Jump to content

User talk:331dot/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:331dot

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ijeshe (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 17 May 2021 (→April 2021 directly or indirectly compensated for edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User dispute

I am respectfully requesting admin assistance in resolving a dispute over a minor edit between myself and Surtsicna (User talk:Surtsicna|talk]]). User:Mr305worldwide (Mr305worldwide)

The issue is this edit. Mr305worldwide is refusing to seek consensus for an edit that goes against WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna is engaging in harassing and insulting behavior and has refused to permit the Third Opinion Project to resolve this matter when advised that it would be referred to said project.
Admins do not settle content disputes. If this has been referred to dispute resolution that should be allowed to proceed by everyone involved. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should not have been referred to dispute resolution before being discussed on the talk page. WP:3O says that an issue must be "thoroughly discussed on the article talk page" before being submitted, and Mr305worldwide is explicitly refusing to do so. Surtsicna (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should be brought up in the dispute resolution process, and it will likely be summarily dispensed with. Mr305worldwide, this is a collaborative project and you must discuss issues when there is a dispute. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with discussing it, however the user above has also engaged in systemic reversion of edits I have made to improve the quality of the article, in an attempt to get his way
Also it is my contention that after reverting multiple edits of the same nature, an attempt should be made by the party reverting to make contact with the party who made jt asking why it was made. That way an edit war is avoided because it is clear to both parties as to why the edit was made, and why it was reverted. That’s not too much to ask.

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Please help me with Wiki Page for Corey Johnson

Hello 331dot, I was working on an article - Corey Johnson (Music producer) and I need help with choosing the right references and rewriting the article so it can stay on Wikipedia

--Marquis Newell (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ps- I have a list of references and press for Corey Johnson

--Marquis Newell (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will better answer you later but I'm wondering what your interest is in this subject. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Joyous Yuletide to You!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello 331dot, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
JACKINTHEBOX • TALK 16:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Blocked IP User:1.242.84.212

They are quite talkative on their talk page. Would you care to get them to shut it?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

Because of Special:Diff/996313254, you might want to revoke talk page access. Not only was it spammy, it was a copyvio of https://www.yugantarpravah.com/content/page/about-us. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You've been trouted for accusing me of introducing inappropriate pages when I was not. WP:AGF.Nononsense101 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nononsense101 I did not do otherwise. That you may have created the page in good faith does not change the fact that it was inappropriate. I stand by my notification. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is the page inappropriate?Nononsense101 (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of account

331dot, plz I am just requesting u to give the note to developer as I said. If the developer wants, he will add the feature to delete account else he will not do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarika9140 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarika9140 As I said, there are legal reasons that accounts cannot be deleted as well. All edits must be attributable to an account. You are not the first person to make such a suggestion. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoodTimeGypsy

(GoodTimeGypsy (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I feel we meet these criteria as I've seen others that are on Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Stalker_(band)&oldid=997096750

How do I get this article out of the 'draft' mode? or does it need to be reviewed first?

Thanks in advance for your time and patience — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodTimeGypsy (talk • contribs) 01:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That revision had copyright problems so it may be revision-deleted by the time you see this, but the content is very close to the prose text found here starting at Stalker is an American rock band and continuing down to to more misses. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodTimeGypsy It will need to be submitted as a draft, but it is nowhere close to being acceptable at this time. If you just want to tell the world about your old band, you should use social media, a personal website, or other outlet where that is permitted and may have less stringent inclusion requirements. Wikipedia isn't just for documenting things; it summarizes only what independent reliable sources state. If you see other articles like your draft, please point those out so they can be addressed. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us; we can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot

examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_Bones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippo_Campus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Pe%C3%B1ate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psapp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(band) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck_(band) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Local_Band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsigned_band_web

the idea is not to post an old band but from a local new jersey music scene standpoint, there is relevance for documenting the history of a movement and the musicians that were involved that encompasses a generation of underground music lovers around the world. wikipedia encompasses the idea of learning about people, places, and things not often found so easily. i understand that a subjective topic is a discrete piece of content that is about a specific subject, needs an identifiable purpose, and can stand alone. thanks again and happy new year!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodTimeGypsy (talk • contribs) 18:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

Bye Debate

Please assume good faith and don't attack others, as doing otherwise can disrupt Wikipedia. < Sorry for any disruption this has caused. Please stop the on and off debate. Many people may [weasel words] say so if the debate flares. Nononsense101 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response at the UAA

Hi 331dot, apologies for rushing to report the accounts. I wasn't aware that there could be other reasons why they might create accounts. Thank you for your advice. I'll make sure not to repeat the same mistake. Have a very happy new year. Ashleyyoursmile! 13:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyyoursmile Happy new year as well. There are rare cases where a username can be reported (and blocked) without having edited, but those are usually limited to the most extreme vulgar words/phrases and WP:BLP violations. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, noted. I will keep that in mind. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 13:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carl Carlton

Please unblock this user. Their account is verified in OTRS. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tones and I

Hi, but how am i supposed to know which is a reliable source and which isn't?Sarmiento 007 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmiento 007 A reliable source is that which has a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. Another way to put it is, the source does not make stuff up and can support what it publishes. A guide to how many sources are treated on Wikipedia can be found at WP:RSP. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you help me I am trying to edit in the correct fashion but I am just not succeeding...

Below is the entry I wish to publish for The British School of Paris. i have tried my best to keep it factual and have added a reference for the history at thee end. What is wrong with it? please could it be posted by someone who knows what they are doing? I have been trying for several weeks. Any help will be graatefully received. Thank you for your expertise.

The British School of Paris has a long history as a provider of British education in Paris. It is an independent fee-paying school with around 700 pupils, representing well over 50 nationalities. The BSP is one of the largest and longest-established British international schools in the world. The educational programme is based on the National Curriculum for England and Wales and its Patron is the serving British Ambassador to France. The school is located in the western suburbs of Paris in the small market town of Croissy-sur-Seine. Founded by Mary J. Cosyn in 1954, the then 'English School of Paris' quickly moved from its original Parisian address to the Chateau de Monte Cristo, the former home of Alexander Dumas, in Le Pecq just west of Paris. The majority of pupils in the early years were British, American and Canadian with parents employed mainly at the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Powers in Europe (SHAPE). In 1964, the School moved again to its current home Llesna Court, 38 quai de l'Ecluse, Croissy-sur-Seine. By 1973 the continued rise in pupil numbers lead to the purchase of a second property in Bougival, specifically to house the Junior School pupils. In 1980 the school was transferred from private ownership and established under French law as the equivalent of a British charitable trust - a ‘not-for-profit’ association. With this change of status a Board of Governors was appointed with responsibility for overseeing the running and development of the School. By 1981 the school was officially renamed as The British School of Paris. During the intervening years expansion of both facilities and pupil numbers culminated in 2010 with the opening of a purpose-built Junior School just along the river from the Senior School campus. Campus development at the Senior School also evolved significantly, a refurbished multipurpose hall (the Kett Building) was inaugurated in December 2018 and an outdoor learning space will be completed by Spring 2021.

Reference French Lessons - The Story of The British School of Paris by Vicky Honour

91.90.97.124 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you represent the school, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you must make. This is easier to do with an account, but an account is not required. I gather you represent the school from the nature of the text you propose above.
The text you propose sounds like a promotional brochure for the school. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a subject. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen to write about a topic, showing how that topic meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case, the definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about itself; the school is free to do that on its own website. Wikipedia is only interested in what others have decided on their own to write about the school(not staff interviews, press releases, routine announcements, the school website, or other primary sources). This text you propose has no sources at all and would not be accepted. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hello 331dot, The cited content is about an actor Rajinikanth not about Maridhas. 157.51.22.191 (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; however, since your edits leave not much behind, the article should probably be proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but there is a current discussion to move it to draft in the talk page. 157.51.22.191 (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would work too. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your note. I am doing this as a volunteer position for the ACSF group. So what exactly should I do? I am wondering how does other organization create articles such as companies. I am new to all of this and it is very confusing. I really appreciate if you just tell me what i need to do to make sure the page is published correctly and accepted by Wikipedia. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmaeili.nooshin (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esmaeili.nooshin Organizations do not typically create articles(not "pages") about themselves due to the conflict of interest. If you just want to tell the world about your organization, you should use social media, your own website, or other alternative where that is permitted. I've said what you need to do in response to your previous inquiry. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TH question

Hi 331dot. You blocked the person who asked WP:THQ#Editors to neutralize a page! as a SOCK. Do you want to nuke the TH post or should it just be left alone. FWIW, the same editor submitted the draft to AfC for review as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably leave it for now; this whole situation is being discussed on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...but I now see that it was removed; and if it's okay with them it's okay with me. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrtoodeetoo Unblock Request

Hey, I thought I'd continue this here in order to try to reduce the temperature, since Ahrtoodeetoo is clearly pretty bothered by your messages.

I get what you mean - It might not hurt to update the block log.

I was leaning towards an unblock offer after assurances that it was a one-time issue, and won't happen again - now I think I'm going to remove that page from my watchlist. SQLQuery me! 19:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SQL I appreciate your wisdom and I will do so. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the hard work, 331dot. Sorry for getting you embroiled in this matter. SQL, does that mean that the unblock request is declined? I don't think that's been carried out. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdrqaz: - I had not declined that request. I was considering the request - but I am going to leave it open for another opinion. SQLQuery me! 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see SQL. Thank you for your time. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that I would object to an unblock of r2 at this time and in fact think this should be a ban given his years of incivility and inability to collaborate. There's a slew of PAs in the last few years, combined with his combative "it's not my fault" behavior that leads me to believe he's not actually here to contribute so much as argue and berate people. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz No apology is necessary; it's part of the role. I'm just disappointed they don't seem to want to engage with others and responded to my simple, civil inquiry with personal attacks and indignation. Wasn't my intention at all- I just asked a question. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I have copied Ahrtoodeetoo's appeal to ANI per their request. Politrukki (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain why that is necessary for their unblock request, but it's not something I outright oppose. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither am I, but that was their will, I believe. I see some of their comments on their user talk page are beyond pale, but I still somehow believe they can be reasoned with. Thank you for your patience and thanks for everyone who have tried to steer Ahrtoodeetoo to the right path. They certainly have not made it easy. Apologies to everyone involved in advance on my behalf. Politrukki (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, some unsolicited advise: I consider WP:NOTHERE to be a fairly narrow subset of WP:DE, with the latter usually serving as my default (most common, by far) block reasoning, overall (though, in this case, WP:NPA is definitely apt, too). El_C 00:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - WP:DE is normally my go-to too. SQLQuery me! 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SQL, makes sense. It is probably the widest (blanket) reasoning available. Also noting that I just declined Ahrtoodeetoo's unblock request. El_C 00:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: Not sure if you were aware, but this request was being discussed at AN. SQLQuery me! 00:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SQL. I made a note in that AN thread to that effect. El_C 00:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

With this did you mean -author? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. Thank you 331dot (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned and Confused

Hello 331dot, I was wondering if you could help me out with a certain situation on my user talk page. Overall I was contacted by another User in regard to my activity on Wikipedia with a valid concern from them. However, I was told to not do anything on Wiki by this User with a nick Jack Frost, until I reply to their message. Thing is, I looked into their user page, and they don't seem to be a moderator, much less an admin. I have replied to their concern, but they didn't reply for 2 days now, and I feel prevented from being able to use Wikipedia due to this. If you could look into my user talk page, and give me your input on this, I would be very much obliged. Kind regards MartinOrl087 (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MartinOrl087 Any user may issue a warning to another user; that's what Jack Frost did. I don't speak for them, so you could ask them directly, but it is possible that your answer satisfied them and they saw no need to comment further, or that they simply haven't seen it yet. I would suggest asking them directly.
If you were editing for a friend, it is still a conflict of interest that you should formally disclose, even if you weren't paid by the friend. If you work in SEO, I must be honest and tell you that it looks very suspicious to edit about a company and then say "I wasn't paid for that one" as we have no way to know that for certain. I have no evidence to the contrary, so I will assume good faith and believe you. But it is going to likely cause you much grief and suspicion if you keep editing about companies. My suggestion would be to avoid editing about non-clients so as long as you are in the SEO field, or to at least clearly disclose who you work for on your user page and clearly log the edits you make that are just a conflict of interest.
I would correct you in that Wikipedia is not merely a database; it is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the subject, that the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, in this case, that of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot thank you very much for this clarification on the subject, wanted to be in the clear on this situation overall. Regarding the subject of me working in SEO, I can clearly see how it might be viewed on the outside by others, though nothing I can do about it really as I simply work as a freelance by trade. Any activity on the Wiki coming from me though is completely unrelated to my freelance work as I know better than to try to get stuff on wiki for search engine optimization, it's simply too much of a chore for very little gain, as there are numerous better ways to optimize websites. The article I wrote is strictly a contribution that goes according to on paid contributions without disclosure. Specifically the very first question. I assumed things regarding paid advocacy don't really relate to me as I made an article strictly as an unpaid volunteer. If I might be so bold to correct you, it wasn't even editing for said friend as he never asked me to do so, I simply contributed the article on my own, while being completely unrelated to the company in question. I did get their approval before posting, to not have them later send me complains and this is pretty much all there is to this case, just a guy adding to the encyclopedia, expanding it. You don't have to worry though, I don't plan to add/edit about more companies if there can be issues like this and if the company I have added wants an edit, I will only post it via "suggest an edit". If you could point me in the right direction though, if I made the article as an unpaid volunteer is there still any COI in this situation and do I have to disclose it regardless? It is a bit confusing and I would want to have a clean record here. On the subject of notability you have mentioned I am a bit confused on this as well, because if you browse list of companies who manufacture scooters List of scooter manufacturers many of them lack any notability on wikipedia page. An example from the very top is Aeon Motor, no references but their own website. To be honest, when I was writing an article, I did research on how others have written simialr articles for companies like this, as a point of reference, and have noticed that most don't have notability at all on the Wiki. This leaves me completely confused so if you could be so kind as to explain it to me, I would be most grateful for the knowledge for future use on wiki.MartinOrl087 (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MartinOrl087 Please accept my apology for my misinterpretation of your comment. If no one asked you to write the article, it is not a COI, although again, people are going to see that you work in SEO and frankly be suspicious, though they should assume good faith. You can mitigate any suspicion somewhat by being completely open about your editing and answering questions honestly(not that you have done otherwise, just saying).
Regarding other articles, it is entirely possible that those articles are themselves problematic and simply have not been addressed yet. (the Aeon Motor article has existed since 2007, for example, but I've tagged it as problematic) As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us, and with over 6 million articles and only several thousand regular participants, it's hard to address every problematic article quickly. We can only address what we know about, but everyone does what they can do. Standards have also changed over time, and what was once acceptable may no longer be. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot now I get it, thank you for clarification, I will try to be more open about my edits/contributions in the future to avoid any situation where someone might see my activity as suspicious. I can imagine it is hard to manage Wikipedia, with so many daily users as this project is in constant motion. Still I want to do what I can and when I can to contribute positively, one thing might be providing translation in my native language to the article I wrote, since Veleco is a European based brand. If this were something small-time in one country, I myself would most likely not bother writing any article at all, but if something is this big and lacks an article I found it surprisingly lacking and decided to contribute. I will make those contributions via suggestions though to not get accused of any misconduct here. In spare time I might also review other scooter manufacturers since now I'm more familiar with the subject and maybe mark them in some way if they don't meet Wikipedia's standards, because that list is quite messy.MartinOrl087 (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You are hereby notified that our dispute has been taken to WP:ANI as you suggested. I'm unable to notify Drmies since his talk page is protected. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WFG

You're totally a WFG tool, aren't ya? It's a pyramid scheme bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.59.73.203 (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is not what you or I think, but what independent reliable sources state. If you have independent sources that describe the group that way, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A cute doggo for ye!

Thank You for being a cool wikipedian!
Thank you so much for your contributions and support for wikipedia! -- KindCowboy69 ☮ 07:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking

I was asking why I was blocked can you explain why I was blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.249.59 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are by your IP address, but posting while logged out is considered block evasion. Please return to your account to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My IP changed because I'm on a hotspot and I made the edit on cellular. The block passed as it was a 31 hour block and it's been more than 31 hours since I was blocked. Why was I blocked. Also my IP was 2600:1003:B00D:7948:8056:F218:9D7D:468D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.249.59 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please post at the bottom instead of the top of the page. If your IP changed because you moved from one network to another, you may need to clear your browser's cache as cookies could cause Wikipedia to "think" you are still on the blocked IP. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an example of canvassing?

Hey, I saw your name pop up at in this list and I'm contacting you because of the wise advice given at WP:ANI: Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly.

I want to ask if the following is an example of canvassing? If not, I apologize for taking everyone's time. buidhe and I are in a content dispute at Talk:Turkey and the Holocaust. Recently we also disagreed at Talk:Jews of Libya during the Holocaust, where Watchlonly agreed with buidhe but disagreed with me. Following that buidhe invited Watchlonly to "a related discussion" at Talk:Turkey and the Holocaust. But the discussions at the two talk pages aren't related. One was a move request and the other is an NPOV dispute. Buidhe also invited another user to the dispute using a non-neutral message (Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning). It my opinion that this form of messaging is inappropriate and if buidhe really wants community input, they should use WP:NPOVN, WP:3O or something.

If I have misread the situation then I'd appreciate if you could point out the error in my thinking.VR talk 21:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I repeatedly told VR, I have no idea what Watchonly would think of this dispute, but since they were editing a related page, I wanted to get their input. (Both of these articles concern impacts of the Holocaust in the Mediterranean region.) Brigade Piron had previously expressed interest in the article, as you can see from discussion at my user talk page. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two discussions both involve an aspect of the Holocaust, so there is a relation there. I respectfully am also not seeing what is non-neutral about the message Buidhe made, and they don't seem to be soliciting like-minded editors who share their views. It is not canvassing- as far as I am aware- to notify potentially interested editors of discussions related to their interest, as long as they are not simply notifying people to come to a particular discussion and advocate for or support a particular viewpoint. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "non-neutral" part is referring to buidhe inviting someone to a discussion about the reliability of Stanford Shaw, but calling Shaw "basically a work of fiction" in that message. To me that sounds like buidhe wanted the user to support their viewpoint (which is what the user ended up doing).
Thanks for your input!VR talk 21:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please revoke TPA

The answers never shock is definitely Evlekis. They've been targeting that CVUA page over and over again. Pahunkat (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help 331dot :-) Pahunkat (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your Assistance on Block

Hello, My Account was Blocked due to my actions including Copyright Infringement, edit warring. I had uploaded various images from third-party sites without knowing the usage license. Now I am aware of the same and understand that using copyrighted images are seriously prohibited. Please help me get back my account as i feel the block is no longer necessary as I will abide by the rules of Wikipedia. Can you please assist me with the same . Eldhose Talk 14:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be unblocked from your Article/Draft space block, please make another unblock request on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for change.

I would like to request the below change. Could you please let me know if you can assist? Thank you in advance. Kerlouche83 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change request to UNFCU page Information to be added: CEO- John Lewis Information to be added: Executive Vice President- Pamela Agnone Information to be removed: CEO- William Predmore

  • Explanation of issue: William Predmore retired on 31st December 2020 and John Lewis has been named as the new CEO of UNFCU as of January 1st 2021
  • References supporting change: https://www.unfcu.org/leadership/
Kerlouche83 Please make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:United Nations Federal Credit Union. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Hello! Seems like you are interesting! 11Jasejusttestingzapppp (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell X

Hi there, thanks for your message. I am not involved in an edit war: I was part of the group that created the page as part of [[1]], and have been asked by the subject to delete the page, and as part of the team that created it, I think this should be possible (the actual creator is no longer active on Wikipedia but I have contacted her offline). As I can't delete the page, I have made changes that the subject asked for, deleting links and references that deadname him. I have left a message with the helpdesk asking for the page to be deleted, and flagged it for deletion, on the same basis.

Another user reverted the page after my edits, which deleted links and references containing deadname and incorrect pronouns (this is as per Wikipedia's own Gender Identity guidelines). The page should be deleted as per my request, as it is causing the subject severe mental distress. Not everyone can transition in public view like the Wachowskis, so "publicly available information" is not a good standard test in the case of transition. The page's existence is causing active harm, and this should be considered as a reason for immediate deletion.

Please feel free to push this request to a senior editor or administrator, as I don't have that access. I don't want to be involved in an "edit war," I am trying to act ethically on behalf of a person in pain that is being exacerbated by Wikipedia. Sophiemayer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiemayer There are no "senior editors", we are a single community. Even administrators like me have no higher status than others. I have said how you can proceed; you need to start an articles for deletion discussion and argue that the person is not notable; I truly regret to say that we have many articles that are upsetting to various people, and while we take such pain seriously(and I cannot know that pain personally) we can't delete articles just for that reason if they are based on publicly available information. As you have a conflict of interest, you should not directly edit the article, but you may make formal edit requests on the talk page. You cannot keep editing the article to your preferred version; that is considered edit warring.
The article should reflect the pronouns appropriate for the person, per MOS:GENDERID. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is really confusing, I'm afraid: I started a deletion discussion, and it was deleted/reverted. I changed the pronouns to reflect the appropriate usage, and it was reverted: I'm not sure what more I can do, as I am getting stonewalled at every turn. The article should be deleted. Sophiemayer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sophiemayer I'm sorry; your edit where you tried that was not the way to start a discussion. I would be willing to do so as a courtesy.
The pronouns were only reverted because they were part of a larger edit. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the edit is valid: the pronouns on the page should be he/him, and all references from before 2020 should be deleted. The page should be deleted. I'm responsible for the creation of the page as part of a wiki-a-thon and am now asking for it to be removed. If you're willing to re-enter the tag for proposed deletion as a courtesy, I'd be very grateful. Deletion is the final goal and preferred outcome. Sophiemayer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so fairly soon. I will simply create the discussion and leave you to put in a statement. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

I appreciate that note; I'm kind of a stickler for formatting. I removed them once already, but I wasn't going to drop an indef-block for italic abuse. I do think that "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" is a wonderful expression. And people say Americans don't contribute anything to the beauty of the world! Ha! (and there's Häagen-Dazs too...) Drmies (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331 loses to 666

My username wasn't blatant nor serious. It is my real name which I had already said. This seemed more like personal out of taste. Which you seriously try to injure beyond repair without any justification to truly try to ease. Using all your power to banish and suppress. One doesn't justify all. Perhaps in your little world. A Note, which was weak. I didn't wish anything, and you damn right I was pissed. All I did was try to help and correct an obvious error and this caused a ban? A Ban? For helping? Be serious. Of course I wouldn't like to be blocked for trying to contribute over something so insignificant. Had I not tried to help I wouldn't have been Blocked. Your mark is weak and your attitude poor. Dot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threesom666 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threesom666 I accept the judgement of the community on this matter, and will use it as a learning experience going forward. I don't see it as a win or lose matter and it's not about power. I had responded to a good faith report about your username. There was nothing personal about it and I had never heard of you before this that I can recall. It was a soft block allowing you to create a new account so if I was suppressing you I did a bad job. I understand why you might feel as you do but please don't ascribe motives to me or the user that reported you that I don't have, and try to put yourself in the other's shoes and at least understand why they saw it that way. I understand that you might not feel the same, but I wish you well on your future participation here. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You responded in good faith to him but what about me? You had to judge and you judged against me because you YOU felt it was a provocative name but instead of contacting me and trying to figure it out you blocked. Now your saying that I was "soft" blocked meaning my ip wasn't blocked as if I couldn't get around that. But you blocked my entire account as denotating you did a good job but I didn't care about making another account. All I care about is this account and fairness. In your opinion suppressing me would've had to come at a cost of wiping me out completely out of wikipedia which is exactly the type of attitude which I'm talking about which is extremist. Now I feel your behavior and attitude isn't fair. I can't put myself in yours shoes because I am not unsympathetic.

Might I suggest you drop this? Between your edits here and on other users talk pages, this is beginning to look like trolling. CUPIDICAE💕 20:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Threesom666 I again reiterate I had no bad motives towards you, and I am using this as a learning experience. I regret that you have considered dialing back your Wikipedia participation, which was not my intention whatsoever. I again simply urge you to see things as others saw them, not as a excuse, but simply for greater understanding. I'm moving forward here. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See it as however you want. Your views are always accurate. Stop following me.

How was it not your intention when you literally blocked me from doing anything? I don't know how clear your views are. When you say " put yourself in other's shoes", perhaps you should follow your own advice. You have your own views on your own intentions and I have mine. You weren't always moving any other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threesom666 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threesom666 I am not following you. I don't have you in my watchlist and won't. Never heard of you before I saw the report. I have no idea what you have been doing other than communicating with me. I'm not always right, and don't claim to be. I'm not trying to win or be recognized. My thinking was that you would reply with either 1, a proposed new username or 2, explained why the name was appropriate. You said "my screen name is my name" but it wasn't clear to me that you meant it was your legal name. I regret my misinterpretation caused you grief and to reevaluate your Wikipedia participation. I can only tell you that I will use this to improve going forward. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Threesom666: I would strongly suggest dropping this now. Based on the section title here, I'm in agreement with Praxidicae above, that this is starting to look a lot like trolling / blockable disruptive editing. 331dot isn't following you around anywhere. SQLQuery me! 21:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled Larry King

As a courtesy wanted to let you know I've pulled Larry King because 5 of the 6 responses after posting were opposes and pull requests, so we probably need more discussion. Consensus may develop to post, but for now it's more proper to take it off. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzheado Thanks for the heads up, although I obviously disagree. I think on strength of arguments posting won out, but we will see. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones and Cannabis

Do you agree with what I have to say about Alex Jones and cannabis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 04:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
You are one the best editors ever. CoolGuy1920 (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Atif_Khan_(Director)

Hi , As you enlighten me about IMDb as a poor source can you help me in finding sources . Firstly i wanted to know , can i use official hotstar video (copyrighted content) as a source . Secondly i want to know how to make video citation using time stamp . I also want to know where can i get reliable third party sources for a director , who never gave a personal interview .Being a cousin i know about him but not able to find sources. please help 🥺 Khan Ahsan 1 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Ahsan 1 A person does not have to give an interview to have sources about them; in fact, interviews are considered a primary source and do not establish notability. Videos can be used as a source(as long as they are independent of the subject, about the subject, and more than a brief mention), see this page. If enough sources do not exist, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for understanding, I will not disappoint. :D WeißFocusRS (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

editor you blocked before back again same thing

You previously blocked him [2] for removing the controversy section at Wonder Woman. Now he is back and did the same exact thing once more. This single purpose account Special:Contributions/T-stud seems to not have any other purpose, having only done a few edits back in 2011 on a single article, then returning to vandalize this article time and again. Dream Focus 06:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. We'll give them one more chance to respond. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fartfist

Thank you for at least responding. I understand that there may be millions of "soapboxing idiots" on the web and you do not have time or interest in addressing each erroneous concern and or you have a "job" to eliminate spam. I also want to humbly explain that I was asking for help. Now that I know that it cannot be found here or through you, I will desist. Know this; Fartfist may reveal the worst nature in the shallow and the best in the confident person. I appreciate your time and am very entertained by this. I am learning more everyday about how to "professionally" represent and succeed. There will come a time for every lesson and experience, but FF is not going away and you cannot stop this fact with the power you hold to control "edits". Thank you for my "Warning", however someone will be editing this "portal of unearned confidence and authority" on the internet to accommodate Fartfist's existence. Have fun with being super touchy on the internet. I forgive you.

Absolute Best and Sincere Regards,

FARTFIST fartfisttheorc@gmail.com fartfist.wordpress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.112.30 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to ask for help in good faith, then please do so. That's not what you posted. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research Foundation to Cure Aids

The page you deleted via G11 today is back as Version 2. The author explained that the page is about a foundation he started to use a technology he invented. The author's use of Wikipedia seems exclusively promotional. Possibly (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evlekis

[Sock] is Evlekis - could you please pull TPA? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot, that username was always going to be registered at some stage by them. Pahunkat (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

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

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin and Hitler

Have some cake!

I see you are Stalin and Hitler,[3] congratulations. Responding at the Teahouse must be so rewarding! Have a slice of Dobos cake in recognition of your efforts to help new users! Bishonen | tålk 13:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Usurping username

Hello 331dot, I just revived my old account (this one) and now I want usurp the username of my new account (Kamilalibhat). I confirm that both accounts are mine and I have total control over them. I wanna make this account as my primary account and retire new one (Kamilalibhat). –KamilAlee 14:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)–KamilAlee 14:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may make a request at WP:USURP, but in this situation typically the old account is simply abandoned and the new account simply identifies itself as a successor account to the old one. Admittedly I am not totally familiar with the usurpation process but as I understand it is only done when someone wishes to use a long inactive username, not switch accounts. I am not 100% certain, though, so feel free to make a request. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot,  Done! I have made a request. Could you review it please? And one more question will the data of "Kamilalibhat" get transfered to this account. I totally want to retire new account. –KamilAlee 04:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do any work there so I prefer to let those familiar with that page work on it. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, one more thing. Will the usurpation of the username transfer all the data of "Kamilalibhat" to this account like number of edits, etc? –KamilAlee 10:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain, but I think so. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guiggiani

Thank you for your message. I am not an expert of wikipedia.

Someone else created my page both in English and Italian. I was not aware of that.

Then I uploaded some information, always paying attention not to overdue it. I hope this is correct.

Please, let me know. Thanks,

Massimo Guiggiani Guiggiani (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guiggiani Hello. It is not "your page", but a Wikipedia article about you. You should avoid directly editing the article yourself, but you may go to Talk:Massimo Guiggiani and make a formal edit request(click for instructions), detailing changes you feel are needed. Those changes should preferably be sourced to independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guiggiani I apologize for not knowing how to technically reply. Of course it is not "my page", but "about me". — Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a block

Whatuonfam (talk · contribs) is WP:NOTHERE. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)  Done SQLQuery me! 16:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to respond to you on the Teahouse page

I just published the page but from User:Vegan4theAnimals/sandbox to "Tamerlaine Sanctuary and Preserve" and submit it for review. Can you help? Is this the appropriate way to respond to you?

Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegan4theAnimals (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan4theAnimals I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft for review. I would not do so yet, as it will likely be rejected quickly. You seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a subject. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Your draft as it is now reads as an advertisement for the Preserve. Staff interviews, announcements of routine transactions/events, brief mentions, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Discussing the US tax code is literally foreign to many readers, as Wikipedia is a global project(people in the United Kingdom or Australia will not know what "503c" means). I might suggest that you review Your First Article and use the new user tutorial which will help you learn more about Wikipedia.
If you are associated with this organization, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Absolute hardest task"

I agree that writing an acceptable article is not easy if you are new to Wikipedia, and if you don't count the things that are practically impossible for a new editor to do it may very well be the hardest.

However - and please accept this in the spirit of offering you something to chuckle about - when I see people say "writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia" I think "well, except running for admin if you have less than X edits in Y months (where X and Y are small numbers)" or "except running for ARBCOM if you've ticked off a significant number of people in your tenure here" and of course "except being a frequent-spamming spam-only account and avoid getting blocked" all of which are nigh-impossible, as they should be - well, the last one definitely should be, I'm willing to make case-by-case exceptions for the first two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the spirit you intend. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request

Hello 331dot, can this edit be removed from public view? Ashleyyoursmile! 09:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this one please? The IP keeps adding it continuously to different pages. Sorry to bother you. Ashleyyoursmile! 09:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Looks like someone blocked the IP. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Ashleyyoursmile! 09:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for YOU!

The Original Barnstar
you have a lot of effort so here u go! OmegySock (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello 331dot, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

MSNBC

I apologize if I'm on the wrong page as I was told to go to the TALK page for discussion about my MSNBC edit. I worked at Microsoft for several years and it's just plain obvious that it's a left wing news network. Wikipedia gets away with calling OANN a "far right" news organization and I searched and couldn't find good sourcing for that declaration.

It appears that Wikipedia is then just the snopes of the "encyclopedia" world.

The first paragraph on climate change in wikipedia says: Climate change includes both global warming driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases, and the resulting large-scale shifts in weather patterns. Though there have been previous periods of climatic change, since the mid-20th century, humans have had unprecedented impact on Earth's climate system and caused change on a global scale.[2]"

There is NO statistical proof of this statement. I am a mathematician/statistician (not dependent on grant money for my existence) and I know how to do random studies and I know that the conclusions on climate change currently depend on modifying the input data AND then modifying the output data to support the "climate change" narrative. It's implicit that "climate change" is "settled science". Science is theory and thus is challenged all of the time and settled science is an oxymoron.

It appears that bias has seeped into wikipedia and thus its not a useful source of real information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JXschw (talk • contribs) 03:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JXschw It's okay that you came here, though Talk:MSNBC is the proper place to discuss issues with that article, and Talk:Climate change would be the place for that article. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject. If you have such sources that call MSNBC "left wing", please offer them. The addition of "liberal" or "left wing" has been discussed previously without any such sources being offered, but that can change at any time, so if it has, please bring it up.
I would point out that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Everything has biases, including you and me. Any bias in independent reliable sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. What Wikipedia does is present the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias or other factors. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, since truth is in the eye of the beholder; Wikipedia deals in what can be verified. It is true that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you have evaluated the sources in articles and disagree with them, that is completely fine. 331dot (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of my page "Natural Quantum Communication"

Dear Editor, I have realized that my page "Natural Quantum Communication" has been deleted because of possibly misunderstanding or lack of info. Because this idea is already proven and supported by a Journal paper. (I suggest to read that paper to realize its importance as below) https://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.OE.59.3.033102 The other reason is, there is no evidence of any name or institution in the text exposed to readers. That means I am making emphasis on its content and importance rather than any personal or institutional popularity.

Thanks Dr. Orun — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orunab (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Hippo43 Unblock Appeal

Hi 331dot! I just wanted to ask a question about Hippo43's unblock appeal. Also, feel free to correct me if I misinterpret anything . It was mentioned that in regards to Hippo43's unblock appeal that you "would want to see [Hippo43] commit to [reporting to the BLP noticeboard] to consider unblocking [Hippo43], instead of relying on the [BLP] exemption." If Hippo43 were to make such a commitment now, do you think they could get a reduced block or something like that? Thank you for your consideration! Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to what your interest in their situation is. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in the talk page discussion surrounding Filipe Nyusi. Tyrone Madera (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if they make another unblock request, I think that would be a positive step if it included such a commitment. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So—just to clarify—it would be beneficial, but nothing specific? Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If they make another request, it will be reviewed by someone else, so it's out of my hands now, and I don't want to make guarantees for someone else. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. (edit) Are verdicts final or can they be modified by the issuer? Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't given a verdict so much as I've given my opinion. Ideally, Hippo43 should make another unblock request, for someone else to review- but they haven't even responded to my decline. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks for answering my questions Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hi 331dot. You unblocked KKI at Cityplaza but then I see that the account Cpkki has also been editing Cityplaza. I suspect it was created when the first account was blocked, as a means to evade it. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not evasion since it was only a soft block(permitting the creation of an account); they should have just stuck with that account instead of requesting unblock. It might be another employee. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your weasel words in response to unblock request, to a manifestly disproportionate IP-range Block.

You say, "You are also still arguing process and not the merits, which is an indicator you are the target."

What a smug comment. I argued the merits, and made a few comments about the process too — mainly to point out that your actions were contrary to the WP guidelines! But some people just see what they want to see. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

My assessment? You still refused to engage with my arguments on the merits, and now you can feel free to guess what I think that is "an indicator" of.

So, anyway, I look forward to seeing the repercussions for you that should be incurred as a consequence of disrespect for the WP guidelines related to Blocking IP ranges.

—DIV (1.129.106.87 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Another example of your refusal to engage. —DIV (1.129.106.87 (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see how engaging with you is evidence of the opposite, but okay. I don't even recall this message which was over a year ago. I didn't issue the block so if you have an issue with IP range blocks you should bring that to the appropriate noticeboard. I told you at the time a simple way to alleviate it if you were not responsible for the activity that led to the block. As the IP or IP range you are using is no longer blocked, you are now free to edit. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 40287

UTRS appeal #40287 Have you anything further to add? I'm inclined to decline, but I did before already. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I declined. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block Evasion

It appears that Ledboots19 is editing at the Help Desk under an IP account, which is block evasion. See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Content_monitor_dispute_leading_to_a_dubious_act I'm not sure where to report this, so hoping you can help. Thanks. RudolfRed (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was already taken care of. Probably WP:ANI is a good place to report that sort of thing. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Ledboots19 isn't currently blocked. SQLQuery me! 23:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SQL So perhaps their password was indeed exposed but they are trying to blame me for it? 331dot (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, just looks like trolling in my opinion. SQLQuery me! 23:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. RudolfRed (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Well, you're making difficult decisions every day, you're possibly one of the best admins to ever grace the land of wikipedia. EGL1234 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert to Kamala Harris

Hi 331dot,
I saw you reverted my edit on the Kamala Harris article. Would something like Kamala Devi Emhoff (nee Harris) work? This is the convention for articles like Jill Biden, Michelle Obama, and Laura Bush. Is there an exception for this particular person? Do women choose what name they like to be called? Your thoughts are appreciated. Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellarity I've never seen a RS that she took Emhoff's name, even only legally. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To revisit my hasty reply, the first ladies you mention all took their husband's names. That's becoming less common these days. Vice President Harris was sworn in as Kamala Devi Harris, she's run her campaigns under the name Harris, and appeared in court as a prosecutor with that name. If she took her husband's last name, even only legally, I haven't seen a source for that. If she did take his name legally and there was a source for it, your edit would be correct. 331dot (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for a better explanation of your reverts. It helped clarify your actions and the revert. Interstellarity (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of MSNBC edit

Hello, Can you please provide an explanation for the removal of my MSNBC edit? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmason4 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dmason4 The explanation is that it needs to be discussed on the talk page, because how to characterize MSNBC(if at all) is contentious and has been debated before with no consensus. I doubt you will get consensus to characterize it as "radical left wing" based on one source, but it needs to be hashed out there. If you have multiple sources calling it that, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dmason4 I will also inform you that edit warring over it will lead to you being blocked. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


331dot Why are we able to classify Fox News and Newsmax as right-wing and conservative, but we cannot classify CBS and MSNBC as left wing or liberal even though it is blatantly obvious (as with Fox News and Newsmax).
Dmason4 If you review the past discussions on this issue(you aren't the first to raise that point), you will see that there are multiple independent reliable sources that characterize Fox News and Newsmax as conservative/on the right(or whatever the terminology used is). If you have multiple independent reliable sources that characterize MSNBC as "radical left wing", or some other term, please offer them. No one has yet offered such sources in the case of MSNBC. Article content reflects how independent reliable sources discuss a subject, and does not give equal time to all points of view or equal treatment to all articles in a given subject area. It depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


331dot Sources as follows: https://libguides.com.edu/c.php?g=649909&p=4556556

https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/americans-are-divided-by-party-in-the-sources-they-turn-to-for-political-news/

I don't need the sources, please offer them at Talk:MSNBC so all editors that follow that page can see them. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this user is doing the same thing at CBS, so, there is a pattern establishing. ValarianB (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please revoke TPA

Hello 331dot, Steve Joker is Evlekis. Could you please revoke TPA? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you do that again - Cabayi accidentally restored TPA when changing the block reason. Apologies for the disruption. Pahunkat (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please revoke TPA for that long user

Hey 331dot. Hope your doing well. I just wanted to ask if you could revoke TPA for the long user starting with "There is currently no article ... one day"? It would help since the user is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Thanks, TravelAroundOz (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've said that they will have one more chance, and I will hold to that. We will see what happens. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate :) TravelAroundOz (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: - there's another long account too. User:Once an account has been created, it is essentially impossible to hide the sort of sounds like User:There is currently no article ... one day. Suspect its the same person. TravelAroundOz (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an SPI about the matter. They haven't misused their talk page, at least not yet, and their first account(if it's them) was only soft blocked, permitting them to create a new account. If they don't get the message, the blocks may get stronger. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. TravelAroundOz (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VDI Drones deleted

Can you please advise on what to change to my article on VDI Drones instead of bluntly deleting it. I've asked for valid arguments, but all I get is a repeated statement that you suspect it's commercial of nature. But it did not had such content. There are many company's listed in Wikipedia, this feels discriminative.

It appears you judge very hasty and do not want to have a constructive discussion on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpSeaHorse (talk • contribs) 15:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SharpSeaHorse I'm happy to discuss it with you here, if you wish. Have you read my message to you at the AFC Help Desk? 331dot (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for your statement "there are many companies listed"; Wikipedia is not a place to list companies or for companies to "list" themselves. Wikipedia is not a database of information, but an encyclopedia. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even in the same field. See other stuff exists; each article is judged on its own merits. As there are over 6 million articles and only thousands of editors to monitor them, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected; we can only address what we know about. If you'd like to pitch in and help, you can point out some of these other articles that may be inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hello 331dot, can Cd159298323 be blocked as soon as possible? Block evasion of LTA Evlekis. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 09:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, looks like someone got it globally too. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 10:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THX for a fix at my User_talk page

Thank you for a redaction of personal info! CiaPan (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A revision at the sandbox was made containing the bee movie script here. - GoatLordServant(Talk - Contribs) 16:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - GoatLordServant(Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

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

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:KANFSAND's talk page access

See [4]. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing aircraft pictures

Hello! As User:AngstLil removing pictures, as what I said to him, I think it's no longer important to add some airlines/aircraft photo. Because it's really not needed to add.. User:Red Flavor is the one who added back. And also User talk:Red Flavor, February 2021 discussion section, he also called me "you double standard prick". It hurt my feelings. He started 7 days ago and his/her attitude is that. That's no longer respect. Corner2002 (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not agreeing to what I’m editing. In fact, my edits were constructive since I added pictures. So what? You think I’m a vandal? That’s bad. Red Flavor (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As what I said in User talk:Andrewgprout in "Complain of adding or removed pictures of Airlines?", I also realize why you added more aircraft pictures, it's too disruptive and also messed up.. like other airport pages. Corner2002 (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not gonna involved to this, I'm stress here because of our class. And, also please stop adding back pictures. If someone says remove and don't put it back, don't put it back. Thank you! Corner2002 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you. AngstLil (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Chapter One: The Hellfire Club"

Could you please review my draft: "Chapter One: The Hellfire Club"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.189.161 (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. If I reviewed drafts at users' request, that's all I would be doing once users could figure out they could bypass the process. Wikipedia has no deadlines so there is no sense of urgency as far as we are concerned. If you truly feel that you can write acceptable articles(it's more challenging than it might appear to be) you should create an account which would eventually allow you to directly create articles(I don't advise you doing that, just noting it). 331dot (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate, I was just wondering if it is pending, if you could be the person to review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.189.161 (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered that question above. You have asked at the Teahouse, and others may choose to help if they wish. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? Asking users directly for a review is usually seen as jumping the line. Why should you be ahead of the other 4,000 plus drafts awaiting review? 331dot (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the other 4,000 drafts; fair enough. I just want a speedy review so I can get feedback on how to make my draft better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.189.161 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC) 146.199.189.161 (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can get and implement feedback even without a formal review. That's what the Teahouse and other Help forums are for. You may edit your draft at any time even while it is pending. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If ANYONE would like to review my draft here is the link: Draft:Chapter One: The Hellfire Club — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.189.161 (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) 146.199.189.161 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ever condescend to me again, baby! KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I am world-renown and utterly respected. I don't need random people who have no clue of who I am or what I've accomplished writing freely about me. Especially as a black woman. There is a horrible, history of people thinking we exist for their entertainment or gossip. You have a horrible conception of who I am. I am the leader of the modern-day trans movement and I changed the world without wikipedia. Delete this account today sweetie! Delete my wikipedia!

When's the soonest you can do this baby?

KOKUMO The Queen Of Queer Soul Founder & CEO Of Born Worthy Records

KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul I have no conceptions about you at all. There was no intention of being condescending towards you; you asked a question, and I answered it. Accounts cannot be deleted, for technical and legal reasons. There is no technical ability for us to delete accounts, and legally all edits must be attributable to someone. If you no longer wish to use your account, you may request a vanishing.
I have already answered your question regarding the article about you. If you wish to propose additions or changes to the article about you, you may make a formal edit request. If you wish to argue that you do not meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person, which is different than the more general use of the term, a deletion discussion can be started. Those are your options. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This [5] can be read as a request to delete the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång I'm hesitant to give in to anger, threats and accusations of racism/sexism, but there seems to be enough sources to require a deletion discussion, maybe? 331dot (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would an attempted WP:PROD be ok? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could try it, I guess. I will shortly be leaving my computer so if you wish to, go ahead, and we can both just keep an eye on it. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I threatened no one! I'm a black woman who stated what she needed and as usual white men refused to listen to hear me or anyone but a white man or woman for that matter. Delete my account and stop harassing me and speaking on my brand! Inform me when my Wikipedia page has been deleted. I will be creating a website, entitled, KOKUMO, The Queen Of Queer Soul and don't need any of your racist old white men to help me change the world again. I don't need any of you racist white people.

KOKUMO The Queen Of Queer Soul Founder & CEO Of Born Worthy Records KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is objecting to deleting the article at this point. And I don't think anyone has refused to listen to you. As you know, it's not possible to delete an account and even if it were, I'm not sure how anyone would then notify you that the article had been deleted? --Paul ❬talk❭ 14:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KOKUMOTheQueenOfQueerSoul I work to treat every human being here with dignity and respect, and I don't think that I've done differently with you. Insofar as you are a human I am not concerned with your race, gender, or sexuality. Don't assume that the people on the other end of the computer are old white men, Wikipedia users are all over the world and of all races and genders. No one has refused to listen to you; you don't like the answers you've been given. Accounts cannot be deleted, for technical and legal reasons. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Festival Mozaic

Thanks for the info. I only recently had the wiki page approved and used that help site earlier. I'll switch. I tried seeing if I could reply to you on the note you left, but don't see how to do that. Barrydfloyd (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)BarryDFloyd[reply]

Kalinga Institute of social sciences

I found a request for the article, Kalinga Institute of social sciences to be created at WP:Requested articles. I thought the subject is notable and started working. Collected some information and created an article for it, but you see it already had been created. So, all in vain 🥺
By the way, thank you for reviewing that article. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 13:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I was also thinking about Ashish Chanchalani, a notable YouTuber from India. He is known all over the country, but when I searched Wikipedia about him, I found his article missing. I had been salted for some reason. I wonder that the topic is notable but still there is no article on him. –Kammill ⟨talk⟩ 13:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kammill I don't know about the specific person you mention, but in my experience most "YouTubers" rarely merit articles, because they usually do not get significant coverage in independent reliable sources and as such are unable to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. In this case, the article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani (2nd nomination).
Most people attempting to write about YouTubers(or the YouTuber themselves) cite large subscriber/viewer numbers, but those themselves are not an indicator of notability. A YouTuber can have five followers and merit an article, and alternatively have five million and not merit one, because no independent sources write about them. Subscriber numbers are also easily gamed(is it one person with 5 million accounts, or ten with 500,000 each?) A potential article title is usually salted if there are repeated unproductive attempts to create it by one or multiple people. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Hello 331dot, can Ezz upp please be blocked- block evasion of LTA Evlekis, same attack pages. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, thank you very much. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 10:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

strong suspicion

I have a strong suspicion the user you just blocked at ANI is likely the subject that was being discussed. CUPIDICAE💕 17:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody pays me

I do not work for money, I am writing an article about a radio station, no one hired me and I do not want to edit Wikipedia for money — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitasmirnovva (talk • contribs) 10:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikitamirnovva You wrote "Our radio station". Are you not employed by the station? 331dot (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I work at this station — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitasmirnovva (talk • contribs) 10:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikitamirnovva If you work for the station and they compensate you for your work, you are a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So if I post on my page that they pay me for an article, the article will be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitasmirnovva (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikitamirnovva It won't be deleted for the simple fact that you are a paid editor, though it concerns me that you were willing to not be honest about it. Declaring a paid editing relationship is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. It will be deleted if it does not meet guidelines or is deemed to be an advertisement. Please also read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I told the truth because I do not lie and I do not like to lie. Thank you for uninstalling) I'm going to write that I'm a paid editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitasmirnovva (talk • contribs) 10:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mitchell James Kaplan

Hi, regarding Draft:Mitchell James Kaplan - I reverted the blanking of the Draft by the AfC Reviewer, looks like he was threatened to be blocked and since then inactive. I would suggest that the Author resubmit the draft after disclosing its coi, I left him a uw-coi on his talk page but he needs to resubmit. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I DON'T think this even warrants revdel, but I am happy to be wrong...

Howdy! Please take a look at this: [6]

These edits keep popping up on this article every couple of months. Sometimes they blame the article subject directly; I think I've probably gotten at least one of those revdelled or oversighted. This one is relatively inoffensive, but I wanted to "tell a grownup" in case my relatively thick skin for such things is insufficiently sensitive.

Take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to revdelete it. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate block of User:Shubham Ahlawat

Hi 331dot, can you immediately block User:Shubham Ahlawat. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and has vandalised seriously. TravelAroundOz (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 41110

You have UTRS appeal #41110 reserved for five days now. I suggest you accidentally closed your tab and forgot to take action. :) --Yamla (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably exactly correct. I'm not able to look at it now so I released it, if you want to look at it. :) 331dot (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Happy Friday! --Yamla (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

Hello. Could I please have all the wikitest from my deleted request? J.Turner99 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that I am not inclined to help you with an RFA request whose chance of success is zero. You can try WP:REFUND to see if a different admin will get it for you- I doubt it- but you are very close to being blocked as WP:NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why will you not provide it? I do not intend to make another request. But I would like to keep it for myself as I spent a good 30 minutes on it. Maybe I will look at it in disgust in the future. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't going to attempt to recreate it, I would be willing to email it to you but you do not have email enabled. Doing so doesn't reveal your address to me unless you respond to that email. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll enable my email. I'll notify you on here when i've done that. Thank you. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please do this quickly so I can remove my email. Thank you J.Turner99 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 331dot, before you provide the text by email, it might be worth making crystal clear what will happen if J.Turner99 adds that text to some other Wikipedia page - be it another RFA, a noticeboard, an essay, their userpage, a subpage in their user space, anywhere on Wikipedia. My gut says that if you refund the text without anything beyond a "don't resubmit the RFA", this will not be the last time it shows up here. While I, personally, wouldn't care if they added it to some hidden subpage in their user space, most of those other uses would piss me off if I were in your shoes. You're the one being nice and doing them a favor here, so I'm happy to defer to your concept of what is OK and what isn't, so i won't block them for doing something you said was OK. But if you're going to be nice, it might be worth making clear what is OK and what isn't, so it doesn't blow up in your face. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
J.Turner99, Floquenbeam read my mind. Against my better judgement I will do this, but if it appears anywhere on Wikipedia, it will be removed and you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to respect your request. I had no intention of putting it on some sub page. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But 331dot, can I ask why I am not permitted to even put it on my user page? J.Turner99 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no constructive purpose in having it anywhere on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How long would I be blocked for if I were to put it on my user page, hypothetically speaking? J.Turner99 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already regretting this. I see no point in indulging your hypotheticals. Just don't do it so we don't have to find out. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cgmerich

Hi! See you gave him the standard offer after another half-hearted unblock request, but saw too that Yamla noted it's a sock. I didn't revert your edit, but flagging in case you want to. Thanks both for further cleanup. I just had blocked from the AIV report/history. StarM 13:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty unlikely that LTA would ever follow through on the standard offer or the second chance. If they were able to stay away for at least 6 months, convince us they'd never again be disruptive, and demonstrate constructive edits, we'd certainly open the floor for discussion on the appropriate noticeboard. I'd put money on it never happening, though. :) --Yamla (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was something familiar about the name but I couldn't put my finger on it. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and unblock 3 has arrived. I give an A for continued half trying. StarM 19:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is suspected sockpuppet of Pcgmsrich. Ima remove TPA and email. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In re Sushant Singh Rajput

The reason it's hard to accept is because there are a number of conspiracy theories surrounding SSR's suicide, almost all of them pushed by right-wing media sources. Earlier in this saga, they were accusing his SO (Rhea Chakraborty) of actually committing the purported murder, so there is a very strong BLP element to this as well.

Another thing to note is that the overwhelming majority of people demanding the article be changed are drive-by accounts who don't bother providing usable sources or following up when pressed. As such, I would recommend just reverting those requests off; we've answered pretty much every single permutation of this request as "Not done" and the likelihood they'll actually defend their position is very slim, bordering on nil. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano Thank you for your message. I've pretty much reached that conclusion already. :) 331dot (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endeavor Business Media page

I am not actively soliciting customers or selling anything - this is merely an explanation of the company's history and the industries it serves in the B2B market. Can you please identify where I cited a "press release" or "announcement of routine business activities" in my article? Every citation links to a verifiable news source.

Ford Motor Company has been around since 1903, according to Wikipedia. Endeavor Business Media is three years old. The B2B media landscape may not trigger as much media coverage as an automotive company, but that does not mean it is without merit. Abigail Christine (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Christine I understand you were not selling something; I was simply clarifying what is considered promotional here.
Every single source in your article is announcement of a routine business transaction; the starting of the company, its purchases, and its expansions. These are not what we are looking for. An article must do more than just tell about what the company does, as I explained. A Wikipedia article should summarize what others say the history of your company is with a historical perspective, not what the company considers to be its own history. The company is free to give what it considers to be its own history on its own website and social media accounts. There are also other alternative outlets with less stringent requirements and potentially more control by the subject where such things are permitted.
It is difficult for new companies to merit Wikipedia articles, because they are new and no independent sources typically give new companies the significant coverage that Wikipedia requires. That does mean some subjects have less coverage than others. Feel free to show your superiors these discussions. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand what you are saying, but I see plenty of Wikipedia entries for young companies - again, simply because we are in the B2B sector and don't generate as much external press as a B2C company, I don't think that should exclude us from being granted a Wikipedia entry. For example, several of the publications our company owns have their own Wikipedia pages - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Design_(magazine), for example - and even mentions that Endeavor Business Media owns the publication. So, wouldn't it make sense to link that (and other other publications Endeavor owns) to the new Endeavor Business Media page?

Thank you! I appreciate this dialogue.

Abigail Christine (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Christine Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can. There are six million plus articles and millions more of other pages, but only perhaps tens of thousands of regular editors. For these reasons, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only address what we know about. In addition, standards have changed over time, so that what was once acceptable may be no longer. You are welcome to help us and assist in identifying and addressing inappropriate articles, if you are interested. I'm guessing you're not(which is 100% fine), or at least not on company time.
It is possible for the products of a company to merit an article but not the company itself. Notability is not inherited by association. It may help you to look over the articles on your publications (if you haven't already) and see if any of the sources in those articles have significant coverage of the company itself, and not just what it does. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had time to help Wikipedia identify and address inappropriate articles, but unfortunately that is not something I can do. I did my best to follow all Wikipedia protocols and standards - I started an account, read articles about editing and starting a draft in your sandbox, an edited multiple pages before attempting my own in order to properly learn the ropes here. I wrote a factual Wikipedia article about my company -- and, though it is a young company, it is now one of the largest B2B media companies in the U.S. -- only to be told that the sources don't show significant coverage and that the company's history and achievements thus far are not considered "notable" by Wikipedia reviewers. Perhaps those reviewing my article should familiarize themselves with what B2B coverage looks like, because much of it is transactional - it is business, after all. Again, after working as a journalist and editor for nearly 20 years I appreciate adhering to high standards, but they aren't being applied consistently in this case and I don't feel that the reasons to suppress this entry are valid. If the reviewers here don't feel that published articles from multiple recognized news sources are noteworthy, there is literally nothing I can do to change their minds.

00:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail Christine (talk • contribs)

Abigail Christine This probably sounds meaner than I actually mean it, so I ask that you assume good faith. I think- and there is nothing wrong with this- that you are accustomed to working in the marketing and media field and as such are having difficulty in "divorcing" yourself from that field and writing in the manner required of an encyclopedia. I've seen many people in that situation in my years here. The fact that you think you have followed proper procedures when in reality you unwittingly haven't, and don't seem to understand what I and others are telling you only support that. I stress there is nothing wrong with being used to your field- it's what you do- but if it's hard for you to adapt to essentially a new field- you need to work with that. Writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and most people new to it- be it with a writing background or a marketing background or high school students- think it is super easy when it isn't. I think that in the short term you are going to have to disappoint your company or any clients you are attempting to create articles for. You may wish to try alternative forums with less stringent requirements in the interim- I think you should take more time to learn about Wikipedia. Maybe use the new user tutorial.
You say the coverage of your company is transactional- if so, it would not merit a Wikipedia article no matter how well you write it. It is true that this may be a built-in bias against newer companies or those that receive little in depth coverage, but that's just the way it is because we are looking for more of an historical overview, summarizing more than just routine transactions. I regret that this experience has likely been disappointing for you. 331dot (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to assume good faith - I came here expecting a collaborative and helpful environment. I can certainly understand the learning curve to writing an acceptable Wikipedia article and was hoping to get assistance from experienced reviewers. Instead, I've been chastised for not being a volunteer and working for the company I'm writing an entry for (which doesn't appear to violate Wikipedia standards as I disclosed my role). I was accused of publishing "hot air" and regurgitating press releases, even though I'm citing sources with their own Wikipedia pages. Several of the publications my company owns have Wikipedia pages, yet the reviewers here still don't think Endeavor merits one. It makes no sense. One user even accused me of concealing my identity (when I started my Wiki account I was discouraged from using my real name) and said my company was owned by another company I'd never heard of (and I've yet to hear back after noting their error).

I appreciate you being candid and I don't think you're being mean, my point is that the standards here don't seem to be applied consistently. I believe that if a volunteer submitted a similar article to mine they would have been given more assistance rather than been met with total resistance. I didn't expect to nail this on the first try - I knew I had to learn about Wikipedia and a few people (like you) have been helpful. But the majority have not been helpful, and some have been a accusatory and hostile.

Abigail Christine (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 41528

G'mourning. MathKeduor7 (talk · contribs) requests unblock at UTRS appeal #41528. Thoughts? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! I would say there's enough there that we can try it. Worst thing we have to do is block them again and it sounds like they are aware of their issues. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

Hello, you declined my unblock request since I have to do it on the Turkish Wikipedia. Sorry, I am blocked on the Turkish Wikipedia but I can not handle it there, since I am blocked from making ANY changes, including in my own talk page. What can I do? I am lost. It says that my ability to change pages was blocked by an administrator called Vito Genovese, if that would help. Tofriex (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to request via whatever email or IRC options for tr.wp are available. Admins on en.wp have zero power to action unblock request on tr.wp, so asking at en.wp will get you nowhere. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 03:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Rejected several years ago

Hi, hope you are doing fine- How do we treat AfC Submissions which were correctly reject several years ago where the creator claims with good arguments that they can establish notability now? (See Helpdesk today, Draft:Black Heart Saints) - what shall I advise those ones? Just eliminating all Rejection Tags, modifying the draft and submit once again?! For tracking reasons not an optimal solution - so they have to write a new one?! Thanks for any hint/advice CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get the awkward feeling we are looking at block evasion

I feel it in my water starting with the comment about a rodeo. Fiddle Faddle 20:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know they said they have edited for years but the account is only a little over two years old. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this diff suggests there is enough rope. Fiddle Faddle 21:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Crisp

Would you mind having a look at recent edit history and determining whether 3RR has ben broken. I have walked away. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

overtaken by events. No need Fiddle Faddle 22:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question.

I recently (just now) came across this name, Ȣ. This is an alt account to my main account User:Eulats. I was wondering if you know any way to change my main accounts name to this, and discard this account.

After researching about multiple accounts, I came to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with me making another account. “Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction.”[1] As I did not do any of this.

Thank you for your time, Ȣ (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I can't make an account your "main" account- only you can do that through your usage, and through you identifying your accounts as such. If you want to stop using an account, then just do so. I would ask you to consider that using a symbol as your username could make it challenging for others to communicate with you. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m on my main account now, but what I mean by that is deleting my other account, and changing my name to Ȣ. I’m not sure if that’s possible, if not then sorry to bother you.
Thank you for your time, and sorry for the super late response. -Eulats (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eulatis Deleting an account is not possible; if you wish to stop using an account, just stop using it. Some in your position mark the accounts they wish to stop using as inactive. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Can you restore/draftify a deleted article?

@331dot Hello, I have no context who/why the person was deleted, but I'd be happy to recreate/draft this article. Could you restore the draft in my Username space or somewhere elsw? Embassy_of_Antigua_and_Barbuda,_Washington,_D.C. Shushugah (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly it was on a pathway to deletion or merging by discussion; do you have new sources establishing notability? 331dot (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, no worries then! I just wanted to make sure extensive work wasn't removed, because the creator was evading a ban or whatever the reason was. Shushugah (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For answering many questions at Articles for Creation Help Desk –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 13:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing 331dot a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! bop34 • talk • contribs 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


WP:REFUND Libcom

Hello, the comments of the now deleted Libcom indicate "nice job" on the cleanup, and I would like to know what sources they are referring to. I've recently created the related Libcom.org. Could you email me, a copy of the original content to my email address associated with my account, or repost on my wall? I am primarily interested in the sources, more than anything else. ~ Shushugah (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my preference would be for you to make a request at WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response

Hey 331dot,

I read the guide...Still unclear. I am NOT a friend nor do I have a relationship with Dr. Suman Fernando. I only found information on him from his website as a part of research I was doing for my own studies. I wanted to Wikipedia to find links and information on him... SO, how is this conflict of interest? If Wikipedia is meant to be an online Encyclopedia? He has had several other people reach out to him about a post before I did.

If direct sourcing of his personal information isn't accepted, then what is? There is only objective fact drafted in my post...I am not personally invested in him having a post, so I don't have a conflict of interest.

I appreciated the work that editors do on Wikipedia, but your tone seems to be snarky instead of helpful. I prefaced that I am a newbie; and, it would be nice to have a more welcoming and supportive response from other contributors. A clarification, not just a link to site I've already read, or perhaps a direct links to the specific instructions/templates for how it should be done would be helpful.

If your purpose was to discourage me from posting a page on Suman Fernando, congratulations, because you just did. I will let him know that I made a mistake in suggesting a page be created on him.

I will continue to donate to Wiki, but clearly editing is not for me.

ericaHappycontentme (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happycontentme I'm not sure what I said that was unwelcoming, I apologize. I prefer to be direct to avoid misunderstandings. As I said, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person. These would be things like news stories, books, or any independent source that is not the article subject talking about themselves.
Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. Going into it without experience in editing existing articles and knowing what is being looked for does not often end well. You in essence want to build a house without knowing anything about what that entails. I'm happy to give you more advice if you are interested.
You have a conflict of interest because you are in communication with the subject about your draft. Articles are typically written without any involvement from the subject. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you create an article for the sake of Humanity?

Please help I want to create an article of Transparent Hands Foundation that is doing a wonderful job of helping poor people in Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editormian (talk • contribs) 07:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editormian I'm glad that this organization does good work, but Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about good works. To merit a Wikipedia article, this organization must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it(so no press releases, interviews, announcements of routine activities, the organization website, or other primary sources), showing how the organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you are associated with this organization, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think they deserve to be known. and, I repeat this is not paid task. You can interview me anytime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editormian (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editormian Please edit this existing section, instead of creating new sections. What you ask is not how this works. I don't have the knowledge of this organization(I am not Pakistani) nor do I have access to the sources that would likely be needed to support it. Wikipedia is not a place to recognize the good work that an organization might do; we are only concerned with summarizing what independent sources say about the organization, be it good or bad. Interviews are not acceptable as sources for establishing notability. Please review the definition of a notable organization, WP:ORG.
Note that even if you are not a paid editor, you still have a conflict of interest if you are associated with this organization, and you should review WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you just want to tell the world about this organization, you should use social media, a website owned by the organization, or an alternative forum where that is permitted. Any Wikipedia article about the orgnanization probably will not say what the organization would like it to say. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New message from ExclusiveEditor

Hello, 331dot. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse.
Message added 13:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ExclusiveEditor (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your attention

The racist troll you blocked continues to make personal attacks on their own talk page, pinging me as I was the one reporting them [7]. Jeppiz (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot - apologies, I revoked TPA already, then edit conflicted with your warning on their talk. If you think I've overstepped I'll undo my action. Best GirthSummit (blether) 16:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit Thanks for the heads up, I have no problem with it. I think that's where it was going to end up anyway. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal at AN

Hi 331dot, an appeal regarding a block with an appeal declined by you is currently at the bottom of WP:AN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blockception

I had commented elsewhere off-wiki to someone about this user and how I'm not sure that I've ever seen someone get blocked for edit warring at WP:ANEW, that's certainly one for the history books! TAXIDICAE💰 21:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declanhx

I really want to tell them how wrong they are and point to the warnings they were given before their block (with links to policy). This is really quite unbelievable, the lack of self-awareness and bizarre (well I am not sure what) self-pity is well just bizarre. But they have told me to stay off their talk page (well I think they have). But their, well, lies about me and how they were treated makes that very hard.Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but in some ways it is probably better for a break from them right now. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it would be a waste of time anyway, even if I had done what I wanted to do and warn them not to make their appeal about others they would not have listened (I have been watching the edit war page). The Ididnothearthat in this one is strong, UNFATHOMABLY so. I suspect that if they do come back after 31 a short block they will just start up again.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping that they agree to at least stop edit warring here sans State v Chauvin(I've offered to restore the original partial block), and we will see. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

revision

Could you reevaluate what the administrator ToBeFree did, in blocking me?

@ToBeFree: put me in an editing war? Added content and sources on here and on here A single purpose account has appeared to remove this content without explanation (Kanichen ). Ask for @CommanderWaterford: unexplained content removal. removal, removal, etc. I edited a vandalism request [8] which was declined because the publisher was not notified. And account Kanichen continued to remove content. And do I get a block, for preventing content removal? O revolucionário aliado (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 6 year old account with 227,306 editions [9] and added text and fonts to one page. An account appears with 6 days and 20 editions just to remove [10]. Don't you find that strange? O revolucionário aliado (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the attacks on my User talk [11] + [12] + [13] + [14] (see time and date of attacks and when the account Kanichen was created): Isn't coincidence strange?. Has a Meat puppet order open on the wiki-pt for Kanichen by using multiple accounts per see. Do you still think that the Kanichen account is not vandalizing for me to also receive a dispute block? O revolucionário aliado (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pleass follow the instructions on your user talk page to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need Your Favour

Hey, I have created a Draft Article: Draft:Bugha and don't worry it has Reference from Forbes, The New York Times, Arab News, Wall Street Journal, BBC , CNN, ESPN, and many more and i would like if you check it out and hopefully approve it Unnecessary Invention (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecesary Invention I've added a submission tag so you can submit the draft for review. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello there! Please could you block RossButsy because they are persistently adding unsourced or poorly referenced content, and edit warring. Thanks. DarkShadowDude 💬 19:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the chance right now to review this, please report edit warring to WP:ANEW or disruptive editing to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and now it’s been sorted. DarkShadowDude 💬 06:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:Kellyandersson § April 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Kellyandersson § April 2021. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hi 331dot. Kellyandersson a message to you on their user talk, but they didn’t format the ping correctly. You might want to take a look because they’re requesting another username change. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting Issue

Hey, I have wrote an article Draft:Irfan Junejo amd I don't know if it's been submitted for review can you please check it out and check if you can like approve it. Regards, Alen Palander (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Palander You have successfully submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted in the submission box, "This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,525 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to be patient. Just glancing at it, I'm not convinced it will be accepted. It might sound weird to hear, but you actually have too many references- and that's usually a red flag that there isn't much to the references themselves and that the person may not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they are notable. I see that you have several interviews with Junejo- interviews are a primary source and do not establish notability, because it is the person speaking about themselves or what they do. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about this person, not what they say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism page is sexist towards men

People who have been editing the page are removing anything that is sexist towards men because it doesn't fit in there beliefs and have made the page so that the whole truth is not told only the stuff about women the page is biased towards women and doesn't allow the sexism that men have gone through to be shown because they believe men don't go through sexism can you please fix it because one of the admins is doing it on the page alongside everyone else who is doing it please and thank you Fixthewiki23 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you have approached me, but if you have specific concerns or specific, sourced content to suggest, please offer your suggestions on the article talk page. It is difficult to respond to a general grievance. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I approached you with this is because others have brought it up and they have gotten told that of they included the sexism men go through would make the page sexists towards women and others have been told people can't be sexist towards men Fixthewiki23 (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hi,

Thanks you for reminding me about the rules concerning a possible conflict of interest. Years ago I thought I could start a Wiki page about my late father Albert Rosen as a present for him. I wasn't aware about the rules. Since then, other people contributed. What can I do now?

Alexandr.rosen (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You can always make suggestions on the talk page, and other people can choose/decide if it's interesting or not. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interests and happy editing! Shushugah (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Notice

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Reply

Hello, thank you very much for your reply to my question at the Teahouse. Sorry I couldn't reply in time at the Teahouse, now I can't find the section anymore. I also have another question. You mentioned unsourced statements in BLPs should be removed, but what if another user disagrees and reverts the removal? What should be the next step? Also, does this also apply to poorly sourced statements?Once again, thank you for your reply. LaughingGiggler (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LaughingGiggler The next step after any edit is reverted is to discuss it on the article talk page, though there would need to be a good reason to restore an unsourced or poorly sourced BLP edit. (yes, poorly sourced too) 331dot (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for your help! Happy editing! LaughingGiggler (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revised article and now I have a problem adding WikiProject tag

Hi 331dot,

Thank you for pointing that out. I added additional information under Career regarding his Grammy award win with his group as well as citations. I then submitted the draft article for review.

By the way, I read that I can add tags for speedy approval. I tried to add Musicians WikiProject tag but it tells me: "Please check the draft page title. No such page exists." Can you advise as to what went wrong? Jsondg (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jsondg While adding the tags might lead to it being accepted more quickly, it is not a guarantee, and you should still be prepared for acceptance to take weeks if not months, just in case. I am not experienced with actually adding the tags, so you may wish to ask at the help desk. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to disclose paid article

I would like to know how I can disclose that I was paid by Wayne Ayers to write this article Draft:Wayne Ayers Minat123 (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minat123 Instructions for a formal declaration are at WP:PAID, but if that seems complicated, you can simply post on the article talk page a statement such as "I was paid by Mr. Ayers to write this article(or by whomever is actually paying you)". It's also a good idea to post it on your user page. You should also be familiar with conflict of interest. Just FYI you don't need the whole web address, simply place the page title in double brackets like this [[Draft:Wayne Ayers]]. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have typed the disclosure message on both the draft talk page and Minat123 user page. Can you please confirm I did the right thing? Minat123 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should work. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mghabmw unblock request

Hi 331dot, in this unblock response, I'm concerned that the user may come away with the impression that the edit they attempted was valid. The "Prince Herb" thing is one of many pranks the troupe has played on one another, where they demand the one of the members do something odd or embarassing; a few months ago, they demanded that Vulcano refer to himself as Prince Herb. While he is (currently) billed as "Prince Herb" on the troupe's website, his name hasn't changed on any of his other social media accounts. It may be appropriate to add the names each member is billed under in the The_Tenderloins#Members section, but not in the infobox or lede (where none of the other billing names are used). OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie Thank you very much for the clarification. As you probably surmised, I didn't look at it that closely but see that I should have. I've posted an addendum on their talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Hello; Thanks for answering in teahouse, Can you please check my draft for Arsha Aghdasi to see if it's possible to be accepted. Atena ak2 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot read Persian so I'm probably not the best person to do it, but if the sources are not there, it doesn't matter how well it is written. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probable sock

[15]? Doug Weller talk 19:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Makes sense anyway. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry– of -wiki and -fan accounts

Hello 331dot. I think this is a peculiar case of ongoing sock puppetry. There's a user who creates new account (typically named after a notable person) every time he logs in and adds unnecessary MOS:BOLD and MOS:OVERLINK to BLP accounts. The accounts incude but not limited to:

The user is not responsive on their take page. They evade WP:SCRUTINY everytime by creating a new account and continuous to make erroneous edits. May be an SPI case is appropriate for this but I wanted bring this to an administrator's attention beforehand. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you are likely correct. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. Should I open an SPI case page or take to WP:ANI? -- Ab207 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't deal in this area a ton, but since it seems so clear to me you probably could just go to ANI. I guess they could always direct you to an SPI if needed. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Came an across an SPI similar to the above, I shall report the above accounts there. Thank you for helping me on this! -- Ab207 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft delete

Hello, can you please help delete this draft. Draft:Wayne Ayers Minat123 (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it as an author request. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 directly or indirectly compensated for edits

Hi 331dot this is regarding the message you left for me. I would like to assure you that I am not receiving any direct or indirect compensations for making edits to pages related to the Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF). I am an employee of the Sri Lanka Air Force and have an official capacity to provide Wikipedia with authentic information on matters related to the Sri Lanka Air Force. If me being an employee of the SLAF is a COI for Wikipedia I would like to know if there is a method to provide correct information.

Once again I would like to say that I am highly interested in correcting the information available on Wikipedia simply for the sake of providing correct information and not to obtain any financial benefit direct or indirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijeshe (talk • contribs)

Ijeshe If you work for the Air Force, you are a paid editor. You don't have to be specifically paid for your edits or specifically directed to edit. You must make the formal paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I will see what I can do with you directive. Thanks again.

Hi 331dot I have made a disclosure as per your instructions on my user page. By doing so, do I have the right to make changes on the articles which I have listed?

Turkish war of independence article

It is quite obvious that the edits FDW77 and Buidhe has made has no neutral and reliable sources,and very one-sided.And the admins seem to have banned the other side discussing the neutrality of this article.This is not what Wikipedia is.The article needs to be neutral,whereas the edits of @visnelma and @FDW77 @buidhe clearly are not.I demand the changes to be reverted,in order for this article to remain neutral.By looking at the talk page at the article,it is clear those changes are made by anti-Turkish people,aiming to vandalize the page.It should remain neutral. RedBreaddd (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RedBreaddd Wikipedia is not "neutral" if sources are not neutral; Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which is different. I get that it is tough for you to hear the beliefs of others that the conclusion of many historians is that there was a genocide against Armenians, as it has been indoctrinated in your culture and in your citizenry; it is not easy for me to hear that my people massacred Native Americans and stole their land(and in one case carved faces into it), and that some of my people enslaved Africans. In any event, it does not matter what you or I think; what matters is what independent reliable sources state. If you have independent reliable sources to offer with missing information, or have evidence that existing reliable sources cited in the article are not being summarized accurately, please start a civil discussion on the article talk page. We are aware that there is a coordinated campaign and media frenzy in Turkey that is leading to many people who may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies coming here; please take the time to familiarize yourself with them if you wish to truly contribute. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Collingsworth

That convinces me, it's Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating the page removed

Hello 331dot I created an article some time ago but for some reason (I do not know why) it was deleted and the last time you deleted this page I want to recreate a page similar to the previous deleted page or restore the same page, I need this page. please help me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortezashokriofficial (talk • contribs)

Mortezashokriofficial I would first ask you if you are Morteza Shokri; if not, I would advise you to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. If you are him, your name is technically okay, but I might suggest changing it to remove the "official" as official accounts are sometimes operated by representatives. You may request the deleted text at WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Yes, I am Morteza Shokri. I am going to manage my article and page myself. I can send you my passport photo for authentication.

Mortezashokriofficial I believe you. Do not send personal identity documents to anyone, due to the risk of identity theft. In any event, sending a passport photo only proves that you possess a passport photo, not that you are the person depicted in it.
I would inform you that any article about you would not be yours to exclusively control, and you could not exclusively dictate what appears on it. If you were successful in submitting and having accepted a draft article about yourself, you would actually no longer be able to directly edit it, and you would need to make edit requests. Please review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself- while not forbidden- is inadvisable. There are also good reasons to not want an article about yourself. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable Reply

I am so excited at your remarkable reply and wish to express my willingness to await review without boycotting the process most importantly because I still have so much to learn here. Your response was so inspiring. Thank you Bibihans (talk)Bibihans

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

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

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:331dot/Archive_11&oldid=1023614754"