanup. You state that "severe abuses of neutrality and original research" flourish but which specific articles in that topic area are you referring to? As for what I think the real problem is, I do not see how it is possible to separate Icewhiz from the toxic environment left in his wake. In my view, they are inseparable. I do not think that WP:DENY works in cases of highly intelligent and obsessive LTAs who spend massive amounts of time for years threatening and harassing their opponents. I hope this clarifies my thinking, but perhaps we just fundamentally disagree about the danger that Icewhiz and people like him present to Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't you on the Committee? :)

Your recent comment and analysis is cutting straight to the point and shows that (IMHO) you have as perfect grasp of the situation as possible - and can articulate it well. If you ever run for AC, you'll have my vote. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Piotrus. It is nice to know that I would get at least one vote. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Keechant Sewell 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 23:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Your Note

Hi Jim, thank you for your reply and for pointing out the capitalization difference in Ri Sol-ju's page. Does this mean I need to create a new edit request, since I presume the previous one I prepared, is lost? Boxermystic (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Boxermystic. Your edit request is not "lost". Instead, you left it in the wrong place. Copy it and paste it to the right place. I suggest that you include the page number of the book and the precise quotation. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jim, you suggested that I copy and paste my edit request to the right place. How do I retrieve my edit request? Boxermystic (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Boxermystic. Your edit request is right where you left it, at the redirect talk page, Talk:Ri Sol-Ju. Cullen328 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, Cullen328. I've decided not to move forward with the suggestions that editors made on my edit requests, but I appreciate the guidance you provided me. Boxermystic (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Roland Hayes

Hi I saw your edits on Roland Hayes. Can you comment on why the Bogdanoff twins as his grandsons is listed under Roland’s “career”, instead of under “personal” or “family”? Thanks! BibiBrachWriter65 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BibiBrachWriter65. I only looked at a small aspect of the Hayes biography but now I will look at how his "unusual" grandsons are presented. Cullen328 (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I read their connection in a New York Times article published since the twins death recently. BibiBrachWriter65 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

BibiBrachWriter65, I think that the article could use a major restructuring and cleanup by someone familiar with his work. I am not the right person for that, but if you have the interest, go for it. Yes, this article came to my attention as well because of the recent deaths of his grandsons. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

24.78.140.235

Hi Cullen328! I hope your weekend is going well and that you're having a great day! I hope you don't mind, but I saw the block that you just applied to this IP user. Given the ridiculous number of policies and behavioral guidelines that this user violated, your block reason - it just didn't do enough justice. ;-) I went ahead and amended your block (same duration and options set) but implemented a more... in-depth reason for the block, which includes diffs and links to everything. Since they now can't edit their own user talk page or send email (which IP users can't do anyways), they can take their appeal over to UTRS if they so desire. Best of luck to them (lol), and I hope you have a great rest of your day. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Oshwah. My general practice is to zero in on the most egregious misconduct when I make a block. But if you want to take the time to add more detail to my blocks, go for it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 - Fair enough. "To each our own" is a good saying to use here. :-) Thanks for handling that mess... You beat me to the block by only a minute or two. For the record, I would've done the same thing. Oh, and I responded to the "discussion" (if you wish to call it that) on the IP user's talk page. TL;DR: Good block. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Bingbongman123 redux

Looks like another Bing bong/sidetalk block-evaded sockpuppet[5]. Actually got them to move material to the correct article (sort of). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. I never claimed to be a great sockpuppet detective, but as they say, an obvious sock is obvious and blocked. Thanks for the report. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

For the page Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury.

G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose 103.233.122.80 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I disagree with your assessment. Cullen328 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I saw the trolling

Don’t let them get to you. I respect the manner in which you WP:DENYied them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Celestina007. That was fairly mild. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

COI Edit Updates Passing the Baton

Hi Jim,

I wanted to let you know that I’ve assumed responsibility for seeking COI Edit requests for the Fortinet page. Jasmine Lozano contacted you last November | Follow up on Teahouse Discussion on Fortinet Article to ask for help in improving the article about Fortinet. You asked that we keep posting COI Edit requests and to ping you a in few months to review the article. I just wanted to introduce myself to maintain some continuity with Jasmine’s request. Best regards, John. Johnwikiwelton (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:उत्कर्ष पांडे

Hi, Cullen, today you blocked User:उत्कर्ष पांडे permanently. By any chance were you aware that whoever this is has two other accounts User:Utkarsh Pandey and User:Utkarsh555? All three state the respective alternate account on each user page. The Pandey account of this person is still active and the 555 account was blocked for a week. Pinging User:DrKay who blocked the 555 account. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, WikiCleanerMan. I just blocked Utkarsh Pandey. Thanks for the information. Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks to you as well. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

He has a fourth account under the username User:उत्कर्ष555. Might want to block that one too. The rambling on his talk page for Utkarsh555 revealed this account. And his Utkarsh555 account is blocked for a week since January 11 by Dr.Kay. Best to keep an eye out for what he does once the block ends. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Beamerian

Thank you for blocking him, but you may want to make that block indefinite-- the account is an LTA sockpuppet. Helen(💬📖) 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate, do you know which account is the sockmaster? Cullen328 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

According to Discospinster, who blocked one of the other socks (Monkerian), the sockmaster is CalebHughes. Helen(💬📖) 20:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate, Monkerian is not registered. Cullen328 (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm Yet another typo. The correct name of that account is Monkenian. Helen(💬📖) 21:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

HelenDegenerate, that's as obvious as it gets. Indeffed. Cullen328 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for TPD

Hi, I saw you blocked this user, however they still have talk page access and are still vandalizing. Could you revoke talk page access? Thanks.

diffs: [6][7][8][9] xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, XRENEGADEx. Thanks for the notification. I have withdrawn that editor's talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Cheers! xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

your block of MySyllabus

You blocked MySyllabus for promotion and username, according to the block log you blocked them for 3 hours yet you placed the Uw-spamublock template on their talk page, was that a misclick with you meaning to block them indefinitely rather than 3 hours? Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, Lavalizard101, I should think it was a misclick. Deb has already changed the block to indefinite. Bishonen | tålk 15:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

Semiprotected

Your page is under attack from dynamic IPs, Cullen, so I've semi'd it for 12 hours, hope you don't mind. Bishonen | tålk 15:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

Thank you, Bishonen. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Curious edits from eight-day-old user

Howdy and happy 2022! In one of my currently rare and very brief forays onto the desktop platform (and hence my watchlist; real life is a bit stressful at the moment), I just stumbled across a fresh user whose edits ([10]) appear reallllly useless and inexplicable. Whether they're gaming EC in a remarkably non-inconspicuous fashion, or just buttering the cat (Newsweek explains the best flash-in-the-pan Reddit slang term ever: [11]), I wanted to let somebody else pick up the trail before I sign off for the night!

Sorry for being in a hurry (my wifi-equipped venue is about to close) and being out of practice with linking to user contributions; hoping things will get back to normal soon. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello,, Julietdeltalima. Well, at least you motivated me to read Buttered cat paradox, so there is that. Yes, a new account who works on tagging old editors as "not around" looks pretty fishy, and I would venture to guess that they are not actually "new". Without evidence of genuine disruption, I do not know what we can do at this time other than observing and preparing to act if things take a turn for the worse. Maybe a member of our fine corps of sockpuppet detectives can figure it out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Cullen328 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

hahaha, would you believe I was actually referring to a ‘’new, completely unrelated’’ cat-plus-butter concept? Thanks to a chest-pain-inducingly hilarious series of Reddit posts about an office cat and disagreements between his human advocates regarding how to deal with his perceived intellectual shortcomings, “buttering the cat” all of a sudden means “trying to be helpful by ‘solving’ a ‘problem’ (especially one that didn’t actually exist in anyone else’s mind) in a profoundly unhelpful and counterproductive manner.” The saga starts [[12]], or you can Google “Jorts stereotypes” and start with the December 14, 2021 entry. The amusement value/reading time ratio is extremely high. Julietdeltalima (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Julietdeltalima (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This keeps looking weird. Just updating the hive mind while I have connectivity. [13] - Julietdeltalima (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima, I agree that it "looks weird". Why the heck would a new editor devote attention to which administrators are inactive? On the other hand, there is nothing inherently disruptive about these edits, at least so far. This is clearly not a new editor, but I expect some more convincing evidence before pulling my mop out of the closet. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC):

Thank you

Morning Cullen - hope you are well. Thanks for the swift block of the impersonation. Please would you be able to nuke their user page too? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts,  Done. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Another Cullen "street"

Hello, I found another street containing your username, any interest in it? However, it's blurry. Here's the image: [14] Severestorm28 03:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice, thanks, Severestorm28. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, however if I had another picture that didn't look blurry... Severestorm28 03:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

NerdyGenius1

NerdyGenius1 (talk · contribs) doesn't seem to have learned much from the indefinite page blocks you issued. They also spread their Aafia Siddiqui related disruption to the Bagram torture and prisoner abuse‎ article, and now at the CIA black sites article. For example this edit where the text added claims she was initially declared unfit to stand trial due to the torture she underwent. What the reference actually says is After a court-ordered evaluation found that she was unfit for trial as a result of a mental disease (without specifying what the cause of said mental disease is) and later The judge may also hear varying conclusions about her whereabouts between 2003 and 2008, a period when her supporters have said she was abducted by foreign authorities and tortured. Therefore for her alleged torture to suddenly become a fact and the cause of her alleged mental disease is clearly unsupported by the reference. I fear we are at a WP:NOTHERE stage by now? FDW777 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not disturbed anything. I simply transferred everything that YOU approved from the Bagram Torture page to the CIA Black Site page. I then noticed how it was mentioning the trial, and I quoted from The New York Times how it was relevant. I believe you are simply assuming that any addition of well-sourced facts is a disruption, when all I virtually did was simply add sources and then bring up the relevance. Again, this is a page on Bagram and a page on CIA black sites. I have done nothing more than simply add sources, as well as add the New York Times article. I was planning to keep everything sane for the next year before I appeal the block, and I was showing that by simply posting what YOU had approved,(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC))

Also, "The judge may also hear varying conclusions about her whereabouts between 2003 and 2008, a period when her supporters have said she was abducted by foreign authorities and tortured. Prosecutors have emphatically denied those claims." is what I was basing this off. If you read the whole edit, I simply chronicled how the CIA black site was relevant to her trial, which was already mentioned. Also I apologize if I misspoke. I believe a proper edit you could have done is add the word "allegedly" or perhaps add "That her Prosecutors Denied" or at lease "That her defenders claimed" but not lodge a formal complaint at what amounts to be nothing more than a typo. This isn't a disruption. This was simply my attempt to regain the trust of the editors by editing a related page and trying to avoid my biases. I just happened to accidentally not type in a word due to me focusing on the rest of the sentences and adding the sources. I don't see how that's blameworthy. I apologize for not adding the word "allegedly" in the entire edit(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC))

The edit that I made was "The CIA Black Sites were central to the psychological evaluations prior to the trial, as she was initially declared unfit to stand trial due to the torture she underwent, although the government denied the claims and government-employed psychiatrists accused her of faking it, and she was made to stand trial." I apologize for forgetting the word "allegedly. I believe a proper edit should have been "The CIA Black Sites were central to the psychological evaluations prior to the trial, as she was initially declared unfit to stand trial due to the torture she allegedly underwent, although the government denied the claims and government-employed psychiatrists accused her of faking it, and she was made to stand trial." If it's okay, I will add that edit and it will not be against any guidelines. My intention is not disruption, but cooperation, and I believe you could have cooperated by simply adding the word "Allegedly". The main reason I'm posting on this is so that I can regain the trust so that I can appeal the pagebloack in the next year or two.(NerdyGenius1 (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC))