User talk:Cullen328

November 2017

Thanks for your response but what you have pointed out is out and out wrong even if you were to say that you strictly complied with wikipedia policies in good faith. About 90% of articles on biographies of living persons posted on Wikipedia contain adjectives that reflect or describe the true nature of personalities. Shall I cite a few from the presently available articles of biographies in wikipedia either self posted or posted by others giving out details of individuals in the same manner. Mere fact that there are a few adjectives describing a person of a stature occupying a top cop position of State in a Federal Republic like India automatically does not become promotional or advertising unless you identify the end beneficiary of such adjectives constituting 'promotional' or 'advertising' is the very person itself about whom I have written. It is ridiculous to say that those adjectives ascribed to a government servant as top cop are 'promotional' or 'advertising' as it does not benefit him or identify him as an end beneficiary of 'advertising' or 'promotional'. A policy of wikipedia has a legal import and logical imputation' one should not read a dictionary meaning of wiki policies in a straightjacket manner. If you wish that these constitute the promotional or advertising, you could have asked the contributor to 'delete' the 'promotional' sentences or 'advertising words' and you can ask me to re-write it but deleting the very article itself under 'speedy deletion notice' without complying the norm of consensus or 7 days time, and to interpret the provision on the basis of your creative imagination as a borderline case or otherwise is totally subjective which is unwarranted. Respect contributors whom you do not see or cannot judge. Weigh the circumstances under which the article appeared on wikipedia, critically think about the meaning of wiki policies, and if you are so convinced, then direct the matter to the contributor for re-writing or editing or deleting the content that you cannot approve to go on wikipedia. Please restore the article immediately, and I will edit it to your expected norms which you can revisit and edit it. Do not kill the piece once for all like this. Urgently restore it. I shall do the needful in a short time and revert to you.CSHN Murthy (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

CSHN Murthy, this discussion belongs on your talk page, not mine. I will respond there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

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

WikiCake!

Paleocemoski has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Thank you so much for helping me with my many questions on Teahouse!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Adding cover images

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your response. I fully agree with your rationale - but how do I "just do it"? I've gone to one of the image pages and tried to update the summary and licensing info (adapted from another album page from the same band), and was greeted with a rapid deletion message. The code I used was as follows:

2016 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA

You are invited! - Saturday, March 5 - Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/ArtandFeminism 2016			Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Saturday March 5, 2016, for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! --Circa73 (talk)

Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27

Please join us in San Francisco!

Panel discussion at a recent Wikipedia & Journalism event.

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area will gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. We have two brief presentations lined up for our kickoff event in downtown San Francisco:

• The Nueva Upper School recently hosted the first ever high school Wikipedia edit-a-thon. We will hear what interests them about Wikipedia, what they have learned so far, and what they hope to achieve.
• Photojournalist Kris Schreier Lyseggen, author of The Women of San Quentin: The Soul Murder of Transgender Women in Male Prisons, will tell us about her work and how she researched the topic.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.

Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.

For further details, see here: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016

We hope to see you -- and until then, happy editing! - Pete, Ben & Wayne

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello Cullen328,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I notice you are active in activities related to project page and project talk page, so I wonder if I could invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you, Bowen

Hello, Cullen328. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, Cullen328!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA

You are invited! - Friday, March 10 - SF CCA ArtAndFeminism 2017			Please join us at the California College of the Arts' Simpson Library on Friday March 10, 2017, for an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! --Jscarboro (talk)

Page Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_Nucleus

Contesting the speedy

Hello Cullen328! You have speedy'd an article, which is fine, and for the first time in years I wanted to contest it. However all the current documentation say "push the big contest this entry" button, and no guide seem to link to the actual page the button should be inserting. But there is no button (feels like the Matrix is glitching again). Would you please direct me to the page the button would insert into? (You may also want to investigate why it's not there.) Thanks! --grin ✎ 07:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay update, I have found it, it wasn't easy. And it says I should discuss it with you first. :-) So there you are. Please undelete the page, as it was mistakenly nominated to speedy on the non-applicable Notability ground, while the article should have been satisfied the only speedy criteria (non) applicable: Credible claim of significance. A cursory search would provide you with plenty of results of the stuff under that trademark, mostly distributed by banggood or whatchamacallit. It is by no means different from, say, Quechua (brand); as well as the existence if the trademark is easily checked, so it's really not a question whether the thing actually exists. Notability is a different topic and outside the speedy jurisdiction. Thanks! --grin ✎ 10:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, grin. I deleted the article under A7, which has nothing to do with whether or not the company exists. Here is the language:

"This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant".

Yes, and the indication is that the brand does physically exists, can be found by searching (or in reality), is available by and from external sellers. Also, it is prudent to read on:

This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.

also

This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), software, or other creative works.

which specifically does not cover physical manufactured brands. And finally what I have referred you to:

The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

and I hope you do not wish me to include all the already linked article here; please read it through, and realise that you seem to mix up notability and reliable sources with credible claim of significance. What you state is not A7, it's a RfD material. (Whereby I also would state that it has enough coverage to be notable, but that's quite outside of this problem circle.) --grin ✎ 16:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

All we know is that they manufacture small electronic accessories, have a registered trademark and sell products through online vendors. Please explain why the company is "important or significant", by linking to significant coverage in reliable sources that are completely independent of this company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not about the company, it is about the brand, and its significance is its physical existence. Type in google and skip the first few items which are from the company itself, and the other 10+ pages of results are from various sources. Also if you want a photo of such stuff to prove that it's not an online-only webpage, it's easily done, but considering that I am no relation with the company whatsoever I'd prefer not to waste time on that.

Since the article in my opinion does not fit A7's criteria I would be glad if you'd undelete it and if you insist you may propose it for normal deletion process. Thanks for your help! --grin ✎ 16:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The article made no "credible claim of significance or importance" and was therefore properly deleted. You have several choices. You can write a new article that establishes notability and fully complies with policies and guidelines. Or, you can find another administrator who agrees with your interpretation and will restore it for you. Or. you can take the matter to Deletion review. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The deleted article stated "The company was founded in 2015, and started distributing their products using a warehouse in the United States" and the article was categorized as "Chinese company" so your contention that the article was not about a company is incorrect, grin. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

grin, I also urge you to reconsider your contention that the fact that something "physically exists" is a credible claim of significance and therefore an article about that thing is not eligible for speedy deletion. That is completely wrong, and large numbers of such articles are speedy deleted properly by administrators every single day. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

As a completely neutral third party I've read the article in question, and the deletion was correct. Even if one were to accept the (unsourced) claim that In 2017 they are distributing Worldwide as a credible claim of significance, given that the article was pure spam sourced only to the company's own website and a trademark registry, it would be immediately deleted under WP:G11 even if you do succeed in persuading Cullen to restore it. "It physically exists" is not and never has been a claim of significance; I can provide indisputable reliable sourcing for each of the 8000 buses in London (each of which can be proven to have a demonstrable impact on the lives of thousands of people every week), but it doesn't mean Wikipedia wants an article on each of them. If you want Wikipedia to host an article, the onus is on you to demonstrate the topic's notability. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

My apologies...

for whatever part I played that caused this. My intention was simply to draw attention to notability in order to defuse the memorial allegations. I also believe that per WP:NEXIST, it was as much the nom's responsibility (we are both NPRs) as it was mine & others to at least attempt to find more sources before the PROD, not to mention his knowing it would be challenged. Emotions apparently got in the way but to better understand where they stem, see this and this, and of course, the usual bad blood scenarios here and there. I was dismayed that there wasn't even an attempt at collaboration preceding the PROD and AfD in lieu of what felt like a bwahahaha I'm deleting that memorial. The resulting biography proves that good collaboration produces good results. Too bad it didn't begin that way. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Atsme, although there is no need for an apology. You did nothing that offended me. My observation was a general overview of the whole debate. I simply recommend that editors express their opinions at AfD (and in general) in a dispassionate, fact based way, recognizing that other editors acting in sincere good faith occupy a different place on the inclusionist/deletionist continuum. As a specific example, I do not think that the "poisoning the well" comment helped keep the article. But the final outcome seems almost certain to be a positive one. I will file the other matters in my memory bank. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Roman Polanski

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roman Polanski. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Cullen328:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Linguist^unEins^uno 18:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Misgendering of non-binary subject

Hi, I'm pinging you because I suspect my post at WP:AIV is being ignored (as several that were filed after mine have been addressed). IP 217.51.1.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeatedly misgendered a non-binary BLP subject, Cassils (artist), and posted trans-antagonistic comments on their own talk page in response to my notices. I don't want to revert them again for fear of violating WP:3RR. Thanks for any help... Funcrunch (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Funcrunch. I have warned the IP for several obvious reasons and semi-protected the article for 72 hours. Please let me know if the disruption continues, and I will extend the protection. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting artist, by the way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Funcrunch (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

O I C U blocked 1 2

Mine had the number in front. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL, Dlohcierekim. "Your horoscope for today: You will get blocked for trying and failing to spam Wikipedia." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

al-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your explanation around disambiguation. Much appreciated! <3 SunnyBoi (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Yum! Thank you, SunnyBoi. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congratulations!. Have a celebratory beverage! bonadea contributions talk 07:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Bonadea. This is very good news for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no offense directed at you or intended.

My apologies if you took offense, but Anmccaff dragged you in to that discussion. My comments were in no way intended to reflect on your reputation. It was only Anmccaff, and John_from_Idegon for whom my comment was directed. They are the ones that tag-teamed the article with John_from_Idegon directing Anmccaff to the article from John_from_Idegon's talk page.[1] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody "drags" me anywhere, and I do not appreciate that implication. I edit with free will. I see no sign of "tag teaming" but rather efforts to protect the encyclopedia from undue weight and inaccuracies, C. W. Gilmore. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

There was no implication, I had made a comment about those two colluding on John of Idegon's TP and Anmccaff onto the Admin page, incorrectly claiming that I was speaking about all those other editors that have weighed in (including yourself). -That was all that was meant by "Anmccaff dragged you in". I appreciate your opinion on undue weight and my apology was in regards Anmccaff implying my comments were directed at you on the Admin page, this was not true. It was not directed at you and I would not make such a statement. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore, Please carefully consider the connotations of the word "dragged" when applied to a human being such as myself. It certainly implies force and coercion. As stated above, I am acting entirely of my own free will in this matter. Use words carefully. To repeat, you have offered zero evidence of any improper collusion or "tag teaming" by the other two editors. I recommend that you drop the matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Vanguard America logo deletion

Hello there,

I was told that my issue has been sent to the administration board and to come here to discuss it.

Recently one of my uploads on the Commons has been deleted. I made a logo for Vanguard America in which I uploaded it to the page. I am a former member of Vanguard America of the Alabama Chapter. I am the one who designed the current website. I am the one who did create the new logo in which they use now.

Thanks, Echo — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoUSA (talk • contribs) 06:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Discuss your concerns at WP:ANI, EchoUSA. Please do not return to my talk page. 06:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

EchoUSA ANI discussion

I see that I got back to the discussion late and it has been closed. I admit that I did not read to that part of their userpage, so gladly accept a trout for that oversight. I also do note that it was the very first thing that you had stated in the ANI post, so I'll add another trout to the first. If I accept more trout, I'll have to start a smokehouse... Blackmane (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I love smoked trout, Blackmane, so all is well in the world. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Smoked trout rillete? Blackmane (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

47.34.156.250

This IP is doing the same nonsense at North Fire, and I've opened an ANI thread about them.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Peacebroker

Hi Cullen. Peacebroker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Kingshowman and needs a block upgrade to indef. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edit Warrior for Truth. Thanks. Dr. K. 19:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Dr.K., for your deeper look. I have upgraded the block to indefinite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit War on Me Too (hashtag) page

Hi, I appreciate the notice, but if you look at the Talk and Edit pages, you'll see that reasonable people had already reached consensus that names be added to the Aftermath list only after new allegations arise. Yet, there's a troll who persists in adding Donald Trump's name for previously existing allegations (not new ones by people who were inspired/motivated by the #MeToo movement). Also, this troll uses different IP addresses and usernames in attempts to circumvent blocks on their ability to edit. This person wants to attack Trump for the sake of attacking Trump, not to help Wikipedia increase its utility. Maybe you or other administrators can IP ban this troll? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. It looks to me like you made about 15 reversions, and you were therefore edit warring. Please be aware that edit warring is not allowed even if you are right. I have blocked one of the named accounts who has been verified as a sockpuppet of another disruptive editor. I extended the block to indefinite when I learned that. You can report any specific IP accounts that you think are the same person, and if so, they will be blocked. I have no comment on the content issue because I am focused on editor behavior regarding this article. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your help! It was my first time ever dealing with this kind of experience on Wikipedia, so I was unaware of how to proceed. I was trying to protect the integrity of the article. I now know about alternative methods. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your informative response. My friendly and entirely optional suggestion to you is to consider opening an account. That has many benefits and no negatives that I am aware of. In any case, I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I should add that I forgot to apologize for any inconvenience that I may have caused you. I don't want to cause problems and just want to contribute.  :)70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I believe that the page is being vandalized. We're trying to discuss things on the Talk page, but people just keeping deleting additions willy nilly.70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the Talk and History pages, you'll see that "Another Believer" is just making a nuisance of himself. Thank you for your attention to this matter.70.112.229.80 (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Russian Propagandists

Those working for RT were registered as State Propagandists today under the Foreign Agents Registration Act with the United States Department of Justice, this is meant to be disseminated publicly and widely to allow people to know that Russian State Propagandists are active in the United States of America. This is the intent of FARA; to blunt the message of a state sponsored messenger. So it was not defamatory in any respect; it was cited by a reputable source; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-media-restrictions-rt/russias-rt-registers-as-foreign-agent-in-usa-editor-idUSKBN1DD25B

“Americans have a right to know who is acting in the United States to influence the U.S. government or public on behalf of foreign principals,” said acting Assistant Attorney General Dana Boente. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please provide multiple reliable, neutral, independent sources calling this specific person a "Russian propagandist", or drop this Iine of personal attack, Jasonanaggie. This matter is not negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I just read the link you provided, and it does not even mention the person in question by name. Therefore, it is worthless for backing up your BLP policy violating edit. Please do not waste my time providing sources to read that do not even mention the BLP subject. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

RT is the company in question; those employed by RT are paid by the Russian Government to tow Russia's Propaganda in the United States therefore anyone working for Russia is a foreign agent and a foreign agent is a Propagandist by definition. First rule on Wikipedia is assume good faith of edits all of my edits are in good faith.

Jasonanaggie (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Jasonanaggie, it is entirely possible for an editor to make edits in good faith that inadvertently violate core content policies. I assume good faith that this is what happened here, and that you will understand that you have now been warned. If you call somebody a "Russian propagandist" without furnishing multiple reliable sources using that wording about that specific person, you will be blocked. Please let me know if there is anything unclear about my warning, and I will clarify the warning. Otherwise, I will expect that you will refrain from any more BLP policy violations. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Cullen, can I draw your attention to Jason's dozens of other edits surrounding the Abby Martin one, it seems he went on a vandalism spree and most of them have not been reverted. Thank you. – Planetjanet (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Planetjanet, please revert any vandalism or make a report about genuine vandalism to WP:AIV. You can also discuss the matter at Talk: Abby Martin, where no one has commented since June, about five months ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well it's more than just Abby Martin, from what I can tell he did it to everyone who's ever been on RT. I will go back and do the reversions but am I imagining this or did you mention that you were a moderator or administrator? I was hoping you would do something directly. – Planetjanet (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am an administrator, Planetjanet, but that does not give me any special powers with regards to content disputes. All editors work together to clean up bad content. If this editor continues to add content violating the BLP policy after my warning, then I will block them. Please let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've only just spotted this discussion. There is an ongoing discussion in the same vein at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jasonanaggie. Please weigh in there if you don't mind. Regards, nagualdesign 19:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I seek to move forward, I have corrected the problems I have created and I seek forgiveness. I will not take such action in the future. Thank you for the work you do. Jasonanaggie (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I corrected many of the problems you created. I spent about an hour sifting through your many 'contributions' and reverting them, then wasted another hour or so trying in earnest to explain to the administrators the extent of your efforts. Sorry but I don't buy this public display of penitence, but lucky for you I'm not the one you have to convince. nagualdesign 17:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

What is Talk Page Theatre? Come find out!

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!

Come find out what "Talk Page Theatre" is all about! The last Wednesday evening of every other month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

---

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages (including beer and wine) plus light snacks. We will be at the NEW Wikimedia Foundation offices! w00t!!!

---

Please note: You should RSVP here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in.

---

For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, November 2017

---

See you soon! Ben Creasy, Nikikana, and Wayne | ( Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice ) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

About the PewDiePie photo

Hello its BoltznNutz again. About the photo, how can I deal with the Creative Commons licenses so I may post it? And I am aware of copyright violations and all that. BoltznNutz (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless you are the photographer, BoltznNutz, or hired the photographer under written terms that make you the legal copyright holder, then there is nothing that you can do about it. We simply cannot use the vast majority of random photos found on the internet. It simply will not happen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No I'm not, that is sad, I'm just trying to post a current photo of PewDiePie. And so what about the current photo displayed and how was it able to be posted here? BoltznNutz (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello BoltznNutz, yes it is sad, but that is the policy here. The difference with the current photo is that the person who owns the copyright to it -- probably the person that took the photo -- licensed it in a way that allows it to be used here. MPS1992 (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm but I wonder what made the photo I had not licensed in a way to be allowed here. BoltznNutz (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@BoltznNutz: the person who took it or hired the photographer, did not license it in that way. They could still choose to license it in a way that is allowed here, if they used the instructions at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates MPS1992 (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Escalating US Dissension

Hi Jim. I'm wondering if either you or one of your talk page watchers would mind taking a look at Escalating US Dissension. It was tagged for speedy as per WP:G11, but the tag was removed by someone who seems to be acting in good faith, but may have a COI. The article also appears to have been created by another person affiliated with the subject. I say subject because I'm not exactly sure what it's supposed to be. In addition to the possible COI/Paid issues, there may also be some WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK involved as well. I've done some basic formatting cleanup and added some maintenance templates (perhaps too many), but that's about the extent of what I feel I can do. I thought about AfD, but figured I'd ask around first to see whether there is something in this kind of mess which can actually be molded into an article. You're always a lot of help at the Teahouse, have tons of Wikpedia experience, and tend to not sugar coat things, so I thought you be a good person to ask. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. Writ Keeper has deleted that promotional article. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Thanks for taking a peek. Anyway, I was queried about the deletion at User talk:Marchjuly#Escalating US Dissention and tried to advise the other editor the best I could. If, however, you think something else needs to be added, then please feel free to chime in. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you did a very good job of advising that editor, Marchjuly. Their username may be technically OK but raises several warning flags in my mind. As for the deleted article, it was pretty bad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Iqra Ali created a second User?

Iqra Ali, subject of recent temporary block for vandalizing articles and other User's Talk appears to have created a second User: WikiThingsForThings already exhibiting bad behavior. And also cleared out from Iqra Ali Talk any mention of the past block. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello David notMD. I have blocked that account. Thanks for pointing it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned that Iqra Ali has reappeared as Penguin2233. Similar pattern of behavior: 1) immediately showing up at Teahouse claiming to be a newbie, yet had already made at least a score of small edits to various articles, 2) User page and Talk usage of "Yo" and exclamation points. David notMD (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That is not definitive evidence, David notMD, so let's wait on that third account. If you see disruptive edits, please let me know ASAP, or post at WP:ANI if I do not respond promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	good job Flaming Afro (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Paddock

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Paddock. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Flooder block

Hi Cullen,

Thanks for the block of 121.135.87.119. Since I blocked the previous offender with the same MO (86.237.67.33) for 2 weeks, I've amended your block to last 1 week. That's also what Materialscientist gave for the first offence from that latter IP. If it flares up from the same IPs again, I suggest a six month block on the suspicion that they are repeat offending static IPs.

Best wishes,

Samsara 09:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Samsara. I have no problem with extending the length of any such block. My initial inclination is to block for shorter periods under the assumption that other people might use the same IP address, but the disruption is clear and extensive. My watchlist has been full of this garbage for hours, and quite a few IP addresses are involved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "Request" at AN

Softlavender took it upon herself to move my last contribution to the discussion, however, I would like to have it moved back and have expressed as much at her talkpage. [2] It would appear that from her most recent comments there that is unlikely to happen. I'm not asking you to intervene so much as asking if you think my request to her is out of line or inappropriate. I wanted people to read my further comments in direct relation to the original request, not get lost in the comments by other editors. So many, I think, read the original request, scan for a few other comments to see how others are !voting and then put in their own two-cents. The second grouping of comments I made are important and relevant to the original request. I think they should go back to where I put them but need to know if you agree or have a different solution. Thanks, as well, for noting that I did change my signature and commenting about same in the discussion thread. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to assist you right now, Winkelvi. Please allow me to respond to Softlavender on my own. I appreciate your recent contributions to that debate. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for looking into it. Appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Disappearing discussion

Apologies if you've had enough of thinking about it, but I thought I ought to draw your attention to this. Regards, nagualdesign 21:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello nagualdesign. I suggest that you provide diffs to any edits that violate policy at the AN. I am traveling now and do not have a lot of time to research it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Cromulent words

Hello C. I saw your post at AN/I and thought I would share these (make sure to use the left and right arrows to see them all) that I recently came across. I particularly like vellichor and petrichor. Safe journey to you. MarnetteD|Talk 00:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD. I was familiar with about half those words, and the others were new. I enjoyed reading the list. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome C. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Red Thunder Cloud

Hi Jim. Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving. Would you (or any of your talk page watchers) ming taking a look at Red Thunder Cloud when you get the time? It's completely unsourced and it's not clear the subject meets WP:BIO or even WP:GNG. There are also claims that he is no longer alive, but with no sources provided for verification, this might need to be treated as a BLP per WP:BDP. Finally, there are also posts on the talk page about him being an imposter of some kind, which might be helpful in showing notablilty if properly sourced, but might also indicate that this is another article created a WP:LONGTIME ago which never probably should've been created in the first place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. I am traveling now visiting my newborn granddaughter in a rural area and sadly I have very poor and sporadic internet access. The article states that the New York Times ran an obituary but I was unable to log into my NYT account to search. If that is true, then there are no BLP concerns. I recommend searching for sources with more search terms than just the three very common words that comprise his Native American name such as "Catawba" since his claim to notability seems to be his linguistic expertise. I find this type of article fascinating and would not be quick to conclude that the topic is not notable. If my smartphone and the wavering internet connection cooperate, I will try to find some sources. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I found the NYT obituary plus coverage by the Smithsonian Institution and National Public Radio. My preliminary conclusion is that this person is both notable and dead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much Jim for taking the time to do all that. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I will expand the article and add references when I return home. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User SandyBeachCentre

Hi Cullen328! I hope you had a good Thanksgiving. I noticed that you blocked SandyBeachCentre for disruptive editing for 72 hours. I wanted to also let you know that the username matches an Organization in Australia with the exact same name (a simple Google search will return the result right on top); you might want to consider extending that block to an indefinite soft block and letting the user know that they need to change that username or create a new account. I'll leave that decision up to you, as you originally blocked this user. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, Oshwah. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You bet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Patriot Prayer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Patriot Prayer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Beyoncé years active

But it was the year she was taken on by two managers to be included in girls time which at that time consisted of 3 divisions. Pritsindhar (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point but it was not until 1997 that she became a professionally viable entertainer as opposed to a talent show participant. Please make your case for changing the date at Talk: Beyoncé. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Got a spare pair of eyes?

I've been patrolling Gerrymandering and Gerrymandering in the United States, and could use some advice. I'm unfamiliar with the editors suddenly in an uproar regarding a particular image. Thinking maybe an RfC would help resolve the tension. DN (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DN. Perhaps there is something going on that I am not seeing. If so, please clarify. I see a graphic changed to more neutral colors and the removal of a POV pushing word "steal". Is there something else? Where's the uproar? What would you hope to accomplish with an RFC? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Academic notability

You asked me to discuss my draft article on Dr. Robert F. Turner and criticized the sources, stating that they did not establish notability. I took a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria, and ISTM he is more than qualified for an article. Specifically 1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

He and Dr. Moore created the field of National Security Law

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

He was the Charles H. Stockton Professor of International Law at the US Naval College

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]

He has been chairman of two different ABA Subcommittees

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

The reason national security law is a discpline at ever major law school in the US can be attributed to his and John Moore's groundbreaking work at UVA

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).

See US Naval War College

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

He has testified before more than a dozen House and Senate committes regarding national and internation law as well as the separation of powers doctrine and been cited by every major newspaper as such

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

That one I don't know yet.

What issues do you have with the sources? They are what they are. For example, the ABA doesn't even list their current chairman, much less past ones. I can't cite them, because such a cite doesn't exist. But I have multiple sources that state that he has been Chairman of two different subcommmittees.

Help me understand what the issues are. I have cites to the NY Times, WaPo, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe. Lawyers in this field of work don't get feature articles in major media. They are considered advisors, and the good ones are sought for advice repatedly. Do I need to include cites from law review articles? (I don't even know how to find those.)

Hello, Txantimedia. I did not say that Turner is not notable. Perhaps he meets WP:ACADEMIC if reliable sources verify that national security law is a significant discipline and he co-created it. My initial suspicion is that national security law has existed as long as the United States has, but I am not an expert. As for the one year post at the Naval War College, it is usually permanent tenured named chairs that are considered a pass of WP:ACADEMIC. Chairing ABA subcommittees is nowhere equivalent to an elected membership in a highly prestigious academic body like the National Academy of Sciences. Not even close. As for the major media sources, please point out the ones that are substantially about him as opposed to simply mentioning him or quoting him. You came to the Teahouse asking for advice, and I gave some good faith advice. I am not formally reviewing your draft, but rather I am giving you some friendly advice. You are free to ignore my advice if you do not like it. I have made major contributions to hundreds of articles and given informal opinions on many more. You can disregard my experience if you want. If I was you, I would ruthlessly remove the weaker sources and emphasize the stronger sources. But you can do whatever you want. Good luck with your draft article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was trying to learn. I am thankful for you rinput, and I will certainly take it to heart. Txantimedia (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Cullen³²⁸,

This is EXCELLENT work - how come Jytdog or anyone else does not accuse you of tendentious editing with such a lengthy analysis? I like giving, reading and talking about ACTUAL analysis and I can't thank you enough for being willing to volunteer so much time - maybe you could take a look at a few of my contributions to talk pages and noticeboards and give me some guidance?

MakinaterJones (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• My advice to you, MakinaterJones, is to be far less combative and less repetitive, and to listen far more to the advice of experienced editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Well for one thing, Cullen's analyses usually make coherent sense. EEng 03:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I try, EEng, but I am well aware that many editors are far smarter than I am. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Flatterer. EEng 04:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC

Hi again Jim. I'm wondering if I can bend your year about another newly created article I've stumbled upon. Glasgow Gladiators Powerchair FC was created a few days ago and the creator and primary contrubutor (they might be one and the same person, but not sure) are new SPAs who mostly likely are connected to subject in some way. I don't think this is a case of paid editing, but rather probably just a person or person who's involved with the team and who might not understand WP:NOT.

Anyway, the article is completely unsourced and it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I've done a bit of minor clean up, and added some maintenance templates (explained on the talk page), and also have checked for something which might help establish notability per WP:ORG. Most of what I've found, however, appears to be WP:ORGDEPTH kind of trivial mentions or articles about a particular member of the club (like this or this). This article looks promising, especially as a possible source for article content, but I'm not sure that's enough for notability per WP:CLUB.

I believe the team does exist and does complete against other teams, but there are probably lots of whether it should have a Wikipedia article written about it. This is a bit tricky because of the subject matter, so I'm trying to do an extra thorough WP:BEFORE, but it's looking more and more like something which is going to eventually end up at AfD. If there was something to redirect this two then that might be an option, but I have been unable to find a suitable candidate so far.

Any suggestions, etc. you might have would be most appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. I rarely get involved with soccer football articles since I am not at all a serious fan, though I used to see my sons play at the beginner level. I lack any deep understanding of the organizational structure of the sport and lack motivation to study it. I once supported keeping an article about an amateur team in San Francisco at AfD because I knew the local sources very well, and it was the oldest team west of the Mississippi or some such thing, with a very long history. My initial reaction to the article is negative for a variety of reasons. It seems there are no articles about the league and the other teams in the league. The team is very new. The article you cited as the best looks like run-of-the-mill mill local coverage of a worthy but small charitable venture. I hope this helps clarify your thoughts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jim for taking a look and I appreciate the feedback. I'm not much of a fan myself, but came across the article why doing some non-free image checks. I've tried to clean up the formatting, etc. so that it starts to resemble a Wikipedia article, but am also concerned about the lack of sourcing, or at least the lack of anything that goes beyond a local feel good piece that helps show notability. Anyway, I also asked for assistance at WT:FOOTY since its members likely have more experience with these types of articles. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You are, of course, entirely free to work on any article you want, my friend. I decided a long time ago to avoid substantive editing on any article unless I am about 80% to 90% sure that the article should be kept. Like Red Thunder Cloud, for example. Stop by here any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI

It's the madness of crowds all over again... Guy (Help!) 21:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Guy, there used to be workshops all over Europe faking up wood fragments of the cross on which Jesus died, and now we have supercomputers minting "currency" for money laundering and tax evasion. We are so smart. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you read any of David Gerard's comments on this? Attack of the 50ft Blockchain and the like? I'm sticking with Sterling, though my government is doing its best to make that worthless. And yours, I guess, is trying to transfer all the currency into as few hands as possible. Le sigh. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What happened last night in the U.S. Senate was unconscionable but I try to restrain myself here and express my opinions off-Wikipedia. Can you provide a link to Gerard's comments? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

here is the blog for his book. (i am bummed that he self-published it - this makes it not RS), On WP here are some general comments by him. He is active at all the articles. There are so many! We have now added "holding cryptocurrency" as generating a COI about that currency, btw. See WP:EXTERNALREL) Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy and Jytdog, thanks for that information. I just spent some time reading David Gerard's blog, excerpts from his books, and assorted links. If anything, I am now more skeptical about cryptocurrencies than I already was. Someone I otherwise respect is a big fan and got indignant when I recently uttered the word "bubble". Not a Wikipedian. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fatima

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fatima. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My Children's Book Article

So, hi. I came to your talk page to discuss this, seeing as you might know quite a lot more than me on the image rules. Can you detail it further and if possible, help me get some new references on her books. Because most of the information is taken from her website, but I only used it as I knew the information there would be correct. ShyPinkLolly (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC) And also, if I am not available, please add a new section on my talk page, because I can't be bothered to keep coming back here. Sorry. ShyPinkLolly (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ShyPinkLolly. The problem with the image permission has been solved by other editors. I left a couple of notes on your talk page, including links to some possible sources for Murder Most Unladylike. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cullen328. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

GeoJoe1000

Hi Cullen,

A few weeks ago, you put my talk page under semi-protection after I was being harrassed by GeoJoe1000. You asked me to alert you if he returned. Well, he's back, this time under the username "GuyPerson01". This isn't the first time that he has created an account purely for harrassment; a few have been detected through SPI. His intention is clearly to humiliate me in front of other editors by pointing out the times that I have been blocked but I have no idea what he wants to get out of it. However, it's clearly a case of long-term abuse—as I am sure the likes of @Tvx1 and @Spintendo can attest to—and he has no intention of doing anything differently. He posts anonymously or from socks, and during the SPI it was suggested that he is using a VPN to get around blocks within his IP range. Is there a long-term solution to this problem? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Prisonermonkeys. I reverted the trolling, indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet, and extended the semiprotection on your talk page to 90 days. Immediately revert any such trolling from your talk page as is your right, and notify me if it happens again. The next time, I will semiprotect for an even longer time, but if this guy is willing to game the system to create new autoconfirmed socks, it may happen again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. I fully expect that he will be back given the frequency with which he does it. I genuinely have no idea what he wants. He blames me for "getting him blocked"—as if I conspired against him—when his bad behaviour was more than enough to spell an end to his account. But I haven't been able to figure out what he's trying to do here. I think he's under the impression that if he can somehow humiliate me in front of other editors, then other editors will pay me no heed when making decisions. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Responding at RfPP

Hello. When responding to requests for page protection, make sure that you use {{RFPP}} (e.g. {{RFPP|s|3 days}} to say that you've semi-protected for three days) in your response, otherwise Cyberbot I (the bot that clerks RfPP) won't realize that you answered the request. The template documentation includes all the possible responses with the template. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, MRD2014. I just became an administrator a few months ago and am new to RFPP. I will study the template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Who?

...writes up local Jewish histories on Wikipedia? I ran into El Ghriba synagogue, which was in pretty bad shape, and found that the history of the Jews on Djerba is fascinating. One of the things I just noted here is that after 1967 many of the local Jews left. One of the sources I cited has 1360 Jews in all of Tunisia, a thousand of which on Djerba (and Haaretz confirms this), so those must be post-1967 numbers, but unfortunately History of the Jews in Tunisia doesn't have much to say about 1967, and neither does Djerba#History_of_Djerba's_Jewish_community. Do you have experts among your talk page visitors? Drmies (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Drmies. In all honesty, I am not aware of who the truly productive editors on Jewish topics are. I have edited some articles on Jewish topics on my own but it is probably far less than 5% of my work here. I worked on another North African synagogue article about two years ago, Ben Ezra Synagogue, but I cannot remember what brought the topic to my attention, other than the fact Debra and I visited there fleetingly on our honeymoon 36 years ago. Or was it another Cairo synagogue?

I never wanted to be seen as a "Jewish oriented editor" and like being a generalist so have not cultivated those relationships. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.

The mass departure of the formerly large Jewish communities of almost every Muslim country in the last 70 years is a very sad and very interesting story that is largely out of the consciousness of most non-Jewish westerners. I have read about it quite a bit and our little synagogue in the Napa Valley has members who are Jewish refugees from Morocco, Turkey and Iran. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. You know I'm not trying to pigeonhole you, but you know more than I do in general, certainly when it comes to Jewish history and tradition. In high school we studied all forty or so Protestant denominations in the motherland, but Judaism wasn't part of the curriculum, I think. I'd like to go see that island--and Cairo! So the diaspora continues, doesn't it. Thanks Cullen; I hope you and yours are well. Please give my regards to Deb. I hope someone who runs into this post and knows their stuff will get interested in these articles. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Egypt was wonderful, Drmies. In addition to Cairo, we visited the Valley of the Kings, Luxor, Karnak and Abu Simbel. We also toured Israel and Ireland. We returned home the day before Anwar Sadat was assassinated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why does he get mail and I don't? He's already got a dog! Drmies (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

	Mail is on the way
	Awww, don't feel bad, Drmies. I love you too. Here's some mail for you. MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshit, all I got was some spam from the Toyota dealer... :-( Drmies (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It takes a while when it is delivered by a cartoon fireman on foot. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha, you're right. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This might be anticlimactic, but I received and responded to MelanieN's email. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

What country has firemen that look like that? Natureium (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I wondered that too. The uniform is vaguely British, but the helmet looks like something out ancient history. Sparta, maybe? --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

He looks like a character from a 30 year old video game to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That helmet is far more recent than ancient Sparta. More like WW2. See for example these Soviet & nazi designs. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that it's been said, I can see it as a helmet, but I thought it was a floppy cloth hat and a headlamp around his waist. I wouldn't have known it was a fireman if it weren't for the filename. Natureium (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems likely to be a Phrygian cap, variously associated with Mithras, freedom, numerous ancient and some modern nations, revolutionary republicanism, the U.S. Senate and other things. There is probably fertile ground for a conspiracy theory in there somewhere. Some ancient Phrygian caps -- or headgear inspired by them -- were metal rather than fabric, and therefore capable of protecting our eager fireman from falling objects. MPS1992 (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Blue Sky (artist)

Hi Jim. You were a big help with Red Thunder Cloud, so I'm wondering if you'd take a peak Blue Sky (artist). It's only supported by one source (which seems a bit iffy) and reads more like personal profile than an encycopedic article. I Googled the name, but all I found is primary stuff or other trivial type mentions. Article as been around since 2006, remained unsourced until this 2016 edit, but otherwise has stayed the same. If better sourcing cannot be found to support even a trimmed down version of the article, then I think that maybe a redirect to Tunnelvision would be OK as an alternative to deletion. The problem is though the notability of that article is also a bit iffy. Anyway, just looking for some other opinions on this. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly. Here are some possible sources for either or both articles, of varying degrees of reliability and usefulness:

• People magazine

• The State

• Carolina Reporter & News

• Roadside America

• Atlas Obscura

• Carolina Highways

• Art Voices/South contains the following snippet: "Although Blue Sky is best known for his mural Tunnelvision (1975) painted on the Federal Land Bank Building in Columbia, he has produced a collection of recent oils and acrylics which are representative of the "true realism" that he freely employs in his illusionary murals. "Nights," an exciting and entertaining exhibition , was housed in the Columbia Museum of Art and Science, from November through January. At the museum gallery visitors were introduced to the artist by viewing a ..."

• The painting is discussed in A Trick of the Eye: Trompe l'oeil Masterpieces, but I cannot see how extensive the discussion is.

I hope that this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a peek Jim. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Ainundil

Please could you take a looksee at this discussion. In the beginning I thought it was a straightforward case of tendentious editing, then because it's not my area of expertise I backed off a little and asked others to comment.^[1][2] Since no help has been immediately forthcoming I decided to continue with my own investigating and now I feel even more sure that I'm correct. Unfortunately I'm worried I might say or do something I shouldn't and end up landing myself in hot water, and I could of course be completely wrong about this, so I thought I'd better pass the baton to you instead. I hope you don't mind. Regards, nagualdesign 03:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, nagualdesign. My recommendation is to keep watching these articles and reverting any obvious nonsense. Keep a page of diffs documenting the problems. Do not try to discover this person's real world identity. The issue here is the quality (or lack thereof) of their contributions to the encyclopedia . Many Wikiprojects are inactive and not very helpful in such situations. You can ping editors who have made recent productive contributions to these articles, drawing their attention to article talk page discussions. If the situation deteriorates, be prepared to make a report to WP:ANI, and notify me as well. Thanks for your work on this. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Repinging nagualdesign due to my typo. (I have a new phone). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, Jim. I'll revert the latest swathe of edits and alert previous contributors to those articles about the discussion. I'm sure they'll know more about oceanography than I do. And don't worry, I never had any intention of trying to 'out' anybody, I only meant that since the user claimed to be a "Geoloigist Profesor in the Univeristy" then they might wish to either produce their credentials or pipe down, but fair point, I won't even mention that again. ~Joe A.K.A. nagualdesign 06:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that the discussion at Ainundil's talk page is now heading in the right direction. Thank you again for your advice, and feel free to chip in or help to oversee proceedings. Regards, nagualdesign 06:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In the end he volunteered to identify himself. It turns out that he's a PhD student and not a university professor. The good news is that he's posted a question on that website (scroll to the bottom of the page to read it) so despite the hyperbole - "wikipedia editors are about to burn me in a public square" - we might get a solid answer from scientific professionals. nagualdesign 16:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Can you teach me how to create myself as a bot so I can deliver them a newsletter like event and tip of the day also some good jokes. If you approve that, that will be great! TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A detailed video tutorial can be found here, including a demonstration of some of the pros and cons. nagualdesign 08:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

didn’t help me though and no movie links TheDeliveryGuy (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear! Here's your tip for the day from me to you: If your sole contribution to Wikipedia is to say you want to 'create yourself as a bot' so that you can deliver 'some good jokes' then somebody replies with a bit of whimsy, it's not the End of the World. Also, lay off the petty vandalism. nagualdesign 10:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niazi Express?

Dear Cullen328, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niazi Express, editor Ammarpad feels that I have been canvassing, as I posted at the WikiProject Buses [3]. I had been previously told that WikiProjects are a place to ask interested editors to have a look and so I posted at the Buses WikiProject. I mentioned in the AfD that I will be posting there. If possible, could you please have a look at the AfD and let me know if what I did counts as canvassing? Thank you--DreamLinker (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, DreamLinker. In my opinion, you did not canvass, and I have commented at the AfD debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help Cullen328.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aydin Aghdashloo. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328!

File:Worms in a Can.jpg

An hors d'oeuvre, perhaps?

I think you can probably delete User_talk:32.218.36.178 per that. The IP geolocates to a different continent. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, The Quixotic Potato. Please take this up with Kintetsubuffalo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Haha! What a wonderful idea. </sarcasm> nagualdesign 08:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If I thought it would be productive, I would try to figure this out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this was a decent solution. Have a nice day! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Well if you ever manage to figure it out, do let me know. nagualdesign 08:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Current situation

Hi Jim, thanks for making the change on the Amb. Mandell article. I think it's very possible they will be back, especially considering that another brand new account with a similar objective has been charging very hard at me on the article of Michael J. Saylor (a client in 2013, and again starting this month). As you can see on that talk page, they've tried a) adding significant negative material, b) adding COI warning tags, and c) deleting all edits back to 2010. This is besides accusing me of sock puppetry, and worse. This editor is drawing part of their argumentation from a long discussion at Talk:COI about whether FTC guidelines from 2014 should be interpreted as governing paid interactions on Wikipedia (e.g., should there be warning templates on all articles with COI input? should COI edits be considered illegal? etc.). Slaporte (WMF) was asked to weigh in, and said earlier today there are no clear answers, but that his team may research it next year. No idea if you have the stomach for this debate, but you asked, so I answered. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I simply do not understand why you think that well referenced negative information like that 2000 New York Times article does not belong in that biography. As for the FTC argument, that is an unresolved meta policy issue, and I would defer to legal guidance and any changes to community consensus that develop in the future. In the meantime, I believe that the work of paid editors who comply with policies and guidelines should have a chance to stand on its merits. But it is inevitable that the work of paid editors will be subjected to heightened scrutiny. That is natural and wise and highly unlikely to change. Despite the predictable wishes of your clients, biographies here should not be hagiographies.

In conclusion, I will decline to get involved with that specific article, although I encourage you to notify me about other cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Presumption of guilt

I see that you recently deleted an article of this name as it was too short. I've done some research and find evidence for de facto presumption of guilt in China, Turkey, the EU, the US and the UK. This includes fixed-penalty fines, seizure of vehicles and other property without trial, prolonged pre-trial detention, court bias, shoot-first policies and even a UK ministry of Justice leaflet advising 'you may have to prove to the court that you did not do the crime'. Is this enough for an article? Crawiki (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Jim would be better able to comment on whether an article on the topic is likely to be justified. But I will mention that finding Ministry of Justice leaflets that say particular things appears to be WP:Original research, which is not the aim of Wikipedia. It may be better to seek secondary WP:reliable sources that describe these items of evidence as showing a practice of presumption of guilt. MPS1992 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Crawiki and MPS1992. I have no opinion about whether the topic is notable or whether we ought to have an article about it. I deleted the "article" back in October because it was essentially worthless. Crawiki, if you have found sufficient coverage of the topic in truly reliable sources and want to try to write a neutral article that complies with our policies and guidelines, then please go ahead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Pacific Institute

I agree that the claim that "they have convinced the people that using water is destroying it" is unsupported. That comes from talking to people about the issue. So you found one tiny mistake and instead of editing out that one thing you delete the entire paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twelvestitches (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I have blocked this user indefinitely as in the aftermath of the AN/I discussion and your warning to the user, they seem persistent in continuing with their own ways. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have a major misunderstanding here, Twelvestitches. I removed nothing that you added and I do not think that I have ever edited the articles that you have edited. I simply gave you a warning based on your pattern of editing and your response at ANI.

Since you have now been blocked by Alex Shih, you will need to convince another administrator that you will comply with our policies and guidelines going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bruno Bettelheim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bruno Bettelheim. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Troublesome IP

Hi Jim, do you mind doing something about this edit? It isn't the first time this person has posted nonsense, along with a link to their personal web page. You're going to need your big fly swatter. Cheers. nagualdesign 11:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

...It's probably the same person who made this edit, and possibly this IP too (though perhaps not). nagualdesign 11:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, nagualdesign. I blocked the first two IPs you mentioned for spamming their vaporizer website and general disruptive editing. I am also unsure about the third IP. Let me know if their conduct deteriorates. Sorry to be slow to respond. I was working in an area with poor internet coverage today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. While the third IP may not be the same person who was using the first two, looking at their contributions it's pretty obvious that they're not here to build an encyclopedia. As far as I can tell, not a single edit they've made has been useful. I'll check periodically to see if they continue (no deterioration is necessary). nagualdesign 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."

Hello Cullen328: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 22:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy Holidays to you, Buster7. I wish you a roast goose and a figgy pudding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It's that time of the year...

Jim. No fancy template, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year, and thanking you for all your work. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Kudpung. We just wrapped up Hanukkah here, but I have a two month old granddaughter, so every day is a holiday these days. I am sure that it is warmer in Thailand now than it is here in the Napa Valley, but it is also warmer here than it is in Duluth, Minnesota. It is chilly at night but I can walk around in a t-shirt most days, and there has been no frost on my windshield so far this year.

As for my "work" here, I do not consider it work since I enjoy it. I am slowly settling into being an administrator, although I will never be the most productive administrator. I have only deleted 443 pages so far, and accidentally blocked the wrong editor the other day, though I immediately unblocked and apologized. I got accused of being a paid admin on Reddit a week or so ago, which I consider evidence that I am doing something right. Thanks again for your encouragement and support. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

When Philippe, former WMF director of community advocacy and good friend, left to work at Reddit, things were fine. Now he's moved on again, it's become another cesspit like Wikipediocracy. Whatever, as you say, it's because you're doing something right! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Philippe is a fine person, Kudpung. I may not know him as well as you do, but I like him very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cullen328: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thank you, Winkelvi. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
	Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 02:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That is an enormous Hanukkah bush, onel5969. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I would have been a couple of days late for a Happy Chanukkah! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Belated greetings are friendly greetings nonetheless, onel5969. That's why Hallmark sells belated birthday cards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well then, either Shabbat Shalom or simply Happy Hanukkah my friend. I lost track this year, and when I called my best friend yesterday to wish him the same sentiments, he informed me of my tardiness! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

This particular Hanukkah was joyfully special, onel5969, since we got to celebrate it with our two month old granddaughter, who we adore. I wish you the happiest of holidays. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on the new addition to your family. And always feel free to wish me a Happy Hanukkah, or L'Shana Tova, etc.! Growing up, probably over half of my friends were Jewish... now, years later I always kid them that I never got invited to a single Seder. Lots of Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, but not a single Seder. Take care and have a very Happy New Year. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Tekno Miles

Hi Cullen

Remember giving me advice on Drmes' page regarding a "Tekno Miles" page. Well after adding the citations you counseled I put, Drmes removed them all. No reason was given whatsover. And right now, one of these wiki bots have come on the same page asking for citations (which shouldn't be a problem except the citations I put were removed. What should I do next. Thanks in advance for you response Aghachi7 (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Aghachi7. Drmies reverted many of the citations, calling them "download links" in his edit summary. We do not allow links to commercial websites where people can download music, with the exception of an external link to the performer's own website. These are highly promotional links. Please remove them.

Acceptable citations would include independent music publications with professional editorial control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Cullen. Yes, we are not a repository for links. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• You are welcome, Drmies. I hope that you are feeling better and enjoying the holidays with your wonderful wife and children, my friend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Cullen328!!


Hi Cullen328, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you, Davey2010. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and Seasons Greetings to you, Bzuk. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Cullen328, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks and Merry Christmas to you, CAPTAIN RAJU. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy Holidays to you, MarnetteD. A few days ago, my wife and I saw a pretty decent version of A Christmas Carol starting Patrick Stewart as Scrooge, so the tale is fresh in my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome C. I'm glad you both enjoyed Pat's version. The only time I've ever heard the "coffin nail" term used in film or TV is this version. It comes towards the end in a scene that isn't in Dickens work. I know it isn't everyone's cup of tea but I have an affection for it. Best wishes to you and yours in 2018. MarnetteD|Talk 22:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

HH!

		Happy Holidays! Happy New Year!
		Thinking of you and wishing you good health and happiness. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Rosiestep, and Happy Holidays to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Hiddleston

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Hiddleston. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A Request For Just A *Little* More...

Just wanted to say "thank you" for the information posted at 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blockfolio_page_"speedy_deleted"_but_how_can_I_modify_what_I_first_wrote?_Can't_find_history._Please_advise.'; along the lines of the same, would it possible to request review of the reply to what was written there? Thanks again... idfubar (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Idfubar. If there was anything worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia, I would be happy to restore the content as a draft. But there wasn't. As I wrote previously, "It was completely unreferenced and highly promotional, and contained several unacceptable external links. There was nothing worthy of an encyclopedia article there." Why would I restore content that is completely unacceptable for this encyclopedia? That is not a good thing to do. If you believe that this topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, then please read and study Your first article, and write a well-referenced article that complies with the neutral point of view. Please be aware that many experienced, uninvolved editors are highly skeptical of articles about cryptocurrencies, for obvious reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328; the skepticism regarding temporal topics is duly noted... though it should be mentioned that, insofar as one is a Wikipedia volunteer, one likely presumes the presence of more information regarding a given topic would be better for a controversial topic ("Sunshine is the best disinfectant", as they say). Further, it is - unfortunately - not possible to respond to your questions without being able to see the article which was deleted (and, in fact, the discussion so far - in simply trying to help Corpania - would lead an observer to question whether a new contributor should really have to struggle with editors in a place of privilege to determine the same for themselves!)... in light of the same, would restoring the content to a sandbox or draft status really be asking for too much? Per your suggestion the introductory articles are being reviewed in parallel - but having something to work with (e.g. pseudocode, article framework a la header/footer formatting, etc.) is always easier for a beginner (to say nothing of better for a learner given the cognitive "ramp" being flattened by the abscence of anxiety that a blank page can yield) who is working in a context, i.e. under constraint.idfubar (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Idfubar. The answer is no. There is absolutely nothing worth saving in that deleted article. If there was, I would be happy to restore it to draft or sandbox space. But there is nothing worthwhile there, in my judgment. You are free to try to find another administrator with a more lenient view, and I will not object if you find one. My "place of privilege", as you put it so elegantly, derives from the trust that the broad community of Wikipedia editors has placed in me. They expect me to make unambiguous decisions, and here my answer to you is "no". Start from scratch if you want, but be aware that experienced editors are watching this topic and will expect full compliance with our policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328; also, please, no hard feelings about my comment (one only assumes that Wikipedia editors are seated as they exercise their judgement & that said judgement, e.g. Kudpung banning Corpania), is consistent with the community's placing of that trust - say, per WP4) - it's just what one would mean to say in making an appeal on the behalf of new contributors hoping to learn as they go along...

New editors who have screwed up should read and understand the advice that they have been given, and edit in full compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines going forward. When those new editors or their allies (you in this case) persist with behavior that indicates that they are neither listening nor understanding the clear advice they have been given, then we have entered into the territory of disruptive and tendentious editing, and those editors (including you), are at high risk of being blocked. Please desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. idfubar (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...He is desisting.See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User_talk:Idfubar.Sigh! Winged Blades^Godric 15:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Winged Blades of Godric. Wowzers! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Cullen328: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 02:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you, MRD2014. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Cullen328: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you, K6ka. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant !

This is brilliantly put. Loved the way you put the point across. And of course, lots of Christmas cheer and wishes to you and your family Cullen. Lourdes 13:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and Christmas cheer to you, Lourdes. I do not celebrate the holiday myself, but wish the very best to those that do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Ad Orientem (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you, Ad Orientem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!

My very best wishes Cullen for this holiday season. May your heart be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you, Crystallizedcarbon. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. My apologies if I inadvertently upset or insulted you with my comments at RfA, that was not my intention at all. I very much respect you as an editor and an admin. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You certainly did not insult me in any way, Beyond My Ken, and no apology is needed. We simply disagreed on this small point. Thanks, anyway. I think highly of you as well. Enjoy your Christmas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

DUI in California

Hi Cullen328. Since you currently appear to be online, I'm wondering if you could protect DUI in California. I did start WP:RPP#DUI in California and also have asked for help at User talk:Malinaccier#User:Pocketthis, but things might be a bit slow due to the holiday season. I'm not trying to forum shop, just trying to get the disruption stopped so that the possible EVADE and SOCK issues can then be sorted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly. I have protected the article for 72 hours and appealed to the involved editors to work toward consensus on the talk page. Feel free to ask for my help at any time, although there are certain brawls that I prefer to avoid. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed to semiprotection when I realized that the main edit warrior is a block evading IP, Marchjuly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jim for taking a look at this. For what it's worth, I have no position in the content dispute; I just had this article on my watchilist, saw the IP editing warring and then the possible block invasion. I figured that protection was the best way to stop the disruption and then the other issues could be resolved via ANI or AN3 if necessary. I think that the article's creator is still coming to grips with WP:OWN and perhaps a bit of WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY; I think they believe they are being helpful, but just are not going it in the right way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Marchjuly, it is troubling that Pocketthis posted an umambiguous retirement message and then immediately started block evasion through IP socking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It always amazes me when people imagine we're powerless to see through sockpuppetry. "Look at this spontaneous gathering of other editors agreeing with me!" Fact is, you can't be stupid and get through med school, but I've known some d-u-m-b lawyers (depending on the specialty). EEng 00:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not know about you, EEng, but I have never once fallen off of a turnip truck. Or any other type of truck. Thanks, as always, for stopping by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Imagine the thrill of being a small-town reporter sent to cover a road accident who finds that someone actually did fall off the turnip truck. EEng 00:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I think in a case like this that the editor simply believes they are 100% right and that the "problem" (at least as they percieve it) is that others are unwilling to accept that simple fact. It's not really vandalism per se, but it's just as disruptive. Unfortunately for these editors, they too quickly find out that's not really how Wikipedia is intended to work, which is why I suggested to Pocketthis on the article's talk page that he'd probably be better off finding a blog or some other website where they would have full control of the narrative. I was hoping that my suggestion would've prevented anyone getting blocked, but now he's likely going to have his main account indef'ed and multiple editors watching the article for any further attempts at socking. It's too bad really because he appears to be have contributed lots of good images to the project. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree completely, Marchjuly.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

they too quickly find out that's not really how Wikipedia is intended to work – Quite the opposite: they don't find out nearly quickly enough. EEng 01:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"they too quickly" was intended to be read as "they also quickly/they too, quickly" not as "they, too quickly". Badly phrased on my part. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me suggest you decline that appointment as appeals judge in capital cases. Sooner or later that would have to end badly. EEng 02:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately, appeals court judges have clerks to help them tighten up their writing. Here, we have each other. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

As when I now correct your each other to one another -- is that what you mean, Your Honor? EEng 05:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You are hereby invited and given permission to follow me around and correct all of my crude and inept verbal formulations, my friend, EEng. You will find many of them. I am not a very well educated fellow, but I try. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In the present circumstance inapt might be more ept, may it please the court. EEng 09:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, EEng, but administrators do not adjudicate your sense of humor. Luckily for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:CarioNB

CarioNB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fly swatter at the ready, Jim! nagualdesign 01:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Scratch that. Looks like Widr got there first. nagualdesign 01:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

That editing career lasted all of eleven minutes, nagualdesign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hah! Must've been a Dolania. nagualdesign 14:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Childish

Per WP:OSE, “These ‘other stuff exists’ arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping by my talk page, Anythingyouwant. BLP violations should be removed everywhere, but I disagree with the implication that we should be less diligent when dealing with a specific article because similar problems exist in general elsewhere. Feel free to point me to any other specific article where you think BLP violations are present, and I will investigate. I am not interested in getting involved in the "biggies" like Trump or Clinton, but will be happy to take a look at two or three where you believe editor partisanship is preventing neutrality or maintaining BLP violations. Just yesterday, for example, I speedy deleted an attack page that smeared a perennial GOP candidate. It was quite ugly and I deleted it without hesitation when it came to my attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to exclude certain material: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." You are seeking to exclude information in this BLP about an ongoing investigation by the Inspector General of the DOJ, reported in extremely reliable sources. Namecalling ("childish", "partisan") in support of WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems rather counterproductive, IMHO. The BLP says, "The Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating McCabe for concerns that he should have recused himself from the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server because of a potential conflict of interest caused by donations to his wife's Virginia State Senate campaign." So why not tell the reader anything about the donations? I am mainly concerned about the namecalling, here, it doesn't help.

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, putting all of this Wikipedia stuff aside, I do wish you Happy Holidays and New Year, and of course any suboptimal feelings I have about this matter will not carry over into the new year!  :-) Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I thought that you had come to my talk page for a more general discussion, Anythingyouwant. Your content point above belongs at Talk: Andrew McCabe. I made it clear on that talk page that I was not calling you childish but rather describing one aspect of your argument as I understood it to be childish. It was the public figures who are attacking McCabe that I called partisan, not you, which those people definitely are. So, continuing to bring up namecalling is not useful, since I already responded to that issue quite clearly.

My BLP concern has to do with how much attention and what level of detail about unsubstantiated allegations belong in the biography of a person who has never been a highly visible public figure during a long career of government service until the recent controversy. My opinion is "not very much", unless he is officially found to have engaged in misconduct. It is valid, I suppose, for you to argue that a bit more detail is appropriate. I do not think it is valid to argue that excessive detail about unsubstantiated allegations is OK here because other articles have similar problems. That is how I read one aspect of your argument. My offer to take a look at other articles still stands. Let's try collaborating rather than bickering. By the way, I do appreciate the additional message you left while I was drafting my response. Happy New Year to you! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

HNY

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and I wish you a wonderful 2018, PaleoNeonate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Fort High School

I think some revdel's in order there. EEng 22:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, EEng. I think I took care of all the extreme BLP violations, but will you please check for me? This is my first time "revdelling". No jokes, please unless they are really funny.

Happy New Year! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

[4]? EEng 23:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I concur, you missed one edit. Thanks, Jim. John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see, EEng and John from Idegon. Even a tiny edit keeps the BLP violations in the history. Thanks for checking and helping me learn. I appreciate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Because we typically highlight offending material by using a diff at the point it was introduced, people fall into thinking that it's a diff (or diffs) you're revdeling, but actually you're revdeling versions of the page. Basically you have to find the first page version V1 that has the bad stuff (the right side of the diff introducing the bad stuff), and the last page version V2 that has the bad stuff (the left side of the diff that removed the bad stuff -- and you might have to do a removal yourself to create such a diff), and then revdel all page versions from V1 to V2 inclusive. EEng 23:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I see now, EEng. The proper procedure is not to try to pick out the individual bad versions but rather, in a single operation, revdel all the versions from the first bad version to the last bad version containing the specific bad content. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Right, but where e.g. there's been an edit war over the bad material, with other constructive edits sprinkled in, it's important to only revdel the specific versions that have the bad content, thus leaving as many of the constructive versions, and diffs creating them, as possible unrevdelled. It looks like you did a good job of that, actually, in this case. EEng 00:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There have been two cases over the years where I had made major and valid contributions to articles that were later lost to revdels due to much older copyvios. This reminds me that I can go back and, as an admin, pick out that "lost" content and add it back. Thanks for your help, EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

And I don't get a Happy New Year... why? EEng 01:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I was responding to other people's greetings, EEng, but since you are so needy and sensitive, A Very Happy New Year 2018 To You! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't looking for a pity greeting. EEng 01:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Actually, I was.

The wishes are sincere, my friend. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Bah humbug! Listen, maybe you can help get things on track at User talk:Tony1. EEng 14:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely do not believe that anything I could say there would improve the situation, EEng. Unless I agreed with every word that he has said, (which I cannot do), I suspect that any comment I made would keep his anger stoked. Sometimes, it is best to say nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cullen328!

Happy New Year!

Cullen328,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Thanks, and Happy New Year to you, Winkelvi. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and Happy New Year!

Thank you for your help at WP:Teahouse! I would also like to use this opportunity to wish you Happy and Prosperous New Year 2018! Alexey Karetnikov (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Alexey Karetnikov. I know an agenda when I see it, but I do not have the biomedical expertise necessary to get more deeply involved. I was happy to help in some small way. Let's hope that 2018 will be a good year for humanity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

New year's greetings

Happy new year, Jim! I hope 2018 will be another wonderful year for you. I hope you don't mind me coming to you again from time to time for your advice and guidance. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Alex Shih. I am happy to discuss anything with you at any time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

HP Nielsen

Hi Jim. Was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at HP Nielsen? It's a new article and appears to be a first effort by a new editor. Lots of content with citations, but most are from very old newspaper articles which make verification a bit hard. Anyway, Nielsen appears to have been from the Bay Area so maybe he's fairly well known in your neck of the woods. I also wondering in the initials in the title need periods. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. For what it's worth, I have never heard of the guy. What a strange article! I am having trouble seeing how this fellow is notable. He hit a kid with his car, and the kid was uninjured. He got food poisoning and his stomach got pumped. He crushed his hand while fixing a car. He had some unsuccessful inventions including a biplane that didn't fly very well. He was a fireman. His name was often spelled wrong. He got into scrapes with the law. He had a blind son and an angry wife. And so on.

The Call was a major San Francisco newspaper that stopped publishing in 1965. The Oakland Tribune was a major daily that declined and shut down in 2016. I do not know the Alameda papers used as references. In my mind, routine local newspaper coverage of a colorful eccentric does not add up to notability, but maybe I am just a very mean old man. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Jim. Not sure what to do then. It didn't get added via AfC and it appears to a first time effort by a new editor. I thought about tagging with {{Notability}}, etc. but don't want to appear bitey. At the same time. if WP:BIO is questionable, then AfD may be where this should end up. Any ideas on how to best deal with this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you express your concerns with the creator of the article first, Marchjuly. AfD may be appropriate in the end. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. I posted a comment at User talk:FLRdorothy#HP Nielsen per your suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

As a passer-by, I think Jim's estimate is likely to be proven right in the end. On the other hand, browsing through the article and claimed sources, part of me is tempted to think that this is exactly the sort of regular press coverage that leads -- or led -- us to believe that all high schools are likely to have sufficient coverage to be notable. That is also one reason why I think contact with the article creator, as soon as possible, is wise. Anyone providing that many newspaper sources is either likely to be able to explain how they accessed them (microfiche at a local library?) or may actually still possess paper copies (and therefore be able to provide page numbers et cetera). I am among the latter group, but not on the topic of HP Nielson! Either way, we should really be assuming good faith that the newspaper sources all exist and support what is in the article. And if apparently reliable independent sources really wanted to talk about this person so much, then........

(At the risk of talking too long about an article that is probably too long and possibly does not need to exist, the trivia about him refusing to pay a business tax may actually be of interest or relevance to someone or other studying legal judgments made about the rights of repairmen as against salesmen or mechanics or whatever it was -- it is not merely a legal argument made on his own behalf, though its wider relevance is not made clear in the article.)

The article title is probably not punctuated right, or perhaps should include both forenames if the sources are not very insistent on use of the initials only. MPS1992 (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, MPS1992. We could discuss the notability of high schools endlessly, but I am not sure that the comparison with this person is a fair one. I will try to keep my point succinct: For fifteen years, our Five pillars have said that Wikipedia combines the characteristics of encyclopedias, almanacs and gazetteers. Go to a used bookstore and look at a 40 or 50 year old general purpose almanac - a single volume printed reference work. You will find a very comprehensive list of colleges and universities. Since we do not need to buy paper and ink, and are not limited by the constraints of a single volume, I think it is entirely reasonable to include verifiable articles about all accredited degree awarding educational institutions including high schools. This does not seem to be the same as including an article about a fellow who tinkered around with fire nozzles and failed airplane designs, and got into fights. When we had compromise consensus that we kept high school articles but did not keep primary school articles, except the rare historical counterexample, these debates were kept brief and on point. The deletionists have chipped away at that simple working consensus, wasting endless editor time, in my view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we agree with each other on the notability of high schools mess, Jim. Or at least, that it is a mess. My perception is different in some ways -- from the rather old-fashioned British/Commonwealth viewpoint that I either enjoy or suffer depending on perspective, a degree is not something that is ever awarded by a mere high school! On this particular individual's notability, I think we'll agree to disagree. I rarely find myself at AfD on either side, it all seems so tiring once one researches a topic deeply enough to choose a side. Maybe that is a failing on my part, maybe we all need to do more AfD. But are there regular AfDs on high schools again now? Ugh, yes, so wasteful of time. Oh, and the Spruce Goose was a failed airplane design, along with every other failed airplane design that are notable even in themselves, item by item. Failed to fly, flew only once, et cetera... on and on it goes. MPS1992 (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but with these kinds of sources I'm afraid the subject's not notable. The article's exactly the kind of thing you'd see in e.g. the California Historical Society Quarterly, and then the existence of such an article would make the subject notable by WP standards. But threading this kind of stuff together directly on WP is OR and, in a few cases, SYNTH. The key warning sign is that the article is entirely based on old newspapers – it's the sort of occasional routine coverage you'd see for a colorful guy living in one town for 70 years. (And the patents are WP:PRIMARY.) The one exception is the 1945 Tribune obituary. If that were extensive and comprehensive, then maybe. Maybe. I'd be torn. It's a shame because the headlines in the refs are some of the most fun I've seen in a while: "Auto Backs Over Cliff", "Stenographer Injured By Falling Door", "Auto Runs Down Boy Who Escapes Unhurt", "Vein Bursts In Man's Leg", and (my personal favorite) "Eats Boiled Beef And Is Poisoned". I hope we can handle this without discouraging a new editor. EEng 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@EEng and MPS1992: I appreciate all of the feedback. FWIW, I certainly don't want to discouraged any new editors. If this a first effort as I suspect, then it's not nearly close to the worst I've seen. I came here because Jim has been very helpful with bios in the past and thought there's a chance they he might be able to help with this one as well, particularly since the subject seems to hail from his neck of the woods. If there's a chance that this could be better sourced and cleaned up into a stand-alone article, then maybe userfication or moving to the draft namespace would be an acceptable alternative to AfD. It might even be possible for Neilsen to be mentioned in another article with the bio redirected to that article. Maybe there's some "List of ... " article where he could be added or maybe it's posssible for an article about the plane itself to be created. If there's no chance of this ever being a stand-alone article or any reasonable redirect being found, then maybe AfD is unavoidable. I posted something on the creator's user talk (I tried to be careful with my wording), so maybe they will respond and help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed my mind after reviewing the text of some of the sources -- see the editor's talk page and article talk page. EEng 00:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

New article moved from sandbox has sandbox history

The Zombie Hut article seems to have taken my sandbox history with it and needs cleanup please. Sorry for the mess. Here is the diff from where I moved it from my sandbox to the article space and where the history of this article begins. I guess i did that wrong.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Aloha, Mark Miller. No, everything is OK. When you move a draft from your sandbox space or draft space to main encyclopedia space, the history comes along. Sometimes, multiple editors collaborate on drafts, and that history is needed for proper attribution. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything from 14:48, 22 July 2017‎ PrimeBOT (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,659 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Replace magic links with templates per local RfC - BRFA) going all the way back to January 4, 2016 is my sandbox history for another article on the Children and wives of Kamehameha I and part of the article that became House of Moana.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

My first comment was badly worded. The diff I left is not from where I moved it to the article space but the diff where the history for the Zombie Hut article begins. Everything else is not the article history.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the very first history of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It took me a while to learn the proper technique, but  Done, Mark Miller. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much!--Mark Miller (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Lets discuss Poetry excerpts

Hi Cullen,

The poet biography I am working on is residing in my sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MauraWen/sandbox

I understand what you are saying in your response to my earlier Teahouse question. This is a fairly new published poet, there are no reviews that I can find. I like the idea of sharing a few lines of her poetry to make her biography more interesting and also to expose readers to her work.

Do you think, given her little known poet status, I should or should not add a few lines of her poetry? Would you add lines of poetry to her bio if you were writing it?

Thanks for the offer of additional discussion. I like to discuss what I am working on and new things I am learning. MauraWen (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, MauraWen. I am a bit concerned when you say that there are no reviews of her work since professional reviews are usually the best way to establish the notability of a writer or poet. I see a few awards but are they notable awards that also confer notability on the recipient? Is one of the awards given by her publisher? So, the first goal is to show that this poet is truly notable. If she is, then in my opinion, including some brief quotations from her award winning poems would be appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Toby Keith

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Toby Keith. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hiya!

Sorry to bother you, but I've seen you in action at the teahouse and was wondering if you would be willing to help out user ShelbyLH. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women's_volleyball_leagues and User_talk:The_Quixotic_Potato#Volleyball and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women's_sport#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women's_volleyball_leagues. Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, The Quixotic Potato. I moved the article to Big West volleyball. It is a bit of a mess, but I have almost no knowledge of the sport. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Big 10 Conference (West Virginia) High School Football

Thank you for responding with more specific instruction. Most of my historic references are from a book which is no longer in print, "Knights of the Laughing Waters" by George W. Ramsey, Jr. I've placed footnotes where he's referenced. I also found information on Washington Irving High School's history sight, which I've foot-noted as well. You are correct about the win-loss records and conference standings; I've collected those from newspapers and in recent years, on-line. Should I reference every single year and the newspaper/sight I found the records, or should I just place a note at the end of a series of records? Nearly all came from the Clarksburg Exponent/Telegram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SGT1998. I cannot find any listing for a book called Knights of the Laughing Waters by George W. Ramsey, Jr in any of the usual places, such as Google Books or Amazon. Please provide an ISBN number and the name of the publisher. If it is a self-published book, it is unlikely to be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's a spot where the book is for sale: http://www.marionhistorical.org/pages/shop-books.html It's about three-quarters of the way down the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SGT1998. I am not questioning whether or not the book exists but rather whether it is a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. For that, I need the name of the publisher and the ISBN number. This is basic bibliographic information that should be included in a book reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's all good. How do I delete the article from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

SGT1998, please don't be hasty. Jim, I have a different viewpoint than those expressed at Teahouse. Search "List of high school athletic conferences in X state" (for some states, it's "List of (abbreviation for the state high school athletic sanctioning body) conferences"). You'll see in the majority of states, all the conferences have articles. There are a few states that do not have conferences, such as your home state of California. Existence and details such as current members can almost always be cited to the sanctioning body. The formation will be covered by some newspaper, somewhere. So will every change. The conference standings will be subject of ongoing coverage from multiple reliable sources, every week for at least 18 weeks out of the year, every year. The conference representatives in the state tournaments (for at least football and basketball - that's where the 18 weeks above came from) will be subject of statewide coverage, which would satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Note that the sources only have to be on the article to pass AfC. They only have to exist to pass WP:ORG. There are multiple articles we've kept over the years due to the supposition of existing sources. Articles like this, that help complete a suite of articles, and have hard to find sources, should be kept. If for no other reason, GP. My 2¢. John from Idegon (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, John from Idegon. I looked at List of Missouri high schools by athletic conferences and I do not see individual articles about the Missouri conferences but rather a single list article that covers all of them. I am not arguing that this West Virginia topic is not notable but rather, I am questioning whether the sources now in the draft article are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Then I found List of high school athletic conferences in Indiana and saw that all of the conferences have articles. I looked at a few and they are uniformly either unreferenced or very poorly referenced. That does not inspire confidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Outside of newspaper articles, there's not much information on the high school Big 10 Conference in WV. I've been keeping track of the member teams since the 1970s and simply wanted to share the information with others. I thought Wikipedia would be a good way to share the information. "The Knights of the Laughing Waters" is the only book I'm aware of that has any information concerning the Big 10's history. Mr. Ramsey is elderly and wrote much of his book based on records he'd kept over the years and newspaper articles. It has been made clear that my article is not going to meet the Wikipedia standards. I will have to find another means of publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweet Caroline

Dear Cullen, I have attempted to discuss this with them, but they continually just keep changing it back to an incorrect date. I change it and they change it back....What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weintzer (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Weintzer. It is crystal clear from the full range of reliable sources that the single was released many weeks before what Neil Diamond says. We do not rely on a primary source like Diamond for such things. If the record was on the Billboard charts for at least four weeks by August, then it was for sale in record stores all over the United States during that time. Billboard is far more reliable than Diamond for such matters, and there are many other sources that confirm that the record was widely distributed. So, I recommend that you drop the matter and go edit something else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a first....I didn't know that the original writer and singer of a song didn't know what they were talking about, even though they gave multiple interviews to multiple sources with the same date and this page has correctly reflected that fact for ten years, and now it is incorrect. What if Neil Diamond himself edited it? Would that be sufficient instead of AP, Guardian and other interviews? If you notice, the song was floated some weeks prior and took off BEFORE the official release date of September 16th, 1969....That's the point of the matter which is the OFFICIAL release date.

As far as editing, I generally never do and I haven't logged in for months. I am a long term user and donator to Wikipedia, but this is troubling behavior when it is obviously incorrect.

I am disappointed in Wikipedia management for not relying on the words of the man that wrote and sung the song for 48 years...If that's not a good source, then we have a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weintzer (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Weintzer. Neil Diamond is a primary source and we rely on secondary sources. We do not care about some theoretical "official" release date which is obviously meaningless. Diamond is unreliable in this case. The song was already a big hit by August and had been for sale widely for many weeks. Use your powers of logic. How can a record which is supposedly unreleased reach #4 on the Billboard charts? By coincidence, I owned a record store from 1970 to 1972, and I know that is is impossible that this record was released in September, if the word "released" has any meaning at all. I checked the Billboard charts myself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well the Sweet Caroline Wikipedia page has remained for a decade this way and even the Neil Diamond fan club lists the release date as September 16th, 1969:

http://www.thefeelofneil.com/single-post/2015/04/12/Neil-Diamond-reveals-truth-behind-Sweet-Caroline-lyrics-and-contrary-to-popular-belief-they-were-NOT-inspired-by-JFKs-young-daughter

I was told to use the article talk page to resolve this, but we both know that nothing will change minds when they are set in stone, no matter what the facts are...The conversation that I am having with you now is prima facia of that fact.

Since Neil Diamond himself stated that fact, then BOTH dates should be in the article for a compromise. The June date when the song took off and then the multiple sources, (including Diamond himself), that stated that the official release date was September 16th, 1969....It's not hypothetical, it is the writer and singer of the songs' own words, which should obviously carry some clout in an online pedia format...

I guess Wikipedia seems to know more than anyone on this? This could have been compromised, because my sourcing was above reproach.