User talk:Cullen328

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

2009 Archive

2010 Archive

2011 Archive

2012 Archive (first six months)

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3

Happy New Year[edit]

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

working on a new page[edit]

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

Happy St. Patrick's Day[edit]

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

(personal attack removed)[edit]

(Personal attack removed)

Request of Help on "Just the Facts" Tone[edit]

Hi Jim,

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

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

Thank you so much.

PhoCoHaNoi

Hello, PhoCoHaNoi. I am not going to edit the draft myself, because I want this to be a learning exercise for you. Here are a few examples of unacceptable wording:
  • "celebrating the 73-year history of outstanding men and women"
  • "pioneering contributions"
  • "sustained leadership and strategic vision"
  • "Exceptional services to innovation ecosystem"
  • "stimulating small business innovation, meeting the Air Force and DoD R&D needs, broadening participation in innovation and entrepreneurship, and boosting commercialization"
  • " So, as Dr. Pham looked back now, he brought systems-theoretic science and control engineering principles, together with teamwork and interdisciplinary to bear fruition in solving warfighter engineering problems, various areas of specific focus for increased activities in space control autonomy and space domain awareness."
It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor (you) to praise a person. Every trace of this non-neutral language must be removed. A Wikipedia article should never say "Person A is great!" Instead, it should say "Reliable source C reports that Expert B says that Person A is great", along with a reference to Reliable source C.
As for how to submit your draft, I will explain that when the draft complies with the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it

Sending Messages to Other Editors[edit]

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

Good block on Vpha[edit]

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

For example, see

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

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

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

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

Why is Wikipedia so byzantine in its structure? How do you send someone a message? How do you reply to a message?[edit]

As above T A Francis (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, T A Francis. You have successfully sent me a message, so it appears that you have figured that out. To reply, click "reply". You consider it "byzantine" and I will not argue with you, except to say that I find it "easy" and "straightforward", so we have each now expressed our opinions. Cullen328 (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't find my way round this. T A Francis (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement[edit]

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a notice[edit]

Hey Jim, this is owent acc. I have an account, this one, with a name very close to yours. I know people are gonna think this is an impersonation account, so I want you to know I have no malicious intents for this account. I was just gonna make it before someone who will impersonate you does. I am never gonna edit on this account apart from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen238 (talkcontribs) 16:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AldezD[edit]

Last summer, AldezD falsely accused me of sockpuppetry, and has never apologized for it. As to his frequent deletions, too often they have no rationale, or editorial comments that add up to "I don't like it." --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A toast sandwich for you![edit]

An image of a toast sandwich, shot from the side.jpg Today is better than yesterday, tomorrow will be even better. I'll keep my chin up and try to make everyone proud. Being content is often better than being happy because the highs lead to lows and the in-between is easier to navigate. Sail on! Damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead! XD DN (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you, DN. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariupol[edit]

Could you please take a look at that lede sentence? Two new editors and an IP just changed it to say that Russia has control of the city.

According the news I consume (CNN, currently on), this is jumping the gun even if it seems likely to happen. I reverted the first new user. Exactly the same words were returned to the lede a few minutes later by an IP. My edit summary had said that this needs to at least be sourced. Another redlinked username has just added a source, which says that Putin says he is going to barricade the steel factory. This is not the same thing imho as “has control of Mariupol” and why would we believe him anyway?

This might seem a bit subtle but it all looks sketchy to me and I am just a humble user who has already reverted once, so could you please take a look, or, if you are not available, let me know so I can try someone else? In case you are wondering, I am asking you in particular because you were on a list of recently active admins. Thanks for whatever you do. This is me seeing something, saying something. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elinruby. As I think that you must already know, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. When it comes to content, we are just editors like any other editor, albeit with more experience than average in many cases. When someone approaches me as an administrator and asks me to get involved in a content dispute, my natural inclination is to decline to get involved. The situation in Mariupol saddens me greatly. My understanding is that this was a city of over 400,000 before the war, and that most of the city has been devastated and occupied by the Russian army. It seems that the only Ukranian forces remaining are a small group holed up in a steel mill, and that possibly some civilians are sheltering there also. If that is correct, then the Russians have effective control of the entire city, with the exception of the grounds of one single factory. But I will not get involved because I have not immersed myself in the literature and read neither Ukrainian nor Russian. And despite the tragic circumstances, I consider it a trivial footnote to the history of this horrible war. Cullen328 (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That’s a good answer. I disagree with it, as I see this as more akin to vandalism than a content dispute, but that answer does have some thought in it. I think the article is now inaccurate and it pains me when Wikipedia is inaccurate, especially when it looks deliberate and coordinated. But I guess that is why there’s a disclaimer at the top of the article, eh?

However I think that given other factors I should stop at one revert. If you are going to be active for a while I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on it, as various redlinks and IPs have also been editing the article to say it’s in Russia, which is somewhat wronger, but somebody already fixed that one.

Cheers. I am going to be around the article for a while, but working on some wording problems way way down the page. Thank you for the brainpower you have applied to this issue. Elinruby (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up: somebody fixed the issue discussed above and made a request for page protection, which is apparently the vocabulary term for what I was groping for, so now I know. I am just following up with you, since I asked you to keep an eye on it to the extent you could, to say that this is no longer a concern. At least to me. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elinruby, another administrator has semi-protected the article for 90 days. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That takes care of that. Elinruby (talk)

Miss Bono[edit]

An IP troll/vandal asked me what happened to Miss Bono. I reverted the trolling. But I will say that I am in touch with her from time to time, and that she is doing fine. She is entitled to her privacy. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bot names[edit]

You've probably noticed that I am very much not shy about blocking username violations. However, generally, I don't block these on sight. I just feel pretty strongly that unless they are explicitly claiming to be an authorized bot, they are probably a new user who has no reason to expect that adding "bot" to their name could be a problem. Technically "I'm not a bot" is a violation, I just think it goes a bit too far. (incidentally, many moons ago I suggested the burden be placed on bot ops instead, requiring all new bots to use the format "<name>BOT" in all caps and to allow it lower case, but... let's just say the good people who operate the bots did not care for the idea.) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Beeblebrox. I soft blocked but immediately unblocked when I noticed your message on their talk page. I have no problem with your approach to these accounts, but on the other hand, a soft block is easy to deal with. Are you aware of any other centralized discussions of this issue? Cullen328 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that and wasn't intending to criticize but rather to evangelize for my approach. I don't think it's been seriously discussed in a very long time. Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC was in 2014 and didn't touch on this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Nice work here! I applaud the effort and the intent behind the "Smartphone editing" essay. 718smiley.svg

We need to continue to work to make the encyclopedia more inclusive. Th78blue (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Littlemoor, Derbyshire[edit]

Unfortunately, I have no way of proving the etymology of this name, other than a location reference, even though it is true. A google maps/earth check proves the presence of a small patch of moorland behind the village however that would be too informal to add to an article. This information is knowledge within the village and I don't feel as if this would cause an issue. Any advice on what sources could be used to authenticate this would be appreciated.

Many Thanks,

Binglybonglybinglebonglebingbong

Hello, Binglybonglybinglebonglebingbong. The core content policy Verifiability requires a reference to a published reliable source for any content that has been challenged. "Knowledge within the village" is Original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. On another matter, your username is ridiculous and pretty much guaranteed to bring unwanted scrutiny to your edits. I suggest that you change it. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice Binglybonglybinglebonglebingbong (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Rodersb (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article writing guidance[edit]

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

I will be obliged.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexabreu110 (talkcontribs) 20:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis Comment[edit]

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

Heads up re blocked user[edit]

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

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

Zaid Jabri[edit]

Hello Cullen328!

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

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

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

I ask you for a solution.

Thank you!

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

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

Neutralhomer[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your comment[edit]

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

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

Hey[edit]

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

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

Thank you[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

You've got mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 12:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doug Weller. I will think about it. Cullen328 (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration


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

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

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

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

Thoughts on this[edit]

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

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank's for your copy edits on Lucy Westlake, I wrote it in a rather short period of time, and your cleanup has helped a lot! Sea Cow (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Sea Cow. You did a good job starting an article about a fascinating young woman. I took a look at your user page and noticed that you are the main author of Osprey Packs. So, here is my anecdote. Like Westlake, I too am a mountaineer, although much less accomplished. I climbed the west face of Mount Shasta in 2007, at age 55, which was both grueling and gratifying. I used a 30 year old backpack that was extremely uncomfortable. Two years later, my wife and I climbed Mount Whitney, California's highest peak. While preparing for that climb, I bought a new Osprey pack, and it was excellent. We made it to the summit on September 11, 2009, shortly after I started editing Wikipedia. So, I have very positive feelings about Osprey. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm heading on a backpacking trip myself this summer, with a Osprey pack, so I'll be crossing my fingers it holds up well enough. I'm going up a bit smaller mountain then you, my peak of the trail is about 12.4k feet above sea level, with a much smaller 2.7k prominence. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) Sea Cow (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have a wonderful trip, Sea Cow. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, Cullen, I never knew about your impressive mountaineering activities! Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, Softlavender, not that impressive, really, although I enjoyed all of my climbs. There were some frightening moments, which adds to the memories. I climbed enough over nearly 40 years to proudly call myself a mountaineer, but not a particularly good mountaineer. I am the equivalent of a Little League baseball player who writes and edits encyclopedia articles about Major League Baseball players. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]