User talk:Cullen328/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

→

Archive 70

Mviovens

Hi Cullen328. Thank you for indef blocking spammer User:Mviovens just now. Unfortunately they are continuing to spam the same link to the same articles as User:103.70.165.217, Any chance you could block the IP as well? Many thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Railfan23. Thanks. I blocked that IP for two weeks. Let me know if the spamming resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Here's another one: User:106.223.9.188 Railfan23 (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I blocked that one too, Railfan23, but I need to get some sleep now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
• A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

• Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

• Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
• The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

  Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI

I think administrator intervention is warranted for Bus stop's actions, so I've opened Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bus_stop_at_Talk:Oakland_Ghost_Ship_fire.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Jasper Deng. Thanks for the heads up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serge F. Kovaleski

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serge F. Kovaleski. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Paligo draft

Hi Jim,

You commented on https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Paligo and also

"Your draft starts by saying "Paligo is a cloud-based Component Content Management System (CCMS) designed for technical communication. It allows technical writers to create and manage structured content at a modular level and produce a wide range of outputs from the same source content. These include HTML5 help centres and PDFs." I cannot possibly convey to you how vapid and devoid of useful encyclopedic content that reads to actual experienced encyclopedia editors. When I try to decode that marketing talk, I conclude that it is a text editing or word processing program like those that were common in the 1970s or 1980s. Why should we possibly have an encyclopedia article about a topic like that? Your draft as currently written does not contribute useful content to the encyclopedia and should be completely rewritten to indicate why this particular startup means something. That effort must summarize what actually reliable and actually independent sources say about the topic."

Okay, well, actually it is not a text editing or word processing program. It is a cloud content management system much like many of the CMS systems that are used to create web sites. Only it is designed specifically for technical communication and creating content to scale. It's not a startup company, it is now an established product in the tech comm industry.

Would it be better to just have a Paligo company page with links to the Paligo product web site? That seems to be what other companies in this industry have done (see https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/MadCap_Software).

Thanks

Craig-SG-Wright (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Craig-SG-Wright. Please do not base your draft article on Madcap Software. That is a terrible article that utterly fails to show that the company is notable. It is crammed full of inappropriate external links and the only independent source leads to a 404 error. Read and study Your first article, as well as WP:PAID, WP:COI and WP:NCORP. Avoid all jargon, cliches, marketing buzzwords and puffery. Write clearly and concisely. Study the neutral point of view. That is a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

,

Thanks Jim. I will read those pages. Part of the problem I have is that some of the terms you may consider as jargon are widely known and used in the tech communication communitypeolle . But I will give it a go. Do you know of any good examples I could refer to as a starting point? If I write about what the company's product does, that will be seen as marketing right?

Craig-SG-Wright (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, Craig-SG-Wright. Your job as a Wikipedia editor is to accurately and neutrally summarize what reliable sources completely independent of the company have written about the company. If you write about what the company's product does based on your own personal knowledge, that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Read WP:OR. Write a blog somewhere instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, please be aware that Wikipedia articles are written for a generalist audience, not for people with expertise in the "tech communication community", whatever that is. Your audience is 16 year olds in Atlanta and farmworkers in Nigeria, and retired nurses in Japan, as long as they can read English. Acceptable Wikipedia articles are not marketing brochures about companies. They are neutral encylopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi Cullen328, can you protect the Choi Min-ho page? Thanks.-KH-1 (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, KH-1. I have semi-protected the article for a week. Do you know what caused this recent spurt of birthdate vandalism? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No idea, but it looks like other band members have been targeted as well.-KH-1 (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:CORPNAME

Don't know if you saw this, but Merge8productions is saying that the company is defunct. Does WP:CORPNAME cover defunct companies? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Drm310. I have replied to the blocked user on their talk page. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts

...are not needed. We already have an admin who is exerting their own self-importance - and doing a cracking job of illustrating just what a bad admin looks like - quite successfully without you doing the same. I'm sure you're needed elsewhere on the project at more important venues other than at a place already covered. My thoughts. Cassianto^Talk 07:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you as always for your input, Cassianto. I will offer my thoughts where and when I see fit without any regard to any efforts to deter me. Stop by any time, especially if you have something friendly and collaborative to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I doubt it. Cassianto^Talk 17:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Humble pie, eaten. I will always admit when I got it wrong, and seeing your comment at AE, has made me not doubt it, per my previously (now struck) comment. Please accept my apologies. Cassianto^Talk 17:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Cassianto. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I will always admit when I got it wrong – So there's hope then. EEng 22:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Gosh Cullen, "friendly and collaborative" are his middle names! See Talk:Moors_murders#blunders_restored. EEng 21:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It is an ENGVAR thing, EEng. It seems that there is a group of editors across the pond who think that "collaborative" and "combative" are synonyms, at least on Wikipedia. Eric is a Facebook friend and is always polite and friendly to me, my wife and my friends. So it goes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Follow the link and give an honest evaluation of what you see there, then see how long he's your polite and friendly Facebook friend. EEng

I read it, EEng, and the discussion is a train wreck. If I intervened, I would be accused of retaliation for the snark above. I know my own strengths and weaknesses, and do not want to jump into this particular fight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's a train wreck -- their strategy is to dissemble and confuse, though to see the blatant ownership you only have to read the little end bit that I linked with an anchor. But I understand -- fools rush in where angels fear to tread. EEng 03:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

My action will be DECISIVE and CONSEQUENTIAL, Comrade.

If I ever choose to get involved with administrative action about this particular type of situation, EEng, my action will be decisive and consequential, and I will be fully prepared to hunker down under incoming flak. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've made a note never to get on your bad side. EEng 03:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to pose as a badass when instead I am simply slow and cautious. You are too smart to need to take notes. The day may come, after all, when I need to tell you to "cool it with the jokes for a while". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll get my jokes when you pry them from my cold, dead hands. EEng 04:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC) When I said I was going to become a comedian, they all laughed. Well, they're not laughing now, are they?

Whatever you say, Charlton. I am outgunned in this type of exchange. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sad state of wiki when asking someone who is making blatant personal attacks to stop making personal attacks generates talk page complaints. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Benti

Hi Cullen328.

First, thank you for using your real identity. I think Wikipedia should require all their editors to use their real identities. It is my opinion, that an editor, should never hide behind a screen name.

I have a question on my recent submission to: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Studio_City,_Los_Angeles#Film_and_television

Added reference 'Joseph Benti' to the Studio City page, but it keeps being removed. The initial comment by BeenAroundAwhile was that there was no reference to Mr. Benti's Studio City address in the links. So I found an article in Los Angeles Magazine June 1983 which references his Laurel Canyon home and included that in my citation.

Then a user named Magnolia removed it, saying he is non-notable because there is no Wikipedia page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Yosemite4#Studio_City%2C_Los_Angeles

Here is my revised submission:

• Joseph Benti, CBS news journalist and anchorman

There really is no established editorial guideline for the addition of a notable person, at least not a guideline that is easily located by this Wikipedia newbie and print specialist. I also posted my response to the Tea page as well under 'Jospeh Benti' and probably revealed too much personal information. Thank you. Yosemite4 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Yosemite4. There is widespread consensus among experienced editors that lists of notable people should be limited to people who are already the subjects of acceptable Wikipedia biographies. Otherwise, these lists soon spiral out of control and every Tom, Jane and Harry gets listed. So, your first step is to write a biography of Benti. Please read Your first article.

I have made the personal choice to edit under my real name after careful consideration. However, I support the right of people to edit anonymously if they so choose. I have long been self-employed and am 67 years old, living in a safe community. But how about those editors living in totalitarian societies? Do we want the Beijing government to arrest every pro-democracy Wikipedia editor in Hong Kong if the crackdown there intensifies? How about our heroic editors who work on coverage of the Syrian civil war? Should their names be known to every despotic murder gang roaming through that area? I do not think so. These are just the most obvious examples. There are countless reasons why editing anonymously is important to many people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. I moved my input to the Tea Page. I would rather the criticisms be discussed in an open forum where many editors can participate. Yosemite4 (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Yosemite4. I assume that you mean the Teahouse, so I will check there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Please remove my material from Teahouse

Just received your message about not deleting stuff. One of the editors complained.

I want the personal material that I placed, removed from the TEAHOUSE. My deletion is my edit. I came there for help and was debauched by a bunch of editors more concerned about being right than helping.

My deletion is my edit.

It is neither fair nor professional. I was taken down by a bunch of editors, more intent on being right and controlling the show than helping new people especially women. I came into that, and it was all about destruction. This is not a forum I want to participate in.

Yosemite4 (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Once a conversation has begun at the Teahouse, Yosemite4, it will not be removed. That would be unfair to the other editors who contributed to the conversation. Whenever you click the blue "Publish changes" button, you agree to the following:

"By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL."

The conversation will be automatically archived in due time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My Article is getting deleted

Hey can you help me find why my Article is getting deleted? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulsetiya94 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was not notable and the page read like an advertisement. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Greta Thunberg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greta Thunberg. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Your support for my ban

Hi, you have supported my ban however would we be able to discuss your reasonings and both sides on here so we can see each other’s sides in a civil way thanks.

Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Wiki Facts fixer. The proper place to discuss this matter is WP:ANI. If you have a specific question for me, I will answer it there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I would do however the discussion at WP:ANI was closed Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Omer Eshel

Hello there, we would like to rewrite an article on Omer Eshel, Many years have passed and we feel now is the right time. Wo would love to hear your point of view and know if there are any thoughts or objections? Of course we are willing to create an Hebrew one if needed..? Thank you Biblecom (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is my new username, understood the problem with my privious one... could you please refer and reply on my above question? thanks! Tanahes (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tanahes. That depends on whether Eshel has received significant coverage in reliable sources since the article got deleted. Please read Your first article, and follow the advice there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

new section

hi jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:370:5A:3B80:2142:20A:27C1:7A65 (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You reversed my action

Unexplained removal of a reference. Undid revision 902584310 by Tillywilly17 (talk) undothank Tag: Undo

the link I removed is a bad link to my website

You couldn't have tried it

or read my notes

anyway no biggy nobody going anywhere

I did large additioin to Born to Run album page

I will fix this one next

there is nothing much about writing recording playing of song haha

Tillywilly17 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted most of their recent edits, see their talk page. I think we have a CIR editor and if they really won't listen we don't have many alternatives other than to block - unless you can think of something. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

statement

Everything ever added here is mine

written usually by me in person

i went to the pages you sent me

how is a person supposed to look through all that text trying to find what he did wrong Tillywilly17 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sabine Weyand. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Use:Limor Avivi-Arber

Hey User:Cullen328, I've been contacted by email through a friend to help User:Limor Avivi-Arber with getting an article on the International College of Prosthodontists to article standard. I went to leave a message on their talk page, and see that they've been permanently blocked by you. I haven't dealt with this before, can you point me to a page on the block (e.g. is there a discussion page or is it an admin action without one)? I was hoping to read some background before trying to help. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Disregard; found the talk page and will review. Ian Furst (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I just emailed the new user; they were oblivious to the COI and RS standards that the community sets. If you're willing to lift the ban, I'll work with the user in general (seems keen to edit, aside from this misstep). I've explained that it's inappropriate for a board member to create an article. I'll take a look thru publicly available info on the org, and see if it meets NOTABLE standard, and if not explain that Wikipedia is not the place. Let me know if there's anything else that would be helpful. Best. Ian Furst (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ian Furst. This user started out with a username contrary to policy, which was "International College of Prosthodontists", and I blocked by myself as an individual administrator when I saw an obvious violation. Wikipedia does not allow usernames for organizations or businesses or anything that implies shared use. Please read Wikipedia:Username policy for details. All the substantive discussion of the block is on the user's talk page. It seems this user has not yet fully internalized the fact that they have a conflict of interest, relying on the fact that the group is a non-profit and that he is unpaid. The fact of the matter is that unpaid volunteers for non-profit groups do have a conflict of interest, and quite frequently engage in inappropriate promotional editing. Two other administrators have reviewed the block, and have not agreed to lift it because the user has not openly and frankly acknowledged their conflict of interest, and has not pledged to refrain from COI editing. As for an article about the International College of Prosthodontists, I do not know whether or not that organization meets the strict standards described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which requires significant coverage of the organization in reliable sources that are completely independent of the organization. If somebody gave me links to four or five of the best such sources, then I might express an opinion. Your acquaintance should know that repeated unblock requests which do not address the core of the issue are likely to be ignored by administrators, and if that behavior continues, talk page access may be revoked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the detail. I'll see if the user has any interest in editing beyond that one subject. best. Ian Furst (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this like a PM?

Hi Jim,

Perhaps I should have been a little clearer.

Regulation

In the United States, <insert herb, mineral etc here> is sold and regulated by The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

This would not be considered neutral? It is true. I'd pretty much walk into various health food stores and check the Wiki article, and add the above section.

Laura — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Cancer (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 4Cancer. You would need to add a reference to a published reliable source that complies with WP:MEDRS and that also verifies that those regulations apply to that supplement. And then you must summarize what that reliable source says about the efficacy of the supplement. You cannot use a product package as a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Papa Stalin love wourkourpedoura

Hi. I've been working at WP:UAA and passed on User:Papa Stalin love wourkourpedoura. I'm not entirely sure their edit at Abdullah Tahiri was malicious and, if it wasn't, perhaps a soft block would be more appropriate? That said, I have no idea what the username means either; if it is truly offensive then please ignore the following!

From what I can tell - from the article and a quick Google search, Tahiri was a member of the Kosovo Liberation Army ("an ethnic-Albanian separatist militia that sought the separation of Kosovo from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Serbia during the 1990s and the eventual creation of Greater Albania due to the presence of a vast ethnic majority of Albanians in the region").

"Tahiri organized his fellow citizens around his ideology of freeing Kosovo from Serbian influence" seems more likely in that case than "Tahiri organized his fellow citizens around his ideology of freeing Kosovo from Albanian influence". --kingboyk (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"Wourkourpedoura" is "Wikipedia" when one replaces "our" with "i". Dr. K. 01:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, kingboyk. Not offensive so much as trolling. I made my decision to block based on what I perceived to be the trolling nature of the username taken in context. In theory, an account might incorporate "Stalin" and still be constructive. A userpage pledging to use the highest quality reliable sources in our articles about Joseph Stalin would be a strong indicator of good faith. But "love" combined with the trollish formulation "wourkourpedoura" leads me to believe that this account is not here to improve the encylopedia, whatever the merits of their initial edit or two. I deal with only a small percentage of reports at UAA, and I have blocked quite a few Stalin troll usernames in recent months. I will look at any username containing "Stalin" with a very high degree of skepticism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what "wourkourpedoura" means, but your rationale makes perfect sense. [Edit: I just saw User:Dr.K.'s explanation - now I understand :)]. Thanks for indulging me with a detailed reply! --kingboyk (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

kingboyk, I am not at all sure what is going through this troll's mind but my suspicion is that this is probably an alt-right person trying to associate Wikipedia with Stalinism, and that the troll changes the first syllable to something sounding like "work" to imply that Wikipedia editors are brainwashed slaves for some Communist conspiracy. "Love" in this context is clumsy irony. But I could be wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You mean we're not brainwashed slaves for some Communist conspiracy?! :) Seriously, though: I think you're probably right. --kingboyk (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If we are automata dancing a jig in a highly sophisticated machine, then we will never know because we were never meant to know, kingboyk. I am proceeding under the assumption that free will exists and that I am capable of exercising it. That makes life more enjoyable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Rtmorphine

It's pretty obvious that this user is continuing to edit as 98.160.114.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You can see the IP making the same kind of edits to Phil Konstantin immediately after the edits from Rtmorphine's account, and now the IP continues to edit the same topic areas. I applied a block for block evasion, then changed my mind as it probably wouldn't apply in the case of a compromised account/shared IP. However, what's now troubling me is the similarity between this edit summary to a WW2 topic and this BLP violation to Konstantin's article, which makes me wonder if the account was ever "compromised" in the first place. Your thoughts? Also notifying User:331dot. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie. The recent IP edits are obvious block evasion, and I doubt the explanation offered by Rtmorphine for the July 26 edits. What is clear is that this account and this IP address were responsible for some ugly BLP violations. I have reinstated the three month block of the IP address. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"Bate and switch" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bate and switch. Since you had some involvement with the Bate and switch redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleted draft on digital influencer/blogger

Hi Jim,

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain in detail the reason for my draft deletion so that I have an idea of what went wrong. Please can I request for some guidance on how I can work around this draft to make it publishable?

Please allow me to first share with you the links featured in The Star, the No. 1 English daily in Malaysia on my subject matter:

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/08/19/mskuan-walking-the-health-talk

https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/metro-news/2019/08/23/doing-her-bit-for-starwalk

In these articles, the paper has also recognised her as a fashion, lifestyle and beauty blogger with over 280, 000 followers on Instagram and 15, 000 subscribers on YouTube. The big labels that she has worked with, in my personal view, are evident of her achievement.

Please can I humbly request for your consideration/guidance/advice on how I can improve this piece without making it appear advertising in nature?

Thanking you in advance.

Best, Carsson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsson Tan (talk • contribs) 10:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Carsson Tan. This is my personal opinion alone, but I have a lot of experience in these matters. The kind of things you linked to are what I consider routine "local girl does something somewhat unusual" coverage that newspapers love. Both are from the same publication. They look like the result of public relations efforts to me. The numbers of social media followers are not really that impressive and those numbers alone are not evidence of notability. But other editors may disagree with me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jim,

Thank you and I respect your personal opinion for that. However, please can I get your guidance/advice on how I can tweak this if I were to write about this person? Retrieving my draft would really help as I do not have any backup copy to refer to. Appreciate your assistance here.

Best, Carsson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsson Tan (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hello Jim,

Would you mind taking a look at Vallco Shopping Mall. I added a CN tag and have been reverted twice by long-tenured editor who claims they personally know the statement is true, and it can be verified by looking at a map and/or emailing the subject for confirmation. Anyone who's been here long should know WP:V means citations to RSs, not the reader sending emails! There is a blurb on the TP, but this has been expressed mostly in edit summaries. Thanks. - This place is fairly close to you, so maybe you also personally know it to be true :) MB 03:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MB. I live about 75 miles away but work in that general area fairly often. I move around. I have heard about this mall for decades, driven past it and through it many times, and it was once considered glamorous and fashionable. No more. It declined, failed and is almost completely demolished now. Read this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

My concern is about the removal of the CN tag on an uncited statement. MB 13:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that the mall is in the process of being demolished, it seems like a trivial point to me, MB. If you want to argue with Jasper about a minor technicality, then go ahead. I have no interest in it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mike Cernovich

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mike Cernovich. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

oh my I feel so old

re: this - You look at and edit wikipedia on a PHONE? I am glad you were able to acquire a proper computer. Cheers sir. — Ched (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I have owned various generations of proper computers since my first Radio Shack TRS-80 in 1979, Ched. My previous business computer lasted about 14 years before suddenly dying. I use Android smartphones to edit Wikipedia because somebody told me that it was impossible to do serious editing that way, and I am a bit of a contrarian. Plus, I get to sit right next to my wife of 38 years while I edit, instead of "going to the office". Plus, as a self-employed construction worker, I can edit during spare moments on jobsites. Plus, I truly enjoy smartphone editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Talking of "old", Cullen328, isn't it about time you brought old Harry Yount up to FAC? Forgive me, but I've been nosing around in your contributions and that seems like a strong contender. I think it's a great article. Cassianto^Talk 16:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A mutual friend told me the same thing the other day, Cassianto. So, I will get started soon. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, be sure to ping me. I'd very much like to assist in any way I can. Best regards. Cassianto^Talk 17:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't get started in the computer field until the late 80s - but the part of your post that really sticks out for me is the my wife of 38 years. I congratulate you and admit a twinge of envy. (Not that I would honestly want to change any of my single parent years.) I congratulate you sir. And thank you for the reply. — Ched (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Our first date was a day or two after Reagan got elected president, and we have been through a lot together. Thanks, Ched. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, good ol' Jim

Are you ready to run for Arbcom in 2019? It's about time for you to do so. I'm sick of sycophants and star chambers... Yeah, it's a shitty job — but somebody needs to do it. More correctly: somebody needs to do it other than the current crowd of WMF-genuflecting knuckleberries... Please give it some thought. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know anything about knuckleberries, but I also would love to see you run. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Carrite, my friend Tim, I think that if the goal is to purge "sycophants" and "WMF-genuflecting knuckleberries", then plenty of zealots could cherry-pick diffs portraying me as precisely that type of person, I have both criticized and praised the WMF, and will continue to do so. I have no interest in donning armor and picking up a sword. Plus, I still operate a small business and have a very active family and political life, all of which are challenging. I am a 67 year old guy doing physically challenging construction work about four days a week on average. I get tired. I do not have the time to do the Arbcom job properly in 2020. Plus, I get very emotional when dealing with pernicious and insane behavior in depth. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you invited me to post here, if I understand the Teahouse and this software

The user in question is https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Newslinger . I don't see administrator at the bottom. Can you tell me if I missed it, or looked in the wrong place? Thx.

Also, I agree that credentials don't matter. But, in the case of certain articles involving technical things (e.g. Internal Combustion Engine and Banach Space), an reviewing editor without the technical background or skill will fail, at least if the editor doesn't have a very light hand. (Like someone no good with numbers or science on the two articles.) (On my articles, on the parts I'm working on, there are light economic concepts, and questions of going into the detail of some laws related to ACA and Medicaid, that are relevant.)NormSpier (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, NormSpier. Newslinger is not an administrator but is otherwise an editor in good standing. What led you to think that Newslinger might be an administrator?

Clearly, it would be almost impossible for an editor with poor math skills to make substantive improvements to Banach Space. But that would reveal itself quickly in the quality of the edits. We do not interrogate editors about their academic credentials. Instead, we assess the quality of their edits and if an editor makes consistently poor edits in articles about math and ignores constructive criticism, then that editor can be topic banned from math articles. I do not see why any reasonably intelligent person would be unable to make improvements to Internal combustion engine, as long as they are accurately summarizing reliable sources. Hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. I was just checking to see if Newslinger was an administrator, because in the chain of teahouse responses to my question, what came up was "an administrator can do such and such ...". So I figured I should to learn how to find my way around. NormSpier (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennell Jaquays

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennell Jaquays. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

no grudge

Hi, Cullen328, I'm writing here about a serious matter that I hope you can address with a small revision. I want to write to you here rather than in the discussion because I'm more comfortable here providing additional details that you might find helpful.

I do not have a personal grudge against the subject, Mr. Lindquist. I see how that's one possible interpretation of my motives, but it is mistaken. I was prosecuted, and my political engagement might have contributed to the subject's removal from office. Perhaps you think grudge is the only possible response to this television appearance, which I do find humiliating and deeply misleading. Still, I must confront your claim. Tried for seven felonies and convicted of absolutely nothing, I do have first-hand knowledge of the subject's deficiencies in the job of prosecutor. I do oppose the subject's re-ascent to public office or authority. And I believe he has other victims who lacked the resources my family has. Vindictive prosecution is when the state holds a biased view ("grudge") against a person and treats them non-neutrally, as he did with the victim at the heart of much of this.

I am an anti-propaganda, anti-tabloid, and anti-fake news activist since the Arab Spring of 2011. This year I describe myself as a disciple of conservative prose, partly based on my experiences here. None of the good people involved in this discussion have questioned one word I've written since December, when I fully embraced BLP writing principles. (Just once NBB made me come quicker with the sources, and Bbb23 says my prose sounds like bullet points. Fair, but not critical of my claims.) Most recently I rolled back deceptive changes, and included helpful descriptions why. No neutral observers appear to disagree.

Perhaps you don't think it's necessary to show that my COI caused harm in the form of non-neutral statements. OK. You call my sourcing solid. Thank you. But I hope your commitment here goes deeper than a drive-by opinion. Will I see you help when help is needed? I accept and embrace the exercise in democracy, no grudge required. The subject caused me harm while doing a job that was not suited for him. Well, we've all been that guy. Right? A grudge would be psychologically harmful for me, and I can't live that way. To me this is much more about the seriousness of misbehavior by people in authority, and about an unusual degree of lying about that behavior. I employed my NPOV commitment when I substantially re-wrote Pam Roach even though I kind of like that wild council-member. Please don't claim I hold a personal grudge here, as it obscures the serious concerns I have solidly sourced and summarized. The presence of a COI does not imply or require a personal grudge, and I don't have one. Most importantly, though this might not be apparent to you, when you make that false claim in public, you empower people who would like to cause me harm.

I hold a personal commitment to the democratic power of Wikipedia, but feel it frequently feels like a space ship that's also a jalopy. There is no benefit to topic-banning me, and it would not address the persistent SPA whitewashing. Please also include S&S1109 in your considerations. But most importantly, do not claim I have a grudge against the subject. From me to you, one can't do what I'm doing based on a grudge. You have to just love your country and embrace the power of truth to do what I'm doing. A grudge is based on hating or strongly disliking someone (rationally? irrationally?) and I am not assembled in a way that lets me do that. To call it a "personal" grudge is particularly troubling. Please revert this particular claim about me. Mcfnord (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Mcfnord, everything you have written here is just additional strong evidence that you have a severe conflict of interest regarding Mark Lindquist and absolutely should not be editing that article. Please pursue your efforts to right great wrongs somewhere else than Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Clicking on "let's talk", though I'm not sure, and it may be just something that's always on your signature.

On the RFC, yes, I see your:

NormSpier, what Wikipedia editors do is to summarize published reliable sources, and personal interpretations and assessments by individual editors are simply not allowed. No original research is a core content policy, and following it is mandatory. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

But then, just in case you are interested and didn't see it, my sense of it is, as applied here, on the RFC page, now:

"Another way to express the issue I am seeing with "original research" it is being applied here by user:Newslinger, is that it is being applied here to apply to the equivalent of "doing a calculus problem from the problems section of the calculus book", "filling out one's tax form", learning a modest amount of economics from a few texts, and applying it to a problem from a book, or, say, the book has an example: if the "price of milk goes up (all other factors being the same), consumed quantity of milk will fall", but the principles in the book, while implying, "if the price of iced cream goes up (all other factors being the same"), consumption will fall", the last statement is considered "original research". But I see where it might be coming from, since Wikipedia is "everyone can write for it", and, further, you may have no way of figuring out if a person knows what they're writing about--author or editor. And you may have a shortage of the right editors. So I respect the situation Wikipedia is in, and its chosen way to handle the problem. It's just capable of providing its readers with less than I had initially thought"

No need to respond to me, unless the topic interests you. Since I saw the "let's talk", I figure I'd click on it, so you don't feel your input was ignored by me.NormSpier (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The policy against including original research is not due to a shortage of expert editors. Instead, it is one of the three core content policies which work in an interconnected fashion to allow Wikipedia to grow to nearly 6 million English language articles and become the #5 website in the world. The other two core content policies are verifiability and the neutral point of view. When you have a deep understanding of those three policies and their critical importance, then you will be well on your way to being an effective editor. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a reference work and a tertiary source. It is not a journal or a place for Wikipedia editors to publish their own musings and observations. In other words, it is not a discussion forum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Penny-ante Vmavanti

Since he respects you so much, could you please talk some sense into this miracle of an editor before he loses any ([1]) more ([2]) sense of civility and perspective and hurts himself? Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Dan56. Because I was in a content dispute with Vmavanti in our only interaction, I do not think that I am the best person to interact with this editor about borderline civility issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time consider my candidacy at RfA. I appreciate that you not only did that but took the time to write out a support which addressed the concerns of some editors who were opposed or neutral. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your remarks, Barkeep49, and I want to extend my warm welcome to you as the newest member of our team of administrators. Thank you for agreeing to step forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

More thoughts on a ban on first-party references

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_thoughts_on_a_ban_on_first-party_references. I realized an hour ago that the root of the dispute is a particular bit of terminology corruption over the last 50 years in our English-speaking culture. I'd prefer to continue the discussion where it started, in order to get the widest possible participation. I realize you're an an administrator, and presumably could order me to shift the discussion to your personal Talk page. But I hope you won't do that. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DovidBenAvraham. There is no ban on use of first party references (primary sources), although they should be used with caution and in a limited way. ANI is not the place to discuss this matter unless you are requesting disciplinary action against another editor. In my opinion, Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources would be a better place for a discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My "concocted" claim that there is no _outright_ ban on use of first-party references to software manuals

I've also posted a copy of this comment to User:JzG's Talk page, since the relevant discussion has been archived.

First, I did not write the "whole" Retrospect (software) article "mainly from primary and affiliated sources". Currently there are 18 cites of primary sources out of 100 total cites. I'm sure you can see that 18% is nowhere close to 100%.

The cite that has just been inadvertently deleted by User: Uncle G is IMHO a good example of a "corner case" that shows the problems with your "The Wikipedia sourcing trifecta: reliable, independent and secondary" policy assertion. Up through mid-2006 Macs used to have Motorola/IBM PowerPC processors. Retrospect Inc. continued through 2018 to offer an optional Client that would back up and restore such Macs, whether running early versions of the Macintosh OS X or Classic Mac OS operating systems. Because of Apple's obsoleting of its old 32-bit API, Retrospect 16 can no longer back up PowerPC Macs. This was hardly cause for celebration; a fair number of Macintosh users with a 14-year-old accumulation of graphic files—including my friend—keep a PowerPC Mac around for occasional reading and editing of files created before 2006. Retrospect Inc. announced about a year ago that the next major version would eliminate their PowerPC Client; knowing some users would not be happy, they took the non-marketing step of burying this announcement as a Knowledge Base document on their website. Until TidBITS.com finally comes out with a review of Retrospect Mac 16, there is no secondary source. I think the loss of this feature deserves a brief-but-referenced mention in the article.

I definitely intend to discuss at RSN the question of whether primary sources in software manuals should be ipso facto banned from WP articles. My guess is that, if you want to establish a rule stating this, you'll lose. After all, let's look at the announcement of Windows 10's 2015 release, which is reference 13 in the Windows 10 article and is not in the infobox. If the editor of an article about such a widely-used piece of software had to fall back on a first-party reference for its release, IMHO that would make your policy impossible to officially state except as a niggling refinement of Primary sources should be used carefully. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

You know, at this point the above reads as a request to block you per WP:CIR, WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. Guy (help!) 14:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)