Jump to content

User talk:Cullen328/Archive 92

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95

BLP concerns

Although you even warned [1] SilentResident about comments on Pellumbi Xhufi, as per WP:BLP, she continues to say that Xhufi has "extremist views" [2][3]. She even says about Xhufi "However to my understanding, bias in sources is not to be confused with extremism which is what differentiates Xhufi from the vast majority of biased sources used in Wikipedia and the reason the dispute is dragging. I don't think that the aggressive nationalism the specific author is espousing, targeting other nations and the foreign ethnicities inhabiting the places his scholarship is focused upon, with the author openly seeking to re-write the history of the region in favor of his own nationality" [4]. While Xhufi indeed is biased in several cases, he is not an "extremist" at all and does not have "extremist views". His work has been published by or citied in works by Toulouse University, Oxford University, Cambridge University Press etc. Can you take a look, as I think that at the very least such comments should be removed? We are talking about a famous living person (an academic), not some movie character. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ktrimi991. I would prefer to leave this matter in the capable hands of Robert McClenon at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
OK, though Robert McClenon does not seem to pay attention to the way editors talk about a living person. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Moving noticeboard discussion

G'day. After accidently posting discussion at AN/NORN, I was advised to move it to AN - but I am unsure how to do that properly. Any advice? Thanks in advance. ౪ Santa ౪99° 02:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Santasa99. Copy and paste your post, acknowledging in your edit summary where you copied it from. Edit your report to improve it if you think that would be appropriate. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks Cullen. Just one more important thing - I should re-post invitation for the other user involved using AN-notice template, of course? ౪ Santa ౪99° 03:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Santasa99, if you have changed the venue for discussion, please inform the other involved editors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Your block of Special:Contributions/Lapdrampart

You blocked the user for 3 hours, given that there is a username issue, shouldn't it have been indefinite? Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Lavalizard101. Thanks for pointing out the error. I have corrected it. Cullen328 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Confidence Man improvements

Just wanted to drop by and leave a thank you for writing much of the Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America article. I started the article but was waiting to read the book (still am!) before further improving it, so I'm glad other editors stepped in. Best, Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome, Balon Greyjoy. Thanks for getting the article started. Cullen328 (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting your input for my contribution - coming here from Teahouse

@Cullen328 Thank you for replying to me. I am a thorough researcher and only make contributions to areas of my knowledge and interest. I make sure to ask on Teahouse every single time if I have any doubts. I had previously added information on this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwatch Similar to the Germanwatch page, I was organizing and making small subsections on the indexes of this page too - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henley_%26_Partners

I was only adding one line description of the indexes and WP:RS citations. I had also discussed on Teahouse and am unable to find that archive. I think you might be able to check. But, another user is always destroying my edits. One user kept reverting my contributions and said that he / she does not agree and it should be only added if there is consensus.

This user doesn't have any problem with my contributions on any other page, but only on this one page. When I asked, they said words like "crap exists on other pages" and "we are not giving entire paragraphs to some reports". I felt dominated and discouraged. So I decided not to do anything. Today, I saw your comment on Teahouse and thought I should seek for your help.

I also saw this user has got many other warnings in the past. I wrote on the talk page and also his / her talk page. But, they never participates in constructive discussion, but just reverts. Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, ANLgrad. It looks like you are engaged in a slow motion edit war at Henley & Partners. When your edits are reverted, you need to gain consensus to add them back. Adding them back repeatedly without first gaining consensus is a bad idea that may lead to sanctions if it continues. Please avoid saying that someone has "destroyed" your edits. That is inflammatory and also incorrect. Your edits are still in the edit history of the article. It is also not useful to keep mentioning Germanwatch. That article has nothing to do with this dispute. It would be unwise to bring this matter to WP:ANI because that noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes and your edit warring behavior would come under scrutiny. Please read Dispute resolution and use whatever method seems best. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328 Understood and thank you for your input and suggestions. I will read the link on dispute resolution. Also, since you suggest getting consensus, is there a way to do that? I mean, if you could throw more light on what are the ways I can get consensus? Not only on this one particular thing, but in general. ANLgrad (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
ANLgrad, please read Wikipedia:Consensus and let me know if you have any further questions. Cullen328 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328 sure, I will read this and get back to you if I have any questions. Once again, it was very nice of you to help me and provide me these useful links. ANLgrad (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Kate Mcdonald (gymnast) talk

Sorry to bother you, but I saw that User:Epod1396 had blanked Talk:Kate McDonald (gymnast). I reverted it. Was I right? The discussion started at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1167, then the editor asked and got answers at the article's talk page as they were asked, now I suppose they are done with the question and so they removed it from Talk. The user doesn't have anything on their own Talk page, which is one reason I didn't ask them not to do it (plus, I'm still fairly new). Comments? Thanks. David10244 (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, since the editor said "I don't understand it" and "I don't understand any of this", I was going to try to explain some things in friendly terms, on that talk page. But I suppose there's no need now. David10244 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
David10244, you were correct to restore that talk page. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'll watch the talk page. David10244 (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't seen that before

[5]. It could be a (quite decent) joke. Or a WP:NOSHARING problem. I just thought I'd mention it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Quite unusual. It could be legitimate, though. Check out Internet in prisons. Cullen328 (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Cannot reply

Probably is an issue with “reply to” interface of visual editor in a deeply nested conversation. But they were able to tag you. Good grief, that’s a high learning curve for them in one day 😅 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Shushugah. I must be an outlier. I spent a couple of months studying the help pages before I started writing Wikipedia content way back in 2009. Not full time of course but during spare moments. This may be just more evidence that the visual editor is not fully up to the task of serious collaborative editing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Pilpeled

He's not the subject of the article, and appears from his explanation to have had a genuine desire to update it without any remuneration. His new username would not be problematic. How do you feel about an unblock? Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Daniel Case. I have no objection to an unblock as long as the editor acknowledges that Wikipedia is not a promotional platform, and that they will do their best to learn and comply with our policies and guidelines. I have done a fair amount of work over the years working on biographies of notable artists and art photographers. A neutral, well referenced artist biography is a thing of beauty. A biography drenched in promotional and unreferenced content is a travesty and an embarrassment. That's how I see it, at least. Cullen328 (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Could use some help

Hi Cullen.. I could use some help.. Message_to_the_Blackman_in_America .. I corrected the spelling error which fixed the phrase that was not linking correctly. I found you by looking at edit history. I think its an important topic that was not built out Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Flibbertigibbets. I just commented on this at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you and additional question regarding Qualification for Academic Notability

Hello Jim/Cullen328,

Thank you very much for responding to my question about Dr. Dan Theodorescu's wikipedia page. Based on your comments, he does seem to meet the qualifications, but how does one petition to have that designation assigned to the wikipedia page? I'm sorry if this is a basic question, I have not had much experience creating a wikipedia entry. (I may be a bit delayed with replies as I'm juggling things, I hope that is all right)

Sincerely,

RS RKSatWork (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RKSatWork. There is no petition process and we do not label a page with something like "this academic is notable". It is shown to anyone who doubts his notability by improving the references in the article to make it clear that he meets WP:NACADEMIC. For example, adding references to his membership in the National Academy of Medicine and his named chair at the University of Virginia. Those assertions are currently unreferenced. Do you want me to do that, or would you like to take it on yourself? Cullen328 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Jim, if you could add those references tp the page that would be terrific! Thank you very much! RKSatWork (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, RKSatWork. I have added two references as discussed, removed the tags, and upgraded the article from stub class to start class. Further improvement should come from a Wikipedia editor who is knowledgeable about cancer content on this encyclopedia. That is not me. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for adding the references and upgrading the article! I really appreciate it and so does Dr. Theodorescu. One last question, does Wikipedia have a forum or other means for locating editors with the specific knowledge needed? Or are you recommending that we find someone with the needed background to review/edit the page? RKSatWork (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, RKSatWork. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as they comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. We mean that literally and I can tell you from 13 years of experience that there are high school students who are far better editors than some PhDs who think that their diplomas exempt them from following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am kind of in the middle because I have a bachelor's degree in the humanities and have zero technical expertise in medical topics. But I am a skilled editor and know that the role of a Wikipedia editor is to summarize reliable sources, not to write them. So, technical expertise is not necessary to edit the biography of a physician and academic, but caution prevents me from making substantive additions to articles about advanced mathematics or theoretical physics. There are many ways to locate editors but what is unclear to me is what you would ask those editors to do. As for "reviewing" the page, we have many processes that could be called reviews and many levels of such reviews. This article has already gone through several of them. So, I need to know what it is that you hope to accomplish from this review and the recruitment of other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Jim, I'm sorry for the delay in response. Thank you for that very helpful info. Dr. Theodorescu is hoping to have the Notable Academic indication on his Wikipedia webpage. Would an experienced Wikipedia editor be able to update the entry so it would have that indication on it? I have been trying to read the articles and I believe he meets the criteria, but I am not sure how Wikipedia entries receive it. My apologies for these basic questions. RKSatWork (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, RKSatWork. As I said last month, there is no such thing as a "notable academic" tag or designation on Wikipedia. That is not going to happen. The existence of an unchallenged article is a presumption of notability. Please try to rephrase your request so that your concerns and goals are clearer to me. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi again Jim, I'm sorry about that, I was just typing that I realized you had already told me that. I will check with Dr. Theodorescu to see what are his goals for his Wikipedia entry. And I will let him know how helpful you were in remove the missing references so there are no longer any challenges on the page. Thanks again. RKSatWork (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hiding certain images

Hi. I read and tried it. In the edit box, I tried using "importScript", "mw.loader.load", and "iusc" and even tried a :. I used the coding. It still says error on bottom in edit box. I'm trying to create Special:MyPage/common.js. Cwater1 (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Cwater1. These type of technical issues are over my head. In 13+ years of editing, I have never tried anything like that. I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cullen328 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Can I try the coding and publish it? If there are any errors, it probably won't do its job. I sent a message there already. Cwater1 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
You can try whatever you want, Cwater1. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, worth a try. Maybe it will work. Cwater1 (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I tried it and published it. Cwater1 (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it worked. I simply did the copy and paste. Cwater1 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Cullen328 I did try it few days back. I don't think it worked. I thought it was simply copy and paste. Oh, well. Thank you for the help. It been editing Wikipedia for 2 years. Cwater1 (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, Cwater1. I lack any interest in hiding images and I lack the technical skills. I tried to point you in the right direction, but I do not think that I can help you any further. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
It's no big deal. I can find someone else. No worries, you did your best. I could learn more on Wikipedia including learn technical skills. I wanted to say thank you and have a good day/night.Cwater1 (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cwater1: I have had success at hiding images, and I recall having tweaked the instructions in Talk:Muhammad/FAQ in the past for doing just that. Feel free to ask me a question on my talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Am I being paranoid?

I had noticed an account at UAA (June&Katara) that someone had flagged for shared use. When I looked at their edit history, I saw they had edited a different user's sandbox (User:Bishdatta/sandbox), which I always deem suspicious of a new account. Looking at the edit history of the sandbox, it was created by Bishdatta at 06:14, 17 October 2022‎; then it was edited by eleven other accounts in the space of 27 minutes. Eight of these accounts are less than a day old.

So is this a potential sockfarm or just a group of Bishdatta's friends creating accounts and trying out Wikipedia for the first time? I don't know if they've done anything actionable... I think if I requested a CU it might be seen as fishing. What do you think? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Drm310. It could be an edit-a-thon, I suppose. If someone was creating throwaway accounts for a malicious purpose, it wouldn't make sense for the accounts to be communicating with each other. Although it is a bit strange, none of these accounts has done anything wrong at this point. I suggest that you keep an eye on them. Thanks for bringing this situation to my arrention. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: This group of editors is now creating/editing an article, Abha Khetarpal. Melcous and Onel5969 have stepped in to counteract edits that are unsourced/promotional. Again, I'm not sure if this is a group of inexperienced editors in an edit-a-thon, or a sockfarm. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Pouchainsportswear (14:59, 24 October 2022)

Hi Cullen328, I want to add a page for Pouchain. Similar to eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyba The brand is already referred to on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.S._Roma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.S._Lazio#Kit_suppliers_and_shirt_sponsors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palermo_F.C.#Shirt_sponsors_and_manufacturers

Since the page is about our own brand, i don't know if we are allowed to write the page.

What do you recommend me to do? --Pouchainsportswear (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pouchainsportswear. You need to register a new username. Company names or names indicating shared use are not permitted. When you have a new account, make the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure and read about editing with a Conflict of interest.
Do not model your efforts on Meyba. That is an unreferenced, poor quality article. Read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The quality of the references to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is all important. Use the Articles for Creation process to write a draft which will be reviewed by experienced editors. Cullen328 (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Hope you are well

Not sure if you recall, but you participated in a previous appeal to my topic ban. To my disappointment, you did not support my appeal at that time, understandably feeling it came too soon. I currently am appealing again at the administrators noticeboard.

If you would like to review the situation and chime in, I would be appreciative. I would appreciate you share what concerns you have with me so I can address them to you before you reach a verdict. I look forward to conducting a dialogue with any inquiries you may have.

Best regards SecretName101 (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, SecretName101. I am currently looking into this situation, which I do remember a bit. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Alright, thank you for giving it consideration. However you side in the end, I appreciate you taking a look at it (hopefully with an open mind). SecretName101 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Special Barnstar
Hello! I have seen you quite active on Wikipedia. I just want to say that your work is appreciated and I hope this makes your day! Dinoz1 (chat?) 12:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Our discussion from Teahouse

Hello sir, I am sorry to extend the conversation here, but I want to state the following things to your notice:

@Cullen328 That is on the website but the Bollywood hungama provided this discussion on the ticket conversation:

Bollywood Hungama (formerly IndiaFM) grants permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this photograph, provided it is:
attributed to Bollywood Hungama;
from BollywoodHungama.com (with a link to the source page);
of a Bollywood set, party, or event in India;
taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer;
This permission does not extend to:
screenshots, wallpapers, vacation pictures, promotional posters;
photographs copyrighted by others;
and similar exceptions.
Ticket is CC-BY-3.0 license, via OTRS ticket:2008030310010794, under the mentioned above conditions 456legend(talk) 05:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328 Additionally you can check this on wikimedia commons category: Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama(this category is available on Wikimedia commons) along with the ticket. Also to mention about 14,500 files are uploaded using this license.
and I am following the mentioned conditions
1. I have mentioned the source link
2. using only events/parties images
3. no screenshots/wallpapers or posters uploaded by me

456legend(talk) 06:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

456legend, the home page of their website says "All rights reserved". They need to change that language if they want to freely license their images under an acceptable Creative Commons license. "All rights reserved" is fundamentally incompatible with free licensing. Only one or the other can be true. Not both. Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
What about the ticket conversation and other files? (nearly 14500 uploaded on wikimedia commons) 456legend(talk) 06:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not a Commons administrator, but in my opinion, a private ticket conversation that cannot be viewed by the public cannot override the clear copyright language on their public website. If they want to release their content under a Creative Commons license, then why don't they state that clearly on their public home page? Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328 Okay I understood but I cant say anything more I followed the ticket and other guidelines along with other files steps involved. Thank you for your response, I will see whether I can get much more confirmation from other reviewers and give clarity to you and me. 456legend(talk) 06:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Moheen @User:Dharmadhyaksha "@User:GRuban I found you all to be reviewers of Bollywood common files can you assist me in this conversation? 456legend(talk) 06:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the specific context here, but an OTRS/VRT/(whatever the current abbreviation is) ticket absolutely does override whatever the website says, that's the point of having a ticket. Bollywood Hungama established one years ago and we've been using certain images from them for years. Now there can be complexities with specific images, of course; there have been cases we've decided BH doesn't actually own certain images on their site, and because of that, I personally have become more wary than I had been, and can point you to a few discussions about that, but there are certainly thousands we use with that license. --GRuban (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Jowell & Randy with Dulce Osuna
A bit more detail by way of a specific example. I wasn't around when the Bollywood Hungama ticket/template https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:BollywoodHungama was established, so I don't know why they chose to go through OTRS rather than just put a notice on their web site, but I had a somewhat similar one made just for me! The key point here is what it says under https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_VRT?

"I regularly publish my work elsewhere and want to avoid the hassle of sending permission statements for every upload I make.

Please send us a clear statement that your Commons account (or some other Commons account) is authorized to license your works, either any work or some set of works, e.g. "My images from event X, 2013-10-15". We will make a note of this for your future uploads."

So I did that. I found this wonderful lady named Dulce Osuna who is a journalist who does interviews with California and Latin American celebrities and puts them on her YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/c/DulceOsuna. That's her in the middle there, with Jowell & Randy, a Puerto Rican singing duo. I asked her if I could take a screenshot, a still image, from one of them for one of our articles about that celebrity. She said yes, and sent a specific OTRS permission request for that one. (That was when it was actually called OTRS, not VRT.) Then I asked for another. She said yes and mailed another specific permission request. When I started to ask for more, strangely enough she got tired of regularly sending individual permission emails, and we decided to just have her send one permission request that said something like "Wikimedia Commons User:GRuban has the right to upload still images from my YouTube videos" (probably a bit more detail than that - it's been two years). She didn't just change the license on all her YouTube videos because she doesn't want to release the videos, her interviews with celebrities are how she makes her bread and butter, but she doesn't mind if individual images are released for individual Wikipedia articles. She trusts me that I won't abuse that privilege and take every single frame from her videos, which would basically be the same as those videos. So I am now the proud owner of the Commons template https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:GRuban/Dulce_Osuna and that license is marking 153 images on Commons in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Dulce_Osuna and illustrating probably several times that many Wikipedia articles, when you count different language Wikipedias. That's not quite as many as the thousands of images we have from Bollywood Hungama but I'm still quite proud of them, and unlike BH, I know the full story there. OK? Does that help? --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, GRuban. Cullen328 (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

GRuban Thank you very much sir for your detailed explanation. And Cullen328, thank you too sir, for letting me host here on your talk page for gaining clarification. 456legend(talk) 17:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Quacks like block evasion

Perhaps, Cullen328, you can have a look at Param Shiva (talk · contribs). I suspect it's Nalina.E.Nalina (talk · contribs). The same relentless and poorly written movie plots. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Your suspicions look likely to me, but I am not confident enough to block. Param Shava, after all, was editing before Nalina.E.Nalina was blocked. Please consider filing a report at WP:SPI. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes--I suspect they've been gaming the system for a long time with multiple accounts, which is why they didn't bat an eyelash over the block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:C8E6:ADB8:BC1A:535B (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@2601:19E:4180:6D50:C8E6:ADB8:BC1A:535B I am not Nalina. E. Nalina you are talking about. Ok I will not edit any plot. I am sorry, Please give me a chance Param Shiva (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) To me, it seems like another account of hers on another device, which she's currently using for block evasion. I'm filing a report at WP:SPI. Dinoz1 (chat?) 14:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@Dinoz1 No you are actually wrong. I only check plots on news and update it myself Param Shiva (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@Dinoz1 I am not Nalina. E. Nalina I will not edit any plot. Please don't file a report on me, Please I beg you. Param Shiva (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Just tell us the truth, was it you who did both accounts @Param Shiva and @Nalina.E.Nalina? Waylon111 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
To be honest,  Looks like a duck to me Waylon111 (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
There is so much evidence provided that it's really hard to deny it. Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@Waylon111 I am Param Shiva, not Nalina.E.Nalina ok. If you want i will write a better style writing plot ok Param Shiva (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
We aren't talking about your plot, we're talking about your disruptive editing and the fact you used a account to evade the block. Waylon111 (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Still {{Duck}} . I think you are evading a block. Waylon111 (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 My writing style is like that, but I am not Nalina.E.Nalina ok. Param Shiva (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I am Param Shiva ok, I am not the person that I am talking about Param Shiva (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to see how your edits both are, then come back with my verdict but in the meantime, {{Duck}} Waylon111 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nalina.E.Nalina, not here. Cullen328 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Aaa232355 (16:54, 31 October 2022)

Hello, Mr. Cullen, I would like to ask how to edit bare URLs and turn them into useful citations. Sincerely, Aaa232355/Atharv Kaul --अथर्व कॉल (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aaa232355. There are many techniques. Personally, I use Wikipedia:Citation templates, which I fill in manually. You can learn much more by reading Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

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

Administrator changes

  • added
  • readded
  • removed

Interface administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Gypsy Taub writings

I see that you are citing Gypsy Taub's own writings as if they were a reliable source. That is incorrect. She is a convicted sex offender and only statements by her which have been vetted by actually reliable sources should be used.

I'm only using her writings as evidence "Gypsy said X" not "X is true". HearthHOTS (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

HearthHOTS, please read Verifiability, a core content policy, and read it carefully and in full. Pay special attention to WP:V#Self-published sources. Self published sources can never be used as references for assertions about any other living person. The policy language is crystal clear and there are no exceptions. In this case, you are trying to add the opinions and observations of a person who is the exact opposite of a reliable source, commenting about other people. We can mention what she says only if an actual reliable source reports it, and then only with proper attribution. I have repeatedly advised you to limit yourself to citing reliable sources, and you keep failing to meet that standard. I again advise you in the strongest terms to limit yourself to citing impeccably and indisputably reliable sources in these highly controversial articles about living people. If you persist in trying to use poor quality sources, the time may come when you will be sanctioned by another administrator. Not me, since I am involved. Please be very careful. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how "Self published sources can never be used as references for assertions about any other living person" applies here - the assertion I am making is about Gypsy, who is not an 'other' person. She is the reference that she said X. I am not agreeing there is any truth to what she said. HearthHOTS (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hello Cullen328. I'm dropping off this taste treat to say thanks for all your responses about the Yosemite painting at the ref desk. They helped the OP - and me - learn a lot. Your efforts there (and all over the 'pedia) are much appreciated. Cheers MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, MarnetteD. Cullen328 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Liomp (01:08, 3 November 2022)

Hello 👋 --Liomp (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Liomp. A question is a request for information. What is your question? Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

2nd Opinion Please

Hi Cullen. I recently closed a discussion at WP:FTN which was subsequently reverted with a rather snarky note being left on my talk page. This has provoked a somewhat testy exchange both on my talk page and at the FTN discussion. Out of an abundance of caution, I was wondering if you could take a look and let me know if you think I was out of bounds either in the close or the subsequent exchanges.

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Ad Orientem - Wikipedia

Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem. First of all, I agree with your close of that discussion at WP:FTN, and think that your statement was clear and well-reasoned. And, I think the other editor's objections are overblown and a bit rude, especially the implications of bias. All that being said, I am having trouble understanding how taking an action (closing a discussion) that any editor can carry out is transformed into an administrative action just because it is performed by an administrator. I am not inclined to think of it that way, but perhaps you can clarify a bit. On the broader issue, I think that stigmata in particular and religious miracles in general are products of human psychology, fervor and imagination rather than objective phenomena. Simultaneously, I think that a few of our avowed atheist editors display a degree of self-rightousness and contempt for those with different beliefs that is quite off-putting at times. Cullen328 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and honest feedback. I only assume that I'm acting in an admin capacity when closing discussions on noticeboards and am uninvolved. That said, if you think that I am overreaching I will reconsider my approach in the future. As for religious faith vs skeptics, I find the issue tiresome. I can't prove the existence of God and I haven't run into anyone who has been able to convince me that there is none. I looked at the article briefly and came away feeling that a lot of the concerns being raised were legitimate from the perspective of the community's guidelines and the article looked unbalanced to me in favor of a religious, specifically Catholic perspective. I tried, apparently not very successfully, to convey some of my concern in my closing statement w/o crossing the line into becoming INVOLVED by virtue of taking sides in what was/is essentially a content dispute. Which is part of the reason I was rather put out at being accused of taking the other side in my close. That said, at this point I think I am now INVOLVED by virtue of this testy exchange where I have expressed my concerns, to a degree that I don't think I can properly act in any administrative capacity either at the FTN discussion or the article itself. And I concur with your last sentence though I have also seen some hardcore religious zealots around here as well. Thanks again for your time and thoughts which I always appreciate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know that I would have closed the FTN thread, but it certainly wasn't the best spot for that particular discussion. I blocked two of the editors involved for edit warring, and suggested that a thread be opened at NPOVN, which I think will be a better place to get input on some of the conflicts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
To be frank with both of you, ScottishFinnishRadish and Ad Orientem. I do not have a lot of experience closing this type of discussion, although I frequently read such closes. In my five plus years of being an administrator, I have settled into patrolling areas where I both feel confident and also derive some gratification. I am not afraid to admit that I "like", if that is the right word, blocking and reverting vandals, trolls, spammers and self promoters. I do not like hurting people's feelings but I do like protecting the encyclopedia.
If I conclude that an editor is misbehaving in this type of discussion, I will warn, and block if I conclude that is the right course. And I am very quick with WP:NOTAFORUM reversion on talk pages, but those are not administrative actions. But there is something about my personality that is reluctant to bring conversations to a swift end, unless active disruption is taking place. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

Hello Jim,

Thanks for the reply back there. It's always nice to see how you write down your thoughts with so much ease to understand.

Cheerio! ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 05:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

you said you would not sanction me because you were involved

special:diff/111936806

"the time may come when you will be sanctioned by another administrator. Not me, since I am involved."

Were you the one who decided to indefinitely block me from editing three topics, or can you direct me to where others were involved in this decision? Hearth (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, HearthHOTS. I do not know why you linked to a 15 year old diff from Patriarch Ignatius I of Constantinople, but I will assume that it was an inadvertent error. When I wrote the comment you quoted above, I was thinking that perhaps you might need to be blocked indefinitely sitewide. I tried my best to convince you to see that you were seriously off-track on the Pelosi matter. But when you made your frankly quite ridiculous edits about Malcolm Lubliner, I concluded that a narrowly targeted sanction needed to take place immediately to stop your disruption, and so that is what I did. To me, it looked like an obvious case of refusing to get the message, and I thought that if you had the chance to edit 6.5 million articles but not three articles where you were being disruptive, you might choose to edit productively instead of disruptively. I left instructions on your talk page explaining how to appeal this very narrow block and if you want to be unblocked, please do so. Feel free to accuse me of being inconsistent. I will explain why I did what I did, and you can try to explain why you think your edits complied with policy. If another administrator concludes you should be unblocked from those pages, I will not object. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

special:diff/1119368062 whoops looks like I somehow deleted the 2 at the end, apologies

Regarding the Lubliner edits, wasn't that something I brought up on the talk page and didn't add to the article, because I wanted input on whether or not to add it?

I think that shows pretty good instincts and because Lubliner was named by both ABC and NYT it seemed like a point worth raising, it's not like he was being dox'd by Fox+Post only or something.

Somewhat you left on my talk leaves me somewhat confused though...

  • self-published content is allowed only if "it does not involve claims about third parties
  • In this case, the dispute was about statements that Gypsy Taub, an imprisoned convicted sex felon, made about David DePape

When I cited her statements about DePape on November 1st, I don't believe they were self-published statements, but rather statements she gave in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which I added at special:diff/1119401552

Although I did cite some self-published things from her, I don't think any of it was in relation to DePape. I recall 2 examples:

  1. special:diff/1119362288 where I cited Taub's MNT blog where she is critical of George Davis (not David DePape)
  2. Taub's article about herself on IndyBay describing her own career, mentions nobody else in particular special:diff/1119388790

Now that you have rephrased thing I understand how the 1st is not appropriate. After you reverted the MNT source as 'utterly unreliable' I did not add it back - instead I cited the Associated Press article at https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/3-arrested-in-protest-against-san-franciscos-nudity-ban/ which covered how Davis and Taub were arrested together, but did not include Taub's subsequent statements about Davis (not DePape) after their falling-out.

Initially when you were alluding to WP:ABOUTSELF you told me "can never be used as references for assertions about any other living person".

I had thought you were criticizing me for linking Taub's IndyBay article where she describes her own career. This is why I was disputing it - it appears I misunderstood which edit you were referencing. That's I think why it's important to link diffs or mention articles so it's clear both parties understand the nature of the objection.

Given that I did not restore her MNT statements about George Davis I'm not sure why you're considering it a persistent problem. This is why I'm asking again here - was your November 2nd choice to instate a topic ban actually in relation to my Nov 1st edit regarding George Davis from her MNT blog, or about my Nov 1st edit regarding DePape which is pf your not from her blog, but is instead from the SFC ? HearthHOTS (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

HearthHOTS, you are not topic banned. You are page blocked from three articles and their talk pages because of your pattern of editing over several days, which included repeated attempts to use low quality sources and trying to add inappropriate content about living people. Please be aware that BLP policy applies everywhere, including talk pages. You should be making your argument to be unblocked from those pages on your talk page, not here. Cullen328 (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
As for the quote from the San Francisco Chronicle, it should be obvious to you that the random opinion of an individual like Taub who has been estranged from DePape since before Trump became president and who has been in jail/prison for three years is utterly inappropriate for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I guess I can link to what I said here or copy the text over to my page then. I think you're ignoring how I moved to higher-quality sources in response to feedback though. I believe the Chronicle piece was written by a reporter named Nora Mishanec. It is the choice of these reporters to interview the woman that makes it relevant. HearthHOTS (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is TCG and their one-account restriction. Thank you. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Advice please?

Would DonaldTrump6000 be suitable for reporting as a user name violation? I've only reported a few so I'm not sure if this counts? Advice gratefully received. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Knitsey. Yes, usernames that incorporate the name of a famous living person should be reported. I am 99.9% sure that this is impersonation, although some very well known people have accounts. Read the message that I left at User talk:DonaldTrump6000. Cullen328 (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Knitsey (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to pester you...again!

I've reported EstevanOlivier to the COI noticeboard. They are making changes to Wendy Oldfield and in one of the summaries stated 'Rewrite of full article as requested by Wendy Oldfield appointed social media manager'. I posted the COI notice. They've kept inserting the poorly written and promotional tone edits. If I keep reverting will it class as an edit war? Will I get into trouble? Sorry to bother you again, thanks Knitsey (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Tell me what is your problem do you eve know this artist or the fact that im doing the updates correctly according to her bio?
You dont even contact me so we can solve this like what is your problem? EstevanOlivier (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
If you would read and then respond to the COI notice on your talk page that would be a start. I've posted the COI notice which has the information you need. I also asked you to read it in the edit summaries for the article. You need to follow the links I provided. Knitsey (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Stalker edit : I have responded at your talk page, and the COI noticeboard. Got there from here. - Roxy the dog 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Knitsey and Roxy the dog, I have page blocked the editor. See my explanation on their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Cullen328:. Thanks also for the advice @Roxy the dog: Knitsey (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog
Can you please explain how you can call me a “Stalker” in one of your responses, as if it was said in the way I understand this I will have to take this matter further with more and other admins?
(Stalker edit : I have responded at your talk page, and the COI noticeboard. Got there from here. - Roxy the dog 23:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply])
Regards EstevanOlivier (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) hi @EstevanOlivier! that isn't exactly referring to you, but to roxy themself. talk page stalkers (like me or roxy) are pretty much anyone who watches a user talk page of someone else and responds to others' posts and questions, and are usually welcome as long as they are civil. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 00:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
EstevanOlivier, you misunderstood. Please read the humorous essay Wikipedia:Talk page stalker. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Slavery in Afghanistan

I don't mean to ask too many questions, but I still would appreciate an explanation of how other editors view the issue, and exactly how the behavior of Minihatithan was disruptive and warranted a partial block, and whether I could have handled the case any better. I thought that the conduct of Minihatithan was problematic, but just barely within limits, so I didn't advise Aciram to go to WP:ANI. Could you please explain what was disruptive about their editing, which I thought was non-neutral but not quite disruptive? At this point, as you said, they are venting in a non-constructive way.

Partly, I am disinclined to advise anyone to go to WP:ANI in a questionable case, but you didn't have any questions.

I'm not suggesting that there was anything wrong with the partial block. I think it was useful,but I didn't think it would be supported. Thank you for any answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. The two relevant sentences in the article are Hazara people were still living in slavery and sold in the slave market of Kabul as late as in the early 20th-century. and Amanullah Khan banned slavery in the 1920s, and many of the slaves at the time of the abolition were of Hazara origin. Although I am not an expert in the topic area, these claims seem to be very well referenced. Relevant to this is 1888–1893 Hazara uprisings, which is also very well referenced. What the Hazaras suffered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was truly horrific. Minahatithan self-identifies as Hazara. The editor is trying to remove coverage of Hazara slavery, considering these well referenced facts to be an affront to their ethnic honor, and that the content is somehow intended to humiliate and discriminate against the Hazaras on Wikipedia. The Hazaras are still discriminated against in Afghanistan. They claim that the content is not supported by reliable sources (false), that not all Hazaras were enslaved (irrelevant) and that some members of other ethnic groups were also enslaved (also irrelevant). They have also made false accusations of misconduct against the main editor who disagrees, which may be partially due to their shortcomings in comprehending English. As a result of all of this, I concluded that they are currently incapable of being a positive contributor to that article. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. So the problem is mostly that they were removing sourced content, and didn't discuss usefully. Do you think that I should have done anything differently as a moderator? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that the claim that the other editor accused them of racism was partly a language problem, because they insisted on interpreting "bias" as meaning "racism", and that it illustrates what may be a lack of English proficiency. I have tried to handle a lot of DRN cases where one or m ore of the editors had a lack of competence in English. I don't know what to do in those cases, because I don't want to insult an editor by saying that they are English-deficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, I have no problem with your moderation. I think that you do excellent work in dispute resolution, where you are very thorough and patient. Thank you.
Those of us who speak English fluently know that bias has many forms and variations. It is unsurprising that English learners may think first of racial bias when they read that word, since that is perhaps the most common usage, and therefore conclude that bias is a synonym for racism. That misunderstanding needs to be corrected, as you have done.
English learners who are capable of writing coherent though flawed prose that complies with our policies and guidelines are welcome to edit. We have plenty of copyeditors to correct minor errors. But those who combine poor English skills with POV pushing, axe grinding and a perception that they are being persecuted are not productive contributors. I try my best to be polite about it, but editors like that need to be told that their participation is not helping the encyclopedia, and eventually they must be blocked if they persist. Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Nandi Bushell

Tried this at the Help Desk and got no response: if an article subject's web page exists only to sell merch, does it merit a link in the article (either IB or External links)? Thanks. DaydreamBelizer (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, DaydreamBelizer. Because that website only sells merchandise, it does not belong on Wikipedia. If it had other content, such as a biography, free music videos and so on, it would be OK. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! It's nice when my gut feeling is correct for a change. xD DaydreamBelizer (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cullen328/Archive_92&oldid=1128064106"