User talk:Cullen328

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't live on Cullen Ct, but I like the street sign

If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia by smartphone, I encourage you to read my essay, Smartphone editing. Thank you.

Welcome to my talk page I use the name Cullen328 on Wikipedia, but you can call me "Jim" because that's my real first name. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" or "Add topic" at the top of this page. I keep the old comments from July and August of 2009 that follow the "Contents" here, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome when I first started editing Wikipedia.

The importance of a friendly greeting

Hello and welcome to my talk page. If you want to start a new conversation, please click "New section" at the top of this page. I keep the comments that follow from July and August of 2009 readily visible, because these friendly words of greeting made me feel welcome here on Wikipedia when I first started editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC

Please offer your thoughts

I would appreciate comments and suggestions on any contributions I make. I am learning.Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your help / declined article / conflict of interest

Hi Cullen, I got your contact from a list (welcome-message / Jimfbleak). I would like to publish an english article about myself, the german version is already published ( Of course it was declined because of a conflict of interest .. that was about 10 months ago. Could you reopen and publish it? Thanks for your help, Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfgang.Sperl (talkcontribs) 13:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work on Jules Eichorn. He's been needing an article for a while.   Will Beback  talk  06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I may suggest, now that you've posted the Eichorn article the draft below might be deleted. It's your talk page to do with as you like, but it's a bit hard to edit around.
As for formatting and pictures, a good way to learn is to look around at other articles to see what you think looks best. It can be helpful to break up long blocks of text into subsections. Perhaps it'd be possible to split the biography into two or three eras. Other than that, the formatting is usually kept fairly plain. As for photos, it's easy to upload them: the trick is in finding photos with appropriate licensing. If you have any personal photos then those'd be fine. There are might be pictures of the peaks he did first ascents on in the Wikicommons. File:Cathedral Peak.png is a so-so pic of Eichorn Pinnacle.
As before, feel free to ask if you have any questions. There are several editors here who are mountaineers or just admirers of the Sierra, so you're in good company.   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: Many editors create "sandbox" pages for drafting articles. For example, User talk:Cullen328/Sandbox.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 1 August 2009

Your climber biographies

Hey Jim, just wanted to say welcome and thanks for your contributions to the Sierra Nevada climbing history articles. You're filling a niche that's been missing here, I look forward to working with you. --Justin (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll second that. Nice work on Allen Steck and welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know who you are planning to write up next but if your taking requests I think Peter Croft (climber) could really use a page. If you ever have any questions please ask. Thanks again for your great additions.--OMCV (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Justin and OMCV. I am beginning work on Tom Frost and Glen Dawson. Comments on Norman Clyde would be welcomed. I will defintely read up on Peter Croft, OMCV. I am still "learning the ropes" in Wikipedia, to use a climbing analogy, and have all sorts of things in mind. My biggest challenge right now is getting permission to use images. My next biggest challenge is hiking to the top of Mt. Whitney with my wife in ten days - she's never been above 12,000 feet except for the train ride up Pikes Peak. As she's 56 and developing arthritis in her toes, it will be an accomplishment if she (and I) complete the Class 1 feat. Jim Heaphy (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Debra and I made it to the summit of Mt. Whitney at 2:20 PM on Friday, September 11. Jim Heaphy (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3

Happy New Year[edit]

Happy New Year 2021
I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind.
Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk 

working on a new page[edit]

hello jim, hope you are doing well. i am a beginner on wikipedia but i am auto correction user. i want to write an article on a ngo which is working very good in there respective field. a friend of mine wrote a article on that topic but it got deleted due to less third party source. can you suggest me something how to write an article which won't get deleted, also i have some credible third party source so i want to ask how can i mention them because they are external links. Devanshusharma569 (talk)devanshusharma569

Happy St. Patrick's Day[edit]

Happy St. Patrick's Day!
I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations.
Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk 

(personal attack removed)[edit]

(Personal attack removed)

Request of Help on "Just the Facts" Tone[edit]

Hi Jim,

I am very new to Wikipedia. I got your feedback on the draft article located under PhoCoHaNoi. Thanks so much for your comments. I would greatly appreciate if you would spare some valuable time to highlight those parts from the draft that I need to pay close attentions to regarding the aspect that you raised. I know it would be a long shot to ask if you would even consider providing specific examples by directly editing them on the draft.

Lastly, I still do not know on how to submit the revision for review. I do not see any obvious buttons or pull-down menus from the Sandbox setting that would be able to allow to submit the article for review.

Thank you so much.


Hello, PhoCoHaNoi. I am not going to edit the draft myself, because I want this to be a learning exercise for you. Here are a few examples of unacceptable wording:
  • "celebrating the 73-year history of outstanding men and women"
  • "pioneering contributions"
  • "sustained leadership and strategic vision"
  • "Exceptional services to innovation ecosystem"
  • "stimulating small business innovation, meeting the Air Force and DoD R&D needs, broadening participation in innovation and entrepreneurship, and boosting commercialization"
  • " So, as Dr. Pham looked back now, he brought systems-theoretic science and control engineering principles, together with teamwork and interdisciplinary to bear fruition in solving warfighter engineering problems, various areas of specific focus for increased activities in space control autonomy and space domain awareness."
It is not the job of a Wikipedia editor (you) to praise a person. Every trace of this non-neutral language must be removed. A Wikipedia article should never say "Person A is great!" Instead, it should say "Reliable source C reports that Expert B says that Person A is great", along with a reference to Reliable source C.
As for how to submit your draft, I will explain that when the draft complies with the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it

Sending Messages to Other Editors[edit]

Hi Jim. I will deeply appreciate anything that you can do to help. How can I find out about other editors and send them messages? I recently looked for an article about The Italian Coffee Company that I had read years ago. However, I could not find it. I believe that this article should be available. I am a new editor and I have a big learning curve ahead of me. Maybe you can post to my talk page. I am user Mojosa17. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Invitation to Local Wikimania Event in San Francisco this Friday[edit]


Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out meta:Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup.

The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand workshops/learning sessions.

In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.

(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here)

On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and Bittakea, Effeietsanders

Debate to delete a Category[edit]

You have been Notified because you were once involved in a similar discussion involving Founding Fathers.
There is a debate over whether to keep Category: Homes of United States Founding Fathers as a category. More opinions are needed. The discussion is located Here -- Gwillhickers (talk)[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

You may want to revoke talkpage access. Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:F60:3CD8:AAC6:96B1:789 (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disruptions in the page Wahhabism[edit]

Hi Cullen328, thanks for your reversion here, which undid a horribly disruptive edit.

I have been working on improving this page for over two years and I notice such disruptions as well as Vandalism by IPs and newly-created bots regularly. I have tried my best to undo them, but it doesnt keep stoping. If you could also permanently semi-protect this page, that'd be cool. Thanks.🙂

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Shadowwarrior8. Thanks for your work to improve that article. I do not think that the disruption there is frequent enough to justify indefinite semi-protection. I semi-protected it for one month. Please feel free to contact me if the disruption resumes, and I will consider a longer time. Cullen328 (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not close the discussion[edit]

Like I said multiple times before, changing the title of the article American Indian Wars is completely off the table, since it refers to an official name of the series of events. Also, these users tone policed my arguments and contested to my status as a supposedly inexperienced user to invalidate my claims, which are considered incivil. I barely even bludgeoned anyone's contradictory arguments, as I have agreed with some of them and have made analogies that are exactly the same as theirs, which are uncontroversially true (e.g. American Indians and Black Americans vs. Amerindians and African-Americans). I specifically pointed out a double standard in regards to how they advocate for preferred terminologies on ethnic terms, and yet they don't apply that concept to African Americans for example. I contested to the utilization of Intothatdarkness' statistics, not the veracity, as I have stated how he did not cite any sources or references. I was not being vitriolic in any way, shape or form. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DaRealPrinceZuko, my talk page is not the place to debate these content points. The applicable article talk pages are the proper place. I certainly did not accuse you of being vitriolic, and accuracy is a prized attribute of productive Wikipedia editors. Please be very careful to avoid tendentious, argumentative editing. That behavior never ends well. Cullen328 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I thought you were kind of biased in favor of the other users' opposing argument, since I thought they apparently used almost all of the same tactics I've deployed against them, due to them ignoring the veracity of my statements and dismissing them as "not persuasive". DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DaRealPrinceZuko, not persuasive is an apt two word summary, and I am a big fan of brief and to-the-point discussions. Here are two more words: respect consensus. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mind explaining how the opposing users were respecting consensus? I provided analogies to the term we were discussing that are greater than Donald Albury's analogies, considering that I was referring to another racial group and he was referring to a disadvantaged status of a working class, which, to me, does not remotely tie in with ethnic terminology. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DaRealPrinceZuko, you have been unable to persuade the other editors and therefore consensus is against you. Cullen328 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does that give their arguments any credence whatsoever? They did not address why my argument did not persuade them in any way aside from them simply expressing their disapproval and nothing more. They should have explained why my argument was ineffective and why their arguments were stronger. DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not how consensus works, User:DaRealPrinceZuko. No editor is required to satisfy the demands of another editor in a conversation. Continuously asking people to refute individual points of argument is called WP:SEALIONing in Wikipedia parlance, and is universally considered tedious and unwelcome. Folly Mox (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any policy that suggests that refusing to engage and repeating the same talking points constantly does not validate anyone's argument? How does just saying that an argument is not persuasive constitute a counterargument that validates opposing viewpoints? Like I said before, these users were tone policing my arguments. Is there any policy against tone policing other users? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem here is that multiple users disagree with you. The onus is on you to either convince them or enough other editors to form a consensus. Simple as that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DaRealPrinceZuko, you are venturing into the realm of disruptive editing. I recommend that you drop this matter and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is this disruptive editing? DaRealPrinceZuko (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This conversation is over. Please do not post anything else here, DaRealPrinceZuko. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cite Pages Or Not[edit]

I am beginning to write a biography of Vesna Goldsworthy for use in her article. For the first 26 years of her life she lived in Serbia. I do not believe there are any primary sources for that period, but Goldsworthy wrote a memoir that is useful for reconstructing her life[1]. The edition cited is the 10th Anniversary Edition of the book, and the one availsble for purchase today. If I cite the book, I can reuse the citation multiple times. As I understand it, if I cite a page for each fact I will end up with a long list of citations referring to different pages of a single work. I would like to avoid that. Is it necessary to cite a page for each fact? I did not see this discussed in WP:BLP.Oldsilenus (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Oldsilenus. You can avoid this problem by using named references. You fully define a reference just once, and can invoke it repeatedly by using a small snippet of code that includes the name of the reference. See WP:REFNAME. Page numbers can be added in a parenthetical note after each use of the reference. As for use of the memoir, please be cautious and follow the restrictions described at WP:ABOUTSELF. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oldsilenus, if you use named refs, just add an {{rp|p=page(s)}} right after. So, your wikicode might look like this:
  • Vesna was born.<ref name="Goldsworthy-2015">{{cite book |last=Goldsworthy |first=Vesna |author-link= |date=2015 |title=Chernobyl Strawberries |url= |location=London, UK |publisher=Wilmington Square Books |isbn=978-1-908524-47-8}}</ref>{{rp|1}} She is Serbian,<ref name="Goldsworthy-2015" />{{rp|p=7}} and lives in Belgrade.<ref name="Goldsworthy-2015" />{{rp|p=117}}
which will result in the following:
  • Vesna was born.[2]: 1  She is Serbian,[2]: 7  and lives in Belgrade.[2]: 117 
Hope this helps. Mathglot (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Goldsworthy, Vesna (2015). Chernobyl Strawberries. London, UK: Wilmington Square Books. ISBN 978-1-908524-47-8.
  2. ^ a b c Goldsworthy, Vesna (2015). Chernobyl Strawberries. London, UK: Wilmington Square Books. ISBN 978-1-908524-47-8.

As usual: Thanks! I knew about naming references, but not the trick of adding page numbers to decrease the number of reference lines. I am very sensitive about WP:ABOUTSELF and will limit what I quote. Vesna Goldsworthy has a university page which I assume is reviewed by the university for accuracy.[1] Nevertheless, I will use caution referencing this also. For an example of how not to proceed, use Google translate or Edge to translate her Serbian Wikipedia page.[2] Yes, I do know how to add Cyrillic characters, but it is time consuming because I do not speak Serbian (See the Wiki text of this reply).

Oldsilenus (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news


  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.


  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Cullen328, not sure if you noticed the WP:DE(edit war?) or if it is important now, but 2-3 experienced editors are involved in it on R. Duane Ireland over the past 3 months. Just bringing this up. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeraxmoira, I think that this is a case of the subject of a biography of a living person having legitimate concerns about the accuracy of the Wikipedia article about them. They have raised three specific points of fact, and it turns out that the assertions were either unreferenced or unsupported by the reference given. I expect that this situation will stabilize, but if you see ongoing disruption, please let me know. Cullen328 (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanted to say hi[edit]

Hi. I hope you are doing well. :) Cwater1 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am doing fine, Cwater1, and I hope that you are as well. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am too. Cwater1 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Islalikesdolphins (06:38, 6 September 2023)[edit]

how do i create an article --Islalikesdolphins (talk) 06:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Islalikesdolphins. Spend several weeks or a month or two improving existing articles about topics that interest you, studying Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines as you edit. Read Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward until you fully realize what most new editors don't: Gathering up a list of references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic of your planned article is by far the most important step in writing an acceptable Wikipedia article. Writing the article consists of accurately summarizing those sources. Everything else is secondary and trivial by comparison. Then, read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Infosky-solutions (05:32, 8 September 2023)[edit]

hi sir, I want to add the website in a page ( which is situated in Purulia district. what is the best process and where can I place it properly --Infosky-solutions (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Infosky-solutions. I do not see a section about educational institutions in Purulia district. If you want to create such a section. then you need to include all of the major educational institutions of that district, not just this one. Be sure that you reference your content properly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is There as Solution for This?[edit]

I added a reference to the Vesna Goldsworthy article from the English publisher Salt Publishing url . A bot removed the the reference tag (but left the page address) since "blog" was used in the URL. Salt publishing is in charge of judging the Crashaw Prize. This page seems to me to be more of a press release than the usual blog post. May it be used as a Wikipedia reference, and if so, how may it be protected against bot removal? Thanks. Oldsilenus (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Oldsilenus. The URL you provided does not work for me. Did she actually win the Crashaw Prize, or was she just on the shortlist? Is the Crashaw Prize still awarded? I cannot find any recent news about it. How prestigious is this award? Do entrants have to pay fees to participate? At this point, I remain unconvinced that this prize is worthy of mention. As for the specific technical problem, try asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that there is somethinng strange here. The link: "Crawshaw Prize short list". February 8, 2011. Retrieved September 8, 2023. created with the {{cite web}} template does work. She did win the prize. I did not add the prize to her lead section, someone else did. There is no entry fee. The Salt publishing website is "Salt Publishing". Retrieved September 8, 2023. This prize is awarded in the UK and I am hard pressed to state its importance. I can e-mail Salt Publishing and check its current status. It would be dangerous to ask about its importance, but the author of the Richard Crashaw article thought it important enough to add to it his entry (see the legacy section). I usually dislike changing other editors work, but I could certainly remove the reference from the lead secton and add it to her biography. Would you like me to do that? The biography is being written and will have to be reviewed when it is completed. Oldsilenus (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oldsilenus, I believe that the Crashaw Prize is defunct and non-notable. I see no solid evidence that Goldsworthy actually won the prize, rather than being on the shortlist. I recommend deleting mention of it from both articles. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Scoophole2021[edit]

Hi, can you block Because it vandalizes articles. For example, it replaces Stanley's theme song with another show's theme songs and often inserting LTBIA into everything P/ K/ L. inc (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that report, Scoophole2021. I have blocked that IP. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended confirmed[edit]

You wrote at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1199#Unresponsive editor that I have to be extended confirmed to edit the entry. I didn't have the time to reply back then and now it's archived, so I'm posting it here:

Am I not extended confirmed? Sure, I do not have the magic pixie dust in the database that says so, but I've made 1,346 edits since December 2022, so, for all I care, I meet the requirements, and have as much right to edit P:CE as anyone else. (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ECP is only available for registered editors, not IPs. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This sounds like a distinction without a difference. What is the difference between a person editing Wikipedia through an account and a person editing Wikipedia through a static IP address? (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, IP editor, the distinction is very real, and is a matter of policy. Wikipedia:Protection policy is what I mean and WP:ECP is the shortcut to the relevant section of the policy: That right is granted automatically to registered users with at least 30 days' tenure and at least 500 edits. Emphasis added. If you want that user right, then register an account, make 500 edits, and you will then have that right if your account is over 30 days old. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The distinction is purely technical: it makes sense to assign flags like extended confirmed to named accounts because the person behind the account (usually) never changes, but it does not make sense to do so for IPs, because many IPs are dynamic and one cannot be sure that the person editing today is the same person who received XC yesterday. As I've explained, this is not relevant in my case, because the IP is static. (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can object to the policy all you want but the policy still stands. As an individual administrator, I have no power to override such a clearcut policy, and the software does not permit it at this time. If you want to propose a change to an existing policy, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the place to do it. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) IP: The distinction is real. A registered account is assumed to represent a single individual no matter where logged in from. An IP address might be one individual, but if you edit from somewhere else, your IP address is different. Furthermore, you don't own your IP address, you cannot reassign it at your will, you cannot take it with you if if you leave the country. All those things you can do with a registered account. An account represents a person, an IP address does not because you do not control it. Your IP belongs to your internet service provider. The extended confirmed user right is intended to apply to the person, not your specific location. Furthermore, it is technically not possible for an administrator to change the editing rights of an IP address (I just tried it in your case, it says 'There is no user by the name "User:".'). If you are interested in the technical capability to assign user rights to IP addresses, the place to propose it is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) for feasibility questions, and the policy page as Cullen suggested for policy questions. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


First and foremost, I would like to thank you for your true words. DareshMohan (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome. It is unpleasant when a bad person tries to impersonate you. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Want to have honest discussion about Wikipedias guidelines and policies.[edit]

Hey! Jim nice to meet ya! names Hulk576 wanted to thank you for that ban I appreciated it, it's nice to know that you'll get banned for having honesty, But tbh this is an important question to you Jim? Do you believe Wikipedias policies and guidelines protect the community/site or does it allow frequent abuse of power on the platform?. To me personally I feel as tho the sites guidelines and policies are doing the site a "injustice" how so? Well take for example me! I was just trying to do an honest edit at first then it spiraled outta control albeit on my part but that was only due to the fact that I was being threatened for constantly changing the disinformation. Which I know is considered an "Edit War" which I'm aware of. To me this site now is Flawed exponentially and it's a crying shame Jim because it should be an open source platform where anyone can contribute no limitations; the freedom of speech and expression that soo many English/other countries experience.It should be a platform where the 'little guy' has as much say/jurisdiction as an 'admin' it seems almost like to me Jim that no matter what the 'little guy' nowadays can't do 'Honest Edits' without somebody whose higher up shutting them down for no reason and the talk pages tbh are utterly useless. They are terribly formatted, terrible place for honest discussions, and to use THAT!!! for trying communicate on changes for the article is honestly quite nonsense. This site can improve and be better, how so? First off, noone should throw their power around unless 100% justified on a case-by-case basis.Second, the need for a change from talk pages to a dedicated group messanger app like discord or a Wikimessanger something like that instead of that ineffective talk pages would be more effective in communicating an honest and open discussion. Three, The site as a whole really need to change from open source overly complex site to something simplistic for amateur/newbies that can take advantage of the sites accessibility in the form of for example, writing an article for a major newspaper publication in that format just straight editing the words not "codes" would be more effective. For this site to continue without asking for donations every five seconds it needs to make itself "accessible" and have freedom of speech to everyone without little to no limitations. And thats the main question Jim in what way of your 14 years and being an admin do you believe Wikipedia can improve on to become a better, reliable, trustworthy, accessible site then it is now?

Thank you! for reading this And have a good day! Hulk576 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Hulk576. First of all, let me remind you again that I blocked you for personal attacks and harassment, which are not permitted on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is in no way, shape or form a free speech platform. Wikipedia is not a blogging or social media platform or a place for debating issues or advocating for causes. Please see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Wikipedia is, instead, a structured, collaborative project to create a cost free reference work, namely, the most comprehensive encyclopedia in human history. Enforcement of the policies and guidelines that you reject is the very thing that allows Wikipedia to be widely (although not universally) trusted, and ranked for many years as a Top Ten website worldwide, usually about #7. By now, I think that it should be clear that your vision of what Wikipedia ought to be is far different from mine. I find talk pages easy to use. I find wikitext also known as wikimarkup easy to learn and easy to use. I am all in favor of changes to the software that make the site more accessible and responsive. But I will vigorously oppose any efforts to transform Wikipedia into an almost unregulated, anarchic free speech site. There are plenty of places like 4Chan and Kiwi Farms and Twit X and countless others that allow trolling and flaming and ranting and raving and hallucinating. I find it refreshing that Wikipedia is not at all like that. Wikipedia is a place for serious people to write and improve neutral and well referenced encyclopedia articles. Nothing more. Speaking as an administrator, I do not throw my power around with no good reason, and in my experience, administrators rarely do. I impose blocks to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Period, end of story. When blocked editors promise to correct their behavior and avoid disruption, I readily agree to unblocking them. So, let's agree to disagree. I hope that you find another website that allows you to freely express yourself as you wish. Cullen328 (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viewing deleted article[edit]

Hi, could I please see this article Vernon Jones (actor) that was deleted. I was the creator of it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Davidgoodheart. If you activate email in your preferences, then I will send it to you. Please let me know. Cullen328 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a little help, please[edit]

Hi. Another user suggested I ask you this question after I posted it earlier today...any help/advice would be much appreciated.

I love Wikipedia; I make a small monthly donation, despite being broke, because I believe in the principles of Wikipedia & because I use it on a regular basis, often several times a day. It’s my ‘go to’ resource for info on the various topics I’m interested in.

But there is one aspect I find extremely frustrating: saving articles & then accessing them later.

I mostly use the Wikipedia app on my phone (Android…relevant?) & can save articles but only seem to be able to access them again if I’m at the “Featured article” page where there’s a ‘Saved’ button at the bottom left. If I’m anywhere but there, either at a saved page or at a new article, the ‘Saved’ button says ‘Save’ instead (either dark grey if the page is already saved or white if not) & there doesn’t seem to be any way to access my saved articles from there. I can’t see any way to have my ‘Saved’ list open at the same time as other tabs (which would be really handy!!) or even to go to my list without closing all open tabs AND closing & reopening the whole app, which then reopens at the “Featured article” page. There are many times when I want to be able to easily switch between multiple tabs e.g. a new, unsaved, & a saved article, so the way it seems to be at the moment almost (but not quite) makes the ‘Save’ function useless.

Also, there doesn’t seem to be any way at all to save pages if using a browser apart from bookmarking as with any other page.

So, my questions are:

• Is there a way to easily switch between saved/unsaved (or saved/another saved) articles? Is there maybe a guide somewhere to using the Save/Saved functions in the app? (Is anyone working on development of this function?...I’d happily do it if I had the skills…actually, what skills would I need?).

• Is there a save function when accessing Wikipedia in a browser & if so, where is it?

Thanks Jeffkes Jeffkes (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Jeffkes (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jeffkes. I am sorry but I cannot help you with problems using the app because I edit using the desktop site on my Android smartphone. There is no "saved article" function on desktop. Instead, I use the "watchlist" function, which gives me a continuous feed of recent edits to articles and other pages that interest me. You might get an answer at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍 thanks anyway! Jeffkes (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm looking for a resolution for this?[edit]

Hello Jim, I would like a resolution to this whole dispute between me and Jeffro77 I've been providing circumstantial evidence to the figures in the JW article. and yet I'm being threatened for nothing other than doing things the right way on wikipedia here's the threat "You are being disruptive and will be reported soon if you continue".[Jeffro77]

Here's my evidence:

Here's Jeffro77's evidence:

This is the very problem with Wikipedia that I stated in my earlier talk with you the constant abuse on this platform makes it hard for editors like me to contribute in anyway even while giving extensive evidence in the talk page. It's honestly quite demoralizing that no matter what you do, you can't win for nothing when you have the facts but they just get constantly shut down 😔 Hulk576 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Hulk576. I am not going to get involved with the content dispute, because I have dealt with you as an administrator including blocking you, and administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. You've been blocked twice and you should try to avoid a third block. You yourself have contributed to the "constant abuse" that you mention.
In order to make a change that sticks to a Wikipedia article, you must gain consensus for any disputed edits. This is mandatory. If you cannot gain consensus by persuading other editors interested in the article, then there are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. Use them appropriately. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You imply I've contributed to "constant abuse" while having 0 power on this site? Aka admin or lower
Btw there was a consensus between Wiki Editors: Anachronist, Throadislong
The threat of banning for simply referencing something in and of itself is that very "Constant Abuse" I was mentioning. Essentially you get shutdown for actually questioning someone of a higher status on Wikipedia. If that ain't corrupt idk what is? Hulk576 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hulk576, the "higher status" you mention is imaginary. More experienced editors welcome the participation of newer editors, as long as their contributions are persuasive and in line with policies and guidelines. As a matter of policy, administrators have no more power to affect content than the newest editor. The abuse in question came from you hurling insults at editors who have a good faith disagreement with you about content. It is very difficult for many new editors to succeed while working on topics where they have strong personal feelings. As another editor commented, you should be very cautious about treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Threats of a ban are not "good faith disagreement" which is were I did throw insults. While I understand Wikipedias not a battleground and I wouldn't it to be, I believe if have the correct information you keep on being persistent with it because of nothing else who else is gonna do it
I made the mistake earlier of "telling it like it is" which your generation is fully aware of.
But recently I have shown self restraint as to not let my emotions get in the way of trying to have a civil debate which is allowed on this platform. Hulk576 (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Issuing a warning that certain types of misbehavior may lead to a block is not a "threat", Hulk576. It is a statement of fact and commonplace on Wikipedia. Pursue dispute resolution, please. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you send me links to Wikipedias policy's and guidelines and really anything else so I can read them and learn this stuff plz thx👍 Hulk576 (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hulk576, please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and refer to Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This nonsense is getting ridiculous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yes, it's ridiculous. I've just warned Hulk576 that if they don't stop the aggression I'll block them from the page. Bishonen | tålk 09:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Can something be done about this person? See User Talk:Jeffro77#I would like to talk to you in private?Jeffro77 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeffro77, I have blocked the editor for two weeks for that intimidating discussion on your talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I wasn’t necessarily expecting it to go straight to another block, but the behaviour doesn’t seem to be improving. As the editor has been blocked, I won’t revert their changes at the article, but when I’m not on mobile device I will attempt to refactor the disputed material to see if I can strike a balance between accuracy and the editor’s POV.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are welcome. Pressuring you like that on your talk page crossed a line, after the editor's weeks of battleground behavior, two previous blocks and several warnings. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And on it goes: [1] Should probably be blocked indef as utterly devoid of clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AndyTheGrump, the editor has been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. Cullen328 (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it possible to have a negative level of clue? 'Devoid of clue' no longer seems an adequate description... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AndyTheGrump, I was pretty good with math in high school and college, but a negative number like this is "beyond my ken", to coin a phrase. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Tushar INBOXARMY (12:48, 14 September 2023)[edit]

I want to make a company's wiki page live how to do so? --Tushar INBOXARMY (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tushar INBOXARMY. Writing an acceptable new Wikipedia article is extremely difficult for an inexperienced editor. I suggest that you spend at least a few weeks improving existing articles first. Then, read Your first article and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you work for the company in any capacity, then you must make the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please show me how to publish a sandbox[edit]

Please show me how to publish a sandbox (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Stop all vandalism and register an account. You will then have access to your own sandbox page. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

draft:Aliasing (factorial experiments)[edit]

Dear Jim,

I'm writing regarding your response in Teahouse (Archive 1198, Aug 28) to my query about this draft. I responded to that response and haven't heard back. You left a few of my questions on the table, and I wasn't sure if (a) you are still thinking about them, or (b) you think that you've given me enough of a response and I'm to proceed without further help. If it's (b), I'm afraid I'm still in the dark about a few things, and the editorial process in Wikipedia seems so haphazard (compared to what I'm used to in publishing) that I'm afraid I'm going down an infinite loop.

Sincerely, Jay

P.S. I don't know if you looked at my talk page in the draft, which explains the need for this article. I really want to see this through. Johsebb (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Johsebb. I gave you some specific suggestions for improvement in late August and another editor concurred. You said that you would make changes in response to those suggestions, but I can't help noticing that you have not edited the draft since May. I also notice that you have not resubmitted the draft for review. My recommendation is to edit the draft extensively in response to the feedback you have been given on the draft itself and at the Teahouse, and then resubmit it. You cannot expect Teahouse hosts who are generalists to provide detailed input about advanced math topics. Perhaps you can connect with editors who have those skills at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I had intended to wait until I had further information before making any edits, so as to avoid piecemeal changes, but I'm happy to proceed. Unfortunately I may not be able to get to that for the next month.
I hadn't made any edits since May as I was awaiting an editorial decision.
I thought I had tagged this article for the WikiProjects in Mathematics and in Statistics (though not Computing), and was expecting (or hoping) that it would automatically be viewed by one of those editors. I guess that doesn't happen automatically.
Finally, can you describe to me the difference between having an article "rejected" and having it "decined"? Johsebb (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Johnsebb. "Rejected" means "No. Never. Not going to happen. Stop trying." On the other hand, "Declined" means "Here are the fundamental problems with your draft. If you can edit it and solve those problems, then resubmit."
I encourage you to edit the draft, at least a little bit. Drafts that have not been edited in six months are routinely deleted.
As for members of WikiProjects reviewing your draft without being asked? That is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely in practice. Cullen328 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for the clarification about rejected/declined. Also, I've received word that someone in the Math Project has put out a call for editorial help with my draft -- if that's because you put in a word for me, I greatly appreciate it.
I'll do my best to make some initial edits asap. Johsebb (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wi Spa controversy[edit]

Hi Jim,

You reverted my modification of the Wi Spa controversy article. I have no problem with your opinion that Los Angeles is known worldwide. However, I like to ask you if you also intentionally removed again my addition of the year in the section headings and at some other places – I can't find a reason for that in your edit summary. I would like to insert these mentions of the year again, but want to follow WP:BRD, thus I'm asking you.

--Cyfal (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Cyfal. I do not think that it is necessary or desirable to repeat "2021" so many times when the year is clear from the chronological context. But I do not feel strongly about that. Think about why you believe that so many mentions of the year improves the experience for readers. I will not revert. Cullen328 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jim,
The main reason inserting the date was that the contents box in this article looks strange giving the day and month only. However, maybe you're right that when reading the article from top to bottom mentioning the year again in each section is a bit too much indeed. I will think about it and leave it as it is for now.
Thank you for your answer
--Cyfal (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Would it be possible to link me to the legal threat. My eyes went cross trying follow all that. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Deepfriedokra. Here's the diff. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. OCD filing and clerking, you know. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deepfriedokra, happy to be of assistance. Cullen328 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Cullen328. Since you are an admin, can you provide Third opinion facilitate dispute resolution at an ongoing content dispute in the talk page of Foreign Policy of Bashar al-Assad? Thanks! Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 9:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Shadowwarrior8. Administrators have no special power to resolve content disputes and I lack deep knowledge of the Bashar al-Asaad topic area. I recommend that you list the dispute at WP:THIRDOPINION. Cullen328 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment[edit]

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

obvious block evasion[edit]

Obvious block evasion on your recent block of (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) by 2605:b100:1108:7b82:a1d8:d608:bafa:a1e9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Meters (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cullen328 and Meters: WHOIS for the IP addresses: (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2605:b100:1108:7b82:a1d8:d608:bafa:a1e9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are in different locations (Ottawa and Montreal respectively) but the same provider (Bell). How is this "block evasion" if the IPs are in different locations—roughly 200 km (120 mi) apart? The "block evasion" reasoning may not be accurate because an anonymous user in Ottawa can't just magically be in Montreal to evade a block; a drive from Ottawa to Montreal takes just over two hours. Eyesnore 03:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eyesnore, IP-based geolocation services provide 55 percent to 80 percent accuracy for a user's region or state, according to one website I consulted. There is not much unusual for a block evader to share Ottawa and Montreal IPs. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]