Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 58

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65

Question

Is this [[1]] kind of thing ok? Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Hamster Sandwich. You were, of course, correct to revert the spam link. So, I guess you were asking about the message about hard boiled eggs that you left on the IP's talk page. Well, I am not sure that it is worth the time to even comment there when this IP address has only made a single edit. At first, I thought that your comment was an allusion to Cool Hand Luke which I saw decades ago, but then I refreshed my memory and learned that the character played by Paul Newman tried to eat 50 hard boiled eggs, obviously much more than a dozen. So, I am a bit mystified by your message to the IP, though I see nothing overtly wrong with it. I love hard boiled eggs, by the way, and deviled eggs even more. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
My theory: Wikipedia can't always be Stick Stick Stick. Sometimes there has to be a carrot too. I told an IP earlier that if they could offer a proper citation I'd stand on my head for an hour. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I am all in favor of positive reinforcement, such as thanking productive editors for their work. Why would it be a "carrot" to another editor if you eat eggs or stand on your head, Hamster Sandwich? Are you planning to make videos of these feats of yours to post on various user talk pages? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I am afraid that you have taken these promises far too literally. I have no reasonable expectation that these reverted edits will ever be backed by some kind of citation. Nor should you for that matter! I make empty promises to answer empty content additions. Merely for the sake of providing some levity for the editors who will almost certainly visit that page in the future to warn against nonsense edits to the actual 'pedia. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you have also taken my responses far too literally. A bit of levity is fine among established editors but may well go over the head of some newbies, or may be rewarding to those with trollish motivations, and that is counterproductive, Hamster Sandwich. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That is a very good point that I had not considered; however it may afford an opportunity to turn a negligible editor into a productive one through... what? Affability? I'm not sure. I'll use the technique more sparingly, only for comments where I feel it might be more helpful than harmful. One lives in hope. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Your underlying motivation is correct and fully consistent with WP:AGF. If you try something and it motivates a spammer to abandon promotionalism and become a highly productive generalist editor, then your technique should be widely used by experienced editors in the future, and you should be showered with barnstars. I am a welcoming editor, in general, but do not readily recall a case of a spammer going straight, though it has probably happened once or twice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Asking for a peer review, here [2], Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Things seemed to work out fine, and the new editor is awaiting his review. I didn't want to completely obliterate their work, so I left enough meat on the bone for other editors to polish it up. I am looking for work. Point at something, will you? Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Hamster Sandwich. The Teahouse and the Help desk are great places to be productive, useful and informative, especially to newer editors who really need help. Another place where experienced editors can play a positive role is the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you want content suggestions, let me know. But you have been around long enough that you can figure out useful things to do on your own. There is always Wikipedia:Community portal after all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing those options out... I am really only proficient in a couple narrow areas. One is copy editing, and the other is displaying some patience with newbs and marginal types (if they are not crackpots). One thing where I have no proficiency is finding enough to do. I am leaning towards page reviews where I can do cleanup work on drafts pending, things like that. Then I can cherry pick topics (because I don't want to spend time on articles where the subject is of no interest too me.) I hope you don't mind these intrusions, but you have been an outstanding example to follow as I wend my way back into the intricacies of WP (I'm half kidding, and it's about the WP part... This place ain't exactly "Rocket science." Thanks again for the suggestions. Keep them coming if you think of anything else for me.. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Hamster Sandwich, if you're interested in copy editing, maybe take a look at the guild of copy editors or find an article in Category:All articles needing copy edit to work on? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, @Galobtter, I just now went to the community portal, and it was a revelation. Can't wait to dive in later today. I will also explore your suggestion about the GoCE. Looking forward to seeing what that is about. Thank you noble editors for your help! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

In the name of transparency...

My quite harsh commentary about what I feel are your excessive and poorly documented administrative actions taken against Wikid77 appears at WPO in the thread "Wikid77 blocked for racist comments." best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Carrite. I choose not to engage with you on that Wikipedia criticism website that you like so much, but I will respond to any specific questions that you or any other editor in good standing have here on Wikipedia, at any appropriate venue. In full awareness that my decision might be controversial, I immediately asked for a community review of my block at AN. I will respect whatever consensus comes out of that discussion, and have deliberately chosen not to participate further in that debate, to allow independent voices to participate unimpeded. If by consensus, the community decides that my action was excessive, then I will accept that consensus and consider myself duly chastised. I readily admit that I am not strong on bureaucratic procedures, so if you can assist me in dotting the I's and crossing the T's, and correcting my "poorly documented administrative actions", then I would appreciate that. Please forgive me for inappropriate use of apostrophes, if I am guilty of that infraction as well. In conclusion, I am doing my level best to try to improve the editing environment here on Wikipedia, in what I believe to be a conservative and cautious way. Obviously, I am using the word conservative narrowly in this context, and that word does not refer to contemporary American politics. Thanks, as always, for your feedback. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, let me bring over my main criticism here then, since I would not want you to sully your sensibilities consorting with individuals hostile to Wikipedia at a nefarious off-wiki message board...
1. You claim to be a great believer in on-Wiki transparency, yet your original block of Wikid in November includes no link to the offense which got you to place a 48-hour block on him, either in the block log, or on his talk page. Instead, you linked to a long essay on tendentious editing and how to change it or stop it. You subsequently claim as part of your indefinite block that you had previously warned him against posting racist comments. What was the original comment? Where did you make these alleged warnings to him against making such comments?
2. Similarly, you have provided no concrete links to the specific offenses by Wikid on the Jimmy Wales talk page which drew your ire: either as part of the block log, or on Wikid's user talk page, or in the AN thread which you yourself started to (apparently) fan the embers in justification of your action — a thread which, predictably, had the effect of escalating the penalty for the still-unspecified offense. Where is the link to those comments that drew your ire? Did you try to warn him (apparently for a first time) on his talk page or just jump straight to the block button?
3. Do you feel that editors at Wikipedia must have righteous, ideologically correct takes on every issue in order to participate at Wikipedia?
That's a good start. My views about Wikid's take on the racial history of the United States are available at WPO, I don't want to be accused of making personal attacks here, but suffice it to say that nothing I have to say about your seemingly overwrought administrative style has anything to do with personal sympathy with his own twisted views. As you are aware. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) What people believe and what they do about it in the privacy of their own estate is their business, not mine. But when they do it in the public areas that myself and my six year old son also have to occupy, then it becomes my business. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people not to act. Blocking individuals for using hate words (outside of the disscussion of those terms academically) is an appropriate response to an evil behavior. John from Idegon (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm still looking for the first diff that I requested above. Glad you have such moral certitude about this, pat yourself on the back again and again. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Carrite. My original warning was in response to a thread called Battle for freedom of speech re Roseanne during which Wikid77 wrote " In fact to white Americans, the word "nigger" had come to mean a "hardworking servant" rather than an obstinate negro, and a white man might have said about mowing and trimming hedges, "I'll be a yard nigger all morning today" with zero reference to black skin, just the work. Since the "N-word" has been banned, other words have been invented to refer to black people who are organizing against whites (say no more)."
I gave the warning at Wikid77's talk page here, where I wrote "The next time you spout racist nonsense on Wikipedia, you will be blocked indefinitely. Conduct yourself accordingly." and also "This is a reminder of established policy and a formal warning: What Wikipedia is not says that "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." You are warned to avoid treating Wikipedia as a forum for your personal pet theories about racism and slavery and the meaning of racial slurs. Your comments have been disruptive and tendentious. Any more forum type commentary will lead to a block."
My block on November 21 resulted from a thread called Horrors of a POV-fork page, where Wikid77 wrote "Well, check the facts of imagined "ill treatment" of African Americans, who actually often lived in the master's house, or had private rooms in the servant quarters of the mansion, or whose children played alongside the owner family, blacks with white children, or were given manumission liberty when the master died, etc." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Your third question "Do you feel that editors at Wikipedia must have righteous, ideologically correct takes on every issue in order to participate at Wikipedia?" is a bit strange and my one word answer is "no". Productive editors with a wide range of ideologies collaborate all the time on Wikipedia without serious friction, because they are here to improve the encyclopedia and are committed to our policies and guidelines. In this case, I concluded that Wikid77 was repeatedly engaging in tendentious and disruptive commentary motivated by extremist racial views on a highly visible page. The quotations above are just a small sample of this editor's extensive and repeated extremist POV pushing. I blocked on that basis and asked the community to review my block. It turns out that a very large percentage of the editors who took a look at the block share my assessment. I understand that you disagree and I take that very seriously. As for moral certitude and patting myself on the back, nothing can be further from the truth. The whole situation and especially your vigorous criticism has led to a lot of soul searching and self doubt on my part. The one aspect of your criticism that I fully accept as correct is my failure to properly document the specific comments that I thought were out of line. At the time, I thought that it was all clear in the context of the discussions but I now see that this was not the case. In the future, I will be much more careful to be specific in my warnings and block notices. So, I thank you for making me aware of that shortcoming, and for motivating me to think clearly about all the issues that you have raised, Carrite. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
For my part, reading through the thread it is clear that there was quite extensive pushing of a fringe-minority interpretation of history largely at-odds with objective reality. And I can see blocking on that basis — with diffs and a warning — in the first case; and a more extended block — with diffs and a warning — for a second offense. But this was bullshit being spread on a discussion page, in the final analysis, and where I'm sitting, that shouldn't be a capital offense. Going straight to indef and then effectively tossing him to the lions with an AN thread was excessive, relative to the "crime" of espousing twisted views of history on a general discussion page. The comment made elsewhere that "Jimmy Wales never objected, and in fact participated in the discussion Wikid started — so why intervene so severly?" rings true to me. The end result — predictably — is going to be a site ban of a useful Wikipedian with an ignorant blindness to the issues of race in America and Civil War history. Too much, done poorly, is my bottom-line assessment. best, — tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@C328... In the example you outlined above, concerning the application of a certain highly inflammatory word by the contentious editor; the use of the term in the context of a hypothetical situation was completely gratuitous, and I fully support your action. Quoting from an accepted source is one thing, but this was not that. Good call. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Carrite, I did not go straight to an indef. I warned him quite clearly over six months ago and blocked him for 48 hours with another clear warning last month. I suspect that I will be unable to convince you, but I truly believe that tolerating repeated instances of bizarre racist theorizing on a highly visible public facing page is damaging to editor retention and the long term integrity of the encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocking editors

I wish I was the administrator but I'm sorry for threatening other people Oreratile1207 (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77

I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#time to move on? that you might be of interest to you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, North Shoreman. I have been following that discussion closely, and I really appreciate your input. Very helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello Cullen328,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 08:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, MarnetteD. I am a Californian and we have suffered several years of murderous fires that have burned tens of thousands of homes and killed hundreds of people. We are very fond of firefighters here. Thank you for the interesting story, and Happy Holidays to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You are most welcome C. My thoughts, prayers and best hopes go out to all involved. MarnetteD|Talk 08:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sammi Giancola

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sammi Giancola. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

I didn't know how to add sources, but Poverty Die is Olamide's new song, you should listen to it on Spotify Cullen328, Robvanvee, I'm so sorry for reverting your edits, I was just so angry you reverted mine, please forgive me, I'll leave your article alone, Cullen328, please don't block me Oreratile1207 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok so we are back to square one with this guy Jim. I've tried to be patient and offer guidance etc but its obvious he doesn't give a toss. The block has passed and nothing has changed; straight back to adding unsourced material, probably didn't even look at the links we sent him explaining how to source. Please look into this when you get a chance, thanks. Robvanvee 05:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse mystery theater

Hello! While I was at work today, working hard... I thought, "Gee, helping someone at teahouse because they said they just don't have the time to do it themselves, has got to be the worst way to help someone. Lesson learned. I'm committed now, but in the future, I think I'll pass on similar requests! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Hamster Sandwich. Each situation needs to be evaluated individually. If the person might become a long term productive editor, try to teach them how to do things themself. If they are here only to correct a single thing in an article, sometimes it is best to make the edit for them, especially if tricky coding is involved. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
In retrospect this seems like: "I want something done, and it looks like it might be a hassle, I'll go to a help page and see if anyone there looks easily gulled..." This [3] other editor seems like a promising novice though. The kind of help I enjoy giving. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Give a man a fish and he'll eat today. Teach a man to fish and he'll never be hungry. But beware. At Teahouse, there are a lot of people getting paid to do a job that expect us to do it for them for free. See WP:BOGO. Thanks for caring, Hamster Sandwich. John from Idegon (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

AOC balance

I saw your revert of my edit, along with your explanation. My edit was an attempt at inserting balance into a highly misleading section of the AOC article. As currently constituted, it falsely portrays Israel as shooting peaceful protesters, and also falsely portrays Jewish groups as behind solidly in support of her position on Israel. If the article includes AOC's claims about shooting "protesters", should it not be explained that those protesters were violent? If the article contains AOC's claims of Jewish individuals thanking her for her views, as well as J Street's president lauding her for the same, why should that not be balanced out by criticism from the other side? The section as it currently appears is highly biased, pushing an anti-Netanyahu POV. Vcuttolo (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, you need to gain consensus at Talk: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and that is where this discussion should take place, Vcuttolo. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
And here I've thought for most of my life that AOC stood for American Olympic Committee. Silly me. I forgot that momentary political hot button issues were far far more important for an encyclopedias than longstanding institutions. John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, John from Idegon. Perhaps the 2020 Congressional elections will produce a new member whose initials are USOC. Cullen328 Let's discuss it
Cant believe they picked SLC again. But, I guess it makes sense. Park City is only about 25 miles from Temple Square and Aspen is almost 200 miles from the capital. And SLC won't have to build much. Almost everything they built last time is still in fine shape. John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
John from Idegon, speaking as a Californian, I would like it if the winter games returned to our Squaw Valley Ski Resort, home of the 1960 games, but that will not happen. Too small for the 21st century, and then there is global warming. Still a very cool place to visit, though. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Alas. I'd like to see it at Sun Valley. But practically speaking, SLC and possibly Phoenix are the only real possibilities in the US I think. Nowhere else is the infrastructure for the sports coexistant with the logistical infrastructure. John from Idegon (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Blue Square Thing

Hi Cullen, please the comments of this user on my talk page. I asked at the Teahouse about what to do they said he was too much aggressive and to contact an admin. So I request you to please look into the matter.Dominick333 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dominick333. I have commented on your talk page. Please feel free to ask for assistance at any time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Cullen for helping me.Dominick333 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Thank you, K.e.coffman, and Happy Holidays to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas! Thank you for all the work you do on Wikipedia (especially for being helpful to new users at the Teahouse) and for being a conscientious member of the administrative team. I wish you and yours all the best. Huggums537 (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Huggums537, and Happy Holidays to you. Yes, I enjoy helping out at the Teahouse, and appreciate your kind words. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you, CAPTAIN RAJU, and Happy Holidays to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


Merry Christmas!!

Merry Christmas Cullen. Thank you for for being an important part of this project! My very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart and the heart of those around you be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Cullen328, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Davey2010, and Happy Holidays to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome and thanks so much, Thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 13:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

New section

Seasons greetings! I thought to drop a note, to wish you and yours a happy holiday. Also, to express my thanks for all of your help as I make a return to regular editing. I should add that I looked at the list of articles you've created and I have read many of them in the past. After seeing some of your specific entries, I will mention that I have been a motorcyclist since I was a boy, and my last machine was a 1964 HD- XLCH. (That one had an 11:1 compression ratio and killed my right knee by not always starting on the first kick. Also a pain carrying a little bottle of octane boost everywhere I went!) I have also done a fair bit of climbing/ scrambling. Nothing too technical, just enough to badly injure myself on occasion. I'm not sure if those kinds of things are of interest you IRL, but they are to me, and I appreciate the work you've done on articles in those areas. All the best, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Hamster Sandwich, and Happy Holidays to you. Yes, I used to be a mountaineer and was also a motorcyclist fairly briefly. I have given up both pastimes in the hope of living longer, but I enjoyed them back in the day. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Much the same story here... I love riding, but there are twice as many cars on the road than there used to be when I was putting on miles. I have been looking at pictures of this lately, thinking..."Life Is Too Short." It's calling to me, and I think you know what I mean. Happy holidays! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Matthias Corvinus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthias Corvinus. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Naturopathy

I have no bias on this subject. I have had bad advice from naturopaths and bad advice from doctors. The point is that the article is biased. It doesn't matter what you think of naturopathy; the article has to be neutral. As I said, the article should simply state what the subject is and then go into the various opinions, pro and con. Personal opinions have no place in this article.

Actually, on the basis of the current state of the article, I think it is a candidate for Deletion on the grounds of complete bias.

Sardaka (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sardaka. The proper place to gain consensus for changes to that article is Talk: Naturopathy. The article must summarize sources that meet the standards WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. We do not treat pseudoscience the same as actual science. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, but you miss the point. The article is biased. Sardaka (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

But is it unsourced editorial bias, or documenting the bias found in RS for such an article? Wikipedia is biased toward RS and scientific facts. Jimbo Wales makes it pretty clear that we don't cater to lunatic charlatans.
NPOV does not require neutral content or neutral sources, only editorial neutrality. Read more about that in my essay: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Your page says quite clearly it is an essay, it is not one of WP's policies or guidelines. I don't care how you twist it and turn it, this article is biased. The NPOV would be to simply describe the subject and then discuss the various attitudes to it, for and against, with refs. Sardaka (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Sardaka. You need to discuss your concerns at Talk: Naturopathy. You need to be very specific and provide reliable sources for the changes you propose to make. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

my edit on Rajneesh

Hi Cullen , I have realised that now, the page of the interview is indeed copyrighted, so I will ask for permission. There is no reason why some of the content should not be used, as it is directly related to the topic in question. And other qoutes have been used on the page, that are also taken from people directly related to the question.

Other information , that comes from dubious or unreliable sources have been entered onto the page on Rajneesh.

So there is no reason why, high qaulity , piece of information , from a realiable source who has knowledge of the situation should not be used. In fact, all the other pieces have been taken from other sources , who were also present at the meetings with Sheela.

Eternity5090 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Eternity5090. An interview with a participant in an event is a primary source, and we use such sources only in very limited ways. The building blocks of acceptable Wikipedia articles are independent, reliable secondary sources, and as editors, we summarize what those sources say, and provide references to them.
There is nothing to be gained from asking the publisher of the copyrighted interview to release it under a free license. It would still remain a primary source. Focus on reliable, independent secondary sources instead. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Jennifer Anniston

Hello:

If you feel that removing old information that makes the section read like a shopping list does not improve the article, please feel free to revert these edits. My experience is that editors tend to add every single fact they can find about a celebrity and the articles become bloated with irrelevant detail. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Twofingered Typist. As I said quite clearly on your talk page, "I have no problem with the substance of your recent edits" so why would I even think about reverting them? My only concern is that you were marking substantive edits as minor edits. They were not minor edits. This is not good practice because some editors turn off minor edit notifications on their watch lists. Those editors deserve to know that substantive edits are being made to the article. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

RE: my edit on Rajneesh

Hi Cullen, thanks for your reply.

I realise that the text would have to be condensed and shortened.

But it does fit it with the context of the section on the page, "So and So said that in an interview with" , is the same as the other entries which are also based on "So and so said that..."

And the statements about the situation that are already on the page are all from various people who were present at the same place and part of the same group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternity5090 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Eternity5090, I do not know why you are posting here and on several other editor's talk pages about this matter. The proper place to discuss this is Talk:Rajneesh which has been silent for nearly three months. You must gain consensus there before adding any contested content to Rajneesh. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

RE Edit on Rajneesh

Curdle, I disagree that sannyasnews.org is not a reliable source.

It has several editors who have written articles on it over the years, and some of the articles on the site, have actually influenced and formed chunks of material that has already been put on the Rajneesh wiki page.

Content from the site have appeared in people`s books, which has been used as references on the Rajneesh wiki.

Some of the articles on the site have also been used to attack Osho in different ways by his critics.

It is a balanced site, and the articles have already influenced many peoples opinions about Rajneesh.

Also, you are using material from sites such as the Oregonian which has been criticed as highly biased and often unreliable and not based on actual proven facts.

So I do not agree that it is not a reliable source.

The article in question is balanced and factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternity5090 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Eternity5090, I am disagree with you on this. Please take this matter to the appropriate venue, which is the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

RE Edit on Rajneesh

Cullen, I have read through all of the Source link that you gave me, and I cannot see anything that sannyasnews.org does not qaulify for.

I can see several things on the wiki page on Rajneesh that have not been verified as fact, therefore do not fit the description for an accurate source.

For example, Vivek, Osho`s caretaker, is described as Osho`s girlfriend, yet there is no evidence that she and Osho ever had a sexual relationship. Osho never talked about it,and when asked about it Vivek said no. She also had several other relationships with other men.

I am not saying that they did not, but any lack of real evidence doesnt justify this on the wiki. The source for that is not someone who ever lived in Osho`s household.

Anyhow, sannyasnews.org is not a trashy site, it is balanced, not biased, has always welcomed different viewpoints. And it has been around since 2000, and contained a wide variety of articles with different viewpoints and also high qaulity journalism.

The interview with Jayananda, I can see nothing wrong with its authenticy. I can see that the editor of the article isn`t visible on the page, but can easily be found out. Eternity5090 (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Eternity5090, you have opened four separate threads on my talk page today, all about Rajneesh. This is excessive and unnecessary. Discuss Rajneesh content at Talk: Rajneesh. Discuss the reliability of a source at Reliable source noticeboard. Feel free to ask questions here on my talk page about anything other than Rajneesh. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

RE Edit on Rajneesh

Ok, Cullen, I will stop writing on this page and continue this on one of the talk pages you suggested.

I am new at this and don`t know how to reply to you without opening up a new section.

As far as secondary sources are concerned, I have witness statements to the FBI from 1985 from at least two other members of Sheelas group that state that Jayananda was present at their meetings where they discussed and planned their crimes, as well as confirming Jayananda`s claim in an interview on sannyasnews that after he had refused to kill anyone for Sheela, Sheela had told the other members of her group that she wanted to kill him.

This is a matter or historical importance, and does belong on the wiki, as Jayananda was also one of the main people who exposed the crimes to Osho, after Sheela had left Rajneeshpuram, which then led Osho to exposing the crimes publicly and inviting the FBI in to investigate.

So I believe it is important to include some of Jayananda`s statements on the wiki.Eternity5090 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, Eternity5090! I asked you to stop posting about Rajneesh on my talk page and here you are posting about Rajneesh again! Are you the type of person who ignores reasonable requests? Please stop now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cullen328!

Happy New Year!

Cullen328,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 02:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you, Rubbish computer. I hope that 2019 brings you a new computer that is not made of rubbish. Or whatever you want. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft Sinfonia Latina the event and music

Thanks for responding... My request for a peer review is on Draft: Sinfonia Latina the event and music. Thanks for your comment about April M Reign. I am aware of NPOV... However I will reconsider due to your comment . I felt it to be neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanna Coakley (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Mwright1469

You recently blocked this user. Was Were you aware of the ongoing ANI discussion that he was involved in? IWI (chat) 06:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC:

Yes I was, ImprovedWikiImprovment. As I said, I evaluated their edits. Any adminstrator can modify my block. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it
The block seems excessive, and I will modify it if you are willing. It may be that this user is a sock, but there is no actual evidence of that, and BMK is well known to ANI. I would like to know your reasoning first - maybe you know something I don't. Deb (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to modify the block, Deb. You know as much as I do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll reduce it and offer him a bit of unwanted advice. Deb (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Re Cullen

Yes, Cullen, you asked me, and I gave you an adequate response and explanation.

You seem to want to continue the converstaion?Eternity5090 (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at Talk: Rajneesh, Eternity5090. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jim!

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , Jim,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung, and greetings for the new year to you as well. I am very glad to see that you are still active here. Very glad. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable article for Lloyd Luna

Hello Thank you for your advice. Is it possible that you assist me to have the article written or edited? I made another attempt by editing the initial draft I submitted. Here is where you can find my second attempt: Draft:Lloyd_Luna — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndiMaravilla (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, AndiMaravilla, but I cannot help you. In my experience, most articles about motivational speakers are highly promotional, and your draft shows the same signs. Most of your references are to things that Luna has written, and such references have no value in establishing notability. I am not convinced that this person is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Cullen. :-( But how come this blogger made it as a Filipino motivational speaker? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJ_Perez_(blogger)
(talk page watcher)Hi AndiMaravilla. It's hard to compare articles, even ones about similar subjects, for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. The Wikipedia community previously discussed AJ Perez (blogger) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJ Perez (blogger) and decided that it was worth keeping; perhaps from looking at that discussion you get an example of the kinds of things needed to establish Wikipedia notability for a person such as Luna. My take after looking at your draft is that it might be a little too soon for an stand-alone article to be written about Luna. That doesn't mean he hasn't done some great things or that he will not someday be notable enough for an article to be written; it just means at this particular moment in time he hasn't received the type of significant coverage generally considered necessary for a stand-alone article to be written about him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please read Other stuff exists, AndiMaravilla. The presence of one mediocre article does not justify the acceptance of another mediocre draft article. We should either improve or delete poor quality articles, not accept more of them. "Made it" is a problematic phrase. The Articles for Creation process is voluntary, after all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 09:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to the both of you Marchjuly and Cullen328. I really appreciate your inputs. Is there a way to discuss this further so I would know how to substantiate this article. With your help, we can probably build more. And I agree that we put up quality contents. Can we open a discussion for this? Sorry, I'm kinda new year. But getting along, somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndiMaravilla (talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How Often Is "Page Information" Updated?

Hi Jim, Thanks for replying. I had not thought of the possibility that someone removed the page from their Watchlist. But if they did, wouldn't the Page Information data be updated to reflect that? Perhaps they removed it around the same time that I added it.LindaPenn04 (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of the possibility that someone else removed the article from their watchlist about the same time as you added it to yours. On the other hand, some data on Wikipedia is not updated in real time, but on a batch basis. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Ryan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Ryan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

How exactly does the feedback request service work? Does it allow admins and editors to request specific editors' and admins' participation in certain discussions? Is there a similar mechanism that allows people to request the participation of certain other people in resolving disputes, or deciding whether or not to ban someone, or to edit an article in a certain way? 174.126.168.126 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Clicking the feedback request service link already provided above explains exactly how the feedback request service works. In particular, it states that the above request was delivered by random selection. See also WP:3O and WP:RFC. MPS1992 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If the editors who are either chosen or randomly selected to participate in these processes are chosen/selected from a pool of members who are very often also predominantly members of a relatively small, insular group, such as tech workers, internet users, urbanites, liberals, American Democratic party members, and/or Californians, then how is it possible to ensure that those who are chosen to participate in these processes, which are supposedly meant to have an oversight function, are not also un-representantive and insular in their decisions, that they are not exercising bias in their decisions in favor of their group's norms and interests, and that they are not imposing their opinions as facts on all of the billions of Wikipedia readers. We know this is happening on a very large scale, a global scale. This is very frequently observed, and it is objectively provable. How will you correct this? Does such behavior not threaten not only the accuracy and integrity of your organization, but also its continued existence? 174.126.168.126 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia editors -- you are also a Wikipedia editor -- are not tech workers. Most Wikipedia editors are not American Democratic party members nor Californians. All Wikipedia editors are internet users, but that is because most humans are internet users. Internet users are not a small group nor an insular one. Potential bias is one of the many criticisms of Wikipedia but seems not to threaten its existence just yet. MPS1992 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I am apparently not a Wikipedia editor. I was banned from Wikipedia by overtly, unabashedly biased people who were portraying opinions as if they were facts. The ban was issued on the grounds that, because I was editing an article in a way that clarified facts and removed highly biased and controversial opinions that were derogatory and de-legitimizing toward Jews, that therefore it "appeared that I am not here to build an encyclopedia". While that claim was patently false and could not have even been apparently true from any sincere and un-biased perspective, apparently it has been decided for me that I am not going to be a Wikipedia editor, by decree from one of these "oversight" bodies. Thus I have a vested interest in determining what went wrong here and why. I noticed that you omitted all of the smallest and most insular groups I mentioned in your reply, small groups which also appear to be the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia contributors, and apparently, diversity is not nearly as welcome as they would like the majority to believe (much less truth and qualitative excellence). That's the problem. While the number of internet users is still not a majority, it is a large population, but the number of Wikipedia editors is vastly smaller than that number, and is indeed generally comprised of people who have the leisure and resources to write an Encyclopedia for free, which is far from being a large population, and is indeed a rather insular group, especially when they are primarily Americans, English speakers, have no children, have no sexual partner (even fewer have traditional marriages, which are the norm in the rest of the world), are 30 or younger, are over 85% male, and certainly seem to be heavily politically biased in favor of California political positions. Again, this is testable, and studies have already been conducted. See:UN Survey on Wikipedia Contributor Demographics and Harvard Business Review: "Wikipedia is Biased" and Ideological bias on Wikipedia. There's even a lively, considerably less biased discussion on Quora about Wikipedia Bias: Ask Quora: Does Wikipedia have a strong liberal bias?. This is a very slippery slope, reminiscent of other organizations that had total control of ideas and decided that their opinion was fact, and dissenters should be abolished.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That "UN survey" is ten years out of date. Human society has been heading towards domination by people who live in cities for a few thousand years now. Where I currently live in the United Kingdom, the perception is that online, political and media representation is skewed towards the views and priorities of young, diverse, open-minded and technically savvy urbanites living in the capital city London. It's certainly an interesting issue. MPS1992 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_58&oldid=998745495"