Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 87

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Cullen328

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:15, 27 May 2022 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from User talk:Cullen328) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 80←Archive 85Archive 86Archive 87Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Adolf Eichmann on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

IP editor return

This IP editor has returned and has violated WP:PRIVACY. Previous discussion here. Current posts on Talk: Cedar Fair and Talk: Cedar Point. You promised a longer block if this user returns. As previously mentioned, this user is not here to improve Wikipedia.—JlACEer (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JlACEer. I have blocked this person for six months. Let me know if they return. Cullen328 (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the swift action.—JlACEer (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Same IP editor has returned, and although the discussion appears to be somewhat civil this time, please take a look at this edit summary. Perhaps page protection for Cedar Fair and Cedar Point as well as the two talk pages is in order?—JlACEer (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, JlACEer. I have blocked the IP and semi-protected Cedar Point for a year. I do not think the other pages need protection right now, but please inform me of any further disruption from this person. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Can you page protect Talk:Cedar Fair as well? This editor is exhibiting sociopathic behavior.—JlACEer (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected for six months, JlACEer. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Back again. Is it possible to page protect my talk page?—JlACEer (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:J. T. Edson on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Knowledge

I would like to know how a layman can deem someone’s comments/opinions as nonsense. As you are a self proclaimed expert in the field of Wikipedia, what makes your say have more weight than someone else’s? OleLooseygoosey (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your nonsensical comments about China are well analyzed on your talk page. Wikipedia operates on consensus. Whether or not a person is an expert is subject to debate, I suppose, but it is an indisputable fact that I am an administrator here. And when I ran for administrator, I was supported by 316 editors and opposed by only two. Cullen328 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The Red Paintings

Does the recent block on the paid contributor at this article also refer to related pages about the artist's releases? I've seen some problems there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shaidar cuebiyar. At present, the page block applies only to The Red Paintings but if you can provide links to other articles being disrupted, I will consider additional sanctions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
At [contributions for Alan191919] we see edits at Category:The Red Paintings albums (since reverted).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)04:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibly related: see my edits about User:85.56.220.216 and the above user's replies at User talk:TenPoundHammer. The unidentified user also edited at The Red Paintings and associated articles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

User:85.56.220.216 has now shifted focus to editing at my talkpage. They are making accusatory comments that my editing at the above page will "kill any chance the band has to reboot into a new album and you'll single handed kill the act." I believe this is sufficient cause for concerns of Wikipedia:Harassment. I do not wish to respond to this user any more.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Harassment continues, both User:85.56.220.216 and another unidentified editor, 92.40.172.146 are writing at my talk page after I asked the former to stop writing there. Could you have a look? This includes adding non-Wikipedia related information, which could be from cyber-stalking.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely blocking of 85.56.220.216.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Shaidar cuebiyar, would you like me to semi-protect your talk page for a few days? Cullen328 (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, just stop unidentified users for awhile. Also, thanks.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Shaidar cuebiyar, I have semi-protected your user talk page for three days. If the harassment resumes, let me know and I will extend the protection. Also, thanks to you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Your concerns on the RD

I'm making this comment here so you can just remove it as it deals with stuff I redacted. As I mentioned on the RD, I did not intend to analyse Prince Andrew's situation in the context of criminal law. I felt I made this clear in my original response but after reading you concerns I eventually checked rather than going my memory and found some aspects which I recognise may cause concern which I've tried to deal with. If you feel there are other ways I can make this clearer, please let me know and I'll probably make these amendments. For the reasons I explained on the RD, I'm unwilling to withdraw my comment as I feel it does deal with a lot of confusing statements made by others on the RD.

I tried to avoid drawing any parallels to anything involving Prince Andrew, for example although most of my comments referred to modern German law but I specifically did not make any commentary about German law at the time of anything involving Andrew. I understand that in most reputable legal jurisdictions, someone can generally only prosecuted based on the law at the time of any alleged offences, and therefore even if an offence had happened in Germany, current German law has no bearing on anything someone may have done in the very early 2000s. But it didn't seem relevant nor did it seem like anyone was confused about this point so I offered no commentary on that point. I did mention dates in relation to German law (but intentionally not Prince Andrew) because these seem relevant to how the law has changed and why the OP or others may be confused about the situation.

However I did mention that Prince Andrew was physically in the US. I did so in large part because the OP's earlier comments made me think they were confused about the distinction between prosecuting someone for offences committed while physical in the country of prosecution and offences committed while physically in a different country generally the country a person is being extradited from and this was something I address in that part of my comment. However in retrospect I guess this wasn't necessary since the distinction was already made by the rest of my comment. While I mostly I agree it's not relevant to the Prince Andrew situation hence why I did re-iterate the point on extradition while making this comment to try and prevent any such confusion, I'd note that the issue also arises in civil law as a court is much more likely to find there is jurisdiction for them to hear the case if the plantiff is bringing a case about something which occurred in the locality covered by the court than they are if it occurred in a different country.

Actually when I first read the comments about 36 hours ago, I considered bringing up issues like juridiction shopping and generally controversies over jurisdiction such as with defamation laws like the infamous Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick and other disputes between the US where the first amendment gives strong protections and other countries including the UK where defamation laws are stronger as I felt these were particularly apt given the OP's apparent focus on alleged unfairness of the US. But I'd largely forgotten about these by the time of my comment and in any case did not want to extend it even further. Anyway given you concerns I redacted that part.

I also commented on Andrew's age, again this was because some of the OP's earlier comments makes it sound like they don't draw a distinction between two youths having sex, and an adult having sex with a youth even though many legal systems, including the German one do draw such a distinction. (Ironically from what I can tell, in some ways German law draws less of a distinction than it did in the past.) Although this isn't something so clearly dealt with by the rest of my comment, hopefully the mentions of ages is enough to make the point clear to the OP. I could have made the point clear without mentioning Andrew but give the length of time I felt it best to simply redact rather than to try and clarify the point.

As with the other location issue, I'd note that while my comment dealt with criminal law, the issue will often arise under civil law too. And again I had considered addressing the issue. Especially issues like how theoretically depending on the legal agreements and laws of the countries involved, someone may be able to ignore a foreign lawsuit. But to so I felt I needed to point out that it's fairly risky to do so since unlike with criminal law where most countries do not allow the case to proceed if the person isn't able to put on a defence or if they do require a new trial if the person requests it when they finally come into the jurisdiction, and this applies even if the person intentionally ran away to escape the charges; with civil cases it's generally the case that provided the case was properly served, ignoring it will result in a default judgment against the defendant. (This also brought up issues about how the case may be served which did arise in the Prince Andrew case.)

Following on from that, I intended to point out a default judgment or any judgment against the defendant would put any assets in the country or the lawsuit at risk, and possibly in other countries again depending on the agreements and laws involved. And while these are not criminal matters, they could still make it problematic if someone ever does travel to the country where the lawsuit happened. In this case it wasn't so much that I forgot about this, more that I felt these issues were less important than the other ones and also getting more into the area of legal advice, and would also require a lot of research so didn't comment on them.

You may not agree with the precisely what areas I chose to challenge and those I chose to let be, and I don't see anything wrong with addressing such thing as Trovatore did. But I ultimately only have so much time I can devote to challenging claims made or clarifying confusion and those areas I mentioned on the RD were those I chose to focus on. While German law were one area I did offer personal commentary on, I'd note that at least one other respondent who said they were from Germany seemed to likewise feel the OP's description of German law wasn't completely accurate and so while I may strongly disagree with some aspects of German law, it doesn't mean it's fair to imply things about it which don't seem to be true. Or to put it a different way, it's better to challenge German law on the areas where you feel it's actually wrong rather than where it isn't. (Ironically this seems to apply in big part to the OP and US and UK law as well IMO.)

Again this isn't something new to me. Sometimes it can even arise in unpopular areas. For example something directly relating to the encyclopaedia proper, about 24 hours ago I pointed out that it wasn't good that we kept a BLP violation on Joseph Ladapo no matter how poorly the editor who tried to deal with this behaved. From the tiny snippets I read while dealing with this Ladapo is someone I strongly I disagree but we still need to be accurate wherever we are in reporting what he says.

Or an example which I believe did arise on the RD, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is someone I detest with a passion both now and then. But IIRC I did once point out that his comment often quoted as there are no gays seems to have been a misunderstanding or misreporting of what he was saying at least based on stuff I'd read. While it may seem fun to mock him, what he was trying to say actually revealed detestable but unfortunately way too common even in parts of Europe and sometimes in the US, extremely incorrect understandings about gay men or LGBT people in general. So understanding where he was coming from and what he was trying to say is actually a far better was of challenging him and also addressing such issues in the world. My view is that even back then, unfortunately it was way to common such things didn't happen. And with polarisation in many countries that has happened for a variety of reasons, such as Trump and COVID-19, it's become even less common. Even I am possibly more guilty of it now than in the past. Still there are some cases where it irks me enough I try and do something about it. I recognise comments on the RD are probably generally tilting at windmills, one reason I spend less time on it than in the past. Still my hope is that at least once in a 100 comments it might make some difference since ultimately we should never stop trying to improve things.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne, as far as I am concerned, the matter has been resolved, unless the OP returns to spout more foolishness. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Block terms for Rebroad

Hello there, Cullen328. It appears as though you have revoked TPA for this user.

However, I'm concerned about another term of the block. It is currently sitting at "autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page"; but, if we leave it like that, it leaves a big gap in the block. Rebroad could, in theory, simply create another account and go from there. I would propose enabling autoblock and revoking account creation rights, but, if you digress, that is fine as well. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 3PPYB6. You are correct. I did not notice that removing talk page access made other aspects of the block more lenient. That was not my intention and I have adjusted the block settings accordingly. Does it look OK to you on your end now? Thanks for noticing this. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, and sorry for the relatively late reply. It looks good on my end now; it states "account creation blocked, *autoblock enabled*, cannot edit own talk page". I would see no gaps in these terms. Thanks for adjusting accordingly. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 12:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for mopping up the dirt

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all the work you do keeping Wikipedia a civil and friendly place! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

user:156.222.29.124

Hi Cullen238, good day. I noticed you have blocked the above editor. You might want to block the editor for editing on their talk page - pls see - here. Be safe and best. Cassiopeia <s{{temolatepan style="color:#FFF">talk 05:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cassiopeia. Already  Done. Cullen328 (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Saw and thank you. Cassiopeia talk 05:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:One-way interview on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

A question

Hi, I'm working with a very new editor who wants to nominate Mayor of Wigan for deletion. I don't Rubbish computer think that it is a good candidate for deletion, but I don't know much about specific policies related to an office itself rather than a politician. He tried to CSD then PROD it and now wants to take it to AfD, but finds the instructions difficult to follow. Should I nominate it at AfD for him? I personally think it will be kept, so don't see much point. However, I don't want to turn down a request for help, because I know he would nominate it if he understood the instructions better. Bit of a difficult situation; what are your thoughts? Cheers.

Also saw my Dad's old school in your edit history and was surprised. Small world. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Rubbish computer. I share your general feelings about the specific article and can only assume that if a Wikipedia editor was to visit libraries and newspaper archives in and near Wigan, that they would find reliable sources probably published around 1974 when the current office was established by law. I suggest that you make the editor aware of WP:BEFORE. Whether or not to assist with an AfD is up to you. I would appreciate being notified if the article goes to AfD. As for your Dad's old school, if you mention the school by name, I will let you know how it came to my attention. Thanks for stopping by. Cullen328 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi my Dad went to The Polesworth School, it's quite near me and has a long-running rivalry with my old school Queen Elizabeth Academy. I'll notify the editor of BEFORE and will let you know if it goes to AFD. All the best and thank you, Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 21:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish computer, interesting coincidence. I happened to notice something on my watch list that motivated me to investigate. There were a couple of IP accounts vandalizing The Polesworth School and The Wilnecote School yesterday. So, I handed out some blocks and semi-protected The Polesworth School for 72 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from FactCount221 (15:38, 24 March 2022)

Hello! How do you search for posts? --FactCount221 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FactCount221. In general, the most common way is to look at the history of the page. If the page is archived, you can try entering relevant key words in the archive search box. Cullen328 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Informal request for advice

Hello, I'm writing under the sacred auspices of WP:NOBITING. I'm relatively new to en.wiki as I've started contributing regularly only a couple of months ago. I might be lacking some information about how things get done here. I'm having a little dispute with an editor and I was going to request a Third Opinion, but I’m not entirely sure that's the bast way to preceed, as the dispute is twofold and is both about content and conduct/guidelines.

  1. Conduct/guidelines issue. Yesterday I noticed the editor delating an original post from a talk page, without providing an object, and I reverted manually. I added my comment to the thread and a second editor removed it again (this second editor had never contributed before, or after, to that talk page and article). I restored the thread again. In the meanwhile, I had a conversation with the first editor on their talk page. I started the conversation with a warning. Today, I saw that that editor has delated the whole conversation. The object is I guess that was resolved (welcome to revert/restore if you wish to continue discussion). Now, I’m not particularly keen on continuing the discussion but I suspect that that behaviour – delating posts from article talk page and user talk page – is contrary to WP:TALK. But I might be wrong.
  2. Content issue. With the same user I’ve been having a discussion on the article talk page, here, which they started with a DS alert on my talk page after I had reverted an edit by them. I’ve tried to mediate, but then they disengaged, possibly because annoyed by the discussion on their user talk page which I had started. Anyway, I’m left with no clear consensus. On this I thought that requesting a Third Opinion might be useful. But again: I might be wrong.

Any suggestion as how to move forward (or back off)? Third Opinion is correct or can be avoided? Thank you for your time. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gitz6666. First of all, editors are allowed to remove things from their own talk pages as they wish, with only a handful of exceptions. Do not revert such removals. As for the original IP speculation or rumors about castration of POWs, I think that removing that was justified under WP:NOTAFORUM. Instead, you added it back with links to clearly unreliable sources, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror. That was a mistake on your part. So, I am afraid to say that I agree with My very best wishes in this matter, and they explained their reasoning quite clearly on their talk page. Removing the conversation four hours later is permitted.
As is obvious, the war in Ukraine is controversial and people can get emotional. It is essential that our articles be based on impeccably reliable sources. Dwelling on rumors and bringing unreliable sources to discussions is really bad practice and I encourage you to rethink your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick reply. Just a comment on one point: when I replied to the IP, I made it clear that we couldn't publish that kind of content. I linked to the Daily Mail/Mirror articles just because there one can watch the video where those statements were made, and appreciate that it's not the Minister of Foreign Affairs speaking, but rather a GP/private individual. I told the IP that to me that qualifies as war talk or propaganda, not as a war crime. But I fully agree that our articles should be based on impeccably reliable sources, and right now I'm working at a review of the sources we rely upon in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (here a preview: as you can see, in terms of RS there might be room for improvement).
Thank you for the information: I didn't know that editors were allowed to remove things from their own talk pages.
Finally, with regard to the "content issue", do you think that the Third Opinion might be the right way to address this kind of disputes? For the reasons I gave, I think that the lead should mention the issue of the POW mistreatment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Gitz6666, I think third opinions work best with more obscure topics where only two editors are interested and they are unable to come to a compromise. I suggest continuing discussion on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Ultimately, a formal Request for comment might be useful, but it must be written properly and neutrally. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Solliciting a reply from the involved editor by pinging them would be acceptable behaviour? Or is it better just to wait and see? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Gitz6666, the sentence you support is in the lead, so I would leave well enough alone at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
ops, I hadn't noticed! that would have made for the most ridicolous Third Opinion request ever. Thank you again. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Smartphone editing

How many edit by Smartphone? Do you have the stats? Hornbeel3 (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Hornbeel3. I cannot give you an exact figure because I use the desktop site when editing by smartphone the vast majority of the time, and the Wikipedia software does not distinguish the edits I typically do from the edits by people sitting in front of a desktop computer. I am almost certain that an accurate count would be well over 60,000 smartphone edits. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think in the future AI can build a better encyclopedia with unhuman like sourcing from multiple websites... What do you think? Hornbeel3 (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, Hornbeel3. "The future" is an obviously open-ended concept, and I do not spend much time thinking about the distant future. My concern is for yesterday, today and tomorrow, and perhaps the next year or two. To date, experience has shown that AI bots can write bad encyclopedia articles, but it had not yet been shown that bots can consistently write acceptable encyclopedia articles. I could be wrong, but I think that is quite some time in the future. Perhaps bots might write articles for review by human editors, but I suspect that few human volunteers would be interested in reviewing bot submissions, unless they are consistently good. I have my doubts at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes this is for Now. Future will see Wikipedia as a bad idea. This is my prediction Hornbeel3 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

They were trying so hard...

Good call - I was waffling on a username report or reporting as a VOA the next time they added something in article space. Thanks for making me get back to work sooner! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Tony Fox. Welcome back! Yes, there were several possible rationales for blocking. I chose the username violation as the main reason because it is glaringly obvious. Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI, this is actually Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reverend Colman Trembley. Not sure if it's worth a SPI as they're already blocked. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not care too much about the details, Suffusion of Yellow, except that I favor prompt blocks of all disruptive trolls. I do appreciate you letting me know, and feel free to let me know any time you see active disruption of the encyclopedia. If I am active at that time, I will look into it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Further observations on Society of Christians Dronfield block

I shouldn't have suggested there was no reason for a username block—it certainly implies shared use. What I meant to say, now that I think of it, is that it wasn't a spamublock situation, as they weren't promoting an existing organization and their edits didn't implicate the username. Had they been editing productively, I might have just gone with {{Uw-username}} as a way to nudge them towards possibly changing it or making clear on their userpage that it was a single user.

But, of course, they weren't editing productively. So I changed the block to NOTHERE, which I feel is the strongest reason for the block and gets to the point of what they were doing wrong: considering the username and the content of the (thankfully few) edits they made, they were just doing this whole thing as a joke. (More to the point, it will be harder for them to argue for an unblock as they'll have to address that issue squarely. A username block would have left, IMO, the possibility that a reviewing admin unfamiliar with that policy could have blocked after a cursory review, and they didn't deserve to be unblocked so easily (frankly I'm sure they would have gone right back to what they were doing and we'd have to go to the trouble of blocking again). Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I completely understand your thoughts on this matter, Daniel Case, and was wavering between a username block or a NOTHERE block myself. In my view, either one is not incorrect, which is another way of saying that both could be correct. If you believe that NOTHERE is more definitive, I certainly do not object. Thanks for making the effort to explain. Cullen328 (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Help

Don't really love reaching out to admins directly, but 2A02:587:C23D:F500:4DC:1A21:EEA:118C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an LTA, WP:LTA/WKHF. They seem to be traveling Greece, as this IP and their last one geolocates to there. Urgent block needed as they are section blanking and will not stop unless they get a block. wizzito | say hello! 06:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Note that the /32 is pblocked. Perhaps a temporary /32 block is needed? wizzito | say hello! 06:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The /32 has been blocked. Sorry for my panicking - this was pretty urgent as they were section blanking though. wizzito | say hello! 06:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Wizzito. I think that a sign of maturity is recognizing one's own strengths and weaknesses. I am competent at blocking individual spammer, troll and vandal accounts. And I do that quite regularly. However, I completely lack the skills to analyze and properly block disruptive IP ranges. There are many administrators who have those skills, and I encourage you to communicate with any them. Feel free to reach out to me at any time about any of the administrative areas where I have an established track record. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me about that; I was panicking at the time (as I was dealing with an active vandal) and pulled out some names from the recently active admins list. Luckily the underlying /32 is currently blocked. wizzito | say hello! 06:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
If I can give you any good advice going forward, it would be, using your own words, that "panicking" is almost never an emotion that should guide your Wikipedia editing. Occasionally, a situation will require a genuine emergency response, and we have channels for that. Like the time that a known criminal plausibly threatened to kill my granddaughter because I told the well-referenced truth about him on Wikipedia. Do you know about the emergency response channels on Wikipedia? But the vast majority of situations like this can be handled by ordinary editing or reports to established noticeboards. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on flag of Alabama

I thought it was the determination of administrators that we should reach consensus before continuing to edit the flag of Alabama article. The article continues be edited in ways I have expressed opposition to without consensus. I feel like I would be quickly banned if I were to continue editing the article. Am I misunderstanding what was said or acting improperly? Desertambition (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Desertambition. My personal suggestion is that you walk away from that article and take it off of your watch list. I am of the opinion that you are very close to being blocked indefinitely. WP:RGW is relevant here, but you are already aware of that. Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I do not see how I am violating WP:RGW. I am interested in factual accuracy and I have consistently provided sources and engaged in discussion. I am going to you to understand what your guidance was and you just threaten to block me. I don't see how that's helpful or productive. Desertambition (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Desertambition, no, I am not threatening to block you. But I do think that some other administrator is probably going to block you, based on reading your entire talk page and observing your combative interactions with another administrator and your ongoing patterns of behavior. You still have a chance to change, but in my opinion, you are now skating on very thin ice. Feel free to dismiss my observations if you want. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I accept that. I am on very thin ice. You keep talking about me but it is frustrating when the issues I am bringing up aren't addressed and the conversation is always about banning me, why aren't I banned yet, I am violating WP:RGW, etc etc. Does that mean my grievances and reports will not be heard? Do you understand my frustration or see it from my perspective at all? Desertambition (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Desertambition, I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill with that article. That's my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
So am I right in saying that your recommendation against "tendentious" editing only applies to me? It seems like the factual accuracy of an article should supersede whatever complaints users may have about me personally. You just keep repeating that I'm complaining about nothing when every time I try to bring up a genuine complaint it gets ignored. I feel like you would ban me the second I edit that article. Is that wrong? Desertambition (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition, I already said that I have no plans or wish to block you. Obviously, if you do something utterly egregious, I would block you but I hope that I do not have to. As for "tendentious editing" applying only to you, that is obviously incorrect. But I do think that you have been the most tendentious by far in the Alabama flag kerfuffle. Fun fact: I have been an administrator for nearly five years and have blocked 5715 accounts. But I have chosen to not block you. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2009 and have never once received a formal warning, let alone get blocked. And when I ran for administrator, I was elected by a vote of 316 to 2, the highest vote count ever for a new candidate for administrator. So, I am very confident of my support in the Wikipedia editing community which has placed great trust in me to assess this type of situation. I suggest that you ask yourself what it is about your behavior here on Wikipedia that causes so many highly experienced editors to repeatedly express concerns about your editing, and think long and hard about that issue if you want to keep editing. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from SJW4819 (02:40, 31 March 2022)

I added Jaws: The Revenge ahead of creating my account, is there a way to loop that back in since it was tied to my IP address, or just moving forward the account will track what I do? --SJW4819 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SJW4819. There is no way for the software to automatically connect your edits made with an IP address to your edits with a registered account. However, you can create a user page and note there that you used to edit from an IP address. Jaws: The Revenge was created by User: 64.12.116.72. If that is you, feel free to list the articles that you worked on. Cullen328 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Sumonsen (19:24, 27 March 2022)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saira_Shah_Halim

Please approve this content, she is my client. I have written content for her. I have added all of her details in the content.

Please check and approve. --Sumonsen (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Sumonsen. No, I will not approve that draft. It is unreferenced, which is a violation of policy. Read Referencing for beginners. It has external links in the body, which is incorrect. It is filled with promotional language which violates the Neutral point of view. You must comply with the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. Please study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Please guild me what I need to change.
The links that I have given in the article all belongs to her. Sumonsen (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Sumonsen, make the WP:PAID declaration and read all of the links I sent you very carefully. The links that belong to her are of very little value. Reliable independent sources are required. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saira_Shah_Halim
I have modified the content according to your previous comments. Please check and confirm. Sumonsen (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Sumonsen, you have failed to comply with the mandatory Paid contribution disclosure. Please do so immediately. Your references are poorly formatted and are more about her husband t|han the subject. Please read WP:REFBEGIN and WP:POLITICIAN. Unelected political candidates rarely quality for Wikipedia biographies. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction (Adamant1)

The last block was actually in Dec 2020 not 2021. Not that I think it makes much of a difference. Best, El_C 09:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for making wikipedia a better place for us. Today is a sad day for me, and the funeral isn't until tomorrow. I never thought I was an idealist, I just wanted to be more like you and the other editors that simply asked to bring reason into an unreasonable place. Even though sometimes we fail, the ones that love us back make all the pain worth it. You can ask johnuniq if you need to know. Cheers friend. DN (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

DN, I am so sorry for your loss. Thank you for your kind words. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
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.

Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nikol Pashinyan on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:John Rose (Tennessee politician) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Could use your help at ANI

Out of control vandalism and block evasion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:ACDF (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rwandan genocide on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

One more time?

Fresh off the last block you issued: edit summary. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Editor arrogance

Why are Wikipedia editors so arrogant and think they know best? T A Francis (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, T A Francis. You are a Wikipedia editor. Are you referring to yourself, or to somebody else? If it is somebody else, who in particular are you talking about? Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

You need to be more specific when you give warnings to editors. It's impossible for other people to read your mind.

I just reverted edits that were clearly damaging to three articles: FedEx, Wrong-way driving, and The Travelers Companies.

The first one involved insertion of an image of an entirely unrelated building in New York City into the infobox as the purported corporate headquarters (even though the infobox still correctly states that FedEx is headquartered in Memphis). No citation was provided. And one can see on Google in less than 30 seconds that 35 Hudson Yards has nothing to do with FedEx. So the edit I was reverting was not in good faith. Not even close. It is harassing and extremely disruptive to wrongly accuse editors of violating WP's civility policy when they are accurately calling out clear vandalism for what it is.

If the issue is with the other two articles, I will concede that another editor's introduction of a run-on sentence into Wrong-way driving may have been merely sloppy and another editor's deletion of several sentences in The Travelers Companies may have been an well-intentioned effort to make the article more concise. So if you are advising me to be more civil in correcting those kinds of bad edits, I will work harder on being more tactful and considerate in my edit summaries. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, my warning to you was in response to the vandalism warning that you left on Ymblanter's talk page. Accusing an editor who made a good faith error of vandalism is extremely disruptive and completely unacceptable. Ymblanter has been active on Wikipedia for 11 years, is an administrator, has made over 230,000 edits and is indisputably a productive editor and not a vandal. So, yes, please be more careful in your interactions with other editors. The word vandalism is reserved for behavior that is clearly intended to damage the encyclopedia. He made an error and you made an error as well. Cullen328 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I just looked at the other two articles, and in both of those cases, you made false accusations of vandalism. Don't do that again. Cullen328 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

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

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 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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

AldezD

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)

A toast sandwich for you!

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)
Nice to hear from you, DN. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol

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)

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)

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)

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)
Elinruby, another administrator has semi-protected the article for 90 days. Cullen328 (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Right. That takes care of that. Elinruby (talk)

Miss Bono

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)

bot names

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)

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)
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)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Littlemoor, Derbyshire

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)
Thank you for the advice Binglybonglybinglebonglebingbong (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_87&oldid=1090068577"