User talk:Cullen328

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

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

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

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

The importance of a friendly greeting

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

Please offer your thoughts

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

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)

2009 Archive

2010 Archive

2011 Archive

2012 Archive (first six months)

Automatic Archive 1Automatic Archive 2Automatic Archive 3

Question from AtharvK (23:15, 28 May 2026)

Hi Mr. Cullen!

I hope everything’s been wonderful for you.

I have a quick question about an article I wrote on Microeledone galapagensis. I previously contacted Dr. Janet Voight about using open-source photos of the octopus, and she mentioned that it would be fine as long as I set the image permissions to non-commercial use only and credit the Charles Darwin Foundation. In your experience, would this be acceptable for use on Wikipedia? --अथर्व कॉल (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello AtharvK. No, I am sorry but free images on Wikipedia most be available for re-use by anyone for any purpose, including commercial uses. So, for example, a book or magazine publisher could re-use the image. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy for complete details. Cullen328 (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the information!
अथर्व कॉल (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from HyperMax2021 (02:38, 29 May 2026)

Hey, I wanted to make a "User:HyperMax2021/Marker (BFDI)" Page and in the Infobox I want to put an image if Marker there, but I dont know which copyright to choose. I figured to do CC0 as I mesn the show is free to watch on YouTube. But just to check, I want ti check up how on an older wikipedia editor (since I figured your my mentor and a more experienced editor then I am) So, Reply anytime! :) --HyperMax2021 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, HyperMax2021. Just because something is free to watch on YourTube does not mean that is free of copyright restrictions. You must be absolutely sure that there are no copyright restrictions. Under U.S. law, any original video is automatically protected by copyright the moment it is created, along with images derived from that video. Using someone else's images without permission is not permitted unless the image is explicitly stated as copyright free or in the public domain or it was originally published in the US over 95 years ago (copyright expired). Official works of employees of the US government are in the public domain but not works by many state or local governments or foreign government agencies. Copyright is complicated. Please explain the function of the page that you hope to create. Is this a draft article? Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
This is guidance from the creators of BFDI: Battle for Dream Island: Attribution guide. Cullen328 (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
Ah, Im not really knowledgeable on Laws like Copyright, pretty Complicated, Sorry for the misunderstanding Also sorry for my potential grammar issues, I dont know if the word misunderstanding is the Right word. I just wanted to know, also its my User Page (User:HyperMax2021/MarkerBFDI) not a draft. HyperMax2021 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Hiamamphoenix500 (19:19, 29 May 2026)

I edited an article, it was fixing the last name of my great grandfather, it doesn't have a source, but it is the correct name. I checked it, it's still fine. How does Wikipedia do with someone editing an article that they know about personally? --Hiamamphoenix500 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hiamamphoenix500, that type of edit is contrary to the policy No original research. Please revert and discuss the issue on the article talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Flavan-3-ol

Hi, I'm a bit concerned at what's going on with Ggck2 at Flavan-3-ol, and the conflict-of-interest at , where you and Nil Einne have been tackling an awkward situation. It seems to me that there are two different problems. (1) There is the sock-puppet question of whether Ggck2 and GGux are the same person. I'm not an SPI-person; I cannot for the life of me interpret whether Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ggux came to a block-worthy conclusion or not, so I don't suppose Ggck2 can either. (2) Sensibly, you ignored the sock-puppet issue and blocked for COI editing. But the editor has declared who they are and how they're funded; the dispute is presumably that they haven't undertaken to cease editing on flavanols?

Personally, I think it's distasteful to add references to one's own work, but it's not actually forbidden - and yet anyone who adds a reference to their own work had a conflict of interest - because they were paid to do the work - and this is exactly Ggck2's position.

The fundamental problem (in my view) is that no one writing about food supplements is free of a COI. There are two sorts of people who tend to accumulate in articles like that: enthusiastic members of the public convinced that whatever they're buying from Holland and Barrett is the secret of eternal life (and determined to plug their cause), and enthusiastic professionals who believe that the world would be a healthier place if only people would eat more food containing their favourite natural product. All of the latter group are funded by someone who helps to make the world better by eating more phenolics/minerals/fibre/unsaturated fats/antioxidants. I don't think the balance of our encyclopedia is helped if we handcuff one of the two groups, especially as it's the better-informed group. It's as illogical as preventing lawyers from directly editing articles on law because they are employed as lawyers.

I'm not sure the current outcome is particularly helpful or fair. I'm also concerned that Yamla's assessment of Ggck2's unblock request is a little unfair. Of the three questions that Ggck2's supposed to have failed to answer, he answered the first very clearly, the second reasonably clearly, and the third question was so open that it's not clear what answer it should have had. Were I Ggck2, I think I would feel somewhat aggrieved at the moment. Elemimele (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

(oh, disclaimer: professionally I'm an analytical chemist who's been involved in analysis of flavonoids, but so far as I know, never for Ggck2. But that's why I take an interest in flavonoid articles...) Elemimele (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't deal with SPI much myself but don't think it's that hard to understand. To my read what's being said there is that whether Ggux is Ggck2 isn't really a question for SPI. For starters, the Ggux account is so old that there is no possible useful CU data. (Even if something is kept the CU wiki, it's unlikely to be particularly useful.) But also since Ggux was never sanctioned or the subject of significant discussion, them retiring that account and coming back under the Ggck2 account is not a violation of anything. Therefore if there are concerns, these would need to be dealt with elsewhere. From our PoV the connection between the two IMO does matter. Number one, as User:CoffeeCrumbs has said, if they're Ggux they're lying and about something that seems so obvious and for which there is no good reason. Sometimes editors may chose to hide a connection to a previous account because they revealed too much about themselves under the previous account, but Ggck2 has revealed more about themselves than Gguk ever did so that cannot be a reason. Sometimes editors may be embarrassed about mistakes they made or stuff they did under the previous account particularly if they were quite young then but this also doesn't seem to apply in any way. If they are lying about this, it becomes very hard to trust them on anything. Further the fact they seemed to acknowledge and appreciate they had a COI in most ways far better than Ggck2 did so it calls into question their failure to disclose and handle the COI earlier. Note that while disclosing their real life identity does reveal more and allows use to understand precisely how they may have a COI etc, this only happens when someone notices and bothers to look in to it. Generally an editor seeing their user page is going to have no idea they have a COI just because they gave their name unless they cited their own work. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Note that the coincidence of timing and interest, along with the fact that both seem likely to be associated with the University of Reading IMO means if they really aren't the same editor, there was almost definitely some level of off-wiki communication. In that case, I think it's reasonable they should disclose it (per WP:MEAT etc), and it doesn't violate outing to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
I also find it hard to believe that they both have/had userboxes (Ggux removed their userboxes right before "retiring") where they specifically chose two distinct userboxes related to internet history and no others outside of languages. Plus the syntactic similarity of the usernames, the second one with a two added. I still think it's most likely they're the same person, but even if they're not, there's just about no chance there's no cooperation involved. Their dancing around the issue about them having an "idea" who the other party is and acting like there are a few candidates they have in mind is rich, creamery bullshit.
The fundamental problem (in my view) is that no one writing about food supplements is free of a COI. Then everyone should be disclosing their WP:COI. Here we have a possible WP:COI, from someone who is being deceptive that we strongly believe is lying. The latter makes it hard to accept the former at face value. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Elemimele, Nil Einne and CoffeeCrumbs, thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate it. I am addressing these issues on the blocked editor's talk page. The block is not about sockpuppetry. It is about COI editing that has become disruptive editing because the editor is wikilawyering about the COI behavioral guideline and disclosures. I have a confidence of 99% plus that these two accounts are the same person and therefore I believe that the second account should make the same sort of COI disclosures that the first account did. Their failure to admit the obvious connection amounts to trying to partially conceal what they previously admitted. It goes to their credibility and the ability of other editors to trust them, and their ability (or inability) to collaborate with other editors to build consensus.
From my perspective, this is not at all about "handcuffing" a "better-informed group". But better informed editors still need to comply with the COI guideline. I certainly do not want to prevent "lawyers from directly editing articles on law" in general, but we do not want lawyers editing articles about specific court cases when they have been paid for years to litigate those cases. That is why we have a process for COI edit requests on article talk pages. Cullen328 (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you all for your well-balanced attempts to sort out complexities like this. I'll stay out of the human side of it, but have offered on the Flavan-3-ol article talk-page to get involved in a dispute resolution, if necessary, to sort out whether the cosmos trial should be mentioned in that article or not. Hopefully the content issue can be dealt with by level-headed discussion. Elemimele (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

added
readded
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
  • The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Emmanuel Oduro-Opong (14:51, 3 June 2026)

hi how are you doing idk if this mentorship is actually uses im yet to join wiki communities how long till my uploaded wiki gets appoved like how long did your first one take ? --Emmanuel Oduro-Opong (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Emmanuel Oduro-Opong. Your draft has been declined and the reviewer gave you useful feedback. Please follow their advice carefully and resubmit. There is no set period of time. It depends on the quality of your draft. The Articles for Creation process did not exist when I got started. Articles were reviewed by the New Pages Patrol. That was 17 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Richard Stepp (18:37, 5 June 2026)

Hi. I want to put my name on your platform I am a known recording artist under the name Richard Stepp. My first lp was Holiday in Hollywood --Richard Stepp (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Richard Stepp. Please read Wikipedia's notability guideline for musicians and let me know how you meet that standard. Most working musicians are not eligible for Wikipedia biographies. Cullen328 (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
I have had all kinds of press you just have to google my name and a song caught in a whirlwind. I was nominated for the juno awards I won a PRO/SOCAN AWARD
Richard Stepp (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Richard Stepp, a few additional things to read are WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and Your first article. Just saying that you have press is not enough. You need to actually present the best of the sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Okay I have an autobiography and pictures of awards and nominations
Should I send them to you? Richard Stepp (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Richard Stepp, if what you have written complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then you can create a draft article for review. Please be aware that self-promotional language is not permitted on Wikipedia, and that the Neutral point of view is a core content policy. Please use the formal Articles for Creation process. Pictures of awards are of no value, as are nominations. We need notable awards to be verified by published sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Richard Stepp, do you fully understand WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY? Cullen328 (talk) 04:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Of course Richard Stepp (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
I have an autobiography. How do I upload it? Richard Stepp (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Richard Stepp, read Articles for Creation and follow the instructions there. Cullen328 (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Kaziglobalfood (09:44, 10 June 2026)

Hellow --Kaziglobalfood (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Daverdyer (21:24, 11 June 2026)

Hi! I was reading the "Geography of Mexico" page and on the last sentence of the opening paragraph is incorrect. "Mexico is the world's 13th largest country, three times the size of Texas" Mexico is well over seven times the size of texas. I am unable to edit the page as I created a new account just to fix this problem. I would appreciate any help!

Thank you! --Daverdyer (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Daverdyer. Mexico has an area of 761,610 square miles. Texas has an area of 268,597 square miles. Therefore, the statement in the article is approximately correct. More precisely, Mexico is 2.83 times the size of Texas but certainly not seven times the size. I added the word "nearly". Cullen328 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from That other tall fella on USS Hazelwood (DD-107) (20:42, 14 June 2026)

Hello, this is my first time attempting and edit to Wikipedia page. I was browsing through and noticed that there seems to be an error in the chronology the scrapping of the Hazelwood. I'm not sure of the correct date, but did want to draw attention to the error and I'm not quite sure how to do that. --That other tall fella (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, That other tall fella. I see the discrepancy in the 1935 dates. Every article has an associated talk page to discuss problems and improvements. The place to discuss this specific issue is Talk:USS Hazelwood (DD-107). Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Precious Sheun86 on User talk:Precious Sheun86 (20:34, 16 June 2026)

hello --Precious Sheun86 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Precious Sheun86. Do you have a question? Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
yes i do Precious Sheun86 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
Well then, ask it, Precious Sheun86. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 10:30, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

sharing with you and your sister -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt. My sister flew to Salem, Oregon to visit my brother who is also in poor health, and I drove there with my wife and son to visit the two of them and other relatives. So, I was with my sister when I got your message. She was touched by your thoughtfulness. We listened to several of Elgar's Enigma Variations together and enjoyed them. It was a special moment. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from ScienceEnthusiast123 (17:25, 21 June 2026)

Hi Jim, I am new to writing/editing on Wikipedia. I was excited to submit my first article yesterday, but it was rejected pretty quickly by an editor because they were concerned that it was written by an LLM like ChatGPT. I wrote the article myself though, I reviewed it carefully, checked all the references, and I even had a friend read it too before inputting into the system since this was my first article.

The reviewer did not flag any specific parts of the article in their feedback, so I'm not really sure what to do next to make the article better. I have a scientific background, and I know my writing sometimes can sound robotic. I'm wondering if maybe this triggered an automatic AI-detector tool? I ran the text through https://gptzero.me/ today to see if I could find what parts sounded like AI, and the scan came back as "We are highly confident this text is entirely human" (98% human, 2% mixed, 0% AI).

Do you have suggestions for what I should do as a next step in this situation?

Thank you for your willingness to serve as a mentor for us newbies! --ScienceEnthusiast123 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, ScienceEnthusiast123. Your first step should be to discuss the matter with the AFC reviewer who declined your draft. Leave a similar message at User talk:ArthurTheGardener. I am traveling and visiting family now, so may be a bit slow to answer, but feel free to ask additional questions. Your draft looks strong to me but I took only a quick glance. Please review the notabilty guideline WP:NACADEMIC. Cullen328 (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help, and enjoy your time with family! ScienceEnthusiast123 (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from CommaGarden (04:01, 22 June 2026)

Hi Jim,

I made a copyedit to the Background section of the Cross-device tracking article to address essay-like tone: diff.

I tried to preserve the existing claims and citations while making the prose more encyclopedic and neutral. Does this look like a reasonable scope for a suggested tone cleanup, or should I make smaller edits in the future? Thanks. --CommaGarden (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, CommaGarden. I think that your edit was just fine. The choice of whether to make one large edit or several small edits is a bit subjective. In general, if your edits are likely to be controversial, keep them small. And if the changes involve a variety of different things, it is best to keep them separate. On the other hand, some editors object to lots of small edits. If someone objects, do your best to try to work things out with them. Cullen328 (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Question from Gmattar (02:08, 25 June 2026)

Hello mentor :) Just starting out after YEARS of reading. Could you take a look at my contributions and tell me what you think? Appreciate it. --Gmattar (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Gmattar. Your contributions to date look positive to me. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)