User talk:Cullen328/Archive 84

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

→

Archive 90

Correction needed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyerere_National_Park

Inaccurate size comparison on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyerere_National_Park

"The total area of the park is 30,893 km2 (11,928 sq mi) ...about twice the size of Belgium (Europe)"

But, on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium

"It covers an area of 30,689 km2 "

How do I suggest a Wiki edit to correct mistakes like this one?

Thanks, Landia Davies

LandiAfrica (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, LandiAfrica. Please post a well-referenced edit request at Talk:Nyerere National Park. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

MHwikiinfo

Hi Cullen328, MHwikiinfo (talk · contribs) seems to be back as MeganDiMaria (talk · contribs), but this time with a disclosure attempt and a partial block. I have now noticed that they're already blocked as "MHwikiinfo". Would you be interested in converting MHwikiinfo's block to a softblock, using {{uw-softerblock}} instead of the current block reason, so that I don't have to siteblock them as a sockpuppet? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pageblocking them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response I've now dug further into the article's history and found Mdimaria (talk · contribs) (2016) and MHMwebteam (talk · contribs), both un-blocked until today. Looking at the contributions of all four accounts, my hope for productive editing is close to zero, but the disclosure is a nice surprise. I'm afraid we'll rather see a new account than a talk page request, but we'll see... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI

An interesting FYI. --- Possibly ☎ 21:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Social democracy 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 03:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft Article Question

Hi Jim,

You mentioned that the below draft article may qualify for academia. You left a comment on my talk with JSFarman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sean_Bush#

Talk with JSFarman here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JSFarman#c-JSFarman-2021-10-25T19%3A14%3A00.000Z-Beansalad3-2021-10-25T17%3A46%3A00.000Z

I was also asked about the 'we' who helped put the article together. To clarify, I was the only one who wrote the article and using the login I created. The other folks in the group sent me links to various sources and articles Dr Bush has written. They were helping me to collect material. Neither myself of anyone in the group knows Dr Bush personally but we are all fans and have an interest in snakes ad toxicology.

Can you tell me what happens next?

Thanks, Nicole

Beansalad3 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beansalad3 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC) 

Hello, Beansalad3. Your username reminds me that I have a couple of jars of four bean salad in my garage. I am going to open one up and eat it in days to come. I have replied at User talk: JSFarman as well. I am not yet prepared to accept the draft for the reasons I stated there, but I think that your draft is promising. I understand and accept your explanation of the collaboration that led to to the creation of this draft, but if the other people want to continue to contribute to the editing of this draft, they should create Wikipedia accounts. Otherwise, WP:MEATPUPPET may come into effect. You should never edit as requested by other people, and should only edit as motivated by your own individual assessment of what is best for the encyclopedia. So, my advice to you is to edit carefully, and if any of your associates wants to have input, they should register a Wikipedia account and contribute openly. Pinging JSFarman since I mentioned her here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Yes, 3beansalad's were a big part of my childhood. My mother would bring them to every neighborhood party but no one ever ate them which was always funny, but enjoy your canned ones! I have spoken to the other folks and no one will be editing the article or using my login but me. That's not something I would share. You mentioned a subject matter expert. How do I find one that can review and is an approved Wiki editor?

Thanks, Nicole

Beansalad3 (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Beansalad3. Here are a couple of suggestions: See if you can find an editor who is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia who is still active. Some of them may have retired. Also, you can ask at the Teahouse, where a wide variety of experienced editors answer questions from new editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks!

Beansalad3 (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ...

October songs

... for speaking up for me! - On Saturday, DYK #1700, and I uploaded images, mostly blue and green, for hope. Missing the "perennial" gang. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gerda Arendt. Thank you. I am a lifelong advocate of hope. I also call it optimism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned - the specific hope meant when started was futile so far), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: memories in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of a song on Wikipedia's, 'List of Songs Referencing Elvis Presley' page.

Hi Jim, Thank you for your comments. I'm a little confused! Another contributor offered a comment that there are no defined criteria for inclusion on the 'List of Songs Referencing Elvis Presley' on the Wikipedia page? I'll defer to your expertise! So, how does one get added or inculded to that page? Who decides that? I see no rules or qualifiers? Can I just edit the page myself and add my song? (I own ALL RIGHTS and the (C), and I don't think it has been used in any of the venues you mentioned, is that one of the criteria?) I'm not really sure how it works. I did have it listed a few years ago, but for some reason, unknown to me, it is no longer there? Thanks, Jim! I look forward to your advice and comments. Tim, (my real fist-name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surayabay (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Surayabay. The minimum requirement for inclusion on that list is that the performer must be notable and be the subject of an existing, acceptable Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It summarizes what reliable, independent sources say about various topics. I have been unable to find any such coverage of you or your song. That is the reason that your song was removed previously and you should expect the same to happen if you try to add it back. Self-promotion is very much frowned upon on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Mailed request

Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 22:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, left out key data in prior email.

Hello, Cullen328. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Neonorange. The biggest problem I see is that the editor does not yet understand the importance of Verifiabilty as a core content policy. Many productive, long term editors began contributing when very young. (I was 57). If you feel that age is a complicating factor, then encourage the editor to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. As for use of what may or may not be a "real name", many editors, including me, disclose our real names. But I am almost 70 and have been happily self-employed for 28 years. I think that it is usually a mistake for very young editors to use their real name, but it does not inherently violate policy. If there is a spate of disclosing personally identifying information, that is another matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, seems reasonable. I will watch and offer help with editing. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 06:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Cullen328:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for all your help and guidance in the teahouse. You have definitely helped me become a way better wikipedia editor. I really appreciate all your help. Thank you. Kaleeb18 (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Kaleeb18. I appreciate it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Where?

Hello, where can we discuss aboit issurs of wikisource? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kushal Dev Wiki. I recommend that you read the articles Wikisource and Wikipedia. Although both projects are under the sponsorship of the Wikimedia Foundation, they are projects with very different purposes. Each operates many different language versions. Discussion of the English language Wikipedia should take place here on English Wikipedia. Similarly, discussions about Nepali Wikisource should take place on Nepali Wikisource unless there is some type of major intractable problem that cannot be solved there. In that case, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. English Wikipedia administrators cannot help you, because we have no power or authority or knowledge of that project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

So,can you please guide me how to contact with wikimedia foundation? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Kushal Dev Wiki, there are links to their website in the article Wikimedia Foundation. Go to their website and contact them directly through the website. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Austin Hoyt correction

Hi Jim

I had done some minor editing a few years back but I just got info about a link to an incorrect person of the same name. The link is on the Back River Nunavut page and refers to Austin Hoyt with a link. This is the wrong Austin Hoyt - who is still alive btw. I just received info from a friend of his who wondered if I could make the correction. The proper link that he gave me was https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0398447/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm from IMDB as he became a documentary filmmaker. See also https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2ba1686128 Not sure how I can change this without messing up the original Hoyt (1915-1976)

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Michael Peake Michaelpeake (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Michaelpeake. I removed the incorrect Wikilink. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

John Johnson (reporter) entry

Hi dear Jim,

I hope you and your family are well!

Earlier this year, you edited and greatly improved my husband's Wikipedia entry. I would so appreciate it if I could call on your expertise again for an update. John's prominently featured in a new documentary on Attica. It airs on Showtime tonight and had its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on 9/9/21, the 50th anniversary of the upstate NY prison uprising.

Here are references followed by an excellent Washington Post article and interview with John about his harrowing experience covering the deadly uprising (he was tear gassed and nearly shot and killed), and how ABC News removed him from the story when he refused to report the inmates killed the prison guard hostages because he never witnessed it. He was eventually proven right, but major media outlets went with the false story.

Gaines, Patrice (November 6, 2021). Attica documentary tells the story of America’s deadliest prison riot. nbcnews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/attica-documentary-tells-story-americas-deadliest-prison-riot-rcna4572 John Johnson, a Black reporter who had been chosen as an observer inside by inmates, recalled being outside the facility and having two guards running toward him shouting a racial slur and pointing guns. Johnson shouted back, “Don’t shoot!” Image: Reporter John Johnson John Johnson, a reporter, was chosen as an observer inside by inmates.Showtime

Fienberg, Daniel (September 9, 2021). ‘Attica’: Film Review | TIFF 2021. The Hollywood Reporter. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/attica-1235010914/ "There were teams of media outside the walls of the prison, with ABC News reporter John Johnson as the standout interview subject here."

Gleiberman, Owen (October 12, 2021). ‘Attica’ Review: A Stirring, Devastating, and Definitive Documentary Account of the 1971 Prison Uprising. Variety. https://variety.com/2021/film/reviews/attica-review-stanley-nelson-1235086821/ "The ABC News reporter John Johnson describes the “completely surreal” quality of walking through the yard (where he greeted men he’d known from Bed-Stuy and Harlem)."

Rapold, Nicolas (November 1, 2021). Talking About ‘Attica,’ the Newest Documentary on the Prison Uprising. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/01/movies/attica-documentary-prison-uprising.html "For the anniversary film, now on Showtime, Nelson and Curry dug deep, speaking to former prisoners and figures who had been on the scene, such as the TV journalist John Johnson..."

Wemple, Erik (September 30, 2021). Opinion: Journalists Bungled the Media Coverage of the Attica Uprising. 50 Years Later, the Consequences Remain. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/30/attica-chronicle-media-disaster/

Thank you so much for your time, and please stay safe! Ann Yih JohnsonJohnson73 (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Johnson73. I have expanded the article. Please give my best regards to your husband. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

John Johnson (reporter) entry

John joins me in thanking you and wishing you the best!Johnson73 (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The page of János Grimm

Hi Jim, thanks for the constructive criticism, I didn’t properly interpret the ban or edit related to the original research. I have yet to learn this, then I will be able to edit it. Before the death of János Grimm, he was interviewed by the local newspaper in Debrecen in 1971, I have photos, the 1924 Olympic commemorative medal and the stories of my grandmother. These are real things, they don’t infringe on anyone’s copyright, as they belong to my family and my heritage. I wanted to supplement the existing information, I had no bad intentions. As you wrote, I really made a mistake because I can’t attach links, but when I’m ready for it, I ask for help editing.

Please, Jim, can I rest assured that I won’t get any punishment other than blocking because I wasn’t careful enough?

Thank you: Peteriancsa (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Peteriancsa. The newspaper article can be used as a reference to expand the Wikipedia article. You can email me a copy and a translation if you want. There will be no punishment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Hi Cullen328, I thank you for your help and reassurance.

Thank you: Peteriancsa (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review : Raquel Baranow. Thank you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for leaving a comment about citing offline sources at the Teahouse. You said one should include the URL parameter when it's available. How about when first encountered the information offline (example: newspaper) and then you couldn't find an online link/archive of it? As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't discriminate against offline sources, and they are treated as equal to digital sources. SX3001 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SX3001. It is OK if there is no online version of the source, as long as the source is reliable and you provide complete bibliographic information in the reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP Sourcing

Hello, I would like some advice on the sourcing of a contentious BLP article. If a fact about the subject, an English-speaking American, appears in the Spanish newspaper Marca (newspaper) and the Brazilian website The Enemy (which I can see is used as a source on the Portuguese Wikipedia ~15 times but only once on the English version), would that be considered sufficient to meet RS standards? Planetjanet (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Planetjanet. I see that this has to do with Low Tier God, an article subjected to repeated violations of WP:BLP policy. Hmmmm, not a good sign. When evaluating the reliability of a source, editors need to consider the context and the specific focus and expertise of the source. Marca certainly appears to be a reliable source for news about association football (soccer) in Spain and perhaps that sport in countries that Spanish teams regularly compete against. But it would not be a reliable source for the discovery of a new species of butterflies in Indonesia, because the reporters and editors of Marca have no known expertise in that topic area. Why should we expect them to have expertise in the "real name" (in itself a vague concept) of an American gamer? As for the Brazilian website, the same concerns apply, with heightened concern due to the provocative name of the website itself. Let me give you another example: Entertainment Tonight might be an acceptable source for a direct quotation from a Hollywood celebrity, but not for a breakthrough discovery in nuclear physics. Please explain why you are interested in this matter. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The connection both sources have to the subject is they both report on E-Sports—many Spanish soccer teams also compete in video game competitions, e.g. Barcelona and Real Madrid—this is also the meaning of the Brazilian website's name, referring to video game enemies. Low Tier God has been a fighting game competitor for over a decade, perhaps the most well-known in the country by name recognition, and international reporting on him is not surprising. I am interested in the omission of his name from Wikipedia simply because I was initially confused by it, seeing as he is widely referred to by his birth name among the ‘Fighting Game Community’ where he is a frequent topic of conversation. I wondered why there was no mention of his real name on the site, considering that, for a new fighting game player, the name will come up, and the player would go to Wikipedia to find out more about this public figure. I know this because I was recently a new fighting game player, and this was my experience. Planetjanet (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I closed the editor too quickly and it posted before I was done, my apologies.

I wanted to add that I of course found you through those discussions a few months back, and I'm aware you took the side of keeping his name off of the biography, because there were no reliable sources for the claim that he is sometimes referred to, and even refers to himself, as ‘Dale Wilson’. But I have found two sources for this claim. https://www.marca.com/esports/otros-juegos/2020/09/16/5f61c7d5268e3ee46f8b45f2.html and https://www.theenemy.com.br/esports/trash-talk-esports#item-list-1

I came to your talk page, instead of editing the page immediately, because I noticed the history of contentiousness of this issue. But I think if you look at my edit history you will find that I don't have an axe to grind on this subject. Planetjanet (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Planetjanet, I do not speak more than a few words and phrases of Spanish, but Google Translate comes up with "he also calls himself Dale Wilson". That is not good evidence that it is his legal name as opposed to another nickname. The Brazilian website does not look like a reliable source to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Explain to me how this works, then, because newspapers very rarely cite their sources. It was printed in a major Spanish newspaper, which means it was fact-checked and went through the editorial process. How does a Wikipedia editor assess whether there is enough evidence behind such a claim? Planetjanet (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I misread what you wrote. You're saying the article is evidence that ‘Dale Wilson’ is what he is sometimes referred to (and how he refers to himself), not that it is his legal name. I agree with you. Is this worth mentioning in his article? Planetjanet (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Planetjanet, I do not have strong feelings one way or another, as long as the source is reliable (and it seems to be) and the source is summarized accurately by an editor fluent in Spanish. The previous problems were due to use of poor quality sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		I want to be kind so take this star! Lopbunny69 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

GaryNNader Article

Hello @Cullen328:. I was in the process of completing edits on this article to resubmit it, but since edits are no longer possible (since the username represents a living person), I'm going to transfer the article to my personal Wikipedia account, which does not represent a living person. Is there any reason I should not copy/paste the article into my personal account, that would prevent the article from being approved at that point, assuming the disclosures are done and the article itself is factual, correct and without bias? Thanks for your time in reviewing my work. --Glassdaughter (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Glassdaughter. Draft articles are not in any editor's personal account and any editor can edit any draft or sandbox page. Copy/pasting to a new title is the wrong approach because it wipes out the edit history and the attribution to the previous editors who may have contributed. That is a violation of their copyrights. So, you can continue editing Draft:Gary Nicolas Nader. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Cullen328:. I understand the point about not moving the article to another account as it would violate copyrights. I cannot edit in the GaryNNader account as it is still locked. But since I already have another account (Glassdaughter), it appears I cannot move the article because the account already exists. I cannot create another account, for then I am violating the sockpuppetry policy. Any advice would be appreciated, as I cannot seem to do the right thing and am locked in to a place where I cannot do anything. --Glassdaughter (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Glassdaughter. Just move on and forget that the GaryNNader account ever existed. There is no article. There is only a draft, which is not an article. There is no need whatsoever to move that draft because it has the proper title. You say that you are locked in to a place where I cannot do anything, but that is incorrect. What you can do and should do is edit Draft:Gary Nicolas Nader to address the very specific problems that reviewers have identified, and to bring the draft into compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Why on earth would creating another account be of any use whatsoever? There is no point to that because you are completely free to edit the draft productively with your Glassdaughter account. Moving should be done only by the AFC reviewer who accepts the draft. I hope that I am being clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

November songs

... for expanding the Paris church article! Today 3 DYK, Brahms depicted + sadly Aga Mikolaj (listen!). May the roads that we travel make us meet again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome, Gerda Arendt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I cometh with peace, and milkshakes!

	Milkshake
	Hi! This is just a token of appreciation. Hope you're doing well. Pass it on, Everyone here deserves it. GFO (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

First Post Removed?

Hi Cullen328,

I'm hoping you can help with something. My first edit was deleted as "inappropriate." The admin claimed that an international tennis pro is not a public figure--and therefore the information I posted from a socially important news article was irrelevant. I restored, because the subject is now at the centre of a major social issue, my edit was balanced, and I suspect the deletion was made under conflict of interest. Is there any way to tell? How does Wikipedia handle these things?

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greendoritos (talk • contribs) 18:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

[UPDATE]: I may have answered my own question (I read up on BLP and now I'm unsure, so I'm going to delete the changes). However, my concern about conflict of interest admins remains. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greendoritos (talk • contribs) 19:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Greendoritos. You were wise to read the BLP policy, and you should also read about edit warring. Right now, it looks like your only motivation in editing Wikipedia is to make Marijke Nel look bad. Landlord-tenant disputes are commonplace and I do not see the importance of adding such trivia to a biography. Further discussion of this matter should take place at Talk: Marijke Nel. You mention involvement by an administrator, but I see no edits by an administrator on that article in recent months. Please clarify. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen328. Thanks for sharing these resources-they were helpful. I'm glad that I decided to undo the changes. I wrote "admin" instead of "editor" in error; as you know, I'm new here, and still learning the vocabulary. Regarding my motivation to edit Wikipedia, I don't feel the need to explain my skills or interests, and will let my time here speak for itself. I was actually in the middle of editing another article as you were replying. All the best, and thanks for your time. Greendoritos (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC) [[User:Greendoritos]

Practo Draft Deletion

Hey, I am so sorry for the misunderstanding. By we I meant, my company, who is making the Practo page for the Practo company. This is an individual account and I just need access to the draft so that I can make the necessary changes. Please help us out. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archit.2006 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Archit.2006. Draft:Practo still exists so I am not sure what you mean about deletion. Also, I see no restrictions on you editing that draft. If you work for Practo, then you must make the mandatory Paid contribution disclosure. This is not negotiable. Also, you say that this is an individual account and then you immediately write Please help us out. That is contradictory. Who is "us"? Practo? If so, my answer is no. I do not help companies. I help individual Wikipedia editors not companies. So, write "I" and "me", not "we" or "us". Shared accounts simply are not allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sunland Group 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 13:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Our Lady of Fátima

Our Lady of Fatima/ persistent vandalism to the controversy section Hi Jim, You blocked me for "warring" with another user. The user was vandalizing the page nonstop, just deleting everything, forcing me to revert as many times they vandalized, and I've attempted to explain that in my rebuttal. Please visit the Fatima talk page before someone deletes it again. (They were deleting the talk page too.) I also want to note that the other user was blocked (by another user) for 3 days, whereas I was blocked indefinitely, which strikes me as unfair, since they were the vandal. Thanks Spyrazzle (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Spyrazzle. I page blocked you because you were edit warring at Our Lady of Fátima, and that is a blockable offense. So, never edit war again, and you will therefore never be blocked for that again. Nobody can possibly force you to edit war. You control your own behavior and can resolve disputes using acceptable methods. On the talk page, you wrote You are not allowed to remove the controversy section based on your own religious fanaticism. That is vandalism. That comment is wrong in many ways. The other user's edits were not vandalism, which has a very specific and narrow definition on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and be aware that making false accusations of vandalism is unacceptable behavior. This is a content dispute - a disagreement between some editors, each acting in good faith, who have a variety of points of view about this specific topic. There are various forms of dispute resolution available. Saying that another editor is motivated by "religious fanaticism" is a real problem. Wikipedia editors have a wide variety of religious or irreligious beliefs and all are allowed to edit if they comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please be aware that Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a policy so be very careful about how you address your fellow editors. I urge you to take seriously that consensus is the main way that decisions are made on Wikipedia. So, you are going to have to come to an agreement with people who disagree with you about this claimed miracle, by hammering out some sort of compromise at Talk: Our Lady of Fátima, which you are still free to edit. As for the other editor, they were completely blocked from the entire encyclopedia for three days for misconduct that was different from yours. I gave you a link to unblock instructions on your talk page, but you must show through your actions that you are going to follow the policies and guidelines before any administrator will agree to lift the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I called him a religious fanatic in part because he screamed that I "hated God!" on the talk page when I had said no such thing, and because of his repeated attempts to discredit the Saint's own memoirs as a source, and also a biography of the Saint written by a friend of the Saint's, published by the reputable Farrar Straus and Young. I noticed that the user did not object to the same two books being used in any other portion of the Wiki article that substantiated the apparitions---those two same books are used throughout the whole page--rather the user only protested their credibility when being used in a controversy section. The user then removed the entire controversy section many times, so "vandalism" seemed the right choice of word to me after reading the Wiki definition of vandalism--"malicious removal of encyclopedic content." The user screamed that I "hated God" and deleted events in the encyclopedia that disputed the "miracle." In the spirit of collaboration, I had already obliged several other editors in making changes to the controversy section when it was first constructed. Spyrazzle (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Spyrazzle, as I am reasonably sure that you already know, "two wrongs do not make a right", and the other editor was blocked from the whole encyclopedia while you were only blocked from one single article and not even its talk page. Why the heck are you capitalizing the normal English word "saint". That is strange. Obliged? Several editors have objected to your additions, and as far as I know, none have endorsed them. So, go build consensus, or pursue legitimate forms of dispute resolution, such as a carefully and properly formatted Request for comment, which will draw uninvolved editors into the discussion. Some self-reflection on your part would also be very useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I am brand new to Wiki and I did not know about a request for comment forms. In response to what you said, there aren't many people hanging out on a Marian apparition page who aren't Catholic, and that is why none of the current editors have endorsed the addition of a well-researched controversy section. At the moment, only a handful of editors communicate on the page, which is a very small number. Marian apparitions are a bit like the Loch Ness monster, in the sense that very few people have ever seen them, and it has been a glaring omission that until now Wiki has never had a controversy section whatsoever, when this particular and very celebrated Mary predicted the war would end on a certain day in October, and was wrong by a full year and one month, and also told children in a direct quote to harm their bodies with ropes in the daytime, but not the nighttime. Even more bizarre and sad when those children died shortly afterwards, wearing the bloody ropes. I will look for the comment form to try to build outside support. Spyrazzle (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank-you for helping someone and making me smile on a tough day

" I won't restore that content here, but it was an amateurish argument that Santa Claus somehow "exists", and I believe the essay was not appropriate for Wikipedia. I speak as a fellow who has worn a Santa Claus suit, even though I am Jewish" ... I have seem many Jewish Santa Clausi (??) on Purim - (along with the female Rabbi dressed as a Nun that as I am still not over) - or was that after I drank the whiskey ??) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That comment must have been from almost a year ago. After Santa time last year, I shaved off my beard. I started growing it back late summer 2021 and by Halloween, I could imitate Ernest Hemingway mixing his favorite Cuban cocktail, the Mojito: White rum, fresh mint muddled, lime juice, simple syrup and sparkling water, on the rocks. Now, we are heading into late November, and about five weeks from now, I will be prepared to don my Santa costume, to spread the message of unconditional caring and gift giving to my granddaughter and her friends, who are roughly four years old. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Now you made me smile, too, and your message to your granddaughter is great, Jim, thank you! Any questions to the arb candidates? ... how to introduce unconditional caring there? - El C spoke of Santa when I offered the Brahms pic, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Artisanal Editor

	Australian Dog on The Tucker Box Award - First Class
	I loved your essay and it taught me many things about wikipedia that weren't about phones. I saw your dog, and I thought you might like The Dog on the Tucker Box" picture. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Wakelamp. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If you can save Emunah La-Paz be sure to ping me

I don't guarantee to agree with you, but , if I do, I will alter my opinion. It's good to see decent quality work to add references that work. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, I do not think that this article can be saved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

frankly, nor do I Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Cheers! Thanks for reminding me about a user who is not autoconfirmed, and advertising. Severestorm28 (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

re article Matt Lovell (nutritionist)

Hello, I wonder if I could enlist your help reviewing an article that I wrote that is tagged FCOI and COI, was considered promotional, had some rough citation references that needed getting rid of etc. I have heavily edited down the material but wonder if I have rebutted the presumption of COI. Any help would be much appreciated. many thanks for your timeQPMZWO (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, QPMZWO. I guess that you are talking about User:QPMZWO/sandbox, which is not an article. Rebut the presumption of COI? You declare a COI on your user page and state that you are paid. So it is there and cannot be rebutted. Your draft has a promotional tone. You state in what would be Wikipedia's voice that he is an expert and your reference is an article on hydration that he wrote for the BBC. That's not acceptable, because it is a presumption or an inference. To call him an expert, you need an independent reliable source describing his expertise. On a minor note, the formatting of the draft is non-standatd, using the "big" markup instead of standard section headers. WP:CHEATSHEET explains the proper markup, which allows the software to generate a table of contents. Also read Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow up on Teahouse Discussion on Fortinet Article

Hi Jim, Thank you for commenting on my request for help at the Teahouse last Friday. And thank you for inviting me to discuss further on your Talk page.

Fortinet’s Communications Team is seeking unbiased editors to help address the concerns raised by the undisclosed paid warning on the Fortinet page. To be honest, I’m not sure how to attract editors who might help. We didn’t expect contributions to the article to drop off as much after our executive team asked employees to stop contributing to the article to avoid conflict of interest. We were also hoping our simple COI Edit requests would attract help, but the backlog on those requests has grown to over 200.

The edits in question were made in December 2018 and January 2019 and many changes have been made to the article since then. I know that under Wikipedia’s COI Edit rules I or another self-disclosed editor could have reverted those edits as Uncontroversial changes. But that is no longer possible. That is why we concluded the best path forward is to ask disinterested editors to help rewrite the article.

Can you suggest ways we can attract other editors to help clean up the article as the “Undisclosed Paid Editing” warning recommends? Do you know of any other editors who would be interested in cleaning up the article?

Thank you for any advice. JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JasmineLozanoFortinet. As suggested previously, make incremental edit requests at Talk: Fortinet. No experienced editor is going to participate in a total rewrite of a Good article at the behest of company employees. After those changes have been either accepted or rejected, contact me and I will review the article and remove the tag. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jim. I will ping you after we have made a few requests.JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RE Matt Lovell (nutritionist)

Good morning, Thanks for the info. Re the categorisation of "expert", I could cite those selected to speak along side Lovell (all by invitation not by self-promotion) for the Royal Society of Medicine talk or alternatively the English Football Association Medical Society as qualification of being an expert as he was part of a panel of national and international "experts". Would that be acceptable? The BBC citation is a quote of the reporter, and Lovell would not be paid for interviews by the BBC, additionally the BBC does not accept advertising so I understand what occurs in the BBC as editorial by those researchers paid and employed by the BBC, not paid promotion, Lovell's opinion being sought because the researchers considered him an "expert". My understanding of COI is that there is a presumption of bias rather than de facto bias that and, in the interests of transparency, Wiki wants everyone (quite rightly) to declare and which any article writer needs to work against. Otherwise, why would Wiki let anyone with COI status write anything? Please correct me if I am wrong. It is the bias which I intend to rebut. Hence, in my first article I enjoyed sourcing lots of public information (that's the legal training!) rather than using my own thoughts on the matter. Although, the negation of self-promotion is an issue I wonder about, if you are a person of note and have dealt with many people, clubs and events of note where those notable people have correspondingly said positive things about you, it may prove difficult to word things without it sounding promotional. Unless, you just don't include any of it. I could list all the people in a table at the end of the article if you feel that's more suitable, but maybe even that remains self-promoting? Any help appreciated. Thanks for the formatting note, I will definitely rectify. QPMZWO (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, QPMZWO. If you have not yet done so, I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In my twelve years of experience editing Wikipedia, I have seen countless cases where new editors with a COI think that they are writing neutrally and yet uninvolved, more experienced editors immediately perceive the writing to be promotional. So, I urge you to pay very close attention to this matter as you continue working on your draft, and that you use the Articles for Creation process when it is ready for a formal review. Cullen328 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your signature

I did a double-take today when I saw your new signature on one of the dramaboards. Welcome to the light side ... Sdrqaz (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdrqaz. I was having a completely unrelated technical problem, and tried to address it by returning to the default settings in Preferences. That wiped out my custom signature. I am not sure yet whether I will restore it. Cullen328 (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My main issue with HTML signatures is the clutter they introduce when editing in-source. ToBeFree has probably more to add to that. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Yes, a barnstar! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy belated Thanksgiving!

	Happy belated Thanksgiving!
	Happy belated Thanksgiving! Huggums537 (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Edits

Hi. Please revert to 18 November 2021‎ at Sammy Gravano. Thank you, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee,  Done. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi would you be so kind for Gravano again as well as Felice Maniero. Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee,  Done. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nick Carter (musician) 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 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t threaten to sue

I noted that I am about to sue ethan Klein and h3 and that triller sued him and that these edits are being paid for by him as retaliation and will be part of that legal action against him and his podcast. It was not meant to threaten wiki only to point out that making these biased snd one sided misleading harsh edits were part of something bigger and more complex. If I need to clarify somewhere please let me know as I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia rules. Ethan Klein is bragging on his podcast about his Wikipedia actions on my site. 67.154.149.168 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You must be User:RK777713 editing logged off to evade your block. I an sorry, but that is not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Questions about COI

Hi Jim. I checked my talk page and see the message from you. Thanks for the info. And I am sorry that I missed the COI label before. I have a few questions. I left them on my talk page and not sure if you will be informed by system, so I left message here again. 1. I updated my user page, so the label is shown properly now. Could I apply for the unblock because I show the COI label now once I noticed it? If not, how could I apply or if my account is banned indefinitely? 2. The data I updated in the past are from our official public data and shall be neutral. I am sorry that if there is any information I missed and make it look like promotional. Where could I find more guide, so I could know how to correct them and make them aligned the policy? 3. I saw the paid contribution label is shown on Schneider Electric page: "This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Who is going to review the page? when the cleanup will be finished? Will that label be removed after the cleanup? Sorry that I am quite new to wiki excepting for editing the content and thus I have so many questions. Looking forward to your reply and thanks for your time in advance. Elizachan16 (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Elizachan16, I responded on your talk page}}. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction

Hi Cullen, you recently left a discretionary sanction on my talk page and would just like to tell you I had already placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for that topic declaring that I was already aware of the topic sanction. I added the template the edit before you added your alert. I assumed that you would be warned not to add the alert because I had already placed the relevant template before you added the alert. Is there something wrong with the templates I added? Pabsoluterince (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Pabsoluterince. I used the standard software tool to search for previous notices and did not find any. I did not notice the green banner at the top of your page. I apologize, and you are welcome to remove the notice. Cullen328 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem :) Pabsoluterince (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Curious

Jim, could you explain, for my benefit, how Mia Love could be construed as a religious leader and therefore fall under a t-ban on religious leaders or religion at all? The fact a person has a religion was not part of the t-ban for John, in my opinion, so I am curious how you interpret that. From what I read, Mia is a political figure, not a religious figure. For clarity, yes, John messaged me but I am asking for my own benefit so I know how to respond. You may see it different and you may convince me to see it the same way. I'm not advocating one way or another. --ARoseWolf 20:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am also curious! Since you mentioned self-reverting, and JPL hadn't actually made any edits to the article, my assumption is you believe the talk page post itself was problematic. Firefangledfeathers 21:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ARoseWolf and Firefangledfeathers. Perhaps I am incorrect but my impression is that Love's religious conversion has received significant media attention, and that Johnpacklambert and Love share the same religion. For example, she was a highly visible part of the worldwide I'm a Mormon media campaign. That led me to conclude that John might be straying into a problem area. Yes, it was the talk page comment that caught my attention when I saw "Mia Love" on my watchlist. John self-reverted so I consider the matter resolved. Cullen328 (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)