Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
  • Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

  • A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Initially posted on the wrong page....

A tps saw my comment on the wrong Cullen TP...*lol*...Anyway, following is the explanation in response to your question on my TP: 13:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

...Wow - what a chore. Looking at the steps that were taken, I doubt I could've fixed it on my own. Hope that answers the question you asked on my TP. Atsme📞📧 02:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme. That Libtard AfD got all tangled up. By the way, the only reason that I am Cullen328 is that plain old Cullen was an active editor in 2009 when I got started, so I had to pick something else. And then that person never edited again. Oh, well, that's how things go sometimes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Question I want to ask

Hi Jim! I thank you for the awesome input you are giving me. As a new editor on Wikipedia, I really enjoy contributing here as I have used Wikipedia since I was a kid, and I also really appreciate how you are helping me become a better editor on here. I have a question I want to ask you. On this website, does it show here that this populated place is either a neighborhood or subdivision of the city of Temple Terrace, in Florida? I am not really making an article about this, I just wanted to ask about this, because I have been wondering about this. Also, I don't think this exists. If this is on the map, then does it count as a populated place? If you scroll in, the pushpin points to a house. Does this classify as an existing populated place? Thank you for reading, and please tell me what you think. Colman2000 (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Colman2000. The Geographic Names Information System lists Mendoza, Florida as a "populated place" with an ID number 2484255. They report their source as "A GIS dataset provided by MyTampa.Gov concerning Subdivisions" in 2008, so perhaps it is a subdivision. A populated place is defined by GNIS as a "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes."
All that being said, my Google search outside GNIS comes up empty. There are Mendoza streets in Florida and Mendoza subdivisions in other states and countries. So, it is of no significance to Wikipedia. Perhaps the subdivision was never built because of the economic crisis of 2008-2009, or perhaps the subdivision was renamed for marketing reasons. Those are my guesses. I hope that this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, Jim! I agree with all that you wrote above. To tell you the truth, I have actually read what the Geographic Names Information System classifies a populated place as. I also agree with you that it is probably a subdivision, but I'm not real sure. I also wrote above that I am not creating an article on this topic on Wikipedia, nor am I planning on doing that. I agree that it is not significant to add to Wikipedia. I also have no idea why it was classified as a subdivision, either. Either way, thank you so much for the input. Cheers! Colman2000 (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
For an amusing example of this sort of thing, take a look at Lombard, California, Colman2000. That location is in the northern part of the city of American Canyon, California, and I live in the south-eastern part of that city. I have probably driven by that area a thousand times in the last 26 years, and it is a light industrial and warehouse area where there are five parallel railroad tracks, and this is by no means a major railroad. Nobody lives there though a few live a couple hundred yards away. It seems that various railroads call it the "Lombard Yard". In all the time I have lived in American Canyon, I have never once heard anyone mention "Lombard" and have never seen it mentioned in our local newspapers. And yet it has a GNIS listing, a Wikipedia article and it shows up on Google maps. Though I find it a bit strange, I have no problem with it. Maybe some researcher will run across mention of a California rail facility called Lombard, go to Wikipedia, and we can be a resource. And if that researcher publishes more details in a reliable source, the article can be expanded. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I know! I just looked up those articles, and I actually agree that I find that really weird. To me, I think that article adds little value to Wikipedia. I actually used to live in San Jose when I was a little boy. Thank you for the example. Cheers! Colman2000 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration case reminder

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to your Recommendation

Your recommendation: DHT863, you need to bring forward reliable sources that support the changes you want to make. There is no way under the sun that any experienced editor will agree with your "alternate paragraphs" proposal. This entire article will be the product of consensus among all interested editors, and you are just one of them. So, your job is to build consensus if you want to change the article. This is a collaborative project based on consensus. If you persist in referring to other interested editors as "the opposition", you cannot possibly achieve your goals. Wikipedia simply does not work that way. Cullen328

  • Hello Cullen, So what has happened to Wikipedia? I never had to do "consensus" before. The places I edit have obvious flaws and if not that obvious then I explained the problem on Talk page. You guys have a serious problem of Nazi administrators and uneducated trolls. I don't like this at all and very very strongly recommend that you do something to reverse the damage these people are doing. I'm sick of making a minor edit and getting it reversed without any suggested improvements or helpful corrections and especially coming from people who can't even discuss the problem. This is horrible. It is disaster. Have you done anything to address this problem? Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, DHT863. Please read our core content policy Verifiability which says "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Then, please read our core content policy No original research, which says "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Then read our policy Consensus, which says "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." Then, read our behavioral guideline Assume good faith, which says "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence." I suggest that you start by retracting your remark about "Nazi administrators and uneducated trolls."
If you want to continue contributing to this wonderful collaborative project, you need to follow our policies and guidelines. That is the best advice that I can give to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • They are minor edits my friend not major sections. Each one of you guys make up a different criticism as if the other is not there. You never explain what it is except order me to go read something that is pages long. I could have written everything in the policy guidelines myself because of six years of college where the fundamental lesson you are taught is exactly the policy here also. You are behaving in an orchestrated manner of obstruction. Where are you getting all this crap. Say something that is intelligent. What are your credentials for intellectual achievement? You are acting like a troll. It is evil to behave like a dictator. There is no editorial decision making when it comes to minor edits. I assume good faith but you guys all deny the same respect for my edits. You can't keep referring to the policy as hard fast rules. The lead to the policy says they are only guidelines. Lesson: do not erase/destroy/remove/revert other people's hard work and "assume good faith" by improving or correcting others efforts. Not one person has treated me in a cordial or polite manner so I have to assume you are all ganging up on me in an attempt to crush my efforts. In some human way you must respond without dictating a rule. -- DHT863 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello again, DHT863. I know that you are feeling frustrated, and I am sorry about that, but you need to accept the fact that Wikipedia operates by consensus. If your edit is challenged by any other editor acting in good faith for any reason, then you need to provide reliable sources and negotiate to reach consensus. This is not optional. It is mandatory, and is the basic reason that this project is successful and read by billions of people. Most of your edits are not minor. See Help:Minor edit for the definition. Please stop insulting your fellow editors. Just stop that behavior now. Start collaborating. Try kindness. That's how you accomplish your goals on Wikipedia. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you point out one article where consensus was settled? There are lots and lots of serious edits going on without any visible consensus. The five pillars say nothing about consensus. All the basic directions say jump in, be bold, assume good faith, build on pervious edits. But all you say and all those people tracking me are not in that spirit. You have got to understand that Wikipedia does not operate by your believes about consensus. I have gone to other articles and made minor edits only to be reverted - that is outright sabotage. Who are you? Are you claiming that something has changed because it was not like this a few months ago? Every time you refer to a help article it is insulting because there is a ton of info none of which applies in my particular case. You need to focus on the specific line item because I can not decipher what your meaning is. Please forward my comments to your boss. I need to talk with someone of higher authority. Thanks. -- DHT863 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
DHT863, we do not have such a thing as settled consensus on the full content of any article although articles which have gone through rigorous peer review and have become Featured articles come closest. Instead, we come to consensus about specific proposed chunks of content, such as a sentence, a paragraph or a reference that is in dispute. If you make a bold change and no one objects, then all is well. But if you are reverted, you must provide references and reach consensus. In my initial response above, I gave you the standard summaries of the various policies and guidelines that are applicable. Every policy and guideline has a brief summary at the top. The principles are simple, and interact quite elegantly.
To find out more about me, click on my username and read my userpage. I have no boss. I was elected as an administrator by the Wikipedia community because the community agreed quite strongly that I have a good understanding of our policies and guidelines and can be trusted to enforce them fairly. No administrator is above any other administrator. We work as a team. I can assure you that any other administrator will give you the same advice as I am offering and some of them would probably be less diplomatic than I am trying to be here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Violations_of_Five_Pillars --NeilN talk to me 00:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the info. I used to be a big supporter of Wikipedia but I simply can not accept these rules. I can not accept uneducated trolls being given the power over my life time of hard work. For your own self respect I recommend that you do not publicize your connection to Wikipedia. From now on I must say that Wikipedia is trash and you're welcome to it. Sorry but this is so offensive to me that I must say good bye. -- DHT863 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) You really should read WP:NPA and WP:COOL. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and we are expected to keep WP:CIVIL in mind even when we disagree over content. Wikipedia is not about WP:WINNING or getting our own way. You are always welcome to comeback editing if you are willing to be WP:HERE and edit according to relevant policies and guidelines. You are also welcome to suggest changes to these policies and guidelines on their respective talk pages or even at WP:VP/P, but you should really not be casting aspersions on other editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect history for Why Buddhism is True

Hi Cullen328,

Recently I asked about my article for Why Buddhism is True in the Teahouse and you moved it to the mainspace along with the history from my sandbox (thanks!). The only problem is that I had used the same sandbox for a different page before and now everything in the history from Oct 30 and earlier is not for the same article. Anything that can be done about this?

Cheers, Gazelle55 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Gazelle55. I can clean that up for you in a few hours. I am busy with my real world job right now. In the future, you can create a separate sandbox subpage for each new article draft. To do so, go to your main sandbox page and add a slash after the URL, followed by a draft name that you can remember. In this case, it could have been "/WBIT" for the initials of the book. Then, only the history of that subpage will be moved. I have hundreds of such sandbox subpages. There is no limit as long as you are using them to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Could you please do something about User:Mfwitten and his/her persistent edit warring at Graham Hancock? Cheers. nagualdesign 22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just so you (both) know, I have reported them here. --bonadea contributions talk 22:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Bonadea. nagualdesign 22:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
User has been blocked for a week. nagualdesign 22:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of "relativizing proofs"

Here is a (hopefully less caustic) discussion of Jimfbleak's deletion of the article "relativizing proofs" in 2015. Cullen328 I should probably study Wikipedia policy in more depth. I have read various policies here but I would honestly welcome your help in understanding it better. I don't mean to be hostile or invective. I am passionate about the subject, is all. So here's the gist of my question: How do you know he was right to delete the *entire* article, according to Wikimedia foundation policy? I understand that we need to be careful not to plagiarize, but why delete the whole thing? You say tha they don't allow us to be "conservative" — why is that? I don't mean that we should leave plagiarized material on the site - that would cause huge problems, and rightfully so. What I meant by expressing a desire to see moderators be "conservative" in their deletions is: please, please moderate with an intent to preserve what public-domain knowledge can safely be preserved — and to keep what important knowledge can be kept safely. Deleting the article is harmful to the study of P vs. NP and other problems in proof and computational complexity theory that depend on an understanding of relativizing proofs. I'm not qualified to even begin to write it myself... but the concepts that were in there are important. I can't even find evidence that the page was copyrighted in the first place. The url that the deletion cites, http://www.alishehab.com/2013/05/p-versus-np-problem.html now just redirects to the home page at alishebab.com, which appears to be a news site.

So, it seems the chain of events is as such: Alishebab.com wrote an article on P vs NP. Then, an inexperienced or careless Wikipedian copied some or all of the text from that article into the Wikipedia article. That was a bad idea on their part, and it's good that Jimfbleak corrected it. It was rude of me to be so snide in my initial post, but the action of one inexperienced editor copying material into the article shouldn't doom the entire article! I have a difficult time believing that the entire "relativizing proof" article was taken wholesale from the alishebab.com website. It isn't even a mathematics website, it's just a news site. It's difficult to tell exactly what happened, because the original article that was infringed upon is as inaccessible to me as the wikipedia article that was deleted as a result! I just want to see the parts of the article that weren't infringing brought back, so that I can study the subject. Anything you can do to point me in the right direction would be appreciated.

I read your reply on Jimfbleak's talk page, asserting that the article wasn't "up to snuff" for other reasons besides just the copyright infringement. That being said, I am curious as to whether an entire article would actually get deleted for a single infringing portion? Kemery720 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kemery720. I won't repeat what I wrote on the other talk page but I will expand a bit. We routinely delete articles that grossly and obviously fail our key policies and guidelines, especially when created by an editor who has disappeared and is unavailable to improve it. This article had no references, wikilinks, external links or reading list. It mentioned no mathematicians and failed to provide any context or connection to broader mathematical topics. It was just some jargon and formulas that did not even mention "relativizing proofs". In summary, there were several valid reasons to delete the article and none to keep it.
For a better understanding of the legal and ethical importance of deleting copyright violations, please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If a heavily edited article has significant copyright violations added, then a common solution is to revert the article to the most recent "clean" version. Sometimes, good content is also hidden. Please be aware that there are only about 550 volunteer administrators dealing with well over five million articles. When an article with such glaring problems is identified, we must act promptly and fairly, and then move on to the next problem. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, Kemery720, the deleted article was created by one brand new editor in three quick edits. No one else contributed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328, many thanks for picking this up. Kemery720, there is little I can add to what Cullen238 has said. I've looked at the deleted text again, and it's as described. Copyright, unsourced, no context. The concept may be important, but that doesn't mean we have to accept text that breaks all our rules. I am curious as to whether an entire article would actually get deleted for a single infringing portion? — it shouldn't be. However, often most or all of an article is just copy-pasted from a non-free site. As Cullen says, usually it's pretty obvious; no wikilinks or references and created in a single edit. It's just a matter then of finding the source (which seems to have disappeared now, as you noted). Incidentally, close paraphrases and translations are still copyright violations. I hope this helps Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328 and Jimfbleak, thank you for the explanation... and again, my heartfelt apologies for my original snide comments. Now that I have the facts, I'm convinced that you weren't out of line in the least, and that your contributions are very valuable to both the community and human knowledge. Should I remove or reword my initial post on Jimfbleak's talk page? I'm studying the subject elsewhere and hope to write a good article on it when I feel like I am qualified to do so. I'll be careful to provide reputable citations, and I'll be sure to write original words and not paraphrase or copy translations for any of my contributions to articles here.Kemery720 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
If you can write an informative article, that would be a wonderful thing, Kemery720. In most cases, it is best to leave talk page conversations intact, unless far more offensive material is involved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Seth MacFarlane

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Seth MacFarlane. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you so much for this page!! It is amazing! Higginsal (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Princess Eugenie of York

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Eugenie of York. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Help needed for being wrongly accused of stealing.

Hello Cullen328,

I am writing to you because if I understand correctly, you are the host at the moment at the Teahouse. I suppose you read some of the questions today given at the Teahouse. I am very much devastated and humilated by what has happened to me a few hours ago by Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC) and yes I take it very personally. I explain. I had asked a question about copyright infringment - and I got from some Moderators very good feedback and for me everything was okay. Yet all of a sudden this User Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC) wrote me a very unfriendly message. 

    Laramie1960, can we try to get one thing clear: it isn't "your" article. You've made some large additions to it, but you don't own it or have any right in it other than the right to be attributed along with the many other editors who have also contributed to it. As a result of your additions, that page is now in a fairly dire state and seriously needs attention: it is written in very poor English, presumably by someone who does not have a good knowledge of the language (or by Google Translate?); it is inadequately sourced, with whole paragraphs devoid of any citation; and it links to various pages of www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch which carry materials (newspaper clippings and so on) that appear to violate copyrights. We can't link to those – see WP:LINKVIO. That is in any case somebody's website and so not a reliable source by our definition. Laramie1960, did you write all your text specifically for English Wikipedia, or are parts of it translated from somewhere? And if so, from where?
   To answer your question: the translation to Italian is not a copyright violation, but is missing the attribution that is needed when copying within Wikipedia, as GreenMeansGo has said; I'll ask someone to fix that. Oh, and I speak Italian if you need help understanding stuff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have never been so insulted I can tell you. As we can see it was not so much about the question, but to tell me how lousy and badly I had written that article which exists since last summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliette_Benzoni I had not created the article in the first place, but for many days added all the text which I know by heart, the article had only been a stub page. English is indeed not my native tongue, I am from Switzerland where we speak four languages and learn English in school. It is one thing to accuse me of speaking poorly English and putting down that article - (and why happens that only now and not last summer?) but to add on the article on top now these charts and saying that the writer had copied all the text from the French Wikipedia page is outragous. I have known the author Juliette Benzoni of that article in person, we were close friends and she gave me all her material and had approved of that website here: https://www.catherinedemontsalvy.ch/English/Frontpage.htm I have never copied anything, and surely not from the French Wikipedia. I would love to give you my email, but since I am not adviced to do that you can maybe ask someone at Wikimedia where I have been in contact about the photos.

I do not know what came into the mind of this User Justlettersandnumbers to attack me in this way. I have never been in contact with him before. His last sentence to me, that he can speak Italian to me to explain stuff made me wonder. Why ever did he say that? I had asked months ago if someone could help me translate the above article into Italian, because my written Italian was poor. So why does he want to write to me in Italian when I cannot write it? Why did he interfere? The User has gone now to that article and has deleted many links and added these charts.

Can you please see that these charts are taken away again. Or can I do that myself. I repeat, I never copied anything it is a lie. I am looking forward to your help, because I do not know where else to write this message. Best to you Laramie1960 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Laramie1960. Yes, I am one of many Teahouse hosts and have a lot of experience there, but I am not "the" host and have no more power or authority than any other experienced editor. I am also an administrator.
I believe in openness, and when I discuss another editor, I let them know in most cases. So, I am pinging Justlettersandnumbers so that this editor knows what is going on. The proper place to discuss the article content is Talk:Juliette Benzoni and I see that a conversation is going on there. Continue that discussion productively.
Your anger and indignation is misplaced. It is a fact that you have a conflict of interest regarding Juliette Benzoni, since you have openly admitted a long term personal friendship with her. It is also a fact that your English language skills do not reach full idiomatic fluency. Yes, I can understand you, but your prose style requires copyediting by a truly fluent English speaker. If you added the word "fulminant" to the article, then that is more evidence of the problem. That word is used almost exclusively in technical discussion of medical crises. Consider this: I am an educated native speaker of English and have never once used the word "fulminant" in my life until now.
So, you have a conflict of interest, shortcomings in English fluency, and a short temper. Calm down please.
Do not express outrage against a fellow editor who is acting in good faith to protect this encyclopedia. Instead, accept criticism, collaborate, cooperate and build consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Cullen328,

So this continues today as I can see, "shortcomings in English fluency, conflict of interest" and a short temper? I wonder how you would have reacted if someone told you to had stolen a text from another Wikipedia page and translated it through the Google translator. The answer to me from that User had nothing to do with the question I had asked at the Teahouse. I disagree with you, he attacked me harshly. Would I have known his private name I would have sued him for wrongly accusing me of stealing.

By the way, that article was not started by me, it was a stub and it had only some small facts about the author, missing book titles and a chaos with the order of the books. There were no links or references! But since you are a host and have long experience, you very well know that this can be looked after in the previous entries at that article created in 2010. I was so naive to believe that I could with my "meager" English do justice to the author and wrote that article which was until yesterday all done by me. There are now friendly editiors who have gone to correct my style of writing. Until yesterday I had no idea that my text there was so lousy. About the word "fulminant" I had no idea that we cannot use it the way I did it. Ignorant that I am of the English language. I speak four languages, Swiss-German, French, Italian and English - it can happen that we mix a word up. The author is dead since two years, she shared her material with the webmaster of that website I linked to a few times. I never earned any money concerning Juliette Benzoni. That website did not profit from any links I gave, since it is a non profit website.

When I wrote that article I was a true beginner who learned the hard way. I spent many hours on Wikipedias help pages, nobody is perfect. As I can see today on some of the very nice comments on my talk page, not everyone agrees that my English is that bad. I am now discouraged to continue, I suppose the English Wikipedia has no need of Swiss contributers whose native tongue is not English. I will leave that now to the experts. Thank you for taking your time to answer me. Best Laramie1960 (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Laramie1960: You need to be very careful about statements such as saying you're going to sue someone because this is something that can get you into trouble very quickly on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:No legal threats even if you're just speaking hypothetically. Overt or implied lead threats are something which administrators take quite seriously, and while some may take into account that English is not your first language, others might not be so understanding. My suggestion to you is that you strike this comment from you post in accordance with WP:REDACT and refrain from posting similiar again on any Wikipedia pages. I've tried to help you on your user talk page, and I'm trying to help you here as well. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and we are all expected to try and deal with each other per WP:CIVIL. When we disagree about things, we are expected to use discussion to resolve them per WP:DR. Any kind of threat is a bad idea, but even indirect threats of off Wikipedia legal action are particularly bad because of the possible "chilling effect" they may have on other editors. I perfectly understand the feeling of frustration when someone else criticizes your work or says you did something that you didn't. You have to, however, try and remain WP:COOL when that happens and be careful how you respond because adminstrators are not going to care who said what first; they are going to take any action they feel is necessary to prevent any further disruption of the Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, hello!

Hi from the exotic island. I am thinking of starting to contribute again. I don't have much online time and can't afford more, but it's something. I am a bit clueless about where to start. Any help will be appreciated. Love Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

How nice to hear from you again, Miss Bono. There are a million possible topics and I would be happy to collaborate on any article of your choosing, just as we did several years ago. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I am trying to find my way back here. I would like keep improving U2 related articles. But currently I have more interests. And I am open to suggestions. To be honest, I don't even know where to start. They add the innactive project banner to the WikiProject U2. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Would you be interested in working on Gretsch, Miss Bono? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course. That's one of my favourite brands ever. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Nazis disscussion

Hi Cullen328, I'd like to make a quick comment on your final responses to the now closed Admin Incident report regarding Collaboration with the Nazis discussion. I have to say that your statement was extremely troublesome because you automatically took one side of the issue calling everyone on the other end "nationalists". Despite the fact other long time editors (not nationalists) questioned user François Robere's approach to editing. Btw, no one is disputing content on individual Polish collaboration, the issue is user François Robere's sanitization of parts of the article related to Jewish collaboration in Poland by taking out text related to the Jewish Ghetto Police, Judenrat and organizations such as Żagiew and Group 13, which worked directly for the German Gestapo. Also, he repeatedly removed relaible reference sources which discussed comparisons of how many Poles collaborated vs. how many aided Jews. Btw, pls get past the misleading news reports on the subject and refrain form harmful stereotypes. See: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --E-960 (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, E-960. Here is what I wrote: "I think that we are fortunate to have editors willing to do the hard work to ensure that our articles about collaboration with the Nazis during WWII are accurate, neutral and summarize what the highest quality reliable sources say, even if that history upsets some nationalists." Please read my words again carefully, paying special attention to the fact that I didn't criticize any specific editor by name or by implication. Just as you ask me to assume good faith, please realize that my assumption is that you are among those who want accurate and neutral coverage. How can you possibly know which news coverage I have or have not read, or even what my view is on the content dispute? How did I take sides with my entirely accurate comment? I do know that it was an error to call for a block against François Robere at ANI, since that editor's conduct was not worthy of a block. That is clear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Senri Kawaguchi Images

Thank you for your clarification in the Teahouse which I fully understand and accept. What I need clarification on is how to proceed from here. I have an email from the owner of the Drummerworld site telling me that I am free to use any image I like. Should I for example, be asking him to either upload the images himself, or asking if he can put some clarification of the copyright status of images, saying that they are free to use under CC whatever? On the other point, that has gone unanswered, I have three images that were directly supplied to me by Ms Kawaguchi's manager Masakazu Kimura. I have explicit permission to use them. They are currently on my Amazon Cloud drive. See:

Everlong Day (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Everlong Day. "Explicit permission" to you is not sufficient. We need explicit permission, in writing, from the copyright holder, under the terms of an acceptable Creative Commons license, for anyone (not just you) to use the photos for any purpose. The best way is for the copyright holder (no one else) to upload the photos to Wikimedia Commons, providing the permission. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Terri Doty

You're editing through full protection? --NeilN talk to me 04:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought that, as an administrator, I could edit this article. Should I revert, NeilN? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Admins can only remove vandalism or BLP violations or (per WP:FULL) "Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus" (which are typically uncontentious edit requests). I'm not going to complain but if I was an editor who thought the material you removed should stay in I would be asking you to revert or, if I was particularly prickly, shouting "abuse of tools!". --NeilN talk to me 04:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I will not edit the article again while it is fully protected, NeilN. I thought my two edits brought it closer to compliance with policies and guidelines. If you do not see it that way, will you please revert? I will not object in any way. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Mobile editing

Hi Cullen328, I recently read your essay on mobile editing, which was very well written. While I've edited using mobile in the past, I've always found it tedious to make large edits. Recently I had to edit using my mobile device as I was out of town and encountered a problem with editing AfD discussions, which I raised at the village pump, but the issue remained unsolved. In short, the edit button in AfD discussions won't work. My question is, do you have to type "Wikipedia:Articles for discussion/XYZ" (XYZ=article name) in the search bar and then edit an AfD discussion (which is the only way it seems to work). Thanks, MT TrainTalk 16:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Mark the train, I edit virtually exclusively from my phone. I never use the app, but instead thru a browser. Make sure you click the button at the bottom of the page to request the desktop version. The only time I encounter a problem is when a page is very long. I've never had a problem with AfD. John from Idegon (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks John from Idegon! That helps a lot, though I am much used to the app and will have to bail out from the habit :) MT TrainTalk 17:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with John from Idegon on this matter, Mark the train. I do about 95+% of my editing on Android smartphones, and I almost always use the desktop site rather than the mobile site or any apps. It works fine for me and I do fairly complex editing including commenting on AfDs. The mobile site and apps are not yet fully functional, in my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

added Lourdes†
removed AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

  • The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
  • Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
  • A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
  • A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

  • CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
  • The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Obituaries

  • Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

[1]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:9F:5480:8E2:6977 (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. It all looks fishy to me. Robin Williams is on my watch list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I have semiprotected Father of the Pride. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

SFMOMA Edit-a-Thon in San Francisco, March 8

You're invited to an Art+Feminism Edit-a-Thon at SFMOMA in San Francisco on Thursday March 8, 5-9 pm. It'll be at 151 Third Street, 2nd floor, free to the public. Everyone is welcome to participate in an evening of communal updating of Wikipedia entries on subjects related to gender, art, and feminism. (This message is from User:Dreamyshade. You can subscribe/unsubscribe to San Francisco event talk page notices here.)
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Page protection of Arie Luyendyk Jr.

Hey Cullen328,

I requested page protection hours ago [2] and no one seems to be looking over it, which is understandable since we are all volunteers. However, the vandalism at this page is becoming unreasonable due to a controversial ending of the Bachelor. It is past 2am here and I am going to bed and no one else seems to be watching over the page. I see you are online so would you mind protecting it? Thanks, HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, HickoryOughtShirt?4. I semi-protected the article and blocked the most recent vandals. Please let me know if disruption continues, though I am going to bed soon. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alina Zagitova

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alina Zagitova. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RChain

Hi Jim, thanks for your note on my RChain article. I think the article is factual in nature and not promotional. Wikipedia features articles on a number of lesser-known cryptocurrencies from "Titcoin" to "Blackcoin" to Ubiq. RChain is more well known than any of those. Obviously what I wrote is just a start, but I think RChain certainly deserves its own Wikipedia entry. Thanks, Derek7272 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Derek7272. I disagree. Your article had at least two overtly promotional sentences and says this cryptocurrency isn't even in operation yet. It is too soon for an article and we do not allow promotional articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

K. M. Cherian (doctor)

Hi Jim. Was wondering if you’d mind adding K. M. Cherian (doctor) to your watchlist. A new editor has been trying to improve it, but their lack of familiarity with the MOS and BLP is actually doing more harm than good. I’ve posted on their user talk already, but I’ll be on smartphone mode for a few days, so it's a bit hard to keep tabs on the article. The subject seems likely to be Wikipedia notable, but trying to turn the article into a puff piece of some kind is not the right way to try and improve it. — Marchjuly (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. Sure, I will add that article to my watchlist and take a look. I will not have much time to get involved in the next 36 hours as I have lengthy round trip travel and lengthy paid work scheduled for tomorrow. Then lengthy sleep. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. Perhaps one of your talk page watchers will step in as needed if things get any more out of control. The article was recently prodded, but has been cleaned us but since then. There may be some COI editors involved unintentionally turning it into a WP:NOT type of article. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wiki-stress

I appreciate the comment that you posted on my talk page today. No apology is necessary. I often read your replies to posts in the Teahouse, and I know that you regularly provide guidance to help editors follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I just overreacted at first. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, both by creating articles and by trying to improve existing articles, and I don't want to do anything to put that activity at risk. Thank you. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Eddie Blick. As I think that you now realize, your editing is not at risk in any way. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. I know that you are interested in old time radio. I am 65 and grew up hearing stories from my father about hit radio shows of the 1930s and 1940s. I recently wrote an article, Aunt Sammy, about a Depression-era radio character. If you have access to any sources that could be used to improve and expand the article, I would be very grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply, and I thank you. I am not familiar with the Aunt Sammy character, but I have pulled up that article, and I will see if I can find any material that might be useful. Eddie Blick (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I have added a few things to the article. I will do more research on it this afternoon. That is an interesting topic! Did you know that someone published Aunt Sammy's Radio Recipes Revised in 2003? Eddie Blick (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Eddie Blick. I suspected that you might have access to better sources. I really appreciate your efforts. I was thinking of buying one of the cookbooks, which I can justify since my wife is a cookbook collector. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome! I am enjoying finding out about the Aunt Sammy program and its related activities. Late yesterday I found a newspaper article from 1927 that identified the three women at the USDA who were responsible for the scripts and recipes used on the show. I didn't have time to add that information to the article then, but I plan to do so today. I will do a bit more research, but I think I have about exhausted my resources. Buying that book sounds like a good idea; you can enjoy reading it and possibly enjoy some of the recipes' results. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Jim. I'd like to talk to you in private. Please, if you could let me know on email when you have some time, I'd really appreciate it. Love, Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 16:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I have responded by email, Miss Bono. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Courses Modules are being deprecated

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

want help

Hi Jim could you see and check the article in my sand box ? It is my First Article so plz tell me my necessary edits . --THANK U SO MUCH-- Zara st (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zara st. You are making a good start. I suggest that you read Your first article and follow the advice there. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi again, Cullen328. I don't know what i did... I wrote a draft that it was redirected from my sand box .. when it was ready to publish, i moved it to an article, but it is still in my sand box and still redirected ..what can I do ? I don't want that article in my sand box or draft any more ..and when i google my article it linked as it's talk page ...thank you so much Zara st (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Zara st. The article is in main space at Mahdi Fakhimi, so you do not need to worry about that. You can edit your sandbox page to blank it if you want, and then use it for other purposes. Your article will not show up in a Google search until it has been reviewed by a new pages patroller, which could take weeks. There is a major shortcoming in the article at this time. Your references should contain complete bibliographic information. Instead of saying "See the book', the reference should contain the author, the title of the book, the publisher, date of publication, page numbers, ISBN number, and so on. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Something done by the WMF seems to have caused some confusion regarding Zara st's userpage, and now -- unrelated to the WMF -- there were multiple redirects from sandbox to draft. Enough to confuse me at least. Anyway I have now edited the sandbox to hopefully make things clearer. Zara st can still access their sandbox at User:Zara st/sandbox. But before editing anything else, Zara st, you should pay careful attention to the things Cullen328 said just above about improvements needed at Mahdi Fakhimi. MPS1992 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks .. I will do what u told me Cullen328 and MPS1992 really thanks for ur help Zara st (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jim ,, could u check my edits on this article? Am i going right? Zara st (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zara st. In my opinion, the section called "Architectural Style" needs some work. We do not use bold for emphasis as you have done, except in the opening words of an article. I think that the section needs more detail about this architect's style. The current descriptions are a bit vague. Can you add photos of the architect's best known designs? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok I'll work more on this part.. yes i have many pictures but i am not good at adding picture, and my pictures are from sites i could mention the source but others in Wikipedia will delete my photos. For example could i use this links photos ?Zara st (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Jū-Ni

I've went ahead and withdrawn the AfD since you're making a lot of progress in rewriting it, and I see no point in trying to delete something that I suspect you would rewrite on your own even if it did get deleted. Thanks for all the work you do for the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, TonyBallioni. I will continue my efforts to improve this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem. I knew you would and I'm sure by the end of it, it will be great. Despite our disagreement on the initial G5 issue, I'm all for merit-based notability, and including Michelin Star restaurants is important. Trying to delete it while you are making clear attempts to improve it is effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. I'm not about creating double work for good editors. Anyway, all the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronald Reagan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ronald Reagan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_50&oldid=1141591890"