User talk:Cullen328

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

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

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

The importance of a friendly greeting

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

Please offer your thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your climber biographies

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

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

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

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

2012 Archive (first six months)

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3

Happy New Year

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

working on a new page

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

Happy St. Patrick's Day

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

(personal attack removed)

(Personal attack removed)

Request of Help on "Just the Facts" Tone

Hi Jim,

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

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

Thank you so much.

PhoCoHaNoi

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

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

• "pioneering contributions"

• "sustained leadership and strategic vision"

• "Exceptional services to innovation ecosystem"

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

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

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

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

Sending Messages to Other Editors

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

Thoughts on this

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

Invitation to Local Wikimania Event in San Francisco this Friday

Hi!

Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out meta:Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup.

The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand workshops/learning sessions.

In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.

(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and Bittakea, Effeietsanders

Quacks like block evasion

Perhaps, Cullen328, you can have a look at Param Shiva (talk · contribs). I suspect it's Nalina.E.Nalina (talk · contribs). The same relentless and poorly written movie plots. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Your suspicions look likely to me, but I am not confident enough to block. Param Shava, after all, was editing before Nalina.E.Nalina was blocked. Please consider filing a report at WP:SPI. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes--I suspect they've been gaming the system for a long time with multiple accounts, which is why they didn't bat an eyelash over the block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:C8E6:ADB8:BC1A:535B (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@2601:19E:4180:6D50:C8E6:ADB8:BC1A:535B I am not Nalina. E. Nalina you are talking about. Ok I will not edit any plot. I am sorry, Please give me a chance Param Shiva (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To me, it seems like another account of hers on another device, which she's currently using for block evasion. I'm filing a report at WP:SPI. Dinoz1 (chat?) 14:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dinoz1 No you are actually wrong. I only check plots on news and update it myself Param Shiva (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dinoz1 I am not Nalina. E. Nalina I will not edit any plot. Please don't file a report on me, Please I beg you. Param Shiva (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Just tell us the truth, was it you who did both accounts @Param Shiva and @Nalina.E.Nalina? Waylon111 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

To be honest,  Looks like a duck to me Waylon111 (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There is so much evidence provided that it's really hard to deny it. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Waylon111 I am Param Shiva, not Nalina.E.Nalina ok. If you want i will write a better style writing plot ok Param Shiva (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

We aren't talking about your plot, we're talking about your disruptive editing and the fact you used a account to evade the block. Waylon111 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Still {{Duck}} . I think you are evading a block. Waylon111 (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 My writing style is like that, but I am not Nalina.E.Nalina ok. Param Shiva (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I am Param Shiva ok, I am not the person that I am talking about Param Shiva (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to see how your edits both are, then come back with my verdict but in the meantime, {{Duck}} Waylon111 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalina.E.Nalina, not here. Cullen328 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Aaa232355 (16:54, 31 October 2022)

Hello, Mr. Cullen, I would like to ask how to edit bare URLs and turn them into useful citations. Sincerely, Aaa232355/Atharv Kaul --अथर्व कॉल (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aaa232355. There are many techniques. Personally, I use Wikipedia:Citation templates, which I fill in manually. You can learn much more by reading Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

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

Administrator changes

• 
  • Isabelle Belato
  • Whpq
• 
• 
  • Atama
  • Astronautics~enwiki
  • Athaenara
  • Eddie891
  • GraemeL
  • Marianocecowski
  • Natalya
  • Pratyeka
  • SB Johnny

Interface administrator changes

• TheresNoTime
• Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

• 
  • Blablubbs
  • Firefly
• Joe Roe

Oversight changes

• DGG

Guideline and policy news

• The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
• An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
• AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
• You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
• Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Gypsy Taub writings

I see that you are citing Gypsy Taub's own writings as if they were a reliable source. That is incorrect. She is a convicted sex offender and only statements by her which have been vetted by actually reliable sources should be used.

I'm only using her writings as evidence "Gypsy said X" not "X is true". HearthHOTS (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

HearthHOTS, please read Verifiability, a core content policy, and read it carefully and in full. Pay special attention to WP:V#Self-published sources. Self published sources can never be used as references for assertions about any other living person. The policy language is crystal clear and there are no exceptions. In this case, you are trying to add the opinions and observations of a person who is the exact opposite of a reliable source, commenting about other people. We can mention what she says only if an actual reliable source reports it, and then only with proper attribution. I have repeatedly advised you to limit yourself to citing reliable sources, and you keep failing to meet that standard. I again advise you in the strongest terms to limit yourself to citing impeccably and indisputably reliable sources in these highly controversial articles about living people. If you persist in trying to use poor quality sources, the time may come when you will be sanctioned by another administrator. Not me, since I am involved. Please be very careful. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how "Self published sources can never be used as references for assertions about any other living person" applies here - the assertion I am making is about Gypsy, who is not an 'other' person. She is the reference that she said X. I am not agreeing there is any truth to what she said. HearthHOTS (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

• Gypsy Taub contains the unexpected sentence At the end of the meeting, Taub stripped off her clothes and criticized the council members. EEng 10:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hello Cullen328. I'm dropping off this taste treat to say thanks for all your responses about the Yosemite painting at the ref desk. They helped the OP - and me - learn a lot. Your efforts there (and all over the 'pedia) are much appreciated. Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, MarnetteD. Cullen328 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Liomp (01:08, 3 November 2022)

Hello 👋 --Liomp (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Liomp. A question is a request for information. What is your question? Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

2nd Opinion Please

Hi Cullen. I recently closed a discussion at WP:FTN which was subsequently reverted with a rather snarky note being left on my talk page. This has provoked a somewhat testy exchange both on my talk page and at the FTN discussion. Out of an abundance of caution, I was wondering if you could take a look and let me know if you think I was out of bounds either in the close or the subsequent exchanges.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Ad Orientem - Wikipedia

Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem. First of all, I agree with your close of that discussion at WP:FTN, and think that your statement was clear and well-reasoned. And, I think the other editor's objections are overblown and a bit rude, especially the implications of bias. All that being said, I am having trouble understanding how taking an action (closing a discussion) that any editor can carry out is transformed into an administrative action just because it is performed by an administrator. I am not inclined to think of it that way, but perhaps you can clarify a bit. On the broader issue, I think that stigmata in particular and religious miracles in general are products of human psychology, fervor and imagination rather than objective phenomena. Simultaneously, I think that a few of our avowed atheist editors display a degree of self-rightousness and contempt for those with different beliefs that is quite off-putting at times. Cullen328 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and honest feedback. I only assume that I'm acting in an admin capacity when closing discussions on noticeboards and am uninvolved. That said, if you think that I am overreaching I will reconsider my approach in the future. As for religious faith vs skeptics, I find the issue tiresome. I can't prove the existence of God and I haven't run into anyone who has been able to convince me that there is none. I looked at the article briefly and came away feeling that a lot of the concerns being raised were legitimate from the perspective of the community's guidelines and the article looked unbalanced to me in favor of a religious, specifically Catholic perspective. I tried, apparently not very successfully, to convey some of my concern in my closing statement w/o crossing the line into becoming INVOLVED by virtue of taking sides in what was/is essentially a content dispute. Which is part of the reason I was rather put out at being accused of taking the other side in my close. That said, at this point I think I am now INVOLVED by virtue of this testy exchange where I have expressed my concerns, to a degree that I don't think I can properly act in any administrative capacity either at the FTN discussion or the article itself. And I concur with your last sentence though I have also seen some hardcore religious zealots around here as well. Thanks again for your time and thoughts which I always appreciate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that I would have closed the FTN thread, but it certainly wasn't the best spot for that particular discussion. I blocked two of the editors involved for edit warring, and suggested that a thread be opened at NPOVN, which I think will be a better place to get input on some of the conflicts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

To be frank with both of you, ScottishFinnishRadish and Ad Orientem. I do not have a lot of experience closing this type of discussion, although I frequently read such closes. In my five plus years of being an administrator, I have settled into patrolling areas where I both feel confident and also derive some gratification. I am not afraid to admit that I "like", if that is the right word, blocking and reverting vandals, trolls, spammers and self promoters. I do not like hurting people's feelings but I do like protecting the encyclopedia.

If I conclude that an editor is misbehaving in this type of discussion, I will warn, and block if I conclude that is the right course. And I am very quick with WP:NOTAFORUM reversion on talk pages, but those are not administrative actions. But there is something about my personality that is reluctant to bring conversations to a swift end, unless active disruption is taking place. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

you said you would not sanction me because you were involved

special:diff/111936806

"the time may come when you will be sanctioned by another administrator. Not me, since I am involved."

Were you the one who decided to indefinitely block me from editing three topics, or can you direct me to where others were involved in this decision? Hearth (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, HearthHOTS. I do not know why you linked to a 15 year old diff from Patriarch Ignatius I of Constantinople, but I will assume that it was an inadvertent error. When I wrote the comment you quoted above, I was thinking that perhaps you might need to be blocked indefinitely sitewide. I tried my best to convince you to see that you were seriously off-track on the Pelosi matter. But when you made your frankly quite ridiculous edits about Malcolm Lubliner, I concluded that a narrowly targeted sanction needed to take place immediately to stop your disruption, and so that is what I did. To me, it looked like an obvious case of refusing to get the message, and I thought that if you had the chance to edit 6.5 million articles but not three articles where you were being disruptive, you might choose to edit productively instead of disruptively. I left instructions on your talk page explaining how to appeal this very narrow block and if you want to be unblocked, please do so. Feel free to accuse me of being inconsistent. I will explain why I did what I did, and you can try to explain why you think your edits complied with policy. If another administrator concludes you should be unblocked from those pages, I will not object. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

special:diff/1119368062 whoops looks like I somehow deleted the 2 at the end, apologies

Regarding the Lubliner edits, wasn't that something I brought up on the talk page and didn't add to the article, because I wanted input on whether or not to add it?

I think that shows pretty good instincts and because Lubliner was named by both ABC and NYT it seemed like a point worth raising, it's not like he was being dox'd by Fox+Post only or something.

Somewhat you left on my talk leaves me somewhat confused though...

• self-published content is allowed only if "it does not involve claims about third parties
• In this case, the dispute was about statements that Gypsy Taub, an imprisoned convicted sex felon, made about David DePape

When I cited her statements about DePape on November 1st, I don't believe they were self-published statements, but rather statements she gave in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which I added at special:diff/1119401552

Although I did cite some self-published things from her, I don't think any of it was in relation to DePape. I recall 2 examples:

1. special:diff/1119362288 where I cited Taub's MNT blog where she is critical of George Davis (not David DePape)
2. Taub's article about herself on IndyBay describing her own career, mentions nobody else in particular special:diff/1119388790

Now that you have rephrased thing I understand how the 1st is not appropriate. After you reverted the MNT source as 'utterly unreliable' I did not add it back - instead I cited the Associated Press article at https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/3-arrested-in-protest-against-san-franciscos-nudity-ban/ which covered how Davis and Taub were arrested together, but did not include Taub's subsequent statements about Davis (not DePape) after their falling-out.

Initially when you were alluding to WP:ABOUTSELF you told me "can never be used as references for assertions about any other living person".

I had thought you were criticizing me for linking Taub's IndyBay article where she describes her own career. This is why I was disputing it - it appears I misunderstood which edit you were referencing. That's I think why it's important to link diffs or mention articles so it's clear both parties understand the nature of the objection.

Given that I did not restore her MNT statements about George Davis I'm not sure why you're considering it a persistent problem. This is why I'm asking again here - was your November 2nd choice to instate a topic ban actually in relation to my Nov 1st edit regarding George Davis from her MNT blog, or about my Nov 1st edit regarding DePape which is pf your not from her blog, but is instead from the SFC ? HearthHOTS (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

HearthHOTS, you are not topic banned. You are page blocked from three articles and their talk pages because of your pattern of editing over several days, which included repeated attempts to use low quality sources and trying to add inappropriate content about living people. Please be aware that BLP policy applies everywhere, including talk pages. You should be making your argument to be unblocked from those pages on your talk page, not here. Cullen328 (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

As for the quote from the San Francisco Chronicle, it should be obvious to you that the random opinion of an individual like Taub who has been estranged from DePape since before Trump became president and who has been in jail/prison for three years is utterly inappropriate for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess I can link to what I said here or copy the text over to my page then. I think you're ignoring how I moved to higher-quality sources in response to feedback though. I believe the Chronicle piece was written by a reporter named Nora Mishanec. It is the choice of these reporters to interview the woman that makes it relevant. HearthHOTS (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

Hello Jim,

Thanks for the reply back there. It's always nice to see how you write down your thoughts with so much ease to understand.

Cheerio! ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 05:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TCG and their one-account restriction. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Advice please?

Would DonaldTrump6000 be suitable for reporting as a user name violation? I've only reported a few so I'm not sure if this counts? Advice gratefully received. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Knitsey. Yes, usernames that incorporate the name of a famous living person should be reported. I am 99.9% sure that this is impersonation, although some very well known people have accounts. Read the message that I left at User talk:DonaldTrump6000. Cullen328 (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Knitsey (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you...again!

I've reported EstevanOlivier to the COI noticeboard. They are making changes to Wendy Oldfield and in one of the summaries stated 'Rewrite of full article as requested by Wendy Oldfield appointed social media manager'. I posted the COI notice. They've kept inserting the poorly written and promotional tone edits. If I keep reverting will it class as an edit war? Will I get into trouble? Sorry to bother you again, thanks Knitsey (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Tell me what is your problem do you eve know this artist or the fact that im doing the updates correctly according to her bio?

You dont even contact me so we can solve this like what is your problem? EstevanOlivier (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If you would read and then respond to the COI notice on your talk page that would be a start. I've posted the COI notice which has the information you need. I also asked you to read it in the edit summaries for the article. You need to follow the links I provided. Knitsey (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Stalker edit : I have responded at your talk page, and the COI noticeboard. Got there from here. - Roxy the dog 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Knitsey and Roxy the dog, I have page blocked the editor. See my explanation on their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Cullen328:. Thanks also for the advice @Roxy the dog: Knitsey (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog

Can you please explain how you can call me a “Stalker” in one of your responses, as if it was said in the way I understand this I will have to take this matter further with more and other admins?

(Stalker edit : I have responded at your talk page, and the COI noticeboard. Got there from here. - Roxy the dog 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply])

Regards EstevanOlivier (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) hi @EstevanOlivier! that isn't exactly referring to you, but to roxy themself. talk page stalkers (like me or roxy) are pretty much anyone who watches a user talk page of someone else and responds to others' posts and questions, and are usually welcome as long as they are civil. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

EstevanOlivier, you misunderstood. Please read the humorous essay Wikipedia:Talk page stalker. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Slavery in Afghanistan

I don't mean to ask too many questions, but I still would appreciate an explanation of how other editors view the issue, and exactly how the behavior of Minihatithan was disruptive and warranted a partial block, and whether I could have handled the case any better. I thought that the conduct of Minihatithan was problematic, but just barely within limits, so I didn't advise Aciram to go to WP:ANI. Could you please explain what was disruptive about their editing, which I thought was non-neutral but not quite disruptive? At this point, as you said, they are venting in a non-constructive way.

Partly, I am disinclined to advise anyone to go to WP:ANI in a questionable case, but you didn't have any questions.

I'm not suggesting that there was anything wrong with the partial block. I think it was useful,but I didn't think it would be supported. Thank you for any answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. The two relevant sentences in the article are Hazara people were still living in slavery and sold in the slave market of Kabul as late as in the early 20th-century. and Amanullah Khan banned slavery in the 1920s, and many of the slaves at the time of the abolition were of Hazara origin. Although I am not an expert in the topic area, these claims seem to be very well referenced. Relevant to this is 1888–1893 Hazara uprisings, which is also very well referenced. What the Hazaras suffered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was truly horrific. Minahatithan self-identifies as Hazara. The editor is trying to remove coverage of Hazara slavery, considering these well referenced facts to be an affront to their ethnic honor, and that the content is somehow intended to humiliate and discriminate against the Hazaras on Wikipedia. The Hazaras are still discriminated against in Afghanistan. They claim that the content is not supported by reliable sources (false), that not all Hazaras were enslaved (irrelevant) and that some members of other ethnic groups were also enslaved (also irrelevant). They have also made false accusations of misconduct against the main editor who disagrees, which may be partially due to their shortcomings in comprehending English. As a result of all of this, I concluded that they are currently incapable of being a positive contributor to that article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. So the problem is mostly that they were removing sourced content, and didn't discuss usefully. Do you think that I should have done anything differently as a moderator? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that the claim that the other editor accused them of racism was partly a language problem, because they insisted on interpreting "bias" as meaning "racism", and that it illustrates what may be a lack of English proficiency. I have tried to handle a lot of DRN cases where one or m ore of the editors had a lack of competence in English. I don't know what to do in those cases, because I don't want to insult an editor by saying that they are English-deficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I have no problem with your moderation. I think that you do excellent work in dispute resolution, where you are very thorough and patient. Thank you.

Those of us who speak English fluently know that bias has many forms and variations. It is unsurprising that English learners may think first of racial bias when they read that word, since that is perhaps the most common usage, and therefore conclude that bias is a synonym for racism. That misunderstanding needs to be corrected, as you have done.

English learners who are capable of writing coherent though flawed prose that complies with our policies and guidelines are welcome to edit. We have plenty of copyeditors to correct minor errors. But those who combine poor English skills with POV pushing, axe grinding and a perception that they are being persecuted are not productive contributors. I try my best to be polite about it, but editors like that need to be told that their participation is not helping the encyclopedia, and eventually they must be blocked if they persist. Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Nandi Bushell

Tried this at the Help Desk and got no response: if an article subject's web page exists only to sell merch, does it merit a link in the article (either IB or External links)? Thanks. DaydreamBelizer (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DaydreamBelizer. Because that website only sells merchandise, it does not belong on Wikipedia. If it had other content, such as a biography, free music videos and so on, it would be OK. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice when my gut feeling is correct for a change. xD DaydreamBelizer (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Indian actors stubs

Hello Jim, hope you're doing well. I had come across two Indian actors stubs that had been reviewed, Shweta Gautam & Manish Khanna. Prior to them being reviewed it was sourced with non reliable sources and surprisingly passed the notability and review check.

These two articles were created by some new pages reviewer, I guess so. I believe these two should be moved to draft space as they lack enough citations and probably fail enough notability from reliable sources. Most of them have a common publication as a source that's Times of India which itself is not reliable.

I wanted to draftify these articles myself but I assumed that these actions are probably done by the AFC reviewers, I'm not sure. Do let me know what you think about it. Thanks ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 07:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rejoy2003. Those are very poor quality articles and the Times of India, despite its impressive name and its origin going back to 1838, is not a reliable source. They sold their journalistic souls, it seems. The problem is that as a Californian, I do not know what the reliable sources are for Indian actors. As for draftifying, that is controversial these days, so I recommend caution. I think that you need to seek out advice from an experienced editor familiar with contemporary entertainment in India, but I am not that person. I wish that I could be more helpful. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)8

Fair enough, Thanks for your reply Jim. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 10:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

FTX people

When I get a chance to fill out the paperwork, I will probably place BLP page-level restrictions on biographies associated with FTX, since I can see the wave building already. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Acroterion. That's a good plan. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

For now I think I'll leave it be. We'll see what the weekend brings, I don't see evidence right now that any 1RR or similar restrictions are needed. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you recently blocked user:RBE Radio Beckwith Evangelica in tutto il Piemonte & in Liguria (Imperia & Savona)

I am going to attempt my first WP:SPI report for the above account and User:VinnyHMI HopeMedia Italia RVS Radio Voce della Speranza di Villa Aurora FIRENZE along with user:RadioEvangeloPiemonte Via Leinì 54 TORINO FM 91,5 Biella Ivrea FM 88,6 Cuneo FM 94,3 and user:RadioEvangeloPiemonte Via Leinì 54 TORINO FM 91,5 Biella Ivrea FM 88,6 Cuneo FM 94,3 all who have similar edits to the same articles. Is it worth you blocking User:VinnyHMI HopeMedia Italia RVS Radio Voce della Speranza di Villa Aurora FIRENZE in the meantime? Thanks, Knitsey (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Knitsey. I will let SPI take care of those. The other one was a clear username violation. I wish that the software would throttle such ridiculously long usernames. Thanks for trying to deal with this. Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

No problem, I will try the SPI report and see what happens. I'm going to eat before I deal with all those names. Knitsey (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Defamation League - contention over the word contention

HI Cullen

I noticed some contention over the word contention

"The Anti-Defamation League was founded by B'nai B'rith as a response to attacks on Jews; the then recent contentious conviction of Leo Frank was mentioned by Adolf Kraus when he announced the creation of ADL."

When I drilled down to Leo Frank the entry described the situation as a "travesty"

Generally, I would just say that more than one word needs to be changed to provide context..

Regards Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I am going to effect a change to the article to include; to provide context.

"discussing the charges of antisemitism in the trial"

Regards Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Flibbertigibbets. I blocked the other editor as a racist troll. Cullen328 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

He seemed very focused on a topic.. I was looking to learn about addressing problem edits and that is how I found him, so I was trying a light approach by talking stuff out with him. So thanks!

After the troll, I tried to improve article readability because the sentence did not tell me anything useful;

"The Anti-Defamation League was founded by B'nai B'rith as a response to attacks on Jews. The conviction of Leo Frank for murder of a 13 year old, with allegations from the press that antisemitism contributed to his conviction, was mentioned by Adolf Kraus when he announced the creation of ADL."

Anyway, let me know if I can help you in any way! I am learning as I go, and learning from folks like you who are very experienced and important to Wikipedia! Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Flibbertigibbets. Just keep working to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's really fun.. (and really really challenging, with a massive learning curve) - The hardest, to me, is approaching articles that have "multiple issues" and the lack of support. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You can't always solve every issue. One step at a time, Flibbertigibbets. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

A little help needed

Hello Jim, sorry to bother you again. I had some questions regarding an edit by some editor. I haven't really gotten much help from the Helpdesk. But could you help me answer my questions here? Wikipedia:Helpdesk#November 19. Thank you ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 04:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Rejoy2003. I suggest that you ask your question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ChanceTheWrapper

I was mulling over the user account ChanceTheWrapper when I notice you blocked it. I don't believe the block rationale was correct. It's clearly a parody of the name "Chance the Rapper", and such a variation does not violate the username policy. The user is not pretending to be a well-known person. The account has not been disruptive. Please reconsider that block, unless you know something that I have missed. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Anachronist. If the username is clearly a parody, then why wasn't it clear to me? It is a soft block. The user can select a username that causes no confusion, or confirm that they are actually the famous rapper. Should we allow usenames like "Mike Penis" or "Donald Drumpf" or "Nancy Pissoir" or "Camel Harris" because they are "parodies". I think not. WP:BLP is the overriding policy. Cullen328 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why it wouldn't be clear to you. It isn't an offensive parody either, like ones you listed. We have others here who are decent editors, like Shaquille Oatmeal. If the distinction between the real person's name and the parody isn't clear, then the situation could be solved simply by asking the user to put a disclaimer on the user page, such as ItsKesha did, for example. Again, I see no violation of the username policy, and don't feel comfortable with forcing a user to choose between remaining blocked or changing a name that isn't violating any rule. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Anachronist, according to our Wikipedia:Username policy, Usernames that impersonate other people are not allowed. I routinely block usernames that violate policy. If you want to argue that this username does not impersonate another person, then please feel free to make that argument at the noticeboard of your choosing. Again, this is a soft block, and the editor has an exceptionally easy path to returning to editing. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

As for User:Shaquille Oatmeal, they made 150 edits and retired 3-1/2 years ago, so that is hardly a compelling case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist I agree by the way. Enforcing rules so strictly, disproportionate to their necessity, drives potential editors away. Frogging101 (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Frogging101, the account was renamed and unblocked the same day, and has resumed editing their draft. So they weren't driven away at all. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)