Jimmy Wales vs. Cullen328

[CrowsNest]

One of their best......

Facts are facts. According to Alexa, Wikipedia is the #5 website in the world and Wikinews is #61,982. Wikinews is irrelevant. Our Wikipedia main page always features about half a dozen major news stories and a similar number of recent deaths. Of course, we should not be doing original news reporting. But in case after countless case, for nearly 18 years, our articles about breaking news events have evolved into enduring articles worthy of study by researchers in history for centuries to come. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

On of their most deluded more like.

[sashi]

One of their best......

Facts are facts. According to Alexa, Wikipedia is the #5 website in the world and Wikinews is #61,982. Wikinews is irrelevant. Our Wikipedia main page always features about half a dozen major news stories and a similar number of recent deaths. Of course, we should not be doing original news reporting. But in case after countless case, for nearly 18 years, our articles about breaking news events have evolved into enduring articles worthy of study by researchers in history for centuries to come. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

On of their most deluded more like.

Dude. Cullen has long rubbed me the wrong way. And I trust my instincts.

Anyone promoting Wikipedia -- as is -- is part of the problem.

may the bestestest be able to rest on their laurels gnagnam style...

[CrowsNest]

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... 6416#p6416

[CrowsNest]

One of their best, being mistaken for an encyclopedia editor.

Tiger
Why, oh why, isn't this a Featured article? Only the experts know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to nominate it, it's not automatic. How about a peer review? What I see at a glance: too many images, in strange positioning, and probably without alt= texts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This is an inside joke, Gerda Arendt, and is has something to do with American gridiron college football, more specifically the national championship game that just ended. The team that our mutual friend Drmies roots for was defeated by another team called the "Tigers". Sad for Drmies but an opportunity for me to make an affectionate joke. Is there any humor connected with classical music? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Man. If they weren't sucking each other's dicks all day, what would they fill their time with?

Even the WMF has previously stated they think their volunteer associates should focus their attention on articles that are of most use to readers (Tiger gets nearly 5,000 views a day). The response of the volunteers was essentially, can you please not interrupt us, we are busy sucking each other's dicks. We'll do it if you pay us.

Cullen does write articles of course. Two days ago he published the biography for Raymond Dabb Yelland (1848 -1900), a a forgotten Californian landscape painter. I say biography, it is in reality just a few short paragprahs, not even worth splitting into sections, so he hasn't. A perusal of the internet shows there is much more to be added yet. Even what he has produced, already contains questionable content. Why source a name change to a primary document, when you already had a secondary source? Maybe he will get around to it, once he has finished making Drmies feel better.

This is what one of their best spends his days on. Why Wikipedia is so crap, really is no mystery.

[Carrite]

One of their best......

Facts are facts. According to Alexa, Wikipedia is the #5 website in the world and Wikinews is #61,982. Wikinews is irrelevant. Our Wikipedia main page always features about half a dozen major news stories and a similar number of recent deaths. Of course, we should not be doing original news reporting. But in case after countless case, for nearly 18 years, our articles about breaking news events have evolved into enduring articles worthy of study by researchers in history for centuries to come. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

On of their most deluded more like.

Dude. Cullen has long rubbed me the wrong way. And I trust my instincts.

Anyone promoting Wikipedia -- as is -- is part of the problem.

may the bestestest be able to rest on their laurels gnagnam style...

I know Jim personally. He is good folks. Of course, consensus here is that I suck, so consider the source.

xoxo,

t

[Graaf Statler]

No. The consensus is you never answer different questions and avoid them. But at least you haven the guts to come over from time to time and that is what I appreciate very much. And I wouldn't say you sucks, we just disagree total. But as a person you looks to me a very nice guy. And nobody is claiming Jim isn't good folks.

What Crow and I try to show and to make clear is that Wikipedia is a pyramid scheme of bluff, and there it is about Tim. And that the result often is extreem poor and that nobody can fix Wikipedia, so it is poisoning the knowledge ecologic for ever. That is why I am claiming Wikipedia is as danger as plastic in the sea. And that you can't fix Wikipedia with some random improvements. In fact you can't fix wikipedia at all, I complete agree with Crow.

Fixing some articles and replacing James Alexander by a guy with hardly any qualifications isn't a structural solution and is denying what is really going on, because the rest of the puddingheads keep there function. And such discussions you avoid and there it is about Timmy.
If I claim I see a structural problem with Wikipedia and the European laws and regulation, we don't discuss that, no I am trolled out everywhere even on the "critical" Wikipediocrazy forum and at the end even with the famous SanFanBan. I am mute everywhere and nobody talks to me anymore and that fits perfect in dictatorships and fascist systems and sects and not in a open system what Wikipedia claims to be. And you never answer questions about that if you are here. That sucks Timmy.
And there it is about Timmy, and not about if Jim is a nice guy or not. Or if that Jan, the successor of Alexander is. O yeh, for sure he is a nice guy, but just like the whole safety team he has not any qualification as a "safety expert". It is here about the fact Wikipedia sucks, lets talk about that Tim.

[CrowsNest]

Before I comment on this specific matter, I want to give kudos to the many thousands of productive editors who volunteer to write useful encyclopedia articles, fight vandalism, calmly evaluate articles at AfD, and help out at the help desk and the Teahouse, without ever involving themselves in bizarre obsessive confrontational behavior like these two editors have done for so very long. Those of us who help out at ANI are far less familiar with their usernames because they are simply not disruptive in any way.........Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Fucking windbag. You're an Administrator, it is a surprise to nobody who understands that role, that you will be dealing with the same small number of regular offenders. The silent majority doesn't want your random appreciation, they aren't even watching AN/I to see it, because that is not their role. They merely want you to do your job. If you actually did your fucking job properly (as in this specific case, making sure the usual suspects you warn are tracked, and therefore blocked as soon as it is obvious that warning has been ignored), then maybe recidivism would be even less of a problem on Wikipedia than it already is.

So just shut your mouth, and read things like this......

The researchers also found that an outsized percentage of attacks come from a very small number of "highly toxic" Wikipedia contributors. A whopping 9% of attacks in 2015 came from just 34 users who had made 20 or more personal attacks during the year. "Significant progress could be made by moderating a relatively small number of frequent attackers," the researchers note. This finding bolsters the idea that problems in online communities often come from a small minority of highly vocal users.

......then reflect on whether you are a part of the problem, or a part of the solution.

SPOILER ALERT. Cullen is a fucking crap Administrator, the fact that people like him have been waved through RfA since 2015, is the reason why that finding has likely not changed. If Cullen was ever going to be the sort of Administrator willing to take a tough line on the 9%, he would never have even been suggested for the role by the likes of Kupdung and Ritchie, two Admins who are not exactly known for their restraint when it comes to the temptation to attack others, the latter infamous for doing whatever he can to protect certain members of that toxic group.

[Graaf Statler]

Hmmmm. I think you are revering to this article, Crow. It is a wasting of time, because WMF will never do anything against that "certain members" of that toxic group. They are simple not interested. Because this toxic users are very active and producing tons of wikishit. They simple need them to keep the Titanic floating, they simple can't without them.

[Kumioko]

I agree with many of the comments here. Cullen is a worthless admin and is a good example of the sort of toxic personality that become admins and then use the tools as a ban hammer to enforce their own POV.

[CrowsNest]

I agree with many of the comments here. RANDOM PERSON is a worthless admin and is a good example of the sort of toxic personality that become admins and then use the tools as a ban hammer to enforce their own POV.

Seriously dude, I could write a bot that imitates your generic waffling, and nobody would notice the difference.

Have you anything specific to say about Cullen that might help inform readers as to why he's not "one of their best"? Ideally something's not related to your personal tale of woe.

If not, then I think all this good stuff is best saved for its usual outlet, Wikipediocracy. You might be lucky and attract the guy there, he would fit right in.