Pasdecomplot (talk | contribs) →A good answer: restated points.thanks Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
→A good answer: reply |
||
Line 427: | Line 427: | ||
*IMO an extremely bad answer. Someone please protect the other editor from this ongoing harrassment by PDC, as I cannot. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
*IMO an extremely bad answer. Someone please protect the other editor from this ongoing harrassment by PDC, as I cannot. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::I'd like to restate the editor's minority opinion appears to be behind their HOUND and TEND. I'd also suggest editor be advised to not edit pages if their pushing of minority opinion, and rejection of NPOV and its supporting RS/sources, and rejection of CON, cannot be checked. As the diffs show, I follow those policies in the articles and attempted repeatedly to use talk for CON with editor. Thanks again. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot|talk]]) 06:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::I'd like to restate the editor's minority opinion appears to be behind their HOUND and TEND. I'd also suggest editor be advised to not edit pages if their pushing of minority opinion, and rejection of NPOV and its supporting RS/sources, and rejection of CON, cannot be checked. As the diffs show, I follow those policies in the articles and attempted repeatedly to use talk for CON with editor. Thanks again. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot|talk]]) 06:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::: Sometimes an editor is blinded to their own POV pushing in their zeal to demonize editors with a different POV. That seems to be the case here, {{u|Pasdecomplot}}. You seem to think that the Chinese POV is so reprehensible that it should not be described neutrally in this encyclopedia. You are wrong. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 06:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:33, 3 October 2020
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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" 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)
- Nice work on Jules Eichorn. He's been needing an article for a while. Will Beback talk 06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3
Block
Please block GrayEcke (talk · contribs), user persistently spreads anti-Biden agenda and obviously WP:NOTHERE. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Done Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
- Eddie891
- Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
Teahouse: real-world solutions....
I didn't think I should comment at the Teahouse, and waited for some experienced editors to step in... But I had the same thought. I wanted to ask if there were "fantasy-world" solutions to "fantasy-world" problems, and perhaps this company was different because it worked in our reality only. Also, I doubt that the vast majority of "People in India" who "were not well aware of AI technology when the company became live in 2015" are any more aware now. Thanks for saying what needed to be said, and for allowing me be a bit snarky here. Regards, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 08:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Help to Create Article that is being rejected
Hello, Jim. I am trying to create Article for Balwant Dullat. He is Film Director from India. he had made many pictures for the Big Screen. All his movies were released in Cinema halls and also on Television Channels. He made more than 200 Documentary films and most of his documentaries were based on Social issues or on Social awareness.He also made Documentaries for various government of India departments like Ministry of Health, Ministry of social welfare. He made Feature Films that he Wrote and Directed.You can find Names of few Films on IMDB and can search with name: Balwant Dullat. One of his film titled "MAIN MAA PUNJAB DEE" also got the National Film Award from President of India. Film was also preserved by National Film Archive of India (All National Award winning films are preserved by Archive ) I am new to Wikipedia. I tried to crate Page for Balwant Dullat and was advised to first create Article for him. I tried 2-3 times and got rejected and the person who commented wrote that they need enough Published material. I asked that Please let me know where to send all the Published Material from Indian Newspapers and Indian Film Trade Magazines because most of the article about him were written in Newspapers and Papers were not Published ONLINE as INTERNET came late in India. Many were not knowing what is Email and were not aware of Internet. I Requested the Person that please give me Email ID or any Address where I can send the Published material about Balwant Dullat and His National Film Award. I did not get any reply. August 31, Again someone commented that it does not qualify for Article. I gave the link from IMDB and what I could find online. I am unable to send the All published material about him becuse that is not available Online. Newspapers were not online and it is not my fault. Technology came late in India that is the reason Newspapers were not online. Winning National Film Award is big achievement and Award is presented by President of India. I have seen and can give to link to Wikipedia pages to Actors from India those who have just Acted in one Film and they have Page with Photograph. I can give you Link to many other Actors who have acted in only one Television Series and they have Wikipedia Page with Image. Please help me and if you need any info from my side please let me know. Sincerely,
PARMJEETPALLU — Preceding unsigned comment added by PARMJEETPALLU (talk • contribs) 04:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello PARMJEETPALLU. You seem to think that reliable sources used as references in Wikipedia articles must be available online. That is not true. It is perfectly acceptable to use pre-internet sources that are not available online. You just need to use a truly reliable source, and then you need to provide complete information, such as the title of the article, the author's name, the name of the publication, the date of the publication, the page number, and it is often useful to provide a one or two sentence exact quotation from the reference, that directly confirms the content you are adding. If online sources are readily available, then use them. But it is perfectly OK to use old paper sources if online sources are unavailable. See Template:Cite news for more information. You can ignore any fields that do not apply.
Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Reporting disruptive editing by Koronerman
Hello Jim, the user Koronerman frequently targets two articles -- (1) Madurai Nayak Dynasty, and (2) Thirumala Nayaka. Please look up his vandalism in frequently deleting referenced content on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madurai_Nayak_dynasty&action=history
For specific examples please see these -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tirumala_Nayaka&diff=prev&oldid=975766892 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madurai_Nayak_dynasty&diff=prev&oldid=976854823
Also he has been flagged earlier for nonconstructive disruptive editing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koronerman&diff=prev&oldid=976152765 -- Yet he continues to vandalize. More recently, he was asked to explain his disruptive edits, but he hasn't and instead blanked his page again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koronerman&diff=prev&oldid=976866482
Both articles , especially ≈Madurai Nayak Dynasty is frequently vandalized by casteists of a group called Kammas who seek wrongful and historically inaccurate representation, hence the vandalism. Request the article be locked so that vandals cannot continue vandalizing. Also please ban Koronerman for disruptive editing. Thanks. Kautikutta (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Kautikutta
- Hello Kautikutta. In all honesty, I do not have the expertise in Indian history to evaluate the content dispute, especially a dispute between various social groups including castes in India. Please remember that content disputes are not vandalism which has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. If you want the page to be protected, please explain why at Requests for page protection. If you think the other editor should be blocked for edit warring, file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You really should discuss the matter at Talk: Madurai Nayak Dynasty. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that this is not content dispute. Koronerman is continuously deleting referenced content. He has been warned for nonconstructive disruptive editing. Yet he continues to vandalize. Please ban him for disruptive editing. In meantime shall write in at Requests for page protection by tomorrow evening. Thanks.Kautikutta (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Kautikutta
- It is not clearcut vandalism. You are incorrect. I advised you to discuss the matter at Talk: Madurai Nayak Dynasty and you have not done so. You have also failed to discuss the dispute with the other editor. Those are the first steps. You only have five edits, one to the article and four to my talk page. Who are you? What was your previous account? I am not going to block an editor for disruption at your request when you are contributing to the disruption. Think about that, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that this is not content dispute. Koronerman is continuously deleting referenced content. He has been warned for nonconstructive disruptive editing. Yet he continues to vandalize. Please ban him for disruptive editing. In meantime shall write in at Requests for page protection by tomorrow evening. Thanks.Kautikutta (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Kautikutta
- How is it not a clear cut case of vandalism? Please see the same talk page Talk: Madurai Nayak Dynasty. Note how many have already discussed the same point throughly. Also kindly note the number of times it has been discussed. The Kamma casteists have no historical proof. Hence the only thing they can do is to delete referenced content, which is what Koronerman continues to do. Now, why would you want me to discuss the same point on the talk page when it is done and dusted by several others many times earlier? What purpose does it serve? Can you guarantee that people like Koronerman will stop vandalizing the page ?
- Please let me know in what way have I contributed to the disruption ? Am surprised you use a different benchmark to protect Koronerman, especially when he has been flagged for nonconstructive disruptive editing earlier. Why?
- Who am I ? How should that matter ? Am reporting vandalism by Koronerman, why wouldn't you take action? Thanks. Kautikutta (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Kautikutta
- Kautikutta, I asked you to discuss the the matter on the article talk page and you have declined to do so. There is no recent discussion there. I asked you to disclose your previous account(s) and you declined to do so. I asked you to discuss the matter with the other editor and you declined. You are not willing to cooperate with me and not willing to engage in the basics of dispute resolution. Accordingly, I consider your editing pattern suspicious and disruptive. Unless you are willing to do the reasonable things I ask, please stay off my talk page except for required notifications. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Advice Adding to Garden City, NY
That's the problem, there isn't any secondary material, and it's unconscionable. This is an absolute treasure trove of American architectural history and no one seems to know anything about it. I've had to dig through dusty old microfilms to find out anything. If the basics could be made wiki pages, other information might come forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambassador.Ryan (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Ambassador.Ryan. At the risk of repeating myself, original research does not belong on Wikipedia and it will be ruthlessly removed if discovered. This is a core content policy which is exceptionally unlikely to be changed. On the other hand, you could write a journalistic quality article or an academic quality paper on your research which can be submitted to a reliable newspaper, magazine or academic journal. Once published, that research can possibly be incorporated into a Wikipedia article. Until then, no. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
headings, insert info box, move to publish
Hi Jim, I wrote an article about MATH+, the Berlin Mathematics Research Center at first in German for the German wikipedia website and it worked fine: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exzellenzcluster_MATH%2B. Now, I like to do the same for the English wikipedia website because the research is international and sciences communicate in English but I have problems with moving the draft to be published. I also need to know how to include the info box and the logo. I would be happy to get your help and tips. (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeateRogler (talk • contribs) 09:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello BeateRogler. Your draft is not ready for the encyclopedia. It has some strange redirect to the main page that needs to be removed. Your references are presented as external links. The formatting is not standard. There is no lead section before the table of contents. Non-free logos do not belong in drafts, only in actual encyclopedia articles. Read WP:INFOBOX. Please also read Your first article and keep working on your draft until it meets the standards of English Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Jim, I will keep working on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeateRogler (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you,
Thank you for helping me out. I am slowly learning to place my thankyou's in the appropriate pages. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Plumber
Please read Wikipedia:You must feed the trolls. TheThingy Talk 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering what your thoughts may be on this? I think I have enough volunteers to launch and want to move this to project space, as a subpage of Teahouse, I reckon, and start recommending it to the hosts. But I'd like to know what you think about it, and if you notice something needing fixing before it gets activated. I have added you to the list for "mobile editing", by the way. Everyone else who is currently in the list has given their explicit permission. So, also asking whether you'd like to be removed or remain listed. Please take a look. Thanks in advance, and best regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Usedtobecool. Sure, I agree to be on that list. I added myself to the admin help section. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson 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 17:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion re disambiguation bot
Hi, I am most pleased that the Tearoom found a solution to the problem of colouring "disambiguation" links as yellow. There is no need to do more, unless there is an easy way of telling other editors. ----MountVic127 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello MountVic127. I am pleased that the matter has been resolved to your satisfaction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to know more about Wiki and the do's and dont's of it.
Hi,
I hope you might be able to help me figure this out. I edited a page and wiki says that I might be doing it for being paid for it. I am not doing it for that. How do I handle this. How should I start to learn and understand Wikipedia better? I hope you can help me with that.
- Hello Arti Koul. That tag was referring to another editor or maybe two. But it did not refer to you.
- This is not "Wiki" which is a form of software. This is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that uses wiki software. To learn more, try The Wikipedia Adventure. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist) 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 12:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Revert question
Hello,
You reverted my edit to Camp Fire (2018). The edit removed a CNN article as a source; the article only contains opinions, and so is inappropriate to cite for a statement of fact.
(1) I'm not aware of any consensus around keeping the source, except for your objection.
(2) An additional user after me mentioned the "rather suspect sources" which I take to be consensus.
To re-state my position on removing the source, the sources are supposed to be supporting a statement of fact (that the tweet is incorrect). Therefore, it would be a violation on NPOV to cite a source that is opinion, as the CNN article is. ("Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc.")
The article is entirely a statement of opinion. The president of the California Professional Firefighters makes the only claim in the entire article that the tweet is "dangerously wrong" which sounds like an opinion, and it's surrounded by other statements of opinion, by stating things like "His comments are reckless and insulting to the firefighters and people being affected".
This could be rectified by qualifying the sentence ("The of the president of the International Association of Fire Fighters has stated..."), or by removing the source. In the short term, it seems easier to do the latter.
--Awwright (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Awwright. There is only one proper place to discuss the article content, and that is Talk: Camp Fire (2018). Please make your case there. I suggest that you spend some time studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, because NPOV does not mean what you think it does, and it is a core content policy.
- To be crystal clear, I will not discuss that article content with you here, though I will discuss other things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Whatever
Are you a jerk on purpose or is it a hobby? I do not understand your tone. Therefore I wanted to clarify your submission... You marked it as vandalized. Did you not? I take criticism well... but your a bit much. Get over yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottsdesk (talk • contribs)
- You are incorrect, Scottsdesk. Not only did I not call your edit vandalism but I specifically denied that it was vandalism. Here are my two edit summaries, in full:
- "Commentary about a band changing its name does not belong in this article."
- "I did not say that it was vandalism because it wasn't. It belongs in the Chicks article. It does not belong in an article about a ranch with such a long history. Do not restore without gaining talk page consensus."
- You have your facts wrong and you are accusing me of acting in bad faith based on faulty assumptions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- If I had to pick a list of Wikipedians who I thought were jerks, Cullen328 would be pretty much at the bottom of it. Most people are trying to help you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Undone
Hello Jim, My name is John Decker Maher. The name on my birth certificate is Johnnie D. Maher. The birth certificate is a handwritten document written by Vitoria Hall, a midwife who was summoned to the tent where my mother and father and their children were temporarily residing on the night of February 24, 1948, within a small township called Brooklyn in Conecuh County, Alabama. The county seat of Conecuh County, Alabama, is Evergreen. Other than my birth certificate, the only knowledge I have of my birth is what was told to me by my mother, whose name is listed on my birth record as Anna Bell Decker. Later in life, after I became an attorney licensed to practice in all Florida courts, two U.S. District Courts located in Florida, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for the 11th United States Circuit and the United States Supreme Court, I legally changed my name to John Decker Maher. My older brother is named Jimmie Edward Maher. He likes to be called "Jim."
I graduated from H.B> Plant High School in Tampa, Florida in 1966. My diploma states "with honors.." I received a BA degree from the University of Florida in 1970, my major was Political Science. The official transcript of UF states that I graduated "With Honors" and was admitted to the society Phi Kappa Phi and Omicron Delta Kappa. Upon graduation I was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Army and assigned to the Military Intelligence Branch of the army. After my Honorable Discharge from active duty, I attended the University of Florida College of Law. At the conclusion of my first year of law school, I was selected to participate in law review, a privilege reserved to only about the top 10% of each class. In 1974, I received the degree Juris Doctor, J.D. I practiced law for 35 years and retired in 2010.
I recently decided to participate in Wikipedia to share some of my life experiences, but now I am having second thoughts because of how complicated I have found it.
- Hello, John D. Maher. Wikipedia is not a place to share some of your life experiences. Read What Wikipedia is not. Try Facebook, Twitter or Instagram for stuff like that. You can put some of that on your user page but nowhere else in this encyclopedia.
- Why would you possibly think that I (or any other Wikipedia editor) would be interested in what a midwife wrote on your birth certificate or an anecdote your mother told about your birth? Congratulations on your career. We care about whether or not you actually improve the encyclopedia. We do not care not even one tiny bit about your name change or where you went to high school or your Army service or your law degree or your Greek honors. You are an anonymous editor who could be lying or telling the truth. All we care about is the quality of your edits. I do not care if you are a precocious high school student or a Federal Judge fooling around on your breaks. All we care about is the quality of your edits and whether or not they comply with our policies and guidelines. Nothing more, nothing less. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Kindly reflect upon your comments on my username.
Calling my username with words such as "creepy" and "bizarre" has hurt my feelings, I take it personally because I am the creator of the username, so you are implying me to be a creep and bizarre. In no way it is bizarre or creepy, and also AngusWOOF never informed me that they ever felt it as harassment or trolling like Johnuniq has stated. AngusWOOF and AngusMEOW are two unique different names, this all boils down to individuals whose ability to distinguish between two names isn't that great, as for the signature I liked that style too, I was willing to change the signature style too, I was co-operative but you kept calling my username creepy again, forcing the change of username. That being said, I have applied for a username change to QuantumUniverse, just because it was confusing to Cyphoidbomb and other users who cannot distinguish between two different usernames(this boils to human error, in the computer world those two usernames pass as unique and very much different as oppose Luk3 and LuK3(exact same characters), it felt more like you have to change my username no matter what or sanctions and block will be placed. I see all you care about is the contributions to Wikipedia to be constructive or not, but also try to see the editors as humans with feelings. Please be kind, not everyone is emotionally strong on the same-level like you are. AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 05:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- I did not intend to hurt your feelings but I did intend to motivate you to change the username voluntarily without having a formal sanction on your record. And it seems you have agreed so I thank you for that. I encourage you to think about why a level-headed person like me would call your behavior "creepy" and why several other editors also expressed deep concern about your behavior. Going forward, do not behave in ways that cause experienced editors to fear that disruption is going on. Stay away from that kind of thing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Message
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.
- Hello Camdan. Thank you for your email. I, too, miss that retired editor. We can discuss editing English Wikipedia here on my talk page at any time. Be well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for your kind response. I have a question. Is it possible to block editor from editing art. that I create? This because I will later start to translate more than 70 art. from pl:wiki but there are some users on en:wiki that change, redirect, rename without any consultations and are not willing to listen to any arguments. Even during discussion to reach consensus, they change art. as they wish. I have no time to discuss over and over again, year after year with those editors. I have no problem with any other editors, that post even not polite comment on subjct or talk page - we always reach consensus and at the end help each other. But here, I dont feel that I manage. If someone put a tag or post comment on talk page - no problems cause all art. can be improved. Please advise on this subject. Regards,Camdan (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, Camdan, that is not possible. Once you upload an image to a Wikimedia project under a free license, anyone else can reuse or modify that image as they see fit with no restrictions other than the requirement of attribution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was more into art. on Wiki, not Wikimedia. Question is how to protect art. - is there any tag I can put on talk page or something to prevent from redirecting or taking away large part of the art. without consensus or discussion? In not familiar with WP:X and since I have been gone for years, I need to imporve in this. Second question. If I have a list of people (lets say 60 of them) that belong to one organization and list them among those that have own art on en:wiki, there will be "red links" like below - is it agianst the rule of Wiki and have to be removed? Then, I so - if I dont link them so people/ the list of people are not "red" can it still be removed?
- Hello, thank you for your kind response. I have a question. Is it possible to block editor from editing art. that I create? This because I will later start to translate more than 70 art. from pl:wiki but there are some users on en:wiki that change, redirect, rename without any consultations and are not willing to listen to any arguments. Even during discussion to reach consensus, they change art. as they wish. I have no time to discuss over and over again, year after year with those editors. I have no problem with any other editors, that post even not polite comment on subjct or talk page - we always reach consensus and at the end help each other. But here, I dont feel that I manage. If someone put a tag or post comment on talk page - no problems cause all art. can be improved. Please advise on this subject. Regards,Camdan (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
...
I would appreciate help in questions above so I know the rules about this.Camdan (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Jacques Coghen
Hello
I read your message - please note that I have put in information and corrected some words because they are not accurate. As for reference to published works, please help me to do it. I urge you not to delete my input because it is reliable information from two books:
- Etienne COGEN & Alice DEMEYER, Uitvoerige genealogie van de familie Cogen van 1300 tot 1993, Vol. 1-2, Gent, 1994. - Etienne COGEN, Jacques-André graaf Coghen: zijn afstamming, leven, werk en nakomelingschap = Jacques-André Comte Coghen: ses origines, sa vie, ses activités et sa descendance, Gent, 1998.
Can you insert footnotes with references to these two works for the input I have made? By the way, I helped on the research for the two books as a relative of Etienne Cogen.
Thanks
- Hello Jamaco20. I cannot add those references unless I have actually read the books, and I do not speak Dutch. I have already given you information about creating references at Talk: Jacques Coghen which is the proper place to discuss the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Image
Couldn't figure out why the orphaned image was on Commons, but yeah, it was a stupid move. I just had surgery and am on percoset.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Scottandrewhutchins. There is a lot of bad stuff on Commons that is not in use elsewhere on Wikimedia projects. Please stop editing until your good judgment returns. I wish you good health. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Until his good judgment returns in whose judgment? EEng 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- EEng, who will educate the educators? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Who watches the watchers? Who judges the judges? Who shaves the barber? Who Moved My Cheese? EEng 16:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- EEng, who will educate the educators? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- Until his good judgment returns in whose judgment? EEng 12:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Page needs deletion but I can't be arsed to figure out the proper rationale ...
... because clearly I have more important things to do. Anyway, it's this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toni Ann Johnson. Seems like it should be outright deleted (not just blanked) in case the article (Toni Ann Johnson) ever does go to AfD. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Softlavender, (talk page stalker) most likely as a test page (G2) but I've asked them what their intention is with it. If they are still working on it it may be okay. Glen (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Done Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Opinion Requested
Hello Cullen328! I want to ask for your opinion concerning a recent spate of events [1]. Thanks for any help or guidance. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Admin
Show your opinion and ask Questions Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acid Of Carbon.Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Corrosive liquid) 13:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Acid Of Carbon, are you sure you know what you are doing? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Acid Of Carbon, with only 520 edits and a few months of editing, your chance of success is zero. I encourage you to wait until you have much more experience. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Acid Of Carbon, you're so inexperienced you can't correctly format an RFA or even indent your replies correctly. Can't tell if you're trolling or not but likely this will boomerang soon. Good luck transcluding your RFA. Glen (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool and Cullen328:. I know what I do. I also know WP:VANDNOT, and many admin-y things. I am almost an admin because I use WP:Twinkle. I decide what I do.I think I am fit.Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Corrosive liquid) 11:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Acid Of Carbon: to be blunt: why did you ask for Cullen's advice if you were going to disregard him when he said something you didn't want to hear? That in itself is not a good sign about whether you actually are fit to be an admin. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
- This user is clearly trolling.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Pointer to repeated user behaviour after block
Heya. I noticed that you blocked this user last year and suggested they avoid deceptive edit summaries. I notice that the user is doing that again, saying "fixed grammar" or "typo" and instead replacing content: [2][3]. I'm not very familiar for procedures on how to handle this sort of thing, but I figured I'd let you know, since you were the last admin to provide a temp block. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- I blocked that editor again, Jlevi. Thank you for bringing the matter to my attention. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Need editing help
Hi Jim...we need help with page edits. We took it down as a rapid deletion due to the alert received saying it read too much like advertising. Hoping you can make contact (redacted) Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympiajnr1 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Olympiajnr1. There is no need to communicate by email. You can ask questions here or at the Teahouse. First of all, who do you mean by "we"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response! I am looking for help on a rewrite or edits. Is there a fee to be paid for Wiki editors (like yourself?) to make it Wiki suitable? If so this would be understandable. What would that be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympiajnr1 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Olympiajnr1. I am a volunteer and do not accept payment. Please explain who "we" is. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello again Jim, your volunteer work is admirable and your history with Wiki really impressive. My apologies I didn't think "we" was important. My assistant wrote the article for me and I was keeping her in the loop. I believe I may have found someone to do a rewrite before submission again. I hope at that stage we can send it to you first before the upload? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olympiajnr1 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, Olympiajnr1. Please stop using the word "we" in this context and only use the word "I". Then read WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. A Wikipedia account is for the use by one individual person only and sharing an account is contrary to policy. Also, the standard procedure is that only the person who writes the original content can upload the content. Nobody else. If your assistant has access to your account, then you must change your password and keep it confidential. Your assistant must set up their own account if that person is going to be contributing, and file a Paid editing disclosure. If you are paying a third person for a rewrite, then that person must also have their own account and file the paid editing disclosure as well. These policies are mandatory and non-negotiable. If any of these accounts violate these policies, the account will be blocked. Read and study Your first article. Wikipedia has a very strong volunteer ethos and the work of paid editors is subject to heightened scrutiny. Volunteer editors and administrators expect excellence and complete compliance with all policies and guidelines from paid editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep up the good work!
The Special Barnstar | |
Cullen, I see your name almost everywhere whether its creating content, resolving disputes and handling various types of issues here on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! TheGeneralUser (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC) |
- Thank you, TheGeneralUser. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Enola Homosexual for Deletion
Not sure why this page exists, and has a redirect to Northwest Herald, please consider deleting the page. I have shared my view with the author (Scott) too on their talk page.
PS: Found you on the list of active admininstrators. Amit Dash (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) At the time the redirect was created, the target article included a sentence, later expanded into a separate section, about a copyeditor using a style manual blindly and changing the name of the bomber Enola Gay to Enola Homosexual in a headline. The section was removed from the article years ago [4]. --bonadea contributions talk 07:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's mildly amusing. Not being an expert in redirects, I will say nothing further. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- This look like it could wait for an RfD to reach the right decision. But if an expert is needed, Rosguill would be the one. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- My guess is that an RfD would almost certainly close as delete, unless someone feels that the content that bonadea found is due for inclusion and the article and reinstates it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Added this request to the RfD page. Amit Dash (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Amit Dash, you did nothing of the sort. Softlavender (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Softlavender Wiki servers are a bit slower today, please check the RfD page now. Amit Dash (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- You did that incorrectly, in addition to doing it after I posted here; you certainly did not do it before you claimed you had (the timestamp of the RfD is 12 minutes after your claim). Please correct the RfD, and also tag the redirect. See the instructions at WP:RFD#HOWTO. --Softlavender (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Softlavender wow I have never met such a cheerful person, it is a pleasure talking to you! And thanks for pointing out the instructions page, I will check it out, no more responses here to save Cullen328 some trouble. PS: When I said the servers are slow I meant it, if I have to spell it out over here my save on the page failed on the first attempt and thus I retried saving it 12 mins later which you calculated so accurately. Amit Dash (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- You did that incorrectly, in addition to doing it after I posted here; you certainly did not do it before you claimed you had (the timestamp of the RfD is 12 minutes after your claim). Please correct the RfD, and also tag the redirect. See the instructions at WP:RFD#HOWTO. --Softlavender (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Softlavender Wiki servers are a bit slower today, please check the RfD page now. Amit Dash (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Amit Dash, you did nothing of the sort. Softlavender (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Added this request to the RfD page. Amit Dash (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- My guess is that an RfD would almost certainly close as delete, unless someone feels that the content that bonadea found is due for inclusion and the article and reinstates it. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- This look like it could wait for an RfD to reach the right decision. But if an expert is needed, Rosguill would be the one. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's mildly amusing. Not being an expert in redirects, I will say nothing further. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Can't this conversation continue elsewhere? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Manoj Verma (IPS) needs more references
Hello sir, please help me to learn the concept of giving more references and details about this article as it is needed to know more information about this article. Please solve my doubt.
Regards,
Dibyojyoti RC (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Dibyojyoti RC. I suggest that you read Your first article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jim,
I am not sure if I should respond to you here or back on the edit page. I just started editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Please continue that conversation at Talk:Ilhan Omar. If you want to ask more general questions, feel free to ask here or at the Teahouse. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
- Ajpolino • LuK3
- Jackmcbarn
- Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
- There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
Coincidence
So when I reported sock puppetry of User:Deacon Vorbes with out knowing that they had already been blocked for similar username.Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Organic compounds) 13:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Acid Of Carbon: This comment explains the background. Favonian (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
A good answer
Here's what I hope is a good answer. Thank you.
As evidence, I offer diffs and basic comments from the last three weeks of editing, in which the diffs indicate issues of WP:HOUND ("Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia ." " The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason.") and issues of WP:TEND ("Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed." "Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline" "There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.") Also WP:TEND includes "Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors" "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors."
Repeated issues of HOUND and TEND began after 08SEP, increased on 11SEP and unfortunately reappeared again on 30SEP. As the WP quotations above specify, WP:HOUND can disrupt the project with no overidingly constructive reason, and WP:TEND can be interpreted as bad faith effort.
Interestingly, of the six million plus pages in English Wikipedia, a group of four pages with diffs occur - on subjects directly related to Chinese human and religious rights abuses in Tibet - where HOUND and TEND by editor occur. And interestingly, a group of three of the four page are also specifically included in a recently discovered US State Department 26APR2019 statement: "On April 25, we marked the birthday of the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who has not appeared in public since he was reportedly abducted two decades ago by the Chinese government at age six. The United States remains concerned that Chinese authorities continue to take steps to eliminate the religious, linguistic, and cultural identity of Tibetans, including their ongoing destruction of communities of worship, such as the Larung Gar and Yachen Gar monasteries." [diff from CTA, haven't dug through US.gov site yet [5]]
The group of pages where diffs indicate patterns of HOUND and TEND include:
- Sinicization of Tibet: Where attempts to use talk, assumption of good faith to build CON with editor, began on 08SEP[6], then continued on 09SEP[7], and on 10SEP[8]. These efforts were followed by repeated TEND after again editing text here[9]and here[10]and here[11]and here[12]and here[13] which were mischaracterized as "deft hackery" and revertedhere[14].
- 11th Panchen Lama controversy is a page with edits from 15Jun[15]. The editor had never edited page before[16], but on 11SEP2020, editor reverted multiple edits from June, to an earlier version of page with numerous factual errors and POV issues here [17]. Another attempt on early 14SEP to use talk for CON is here[18]. By late 14SEP, assumption of good faith is officially weakened due to ignored errors in content, which also support POV of page subject's abductors; as recommended in such cases, I reverted here[19]. TEND and HOUND are indicated again by editor's revert here[20]. Editor does not address WP:V and WP:RS issues, so this revert [21] follows. Editor doubles down, reverts again, and incorrectly cites BLP category ban for a Bio with non-living category page here[22]. Eight hours later, editor coordinates BLP note on page[23] which effectively protected content with multiple serious errors on a BLP page. On 29SEP, effort again made to assume good faith here[24].
- Yarchen Gar is another page never edited by editor before 06SEP. The first revert by editor is here[25] where a Facebook source is untouched, but a source Tibet Watch is deleted. Basic info is deleted in opening, including the words 'Tibetan', 'nuns', and 'with both Tibetan and Han Chinese students'. Deletions were reverted on 11SEP [26], but kept editing and was again reverted while all RS & sources were deemed "advocacy groups" in editors opinion. Editor adds detailed geography notes [27]. Here's an attempt to use talk[28] and a request to stop reverts on 17SEP[29], but editor did not respond to the good faith requests, which meet the definition of interpretation of bad faith effort in TEND. Editor responds instead with another revert[30].
- Larung Gar is another page not edited by editor before 06SEP[31]. The page is related to Yarchen Gar page in subject, and in RS on international concerns of persecution of nuns and monks; both pages were reedited by editor. Here's the 06SEP revert of Larung Gar by editor[32]which deletes NYT RS, replaces Tibetan people's name with Chinese versions, reedits text associated with BBC RS, and deletes source and text from Free Tibet while pushing opinion that source Radio Free Asia should be basically deprecated.
- WP:RSN: To settle matters while still hoping for good faith, topics were opened on 17SEP[33] and[34] on RS & sources disputed by editor and editor's opinions. In these topics, editor again indicates HOUND and TEND in the 2nd thread, while later inappropriately calling for a double block in the 2nd topic. CON on 2nd topic states general policy on sources, but makes the point that reliability of each source has not been established separately.
- With these guidelines, fresh edits were undertaken again on 30SEP at Yarchen Gar here[35] with a reference to earlier bad faith effort which meet TEND definitions, and here[36] and here[37] and here via RS Buddhist Door[38]. Editor again reverts before examining RS and calls for a block in an edit summary[39] which signifies HOUND and TEND by editor are continuing. The lack of RS review by editor before revert was noted as was editor's history of blocks for feuding, here[40]. Editor again reverts here[41] while wrongly claiming "You have been told Tibet Post is not a WP:RS", but the RSN review did not specify that finding. Next, editor re-ads a South China Morning Post source provided by me[42], a re-adding that supports the interpretation of bad faith effort, since the earlier revert was therefore made without review and meets the definitions of HOUND and TEND. The re-adding also indicates editor's TEND issues are based on POV (the apparently non-independent Scmp POV fails to mention fully the notable topic of the demolitions, and includes a tone slightly disrespectful to the nuns). Editor's revert was undone, bad faith/feuding cited among other issues here[43]. An image of Yarchen Gar was added here[44].
To address other related topics, I would like to add that while the editor has said the reference to previous blocks is "intolerable"[45] I took editor's more experienced lead to include mention of the feuding block [46], based on the editor's mention of the BLP parameter ban (see diffs) - if following the lead was a mistake, I apologise. I would also add that I hope the good faith efforts made at Sinicization of Tibet and 11th Panchen Lama and their diffs might clarify any misunderstanding in regards to a Tea House thread, where quotations from those talk pages and good faith efforts were used: "The first sentence states clearly that Sinicization of Tibet is a term used by critics of China; then, the rest of the page is largely written from the POV of China, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases." and "Those statements don't address the serious issues. Goldstein's bias diff [1]; Rice, Kissinger, and Albright do not change the issues. Also in the first paragraph are non-standard references to the Chinese government, as in "Chinese leadership" and "leadership in China". Twice. Hum." After a requoting, a light-hearted but possibly poor attempt at joking (humbly offering AKGG as possible WP policy) was made. No personal attacks were intended towards editor, nor was disrespect towards policy at all intended - I apologise if I caused a misunderstanding. But, editor exhibited more HOUND instances by following into that request for help, and into another helpful discussion afterward.
I trust the copious amounts of diffs and this very lengthy response to be good enough to explain the interpretation of bad faith effort by the editor. I also trust that the good faith edits I've been providing as a recently joined editor to the project are as apparent, if not more so. Thank you most sincerely, and I look forward to continuing the editing.Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pasdecomplot, all of your comments and those diffs show that you have a powerful point of view regarding the conflict between the Chinese government and Tibetan Buddhism. Editing from the neutral point of view is mandatory and editors who are unable to edit neutrally end up with editing restrictions and blocks. I suggest that you voluntarily remove yourself from this topic area. If instead you continue on the same path, I think that it is likely that you will end up with a topic ban or even an indefinite block.
- Examples of your extreme POV pushing language are in the diffs above:
- "Attacks on 'Culture' and forced changing of 'Demographics' are obvious weapons in China's arsenal of destroying and subjugating Tibet."
- "the motion to remove the nearly frothingly pro-China apologetic p.o.s. article."
- I find it hard to understand why you chose to draw my attention to your POV pushing. I encourage you to change your course of action if you hope to continue editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice Cullen, and your time. It's worth noting that those examples are from talk, not from text entered into pages, and are responses to editor's extreme pushing of opinion in page and talk, which might be couched in a less raw fashion. The majority opinion expressed in those two examples have been gained from RS and from sources read since becoming an editor, which fully describe "Attacks on 'Culture' and forced changing of 'Demographics' are obvious weapons in China's arsenal of destroying and subjugating Tibet." As in, the earth is round. Various RS and sources also go further to include the term "cultural genocide", which is another way to describe the same phenomena. The specific quotation is taken from a talk response to editor's pushing of minority opinion on Sinicization of Tibet that cultural genocide has been debunked - based on an academic source's opinion of the number of magazines currently published in Tibet. In RSN topic 2, ICT et al (archive diff here for International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post, et al[47] ), editor continued pushing same opinion again, threatened blocks against 2 editors for disagreeing, and the thread debunks editor's opinion. With these diffs, HOUND and TEND by editor have been illustrated, likewise editor's POV pushing.
- Since the quotations are balanced by the minority POV pushing of editor, I ask if you would please reconsider the advice of not editing the topic area, since the page edits adhere to NPOV and majority opinion, and include RS and sources repeatedly deleted by editor via TEND. What seems to be the issue is expressing opinion on talk, which is permitted. Likewise, @El_C advised me to "tone it down", advise which I've definitely followed since those opinions were expressed almost a month ago on 08SEP-10SEP.
- I'm curious as to what advise or block the editor in question has received for HOUND and TEND, if it's appropriate to ask. Thank you again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- IMO an extremely bad answer. Someone please protect the other editor from this ongoing harrassment by PDC, as I cannot. —valereee (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to restate the editor's minority opinion appears to be behind their HOUND and TEND. I'd also suggest editor be advised to not edit pages if their pushing of minority opinion, and rejection of NPOV and its supporting RS/sources, and rejection of CON, cannot be checked. As the diffs show, I follow those policies in the articles and attempted repeatedly to use talk for CON with editor. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sometimes an editor is blinded to their own POV pushing in their zeal to demonize editors with a different POV. That seems to be the case here, Pasdecomplot. You seem to think that the Chinese POV is so reprehensible that it should not be described neutrally in this encyclopedia. You are wrong. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'd like to restate the editor's minority opinion appears to be behind their HOUND and TEND. I'd also suggest editor be advised to not edit pages if their pushing of minority opinion, and rejection of NPOV and its supporting RS/sources, and rejection of CON, cannot be checked. As the diffs show, I follow those policies in the articles and attempted repeatedly to use talk for CON with editor. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)