User talk:Cullen328/Archive 61

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Cullen328. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

Hi Cullen, I noticed you added the photo of Arlene Blum taken at a fundraising event for the American Women's Himalayan Expedition. I wrote an article about another member of that expedition, any chance you have a photo of her too? --Spacepine (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Spacepine, thank you for reaching out. I took that photo of Arlene Blum at the Marmot Mountain Works store in Berkeley, California, at a fundraising event before the expedition. That was in 1977, I believe, and Arlene Blum was the only member of the expedition there that evening. I made a donation (I do not remember how much) and got a t-shirt and later received a post card from base camp, signed by Alison Chadwick-Onyszkiewicz and the other members of the expedition, including Vera Watson. Because of the tragedy, I kept that postcard all these years, and it is a little personal treasure of mine.

Because Alison Chadwick-Onyszkiewicz is dead, you can use a low resolution image of her under WP:NFCI #10. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Best wishes to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! That sounds like a great experience - I'll have to get one of those t-shirts.

I didn't consider that there might be fair use rationals for her image. There are pictures on Arlene Blum's website - but she may have a commercial interest in them... would that apply here? --Spacepine (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, Spacepine, the commercial value of a relatively low profile person who died over 40 years ago is nil, and if you use a low resolution version, then it should comply with policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ben Shapiro. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will read up on the article and the training you suggested. I noticed my infobox - personal has been removed. Were there errors in that as well? Do you have a specific infobox template for recording artists? I'm seeing most are very similar. With the page now being a draft, how do I make it into user page? Is that possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7light7 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 7light7. Perhaps you misunderstand what a user page is. It is completely different from an encyclopedia article. Your user page should describe your work and your plans as a Wikipedia editor. It can be brief and to the point. You can describe who you are in a sentence or two and that your goal is to assist in writing a Wikipedia biography of you that complies with our policies and guidelines. Your fellow editors will respond well to that.

It seems that your goal is to have an encyclopedia article about you on Wikipedia. That is why I moved your content to draft space. Because it is a draft of an encyclopedia article which is not yet ready for the public encyclopedia. I am helping you because I think that the encyclopedia ought to have an article about you.

I encourage you to delay thinking about infoboxes. The quality of the list of refererences to reliable, independent sources is vastly more important than infoboxes. If you write an acceptable draft that summarizes the reliable sources, then other editors will be happy to take care of the stylistic points for you. So please spend your Wikipedia time reading and studying about reliable sources and also consult Referencing for beginners. Also read and try your very best to understand the neutral point of view. This is the policy that is most difficult for people writing about themselves to understand. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So as you know I was temporarily blocked because of my editing spree but now that I have returned I’m gonna limit myself to only a certain amount of wiki pages that fit my terms. So now instead of going on a rampage across various pages I’m now only gonna edit wiki pages that correspond with these geographic locations on this map https://moverdb.com/british-vs-american-english/

However some countries such as Afghanistan are not listed on the map but have government institutions such as the Ministry of Defense that clearly use the American English spelling format therefor I will help myself to editing wiki pages that use the incorrect spelling when referencing the Afghan ministry.

I’d just thought I’d let you know in case you ever come across me again. Acemaster77 (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Acemaster77. No, you do not get to set the terms. If you engage in combative edits regarding contentious Afghan ENGVAR issues, you will be blocked. So, stay entirely away from this type of editing if you wish to keep editing Wikipedia. Instead, make the type of edits that everyone would agree are productive for the encyclopedia. Restrain yourself. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I apologize in that I cannot respond properly because I am currently on mobile, it won’t let me for some reason, it just keeps saying error.

Anyways my reply: What ENGVAR issues are there with Afghanistan? They Ministry of Defense of Afghanistan uses an S instead of a C so therefor I would technically be correcting it since it was originally spelled incorrectly. Acemaster77 (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ask yourself why you care so much about such a triviality, Acemaster77, and why you are so focused on this type of triviality? Go spend a good solid month improving the encyclopedia in ways utterly unconnected with this triviality, and then come back to my talk page to explain why this triviality is so damned important. If you think that the contemporary American involvement in the politics of Afghanistan justifies American English variations in all contempory Afghanistan articles, then gain widespread consensus for that. Otherwise, back off please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems that I have offended you in my question but note it was not my intention to do so in anyway and therefor I apologize, clearly you have no interest in this discussion so let us end it here and agree to disagree. I hope that any possible future encounters will not end in hostilities like this and hopefully we can look at this event as a thing of the past from bygone days, with that have a good day.Acemaster77 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No, Acemaster77, what you seem not to realize is that I care nothing about the substance of your trivial content dispute. Nothing whatsoever. I care only about avoiding disruption and ensuring that our content complies with our policies and guidelines. If you engage in further disruption about ENGVAR matters, you will be blocked. If you do not abandon your ENGVAR hobby horse and do not move on to productive editing, you will be blocked. I hope that I have expressed myself clearly. Have I? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)]

I already gathered from your previous reply that you have zero interest in the conversation whatsoever, restating that you simply don’t care is not gonna help any of us. If you feel personally attacked or antagonized from my response then I apologize (like I have before) and hope we can look at this event as a thing of the past, there’s no need to escalate this further then it needs to. And with that have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acemaster77 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Greetings. You had a Let's Discuss link on a discussion page for AfD for Roxy's Ruler. I have been a little tied up catching up to editors comments and have not responded to your invite. I have just entered a lengthy Keep/Merge entry and am pretty well done on that side of the page. So this is a response to your invite to discuss. How are you doing? Bbrout (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I am fine, Bbrout. What would you like to discuss? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, I guess it's my mistake. I was asking you the same thing. My bad. Bbrout (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

...for your eyes on Polish Hill, Kansas. I edited out the what I thought was a racist tone about the neighborhood being all Mexican. That is why you didn't see it, I took care of that right away. Thanks for the heads up on the other sources. I am going to add those sources to the search template. Another apology...I will go to the article's creator userpage. This was a good thing-being wrong. That meant the article was viable. Thanks for all your help. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 19:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Barbara (WVS). I appreciate you reaching out. However, I do not think that "now is almost exclusively hispanic" is racist when discussing the ethnic makeup of a neighborhood. Of course, it needs a reference and a capital H. Just my thought. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle removed the following comments I posted on the Ghost Ship fire talk page, and I don't think he should have done that. I was responding in good faith to comments from another user about me possibly having a conflict of interest. If a user is allowed to change the talk page comments of another user, it seems to me that the entire editing process can be corrupted. Here are my comments as I originally added them and just now reposted them.

I want to see full, fair and accurate information on this page, and I do know a lot of people who were personally impacted by this. Although I don't know anyone who died, so many people around Oakland did know one or more of the victims that a huge number of people have been touched by this tragedy. I have tried to be unbiased in my changes and comments, but the users Qwirkle and NorthBySouthBaranof aren't even trying to be fair or unbiased. Qwirkle clearly is biased and also extremely disrespectful of the victims and their friend and families, as seen by this revision history comment. "No, no attempt was made to rescue them because they were obviously already dead, donchaknow." Making fun of 36 dead people is not acceptable behavior. Qwirkle also gave no references to back up that statement. ANd Qwirkle's comment "Looking at the smoke conditions and the probability, the survivability of what the smoke was doing, if we were going to find anybody, they were going to be in that initial 25 to 50 feet from the front door and the initial hose stretch" seems to indicate they are a firefighter and potentially were even involved in the Ghost Ship firefighting effort. NorthBySouthBaranof admits to being a firefighter, and therefore has a definite conflict of interest. Their fellow firefighter Bowron's behavior may amount to manslaughter and they are obviously trying to protect him and the reputation of their profession. Both of them seem to have unacceptable conflicts of interest. This is a very important page, 36 innocent people died and James Bowron may have killed them through negligence or outright malice. 36 families lost loved ones. 2 men may spend the rest of their lives in prison, and this page says things about them that are not based on evidence. P37307 and Cullen328 have no apparent conflict of interest, and I would trust them to make edits much more than I would trust Qwirkle or NorthBySouthBaranof.Russ Tilleman (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Russ Tilleman. The comments that you are making about James Bowron place you at risk of being blocked for violating our policy regarding biographies of living people. I urge caution. I am too involved in this situation to use my powers as an administrator. This situation is already being discussed at WP:ANI in a thread called "Some eyeballs on 2016 Oakland warehouse fire". I encourage you to comment carefully and thoughtfully there. In my opinion, you are heading down the wrong path. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm new to editing here, and I am trying to follow the rules as well as I understand them. Is it acceptable for a user to swear at another one in the talk pages? Qwirkle has starting doing that. I think the Ghost Ship fire page should be locked down somehow and only edited by unbiased, experienced users. Especially because the trial is about to start and it is expected to be extremely confrontational.Russ Tilleman (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to "God damned" in response to your monumental BLP violation, then Quirkle was entirely correct. If there is something else, give me a link to it. I repeat my recommendation to you to discuss this at WP:ANI. If the article is subjected to ongoing disruptive editing, it will be protected (locked) at that time. Again, I urge caution in making accusations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I will look into the WP:ANI, I am not familiar with that. There is still the issue about the end of the article stating that the Ghost Ship fire was caused by "purely negligence", without any references. The official Origin and Cause report http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/report/oak064503.pdf clearly states "The fire classification is UNDETERMINED." and lists arson "the introduction of an open flame, either intentionally or carelessly, cannot be eliminated" as being just as likely as electrical "a fault or failure of the electrical system cannot be eliminated." The defendants may spend the rest of their lives in prison, and Wikipedia should not be making unsubstantiated statements implicating them during the trial. In addition, the lead prosecutor, who spent the last 2 years putting the government's case together, abruptly quit his job of 20 years this week, less that 3 weeks before the trial starts. I think is an important aspect of the criminal prosecution and should be included in the Wikipedia page. https://abc7news.com/ghost-ship-prosecutor-resigns/5189734/ I may find other details as I read through the page more closely. Is someone at Wikipedia going to remove the "purely negligence" statement?Russ Tilleman (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it; thanks for pointing it out. However, if you wish to continue editing, it would be wise to follow the advice you've been given so far. ansh666 22:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

At this point, I am happy to just point out errors and let other people fix them, if that is OK. For example in the sentence "A large number of victims were trapped on the second floor by smoke filling the stairs and because the pile of pallets used as the front stairs was likely burning." the reference makes no mention of the stairs burning and I have never seen any witness reports of that stairway burning during the evacuation phase of the fire. And the sentence "The front stairway, made from a pile of stacked wooden pallets, was initially reported as the building's only stairway." is not accurate. Page 15 of the Origin and Cause report states the front stairway "was constructed of various wooden planks and wooden studs, as well as portions of wooden pallets at its top where it accessed the second floor." So it was not "a pile of stacked wooden pallets". In the sentence "A total of four fire companies went inside in an attempt to attack the fire and find survivors, but were withdrawn after they reported that the second floor was well ablaze and the roof was threatening to collapse." the reference says nothing about the companies attempting to "find survivors". The reference also says nothing about any report that the roof was threatening to collapse. It only says that the roof collapsed "after 29 minutes" which is a long time into the fire. In the sentence "Oakland Fire Department Search and rescue personnel deployed drone aircraft using thermal imaging that unsuccessfully searched for survivors after a roof collapse made entering the scene unsafe." The references state that drones were used after the fire was out. Saying they were used "after a roof collapse" is very misleading because it implies they were part of the initial firefighting effort rather than a recovery-phase examination of the gutted building.Russ Tilleman (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, the section "Building Problems" makes no mention of the Oakland law in effect at that time requiring the building to be inspected annually. See https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/16/huge-failure-80-percent-of-oakland-firefighter-warnings-of-unsafe-buildings-go-unchecked/ "And those are just the buildings that caught someone’s attention. Many commercial buildings throughout the city have never been inspected, according to records of 179,000 inspections performed since 2010 obtained by this news organization, despite city law requiring that it be done annually. After the Ghost Ship fire, the requirement was changed to every two years." So the lack of a Fire Marshall inspection was not just an oversight, it was an illegal act.Russ Tilleman (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Russ Tilleman: It's probably better for you to discuss any specific concerns you have about the article on it's talk page because that will be where editors working on the article or interested in the subject matter will more likely be. Normally, I'd suggest you'd be WP:BOLD and just improve the article yourself; however, you don't seem to want to do that so maybe WP:CAUTIOUS is a better course of action. Not much is going to be resolved here on Jim's user talk page, and continuing to post here will only further fragment whatever discussion takes place or is currently ongoing. Before posting on the article's talk page, it might be a good idea for you to look at or review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for some hints on how to best use an article talk page. A little thing such as properly indenting a post might seem trivial, but does improve readability and it can help avoid confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Qwirkle has been swearing at me on the article talk page and in general behaving in a hostile manner there, such as making fun of the deaths of the victims.Russ Tilleman (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Russ Tilleman, please read what Marchjuly wrote above, because that editor is correct. The only appropriate place to discuss the article content in detail, and to suggest changes to the article is Talk:2016 Oakland warehouse fire. That is the precise purpose of that page. As for Quirkle, you need to discuss any concerns you may have about their behavior directly with that editor, and if that fails, there are various forms of dispute resolution available. It is considered very bad form to go around talking about other editors behind their backs. I am aware that Quirkle said "God damned" to you and used the phrase "donchaknow" in expressing the opinion that rescue possibilities were hopeless. If that is all you have, drop it and move on. That is well within the acceptable bounds of discussion between editors here. If Quirkle said something worse, then produce the evidence. You are welcome to discuss Wikipedia editing, policies and procedures in general here on my talk page, but detailed discussion of article content belongs on article talk pages. Please do not try to discuss article content here any more. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will move over to the article talk page. I forwarded Qwirkle's behavior to the defense attorneys in case they want to subpoena his/her personal information as part of their investigation into wrongdoing by OFD and their search for a possible arsonist.Russ Tilleman (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Russ Tilleman: Moving to the article talk page is a good idea, but you really really really really need to be very careful about making statements about anything related to off-Wikipedia legal action either directed at Wikipedia or other editors per Wikipedia:No legal threats because such statements are one of the fastest ways to get your account blocked by an administrator, especially when you make them on the user talk page of an administrator (FYI, Jim is an administrator). I would strongly suggest that you avoid thing indirectly or directly posting anything which might be seen as a violation of this particular Wikipedia policy; otherwise, you will find yourself becoming a topic of discussion at WP:ANI. It would be wise for you to strike through that part of your post and not repeat it on any Wikipedia page again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, will you do me a favor and ask an uninvolved administrator to evaluate the situation? Though the above comments look troubling to me, I am involved with the article. Plus it is late at night where I live and I worked hard today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the subject matter, Russ Tilleman might be in the same time zone as you and thus has also turned in for the night. He hasn't edited since making that last post; so, perhaps its better to wait and give him a chance to clarify/redact that part of the post first. If he just leaves the post hanging, or makes a similar statement again, then ANI is always an option. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I was going to add a uw to his user talk, but someone else already did. Once again, it's probably best to see how he responds before moving to ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Red Tent (film). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned you in a request for community imposed Tban re user Bought the farm. Your input is not specifically needed or requested, but would be welcome if you wish to offer comment either way. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought it best to not respond because I have since learned that diffs taken out of context, especially groundless accusations of aspersions, can be damaging when accumulated over time, grouped and presented in bulk so I left the discussion. I also believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and I know you to be a good teacher based on your work at WP:Teahouse, regardless of who ends up being your student. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and making me aware of that conversation, Atsme. Yes, leaving conversations that show no sign of heading toward any form of agreement is often the best course of (in)action. If things get out of control, please let me know. Thank you as well for your kind remarks about my work at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

All this becomes a bit too difficult for me. I am actually not good at this at all. Yes, I have documents from the Archive in San Francisco San Bruno and from Ernest B. Lageson, son of one of the prison guards of Alcatraz also some data. I also have written permission from him to quote from his books. But I see that apparently that is not enough. The bar is set too high for me, a pity because what was on the page before I canged it, so far was of little value and not entirely true also. I would like to finish the page but now I only see opposition. I had asked for someone to guide me but I don't get that also . I fear that all this will be too difficult for me and for a lot of people with me, why you make it so difficult?. with kind regards Linda texelLinda texel (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Linda texel. I gave you guidance at the Teahouse and am willing to give you more guidance. But you have to be willing to try to follow our policies and guidelines. Refererences to reliable published sources are necessary because otherwise people would make things up. You do not need written permission to summarize what appears in a reliable source. But you need to cite the book in a reference. Title, author, publisher, publication date, page numbers, ISBN number. Give me that information for one book and I will format the refererence for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Linda texel, here is an example of a properly formatted reference.^[1]

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sir. Books are; Title:  Alcatraz Justice. The rocks's most famous murder trail. Author: Ernst B. Lageson. Publisher: Creative Arts Book Company, Berkley CA. ISBN 088739-408-6. copyright 2002 by E.B Lageson. Volume 337 pag. Language Eng. Crime/History. And book 2 is: Title: Battle at Alcatraz; a desperate Attempt to Escape the Rock. Author: Ernest B. Lageson. Publisher: Addicus Books Inc. ISBN 1-886039-37-2. volume 284 pag. Language Eng. Date 1999. Crime/History. I hope I this is the info you need. with regards, Linda texelLinda texel (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Linda texel (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of photographers. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello there Cullen! I wanted to thank you for being an amazing Wikipedian. Back in August, I admitted that I had been evading a block for 4 years over at the Teahouse, and was promptly blocked by you. I then went back to the old account to appeal my block after you restored talk page access, and managed to incite near unanimous support and consensus in favor for an unblock and ultimately I did get unblocked and got to keep this account. I wanted to thank you for handling the situation very well and being friendly about it. I understood that what you were doing was procedural and nowhere near personal. You do many great things for Wikipedia. I also respect you as a fellow man from the bay area, and indeed, American Canyon and Vallejo are wonderful cities. I'm over in nearby Vacaville, which is also an amazing city. Good thing we didn't personally meet up over the unblock request tho, hehe. Although if I ever do see you in public by any chance somehow someway for whatever reason, I would certainly not be afraid to say hello since you've had an major positive impact on my life (here on Wikipedia, of course). Thank you so much, and I'm happy to work with you here on Wikipedia. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, DrewieStewie. Coincidentally, I am working near Vacaville right now. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Otto Warmbier. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Just read through your essay on this matter, and I must say it's brilliant! That does a pretty good job of debunking any thoughts people might have that Wikipedia can't be edited on mobile devices. I quite often access this site through my phone and also feel it's very useful when on the go and I don't have any desktop/laptop nearby to use for checking my watchlist and such. Using "desktop" mode makes a big difference for me as I could never do much on its "mobile" mode. If more people knew how to alter these modes at the bottom of the page, then I'm sure it would also improve their smartphone experience for Wikipedia. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, SNUGGUMS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a problem. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry for making you having to revert my edit and giving me a warning about it. I can swear that I had no real intentions of vandalising the article in bad faith and that the joke edit was supposed to last for a minute before I reverted it..then you reverted a few seconds sooner than me. Sorry again, I hope to learn and know better before making a good humourous joke without disrupting Wikipedia.

TheFledglingLearner (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I am confused. I asked a question on the TeaHouse for clarification, and you put a notice there and on my page to not start a new article. That seemed off topic. I did an edit on the Talk page of OMRF in February but got no response. To be able to check the links I used my sandbox; there were lots of dead links in the original article. I didn't add the names, but only fixed links to what was already there, using as many non-OMRF sources as I could find. The most of my additions were in history, facilities and sources of funding. After I made the corrections and additions, rather than copy/paste all the corrections to a talk page that no one was watching, I asked for feedback. The first feedback was from Liance, who redirected the page as if it were a new article. Then AngusWOOF provided feedback. I've taken his comments to heart and started revising accordingly.DeknMike (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DeknMike. At the time I made my initial comment, I did not know that another editor, Liance, had moved your sandbox page to draft space. Once I learned that, I left a message on that editor's talk page about proper use of draft space. But, unless I am wrong, you are the editor who requested WP:AFC review of your sandbox page. To be clear, AFC is not for review of drafts of improvements to existing articles. AFC is only for review of drafts of new articles. The proper place to propose changes to an existing article is the talk page of that article. To draw attention to your request, please use Template: Request edit. As for your observation that my comments were "off topic", no, they were not. I am an experienced editor and an administrator. I am also one of the most experienced Teahouse hosts for several years. My job is to improve and protect the entire encyclopedia. It is quite common that investigating a question at the Teahouse will lead to other issues and it is really important to address additional issues that were not present in the original question. My goal, which is shared by all administrators and all experienced Teahouse hosts, is to improve the encyclopedia and to provide tools and comprehensive information to editors who have questions. Often, that information and advice is not strictly speaking a direct response to the question but is immediately relevant to the task at hand - improving the encyclopedia. Because you have a conflict of interest, the article talk page is where you should confine your editing about this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jim, We have conversed in the past and not always agreed but you HAVE been helpful. My current problem is this: There was a relatively important 16th century Venetian printer who was a member of a long dynasty of printers. The problem is that not much material is known about him. I can write something, but I expect that it would be judged a stub. I have gone through the literature and have what facts are known. Until my Italian improves enough, and I have time enough to go to the archivo di stato in Venice, I am unlikely to find more information than I have now. His importance is that he printed, among other things, the Italian (Rather than Latin) versions of the works of Pietro Bembo. Should I attempt this or leave it alone since it will be a stub? Your call. Nicodemus (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Oldsilenus. According to WP:STUB, "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject." In my opinion, we should not be creating new stubs in 2019 although they were useful in the early days of the encyclopedia. But there is no bright line separating stubs from start grade articles. Maybe I might read your presumed stub and conclude that it is start grade. One possibility is to write an article about the dynasty of printers, and include the information about this individual in that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. This occurred to me last night. I am really interested in Gualtiero Scotto, but his uncle, Ottaviano Scotto, started the dynasty. There is much more information available about his uncle. You will have to forgive me if this takes a bit of time. The uncle's printer device was reproduced by someone at Harvard. Harvard has their own paperwork, and I want to make it clear to the person who has it that it will wind up on Wikimedia. In addition, my daughter is getting married in 2 weeks. I have my hands full! Nicodemus (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Oldsilenus. There are no deadlines here. Congratulations on the wedding. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Cullen328. I added references to the draft discussed here. Then I submitted the draft for review (re-review). However, about 3 weeks have passed since that. Probably that is because I did something wrong. Is it possible to make the process faster? Thanks!--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Stanislav Lohvinenko. There are about 2670 drafts waiting for review, and it could take as long as two months. There is nothing that you can do to speed the AFC process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Cullen328. I see, I totally understand that. Just previously the process took less time, that's why I'm asking. And my main concern is did I do everything properly. If yes, then I will calmly wait.--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Stanislav Lohvinenko, it took less time the first time because your totally unreferenced draft was easy for any reviewer to decline as obviously unacceptable. Now that you have added refererences, your draft requires attention from an AFC reviewer with an interest in and a modicum of expertise in academic journals, and they are not commonplace. I have ten years of experience and do not consider myself to be competent to review your draft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've got it. Thank you for your time, Cullen328! I appreciate your help and comprehensive answers.--Stanislav Lohvinenko (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Would you mind taking a look at this editor's contributions? So far, this person hasn't edited anything other then their user pages, mainly just creating userboxes or adding a "strange" wall of text to their user talk, etc. They have been also uploading images to Commons (their account is currently blocked for repeated copyvios), but only just to add files to their user pages. Finally, they might also be Vlad Sandulescu Mary. Do you think there's anything of concern here that goes beyond the user adding non-free files to their user sandbox? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly. Wow. That's all pretty strange but I am not seeing any disruption of the encyclopedia itself. The copyvios are a great concern and a block is appropriate if they continue. Please let me know. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Things seem to be getting a bit stranger in ways other than copyvios so I started WP:AN#User talk:Vlad Sandulescu. This will give this editor a chance to clarify what's going on and also give others a chance to pipe in as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Marchjuly. I had a tooth pulled today but will look at AN when I am feeling a bit more alert. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I read your essay on smartphone editing. I understand that essays are not policy or guidelines, but I still think your essay was interesting. I occasionally edit while reading Wikipedia on my phone, mainly for typo or spacing errors that are more noticeable on the small screen. However, all of my other edits come from a tablet that can go into "PC mode" with an attached keyboard. I don't know if the latter truly counts as "mobile editing" as the experience is vastly different from editing on a phone and is almost exactly the same as otherwise editing on desktop. Anyways, I agree that most people use their phones much more than they use computers and that improving the mobile editing experience would be a good idea. Clovermoss (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Clovermoss. I appreciate your comments. As I said in my essay, I do all of my smartphone editing in desktop mode, and do not feel the need for a physical keyboard. Each person has their own preferences, though. At this time, about 99% of my editing is with a smartphone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't use a keyboard with my smartphone, either. I was reffering to the tablet (with PC mode and keyboard) I do most of my editing on. I'm glad you're able to do most of your editing with your smartphone while making it work for you and your guide looks handy if I'm ever up to learning how to do more serious editing on my phone. For now, I think I'll keep it to the occasional typo/spacing fix I notice while reading the Wikipedia app. I still happen to read more articles than I edit though, so those edits might just add up into something more someday. Clovermoss (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey Cullen, need a favor. That friend of mine on Facebook, Rick B., whom you friended also, needs to know where Capital Market is--but unfortunately yours truly is in Facebook jail for seven days and I don't have his phone number. Can you maybe message him and say "South Boulevard by the water tower"? ;) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember "Rick B." and don't see him on your page, Drmies. Email me more information and I will contact him. Um, what was your offense? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I was wrong: you are friends with one of his friends. Essentially, I got kicked out for pointing out that Japan ended slavery in 1590, so it wasn't just "Europe" that had the decency to outlaw slavery. That whole "we ended slavery but the Muslims still did it" is a new but frequent argument for white superiority. I'll explain better when I get back. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Telling the truth can get you in trouble, Drmies. On the subject of slavery and its US aftermath, Skip Gates has a new documentary about Reconstruction that premieres Tuesday on PBS. I love that guy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jussie Smollett. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Technical news

• In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

• Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
• As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

---

Your remarks on that recent dispute displayed an equilibrium long missed, and I'd like to thank you for them. Just one minor point, myself as a ' pro-Palestinian editor'. Well, certainly I have worked hard to get the Palestinian side of the I/P area fairly represented, and I admit to a considerable measure of sympathy for their aspirations. But in context, as used in this nook of the wiki woods, it implies 'anti-Israel', a place where I spent a very happy time of my life, and whose cultural and scholarly excellences I try to follow closely. I don't think of myself as a 'pro-Palestinian editor' (my focus is somewhat larger than that) any more than I would consider myself a 'pro-Israeli editor' for writing a dozen articles on figures like David Dean Shulman, etc. Not that I'm offended: the issue is perhaps nugatory, but just to set the record straight or dot the i's apropos. A thought for your wife: being hard-of-hearing is a general human condition shared by a very large part of humanity that, while equipped, with excellent hearing, does not listen. In my experience (today a woman friend with the same plight dropped in for a talk) those with a real physical difficulty are far more attentive listeners than those of us who boast of perfect hearing. Best regards.Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Nishidani. First of all, I want to say that your work at David Dean Shulman is very, very good. That is not a start grade article. Secondly, I appreciate your thanks and your comments. No human being can be summarized accurately in a brief phrase like "pro-Palestinian", so I apologize that my attempt to be concise came off as pigeonholing. To display my own simple idealism, I believe that every human should be both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli, pro-Indian and pro-Pakistani, pro-American and pro-Russian, pro-Tibetan and pro-Chinese, and so on. I am speaking of the human people not their terribly flawed governments. Reading that article about Shulman makes me ashamed that I have not done more for peace in Israel/Palestine. I have done a little bit but not nearly enough. I eat both kosher and halal meat and try to patronize both Jewish owned and Muslim owned businesses. I try to speak out against extremism and in favor of reconciliation. You are correct, of course, that listening and paying attention and caring are much more important than how sharp one's hearing is according to an audiologist. Those distinctions have been part of my daily reality for 38 years now. My wife is a both a very perceptive listener and a compassionate person.

My personality is not suited to take on the role of administrative cop on the beat in the realm covered by ARBPIA, and I lack truly deep knowledge of the issues and the history. You are a far more well-educated person than I. But if you see a specific issue where my skills may come in useful, feel free to reach out from time to time. In conclusion, I am glad that you are still contributing to this encyclopedia and hope that some day you will remove the "retired" banner from your user page, when and if you feel like it. Thank you for stopping by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I generally advise people not to get sucked into the I/P area, Jim, and that holds here. Wikipedia is not a suicide pact, nor, as we are often told, a venue to right injustices (getting the full factual record in is another matter). Third party comments coming in desultorily, just every now and again, esp. if from administrators, are all the more effective if the admin or editor has no horse in the race, and is rarely seen around in the disputed areas. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jim, I've looked at the translation page and will have a go at a starter article/stub myself. The classroom collaboration also look interesting. Thanks for your help. Brett rider. Brett rider (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, Brett rider. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, I just stopped by the talk page of an editor who really helped me improve an article a couple of weeks ago, and noticed that you recently blocked them. I looked through the last few diffs of what they were doing and agree that it was not ideal; however, this is an editor who has been on Wikipedia for 13 years (!) and, at least if my very positive encounter with them is any indicator, has made a lot of really thoughtful and useful improvements to the encyclopedia. They have now repeatedly requested on their talk page an unblock so that they can have the account renamed to protect their privacy. To me, this seems like a minimal courtesy to someone who has contributed a lot over many years to the encyclopedia. The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption and I seriously doubt that this editor would disrupt the encyclopedia if unblocked. I think that wanting to safeguard their privacy is a very reasonable concern. I was wondering if you might consider unblocking them so they could have their account renamed? Thanks, Philepitta (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Philepitta. I believe that it is best that previously uninvolved adminstrators evaluate my decision under these circumstances. If the editor was plausibly pledging to return to constructive editing, I would try to facilitate that. My focus is always on improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cullen, Thank you for your reply. I’m not at all questioning that your focus is on improving the encyclopedia. I was just looking at your essay on smartphone editing. That is cool! I didn’t know that editing with a smartphone was at all well supported.

On the topic of the editor, you may not have seen, but the editor has now requested an unblock three times, and the requests have been refused by three other administrators. Admins reviewing unblocks do take the opinion and rationale of the original blocking administrator heavily into account, so I think it is really up to you. I am in agreement with you that the best outcome for the encyclopedia would be if the editor was willing to return to productive editing. However, editing wikipedia is a voluntary activity, so whether or not the editor wants to do this is up to them.

Since the editor has been around for so long, they may have their username linked with their personal or even professional identity (I assume this is the case because they repeatedly expressed on their user page that they have privacy concerns). It just seems really unfair to me for someone who seems to have made many positive contributions to the encyclopedia over the course of years isn't given the courtesy of having their account renamed. This isn't a troll or vandal, but a long-time productive editor. I think that the policy against editors who are not in good standing exercising their right to vanish is probably so that an abusive editor can have their negative contributions checked and reverted. But this doesn’t seem to me to be an issue here; I don’t think that the editor exercising their right to vanish would disrupt the encyclopedia. What is your opinion on the editor anonymizing their account? Do you have concerns about this?

Again, it just seems problematic to me for a long-term positive contributor who has privacy concerns to have their talk page turned into a “wall of shame” of unblock requests. The editor even tried to blank their talk page, and one of the administrators restored the unblock requests on the grounds that blocked editors are not allowed to remove denied unblock requests.

I think it’s an overall unfortunate situation, but am curious what, in your view, would be the most positive way forward?

Thanks, Philepitta (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Philepitta, I do not object to any adminstrator assisting this person to anonymize their account. I blocked in good faith and hoped that the editor would correct their behavior and return to productive editing. I regret that they have decided not to. But I really prefer that another adminstrator make the final decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Question: How come Natalie Wood never took baths? EEng

Well, EEng, she has been dead for 37 years so there are no BLP concerns. Plus I am aware that every English language scandal rag has speculated about the case, plus Russian ones since her birth name was Natalia Nikolaevna Zakharenko. So give me the answer to the riddle if you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If I was on Facebook, I would complain about the lack of a "groan" button to click, EEng. But because Wikipedia is not a social network, I am forced to endure your humor stoically. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have some space shuttle disaster jokes too if you'd like some. EEng 06:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I took my wife and one of my sons to see the new documentary Apollo 11 (2019 film) today. Highly recommended. My father was not a guy who cried a lot. I remember him crying only after the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy, the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and the 1997 unexpected death of my mother. I cry all the time, so I can probably handle your jokes Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jim, I have completed the translation of https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertille_de_Baudinière and am now on the Creating Draft page, trying to follow instructions to 'tag the article with a translation template'. Is this the correct format for doing that?:{{Create English|Bertille de Baudinière}}. And should I then insert my translation directly afterwards? Thanks. Brett rider (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Brett rider. I am a little confused. When I look at your contributions here on English Wikipedia, I do not see any such draft. You should work on your draft on English Wikipedia not French Wikipedia. And there is no such thing as Template:Create English, at least on the English Wikipedia. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello I have created a Article i was wondering if you could please take a look at it for i think its really good. I would be honored get this done a published as soon as i could. I would like to look at other pages as well i would love to assist in many ways thanks i be waiting for return mail thatnks god bless'-Chrism 12334 (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello I have created a Article i was wondering if you could please take a look at it for i think its really good. I would be honored get this done a published as soon as i could. I would like to look at other pages as well i would love to assist in many ways thanks i be waiting for return mail thatnks god bless--Chrism 12334 (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)