Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57→Archive 60

Skylab mutiny

Hello User talk:Cullen328 -- After adding some extended Talk:Skylab mutiny comments I waded in and revised the Skylab mutiny. I appreciate your perspective based on your several comments (vs some other commenters). I believe the neutrality challenge could be removed, but ... THANKS GeeBee60 (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you see this?

Congratulations! You have just been held up as a model for us all - the only person here who never over-reacts or says anything he later regrets.[1] I agree with that assessment by the way. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

LOL, MelanieN. Now, I am a little embarrassed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
You'll be more embarrassed when you read the next issue (August) of The Signpost ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Kudos to Cullen! I couldn't agree more. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 10:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I see you have a usebox proclaiming you practice civility and you AGF of others yet from my perspective this comment is not congruent with those practices. All I have to say on the matter and won't be responding to any comments you have in response to this.--MONGO (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss my comment with you, MONGO, but since you indicate that you are not interested in further discussion, all I can do is stand by my comment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I have seen you in several places act decisively and boldly to defend this project's NPOV. I am impressed by your ability to sniff out covert acts of attack against Wikipedia. I thank you! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Coffeeandcrumbs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of IKASI

Hiya. According to the page logs you were the deletion admin for IKASI. The page was swiftly re-created with about the same content after you deleted it. Recommend delete and salting the page. And possibly warning User:Handy History Handbook as well. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Another administrator deleted that page before I had the chance to take a look, Tyw7. If anyone tries again, I will salt it. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philip II of Spain

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philip II of Spain. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Herrera

Hi Jim. If I remember correctly, I think you live in the SF area so perhaps you know something about this guy. So, I was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at the article since it seems to be a bit promotional in tone and has the feel of a personal website, particulary the section "San Francisco City Attorney". I'm also a bit concerned by this edit sum referring to "our page". It could just be nothing, but it could indicate a WP:APPARENTCOI. (The same SPA editor also posted WP:THQ#How do you change the photo in the bio box? just for reference.) Anyway, most of the editing to the article t(oustside of cleanup type of stuff) appears to be being done by SPAs and IPs, and some of the content may have actually been copied and pasted from other websites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. Yes, I live about 35 miles from San Francisco and my wife and both my sons were born there. I lived in San Francisco through most of the 1970s and early 1980s, and worked there full time until 1993.
Herrera is clearly a significant figure in San Francisco politics. It is not surprising that SPAs might work on his biography. I did a quick read of the article and nothing jumped out at me as terrible although I agree that there are hints of promotionalism and some unreferenced content. If you think that a given account is probably paid, ask them politely and inform them of WP:PAID.
I had a very tiring and long work day today, so I do not have the energy to delve deeply into that article. I will try to take a closer look tomorrow. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a peek at it Jim. It appears that there might be some COI/PAID editing involved if Johnwcote is this person. Anyway, I added a COI welcome template and a post to the editor's page just in case they are the same person. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI thread

I deeply respect you, and I don't mean to pick on you. But your comment that we shouldn't delete bad POV biographies like Bruce Ohr, just find more experienced editors to help fix them, struck me as a deep and problematic issue that we have to deal with, so I opened a thread on WP:ANI about it. The bottom line is that it's easy to say that, but nobody's actually stepping up to do the work. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your comments

Hi. You recently posted about a comment I made about the Aretha Franklin page.

Everything you said was right on. Not that it's an excuse - but I should never post a suggestion/question etc. on only two hours sleep. I can be ... grumpy. I'm deleting my post.

My apologies.

Rblack2001 (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Rblack2001. No need for an apology but please do not delete your comments if other people have replied. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Agreed. I decided deleting was wrong after seeing the replies are part of my original comments - or had been added to them.


Rblack2001 (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Maxime Bernier information

I have an issuse who deleted a [User talk:Drmies]] lot personal views sections that have nothing to due with the twitter controversy. A lot of the information came from reliable sources (Like Huffignton Post,La Presse or Macleans) and he/she dimmised me. Can you check the edits. (talk) 02:31,, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

Hello, Ottawa11. If you have a problem with something that Drmies has done, then the proper place to discuss that is User talk:Drmies, not on my talk page. It is perfectly possible for content to be both properly referenced and inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you want to restore that content, then you need to gain consensus for that at Talk: Maxime Bernier. Consensus building is how we come to agreement here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but can you take a look at my request. that I left at Talk: Maxime Bernier Ottawa 3:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I read it but will refrain from commenting on your request at this time, Ottawa11. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Reason? that you won't look at edit made 01:36, 20 August 2018‎ by [User talk:Drmies]] Ottawa 3:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ottawa11, the reason is that I am a volunteer just like you, and I comment when I want to and refrain from commenting when I do not wish to. If I was using my adminstrators's tools, I would be obligated to explain. This is not such a case. If I do not wish to comment on something at this particular moment, that is my right. Maybe I will comment later. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Skylab mutiny?

Hi! I see you've had some interest in what to do with the Skylab mutiny article. In an attempt to address concerns brought forth on its talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Skylab_mutiny, I have prepared a draft of a substantially different article on the same topic at User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. I think it's nearly ready to go, and I would appreciate your input before I take that leap. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Porter Press International

Dear Cullen,

Thank you for your comments. We have taken in what you said and have changed our article. Please, may you check it?

Kind regards Albert — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWall1998 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, AWall1998. I do not see a single reference to an independent, reliable source that devotes significant coverage to Porter Press. Therefore, the draft is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

We have made 17 references in which includes multiple reliable independent sources about the company and the books? all of them apart from 1 and 2 are from reliable sources and about the company so not sure how you can say that?!

Perhaps you do not understand what independent means, AWall1998. It means completely unconnected with the press and its books. Point out one such reference, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

But surely to post an article about us on their website, they must have some sort of connection with the Press! We have just linked one from the daily mail about on of the Stirling Moss Scrapbooks. How much more independent do they need to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWall1998 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It means completely, utterly and totally independent of the press and its promotional efforts and press releases. 100% independent. By the way, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source because of its very long history of publishing falsehoods.
We take notability very seriously, and it is your obligation to show that this company is notable according to the Wikipedia definition. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

As a small company, how are we supposed to? I know other publishers who have a Wikipedia page and have only references to their website? How does one rule apply to us but not others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWall1998 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

AWall1998, we have over 5.8 million articles and at least a million are in very poor shape. Probably more. Experienced editors work constantly to improve them or delete them. I have been involved in deleting thousands of unacceptable articles. You need to model any new article on acceptable articles that comply fully with our policies and guidelines, not on poor quality articles that you may come across. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Cullen,

Thank you. We have taken your notes on board and have deciced to re-write the whole article. Is there any chance when we have finished we can send it to yourself via email for checking?

Kind regards Albert — Preceding unsigned comment added by AWall1998 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

AWall1998, in the spirit of transparency, please post your draft openly on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be some sock puppetry going on with regards to this draft TheWall65 (talk · contribs). Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP Violation

I made this [2] edit at Talk:United Daughters of the Confederacy. Apparently only administrators can use warning templates. Since you are somewhat familiar with what is going on at the article, I would appreciate any preventative participation you might feel is appropriate. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, North Shoreman. Any editor can give a warning as long as they do not incorrectly say that they are an administrator. That being said, I gave the editor in question a personally written warning about BLP policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI - I removed "@-t+sshole" (without the quotes) from a site page

I feel silly mentioning this - partly because the page it refers to is a talk page related to "The Hardy Boys" O.O

Someone had inserted @-t+sshole above the first talking point - you can read my comment on the talk page if you wish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_The_Hardy_Boys_characters

I removed @-t+sshole by deleting it on the "Edit source" page.

First, I don't know if it's generally OK to edit the source page.

Second, I added my comment to the source page, then removed it and made it a new section. I'm guessing it's still the last section on that talk page.

Anyway - don't know if you can trace the source but was surprised to see the comment.

Rblack2001 (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Rblack2001, I thought you were self-censoring, but that is exactly what a vandal added way back in October 2015. Good catch, but you're right, therest no need to leave a note on the article talk page. It took nearly three years for anyone to see the vandalism, so I doubt anyone will see your note either. John from Idegon (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Rblack2001. You do not need to feel silly about reading about the Hardy Boys. I read at least a dozen of those novels as a youngster and used to buy the first editions at used book stores. That was well over 50 years ago. I encourage you to revert vandalism instantly when you see it. There is no need to explain on a talk page. Just leave an edit summary, like "revert vandalism" or "RVV". Just be 100% sure that the edit is actually vandalism. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ayn Rand

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ayn Rand. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kane Tanaka

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kane Tanaka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Purplebackpack89. Yes, I got your email. I am generally aware of the situation but am unsure what I can do about it at this time. Feel free to contact me if the situation changes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm going to send you another e-mail pbp 17:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I've removed your obnoxious comment from my talk page

Please refrain from posting aggressive and insulting remarks about other users. Saying that someone is "pursuing a crank agenda" is very much a violation of Wikipedia policies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Jimbo Wales Founder-in-Chief, Sir, I don't really know you, I don't think I've ever looked at your talk page until now, and I know nothing about this matter beyond what I see here. But I don't know any editor with better judgment, or who talks in more measured tones, than Cullen. So when he said that, I cannot doubt he had good reason. EEng 06:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
But calling people "dishonest cowardly bullies" isn't? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales, have you looked to see what this editor's actual agenda is? Do you consider the remarks that this editor called "libelous" to actually be libelous? How does my comment compare to your characterization of a WMF trustee's remarks as "utter fucking bullshit"? I await your reply. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Nothing justifies insults. Stay off my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This user learned ...
... that the flowers of
kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion
do not grow well on a soil of people
thinking of other people as toxic personalities.
15 August 2014
Cullen, I decided to stay off that talk page on 15 August 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
No, Jimbo Wales, I will not stay off your talk page as long as you have this statement on your page: "Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy." Remove that statement and I will stay away, because your talk page will then become irrelevant. I have said nothing contrary to policies and guidelines on your page. If you disagree, feel free to file a report at WP:ANI. If a consensus of my actual colleagues ask me to stay off your talk page, then I will comply. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Jimbo, please don't post aggressive and insulting remarks directed at Cohen328. It's unbecoming in an admin. Also, it makes no sense to remove "pursuing a crank agenda" as obnoxious and insulting, while leaving the considerably more obnoxious and insulting (not to mention trolling) post it was in response to, with no criticism. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC).
So, Jimbo talk is a free for all every day of the year— full of threads that at the best of times could be called useless— but one of our most respected admins correctly classifies a post there as such, and gets booted. Seems a bit odd. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a rift in the spacetime continuum, and the messages from MH are getting corrupted as they come through. There is a huuge difference between reality, and The Hardiverse. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Wales has at last proven beyond a shadow of doubt his total irrelevance to today's Wikipedia. You point out that a FORUMSHOPPING crank is a crank, and you got slammed? That dude obviously has an agenda. So Jimbo, why don't you just go ahead and prove to the community your total irrelevance and rev del that AfD? And perhaps you can hijack the mainpage and let the Truthers have it too while you're at it. John from Idegon (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, please don't say stuff like that. Of course he's not irrelevant. In this case he's wrong, but that's another matter--all of us have been wrong at some point. Let me just add that I saw the very edits Bishonen blocked Hardy for as they were happening, and I decided not to block; maybe I wanted to err on the side of caution, and I know for a fact it was late in my time zone and I was tired, which is not a good time to place a block on a longtime editor, but I agree with it. Finally, a wise man said "But I don't know any editor with better judgment, or who talks in more measured tones, than Cullen", and I couldn't agree more. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you (except Jimbo) for your words of support. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Of all the people who regularly post on your talk page, Cullen328 is one of the most civil and sane, so it's depressing to see you single him out for chiding when your talk page is regularly filled with the likes of this. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that was a mind-bending read. I could hardy get to the end of it. WTF. Softlavender (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
There was also this, which leads in by saying that it is About Islam. Perhaps someone could put a restriction of some sort on this fellow? MPS1992 (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I was pretty shocked to see this come across my watchlist. Of all things that are posted to Jimbotalk, this is the one that warrants a scolding and a ban from the page? And Cullen, of all people? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree. Jimbo, I don't know whether you took the time to read the AN discussion or the discussion on Michael Hardy's talk before jumping on Cullen, but his comment seems to be a fair opinion of the situation. I've never seen Cullen make anything even approaching an "obnoxious comment", let alone a personal attack. —DoRD (talk)​ 16:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Jimbo, plenty of people have weighted in here, but I feel the need to say that forgiving Michael Hardy's personal attacks and willful disruption (rightly or wrongly), but then simultaneously go after frustrated (other longtime and respected) editors who are having to deal with the situation is a recipe for inconsistency and resentment. If you are appealing to the community to consider and recognize contributing factors that upset longtime editors and send them off the deep end, favouritism and elitism towards certain individuals will be among the list. Mkdw talk 16:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hey Cullen328, good luck trying to get Jimbo to admit he's dead wrong. It's this kind of bullheadedness that got Wikipedia started in the first place. This may be one of the reasons private corporations "get rid" of their founders as soon as possible. Debouch (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Jimbo Wales, Your message is nothing more than laughable!, Cullen is anything but passive aggressive, incivil or insulting and I would suggest you take a good hard read of the discussion on Ani and Michael's talkpage before making these sorts of posts. –Davey2010Talk 19:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't like piling on in discussions, but Cullen328 and obnoxious comment rarely belong in the same sentence, and Cullen deserves this outpouring of support. GW hits the nail on the head with "Of all things that are posted to Jimbotalk, this is the one that warrants a scolding and a ban from the page? And Cullen, of all people?" - TNT 💖 20:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've never heard of him. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 21:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I wish there was a way I could persuade Jimbo to, if not apologise, at least appreciate his opinion on you is very much a minority view and he would probably change it if he explored a little more about what you did. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333, and others, I do not really care about an apology or getting Jimbo to admit that he is wrong. Of course, I would like him to read all these comments and reconsider how he treated me but he has barely edited in recent days. So, I will move on and reserve the right to comment on his talk page when I believe that I have something useful to say at that open forum. Let Jimbo be Jimbo. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

All is well. Very impressive post to my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages are not personal possessions, they are Wikipedia's communication device. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you as well, Jimbo. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Is it too early to post a kitten? Edaham (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The Perche - help to find right noticeboard

Cullen328: You kindly informed me, "You have posted at the wrong noticeboard. ANI does not deal with routine content disputes. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)." I find many Wikipedia instruction pages (beyond entries themselves) very confusing, and as you noted I made a mistake by posting to Administrators's noticeboard/Incidents. Sadly, a first effort at resolution received no help: Administrators' noticeboard If you have a moment more, could you please advise on which of the five possible boards listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests to post? Gratefully - Aboudaqn (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Aboudaqn. Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, especially the second section that discusses content disputes. Possible choices for you at this point include Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I recommend the second. Personally, I consider the matter utterly trivial and not worth the effort, but clearly you have a different view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328: Much appreciate! Aboudaqn (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Wachowskis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Wachowskis. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

two editor names by mistake

Hi and thanks for your previous answer. I see now that two years ago I created an editing name / account but never did much. I forgot I had it. Then a few days ago when I wanted to start an article I made a new editor name, having forgot I already had one.

I will only use the one name from now but it has been suggested that I 'redirect' the other name to the active name. I have read the Redirect info and see how it applied to articles, but NOT to editor names.

Is it enough if I simply ignore the old name and leave it sitting there? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yororipas (talk • contribs) 07:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Yororipas. It is sufficient if you simply abandon that old account and never use it again. I see no evidence of any improper behavior on your part. Carry on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


Hi Jim If you have time to look at the two articles I am working on and offer any advice as to if I'm on the right track, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp

Hi. Are you interested in helping me give a proof-read/grammar check to [[Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Benjamin Austin. What a terribly sad story. The article looks good to me, but this sentence caught my attention: "The assailant strangled Margaret to death before going on to kill Seana." How can it be known that the mother died before the daughter? I suggest that you either rewrite that sentence or provide a reference for that sentence. I read a couple of the references but not all of them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Cullen328 It's assumed by journalists and also police that Margaret died first because she would have lifted heaven and earth to protect Seana. The fact that Seana was sexually assaulted and Margaret wasn't, points to who the unknown man was really after. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
That theory certainly seems plausible, Paul Benjamin Austin, but I can think of several alternate scenarios. It would be best, in my opinion, to add a reference to that sentence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Cullen328, the relevant report is already referenced in the article - The killer surely strangled Margaret first. It's inconceivable she would not have fought to save her little girl.

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

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

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

My first article steps

Hi Jim! It´s great to meet you! Thanks for the resources you are posting, I´m still a beginner at Wikipedia and they are being very useful for me. I would like to ask about the first complete article I´ve created. It´s about a recent novel I read. This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Josanva/sandbox

I would like to know how can I post it on Wikipedia and if you have any suggestions. I also upload a picture of the book cover but somebody has flagged it. I saw many novel book covers in Wikipedia so not sure why this one is not following the rules.

Thanks a lot, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josanva (talk • contribs) 00:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Josanva. The most common way to establish the notabilty of a novel is critical assessment by academic or professional reviewers. I see just one such review. Since the book is just now being published, perhaps it is best to wait for other reviews in reliable sources. Contemporary book covers are only allowed in encyclopedia articles, not in drafts of articles. Please read our policy on use of non-free images. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jim Heaphy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I responded there, and the matter is now closed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Cullen3328, I just wanted to add that my Prodding of that article had nothing to do with my respect for you, just that it didn't seem from that article that you were really notable (just like most Wikipedians). I'm glad I prodded it before the recent troubles I had / caused, as that might have seemed vindictive, when it was simply new page patrolling. I have no problems with you or your comments, and they are usually among the more lucid and interesting comments (together with e.g. those by Swarm). I can't blame you if you have a poorer opinion of me after last week, but I just wanted to avoid that somehow the prodding of your article would contribute to it. Fram (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fram, this is not the time or place to discuss the events of last week again, but I really do appreciate your comment here. I want to assure you that I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with your PROD, and in fact I agreed with it on the deleted article's talk page. I think it would have been for the best and less embarrassing for the other editor if the process had played out quietly and normally. If there was libel in the article, I am confident that you would have deleted the article post haste. Thanks for stopping by my talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

kidnapping of Amber Swartz-Garcia deletion notice

Cullen328 Hi, I am confused why is the kidnapping of Amber Swartz–Garcia, article up for deletion again? Once they decide to keep it if that is what is voted upon, why is it up for deletion again? How many times can a deletion notice be put on an article? Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

To make a long story short, Davidgoodheart, the editor who wrote Kidnapping of Amber Swartz-Garcia also wrote a biography about me a few days ago, and the matter was discussed extensively for several hours at WP:ANI earlier today, California time. The result was deletion of the article about me (which I did not want anyway), and increased scrutiny of other articles written by that editor. Sadly, several articles he wrote are now nominated for deletion. I was sure that this topic is notable, so I have been working in recent hours to save it. In a way, I am expressing my sympathy to that editor, who suffered some unfair criticism, in my opinion, which is now connected with me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 You had an article written about you, wow that's impressive! You must be either a celebrity or a famous editor. I am planning to recover a lot of Wikipedia articles that were wrongly deleted and try to see if there is anyway to republish them. I am trying very hard to get a lot of articles upgraded, and there are some other things that I could use help with, do you think that you could help me out, as you probably know much more about Wikipedia than I do. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Davidgoodheart, there was an article about me for a few days, and it got deleted entirely correctly. I am a "celebrity" or "famous" only if you dilute those words to an extreme. You can see a little bit of media attention about me on my user page. By the way, there are already websites that archive deleted Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Mark Wnek page

I do not believe that this article satisfies the Wikipedia notability criterion, i,e that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I have read all the quoted sources, and summarize them here.

1) Vranica, Suzanne (2005-11-30). "Questions for… Mark Wnek". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This reports an interview with Wnek after he was named chairman and chief creative officer of Lowe's flagship New York office. Lowe Worldwide is a major advertising agency. Wnek provides lots of information about his previous career. This is not a reliable secondary source as the information has mainly been provided by the subject.

2) "The second coming". Marketing week. 20 November 2003. Retrieved 2018-07-21. This article starts:

“Arrogant’ and ‘bastard’ come up frequently in people’s description of ex-Euro RSCG chief Mark Wnek, though none deny his creative talent. Lucy Barrett meets the hard man of advertising, alleged to have been mellowed by first-time fatherhood” It then goes on to describe a successful career in advertising to date and also his personality.

It says that he went to school with former Labour communications chief Alastair Campbell, but since the latter went to school in Yorkshire and then Leicester, and the article claims that Wnek is from Brixton, London, one has to wonder about the credibility of the article.

Nonetheless, this may constitute a reliable secondary source.


3) "Mark Wnek joins Lowe New York". Marketing Week. 28 April 2005. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This simply states that

“Mark Wnek, former chairman of Euro RSCG group and co-founder of failed start-up Ben Mark Orlando, has been appointed chairman and chief executive of Lowe New York.”

A passing reference to the subject in an article about the company he worked for does not constitute significant coverage.


4) Mcmains, Andrew (20 April 2005). "Wnek Moves to Lowe as CCO". Adweek. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This article says: “Lowe said it is replacing U.S. chairman and chief creative officer Gary Goldsmith with Mark Wnek, former creative chief and co-chairman at Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper Partners in London.” There is then some discussion of the existing structure at Lowe, and the article then says: “Wnek, sources said, has been looking to work in the U.S. and talked to several agencies before accepting the Lowe post.”

A passing reference to the appointment of the subject in an article about the company he worked for does not constitute significant coverage.


5) Hatfield, Stefano (2005-04-21). "Will Mark Wnek be king of New York?". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

The author of this article admits to being a friend of Wnek’s., so this is not a reliable secondary source.


6) "Mark Wnek - Crisis and Creativity, The future and Dinosaurs - Cannes 2009". Adland. 1 July 2009. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This is a report of an interview with Wnek, so this is not a reliable secondary source


7) Hall, Emma (19 January 2009). "Lowe Lives: How an Agency Left Deathbed for Profits". AdAge. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

The is a report on the advertising Company Lowe, and makes a brief mention of Wnek: “Even if the network's London office is still a mess, New York has turned around under the leadership of Mark Wnek”

A passing reference to the subject in an article about a company he worked for does not constitute significant coverage

8) Paresh, Rhupal (2009). "The Story Behind the Lowe/Deutsch Merger". AdAge. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This article is also about Lowe and mentions Wnek as follows:

"Several attempts to shock it back to life after that period of merger-mania-driven client losses failed, though the most recent go at it, led by Mark Wnek, at least helped reacquaint the agency with the idea of a new- business win. But Mr. Wnek, a British import, was basically pushed out in the merger."

A passing reference to the subject in an article about the company he worked for does not constitute a significant coverage

9) "Former U.N. Creative Chief Creates Millennial-Fueled Talent 'Army'". AdAge. Retrieved 2018-07-21.

This is a report of an interview with Wnek and is therefore not a reliable secondary source.

Only reference (2) could be considered as a reliable secondary source, but one marketing magazine’s reporting of a marketing man does not constitute significant coverage.

What do you think? Cdosteovsky (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Cdosteovsky. I think that you should take this matter to Articles for Deletion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I will do so. Cdosteovsky (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Skylab 4 human factors.The discussion is about the topic User:Ke4roh/Skylab 4 human factors. Thank you. --ke4roh (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bo Burnham

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

AfD thing

Thanks for your note at ANI Cullen328. I am aware of the Arbcom admonition and need to do better.

Here is what I was trying to communicate with said "profane tirade".

In my view, in a case like this, where the AfD was under the speedy spam criteria -- not about whether the subject meets the N criteria abstractly, but rather under WP:G11 with respect to the actual content that readers are exposed to -- in my view your choice (and that of the others) to !vote keep (and that was your choice to participate in, and to make) attaches responsibility for the actual bad content remaining in Wikipedia. The actual content.

Now, as you noted, you can walk away (nobody is obligated to actively do anything). But what I was and am trying to say -- is should you? Should you !vote to keep dreck, and do nothing to fix it? (that is a real question). Am interested in your reply. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, the topic is notable, I provided four sources, and I made a specific recommendation about the content: "Just remove the promotional content and anything that violates MEDRS." I was offering you support to radically improve an article about a clearly notable topic. Had you received resistance to your bold appropriate edits, I would have quickly come to your defense. I did not !vote to keep "dreck" as you falsely stated above. Instead, I !voted to keep a policy compliant NPOV article about the topic, and tried to empower you (the motivated editor regarding this topic) to quickly whip the article into shape. You seem to want to establish a new behavioral guideline that would say something like "Any editor who !votes 'keep' at AfD is obligated to immediately start work to remove poor content, add better content and improve the referencing in the article". I will oppose any such proposal, and my opposition will be intense. I have made major efforts to improve, expand and save articles from AfD about once a month for the last nine years. But I get to decide when I make that effort, not you. I am a volunteer like you and I am the only one to decide what I enjoy editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for answering.
None of this is about the content you create and maintain, which is of course great. Please don't take it that way. And it is nice to have support to remove policy violating content, sure, but the question is not about that.
Nor was I thinking about some new behavioral guideline to create actual obligations (although that is interesting to think about.... at first blush I also doubt we could get consensus for it, but it is interesting)
My question was, rather, about your stance toward specific content like this, as it exists. Not only terribly promotional but also with promotional inaccuracies.
Faced with actual content like that, with respect to our mission to serve our readers, there are two sound choices in my view -- fix it, or remove it from mainspace so readers are not exposed to promotional and even false information. I usually do the first; sometimes I do the second by initiating some kind of deletion process. (Currently the only way to get a page like that out of mainspace is deletion -- draftification for older pages is not an option at this time; it is becoming one for new pages)
What you said is that you !voted for something that didn't exist (the possible NPOV, well sourced page). But I am asking about the page that actually existed.
What I am hearing you say in answer to my question, is that in your view, recommending that other people clean it up is also sound. Given that this is indeed a volunteer project (as you have stated very clearly), that may never happen. Right? I am trying to understand that stance toward the actual horrible content and the actual readers who are exposed to it. Can you help me understand that? It is a real question. Not sarcastic. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
First of all, Jytdog, unless there is a dramatic change in our policies and guidelines), I will never !vote to delete an article about an obviously notable topic. Never ever ever. So forget about that from me. We have 5.7 million articles, and maybe a million of them are "horrible" although that is a word I rarely use to assess articles. I do not lose any sleep over that. It is impossible for me to fix a million articles but if I help fix a thousand articles and a thousand other people do the same, then the encyclopedia will be vastly better as a result. And this encyclopedia is getting better every day. That has been and remains my long range plan as an editor. Now, if you had approached me in a friendly fashion, and said "Hey Jim, do you have an hour or two to help me clean up the Yakult mess on the yogurt, cheese and dairy aisle?", then I probably would have responded favorably. I was an actual janitor 45 years ago and I am a figurative janitor today. But insulting me and telling me that I ought to be ashamed is not an effective motivational strategy. So, I have now explained my views on this twice. Now, I need to ask you why you think that it is wise or useful to interact with your colleagues in this fashion? A real question. Not sarcastic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I have already walked back my initial remarks and agree it is not an effective strategy to persuade anyone. Which is why I have used a different approach here.
The actual question I asked, is the "and" question - about choosing to vote !keep on a page like this was (that is horrible, not just stubby or something), and counting on others to turn it into the decent page that you believe is possible. You kind of answered it with "and a thousand other people do the same" but this remains abstract...I am guessing you believe that somebody at some point will probably fix it and the fact that however many people are exposed to it in the meantime just doesn't factor in. There is no deadline, etc.
In any case, I have poisoned my own well for reasonable discussion, so I will this go. Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
No, Jytdog, you have not "poisoned the well" with me, at least, because I have always had enormous respect for the work you do related to quackery and pseudoscience. But since you prodded that article and then took it to AfD, there have been 60+ edits by a variety of experienced editors including you, and the company now has a separate article which crossed my mind when I first saw the older version and found company specific references that I mentioned at AfD. My work schedule was very intense in recent days and I also celebrated an anniversary with my wife. Consequently, I did not have much time to jump into the fray plus I do not really enjoy heavy editing of actively controversial articles. But I am gratified to see progress being made there. So, people including you are fixing it, which almost always happens when there is a visible blow-up of this kind. Many editors say "AfD is not for cleanup" but often a rejected AfD results in cleanup. I wish we had another community venue that would be effective in motivating editors to join in cleaning up such articles. My talk page is always open to you, and if something that you are working on catches my fancy, I will try my best to assist. Take care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I hear you.
Congratulations on your anniversary! And thanks for your kind words. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Mention @ Michael Marin AfD

I mentioned you at [3] but the ping failed. Notifying you here instead of spending more time trying to figure out how to make the ping software do what I had intended. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_55&oldid=863655809"