1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 |
If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia by smartphone, I encourage you to read my essay, Smartphone editing. Thank you.
Welcome to my talk page I use the name Cullen328 on Wikipedia, but you can call me "Jim" because that's my real first name. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the old comments from July and August of 2009 that follow the "Contents" here, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome when I first started editing Wikipedia.
The importance of a friendly greeting
Hello and welcome to my talk page. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the comments that follow from July and August of 2009 readily visible, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome here on Wikipedia when I first started editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Please offer your thoughts
I would appreciate comments and suggestions on any contributions I make. I am learning.Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nice work on Jules Eichorn. He's been needing an article for a while. Will Beback talk 06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- If I may suggest, now that you've posted the Eichorn article the draft below might be deleted. It's your talk page to do with as you like, but it's a bit hard to edit around.
- As for formatting and pictures, a good way to learn is to look around at other articles to see what you think looks best. It can be helpful to break up long blocks of text into subsections. Perhaps it'd be possible to split the biography into two or three eras. Other than that, the formatting is usually kept fairly plain. As for photos, it's easy to upload them: the trick is in finding photos with appropriate licensing. If you have any personal photos then those'd be fine. There are might be pictures of the peaks he did first ascents on in the Wikicommons. File:Cathedral Peak.png is a so-so pic of Eichorn Pinnacle.
- As before, feel free to ask if you have any questions. There are several editors here who are mountaineers or just admirers of the Sierra, so you're in good company. Will Beback talk 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- PS: Many editors create "sandbox" pages for drafting articles. For example, User talk:Cullen328/Sandbox. Will Beback talk 00:17, 1 August 2009
Your climber biographies
Hey Jim, just wanted to say welcome and thanks for your contributions to the Sierra Nevada climbing history articles. You're filling a niche that's been missing here, I look forward to working with you. --Justin (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll second that. Nice work on Allen Steck and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know who you are planning to write up next but if your taking requests I think Peter Croft (climber) could really use a page. If you ever have any questions please ask. Thanks again for your great additions.--OMCV (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Justin and OMCV. I am beginning work on Tom Frost and Glen Dawson. Comments on Norman Clyde would be welcomed. I will defintely read up on Peter Croft, OMCV. I am still "learning the ropes" in Wikipedia, to use a climbing analogy, and have all sorts of things in mind. My biggest challenge right now is getting permission to use images. My next biggest challenge is hiking to the top of Mt. Whitney with my wife in ten days - she's never been above 12,000 feet except for the train ride up Pikes Peak. As she's 56 and developing arthritis in her toes, it will be an accomplishment if she (and I) complete the Class 1 feat. Jim Heaphy (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Debra and I made it to the summit of Mt. Whitney at 2:20 PM on Friday, September 11. Jim Heaphy (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
2009 Archive
2010 Archive
2011 Archive
2012 Archive (first six months)
Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3
Happy Thanksgiving!
Jerm (talk) has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!
Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
Happy New Year
Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk |
Proposed decision posted at the open Kurds and Kurdistan case
In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, the proposed decision has now been posted. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You were notified as you made comments in the case request. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Before there are any hurt feelings
Perhaps you could glance at WT:Manual of Style/Images and have a quiet word. EEng 16:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- That was utterly bizarre, EEng. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I just thought since he's a new (young?) editor you might help him see that more experience would be good before making bold policy proposals like that. As things are going I'm afraid the comments will soon become uncharitable. EEng 18:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this editor moved on to suggesting use of the Daily Mail in an article about a pharmaceutical drug. I politely explained why that's unacceptable. Is this a new editor or a troll? I don't know yet. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I just thought since he's a new (young?) editor you might help him see that more experience would be good before making bold policy proposals like that. As things are going I'm afraid the comments will soon become uncharitable. EEng 18:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
John Johnson (reporter)
Hi Jim, We hope you and your wife are well! John is featured in a New York Times profile: "How a Former News Anchor and Current Painter Spends His Sundays". Would you please add it to his Wikipedia article and inline citations? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/19/nyregion/john-johnson-journalist-painter.html?searchResultPosition=1 Thank you. Ann & John Johnson73 (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Johnson73. What a wonderful interview that sheds light on both of you! I have added it as an external link at the end of that article. Be well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much Jim! And thank you for all the valuable work you do! We appreciate it.Johnson73 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Question
Hey there, since I saw you comment recently at BLP/N, I assume you have more experience dealing with contentious biographical content, which ain't exactly my area of expertise. I saw these edits, where someone removed some content on the basis that it was a violation of some law (I'm assuming it's Indian law, which wouldn't be relevant to Wikipedia). Obviously I'm aware of WP:NOTCENSORED, and the victim's name has been published by various reliable sources, where some other reliable sources have omitted it. The Deccan Chronicle posted a photo of the victim, but slightly pixelated it, while omitting her name. It doesn't seem much different to me than the inclusion of various accusations that spring up about western celebrities--just saw some stuff recently about American writer Joss Whedon and rocker Marilyn Manson. Thoughts? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Cyphoidbomb. I think that we should not mention this type of allegation early on when sourcing is poor or borderline, but when the person's career is clearly impacted by the allegations, they should be covered in a neutral way without implying the person is guilty. As for including the names of victims, we should err on the side of caution. I haven't done an in depth search, but it appears that the Indian actress has not commented in public so I would agree that her name should be kept out for now, for BLP policy reasons, not Indian law. As for the Whedon and Manson situations, the alleged victims have made detailed public statements, so I see no need to exclude those names, and those cases are therefore different. I also notice that there has been no discussion on the article talk page. If IP attempts to add the name of the actress persist, I encourage you to semi-protect the article for BLP policy reasons if you agree with me. I hope this is helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I can live with that. Thanks a lot for your perspective! Much appreciated. Wish I had more experience specifically with this kind of stuff because I know that's where nuance is learned. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- To state the obvious, Cyphoidbomb, you gain that experience over time by wrestling thoughtfully with these types of issues, and discussing them. I think you are right to discuss this one outside the noticeboards because we do not want to draw Streisand effect attention to someone trying to maintain privacy about a matter she may well find humiliating. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the acknowledgement, I was deliberately trying to keep it low key.
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the acknowledgement, I was deliberately trying to keep it low key.
- To state the obvious, Cyphoidbomb, you gain that experience over time by wrestling thoughtfully with these types of issues, and discussing them. I think you are right to discuss this one outside the noticeboards because we do not want to draw Streisand effect attention to someone trying to maintain privacy about a matter she may well find humiliating. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I can live with that. Thanks a lot for your perspective! Much appreciated. Wish I had more experience specifically with this kind of stuff because I know that's where nuance is learned. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
"Rugmark" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rugmark. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 22#Rugmark until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gw-intl (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed
An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
- GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
- Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed
TheBellaTwins1445
Hi, I am TheBellaTwins1445, I have seen concern from you on my user name, I have adressed on my User:TheBellaTwins1445 user page how I am a sole person going by this name, and not two people, or a pair of twins, and I am a male. I have placed a legend with the photograph of thiw two wrestlers on my page which says the following, you can check it too if you want - «Nikki Bella (left) and Brie Bella (right), a professional wrestling tag team of retired WWE wrestlers for which I got the name TheBellaTwins1445 and of which I was a fan at some point» additionally I want to add that at some point I wanted to change my name for another one, however, I have done a lot of editing stuff with this name on both English and Spanish Wikipedias as I am a Mexican contibutor, that is the main reason why I kept this name. Hope this clarification helps now, greetings, I await for a response. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, TheBellaTwins1445. Although I do not like your username, I will not take any further action on that. Now that you are unbanned, I just recommend that you focus on careful compliance with policies and guidelines. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will re-read the guidelines so I do not commit this same mistakes again, greetings. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you
I discovered your smartphone editing essay and I appreciated the time you took to help mobile users. I’d be interested to see an updated version that includes a HOW TO USE THE OFFICIAL APP haha. It’s insanely hard to edit using the actual Wikipedia app, tags are a recipe for breaking the whole page!
I ended up reading through your user page and I’m just very thankful there’s editors like you who put so much effort in to this platform. You’ve contributed to mankind for many many generations to come. Thank you. Dynen (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dynen. I will not be writing anything detailed about the app, since I do not use it. But I do appreciate your kind words. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 14:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Sandy Saha Article creation Help
Hello, i wanna create an article name Sandy Saha. I saw you have deleted the page on 11 september 2017. Now I need your permission to create the page. So can I get your permission ?? If you will give me permission then I can edit the article. Jroynoplan (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Jroynoplan. There is already a draft article that you can work on. Take a look at Draft:Sandy Saha (actor). Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Jroynoplan (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding "Five Orders of Ignorance"
Some questions: Regarding "original research" as not being suitable for a Wikipedia entry: what qualifies as "original" and what qualifies as "research"? If a topic has been published both in professional industry publications and in book form, has been referenced and cited in numerous technical articles and papers by industry and academic professionals does this have bearing on its characterisation as "original"? Also, if a topic describes a concept rather than, say, the results of a scientific experiment, is that "research?" In the article I submitted, it is true that I only included two references, though I could include more. But the topic is not "research" as I understand it--it is a conceptual model. In the submitted article, I included a Wikipedia link to the DIKW model which is a similar, though different, conceptual epistemological meta-model of knowledge. As far as I am aware, the DIKW model has not been "researched" and it appears to be at an equivalent level of abstraction. As another example, Wikipedia has an entry for "Murphy's Law" which I think is at the same level as the core concept behind the Five Orders of Ignorance.
I can see that starting the article with the proverb from Isabel Lady Burton is inappropriate and I will remove it. However, I think I need guidance for the rest: would it be acceptable if I included references and citations for other epistemological models? Would it be acceptable if I added additional references and citations for this model? If so, how many citations and references would be required to qualify it? As to originality: can submissions only be for things which *other people* have developed?
I would appreciate your advice on these. Thanks. Malicorneus (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Malicorneus. Have you read Wikipedia:No original research from beginning to end? Have you read Help:Your first article completely? To summarize briefly, on Wikipedia, "original research" refers to anything that an editor tries to add to the encyclopedia based on their own personal knowledge as opposed to summarizing what published, reliable sources say about the topic, which should be cited as inline references in the article. Vast swaths of the article are entirely unreferenced, and that is not acceptable.
- The article is written in the first person, using "I" extensively. That is also not acceptable. A Wikipedia article should be written with a removed tone, describing the topic rather than engaging with the topic. Wikipedia:Writing better articles may be useful to you.
- I also have concerns about Notability. Wikipedia has articles about notable topics, which means that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I see that the concept was developed by Phillip Armour, and that both references were written by Armour. Those references are not independent and therefore do nothing to establish the notability of the topic. What you need are references to publications about the topic written by people who have no direct connection with Armour.
- You mention DIKW pyramid and I note that article has 41 references. You mention Murphy's law and that article has 27 references. Draw the obvious conclusion. The references are the skeleton of the article, and high quality independent references are like gold.
- Your final question implies that you may have a conflict of interest regarding the topic. If so, conduct yourself with great care. If you have any kind of a financial stake, then you must comply with the mandatory Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
- I hope this helps. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
MacySinrich
I would have given her the benefit of the doubt if she just took a break after blanking our convo on her talk, but this leaves me but to take it that she's outright ignoring us, which may be a sign of WP:NOTHERE in addition to mere WP:CIR. I suggest an indef. Nardog (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nardog, do you have any idea what MacySinrich is trying to accomplish with those edits? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- She's reducing the number of columns by merging some of them into larger categories, e.g. Bilabial & Labiodental → Labial. One could argue those divisions are redundant if you already know which IPA symbols represent which type of labial sounds, but I don't really see the point since that verbosity helps define the value of each symbol as used for that particular language, which may or may not correspond to the canonical cross-linguistic one in the IPA chart. There are sometimes theoretical reasons to favor or disfavor lumping certain sounds together (allophony, free variation, distinctive features, etc.), but this depends on each language, and I doubt she's consulting literature for each article. If it was just to eliminate empty cells, I'd find that ill-motivated. This is precisely the type of situation where the use of edit summaries would help a lot. Nardog (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nardog, I respect your expertise in linguistics, and I too am irritated at this editor's failure to use edit summaries. I have to be very cautious about a long block, though, and want to see a bit stronger evidence of actual disruption, especially because I know relatively little about linguistics. Please keep me posted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- I get that. Could a shorter block for failure to WP:ENGAGE be in order? Would it be a good idea for me to give her a "final warning" for not providing summaries? Nardog (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, she does communicate when another editor engages with her, Nardog. Providing edit summaries is a good practice that should be encouraged, but it is not mandatory and failure to do so is not a blockable offense. You can certainly encourage her to use edit summaries and discuss your concerns about her recent edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- I get that. Could a shorter block for failure to WP:ENGAGE be in order? Would it be a good idea for me to give her a "final warning" for not providing summaries? Nardog (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nardog, I respect your expertise in linguistics, and I too am irritated at this editor's failure to use edit summaries. I have to be very cautious about a long block, though, and want to see a bit stronger evidence of actual disruption, especially because I know relatively little about linguistics. Please keep me posted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- She's reducing the number of columns by merging some of them into larger categories, e.g. Bilabial & Labiodental → Labial. One could argue those divisions are redundant if you already know which IPA symbols represent which type of labial sounds, but I don't really see the point since that verbosity helps define the value of each symbol as used for that particular language, which may or may not correspond to the canonical cross-linguistic one in the IPA chart. There are sometimes theoretical reasons to favor or disfavor lumping certain sounds together (allophony, free variation, distinctive features, etc.), but this depends on each language, and I doubt she's consulting literature for each article. If it was just to eliminate empty cells, I'd find that ill-motivated. This is precisely the type of situation where the use of edit summaries would help a lot. Nardog (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- On another matter, are you aware of any "text to voice" online tool where a user can paste in some IPA and hear the actual pronunciation? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- There is ipa-reader.xyz, which uses Amazon Polly. There is a user script, User:IagoQnsi/ipareader, that integrates ipa-reader.xyz on Wikpedia pages, but it looks like it only supports English. My PlayAudioNow may be useful on pages that already have audio demonstrations on Commons, like Help:IPA. Nardog (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Annnd she's back. In these edits, she's mistaken voiced consonants for the tenuis ones and added /ɣ/ which doesn't occur in the language. Sol505000 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Sol505000. I am also pinging Nardog. I am a bit handicapped here because I have no training in linguistics. Both of you do, and I trust your judgement about her errors. But I cannot say myself with confidence that her edits about the Mazahua language (just the most recent example) were disruptive because I know zero about the topic. I never heard of the language until 20 minutes ago. I do not know if there is ambiguity, or if she is flat out wrong.
- So, what I need is for one or both of you to engage with her on her talk page and ask that she stop making incompetent edits, or however you wish to phrase it. Feel free to ping me. And we will see how she responds in March, 2021 to concerns from experts (you) about her work on languages and linguistics. If her response is uncooperative, I will certainly consider an indefinite block. But I want to see what she has to say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- There. Sorry for the delay. Sol505000 (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- She's blanked her talk page. Before doing so, she replied with this, which doesn't address the issue of mislabeling voiced consonants as tenuis. She's also talking about some source that has never been mentioned in the phonology section. This edit summary is equally nonsensical, I'm not questioning the phonemic status of any of those consonants (besides /ɣ/ which Macy added to the table) but their being tenuis. A tenuis consonant is, by definition, voiceless, and [ɡ β z ʒ ɣ] are all voiced. Sol505000 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sol505000 and Nardog, I have issued an indefinite block. Please feel free to comment if she makes an unblock request. Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- She's blanked her talk page. Before doing so, she replied with this, which doesn't address the issue of mislabeling voiced consonants as tenuis. She's also talking about some source that has never been mentioned in the phonology section. This edit summary is equally nonsensical, I'm not questioning the phonemic status of any of those consonants (besides /ɣ/ which Macy added to the table) but their being tenuis. A tenuis consonant is, by definition, voiceless, and [ɡ β z ʒ ɣ] are all voiced. Sol505000 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- There. Sorry for the delay. Sol505000 (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).
TJMSmith
Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley
Interface administrator changes
- A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
- A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
- A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the
delete-redirect
userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect. - A request for comment asks if sysops may
place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions
? - There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.
- When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
- When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
- There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions. - The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
.
- By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions
- Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.
Honest Question - Wanting guidance
So since I am attempting to "start fresh" on my Wikipedia journey with the ban and all, I have an honest question. I feel like the mistakes I made months ago keep coming up in discussion after discussion and multiple admins just called all of them disruptive. One time back in December, an admin warned me (for the edits) but the other editor got warned for bringing the topics up after they were already talked about. Today was a perfect example of how I can't escape that past. I truly feel like multiple editors just hold grudges and no matter how I improve, they won't like me ever. Something I did back in October of 2020 shouldn't be relevant for discussions 7 months later especially since I have technically received "punishment" (the ban) for them. If they get brought up again, can I just contact an admin to quietly warn the editor bringing them up or would that not be the right move? I want to know what I should do since at the current way it is going, there is 0 chance for me to go anywhere on Wikipedia when editors with years of experience brings up things I have done months ago and uses them against me. I want your honest opinion of what I should do in those situations. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- An editor's entire edit history and block record are always subject to review and comment by other editors, although as time goes by, long past problems are taken much less seriously by most editors. If you think that an administrator would warn another editor for looking at and accurately commenting about your past problems, then you are wrong. As for these being in the distant past, you posted a disruptive thread about Fram (not my favorite editor but 100% correct in this situation, and a net positive) at WP:AN that led to you receiving a topic ban, and that was in the past day or so. I have been editing for almost 13 years, so to me, problems from seven months ago are "very recent" as opposed to "a long time ago". My advice to you is simple: avoid controversial topics with a ten foot pole, do not create crappy articles, edit neutrally, and comply scrupulously with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ponder the things that have gotten you into trouble, and bend over backwards to avoid future trouble. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Pinging Elijahandskip. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
administrator of the Russian segment of Wikipedia nicknamed Sigwald
Hi, Jim. Just repeating the message. I just want to ask, until when will the administrator of the Russian segment of Wikipedia, nicknamed Sigwald, violate the rules of Wikipedia?
Besides: 1. Sigwald is not competent about the articles it deletes. 2). Sigwald is politicized. 3. Sigwald is subjective and biased. 4. Sigwald is biased towards the authors. Who is important to Wikipedia, Administrators or Authors? Konstantine Gunin (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Konstantine Gunin. If you think that administrators on the English Wikipedia have any authority or power on the Russian Wikipedia, then I am sorry but you are wrong. The two projects are independent and separate. You must discuss any complaints you have about Sigwald on the Russian Wikipedia. Talking about it here is a waste of time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cullen328 Hello Jim! Well, please give me any contact (s) of people who have authority on Russian Wikipedia. I found you easily, thanks for that! But I cannot find anyone who is responsible for Russian Wikipedia. It looks like Russians are better off writing articles in English. However, not all Russian people are linguists like me.
- Konstantine Gunin, I am sorry but I cannot be of much help. I do not speak or read Russian, and I do not know anyone there. The only Wikipedia I know well is English Wikipedia. When using the desktop version of any Wikipedia including Russian, there is a menu list on the left side of the screen and you should be able to find help resources there. If you edit on mobile, scroll to the bottom of the screen and click on desktop. That version works fine on mobile. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cullen328 Hello Jim! Well, please give me any contact (s) of people who have authority on Russian Wikipedia. I found you easily, thanks for that! But I cannot find anyone who is responsible for Russian Wikipedia. It looks like Russians are better off writing articles in English. However, not all Russian people are linguists like me.
How to report a website that posts wiki pages as their own?
hello? jim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSlowSapper20 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
ok wow i thought this was like DM haha. can i delete this? i'm an idiot, i'm sorry.
SuperSlowSapper20 (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, SuperSlowSapper20. Please read Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, especially the section on non-compliance. I don't always answer immediately, and will be going to bed pretty soon here in California. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
So Let's Discuus It
Re: Horse Eye's Back
Did you even read my exhibit? HEB accused me first of "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations", which is completely untrue and also would be a huge deal in my country (not sure about WP). Had they done so IRL, I would have filed a legal complaint. I (edit: initially WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)) stopped short of actually accusing them of trolling (which for some reason seems to be a bigger deal on WP than what he's done to me), but they had already made 1/2 dozen of posts insisting that their definition of annexation (requiring full subjugation of indigenous populations) had to be the only one, even though no one else agreed with them. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@User:Cullen328 Even if trolling or not might be a subjective call, the other stuff HEB wrote about me were untrue, unwarranted, and carry serious implications. Still waiting to see if you have an actual set of standards upon which you are basing your judgment. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
WikiwiLimeli (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, WikiwiLimeli. I hope that you are not denying that you wrote "trolling and spreading lies" because that is easily visible in your edit history. I am acting as an administrator and express no opinion at all about the content dispute between the two of you. I am neither saying nor implying that the other editor's behavior has been exemplary. But "the other guy did it too" defense is one that I reject quite forcefully, and I was looking at your behavior, not the other editor's. Other administrators can look at other editor's misconduct if it exists. So here is the bottom line: You can correct your own behavior and refrain from unfounded personal attacks on other editors, or you can continue with that unacceptable behavior and be blocked. It is that simple, and I hope that I have been clear. The choice is yours. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- On another matter, WikiwiLimeli, if you ever talk about "legal complaints" about another editor, you will be at a very high risk of being blocked from Wikipedia until your lawsuit is resolved by the courts, or the legal threat is unambiguously withdrawn. Please read and study WP:NLT. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Cullen328, please do not take words out of context. I wrote "Please stop trolling and spreading lies" only after HEB specifically said about me "Your repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations is unhelpful as well as offensive", which has zero evidence and would have serious consequences for me if it were to somehow turn up in-real-life. My response was neither unfounded nor an attack, as you have mischaracterized. It was a request solidly based on HEB's unprovoked false accusation. I'm sure you understand the difference betweeen unfounded attacks and well-substantiated statements. Neither did I threaten anyone with legal complaint. In fact, I mentioned legal complaint only under the premise that had HEB made false accusations about me IRL, i.e. not on Wikipedia. I always strive to be on my best behavior; however, that also means appropriately defending myself against groundless accusations. Hopefully this helps clear up your misunderstanding. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- WikiwiLimeli, I see that you have chosen to double down on your personal attacks and legal threats. Stop now. If you continue you will be blocked. Stop it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Dear Cullen328, please do not take words out of context. I wrote "Please stop trolling and spreading lies" only after HEB specifically said about me "Your repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations is unhelpful as well as offensive", which has zero evidence and would have serious consequences for me if it were to somehow turn up in-real-life. My response was neither unfounded nor an attack, as you have mischaracterized. It was a request solidly based on HEB's unprovoked false accusation. I'm sure you understand the difference betweeen unfounded attacks and well-substantiated statements. Neither did I threaten anyone with legal complaint. In fact, I mentioned legal complaint only under the premise that had HEB made false accusations about me IRL, i.e. not on Wikipedia. I always strive to be on my best behavior; however, that also means appropriately defending myself against groundless accusations. Hopefully this helps clear up your misunderstanding. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- On another matter, WikiwiLimeli, if you ever talk about "legal complaints" about another editor, you will be at a very high risk of being blocked from Wikipedia until your lawsuit is resolved by the courts, or the legal threat is unambiguously withdrawn. Please read and study WP:NLT. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
working on a new page
hello jim, hope you are doing well. i am a beginner on wikipedia but i am auto correction user. i want to write an article on a ngo which is working very good in there respective field. a friend of mine wrote a article on that topic but it got deleted due to less third party source. can you suggest me something how to write an article which won't get deleted, also i have some credible third party source so i want to ask how can i mention them because they are external links. Devanshusharma569 (talk)devanshusharma569
Need to undo a redirect---next steps please (Following up)
Hi Jim...am I doing this right? In regards to your question, I am merely using the universal we. The account is not shared, as I am the account owner and the logistics manager for the individual I am trying to create the page for. Using we in the collective sense since the intention that "we" have is for *me* to create the page.
Regarding the redirects for discussion---does this mean that it does not fall under speedy deletion? Or regardless it needs to go through that page?
Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatochip3000 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Potatochip3000. I see. When you said "we", you meant you and your employer. You are a logistics manager for that person and therefore you are a paid editor. You must immediately comply with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You must use the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process to write a draft that you must submit for review by an uninvolved, experienced volunteer. Do not worry about the redirect and do not attempt to change it. If your draft article is accepted, the redirect can be dealt with at that time. And stop using "we" to refer to yourself. It will just attract additional scrutiny to your editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks // Timothy :: talk 22:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- You are most welcome, TimothyBlue. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Would the following constitute a short article?
Hi, thanks for your message. Would this constitute a short article. Unfortunately the best source was published in 1970 and so there would be the additional problem of copyright which would prevent me publishing the entire letter which is spelt out over six pages of the book. Would this do as a short article?
- == Appendix 2 of "General Washington's Dilemma" by Katherine Mayo == followed by:- It should be noted that the New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company 1938 edition of General Washington’s Dilemma by Katherine Mayo, does not have an Appendix 2. For anyone wishing to access this appendix, which has a first-hand account of the drawing of lots, it would be necessary to access the London, Jonathan Cape, Thirty Bedford Square, 1938 edition. Here will be found Lieutenant and Captain Henry Greville’s {2nd Foot Guards) letter to his mother, dated 29 May 1782, in which he writes:[1]
I can assure you my mind was in a very uneasy state for above half an hour while they were calling out the Lots, during which time we sat in a Circle, where there was almost a dead silence observed...
- Mayo's book was republished in 1970 by Kennikat Press and Annex 2 devotes 5 pages to the entire letter, along with a short letter from Asgill to Greville, which follows on. [2]
Anne (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Arbil44. Which independent, reliable sources devote significant coverage to this appendix? If they don't, then it is not possible to write an acceptable article about it. We do not address readers with instructions in any Wikipedia article, so phrasing like "it should be noted" or "for anyone wishing to access this appendix" are not appropriate. Short quotations from the letter itself are entirely appropriate, as is a neutral summary of the entire letter. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Using Universitiy website for Notability of its Academics
Hi User:Cullen328, can a university website serve as a reliable independent secondary resource to establish notability for its faculty academics? ThanksWisdomwiki 40 (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Wisdomwiki 40. The problem is that such a website is not independent, which is required by the WP:GNG. That type of content is useful for fleshing out the biography of an academic whose notability has already been established, but not for establishing notability. If you are claiming notability under WP: ACADEMIC, then the most commonly accepted claim to notability will be the frequency of academic citations to the person's peer reviewed papers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
help me in approving my article
hi good evening Mr heaphy . i found your profile on wikipedia as a mentor and volunteer in helping new editors on wikipedia . i need help in this procedure . can you please help me finish my article . my article is: about a person = masoud shafaghi best regards neda sajedi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neda.sajedi (talk • contribs) 15:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Neda.sajedi. Please read Your first article. Your draft relies too much on primary sources that are not independent of the person you are writing about. Notability is established through references to reliable, independent secondary sources that devote significant coverage to the person. You also need to remove all promotional language. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Notification of Debresser AE action appeal
Debresser has appealed an arbitration enforcement action which you levied against them, and as they are blocked are unable to notify you. If you would like to comment, the thread is located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement appeal by Debresser. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Happy St. Patrick's Day
Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk |
Joordan Peterson
Hi Jim,
I just responded to a Jordan Peterson Talk entry, where you suggested the question to discuss the issue of self-description of Jordan Peterson and my take on reliable sources. This is my first entry, so please apologise if I make beginner mistakes. I tried to articulate the delicate issue to the best of my abilities. I responded as such:
Yes, in general a self-reference can not be enough to declare oneself they way one wants. This applies to both Peterson and unreliable sources. It is reasonable to consider a tenure university professor with decades of peer-reviewed scientific track record risking his face and reputation a more credible source than a faceless online-magazine like "Pacific Standard" taken as reference below, where an 1-click research reveals the overlying company: "The Social Justice Foundation" (self-reference). I strongly suggest to restrict the references, whether Peterson or publicist, to direct quotations or the well-established internationally known Press (BBC, NYT, ...) with a foundation-year way before the emergence of the huge amount of hard to differentiate mis- or disinformation, preferably the year 2000 or even sooner. Again, I would not consider the reference to the online-magazine "Pacific Standard" a reliable source in our age of mis- and disinformation. It takes 1-2 days, today to set-up such a online-magazines without known well-established publicists. Such references should not be cited here as they are just as controversial as a self-reference. Furthermore, the perception of Peterson among the press varied a great deal, both in reception and over time. It is thus central to keep the references up-to-date. An example which does represent what I consider a fair and up-to-date evaluation is from the NYT: The Jordan Peterson moment. I believe that this is a credible and up to date source to start from. There is not a single reference to 'far-right', 'alt-right', or 'right'. Instead the article points to Petersons cultural, humanistic, psychological, phylosophical world-view. The whole message is overall positive.
Should the page include the wording 'far-right': I have yet to find any evidence for the 'far-right' stigma which doesn't come from an obscure faceless magazine or some close-minded protestor shouting slogans and hiding within the masses. Is there any credible up-to-date reliable reference? I did not find any. The above left-tending NYT article says no. Let us turn the question around: What would Peterson have to say to not be smeared 'far-right'? The answer should not be an left/right ideological statement. This is precisely what he is saying!
I would not include it blundly with the intent to smear and silence, due to lack of any(!) credible referentiable evidence; instead I would include the following line of argumentation:
- Without doubt... the overwhelming majority of people who are familiar with his content knowns that his position is clearly not 'far-right/left' or 'right/left'. He dedicated decades of his life to studying what such type of thinking will lead to when the left/right-ideologists go too far. In a very vage sense or low resolution, one may understand his interpolation between chaos and order as an equilibrium between left'ish- and right'ish thinking (or psychologically inbetween the devouring mother and tyrannical father), even though this is vastly oversimplified.
- What Peterson is articulating is the cross-cultural mechanism which stabilised humanities societies from falling into right- or left totalitarian self-destructive pathological societies. When coming from a simple left/right world-view, left-pulling forces take his correction from going too far left as what a suppository 'right-puller' would do. In the left/right binary worldview the pull toward the central equilibrium is hard to distinguish from the pull of covert radical 'far-right' ideologist - unless you listen to him!
- But Peterson worldview is not binary Left/Right - it's a dichotomy dating back to the earliest known stable civilisations Sumer, see 'Tiamat' and 'Marduk' in "Maps of meaning". He also relates it to Nietzsches Apollonian/Dinosonian dichotomy- and affirmation of life. Peterson is trying to tell the protestors about this stable equilibrium each individual must find within himself, such that one does not fall prey to left- or right self-destructive identity politics. He doesn't even see them as 'enemies' as they see him - in fact he gently corrects people who formulate their questions to be more understanding.
Numerous universities have come forward over the years to allow a civil discussion to clarify Petersons position. However, mobs of protestors made it at first almost impossible to allow Peterson the chance to state his case. Consider for example the protest at Queens University, or the disaster at MacMaster. Innocent until proven guilty - rallying mobs to prevent Peterson to even state his case should be alarming to any free society. Not everyone is interested in engaging in a civil discussion. It is much easier to keep ones box-like thinking and simply smear a stigma on someone to scare people away or be associated.
- Leaving the stigma 'far-right' on this page without articulating his position takes a side of people smearing a reputation, such that they do not need to allow free-speech. It is simpler to smear his name (burn his book/information) instead of having to confront the possibility that a tenure Ivy league Professor risking his name and reputation might know something they could need to prevent shifting into a pathological society. Peterson is not some average guy on reddit hiding his identity behind some fake profile and big mouth. Before the 'controversy' he already was an extremely successful tenure professor who taught at Harward Ivy league. It's a shame that mob of protestors refusing to engage themselves nor allow others a civil discussion and hiding behind flag of an ideology which lead to hundreds of millions of deaths in the past century (see MacMaster incident), should not be able to smear this page with 'far-right', when they have no clue what Peterson's position is.
As with other pages of prominent people Wikipedia should not allow people to smear the name of Peterson and passively picking the side of a shouting mob contributing to the inhuman treatment of J. B. Peterson. Wikipedia should not allow vague and lose references trying to sneak vicious formulations and 'far-right' stigma with a one-line reference to some obscure online-magazine self-referencing their own bias or some protestor not just unwilling but so deep within their ideological way of thinking that they became unable to consider the possibility that they might go too far by impeding free-speech and promoting compelled-speech.
- One tragic aspect of the situation is that Petersons message is very hard to articulate correctly this leaves few other possibilities than self-referencing to Peterson. His message has depth psychological aspects which must leave chaotic/creative room for interpretation at some places at other places the message must leave a tyrannically orderly "no" for any room for interpretation.
It takes time for people to understand and catch up. The New York Times did. And they did not call him controversial at all but "one of the most influential thinkers of our time", which is positive - it implies there is a valuable message. Wikipedia should not enable people to smear Ivy leave accredited tenure professors! Let's be reasonable the NYT is considered rather left democratic trending; It would never write this about a 'far-right controversial figure'.
Best wishes, Derek1155 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Derek1155. I see that you posted essentially the same material at Talk: Jordan Peterson, which is the proper place to discuss the content of that article. Posting the same material in two places is not helpful. To be frank, I have zero interest in a lengthy analysis of everything you wrote about Peterson. The point I made at that talk page is a simple one. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable, independent sources say about a topic, and what those sources say about Peterson is much more relevant than what Peterson says about himself. This is a matter of policy and will not change. If you believe that a specific source is not reliable, then file a report at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Here is a friendly suggestion: Take a look at Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. It is far better to post a request that says, "I propose to change Sentence A to Sentence B because it better summarizes Reference C". This concise approach is much more likely to be successful. Let me close by saying that my participation in that article is as an administrator rather than a content editor. My interest is in assuring that policies and guidelines are followed, and that disruption is prevented or stopped promptly. I don't care about the content issues. I hope this clarifies things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Jim. Thank for for being so straight forward and clarifying things. Since the page was marked as controversial I mistakenly assumed to expand the discussions on the subject in Talk: Jordan Peterson instead of directly proposing changes... sorry for that. Take care Derek1155 (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20210322120959im_/http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Internet-group-chat.svg/48px-Internet-group-chat.svg.png)
Your feedback is requested at Talk:JP Sears 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 05:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Revision-deletion request
Hello! Thanks for protecting Richard Grenell - some particularly dedicated vandals. I was wondering if you could revision-delete the vandalism that one of them left on my talk page repeatedly (User talk:Ganesha811. Another kind user already removed it, but it would be great to revision-delete the pornographic material that was added. The diffs in question are as follows: 1, 2, 3. Thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. Sorry you were subjected to that, Ganesha811, and thank you for your contributions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cullen328, thanks! No worries, part and parcel of dealing with trolls and morons. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
About Yorkshire Terriers - In The British Isles Today
Hi
Apologies for any beginners error.
Actually this is a piece of work which is from Our Dogs about Traditional Yorkshire Terriers. Traditional Yorkshire Terriers Are Great. It is from an interview made with me published within Our Dogs. An industry magazine. The thing is we are seeing information within The Yorkshire Terrier section within Wikipaedia which is definitely not about A Yorkshire Terrier but about another breed altogether. Why did this material stay in but mine get thrown out. Who decides. Just wondering. Any help appreciated. Classicyorks (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello: Classicyorks. A properly formatted reference for such an article will clearly identify the publication, and will include the article title, the author, the date of publication and a link to an online version. If the article is not available online, it will include the page number. If the publication is not well known, the city where it is published is helpful. If the publication is a book, the ISBN number should be included.
- The people that decide what gets included or excluded from a specific article are the editors interested in that article, through the process of consensus. There are currently 6,273,581 articles in the English Wikipedia and many of them have problems. Wikipedia is a work in progress. You are welcome to work to improve Yorkshire Terrier but you must do so in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
- If a more experienced editor reverts one of your edits and you do not know why, simply ask politely on their talk page, and you will probably get an answer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cullen, I hope this situation won't deteriorate into WP:HOUNDING and WP:BITEy behavior.[3] EEng 05:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I love Terriers, EEng#s, but especially those of the Boston variety. You live near there, don't you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Cullen, I hope this situation won't deteriorate into WP:HOUNDING and WP:BITEy behavior.[3] EEng 05:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)