User talk:Cullen328/Archive 107

This is an archive of past discussions with 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 100

←

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

Lajoswinkler

Hello Cullen. I can't post on ANI since it's semi-protected, so I would like to ask you. Could you please examine the above user's behavior? They have been persistently making personal attacks and just generally had a hateful and aggressive tone. I politely asked them to refrain from this behavior. This is what they responded, which is blatantly unacceptable. If you could do something about it, I'd be happy. I don't want people ruining Wikipedia's collaborative atmosphere with personal attacks, nobody wants that for that matter. Thank you, 35.136.190.243 (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Ha, yes, I just semi-protected it because some big baby can't get over something. I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

IP editor, I was just going to recommend that you reach out to my fellow administrator Drmies since he is already familiar with the dispute, and what do you know? Here he is. Yes, I agree that Lajoswinkler is being overly combative.

On the naming dispute, "film photography" has problems because dageurrotypes and glass plate negatives are not film and are exceptionally important in the early history of photography. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry for adding so many comments to my ani i just got really stressed when i got the notice i panicked. i have removed most of my redundant comments Wwew345t (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Concern about a user you recently blocked.

Recently you blocked a user for personal attacks – and now they are back to doing it, in a way which shows they didn't learn anything from your previous block. Thank you. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

SomethingForDeletion, I have blocked that editor for a week this time. Cullen328 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Question: are we allowed to remove or strike their comment from that Talk page? It isn't adding anything constructive to the discussion. But I'm hesitant to do that myself, since I've been actively involved in that move discussion. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

SomethingForDeletion, please leave that comment alone. I commented that I have blocked the editor. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I think with your reply there is no need to remove it anyway. Thanks again. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not gonna donate

Hello, Jim,

I was wondering if since you moved this article to a different page title, if the abbreviation for it should also be changed to reflect this title change. It would be more accurate but it might interfere with past usages of the abbreviation. But I thought I'd bring it up in case it was an oversight. I like your updates to it.

Hope you are well and having a good weekend! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. Thanks for the positive feedback. I actually changed the shortcut at the top of the essay but Nat Gertler reverted me with the comment "pithiness is of value in a shortcut". Both shortcuts WP:GONNADONATE and WP:NOTGONNADONATE are functioning. I know it is possible to display more than one shortcut/redirect but I don't remember how. I will look into it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Liz, I added the other shortcut. It was easy, of course, after I looked it up. Cullen328 (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Continual edit war in Peter bergmann case

Hi I just wanted to bring to your attention, user Aspects is continually reverting my edit, repeating the same sentence and is not engaging in discussion for an alternative. 38.87.93.151 (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Since I have already expressed my opinion on the content matter, I cannot act as an administrator per WP:INVOLVED. I recommend a Request for comment which will bring in new voices. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I can’t really work it out, I’m new to Wikipedia. Do you think you could set one up on my behalf? 38.87.93.143 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not care enough about the matter to get more deeply involved. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

That’s fair man 38.87.93.143 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

TheDarkkknight

That was weird, the rant, but then this fascinating article[1] showing most Republicans see Nazis etc as far left. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Doug Weller, that demented screed plus the three k username was enough for me. A common talking point among some factions of today's American far right is that the Nazis and fascists in Italy were actually far left instead of far right. They are often quite insistent. The whole Left–right political spectrum is an oversimplification, of course, and extremists at the very far end of each wing often have repellent characteristics in common. But left and right categorization is a useful tool in political science, and both Hitler and Mussolini were far to the right according to credible scholarship. Mussolini was a left wing journalist and socialist party operative until World War I, when he shifted far to the right. Hitler's party included "sozialistische" in it name and had nominally left wing factions led by Ernst Röhm and Gregor Strasser until both were summarily executed with dozens of their associates during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. At the height of each man's power, though, both men were far right to all but cranks. Cullen328 (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Good block in any case. Hm, I missed the kkk, wonder if this is a sock of [2]. Probably not. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Tdkelley1

You blocked this editor from editing the Aquatic Ape article and talk. They have opened multiple threads at the Teahouse and all indications to me is He's trying to 1) advertise his subreddit [3] [4] and 2) sealion other editors [5]. You may want to extend that to a full indef as WP:NOTHERE. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Iggy pop goes the weasel. I have indefinitely blocked that editor. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

One note on promotional accounts

I pinged you on one talk page but I thought I'd leave a comment here which I would rather not be there. I do know a degree of WP:AGF applies since someone I know personally did ask me privately about creating an article for their business. I advised them against it. But at least in that case referring them to WP:NCORP was enough to dissuade them before any accounts or pages were created. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

TornadoLGS, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Policy does not permit promotional usenames corresponding to a business. Policy does not permit creating overtly promotional content such as Founded by Christian Cole, a master furniture maker and designer based in Melbourne, the company is dedicated to traditional woodworking techniques and fine craftsmanship. Each piece is meticulously handmade at the company's Coburg (Melbourne) factory/showroom, ensuring quality and attention to detail. Are you arguing that I should not have blocked this policy violating editor, or are you arguing that I should not have warned them that most paid Wikipedia editors are scammers? Please clarify. Cullen328 (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you should have blocked and all that. I was the one who reported the account in the first place. I was more responding to the "liars, scammers and con artists" bit. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

TornadoLGS, how familiar are you with the day-to-day business practices of the people who market paid Wikipedia editing services online or through unsolicited emails? Have you read Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning? Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I was aware that such scams existed. I guess I was figuring, how prevalent are those compared to someone creating a page for their business and is simply ignorant of how Wikipedia works? Forgive me if I sound naive. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

TornadoLGS, my comment was the result of the blocked editor's comment Maybe I should employ someone to set a page up? Had that editor not said that, I would not have warned her about scammers. As for being naive, I do not know whether or not you are. I do know that, as an administrator, I have blocked close to 10,000 undisclosed paid editors. Cullen328 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I had though you were indicating that the blocked editor was a scammer, rather than warning her about them. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Amar bogati (07:27, 22 February 2025)

Hello --Amar bogati (talk) 07:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Amar bogati (07:33, 22 February 2025)

Hello do you pay for my work or? --Amar bogati (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Amar bogati, I have no idea what you are asking. Please rephrase. Cullen328 (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Explanation for "revert"

Hi Cullen. I'm a new editor and made some edits on a page. Some of them were "reverted" and some were not. I couldn't find an explanation for why it was reverted and whether there is some appeal process. Can you help me with that? Don Friedmann (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Don Friedmann. I assume that you are talking about the removal of "fanatical" and "vehemently" from Ultraconservatism. You can always look at the edit history of an article to see who reverted you and why. In this case, your edit to Ultraconservatism was reverted by User: Vipz with the edit summary These changes introduced loaded language (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch). So, you can go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch to see the guideline in question. You should also read the neutral point of view, a core content policy that is also applicable. In brief, we do not use intensifiers like "fanatical" and "vehemently" unless such language is used by the preponderance of reliable sources discussing the topic. As for reverts, they are routine and commonplace on the encyclopedia, and are an essential part of developing content that has the consensus of editors interested in the topic. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that quick reply, and I will look for that information. Is there a way to correspond with the editor, as I would like to work on a more acceptable change that would accomplish the goal of clarification. Don Friedmann (talk) 002, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Don Friedmann, unless you believe that the Manual of Style has been misinterpreted, I do not see what there is to talk about. By "correspond", do you mean email? We only use email when there is a compelling need for privacy, which is not the case here. You are free to discuss the matter at User talk: Vipz, just as you are discussing things with me. Cullen328 (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you could've handled Tdkelley1 better

Adding things such as if you complain any more about the editorial processes of the #7 website in the world, then your talk page access will be revoked [6] is rather questionable. I understand that this user didn't really get our policies, but the correct move isn't to imply the user is insignificant compared to Wikipedia, because that escalates the situation. Likewise, Engaging in personal attacks against MrOllie is a poor tactic. That editor, after all, has has been editing for about 17 years, has made roughly 200 times more edits than you, and clearly understands Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and social norms vastly better than you do. also wasn't the best because it implies the personal attacks were wrong because of MrOllie's status in the Wikipedia community. It also reads as if your block is because MrOllie is more important than Tdkelley1, not because you're equally applying a rule to everyone on Wikipedia.

Starting off with an indefinite sitewide block for WP:NPA doesn't seem to be good here, because you didn't fully follow our civility policies leading up to the block.

For why I care, I got indirectly linked from a thread at WP:FTN and saw their user talk page. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Chess. I do not believe that I implied that this person is insignificant, but rather that they were having great difficulty either understanding or complying with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do not see that my pointing out the truth constitutes an escalation. Similarly, I informed the editor that MrOllie, an editor they were harshly criticizing at every opportunity, is better positioned than they, because of vastly greater experience, to understand the relevant policies and guidelines. This simple fact does not mean that MrOllie is "more important" than Tdkelley1, because experience and importance are not at all the same thing. Despite your claim, I did not start out with a sitewide block, but rather pageblocks on Aquatic ape hypothesis and Talk: Aquatic ape hypothesis. Those pageblocks were for (Contentious topic restriction: Disruptive editing in a contentious topic area - pseudoscience and fringe science). As WP:CTOP says, Administrators are allowed to impose editing restrictions on editors who do not follow project expectations within contentious topics. Several editors besides me made pertinent and relevant observations about this editor's pattern of disruption and tendentious WP:IDHT behavior in pushing this fringe theory. Only after the editor continued with their disruptive editing and continued their personal attacks over a period of over 19 hours did I block sitewide, adding Disruption and personal attacks have continued since the pageblocks to the block reason. I do not agree with you that I was uncivil. My approach to dealing with problematic editors has always been to be friendly but firm. In my judgment, this editor required a high degree of firmness, and I cannot imagine this person becoming a productive contributor to this encyclopedia without a major change in attitude. If I was treating them uncivilly, I would not have repeatedly offered advice about filing a formal unblock request. I still do not believe that they paid much attention to the Guide to appealing blocks despite me encouraging them to do so three times. Cullen328 (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I should probably be more clear. I understand that you meant that editor should look towards MrOllie as an example to follow and that Wikipedia has high quality standards. But the way I would've interpreted your reference to the "#7 website in the world" as a new editor, is that you don't think I am good enough for Wikipedia. You could've made your point equally as effectively without saying Nobody cares about your unverifiable claim that "I have reviewed and edited scientific papers professionally for over 30 years." Do you think that anonymous people on the internet will get better treatment here on Wikipedia, the #7 website in the world, by making such statements? This easily reads as "Wikipedia is an important site, and doesn't care about your experience", instead of "we can't verify your experience which is why we can't judge you for it". The second would be more friendly and firm than the first.

Likewise, the direct comparison of Tdkelley1 with MrOllie while you were punishing Tdkelley1 is also susceptible to misinterpretation. Yes, MrOllie was right, and Tdkelley1 probably should've listened to them. But the justification reads as if the block was because of the specific person Tdkelley1 got in an argument with, not because of Tdkelley1's misunderstanding of our policies.

The reason why I said an indef might be too harsh here is that if I were similarly situated without knowledge of your intent, I would probably be extremely mad as well. It still wouldn't justify personal attacks, but I could definitely see someone unfamiliar with our policies lashing out. Additionally, I'd probably interpret an indef in that situation as "you're permanently banned and you're never coming back" (because that's how most websites work as they send your appeals into the aether), when realistically that editor could get a WP:ROPE unblock in a year or two if they promised not to do it again. I was in similar situation on a different wiki website when I was a lot younger and less mature (I'm aware that editor claims to have 30 years of experience). The fact I got a block for a year or two instead of indeffed made a world of difference to me. I think based on the context + my own personal experience, if given a lengthy block, they will either forget about this site or come back with a different attitude. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Chess, I think that you are reading into my comments things that I did not say and did not intend. If I intended the block to be interpreted as "permanently banned", then why would I have encouraged them several times to make a formal unblock request, and why would I have encouraged them to read and follow the advice at WP:GAB? I consider a block of a year or two to be harsher than a block of indefinite duration, because many indefinitely blocked editors can write a responsive, persuasive unblock request and be back to editing within a few days. All that is required is self reflection and a commitment to positive change. I have supported unblocking indeffed editors on many occasions. As for blocking/unblocking procedures at other websites, I know nothing about that and do not consider it relevant to this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

All that is required is self reflection and a commitment to positive change is a reasonable stance and I think communicating it that way would be helpful. I don't believe Tdkelley1 understood that, though, and phrasing it that way might help. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Chess, they did not understand that because they either did not read the Guide to Appealing Blocks, or chose to disregard the excellent advice found there.

In addition, I want to note that I did not block this editor to punish them, and did not block them for personal attacks against one specific experienced editor. The primary reason for the blocks was to stop the disruptive and tendentious editing to push a fringe theory, and the personal attacks were an aggravating but secondary factor. I would have done the same thing if the editor being harassed was a new account. My only reason to mention MrOllie's experience was as an indicator that they have had the time to develop a deeper understanding of policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Ovuefe Ighobeduo (12:45, 26 February 2025)

Hi Cullen328, How do I create an article (profile) for myself --Ovuefe Ighobeduo (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Ovuefe Ighobeduo: Please read WP:AUTOB and understand that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, so how do I get someone to write about me

@UtherSRG Ovuefe Ighobeduo (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Ovuefe Ighobeduo, provide convincing evidence that you are a notable person. Please be aware that self-promotion is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Abcdehello on George Howson (British Army officer) (14:10, 27 February 2025)

Hello, I would like to edit the title of this page to George Howson (Founder and Chairman of The Poppy Factory) - since that is what he is famous for, how do I request to change the title? --Abcdehello (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Abcdehello: First, please don't. We use the simplest reasonable disambiguator. Second, you would request a page move. You can read about such at WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Abcdehello, I agree with UtherSRG. The only purpose of the disambiguator is to make it clear to the reader which is the correct article. So, his father is George Howson (priest), not "George Howson (Anglican archdeacon)". Similarly, we have Mercury (planet), not "Mercury (closest planet to the Sun)". Cullen328 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Memorials for him honour him as founder of the poppy factory, that is what he is remembered for and when people are searching for the founder of the poppy factory it should be immediately clear that it was him. How do I request a page move? Abcdehello (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Abcdehello, please remember as you were told above We use the simplest reasonable disambiguator. Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation carefully, and then read Wikipedia:Requested moves, being aware that your request is controversial. Cullen328 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from JamesDrum (04:55, 27 February 2025)

Bonjour mentor, je voudrais apprendre concrètement comment créer un article biographique sur un artiste J'ai commencé un brouillon et j'aurai besoin de votre mentoring --JamesDrum (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, JamesDrum. Il s'agit de Wikipédia en anglais. La communication entre les éditeurs doit se faire en anglais. Je ne parle pas français. J'utilise Google Translate pour répondre.

This is the English language Wikipedia. Communication among editors should be in English. I do not speak French. I am using Google Translate to reply. Cullen328 (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for writing in French; I didn’t know.

I was saying that I would like to learn specifically how to create a biographical article about an artist. I have started a draft and would need your mentoring. JamesDrum (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

JamesDrum, you created an unreferenced and highly promotional draft which has been deleted. The most important element by far in creating an acceptable Wikipedia article is providing references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. This is essential. The role of a Wikipedia editor is to accurately and neutrally summarize those sources. Please read and study Your first article, and let me know if you have any questions. Cullen328 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Kobi Arad

@Cullen328 Just wanted to ping you that the page [Kobi Arad] which you accepted in AFC, is being discussed for deletion. 2603:8000:F200:E4D4:86F8:D1C3:302C:D7F6 (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Question from Realnthn (21:42, 2 March 2025)

Hi! Do you have access to my draft article? I have submitted it but it says it'll be months before it passes. Could you give me any advice as to how to improve it? Any tips whatsoever would be appreciated.

Sincerely, realnthn --Realnthn (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Realnthn. I am sorry but I see no evidence that Butch Arceo is a notable person. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversighter changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is open to discuss whether AI-generated images (meaning those wholly created by generative AI, not human-created images modified with AI tools) should be banned from use in articles.
A series of 22 mini-RFCs that double-checked consensus on some aspects and improved certain parts of the administrator elections process has been closed (see the summary of the changes).
A request for comment is open to gain consensus on whether future administrator elections should be held.

Technical news

A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

The 2025 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, Arcticocean, Ameisenigel, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, Galahad, Nehaoua, Renvoy, Revi C., RoySmith, Teles and Zafer as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
Following the 2025 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: 1234qwer1234qwer4, AramilFeraxa, Daniuu, KonstantinaG07, MdsShakil and XXBlackburnXx.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For carrying ErrorCorrection1's kit the extra mile.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Deepfriedokra. Cullen328 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

RE:UAA

The user was softblocked and your comment removed, but per this question, the username was the N-word spelled out in numbers and special characters. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

TornadoLGS, wow, that's obscure, but now I see what you mean. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess I should provide an explanation when someone tries to sneak one past in that way. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

TornadoLGS, yes, that would be helpful. WP:UAA reports that include a clue to administrators makes things move along more smoothly and efficiently. Cullen328 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Good to know. I think others I reported before were more obvious, like just substituting a single letter from a slur. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jim!

Sorry to bother you, but would you be so kind to take a look at User_talk:Wizmut#Merging/condensing_archives and the section below that.

You'd think you've seen it all, and then someone decides to try to ensure all archives are as close to their preferred bytesize as possible, by removing threads from numbered archives and sticking them in other archives, creating a giant mess. And then, when people complain, the response is "Opinion noted" and "Please just go away".

Here is one example out of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Wizmut&target=Wizmut&offset=202503151717&limit=7

Some of the other "useful" things they do is changing {{talkarchive}} and {{AAN}}, which redirect to {{archive}}, to {{Talk archive}}, which also redirects to that same template. And they've decided to add newlines after every section header is a good use of their limited time on planet Earth.[7]

If you can't convince them to stop then I am going to propose a CIR block. They have made hundreds of edits doing this stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Polygnotus. At first glance, I find the editor's behavior baffling and problematic, as indicated by the comments by three different editors on their user talk page in the last month. I should note that I have little experience with archiving issues, and am not aware of any written consensus on refactoring archives. I noticed that the editor began a related conversation last December at Help talk:Archiving a talk page#More explicit standards where several editors expressed their views. Perhaps a good next step might be to start a new discussion about this particular issue on that page, pinging the participants of the December discussion as well as the two others who have expressed concerns on the user's talk page. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, that might be the time for a formal Request for Comment. I would feel much more comfortable intervening as an adminstrator if I had a written consensus to point to. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Wizmut here. I would also appreciate a written consensus. I find Polygnotus's style of objecting to be alarming and distressing. I take all feedback I receive seriously, although most of it is in the form of thanks and not criticism. For example this edit[8] received a simple thank you, which doesn't show up on my talk page.

All of the edits I do are based on behavior I have seen from other editors, although I have not taken extensive notes as to where I picked it up. My workflow allows me to scan for vandalism or otherwise lost archive content that has, in some cases, been lost for years.

I would like to hear exactly what the "mess" is. I do not edit pages that have so many links to the archive topics that it would be onerous to correct them. I have tried doing that in the past, and it is not worth the effort. I have changed my style of maintenance on these pages, and it will probably continue to change.

If re-shelving of topics is found to be haram, I will certainly stop doing it. Or at least ask the users of the page to comment on the prospect. Wizmut (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

@Wizmut It is, obviously, the other way around. You need to get consensus for messing with archives. But you know you won't be able to. I take all feedback I receive seriously Joking in a text-based communication form is ill-advised. All of the edits I do are based on behavior I have seen from other editors There is no one else who is merging/condensing archives. although I have not taken extensive notes as to where I picked it up you know you can't name another username of someone who merges/condenses archives.

If re-shelving of topics is found to be haram Other way around. Unless you can get consensus to do what you do, you must stop. And if not I will have to undo the damage you've done, and ensure you can't continue to cause damage. The fact that you aren't even fazed by the fact that an administrator calls your behaviour baffling and problematic is telling. The fact that people object to your behaviour seems to matter little to you. WP:COSMETIC edits are frowned upon. There is already consensus against your edits, it is at least 3 against 1. So stop it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I would like advice on the best way to reply to Polygnotus, if at all. Wizmut (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Well I would recommend reading this first:

If you just want to mess around with talkpage archives, then you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia.
If you do not listen to others, and do not treat them with respect, we call that WP:IDHT.

I am willing to believe that you started out with good intentions and got carried away, but you have to stop.

And I highly recommend looking at this pie chart and increasing the percentage of mainspace edits.

If you think I am an asshole because I am stern then you don't even have to reply to me. Just find an article and improve it. Or write an article. If you prefer to do a maintenance task, there are thousands of useful things you can do that people will thank you for and no one will object to. See WP:TASKCENTER and WP:MAINT and https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/index.html Myself and Cullen328 will be happy to help you find something else to do and help adjust to your new role. But please don't make me repeat myself even more. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Statistics can be misleading. My edits in article space are often in country list tables. A recent edit of the big pop density list took about a week to prepare, but it was mainly done in a single apparent edit. I'm still working on one for EEZ's, which will likely result in just one big edit and a few for cleanup. Sometimes I will update a graph I made, using the same filename. Shows up in wikimedia history, but not article history.

My request was for how to reply to your comments, which have gotten quite personal in nature. You have now accused me of incompetence, lying, not listening, and doing the wrong thing on purpose. My reading of the guidelines is that these comments usually should not be replied to, because they are rarely productive. But given that you are campaigning to have me banned then I am in a bit of a conundrum. Wizmut (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I started by very politely asking you to please stop, remember? And then you started falsely accusing me and dismissing the concerns of the people who disagree with you.

It is pretty simple, you can continue doing what you do against consensus.

In that case, you may get blocked (not banned, there is a difference) but it is more likely that you will be told off. I will repair the damage caused.

Or you can do literally anything else in the world. I linked to many useful tasks anyone can do on Wikipedia, and there are also many tasks outside of Wikipedia one can do.

Unsurprisingly, I am not the enemy, I am a volunteer like almost everyone else here. So if you want help finding a more productive use of your time I'd be happy to help.

I personally like typofixing and if that is something you are interested in I can help you out. Heck, I can probably help you start with any other activity you pick, or refer you to the right people. I don't know R but do know my way around the APIs.

Work on the stuff on your userpage; no one has objected to your edits in mainspace as far as I know. But please stop making these incredibly unproductive edits on talkpages and their archives. Polygnotus (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I did not ask for my talk page to be turned into a debating society while I was off Wikipedia for a while. My advice to you, Wizmut, is to stop the unproductive behavior that four editors have now objected to. Can you agree to that? Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I will stop. But I think I will also open a topic on the relevant guideline or other talk page, to discuss the issue with other editors. I will take Polygnotus's suggestion on where. Wizmut (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Lisssgaming (02:47, 18 March 2025)

I need a help --Lisssgaming (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Lissagaming. You need to be much more specific and you need to communicate better with editors who disagree with your contributions. If you are having difficulty communicating in English, then maybe you might have more success at the

Tamil Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Lyttle v. United States

Hello Cullen! I really appreciate your response in the Teahouse. I was wondering, would you be interested in reviewing my draft for Lyttle v. United_States? Let me know, thanks! Theedecemberblues (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Theedecemberblues. I have accepted your draft and moved it to mainspace. The title of reference #10 does not match the source. Please correct that and check all of your references. Thanks. It is an interesting article. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Khushhe (03:57, 3 March 2025)

Hello What are the chances that my edits will stay on wikipedia? --Khushhe (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Khushne. That depends entirely on whether or not your edits follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your first two edits replaced a reference that produced a 404 error. At first glance, that's good. But the new reference you added is to TheDemoStop, which is not a reliable source. So, please find a better source. Culle<n328 (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

But Thedemostop is a reputable website, which includes all updated information. Khushhe (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Khushhe, no, I am sorry. TheDemoStop consists of paid user generated promotional content. It is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Check at the Reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree with me. Cullen328 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry!

Self-trout Fat fingers on an iPad ... I'm going to check that script that confirms rollback actions. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 03:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No problem, ClaudineChionh. It happens to the best of us. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Jharo.palma (11:04, 24 March 2025)

Hi Cullen! I'm considering writing entering an entry on an old English Folk Song. Do you have any advice for my first edit? --Jharo.palma (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jharo.palma. Any such article must summarize what reliable published sources say about the song. Your first article has some good advice]]. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from CTEKJIO (12:08, 24 March 2025)

Hello, Are you real human? --CTEKJIO (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, CTEKJIO. According to my wife, two sons and granddaughter, I am a real human. Cullen328 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Evil

In my opinion definition of EViL is a return to living Eden with understanding of a past mistakes. How I can add this definition to page about evil? CTEKJIO (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, CTEKJIO. Please be aware that No original research is a core content policy, and it says that the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors are not allowed in Wikipedia articles. Our article Evil summarizes what 70 published reliable sources say about the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Why I can’t be seventy one? 73.171.63.248 (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You can. Write a book, expounding your views in sufficient detail and clarity to be worth commenting on. Find a reputable publisher willing to print and promote it. Have multiple recognised academic or similar experts on the topic matter publish commentary on the merits your views. Given sufficient recognition, you may then become a reliable source. You'll probably find it easier to get your work published if you study for a doctorate on philosophy and/or theology first. Good luck with that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Freedom new definition

Freedom is right for a question. Can I add it to Freedom definition? CTEKJIO (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again, CTEKJIO. What you wrote does not make sense to me. The answer is "no" unless you provide a reference to a reliable, published source. Did you read No original research? Do you understand it? Cullen328 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Ice Breaking

Hi Jim, I'm new to the Wikipedia universe and want to grow into it. Want to contribute to topics that interest people, and also climb up the Wiki ladder. Some advise from a veteran to a novice is in order :) Time-is-wealth (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Time-is-wealth. You seem to be making a good start so far. You are consistently adding references to reliable sources, which is important. I know little about cricket or Hindu spirituality, which seem to be your main areas of interest along with Hollywood where I have more familiarity. I guess my main advice would be to stick to citing very high quality reliable sources, and tread carefully when editing highly controversial topics. If you have more specific questions, please ask. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thanks for such a warm response. Hope you and your family are doing well.

If I had to ask one question, can you draw out a step by step guide for me to follow, in order to grow as a wiki editor, and do some fruitful work over the next few years.

PS: Like you rightly found out, my areas of interest are cricket and spirituality! Time-is-wealth (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Time-is-wealth, there is no step by step guide because every editor (and human) is unique, with their own strengths and weaknesses, their own interests and motivations, and their own personality traits. I advise you to to take things slowly when getting involved with controversial processes and issues. Those who spend too much time wrestling with controversy often end up jaded and cynical. Spend time studying the written policies and guidelines, and especially observing the behavioral norms. Always keep in mind that our mutual goal is building and improving an encyclopedia, and everything else is secondary to that purpose. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Words of wisdom Jim. Thanks a lot for your time. Time-is-wealth (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Obed official (11:39, 31 March 2025)

Say hello, how do I edit my page --Obed official (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Obed official. Which specific page are you talking about, and what are you trying to accomplish? Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Amir1144ali (01:22, 2 April 2025)

Hello mentor, I am running a YouTube channel named Meme Facts 786 (here is the link: https://youtube.com/@memefacts786?si=V8ygYI_LYoPBeyWU). I would like to contribute to Wikipedia and improve my editing skills. Can you guide me on the best practices for adding reliable information and citations to articles? --Amir1144ali (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Amir1144ali. The first piece of advice that I will give you is that you should refrain from promoting yourself or your YouTube channel on Wikipedia. Self-promotion is not permitted. As for citations, please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from PinkSkies132 (23:17, 1 April 2025)

Hi, I'm questioning the decision about calling this speech a filibuster or not. The senate page states that filibuster is loosely defined, but Booker's speech does fit the qualifications of intent and actual delay of votes, just not during the debate stage of a vote. There are two other wiki pages, for Ted Cruz and Al D'Amato, that talk about filibusters that also don't meet the senate page's definition of a filibuster because they specifically did not intend to delay any vote and in fact did not delay anything. I think there should be consistency of either allowing the "loose definition" like it says for all of the speeches, or keeping consistent with a stricter definition for all 3 speeches. Could you weigh in?

Here's the page in question, and on the "talk" page I list some sources, including the wiki pages that use the word filibuster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker%27s_marathon_speech

Here's the senate page for filibuster that journalists are getting their definition from: https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/filibusters-cloture.htm

Also, the general filibuster page lists all of these speeches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate --PinkSkies132 (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, PinkSkies132. As an adminstrator, I rarely make substantive edits regarding contemporary US politics because I prefer to stay uninvolved in case I need to step in as an administrator. As for Booker's speech, we should describe it the same way as the preponderance of reliable sources describe it. I have not done a comprehensive study, but it looks to me like most sources are not calling it a filibuster. Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I more question the consistency of the use of the word filibuster than this actual speech. Sources (journalists) are relying on the senate page I linked as the definition, which makes this site factually wrong on other pages that also list filibusters PinkSkies132 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

PinkSkies132, the role of a Wikipedia editor is to accurately summarize what the preponderance of reliable sources say about the specific topic, Booker's speech in this case. We are summarizers, not analysts. Other articles are "wrong" only to the extent that they do not accurately summarize what reliable sources say about those topics. If that is the case, edit those other articles to bring them into better alignment with the sources. As for the Senate page, that should be mentioned in the Booker speech article only to the extent that sources discussing Booker's speech discuss it. Consistency on such matters is not a goal of Wikipedia. If coverage by reliable sources of other long Senate speeches is inconsistent in their coverage with the coverage of this speech, then that inconsistency will be reflected in the various articles. So it goes. Cullen328 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

So the goal of wikipedia is not to be correct, factual, consistent, or reliable? I have misunderstood the entire project? PinkSkies132 (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

PinkSkies132, the goal of Wikipedia is to provide the largest and greatest tertiary reference work in human history for free, which we have accomplished. The way we do that is by accurately summarizing what the preponderance of reliable sources say about a topic. The authors of reliable sources are people like professional journalists working under professional editorial control, university professors and scientists writing for peer reviewed academic journals, and well established authors with good reputations writing books issued by established publishing houses. It is their paid job and their social role to be correct, factual, consistent as you wrote, and since they are writing for reliable sources, Wikipedia's reliability derives from the reliability of those sources and the accuracy of our summarization. Wikipedia editors (most of whom are anonymous) are forbidden by the policy No original research from creating new knowledge or engaging in analysis or synthesis of knowledge. We are summarizers. No more and no less. Cullen328 (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to make "new knowledge" on wikipedia. Since you don't want to be involved in politics I am feeling like you don't understand what I'm asking at all. The sources are all directing to a singular source themselves, and restating that source incorrectly. Other experts with published work are confirming that they are restating that source incorrectly. But it is helpful to know that wikipedia's purpose is for summary, not factual accuracy. PinkSkies132 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

PinkSkies132, please read my words more carefully. I never said that I don't want to be involved in politics. As a matter of fact, I have been heavily involved in politics since April, 1968 when I drove to a large memorial service in Detroit immediately after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. I was 16 and had just gotten my driver's license a week or two before. And this coming Saturday, I will be attending what I expect to be a large political rally in Sacramento. What I said was that I rarely make substantive edits regarding contemporary US politics because I prefer to stay uninvolved in case I need to step in as an administrator. That is very different. As for the US Senate page, it is only four sentences long and is far from definitive. In one minute, I found eight whole books devoted to the Senate filibuster. Why would we rely on a four sentence source? Cullen328 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Davi Santiago

Hello, @Cullen328! Please know that I am a great admirer of your work. We need your expertise in reviewing and possible publication the article:Draft:Davi Santiago. I hope I can count on your support. Hugs! Etlevs (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Etlevs. Please remove or translate the sentence written in Portuguese. I am not familiar with the Brazilian media landscape and am therefore not qualified to review the draft. What is your personal connection, if any, with Davi Santiago? Cullen328 (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

They are a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Benjamin1921 (08:02, 1 April 2025)

Hey Cullen328! You're assigend as my mentor, so I hope its okay that I contact you about this. I just wrote my first original wikipedia article. If you have some time, maybe you could review it and give me some feedback? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tropical_Forest_Forever_Facility --Benjamin1921 (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Benjamin1921. Your draft appears to be a pretty good start. The "Proposed Structure" section needs references and should be changed to "Proposed structure". Please clean up the red error messages in your references. For example, when you use the "Cite journal" template, you must provide the name of the journal in the "journal" field, which has been removed from your template for some reason. Cullen328 (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've made the suggested edits. Thanks a lot for the feedback! Benjamin1921 (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Preter Anthony (20:07, 4 April 2025)

Unless my memory fails me, I believe the very first presentation of the Salem Witch trial course that was presented at UMass Amherst by Nissenbaum & Boyd actually occurred during the summer academic semester in 1969, and only photocopies of purportedly "original" court transcripts, personal affidavits and diaries were provided as classroom aids for classroom discussions. --Preter Anthony (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Preter Anthony. That is all moderately interesting but it is not a question and I am unsure what effect it would have on Wikipedia. We do not rely on the memories of editors, after all, but only on published reliable sources. Do you have a question? Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Not at this time,thank you. Now I know more about the Wiki mentoring and editing processes, thank you. 2601:18E:C082:F610:3060:4D17:EC0D:86B5 (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. If you are Preter Anthony editing logged out, please try to get into the habit of logging in to edit. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)