User talk:Cullen328/Archive 57
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cullen328. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
Request for page move
Hello User:Cullen328 I have created a stub page for an actor Draft:Joginder Tiwari now I want to move it to main article but I'm not able to do it, because it says that new title is protected from creation, please help me to move that page to main article. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Ah, I see that it has been deleted six times now—all PRODS and A7s. It's a shame—just musing to myself really—that at some point in the last few years no-one took the effort to bring it to AfD; that way we would now actually have some kind of community consensus to fall back on. Instaed of each deletion being the responsibility of one editor, you know. Anyway, sorry to intrude. ——SerialNumber54129 20:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, SwagLevelHigh. Previous articles about Joginder Tiwari have been deleted by six different administrators over the last few years. Your draft article fails to show that this person meets our notability guideline for actors. You need to add much better references. Please read and study Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Cullen328. I have added some more references, can you please check that page again and if you could move that page to main article it will be great.
Removing PRODs without comment
Thank you for your remarks at ANI which were very much more moderate that mine (immediately above). I expect (well, hope really) that they will be all the more effective for that. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback, Thincat. As I see things, Andrew Davidson explains their view of procedure quite clearly, and his practice is in line with policy, even if some other editors believe it to be rude. If a PROD tag is removed, that ends the process and there is no need for further discussion regarding PROD. The proper place for discussion of notability or other major problems is either the article talk page or an AfD. I hope I have summarized accurately, Andrew. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- The comments of both Cullen and Thincat look fine to me, thanks. There's a lot more that can be said about the prod process and there's active discussion at the village pump, where I have commented on the various proposals. There have been multiple proposals that an explanation or reason for the deprod should be mandatory but they have not attracted much support. There's a basic mechanical problem in that the reason for deletion is put in the prod template but that template is removed when the prod is opposed. It doesn't seem efficient or sensible to separate a point and counter-point and so I save my comments for the AfD which often follows a removal. AfD provides plenty of space for detailed responses and so I tend to be comparatively prolix there – listing sources and reasoning from policy at length.
To every thing there is a season...
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
- The comments of both Cullen and Thincat look fine to me, thanks. There's a lot more that can be said about the prod process and there's active discussion at the village pump, where I have commented on the various proposals. There have been multiple proposals that an explanation or reason for the deprod should be mandatory but they have not attracted much support. There's a basic mechanical problem in that the reason for deletion is put in the prod template but that template is removed when the prod is opposed. It doesn't seem efficient or sensible to separate a point and counter-point and so I save my comments for the AfD which often follows a removal. AfD provides plenty of space for detailed responses and so I tend to be comparatively prolix there – listing sources and reasoning from policy at length.
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Topic Ban
Hi Cullen, when the page I created was proposed for deletion, I was told that I was welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion:
QUOTE "until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion".
Now I'm being told I can't contribute to a discussion about the deletion of the page I created? This is contradictory and goes against Wikipedia policy.
In any case, I should not have been topic banned in the first place. Topic bans are supposed to be a response to disruptive behaviour and edit wars, which I was not engaged in.
I was topic banned, without warning, for allegedly using "unreliable sources" even though those same sources had previously been approved by the administrator who approved the page for creation. This is not a valid reason for a topic ban.
There appears to be a coordinated agenda here, to propose the page for deletion and then silence me so I can't oppose that deletion, even though Wikipedia policy states that I am welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion.
Peak Debt (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Peak Debt. You were welcome to contribute to that discussion until you received that topic ban. The topic ban means that you are no longer welcome to contribute to anything at all having to do with cryptocurrencies. So, the solution is to pursue having that ban lifted, as you are now doing at AN. That is where further discussion should take place. Please be aware that there has been a deep flood of problematic and promotional editing related to cryptocurrencies in recent years. This is why administrators have been given extra powers to nip disruption in the bud. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- But I didn't do anything between being 'welcomed' and being banned. There was also no disruption. Ironically, the disruption has been caused by the banning itself. Peak Debt (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please make your case at WP:AN, where the community discussion of your topic ban is taking place. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- But I didn't do anything between being 'welcomed' and being banned. There was also no disruption. Ironically, the disruption has been caused by the banning itself. Peak Debt (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
ARBCOM
Would you consider running? I for one have always valued your input on contentious matters, even in those instances (not that any come to mind) where I have disagreed with you. Vanamonde (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I Second That. It would literally be the best thing to happen to the committee since it was founded. Well, since Iridescent left it anyway :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think that Cullen would obviously be an excellent Arb, however I'm concerned that it might take away from the excellent and much-needed work he does at the Teahouse, and on the noticeboards, and so on. I don't want him to over-extend himself or neglect his own career and personal life. Softlavender (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- But it's such a good idea, Softlavender! Cullen's cool head is just what the committee needs. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC).
- Yes, I agree that Cullen would make an excellent Arb. Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Personal well-being should always come first; I'd argue, though, that the Teahouse is already fairly well-staffed, while ARBCOM has three candidates running for six seats at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, you should take care of number one. And there are several issues that would work against you for Arbcom, as we both know. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is that a threat, TRM? Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is that a question, Softlavender? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is that a threat, TRM? Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, you should take care of number one. And there are several issues that would work against you for Arbcom, as we both know. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Personal well-being should always come first; I'd argue, though, that the Teahouse is already fairly well-staffed, while ARBCOM has three candidates running for six seats at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that Cullen would make an excellent Arb. Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- But it's such a good idea, Softlavender! Cullen's cool head is just what the committee needs. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC).
I would not allow the likely opposition of a single respected editor such as The Rambling Man to deter me from pursuing such a responsibile role as ArbCom member, but if three or four highly respected editors encouraged me to step aside, I would certainly consider that and would probably do so. But my main consideration is the privacy and safety of my family. ArbCom members are far too often subjected to intense off-wiki attacks, and I have have vulnerable family members and I also disclose my real world identity openly. If I could go back 9-1/2 years, perhaps I might choose anonymity. But that train has left the station, and I must always be concerned about the security of my innocent and defenseless and vulnerable family members. So, count me undecided. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I understand Cullen's concern completely for many reasons, but there are quite a few members of ArbCom that have openly disclosed their real world identities for decades; my personal opinion (also partially from what I have seen) is that being in a more visible position and being in regular contact with WMF actually offers more protection, sense of security and ease of mind to these off-wiki attacks and silliness. I will not try to make a convincing proposal, but I think ArbCom has the potential to make real positive change if more than one person actually qualified, actually connected with the community, actively involved with the Wikimedia movement in real life like Cullen can spend some time taking the leadership role in a real world sense with genuine feelings that matters. This is especially important if Newyorkbrad decides to take the year off. But that's just my personal wish, although I am positive that it should reflect many of the people that voted in your RfA and seen your years of work in the Teahouse and other areas. Alex Shih (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Alex here. I've been open with my identity for years and never had any difficulties with it. Indeed, being open with your identity prevents the "power" over you by threatening to reveal your identity. If you'd like to talk further with me about it, feel free to drop me a line WormTT(talk) 14:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- As of course have I. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- As have I. My guess is that any likelihood of trouble depends more on what one may have been involved in here other than arb com. If you are not being harassed now, being on arb com should not give anyone any reason to do so, and even if you are, it is very unlikely to add to it. But I have never been harassed about anything related to WP, and those who have may feel differently, or even that I am insensitive to their concerns. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed with DGG on this not, obviously not as an arb, but as a relatively visible admin. Most of my fan club exists because I do a lot of work with LTAs and other areas where the less pleasant parts of humanity exist. This is one of the main reasons my identity is only known to two stewards and the WMF. The RL consequences exist mainly when you start working in areas of the project where people who are less than stable and are unwilling to talk about it spend their time.ArbCom gets a lot of unstable people, but speaking as a non-arb, the fact that they're engaging with AC shows that they're usually not the type to take real world actions against you (though this is obviously not always the case.) Anyway, you'd have my vote, for what it is worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- As have I. My guess is that any likelihood of trouble depends more on what one may have been involved in here other than arb com. If you are not being harassed now, being on arb com should not give anyone any reason to do so, and even if you are, it is very unlikely to add to it. But I have never been harassed about anything related to WP, and those who have may feel differently, or even that I am insensitive to their concerns. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Edits removed
Why are you removing my edits ?
Have you not read the altered description I added to avoid plagiarism on the Irish Bull Terrier page ? Dr Nobody (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- The references you tried to add were formatted improperly, Dr Nobody. They also lacked bibliographic information. Please read Referencing for beginners and learn how to create proper references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Help
Hey Cullen, please tell me how to get started at Wikipedia as I am new to editing.Denim11 (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Denim11. I recommend that you start by reading and studying Your first article and the various links in that essay. If you have more specific questions, ask them at the Teahouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
But I am unable to ask a question at the teahouse as it is protected.Denim11 (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
- You can ask questions here until you are autoconfirmed in a few days, Denim11. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Copyright question
You blocked Austin crick in part based on his uploading of File:‘King Lear’ (1957) by Werner Drewes.jpg to Commons. If you felt this was an egregious enough copyright violation to merit an indef block, why didn't you tag the file for deletion? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Hey Cullen, me too have the same question Austin crick did copyright violation at commons then why did you block him at Wikipedia without tagging the file as copyright violation.And Austin crick also did edit warring and disruptive editing but you didn't mention either of them while blocking him.Denim11 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, WikiDan61 and Denim11. I simply forgot to tag that file for deletion but someone else deleted it. I was involved with several other things at that time and wanted to see if the editor could provide evidence that they really are the copyright holder. They had made that claim which I considered unlikely. Also, there were several other reasons to block this editor and I listed the most important and obvious one. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey Cullen, it may happen but please be more careful next time.Denim11 (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
User:MeKLT
Hi Cullen, please look at User:MeKLT and his talk page it does not appear he is here to contribute and at teahouse he told please be faster to answer his questions I told him to patient but see what he has done in User talk:MeKLT as you are an admin I request you to take necessary steps.Denim11 (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- That is a frustrated newcomer. Let me know if there is any disruption. I need to go to work now, Denim11. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Jim, just wanted to say thanks for your comments on the article mentioned here, I appreciate it – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Submitting_an_article_that_had_a_conflict_of_interest?. I feel pretty confident that the article works but I will also ask Wikiproject Computing. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdriboflavin (talk • contribs) 22:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Merge proposal
There is a merge proposal at Irish Bull Terrier you may be interested in. Atsme✍🏻📧 14:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Lewis Hilsenteger
As an article by that title has been deleted 4 times in a little over a year, would you please consider create protection for it. I'd say the draftspace too, but that's probably just my low tolerance for BS talking. Thanks Jim. John from Idegon (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have salted that title, John from Idegon, based on the repeated history of legitimate deletions. Please let me know if somebody tries to create Lewis Q. Hilsenteger or anything like that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jim. You're about the same age as I. I'm assuming that means you may be considering retirement in the next few years. I hope that when you do, you'll consider standing for Arbcom. I cannot think of another editor here with a temperament more suited for it. I run my own business too, and I understand the time constraints. Have a good Thanksging. I'll be cooking for 500 people as I do every year. No better way to give thanks than to give away a couple tons of food! John from Idegon (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind remarks, John from Idegon. I am fortunate enough to mostly enjoy my work, and now that I collect a small pension, and my wife and I collect Social Security, I have the luxury to work when I want to, and lounge around when I want to take a few days off. I decided to not run for ArbCom this year, though I thought about it. One thing that I like most about editing Wikipedia is the totally voluntary nature of it. As an editor/administrator, I choose what I want to get involved with, and ignore the rest. But if I was an ArbCom member, I would feel obligated to get involved in every single case. I have expressed concerns about my family privacy in a thread above, and have also said that I do not yet feel fully conversant with ArnCom procedures. All that being said, I do not rule out a candidacy in a year or two, depending on how things go with my life and my evolving interests. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jim. You're about the same age as I. I'm assuming that means you may be considering retirement in the next few years. I hope that when you do, you'll consider standing for Arbcom. I cannot think of another editor here with a temperament more suited for it. I run my own business too, and I understand the time constraints. Have a good Thanksging. I'll be cooking for 500 people as I do every year. No better way to give thanks than to give away a couple tons of food! John from Idegon (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
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 {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. -- at any time by removing the BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Doria Ragland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doria Ragland. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Cullen328. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for giving me a second chance. I was formerly Frogger48 but I decieded to change my username. I did this because I wanted to start over from the past. I promise to be more careful and follow Wikipedia's rules and Guidelines better and follow them closely. ABCD5798 (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you, ABCD5798. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A9rgio_Moro&action=history
The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so could you please give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.181.144.250 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi Jim. This IP appears to be socking and evading in addition to WP:FORUMSHOPing in order to try and continue the content dispute on Sergio Moro. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, Marchjuly. Blocked editor, get yourself unblocked and then we can discuss content issues. That's how things work here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's also necessary to go around and removing the various threads they have started at WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, etc. to try and argue their position. Bascially, the editor has just been reposting what they posted above on various pages using various IPs like 49.180.99.171, 49.195.121.29, etc. They all seem to be connected to SacredGeometry333, which also has been tagged as a sock. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks, Marchjuly. Blocked editor, get yourself unblocked and then we can discuss content issues. That's how things work here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
🤞🏻
I may have bitten off more than I can chew (pun intended). I'm still holding the towel, and I even elaborated on sources at the TP so now it's wait and see if the info is absorbed or ignored. If the latter, then we may be looking at WP:CIR. Thank you for keeping an eye on it. Atsme✍🏻📧 04:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Atsme. It was very kind of you to offer to mentor that editor and time will tell us whether or not that offer bears fruit. This editor clearly doesn't understand what we mean by a reliable source but learning is always possible. I also appreciate your topic expertise. I own and love a dog but claim no special knowledge about things canine since he is our first dog. I do appreciate you stopping by. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | ||
I apologize if I was in any way rude to you. Thank you for the constructive criticism and sorry if my reply was misunderstood, poorly worded, objectively rude, or anything else like that. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 03:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much, Shashi Sushila Murray. You were not rude in any way. We expressed and exchanged our views in a frank and informative way, and I was able to learn a bit more about your goals through our conversation and by reading your user page. I know that you are focused on this project's shortcomings but I hope that over time, you will also come to appreciate our successes and the generally positive and useful resource that Wikipedia is, despite its flaws. I bid you peace. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Street name for John Surtees
Hi Cullen328, thanks for responding to my question in the teahouse. Concerning the street named after John Surtees you asked how I knew it was the race driver John Surtees. Well this particular neighborhood has a group of streets in one specific area named after numerous racing drivers. This is because the neighborhood is in close proximity to the old location of Riverside International Raceway. It's nearby my home and I've seen it many times, although I understand that this alone is 'original research', hence my question of whether an image of a map of the neighborhood would satisfy WP standards as a citation. Here's a map.[1] Like I said, I'm a rookie and I'm trying to do things properly. :)
References
Cheers Wikimikey423 07:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Wikimikey423. I consider it highly likely that this street is named after Surtees. But all content we add must be verifiable. So, either find a reliable source that verifies that the street is named after him, or leave it out. It is original research that simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia at least until it can be verified. And even it can be verified, how encyclopedic is it? There are golf course neighborhoods all over the country that have streets named after famous courses. Do you think that our article The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews ought to have a list of every town that has a "Saint Andrews Place" near a golf course? I don't think so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Hi Wikimikey423. The map is really of no use because there's no clear connection between John Surtees the race car driver and the street name. Something such as this (fourth paragraph from the bottom) might be OK. The website Veloce Today seems to be cited in other Wikipedia articles, so it might qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes in this context. Still it would be better to find a something like a major newspaper (perhaps something like this article but only about the racers), an established magazine, or a book published by a reputable publisher that more specifically connects Surtees to the street. Since things tend to be named after a person as an honor, there's usually a bit publicity associated with the event. So, perhaps there's something in some an old newspaper archive or in a library book about the city which can be used to better verify the origin of the name. Maybe there's an old article somewhere showing Surtees at a dedication ceremony or something. Finally, Jim's point about WP:NOTEVERYTHING is quite important. There are lots of verifiable facts about subjects which can be added to their respective Wikipedia articles, but they're not because they not considered encyclopedically relevant for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed Wikimikey423 18:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is not exactly a major street according to the map link. It is a subdivision court maybe a couple hundred feet long with six houses on it. My house is on a very similar suburban court named after a medieval Italian composer. I am not going to try to add my street to his biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed Wikimikey423 18:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Wikimikey423: I'm going to agree with Jim here. Technically it's a "court", so it's definitely not a main road of any kind. Perhaps Surtees really felt honored by it being named after him and if that can be established through citations to reliable sources, then maybe a consensus to add it to the article about him can be established on its talk page; otherwise, the only possible place it might have encyclopedic relevance for Wikipedia's purposes would be in an article "Streets in Moreno Valley" or an article about Surtees Ct. itself. See Category:Streets in the United States by city for some examples of articles about streets, but I think it would be quite a stretch to even write a stub about a "court". -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
ARBCOM voting
Hi Cullen, ARBCOM needs someone like you the deadline for nomination is 3rd December only few slots are left and I think an admin is best for ARBCOM so would you please please consider voting at the ARBCOM. Please take it under consideration.Denim11 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Denim11: A great idea :) but it's too late this year. Per WP:ACE2018, nominations closed Tuesday 23:59 on 13 November; it's voting for them that ends on 3 Dmr. Incidentally, see this section above... ——SerialNumber54129 15:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
But the voting is open till 3rd December it is written there and I also saw that many people have voted today so I think Cullen can vote.Denim11 (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Denim11, I will vote before the deadline. I am still studying the candidates. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Deletion discussion for Chiyo Miyako
An editor has started a deletion nomination for Chiyo Miyako. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Explaining my edits about Jeff Sessions
Hi, I was looking at some articles about Jeff Sessions after Trump fired him. I was surprised to see that he was labeled as a Republican. I had always thought Jeff Sessions was a Democrat. I did some more research to make sure I was correct. Everything that I saw verified what I had thought. Just look at his record as Attorney General. As Attorney General he has performed his job the way a Democrat would, which is the reason Trump dislikes him and Democrats oppose Trump's firing of him. If he was a Republican, then why would he have recused himself from the Russia case? If Jeff Sessions was a Republican, he would have done everything he could as Attorney General to protect Trump, he would not have undermined him. Looking at the media, the Democrats are the ones protesting his firing! They know that Sessions is their guy. If he were a Republican they wouldn't care. The Republicans are the ones defending Trump's decision to fire him! Wouldn't this all be a bit weird if Sessions was a Republican?
So, using the information I had, I decided to edit the articles about him to stop this confusion from spreading. And I made a mistake here. I should have discussed this on the talk page first and had my proposed edits approved by you guys. I understand why you thought I was vandalizing, and I understand why you didn't want to hear me out at the time. I understand why you blocked me. Now that that stuff has passed, I hope that we can reach an agreement here. Why do you think Jeff Sessions is a Republican? I just want us to hear each other out so that together we can make the correct decision on what his party affiliation should be labeled as. Who knows, maybe I could change my mind? Maybe you could? I just want to have the discussion. Thanks. 67.181.231.129 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, IP editor. I have already warned you about this matter on your talk page. Let me spell it out bluntly:
- 1 - Acceptable Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable published sources say.
- 2 - All reliable sources report that Sessions is a Republican.
- 3 - The strange musings of an anonymous IP editor on Wikipedia are of no value in shaping the content of our encyclopedia articles.
- 4 - Therefore, our biography of Jeff Sessions will continue to state that he is a Republican, at least until the day comes that he quits that party in public.
- You will be blocked if you persist with disruptive editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I understand that some sources say Sessions is Republican, but going by his history as Attorney General, is there any real evidence that proves this? Shouldn't we think for ourselves rather than blindly believing what "credible sources" say? 67.181.231.129 (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- No, all reliable sources report that Sessions is a Republican. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. Period. End of story. Non-negotiable. Abandon this quest now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I understand that, but is there any actual evidence of it based off his record? I feel that Wikipedia is just blindly listening to these "sources" without actually looking at the facts. Stuff like this makes me worried Wikipedia is just going to become a propaganda outlet for whatever crap these "sources" want to put out. If you want me to have any confidence in Wikipedia and how you guys edit things, please give me some sort of argument that is a Republican beyond just "these 'sources say he is." Show me that you aren't just blindly following what these "sources" say. 67.181.231.129 (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- We summarize what reliable sources say. That is our narrowly defined mission. There are countless other social media websites and blogging platforms where you can expound your original theories. Wikipedia is not one of them. So, consider this your final warning. Stop it now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- You may have thought he was a Democrat, though that wouldn't be based on any kind of evidence and it's wrong. Ask any Alabamian, if you don't trust the sources. Or ask him. If you lose confidence in Wikipedia because of something you, and only you, thinks, we can handle that, though it would be Very Sad. Drmies (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we will ever agree on this, so how about we just comprise and remove any mention of his party affiliation from the articles about him? 67.181.231.129 (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Look, I understand why you guys don't want to change Jeff Session's party affiliation on his articles. I have given up that quest. I am sorry that I was stubborn about it. However, I do think that because there is doubt about his party affiliation at all, that something needs to be done. After all, stating a theory as a fact is against Wikipedia rules. I have 2 ideas for how we can fix this issue in a way that makes us all happy.
1: Remove any mention of his party. This way there won't be any arguments and we know that we won't get the fact wrong. After all, it is impossible to be wrong about his party affiliation if we don't include it in the first place.
2: Keep his Republican affiliation, but make make clear on the articles that it is just a theory and has been disputed.
I would be fine with either one of these changes. I sencerely hope that we can fix this in a way that is the best for Wikipedia. Thank you for hearing me out. 67.181.231.129 (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
New Skylab controversy RfC proposal
Hi! I have drafted another RfC at Talk:Skylab_controversy#New_RfC_proposal. Please comment on how best to get appropriate input from the Wikipedia editor community. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there any predraft Vetting?
- Is there a place on WP where one can have an idea vetted before even starting a draft?
- I have a draft: Draft:John_Ferrar_(Deputy_Treasurer,_Virginia_Company), I have subsequently learned that there is a biography of him already published https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/ferrar-john-1588-1657, it has everything and more, with more and better references. So publishing this article would be redundant, on the internet, but not in wiki, and I can’t think of anyway to reword it, either. The big difference between the two is John Ferrar’s role he played, in the founding of America. What intrigues me is that researching his father, Nicholas Ferrar the elder, I learned that he was financing privateers who raided ships of Spain, and was an associate of the likes of Sir Walter Raleigh:, Francis Drake and John Hawkins.
- Pages 22-23 here https://archive.org/details/lifenicholasferr00skipuoft/page/22, I already knew that Nicholas Ferrar was Master of the Skinners Company.
- Full disclosure I am a 2nd Cousin 11 times removed, and thus according to some a COI, as he is a relative, but who isn’t, even the Plantagents and William the Conqueror are great grandfathers a distinctionI share with millions, maybe hundreds of millions.
This John Ferrar is indeed notable, and played an important role in the Virginia Company, the result of which was the establishment of the Virginia Colony, and that resulted in the representative form of government of the U.S.A There is an article on his brother Nicholas, whose actual role was minor as compared to John’s. John was a friend of Charles I, and even gave him refuge, when pursued by the Parliamentarians.. As I see it, these personages are as notable and important to the History of America as Nicholas Ferrar the Younger, who has his own article. Even the father Nicholas the elder about whom much is not known, save that he was of Yorkshire, at least Nicholas the elder deserves a mention in his sons biography. I don’t see any way of pursuing this project without engaging in some form of plagiarism, being a family historian or a COI Do you?Oldperson (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Oldperson: He certainly was notable; the Virginia Company was effectively the Halliburton of its day. And, yes, the Hist. of Parlt Oline is an excellent source; for an example of articles structured around it but still using summary style and interspersing other sources in Wikipedia's voice, see Humphrey Stafford (died 1442) or Humphrey Stafford (died 1413). Your chap Ferrar also has an excellent entry at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, [1]. There's quite a bit on both father on son in the literature, and there's a few nice things available on JSTOR too [2]. —safe road to you, Cullen. ——SerialNumber54129 20:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129:Thank you I know he was notable, my problem is writing an article without plagarising.I will try if only for the practice. But my problem at the moment, is the reference to Parliament online. Somehow I 've got an empty title and I can't see it, don't know how to fix it. And I'm obsessed with getting it right and learning.Can you help me with that please. ThanksOldperson (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'll get back to you tomorrow Oldperson, sometime GMT, if that's OK. ——SerialNumber54129 22:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Thanks but it is fixed nowOldperson (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, Oldperson. I am working now and have a long drive home in the rain later. I will think about your questions and will respond tonight, California time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Oldperson, I am having trouble figuring out why you are concerned about plagiarism. Simply do not plagiarize. Assemble the reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this obviously notable person, and summarize what those sources say in your own originally written words. Is that so difficult? That is precisely what we do all the time as Wikipedia editors. Just do it, as an athletic shoe company says.
- Members of Parliament and members of national, state and provincial legislatures worldwide have a very strong presumption of notability, per WP:POLITICIAN. You should expect no opposition to this article as long as you write it properly.
- As for your original question about "pre-draft vetting", then I guess that the answer is to ask advice from experienced editors, as you have done here. You could just move your draft into mainspace and deal with the New Page Patrollers and the regulars at Articles for Deletion, since the AFC process is optional not mandatory. AFC constitutes "pre-article vetting" for those who choose it, and we have no formal procedure for pre-vetting the pre-vetting. That could lead to some ridiculous extremes.
- I have written about 100 new articles and have never once submitted one of my drafts for review by AFC although I asked for review by some trusted editors of one article where I had a mild conflict of interest. Not one of my articles has ever been deleted. I write them carefully and move them to main space myself when I am confident that they are ready for the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Draft talk:Joan Kelley Walker
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Draft talk:Joan Kelley Walker. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
- Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
- Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike
Interface administrator changes
- Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
- A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
- A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.
- Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
- To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
- Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.
- Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
- In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
- Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.
- Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
Please help regarding editing a page
I have been trying to update the page Randeep Hooda . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randeep_Hooda
But it is getting reverted back to old edits. The information cited on the page are all more than 2 years old. And they need updation now. Please guide me. Thanks and regards. Randeepupdates (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- You twice added unreferenced information about his height and were reverted, Randeepupdates. Read conflict of interest and verifiability. Also read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox family
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox family. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Tyreek Burrell
Hey there... I dont know how much investigating you ad time to do on the refs; I read through them, and as far as I could see the BLP violation on the Tyreek article looks..well..really bad. Not a single ref mentions Tyreek at all, much less states he was involved in any way..the lady concerned may not even be his sister- nothing in the refs says she is! There have been IPs trying to get that stuff out for months, and editors have just been blindly reverting..I find this well..pretty awful..something like that could ruin this guy. Curdle (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC) Oops..I see its been noted on the talkpage- sorry to bother you. It just Curdle (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- I just read all of those references and your assessment is 100% correct. Thank you, Curdle. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is his sister, but the extend of his involvement per sources is one tweet. Definitely a quite bad situation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy new year Jim
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hi Cullen328, Sending you a warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019 and may this new year bring you joy and laughter. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Eclipses
I saw your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eclipses. Are you planning to watch the July 2 eclipse? 28bytes (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, 28bytes. It is possible that my family might go to Chile. My wife and I saw the Solar eclipse of May 20, 2012 in Redding, California. That was an annular eclipse. We went with my son and his pregnant partner to the spectacular Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 in Madras, Oregon. We had a wonderful time at both, and perfect weather and great company both times. My son became an instant enthusiast and I gave him my halfway decent telescope. At that time, we were all gung ho for Chile but haven't done anything about it. I will see my son tomorrow and discuss it. We would have to travel with my granddaughter, who will be about 20 months old. Exciting! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Very cool. I watched the 2017 eclipse from South Carolina with my extended family and was just astounded at how beautiful it was. I'm really, really tempted to go down to La Serena to see it in 2019 but I haven't bitten the bullet yet. Not being a fluent Spanish speaker intimidates me a bit. 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry too much about that, 28bytes. Cumulatively, I have spent about three months in Spanish speaking countries, and do not speak the language though I know a lot of phrases. I have always had wonderful times on those trips. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's tempting, it really is. Let me know if you decide to go, it might push me off the fence to know there'll at least be another American there! 28bytes (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- There will be thousands of Americans there, I guarantee it, 28bytes. Go whether or not I go. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello again, 28bytes. I was a little bit confused about eclipses in Chile, since there are two about 17 months apart. We may go to the Solar eclipse of December 14, 2020, which is during their summer and happens to fall on my son's birthday. Also, my granddaughter will be three years old and will appreciate it much more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I had forgotten that Chile gets two in short order. Yes, three should be a good age; my boy was four when he saw last year's eclipse and he loved it. He's already looking forward to the 2024 one which will go right over our house. 28bytes (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hello again, 28bytes. I was a little bit confused about eclipses in Chile, since there are two about 17 months apart. We may go to the Solar eclipse of December 14, 2020, which is during their summer and happens to fall on my son's birthday. Also, my granddaughter will be three years old and will appreciate it much more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- There will be thousands of Americans there, I guarantee it, 28bytes. Go whether or not I go. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's tempting, it really is. Let me know if you decide to go, it might push me off the fence to know there'll at least be another American there! 28bytes (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry too much about that, 28bytes. Cumulatively, I have spent about three months in Spanish speaking countries, and do not speak the language though I know a lot of phrases. I have always had wonderful times on those trips. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Very cool. I watched the 2017 eclipse from South Carolina with my extended family and was just astounded at how beautiful it was. I'm really, really tempted to go down to La Serena to see it in 2019 but I haven't bitten the bullet yet. Not being a fluent Spanish speaker intimidates me a bit. 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
What constitutes "strong national ties"?
What is your interpretation of "strong national ties" with regard to date formats in articles?
I ask that because I changed four dates in the Bob Readick, converting them to American style on the basis that Readick was born in the United States and worked in the U.S.A. Another editor reverted the dates to the original format. When I asked about the reversion on that editor's talk page, the reply included "And simply being an American does not constitute 'strong national ties.'" The reply also cited MOS:DATEVAR in support of keeping the format originally used.
I am still learning about Wikipedia's style and policies after almost five years, so I will appreciate your perspective on this topic. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) I've restored the American date style, which is obviously the norm for biographies of Americans. I've also put the article on my watchlist. Softlavender (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Of course Bob Readick had "strong national ties" to the U.S. since there is nothing in that article indicating that he lived or worked in any other country. In my opinion, the other editor's argument is without merit, Teblick. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Softlavender and Cullen328! I appreciate the feedback. I was hoping that I had not misunderstood Wikpedia style that badly. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)