This is anarchive of past discussions withUser: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 thecurrent talk page.
Hey Jim, Hope you're doing alright.I just joined Wikipedia community and am very my current concern is to write and publish on Wikipedia. I know that we are not allowed to publish any promotional or advertising material about us or our company. But then I saw a few companies having Wikipedia pages. I want to write on Wikipedia and also want to create a page of my company (IF POSSIBLE) knowing that I will choose my words carefully not to make my writings an advertising or promotional tool. I NEED YOUR HELP PLEASE, TO GUIDE ME THROUGH.
Hey! Just a quick comment since I missed the original ANI discussion started byQiushufang:Vpha is probably a sock ofIntroductionneeded (blocked May 2021), who previously operated the sockOutrageousAnger (blocked September 2021).
Like Vpha, Introductionneeded/OutrageousAnger frequently logged out to use Sydney IPs (see their block logs, CU was done byDrmies)
So that was a good block in terms of Vpha's behavior, but this is probably just one in an extended series of block evasion socks. —MarkH21talk09:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there an SPI? Vpha, Changeanew, Introductionneeded, 2215rt are all CU-confirmed and blocked. Damage in articles needs to be undone.Drmies (talk)19:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Drmies: Thanks for finding those! I don't think there is an SPI, but maybe one should be formally opened for these results. Don't forget aboutOutrageousAnger in the list of CU-confirmed socks. —MarkH21talk23:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ha, sure--but, ah, make sure you list it when you file that SPI? ;) Please go ahead and file that: their persistence warrants it. Thanks,Drmies (talk)00:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a problem with the article I wrote. Maybe you have time and the opportunity to help me and thus also the project Wikipedia ; o)
So the reason for the rejection of the article is to name an already existing entry about Syrian-Polish compositor Zaid Jabri. I looked at the existing pageZaid Jabri and found that the page you mentioned was rejected a year ago and has not been edited by the author for 5 months, although the page is not ready in terms of content and methodology. For this, my variant of the pageUser:WLDMR/Zaid Jabri is extensive in terms of content, source-based and finished.
The person Zaid Jabri is internationally recognized as the leading modern Syrian composer. He is named and linked on several pages at English Wikipedia. Articles about him are published in German and Russian Wikipedia. It's time to present it in English Wikipedia as well. He is a bridge builder between European and Oriental traditions. This person is of great importance for the development of Arabic Syrian music. This area (culture and music) as well as the region itself are fundamentally underrepresented in the cultural context on Wikipedia and on English Wikipedia.
Hello,WLDMR. The solution is for you to edit the existingDraft:Zaid Jabri, removing unteferenced material and adding the well referenced content from your draft. Once you have transformed the existing draft into something acceptable, then submit it for review.Cullen328 (talk)16:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response!
I like to work on the article, but it was rejected not because of the content, but because of another article with the same name about the same personZaid Jabri. This other article is over a year in the Draft. He was rejected a year ago. The article has not been edited for at least 5 months. This is blocking the article I wroteUser:WLDMR/Zaid Jabri.
WLDMR, I already told you what to do. Take the good content from your draft and transfer it over to the older draft. You can edit a draft written by someone else. That draft has priority since it is older. Make the older draft a high quality acceptable draft and then submit it. I hope you understand me now.Cullen328 (talk)17:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Your comment
In your comment here[1]. You went on another editor's talk page to, what appears to be, you threatening to sanction me. Yet, you & I both know that I've done nothing to be sanctioned over. All my edits are in good faith, all my questions are in faith, and I'm very civil. No reason not to be civil, we're allvolunteers here. I feel everyvolunteer editor here operates in good faith, even you. But if you were threaten me, or were trying to punish me, or trying to sanction me for editing in good faith, asking questions in good faith, and being civil; then I can't stop you. The editor in question has over 19,300 edits and has published 7 projects - that's a pretty "solid track record." As far as that article goes, there is an edit button that can remedy the concerns of other editors. Next time you have something to say to me, say it on my talk page, not another editor's talk page. Oh, I almost forgot, thank you for confirming that, no matter the "autonomy," the rule does not say "English edits" only, and maybe it should - you know - to avoid any confusion.BetsyRMadison (talk)06:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison You are aware of the DS[2] in this topic area. You said I was threatening you[3] by giving you the notice. No, I wasn't[4] I gave you that notice to make you aware of how you should act in this topic area, to prevent you from being sanctioned. After all of this[5] and this[6] and this[7]where even the editor you advocating for pointed out to you that they have only 339 edits (right here -->[8]... you restart this "English only" absurd at one of the administrators talk page who gave you friendly advice to be careful?How on earth, you are allowed to continue with this behaviour is beyond me. -GizzyCatBella🍁07:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@GizzyCatBella: &@Cullen328: That rule was established to prevent vandalism being injected into articles about the Holocaust. It wasn't established to punish & silence our European colleagues with 19,300 edits from editing. To mitigate & prevent vandalism, the rule says,"All IP addresses" who reach"500 edits" will get EC protection. And in another spot, this same rule says"A registered editor" who reaches"500 edits" will"automatically" get EC protection. It makes perfect sense for it to apply to"all IP addresses" & all"registered editors" - that's how you prevent vandalism.
You are assuming it means "English edits" only. EL C said he has"limited knowledge" and then EL C very kindly went on to tell me his assumption of the rule - just as you are assuming. My assumption is based on the exact wording of the rule. Your assumption is based on words that aren't in it.
Furthermore, it would make absolutely no sense for this rule, on this specific topic, to be for "English edits" only. People who live in Eastern Europe, live at the site of the Holocaust, have more relatives that were personally in the Holocaust, have far more painful and real memories of the Holocaust, and have far more knowledge of the finer details of the Holocaust than you or I could ever posses.
So when our eastern European colleague has over 19,300 edits with well over 500 edits on WWII history, & has published 7 articles - they have proven they're a solid editor on this topic & they've proven that they do not to vandalize articles on that topic (which is what the rule was established for).
To reiterate, the rule was not established to punish or silence our European editors who have over 19,300 edits, it was established to prevent vandalism on this topic. And given that's the rationale for the rule being established, it makes perfect sense that it applies to"all IP addresses" (which isexactly what the rule says).
For everything I stated herein, I strongly believe the rule does not apply to "English edits" only, because if it did, it would say it. Therefore, I strongly believe your assumption is mistaken. And if I am wrong, so be it; but if I am wrong then someone should re-write that rule for clarity for our European colleagues who want to share their articles on en.wiki.
Below are Links To The Rules
Here[14] the rule applies to"All IP address" (not English only editors)
Here[15] the rule applies to"A registered editors" (not English only editors)
Here[16] the rule applies to"Accounts that have been registered for at least 30 days" (not English only editors"
Based on the criteria from the actual wording of the rule, I firmly believe the editor in question meets all of the requirements.BetsyRMadison (talk)15:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi, BetsyRMadison, you may not be aware of this, butextended confirmed is not just a Wikipedia term of art--it is an actual permission implemented and enforced in the Mediawiki code itself. It is automatically granted to registered users who have 30 days' tenure and 500 editson the English Wikipedia specifically, not counting edits on other projects. The description pages don't specify English Wikipedia because the code itself does that. And this is by design, because each project and language on Wikipedia has very different rules and standards, so experience on one project does not necessarily translate to expertise on another. So, no, the 30 days and 500 edits requirement is specific to enwiki. These aren't assumptions; they are factual descriptions of how extended-confirmed works.Writ Keeper⚇♔15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey 328, you are without question a very powerful force site-wide & i note most people who are opposingTamzin cite your rationale as the reason, I’m still mourning the death of a loved one so I didn’t have the luxury of time to read your rationale but I believe it has something to do with politics, hey Cullen, don’t you think you are being a little too harsh on her? They have a clue, they have the right temperament, in the famous words ofTonyBallioni "they aren’t a jerk" and they have demonstrated a clear need for the tools, so I’m quite shocked that a political view of theirs should be used as a reason to deny her the bit. I do understand some may think she’d be biased but shouldn’t we support her first due to her proficiency and see if or not that becomes the case but until such a time I’m indeed baffled that a political stance should be a reason to pillory her over. It is my candid opinion that the Wikipedia editor and her real life need not be interpreted as one and the same. For example, I’m Swedish, but I live in Nigeria (I’m a citizen now) I have lived here for more than two decades now & I’m very much prejudiced against the Nigerian government but that is just me in real life, but on wiki I never let my real life philosophies interfere with editing Nigeria related articles, I believe Tamzin should be given a chance to serve. It is my thinking that we as a collaborative project complain about the gradual atrophy candidates willing to RFA but unfortunately we still are the ones stifling candidates and making RFA's toxic (I’m not referring to you) but this is a common occurrence which tbh is saddening, i for one just likePraxidicae &Serial Number 54129 do not or may never RFA due to diverse reasons, I can only speak for myself but the toxicity and the fact that it would impede my anti UPE work is the reason I won’t RFA. Note that I have been asked 5 times now to do so I have always refused due to the aforementioned reasons. In summary I guess what I’m trying to say is, we need to give her a chance.Celestina007 (talk)20:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello,Celestina007. I am so sorry for your loss, and I hope that as time goes by, your memories of your loved one will bring you comfort.
With a few hours to go, Tamzin has 78% support and will be the third administrator to receive over 300 supports. I am one of the other two. I opposed for one specific reason and do not think that I was harsh. The candidate seems otherwise qualified and she will have her chance. I will happily collaborate with her in the future.Cullen328 (talk)20:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, I really appreciate them. Pertaining Tamzin, I’m equally delighted you have shown good faith and may collaborate with them moving forward.Celestina007 (talk)21:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Neutralhomer
is requesting unblock atUTRS appeal #57763. Setting aside why everyone else is wrong, what do we need to hear from him? Can we carry an (unlikely) adequate request to AN. I found that talk page, with all the cross talk, incomprehensible. Thanks --Deepfriedokra(talk)19:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello,Deepfriedokra. Wow. I do not handle UTRS appeals, but if Neutralhomer wants to go to AN (or ANI - they mention both) I suggest that you copy it over there. Let the community decide.Cullen328 (talk)20:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Just another rant about how everyone done him wrong at UTRS. I no longer know what changes to expect of him. Isaw nothing coherent on his talk page. Just jibber-jabber and cross-talk. Has he been to AN? Has he coherently addressed the reasons for his block? Ever? I gave him a standard "describe the reasons for your block, etc" message and recused. Just need a little insight into what is needed. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra(talk)20:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra, I have been frustrated by this editor's behavior for quite a few years. I barely know what to say. But if Neutralhomer insists on a high visibility appeal to the community, I suggest that you give the editor that. I personally assess the chance of success as very low. If you start the conversation, I will restore talk page access for convenience during that process, but I will revoke it again if they return to ranting. Keep me posted.Cullen328 (talk)20:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Cullen, I was about to start a new section myself and then saw this. I just got up and am pre-coffee—was writing on a personal project, went to bed v. late—and left a response to Neutralhomer without checking lower down his talk page.
I am bewildered by the AN(I) requirement; we established that he isn't community banned, and the last discussion, I had the impression Floquenbeam had copied the unblock request over there simply and solely because NH asked him to, not because it was a precondition for unblock. I still see Floquenbeam referring recently at NH's talk to the possibility of a patrolling admin unblocking without a noticeboard discussion. As I have told NH, I may be wrong about the procedural requirements, and I do see other admins, including Nosebagbear in the latest decline, writing as though it's required at this point.
I disagree with your assessment that he's been ranting. The latest bunch of statements about being treated unfairly is in response to Star Mississippi, and remember he's on the autistic spectrum and so may genuinely not understand what he's doing wrong in his unblock requests and on his talk page. (I presume you realize I'm being intentionally vague to avoid spoonfeeding, as well as there being the very real possibility I myself couldn't frame a suitable unblock request; it's hard.) I saw him genuinely trying to engage with the community's concerns, and the stuff about the standard offer also shows him trying to follow the rules so that he can contribute again. (And let it not be forgotten, his article-space contributions are valuable.)
I came here to beg you to look again and reconsider, especially since I set off his latest talk-page expressions of frustration by saying I was sorry he didn't get unblocked. The time stamps are a bit mixed up, and there's been a bit of bear-poking (undoubtedly well intentioned). But in addition to a plea for understanding and mercy, absent egregious personal attacks, wouldn't it be better for him to talk frustratedly or not on his talk page than for him to clog UTRS?
I will now drink coffee. You guys are the admins.Yngvadottir (talk) 22:≤27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I am not saying that taking the appeal to AN or ANI isrequired, but rather that is what Neutralhomer is asking for at UTRS. I understand that you disagree with the word "ranting". Would unproductive rambling be more accurate? Neutralhomer has been going on and on and on for ten days and a lot of people have spent a lot of time responding and the editor just continued. I am not going to unblock Neutralhomer myself because I consider it highly likely that we will experience another major blowup the next time the editor gets drunk, stoned, indignant or a combination thereof. But another administratrator is free to unblock if their assessment is different than mine. As for clogging UTRS, this editor can be blocked there as well. I will read the conversations again.Cullen328 (talk)22:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I just read it all again, and my perception is that everything that Neutralhomer has written since April 20 amounts to trolling. At UTRS, Neutralhomer has accused every administrator involved with this matter of acting in "bad faith" and with "malice". Is that what you think?Cullen328 (talk)23:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Argh. That would definitely qualify as ranting. The timeline as I see it is: NH waited till 4/20 and then made an unblock request that was a mere placeholder, togther with a statement indicating a lighthearted approach—4/20 fun. He pinged me, the blocking admin, and someothers, including another non-admin who had indicated they might support. Intertwined discussion ensued, with at least one respondent taking the light-heartedness for untoward flippancy. The unblock request was replaced with one that rambled but like his previous declined unblock request, started off on point. After 4/20 was over (I believe), back and forth led Floq to state he was unwatching; NH thereafter only repinged him with apology, when he felt necessary in his refinement of the open unblock request, which was done at my urging that he tighten it up. As well as venting against Floq and repeating that he didn't know what was expected of him in an unblock request (with reference to UTRS conversations that I obviously can't see) NH expressed disappointment with the person who he had expected to support his unblocking. He then stated that he'd tried his best and what would be, would be (the "4/20 is over" section.) After a few days during which my impression was that all was quiet on the talk page (but I may have missed further exchanges), Nosebagbear declined the unblock request, his decline wording implying that like NH he thought a noticeboard discussion of it would be required, and giving as reason that the talk page discussion suggested NH wouldn't be able to acquit himself well in such a discussion. Discussion later flared up again after I expressed my disappointment to NH; Star Mississippi, who had taken part in the earlier discussion on the page, responded to his response and NH lashed out in response. Meanwhile, I was sleeping like a sack of potatoes.
No, I don't see trolling. (I saw trolling, eventually, in the responses of the newish editor NH got into trouble for defending, so I'm not entirely naive). I see a lot of venting and personalization, and over-generalization; in at least one of NH's talk-page statements over the last 10 days, the entire community, me included, was attacked as against him. And if you have the stomach for it, compare the real ranting that led to the block with the statements over the last 10 days. My personal assessment is that he's not only trying, he's there, except he keeps going off-track. And this noticeboard requirement may be insurmountable for someone on the spectrum and can't stop himself reacting to poking with insults toward admins (general and specific) and the community (as a whole and as makers of the rules).
What I was hoping for was an admin suggesting an editing restriction, such as 1RR and help templates/mentorsship if he gets into a dispute in article space (he specializes in an area, US radio stations, where expertise is thin on the ground and both promotionalism and misguided fannish edits are possible annoyances) or perhaps more apposite given what led to the block, an agreement not to post to the noticeboards concerning disputes in which he is not personally involved without first receiving clearance from the unblocking admin or a mentor (on-wiki or via e-mail). But there is a school of thought among admins, including Nosebagbear and I think Beeblebrox (who had thought the last discussion had led to a community ban; I spearheaded the effort to get that decision rescinded) that his unblock requests have to go to a noticeboard, which would render my train of thought irrelevant. You folks are the admins. And now that he's apparently been hurling abuse at UTRS, it may be moot anyway.
You are not being a buttinsky,Yngvadottir. Far from it. I take administrator accountability seriously. In the end, you just have a more sanguine view of this editor's potential to contribute productively without disruption than I do. If an administrator considering unblocking asks my opinion, I will offer it. If an administrator decides to unblock, I will not object. And if a few years go by without significant problems, I will be happy to admit that I was wrong.Cullen328 (talk)00:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for listening. But I (personally and in all admitted ignorance) hope someone reverts the talk page access suspension; from what I understand, NH doesn't do well in that environment and is more likely to craft an acceptable unblock request on his talk page. Plus that serves as a place for him to eventually demonstrate he can remain collegial in the face of what he perceives as unfair responses. (I saw him getting better at that; that's a major basis of my being more sanguine, as you say.) However ... I was never a whizz at process.Yngvadottir (talk)01:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, I have been an administrator for almost five years, and I still do not consider myself a whiz at process. Far from it. Often, I feel like a newcomer, even though I have been an administrator for over 20% of the history of the project, and an active editor for about 60%. There are many complex areas that I leave to others like IP range blocks and sockpuppet investigations, and many other technical things. Sometimes, I read discussions for a long time and do not act because I am not fully confident about the proper outcome. Then, when I do act, Neutralhomer accuses me of being a "drive by administrator" as if I am obigated to join into the verbal give and take before using my administrator's tools. Then there are idiosyncratic things like the fact that I had assumed that I would enjoy closing AfD debates before and during my RfA. After delving into it, I concluded that I didn't much enjoy closing AfDs although I having enjoyed offering my assessments at AfDs. Who knew? And I never imagined that I would end up patrollingWP:UAA so often. But that turns out to be a place where a lot of spammers, vandals and trolls are identified, and I block them there all the time, for the good of the encyclopedia. I do believe that I have a pretty good track record of assessing the conduct of editors who do not consciously wish to be disruptive, but end up being disruptive because of certain uncontrollable or difficult to control elements of their individual personalities. Lots of people on Wikipedia enjoy the hobby of criticizing administrators, and there is much that can be said about the worst and most obsessive of those critics. As for the best among the critics, I welcome good faith criticism and have a pretty thick skin. If somebody makes an apt, incisive point about anything that I have done as an administrator, I will certainly reconsider and readjust my conduct based on that feedback. Until then, I will continue carefully evaluating the conduct of problematic editors that come to my attention. I will always try to avoid overly aggressive administrative behavior. I will always be responsive to feedback regarding my actions, and if the ravages of aging result in me losing that ability, I would expect the community to remove my permissions. As for special treatment of those "on the spectrum", I am completely in favor of welcoming editors that identify that way, as long as those editors comply with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. Just today, I learned that a highly experienced editor I know self-identifies that way, which I never would have expected based on years of interaction. I guess that is because that person controls their behavior, and this other person has had repeated difficulty conducting themselves appropriately.Cullen328 (talk)04:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again. You've been an admin longer than I was, not to mention more active in the role, although I fell into UAA, also; I found it soul-destroying. In any case, I may have come off more critical than I intended to be, and I'm all the more sorry NH is apparently hurling brickbats. I think I've made my case; thanks for considering it.Yngvadottir (talk)06:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I also don't see you as a buttinsky, @Yngvadottir. You've gone above and beyond to help NH, which is commendable. I'll be honest, I'm not sure what beyond my saying No got me on his bad side. I don't even care about the lame personal attacks from him, but then he pivoted to outright lies. He deserves a chance to request to be be unblocked, we all agree with that. Where I think he isn't clear is bullying admins into demanding we unblock isn't within polite behavior. And then we hit the spiral in UTRS. Oddly enough we had only minimal history before that. I think the only reason it "had" to go to AN* is that no one seemed inclined to unilaterally unblock. Maybe procedural, or maybe (as was the case with me) I didn't think he merited an unblock.
He has now emailed ArbComm and Wikimedia, but I'm concerned that he doesn't understand the underlying issue: no one has a right to edit. Le sigh. What a mess.StarMississippi17:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, the fact that Neutralhomer can't respond at his talkpage & wouldn't be able to respond at AN or ANI, may well be his best chance at being reinstated. Letting others argue for his reinstatement, would be his best chance.GoodDay (talk)03:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
GoodDay, you may be right, but I have already said that if someone copies over an unblock request on behalf of Neutralhomer to ANI or AN, then I will restore the editor's talk page access, so that any comment the editor wishes to make, can rapidly copied over to the noticeboard in question. Just as long as the editor does not misuse their talk page.Cullen328 (talk)04:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I would also say that if his case is posted to AN or AN/I, he would have to have his talk page access restored so that he can respond there. And isn't that unblock request now closed?Yngvadottir (talk)06:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I believe he's hadtwo such requests denied (the first one is messed up, some how). I'm prepared to copy his 'next' request, if/when Cullen328 unblocks his talkpage.GoodDay (talk)14:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello,JonahHale. Please readWikipedia:Notability (people), which saysPeople are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.Cullen328 (talk)22:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I don't know if this is a thing to check into or not, but going through the new user feed I spottedUser:CorruptPolitican having been created byUser:Tasmanianisation - who you blocked not long ago as a VOA. I'd assume the additional account should get dinged as well in a case like that? Thanks!Tony Fox(arf!)05:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
HelloTony Fox. I am surprised that these two accounts are connected, because Tasmanianisation is account creation blocked. I wonder how that happened. But CorruptPolitican hasn't yet edited. Strange.Cullen328 (talk)17:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Following anRfC, a change has been made to theadministrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located athttps://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of theSt Christopher case has been rescinded following amotion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the articleSt Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Thank you very much,Sea Cow. You did a good job starting an article about a fascinating young woman. I took a look at your user page and noticed that you are the main author ofOsprey Packs. So, here is my anecdote. Like Westlake, I too am a mountaineer, although much less accomplished. I climbed the west face ofMount Shasta in 2007, at age 55, which was both grueling and gratifying. I used a 30 year old backpack that wasextremely uncomfortable. Two years later, my wife and I climbedMount Whitney, California's highest peak. While preparing for that climb, I bought a new Osprey pack, and it was excellent. We made it to the summit on September 11, 2009, shortly after I started editing Wikipedia. So, I have very positive feelings about Osprey.Cullen328 (talk)01:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm heading on a backpacking trip myself this summer, with a Osprey pack, so I'll be crossing my fingers it holds up well enough. I'm going up a bit smaller mountain then you, my peak of the trail is about 12.4k feet above sea level, with a much smaller 2.7k prominence. Cheers!Sea Cow (talk)Sea Cow (talk)01:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
LOL,Softlavender, not that impressive, really, although I enjoyed all of my climbs. There were some frightening moments, which adds to the memories. I climbed enough over nearly 40 years to proudly call myself a mountaineer, but not a particularly good mountaineer. I am the equivalent of aLittle League baseball player who writes and edits encyclopedia articles aboutMajor League Baseball players.Cullen328 (talk)01:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello,Qaismj. Wikipedia does not have company pages. Instead, we have neutral, well referenced encyclopedia articles, many of which are about notable businesses. This is not a "platform"; it is anencyclopedia. When you say that you "need" to create a page (or article), experienced editors will push back. Your personal needs are of no interest here and you should not discuss your "needs" any further. All that experienced editors care about is improving the encyclopedia, not the subjective needs of any individual editors. There is a very structured successful process for writing new articles, which is described atYour first article. With regards to companies, the established standard isWikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Read that carefully, because experienced editors take it very seriously. If you have any direct connection to the subject of your article writing, then read and comply withConflict of interest, and if applicable, the mandatoryPaid contribution disclosure.Cullen328 (talk)05:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Awhile back I noticed this edit[18] which sadly was unchallenged for a month. It happens, and who watches essays anyway. There's been some disruption this year, but not at RfPP level. However, because of the sensitive topic, it could be a good idea to put a greylock on it anyway.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)09:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Help on publishing notable article and association
Hi Jim,Good day.I just submitted my draft article regarding the nonprofit association AMASS Association Friends of Cancer Patients (Arabic Name: جمعية أصدقاء مرضى السرطان -the Arabic word “AMASS” means in need of help and assistance) is a Saudi Arabian volunteer-based, non-profit, charitable organization that aims to provide psychological and moral support to cancer patients and their families, and to educate and spread health awareness to the community about the disease and the importance of early detection.
It was declined by one of the admin of wikipedia. I would like to ask your help to make it better to meet a standard for official Wikipedia page please— Precedingunsigned comment added byAmasssaudi (talk •contribs)08:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm looking for advice on an AFD I participated in that is coming up on its seven days, but that I think could use some more eyes after discussion kind of stalled. I don't want to get dinged for canvassing, but I do have some concerns about it that I'd definitely be expressing if I wasn't involved. I've already left a notice at a related WikiProject that has not generated any response. Would you have any suggestions on how I could get more input without being perceived as canvassing? Thanks!Tony Fox(arf!)00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello,Tony Fox. Not being a mind reader, I do not know for sure which AfD you are referring to, but I did see one that you are involved with that seems to be subject to brigading by SPAs. They could be sockpuppets or they could be meatpuppets but it seems highly unlikely that three brand new accounts would stumble almost simultaneously on an AfD debate, all claiming expert knowledge. I tagged the comments by the SPAs and would be inclined to count on the closing administrator to detect baloney. I certainly will not close that AfD, because we could both be accused of misconduct, and that would be unpleasant. But maybe that is not the AfD that you were alluding to. I recently moved to a new house and do not have immediate access to either myCrystal ball or myOuija board, both of which are hidden somewhere in a gigantic pile of cardboard boxes stacked up in my new garage. As for drawing in opinions from other editors, sometimes the picture is clear to uninvolved administrators and more input is not really required. I am, after all, the eternal optimist.Cullen328 (talk)01:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm probably being too cautious about canvassing, honestly, I'm still finding areas of the place that have become more stringent and careful about misconduct. I do appreciate you taking a look - I do find that your insight is always helpful, and I agree that in this case it's likely that uninvolved admins will make a good call. Thanks!Tony Fox(arf!)02:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
This is more of a in depth question about Wikipedia as a whole. The question is what is the point of the free encyclopedia? Why should we invest in Wikipedia? --अथर्व कॉल (talk)15:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Administrators using the mobile web interface can now accessSpecial:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
TheIP Info feature has beendeployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox underPreferences →Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
European Colonization of the AmericasI got blocked over one word. I asked for help before the block but DeCausda and Doug Weller got Bishonnen to retaliate against me. If my disabiltiies are not obvious by now, I do not know what to say. Much of the so-called disruptive behavior is disabled behavior. I am not allowed to edit a single word because a few people are so invested in defaming people by using the ahistorical concept of settler colonialism. If I cannot edit this page, I will never be able to edit the biased mental illness page, which conflates all mentally disabled people with the mentally ill. This is all upsetting me greatly. I can barely function. I just want to be unblocked and allowed to have some say on the European Colonization of the Americas. I am a political science phd and expert in these matters.— Precedingunsigned comment added byCbinetti (talk •contribs)21:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Cbinetti, the proper place to request an unblock of your page block is on your own talk page. Wikipedia articles summarize what the range of reliable sources say about the topic, and my understanding is that the wordsettler is commonplace among academics who study colonialism. Appealing to your own expertise is unpersuasive on Wikipedia. Instead, effective Wikipedia editors identify and analyze reliable, published sources.Cullen328 (talk)23:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Heads-up about editor
Hi. There is this editorZaathras who is not playing nice. Ina thread I opened about the number of paragraphs of the Donald Trump article, theystarted accusing me, I requested the editor to use my talk page for the accusations, but ignored me and kept the off-topic situation, derailing the discussion. I noticed that Zaathras has atrend of not playing nice with other editors.Thinker78 (talk)17:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello,Mishak1967.Boushaki cosmological operator was created on May 21, 2022 byAuthentise, a relatively new editor who has been quite active in recent months, and who seems to be very interested in you and your work. I have no expertise in physics although I am an interested lay person. I cannot competently assess this article myself. But I went toGoogle Scholar and searched for the string "boushaki cosmological operator", and there were no results. So, I have my doubts about this article. Strong doubts. I suggest that you readArticles for Deletion, and begin a deletion debate following the instructions you will find there. Identify yourself and please try to explain briefly and in terms that non-physicists can understand, why this article is not useful. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of further assistance.Cullen328 (talk)01:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Cullen328, I hope you are well. I noticed you had previously bannedDarkShineMan. I think he has resurfaced asRestless9, who appeared shortly after DarkShineMan was banned, his edits follow the same pattern and there is a slight focus on Greek football teams again. I would hazard a guess this is the same person so I thought I would drop you a quick note. Kind RegardsFootballgy (talk)15:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
