User talk:331dot/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Sony Exmor image sensors[edit]

Deletion review for List of Sony Exmor image sensors[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Sony Exmor image sensors. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. jp×g 06:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern South Slavic[edit]

Well, the map has been there for quite a while. It was just taken down by a North Macedonian nationalist. So what the change is is the removal of the map, not its placement there. I don't intend to revert it again, but I have made my points on the Talk page, and it appears that I am the only to have done that. If someone has something to add—perhaps you—why don't you do it? I do agree that some of the areas mark historical or scattered distribution. VMORO

I don't know who is right- maybe you are, I don't know- but it needs to be discussed on the talk page and not in edit summaries, as I've indicated, and use appropriate processes should discussion not work. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock my account[edit]

Hello I am contacting you as on 28 april 2023, you've told that I could be unblock if you could see at least one draft accepted into the encyclopedia by an Articles for Creation created by myself. I've already got approved one draft - Oleksandr Zub . Iliochori2 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a new unblock request; I'm not presently in a position to review. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a new page[edit]

Hi I saw you on Teahouse and you look like you know what you're doing. I'm trying to merge a couple articles into a single article. My explanation is here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#General help merging and creating. Can you help me out a bit? NomzEditingWikis (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can say that merging is not an area I have much knowledge about, but the advice you've been given so far seems right. 331dot (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article Submission Related to Company[edit]

Hi there, I hope everything is good with you. I submitted a draft named Giga Group of Companies that you recently reviewed. It actually a firm of one of my close friends and he wanted to publish its Wikipedia page because the company is one of the largest Real Estate Group in Asia as well as Middle East. It is a pioneer developer firm that started construction on Jumeirah Lake Dubai bake in the early 2000s. It has massively contributed in national economies of many countries worldwide. Currently, it has been working for UN mandate in Pakistan. I have added multiple references related to this company but i don't know why the submission was declined. Kindly if you can guide me on how can it be approved. And yes i haven't been paid for any of this I am professional writer and what i am doing is my hobby. Please if you can consider my request and guide me i will be working for wikipedia as an editor in future.


Thank you. Nightowl4u (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nightowl4u Your statement seems to be contradictory- you say you are a professional writer but doing this as your hobby. Do you mean that your occupation is a professional writer, but you are not doing this as part of your work? Even if you are not paid, you need to declare a conflict of interest on your user page(click the link for instructions). If you ever do decide to edit as part of your work, the Terms of Use require you to make the paid editing disclosure. Your first edit had correctly written wikicode, which is unusual for a new user. Did you do your research first?
Regarding the draft, it does not establish that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. It mentions an award, but most awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself is notable and merits an article(like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). The rest of the draft merely tells of the establishment of the company. A Wikipedia article must summarize independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject- sources unaffiliated with the company that choose on their own to go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about the company. Doing work for the UN might qualify, if sources discuss that and how the company's contribution is important to that effort. The current sources do not seem to establish notability; two of the sources are by the same freelance writer and seem to be fluff pieces about the company. One discusses a visit by the Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan, another shows the company marking the Pakistani Independence Day. These aren't significant coverage of the company that discusses the importance of it. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Dear whatever i told you is based on truth. The company as i said is owned by one of my friend. Its a reality that i havent been paid for this work, though, yes i am a professional writer but if my affiliation with the company counts it as a paid content i have no issues to declare it. I asked for your guidance on the issue as you are much senior then me. Kindly, let me know how can draft qualify for publication. Even if i mention about the efforts they are making for UN mandate i believe still the draft would not come up to the criteria. So, how can i make this draft strong enough to qualify? I have to help this guy as i know he is really doing a brilliant job in upgrading lifestyles for people and supporting economies of many countries. The company has initiated many clean and green initiatives as mentioned in the resources. If the Chinese Ambassador is paying visit to them it doent mean they are doing something big? Nightowl4u (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not paid or compensated in any manner(it doesn't have to be money or even anything tangible, it could be consideration for further work for your friend), you do not need to declare as a paid editor, but your association with your friend and their company requires you to declare a conflict of interest. Please click that link for instructions.
I don't have much advice for you beyond what I said above. If you have no further independent reliable sources with significant coverage to summarize, the company would not merit an article at this time, and no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. It doesn't matter how well you write, if the company is not notable. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese ambassador visiting the company doesn't mean too much by itself; if it represents something significant about the company, such as work to further Chinese-Pakistani relations, or some broader geopolitical influence, there needs to be sources to show that. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:55:34, 17 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Chenbas31[edit]


Hi,

As other Top of the Pops presenters have their own articles, can Steve Anderson have one? Or is there not enough information in the draft at the moment? Thanks Chenbas31 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chenbas31 Each article is considered on its own merits irrespective of whether other topics in a category have articles, see this page. That said, this person may merit an article, but the sources you have do not demonstrate that. You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person. The sources must also be formatted into references as footnotes, please see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request by QuMaRo[edit]

I'm evaluating an unblock request by this editor, who was (quite correctly) blocked for advertising and UPE. The editor has now agreed to follow the COI rules and properly disclose their paid status. Given this, would you have any objection to unblocking them? Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade I will admit to being a little skeptical but it could be worth a shot in this case, so I'm happy to go with your judgement here. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response request[edit]

Hello @331dot! If you are available, could you respond to @Nathanquib on their talk page. I don’t understand what they are asking, but they requested your response through VTRS. If you don’t want to, feel free to not respond, I don’t really know what the user wants. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibirthday[edit]

Hi 331dot. You probably don't know who I am, but I thought it would be a shame if your WikiBirthday went by without anyone noticing. So, here I am. Happy WikiBirthday, and here's to another 11 years ;) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Salgado[edit]

Thoughts on these two edits by an account with no other edits on an article recently scrutinized for COI contributions? I normally am not involved in COI scenarios, but this seems a bit suspicious. Matt Deres (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Emma account was created the day after the other account was warned and admitted it was his assisstant. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it could certainly be the permanent assistant the first account spoke to. But they still need to disclose everything. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Boykin[edit]

I wasn’t aware I couldn’t edit my own Wiki, if you would I would like to add that back in my 20s I was a webcam model. So many people have talked about to thinking I’m trying to hide it, when I’m highly open about it. I would also like to mention I’m running grassroots. If you’d like to speak to me privately, I would be more than happy to give you a call. :) 2603:6081:5F41:697B:A5FE:253C:8DB1:5F5F (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of policy I do not discuss Wikipedia matters off-wiki. As I posted on your user talk page, you are welcome to make edit requests on the article talk page so that independent editors can evaluate your requests. I also suggest that, although it's not required, it would be easier to work with you if you create an account in your name and then verify your identity as WP:REALNAME instructs, so we know it's you and not just any person on your IP sitting on the other end of the computer. This also helps protect you against impersonation.
When you propose edits to add information, they will need to be sourced to a reliable source that can be verified. We unfortunately cannot just take your word. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Feldman IP edit to Talk[edit]

Just an FYI, as I saw that you reverted the IP's most recent removal of the "musician" claim: They also left a comment on the Talk page that Ponyo (talk · contribs) had redacted for BLP concerns, but which they've now reinstated in a subsequent comment. It's not an urgent matter, but thought you should be aware in case you may be able to address it more readily. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War[edit]

Why am I the only one getting a warning for an edit war that I didn't start? Blair009 (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blair009 I wasn't finished reviewing the matter. I've warned them too. It takes two to edit war. Only you can control your actions. If others are edit warring with you, there are proper processes to address that; edit warring yourself is not one of them. I warned you immediately due to your threat to continue to edit war; "So no, it's not "for the last time"". 331dot (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Care categorization page help[edit]

Hey man, are you able to help me correct the categorizations for the Ghost Care page? I can't seem to get it right, it just says the "pages don't exist" for the categories I added. Thanks so much. Charlotte Beaucannon (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You had apostrophes around the category titles, I've removed them. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with my signature[edit]

Hi, I created a new signature 1Flamealpha2 TalkyTalk and when I try to upload this signature to my preferences half of it just disappears. Can you please provide some assistance in this matter? <span style="border:1px solid; background: linear-gradient(to bottom right, #4B0082, #800080); box-shadow: 0px 5px 15px rgba(0,0,0,0.3);">[[User:Flamealpha123|'''<span style="background: linear-gradient(to right, #FF1493, #FF69B4);-webkit-background-clip: (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I know little about altering signatures. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok sorry to bother you Flamealpha123 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Flamealpha123 You have copied my sign design, Let me see you at your page. Thank you. ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 19:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

You blocked Fascistinfowars and they requested an unblock with a new username (Humanwaveattack666). But then they basically admitted creating the account Humanwaveattack666 without the block being reviewed.

Or am I wrong because it's a soft block, and they're allowed to make a new account with a new name? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a soft block means they are permitted to create a new account. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Exmor".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

— AP 499D25 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Mobian to Debian#Mobian, please[edit]

Mobian says, "This page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it." Draft:Mobian has been copied to Debian#Mobian, per Draft_talk:Mobian. Thanks -- Yae4 (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've done it. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thank you. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Seeing the WP:DRN section about the Exmor thing got me looking back at the talk page, and reflecting on my posts there, they seem somewhat ill-mannered. Please accept my apology. jp×g 09:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It probably wasn't too bad since I don't recall it at this moment, but thanks. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Shatner[edit]

Hey dot, can you please block this IP Special:Diff/1159509029. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Kindling (2023 film) has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kindling (2023 film). Thanks! Twinkle1990 (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Twinkle1990, 331dot didn't write this draft, they merely tagged it. I believe you should be contacting Starklinson, the creator. Bishonen | tålk 07:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I too realized later. I shall leave the message at Bishonen's Talk page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User[edit]

Hello sir The Wikipedia user Capitals00 is continuously editing wrong information on pages especially releted to 'Hindu Monarchs' and releted to them by adding hate words and unsourced statements as he now doing on the page of Mughal - Maratha wars where he didn't provided any single source and blanked most of the page including Result of it.when i undid his revision by asking him sources then instead of providing sources he undid my revision and stored his edit without providing any single resource!This is somehow close to Dictatership as his edits are more than 5000 so now he misusing his powers by deleting others history perticularaly 'Hindu Community' for his relegious agenda. So kindly look at this and take immediate action on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan330 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you stop edit warring and discuss your concerns with the other editor. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited further so Edit warring is suitable for him because i just stored what previous edit was & he undid that so i didn't edited further.so edits done by me is only one but edits edited by him counts 2 so he is edit warring without giving sources & i was joined Wikipedia because i thought this is the only place where Dictatership or power doesn't matter,what matter is full proof sources & he is continuously editing hateful and wrong statements against icons of perticular relegion 'Hindu' and i am surprised that i told you to take action against him by undid revision of his edit on 'Mughal-Maratha wars' and give him last warning as i have checked on his talk page that many senior Wikipedia users warned him for blanking pages(like he did in Mughal-Maratha War page)and making many wrong and unsourced edits releted to Hindu religion. So kindly take action — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan330 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of a religious agenda is a serious accusation that requires hard evidence. Removing edits related to a particular religion is not hard evidence. You need to stop asking any user you can find to intervene for you and work to resolve this dispute yourself. Use dispute resolution if need be; admins do not settle content disputes. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dothello sir,as I had already asked for your help against @[[User:Capital00|capital00]] for his disruptive edits, blanking the pages, targeting specific community & Ragging as recently doing on the page of "Mughal-Maratha wars",but you didn't take any action.

So kindly dive in this wrong thing and take strict action against him.. Aryan330 (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have further comment, please edit this section instead of creating a new section of this page. I have nothing to say beyond what I said above. If you find that unsatisfactory, please report what you see as an incident to WP:ANI, though be advised that your own conduct will be examined as well. Do not harass admins and others on their user talk pages to intercede for you. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Terror's Wikipedia Page[edit]

Hello there,

So I know I've sent this over a couple of times but I believe this is the correct page to post this on (thank you for working with me on that).

For VoxPop, the team seems to be pushing more towards a publisher than a service, so I thought these articles would justify the inclusion.

MSN Article about Loppy - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/voxpop-games-announces-loppy-planet-hopper-and-definitive-edition/ar-AA17dEFf Metacritic Page for Outer Terror - https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/outer-terror Game Informer article about Weaponeer - https://www.gameinformer.com/2022/02/14/weaponeer-a-game-developed-by-a-17-year-old-that-you-can-play-with-one-hand-is-out-today


Let me know if I need to explain any of these further and I appreciate you taking a look at these. HiDot94 (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that these are sources intended to support an article about VoxPop.
  1. is a product announcement, a routine activity that doesn't establish notability.
  2. any sort of summary/aggregation page is not acceptable as a source. Reviews from professional reviewers directly would be good for establishing the notability of a game, but probably not the company that publishes it.
  3. Most of the content related to VoxPop in this source is an interview with the founders of the company. That wouldn't go towards establishing notability. That might actually be okay in an article about the Weaponeer game.
This is just how I see it, feel free to get other opinions. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you for the response!
So what type of article would establish notability for VoxPop then? Also why does an interview with devs not establish notability out of curiosity?
Thanks again! HiDot94 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An interview with the founders of a company is not an independent source, as the company founders cannot have a neutral point of view about their company. Interviews can be used for other purposes, but not to establish notability.
Establishing the notability of the company, and not just its products, requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources that choose on their own(and not based on materials from the company) to write about the company and describe what they see as important/significant/influential about the company, not what the company itself(or its staff) sees as significant about itself.
As I suggest, it is possible for a company's products to merit articles but not a company itself. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the answer, as far as the Weaponeer game goes maybe I should make a page about that then.
Would these sources be enough?
Game Informer: https://www.gameinformer.com/2022/02/14/weaponeer-a-game-developed-by-a-17-year-old-that-you-can-play-with-one-hand-is-out-today
Lawod: https://www.lawod.com/weaponeer-released-on-voxpop-games/
All Ages of Geek: https://aaog.dillevery.com/voxpop-games-empowering-developers-creators/
The CG View: https://www.thecgview.com/p/voxpop-games
Into Indie Games: https://intoindiegames.com/features/voxpop-games-interview-a-revolutionary-new-p2p-indie-games-client/ HiDot94 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last three sources here are interviews with company staff, so those will not work for establishing notability.
The lawod source is little more than an ad for the game, but the first source isn't too bad. If you had a couple more like that, that might be enough to support an article about the Weaponneer game. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucin, utah[edit]

I removed content that had no reference, was off-topic, and had obviously been added by an individual as a means if self-aggrandizent. The only thing I added was the fact that Lucon had been abandoned as of 1997, a fact that I can verify BECAUSE I DO LIVE IN THE LUCIN TOWNSHIP. Hereticalhermit (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hereticalhermit Unfortunately while I believe you, your personal account is unverifiable. Information must be in a published reliable source that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, how about a reliable source, such as county records? I will send you a gis record of who the owner is, being the southern pacific railroad, with NO homes on it! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE THAT I AM WRONG! NEWSPAPER ACCOUNTS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AS PROOF OF OWNERSHIP! Hereticalhermit (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you are ready to stop yelling at me, I'll be happy to discuss this with you. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
again, show me the "reliable evidemce" that he bought the land, that he lives on it, or that the information I deleted had anything to do with the history of lucin. Show me the "reliable evidence" that there are "4 owner inhabitants", other than the railroad. You can't. Hereticalhermit (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and yes, I even went to the pages referenced. This was an interview with the guy where he made the aims, NOT an investigative report or anything which has any legitimacy as "reliable reporting", in addition to the articles on his business, which have no place in an article about Lucin. Hereticalhermit (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"claims", not aims. Oops. Hereticalhermit (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't mean that the information should be completely removed, it can be reworded to emphasize that it was accurate when the source was written("as of X date, .....")
There could be an argument for removing the information about the defector but if you could write a less inflammatory edit summary, it would help. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i was not trying to be inflammatory, only factual. nothing about his defection or company belongs in that article, and it may have been believed to be accurate by the reporter, but the reporter never actually investigated the facts. NONE of the guys claims are valid or ever were. The airport the article mentions is about 3 miles ne of Lucin, not part of the town at all, never was. Nobody lives in Lucin, and has not simce before I moved out here in 1997, although several people live in the outlying "sections" of Lucin township. Railroads never sell their prpperty. All I have stated are the facts, without trying to be inflammatory. Hereticalhermit (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't disbelieve your observation, but it isn't acceptable article content. Something that might work as a citation would be census figures for this area. I've dated one passage and removed the one about the defector. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and yet a totally fabricated article, one which has clear mistruths in it, such as the "4 owner resident" thing, since railroads never sell their property, is somehow acceptable and left as a reference? Or the article about his business, which should be referenced elsewhere, if at all? Hereticalhermit (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the provided source or sources do not say what is claimed, or that the sources say what is claimed but are inaccurate? 331dot (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
absolutely. The claims of the source are entirely bogus, based upon the words of the interviewee, but not upon any independent evidence that was researched by the interviewer. And I can provide many eyewitness acounts as to Lucin (a) having been abandoned by 1997, (b) that I have lived here since then, (c) that the railroad still owns the property, (d) that Ivo does not live "in" Lucin, etc. Hereticalhermit (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't up to the interviewer to provide independent evidence. They were confident enough in their reporting to air it. The interviewee does not seem to me to making up his claims out of whole cloth. You are free to disbelieve him, just as any reader is.
Eyewitness accounts are useless unless they are in a published reliable source. As I said, your best bet is probably census figures, which, if no one is living there, would report a population of zero. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actuly, the census does not even mention Lucin, because it is uninjabited and was so during the 2000 census. And an article that was published "in good faith" which spreads misinformation is still not a valid source for the claims in the article, especially after having just been shown that any if the claims were false. Any mention of Uvo in the Lucin article is based upon an article which spread false information, and which he apparently linked into wikipedia himself in order to sell his airplabe parts...that last part is my opinion, as I cannot prove that he is the one who posted the links or edited the lucin article. Because the claims in the lucin article are provably false, no mention of the articles or anything in them should even be listed under lucin. Now, if there were an article about lucin airport, those things would be appropriate there. Hereticalhermit (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patience[edit]

I've been told i have the patience of a saint, but I think you have more. Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing and non-communication[edit]

I would have put this on WP:ANI but thought I'll consult a recently active admin first. User talk:Anolacrabsss has been adding the same unsourced content repeatedly at Ahaana Krishna. The user has had multiple warnings on their user talk page (since a few years), but there has been no response. I also tried communicating at Talk:Ahaana Krishna#LA Fest. I'm involved in the reverts, so I didn't want to give further warnings, or make the block. Please advise. Jay 💬 13:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 31h and reverted. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skullgirls edit war[edit]

Hello @331dot:. This is in reference to new user Grew Baddymore and their edit war on the Skullgirls page. I'm reaching out to you since you recently posted on their talk page. The person did take things to the article's talk page, where I tried to detail my disagreements with their edits to the best of my ability, rooting my reasonings in guidelines and such. Their follow-up didn't make much sense, and I personally don't believe this person is acting in good faith anymore. But, who knows, maybe I'm in the wrong here. Would you be willing to lend your perspective on the matter? Thanks for your time. Wani (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the user is globally locked now. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YonkerDonk[edit]

Hi, do you have any objection to my revoking TPA per WP:DENY? The user's post-block comments are increasingly outrageous. It is clear they are enjoying the attention, not to mention controlling the conversation in a passive-aggressive, WP:WIKILAWYER-type manner. I would have revoked TPA a while ago and not asked "permission", but am reluctant to do so because of your and Newyorkbrad's apparent willingness to continue this tortured dialogue. Fluid dynamics? Give me a break.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a veto power here, but since you are asking my opinion, I am not persuaded we are at that point or even especially close to it. If he wants to enter mainspace and edit about fluid dynamics I would probably let him. If it's an elaborate troll as you seem to think, we would find out soon enough. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I am firmly opposed to unblocking them.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Understood. There's no unblock request at the moment anyhow. If the user posts one, someone else can take a look at it and opine on it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you: any idea what the user means when they keep referring to "movement", e.g., "My skills in reading a consensus are movement wide" and "This is movement level stuff"? Appears that Snow Rise understands the term, but I don't. I'd ask directly but don't wish to comment anymore on the user's Talk page for the same reasons I believe TPA should be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: See Wikimedia movement. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My, that's pretty hokey. Thanks for the link.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they are basically just saying that they are familiar with process here because they have participated on other Wikimedia projects. Per my comments on their TP, that explanation really doesn't hold water for me, especially in light of their steadfastly refusing to provide any additional details or context, which would not even necessarily require disclosure of sensitive information. Every bit of their responses feels calculated to try to continuously refocus the conversation on our burden to give them the benefit of the doubt--presumably because they have no legitimate editorial history to point to, other than that of whatever since-blocked account(s) they have here, and any question they do answer carries with it potential to catch them out in a lie. Just every bit of their responses feels like a practiced effort at redirection, involving an entirely emotive appeal to fairplay that keeps them from having to make even the least bit of an actual explanation for their behaviour, in even the narrowest of respects. Can I ask what the behavioural factors are that make you suspect a BKFIP sock, or are you trying to be careful about where you disclose that for WP:BEANS reasons? SnowRise let's rap 04:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better if that isn't explained on-wiki. As I said elsewhere, if you're confident in that identification then go ahead and pull TPA. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason for the block evasion has become clear. On July 4 at 22:39, YD was globally locked as an LTA. Since that time, YD has of course been unable to log in and post to their Talk page, so they used an IP. I didn't notice the glock until a short while ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that takes care of that one. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the official language of the country/subject matter that gave rise to this chain of events: quelle surprise. SnowRise let's rap 01:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPA[edit]

Hi again. Could you please revoke talk page access for Annd112? They're still posting crap ([1], [2]) even after being blocked for socking. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:History News Service has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:History News Service. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

156.61.250.251[edit]

In March, you declined an unblock request for this address. Disruptive edits are coming from there again. Has the block expired? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the block expired in April. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking decline[edit]

Why it is declined? Explain to me please. Oksimormon (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User: Orelie[edit]

Hiya - just out of interest, was wondering how you picked this one up. I'da thought a 3RR filter would have picked him up before the legal threat... Just curious! (And thanks!) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a post on Materialscientist's page. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha - great, and thanks again! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean edits[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you are really involved other than discussion on my talk page (in which I was just asking for admin advice about policy), just thought I would put this here as FYI as I did mention you over there. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

your real name[edit]

My real name is (not) Sammy Hagar. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article on author Devika Rangachari[edit]

Hello, I saw that you deleted the draft article I had started on. I am trying to slowly get started with creating Wikipedia content and realize that my skills are extremely low. Nevertheless, I have the ambition to improve my skills as I go along. In this particular case, since I have read the author's books and know that she is well-reputed, I thought I would create a Wiki article. Obviously I have failed, and I just wanted to check with you whether this means I can still restart my work on this topic, but in a more methodic and professional way, or is the topic banned forever from Wikipedia? Bear with me please, as I am trying to understand this rather forbidding and daunting world of Wikipedia. Osreismagos23 (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is not banned, the draft you wrote was a copyright violation and deleted. You may write a draft that is not a copyright violation and written in your own words, summarizing what sources say about this individual and showing how she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
Be advised that writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and diving right in as a new user is not advised and likely to lead to frustration and disappointment, as there is much to be aware of beforehand. We usually recommend that users first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea as well. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, really appreciate it. Will have to sit down properly and get my head around this. Osreismagos23 (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history of users and probably NOTHERE[edit]

Both Artificial Nagger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Unwokengarvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are most likely trolls/NOTHERE (and SOAP in the case of Unwokengarvey) as their edit history shows. I've explained about the first on the RFC/user names page and the second is pretty obvious. The user is trying to inject a certain POV across a range of racism-related articles. Don't see any reason not to indef both personally, save the trouble of going to ANI... —DIYeditor (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, didn't notice you were the original blocking admin on Unwokengarvey. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, how'd I take a 31 hour block for adding a link between 2 hate groups with the exact same logo? mea culpa on process, but the dudes reverting my changes are deleting the talk topics and catching violations of their own for doing it. How are topics supposed to get updated if woketopian activists are patrolling the edits? Unwokengarvey (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the appropriateness of the block reviewed, the proper forum is WP:AN. I would advise you against doing so, but you can if you wish. I have nothing else to say. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft AOMEI Backupper[edit]

I noticed that you deleted my draft entry AOMEI Backupper. I wish to re-edit this article. not bad? Lmj565 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lmj565 I would first ask you if you work for the AOMEI Technology Company or have some other association with this product. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,I work for AOMEI Backupper.But I just introduct product.not Promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmj565 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lmj565 You must read the paid editing policy and make the paid editing disclosure; this is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. You should also read conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place to "introduce" a product- a product must already be known and written about by independent reliable sources before it can merit an article on Wikipedia. Put another way, Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. Please review the definition of a notable product and Your First Article. It's challenging to write a new article even without a conflict of interest as you have, that only makes it harder. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do after I read it? Is there any way for me to re-edit the draft AOMEI Backupper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmj565 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that you not attempt to write about your company's products. If you have been asked to do so, please read WP:BOSS and have your superiors read it too. The best indicator of notability is when an independent editor takes note of a topic and chooses on their own to write about it, trying to force the issue doesn't usually work.
If you still wish to proceed even after reading everything I have suggested, you may create a new draft if you can limit yourself to summarizing what independent reliable sources say about this product and can show how it meets WP:NPRODUCT. Please read Your First Article.
As one of your next edits, you should make the paid editing disclosure. You can be blocked for failing to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting this edit to be censored.[edit]

Hello 331dot and sorry to interrupt you.

The IP address user which made an irrelevant edit at the Teahouse earlier did something similar here. Can I request that edit to be censored? Thanks! 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 09:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 09:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Montra Electric Super Auto[edit]

Hi


Can you help me with the exact details that i need to provide, or can you give me some samples for notable references.


Thanks Senthilkindia (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Senthilkindia We don't need the whole url when linking to another page so I've fixed the header. Probably a summary of reviews of the vehicle by independent professional reviewers would do it. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, there are lot of professional reviews available on YouTube, can I add that reference will that help? Senthilkindia (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is not generally considered a reliable source(as anyone can post anything there), but it would be okay if it was, for example, a video of a professional review from a verified news outlet's YouTube channel. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your guidance, i have added relevant verified news about Montra Electric Super Auto. Senthilkindia (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for your attention[edit]

You rejected Draft:Sazzad Hossain, but a possible sock reverted that and resubmitted. I re-reverted it. Wanna report it to ANI or something? 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've reported this to WP:SPI. 〜 Festucalex • talk 19:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes, that was right for you to do. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Of Vani[edit]

@331dot see Battle of Vani I have created this page but it wouldn't desolayed on Google yet. What's the matter? Aryan330 (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan330 Not everyone uses the mobile version even on a phone/tablet(it's great for reading not so much for editing IMO), so when linking to an article simply place the title in double brackets like this- [[Joe Biden]] appears as Joe Biden.
Regarding your question, it takes time for Google to index new articles; they must either be marked as reviewed by a New Pages Patroller, or a certain amount of time must pass(I think it's 60 days but I'm not sure at this moment). 331dot (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thanks.
will it be reviewed by patroller even after not creating draft first?just asking as I directly created it Aryan330 (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. New Pages Patrol is different from the drafting process. They look at the New Pages Feed and look at new articles as they are created. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok,thanks for your time.
Just last thing can you link that article with bracket for this time as I don't know how it can be.
So next time I can use it well. Aryan330 (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would type it like [[Battle of Vani]] which would appear as Battle of Vani. This will work with most articles and pages(Narendra Modi, India, New York Yankees). 331dot (talk)

Got it, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan330 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

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.Notrealname1234 (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocks[edit]

You may want to have another glance at user talk:RetireIT, as he has answered your questions, albeit not within the proper template. DS (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Adom (artist)[edit]

I've picked you out of thin air for this. ACmuisc (talk · contribs) has posted this [3] and the same on Talk:Adom (musician) which is actually linked to this Boston (band) ( I'm not sure why that talk page is linked?) Anyway, looks like they need advice. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops[edit]

didn't read the rest of the sentence on WP:User pages. But the edit summaries? Personal attacks? Doug Weller talk 11:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're not making it easy with their removals from the page. Probably they're close to losing access. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits on page Maratha Portugese war 1683-84[edit]

Hey @331dot the users @Zocdoclesson & user @Wareno both are continuously changing the content of page Maratha–Portuguese War (1683–1684). Although @Zocdoclesson atleast discussed on talk page of that article & accepted it. but @Wareno didn't discussed about this battle.he didn't talked with references. The earlier edit was as "status quo ante bellum" & this user connecting it with the victory of one side.

This user also warned me on my talk page by accusing me for being involved in edit war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169992909. but I just did only 1 edit on that page in this month.he is just targeting me.hope you would give your personal attention here. Thank you Aryan330 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user @Aryan330 has been engaging in arbitrary and disruptive editing as already detailed here. He also likes to deem edits he doesn't agree with as "unconstructive". Hope this will clarify things. Wareno (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 4 sources in article itself stating that it was "status quo ante bellum" & could not be anyones victory.while this user provided only one source.
This user made more than 3 edits in last 48 hours and accusing me for causing edit war while I only did one edit in last month Aryan330 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user removes other users content but keeps their sources and moves them to support his changes. I kept both pieces of information, this user insists on keeping only his content. Wareno (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have protected the article to stop the disruption; I'm not presently able to sort this out to be more specific than that. Very interesting the disruption on an article about a 340 year old conflict. Aryan330, you need to work with others here. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot This user also warned me on my talk page by accusing me for being involved in edit war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169992909. but I just did only 1 edit on that page in this month.is this a way to working?
    By the way thanks for reply. Aryan330 (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted redirect[edit]

Per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects do not have to have neutral names, and can be offensive, and such the CSD does not apply. Qwerfjkltalk 21:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't see it in the letter of the policy, I don't think a redirect can be a BLP violation. Also see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14#Biden Crime Family. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello! Sorry for the trouble I have caused. I never wanted these drafts to be submitted for AfC. What should I do? Dev Darshan T. K. (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on your user talk page, please post further replies there. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions[edit]

Hello 331dot,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We wanted to invite you to join the study because you are very active not only in the User talk namespace but also in a few WP discussion sections such as AfC and Helpdesk. The latter category in particular often plays host to long discussions/debates with a lot of back-and-forth between editors, which is exactly the type of environment that our study targets.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP. Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

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.Doug Weller talk 14:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior at an AFD[edit]

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck the War EP and see if there's some admin action that may need to be taken? Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a warning to the the user that was the source of the attacks, though I'm not able at present to take a deeper dive into it. Maybe later. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Connor TheWriteGuy Newkirk/sandbox has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Connor TheWriteGuy Newkirk/sandbox. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Mac and cheese king[edit]

You may want to disable their talkpage access. Thanks. 67.161.107.248 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

185.etc[edit]

Ow, is that "Best known for IP"? Good to know. I will have no mercy with him/her/it from now on. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, yes. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Smith (British politician)[edit]

Hi 331dot - in April you blocked Charlotte gurney for making legal threats following edits to Henry Smith (British politician). Would you be able to look at Political supporter 1, who has made similar edits to the same article to do with the subject's marriage - possibly a sock puppet / block evasion? Let me know if you would prefer if I made a report to WP:SPI. Thanks for your help. Tacyarg (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No idea where to go[edit]

Where do I go to get a very rude edit summary removed? The Banner talk 18:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice. It is this edit that needs cleaning up. The Banner talk 19:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the swift action. Much appreciated. The Banner talk 19:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ERRORS[edit]

Hi 331dot ~ you certainly don't know me and though i recognise your name i don't think i've ever interacted with you previously. May i just say that I would agree that I've dug a hole that I didn't intend to dig and I probably should just get on with other business and not say any more is probably one of the best, lightest-hearted, and most appealing admissions of mis-step that i have seen in many years here. Thank you and well done. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 18:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Nowak[edit]

She was an astronaut, someone highly trained and (supposedly) vetted mentally, who shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. Alas, your supposition is incorrect. Psychological vetting was completely inadequate. See Santy, Patricia A. (1994). Choosing the Right Stuff: The Psychological Selection of Astronauts and Cosmonauts. Human Evolution, Behaviour and Intelligence. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-94236-8.. The irony is that if Nowak had the sort of mental health care given to her counterpart in the movie the whole thing would never have happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

Please don't do this. [4] WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list of reliable sources, and it is thoroughly misleading to suggest that it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user didn't ask for an exhaustive list, they asked for an example list, which is exactly what that is. The list itself does not claim to be exhaustive, nor did I say it was. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I still don't think that the link was helpful in that context. WP:RSP is (or is supposed to be) a list of sources where reliability has repeatedly been questioned. Some are listed as 'generally reliable' certainly, after discussion. The fact that such discussion has proven necessary surely makes them a poor choice for examples? A simple link to WP:RS is much better in the context of a help desk question like that - more so since WP:RS explains in detail how context matters etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of that page is "The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed." The user asked "give me an example (list) of sources that you think are reliable and can be trusted." WP:RSP describes the community views on the sources listed. I figured they would look at it and get an idea of what was considered acceptable and what was not. Perhaps I could have linked to WP:RS so they could learn what is looked for- and thanks for doing that- but respectfully I don't think what I did was unreasonable. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you take a look at[edit]

Please could you take a look at User talk:Daniellenavy. The article page they are talking about is Danielle Bux. It seems likely that the editor previously edited that page as an IP editor. As for the allegation that I have been editing that article for years, this is a list of my contributions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look. I see nothing wrong with your edits, Toddy1. I replied to the user, nudging them to learn our policies that their edits have been disregarding. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for removing the obscene entry on my talk page. Never expected a troll to be this vile. MaximumCruiser2 🚢 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I don't want to say a lot per WP:DENY, but this was certainly obscene stuff. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do the same for my talk page please? The Night Watch (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think I got it. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Why did you block me? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block you, I reviewed your unblock request. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Could you explain why you did not approve my appeal? 2600:8804:6600:4:ED57:F4AC:6BA3:F3A0 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I included my reason, please review it. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ruth Hessey[edit]

Dear 331dot thank you very much for your prompt review of the Draft:Ruth Hessey page yesterday where you noted. "You have done well documenting her activities, but what we are looking for is a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person." I agree that the account doesn't meet the pure Wikipedia definition of notable person. However, I would argue that the subject Ruth Hessey was notable for the amount and extent of her work documenting other people's films, filmmakers, environmental matters while working as a professional journalist, broadcaster and documentary filmmaker for many years for reliable sources such as the Melbourne Age, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Company Radio National and (less notable) EastSide FM radio. The nature of her work meant she spent years as a reliable source fact-checking and reporting on other subjects rather than others reporting on her. I have sourced and referenced many instances of this on the draft page and ask if you could review the draft page a second time with this in mind. Kind regards, HapKee HapKee (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer to, when possible, only review a draft once, so that more eyes get on it and also so that it's not only my opinion at issue.
It could be that her work is notable, but not her herself- if most reliable sources talk about her work as opposed to her personally. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot. Yes I do think Hessey's work is more notable than her herself. There is a reference (number 8) on the draft page is from Alexandra Coghlan at The Arts Desk who references Ruth Hessey as a notable cultural commentator on Australian Film Culture during her time as national film reviewer at ABC Radio National. This is the link https://theartsdesk.com/node/1176/view HapKee (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant- I meant that if most coverage is about her work, say her documentary films, then you should refocus on writing about her films instead of her personally. Or, if her work was important to her radio employer, you could add a mention of her in the article about her employer.
Writing about her personally would mean that you must summarize sources that describe what they consider to be important/significant/influential about her personally. Did she have a particular influence on other film critics, and what was it? (I would look to Roger Ebert as an example of an article about a film critic) You wrote "discussed the place and identity of Australian cinema in national and international culture" but you don't discuss what makes that important(it sounds like something any Australian film critic might do). Was she recognized for such work by others? That's what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot, your notes are very clear and useful. I have added new reliable sources to the Ruth Hessey draft article and re-focused it, putting the most notable work at the top (her award-winning documentary and environmental educational projects). Here I have found a new independent reliable source in IF Magazine with coverage of the documentary and a quote about the importance of the her educational initiatives by Kiernan (3). I have also found a book review of the book on Aboriginal Art which she co-authored, with a quote by reviewer Radok (16). I have reduced less notable details of her life work and taken out the section on her acting work. I could take out the detail of her latter radio broadcasting work perhaps, and her death detail, if you advise it, and other less notable detail, but some of this, I would argue, makes it into a more readable informative article, adding context to her more notable film and writing work. Please let me know if these additions and changes are sufficient and if I should press the resubmit button. HapKee (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

  • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove talk page access for LTA[edit]

Hi 331dot, you blocked 73.206.160.3 a few days ago... Could you remove talk page access from User talk:73.206.160.3? The accounts keeps pinging and myself and other editors in an attempt to continue disputes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller is participating there, I'm not sure that I should steal his thunder just yet. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User Hcf_hcg_uhce[edit]

Hello, This user is currently blocked on this wikipedia, and is currently making harmful edits to the simple English wikipedia. When I attempted to add an edit request to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global , This account was automatically blocked on the Meta-Wiki site. Please review this user's contributions. This was my edit request:

{{edit semi-protected|Steward requests/Global}} <!-- Begin request --> === Global block/unblock for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hcf%20hcg%20uhce Hcf hcg uhce] === {{Status}} <!-- Do not remove this template --> Cross wiki abuse - blocked on English Wikipedia, but currently vandalizing Simple English Wikipedia. --[[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC) <!-- End request --> [[User:MrBeastRapper|MrBeastRapper]] ([[User talk:MrBeastRapper|talk]]) 16:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If any reader is a Semi-Protected editor on Meta-Wiki, add this to Steward Requests/Global. MrBeastRapper (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot help you with issues on Simple English Wikipedia; you'll need to address this matter there. Please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards for more information on contacting a steward. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dot[edit]

Since I am new to Wikipedia I am not familiar with how to ask questions. I did check out the Tea Room and a couple of other help choices. Are you able to help with a couple of questions? I understand folks are busy so if not I certainly understand. Thanks! Indiefilmpros (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(from Teahouse) hi Indiefilmpros and welcome to Wikipedia! I have answered your question over at the Teahouse. 💜  melecie  talk - 00:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:ProfessorsCurrentAffairs/sandbox has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:ProfessorsCurrentAffairs/sandbox. Thanks! 331dot (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Maxime Cote has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Maxime Cote. Thanks! 331dot (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
You do a lot of cool stuff! so, you get this cool barnstar! keep editing!! Babysharkboss2 was here!! 18:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rikankur Roy[edit]

Aryan Ore was deleting content from article with false edit summaries. After I warned him, he wrote "please remove restriction from my friend's account his username is Rikankur Roy. Hope you will help him."

You had asked Rikankur Roy if he had any other accounts and I think this may be your answer. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?[edit]

I’m busy right now, but see KlayCax. Doesn’t seem to get it, but I haven’t gone through the warnings to check if they are correct. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look, but it might be a minute. Thanks 331dot (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the warnings seem to be about 3RR so I have warned them about edit warring in general. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help. no talk and direct reverting my whole edit[edit]

[5]Pirate_of_the_High_Seas has reverted my whole edit on article Indian espionage case in Qatar which I was doing research for whole 2 hours just saying it is POV push. I had stated that there was edit conflict while publish and I went to talk about it on his talk page too. But he just reverted my whole edit. Then I stopped myself from reverting his because that will become edit war and I don't want to do that. I helped article to push NPOV earlier as well. Major challenge, I think, he is making to me is use of rank in the names of former navy persons, which I went to discuss on his talk page too. He has blocks and warnings as well. Please if you can spare sometime to look into this matter it will be really helpful for me. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 10:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not presently able to look at this, please go to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Articles for creation backlog drive[edit]

Hello 331dot:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2300 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary semi-protection[edit]

The page 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup is having many vandalism so I request you to add Temporary semi-protection until the tournament officially doesn't helds you can see by yourself how the page is being vandalized. Nexovia (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please request protection at WP:RFPP; I'm not presently able to assist. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

Thanks for your decision at User talk:Gill110951‎, which I sadly cannot disagree with owing to the comments made in the ensuing discussion. However, the IP is the banned sockpuppet that has been consistently and egregiously targeting Gill. The address 148.252.159.66 was included in the SPI, and their comments on the talk page admit meatpuppetry (although this passes  Looks like a duck to me for being the actual user). They are now edit warring as 148.252.159.203‎. They are not allowed to edit here. I note the 148.252.159.0/24 has some edits on that range that may not be the sock, but grateful if you would take some appropriate action. Perhaps a very short IP range block? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, you know full well that I am not a blocked or banned editor, I am entitled to make edits and to not expect you to delete my talk page contributions on the grounds of your (incorrect) assumptions that I am a sockpuppet. If you recall, you already unsuccessfully reported me (the IP 148.252.159.66) to a sock puppet investigation page as a 'suspected sockpuppet': [6] but I was not blocked. The admins and editors on that page had the option of blocking me then if they thought it was warranted, and did not. Therefore, your claim that I am consequently "not allowed to edit here" is just plain wrong, I am not a blocked/banned sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Furthermore, you claim I've confessed to being a meatpuppet -- no. What I openly said was that I had originally been notified --just notified-- about the related Rfc discussion at Talk:Michael Stone (criminal) by what it has now materialised was a sock editor. I had no previous involvement and I believed at that time that I was being asked to take a look in good faith by an editor who just wanted to give wider notification to uninvolved editors. Me getting notified as such does not make me a meatuppet, it actually makes me an innocent bystander in all of this that was dragged into it when I was unaware of the sockpuppettry, and now as a result I'm getting accussed of it myself. 148.252.159.203 (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not presently able to look into this matter, please go to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot hello sir,
    Can you please block user "hassangangu" who made this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1183468564 on page Battle of Delhi (1737) as he is disturbing the situation of that article because that articles section is being discussing on talk page & he just created an account 24 hours ago making worse situation for that article by putting other editers in edit war
    Please block him because I have high doubt that he is a sockpuppet & if you can then please investigate sock.
    I know you cannot surely block him for doing some edits but atleast give him warning to not disturb that article & please revert his edit as if I will then it can be start of edit war
    & Lastly please check that is he a sockpuppet & if yes then block his every account on Wikipedia.
    Thank you. Aryan330 (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not presently able to look into this, see WP:SPI for information on initiating a sock puppet investigation. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Revalsys Technologies[edit]

Hi 331dot, you indeffed User:Revalsys Technologies as spam/promo. However, going carefully through their contributions, I'm not seeing any single edit that could be called spam or promotion. They were all constructive edits. Are you sure the account should have been blocked instead of being warned of non-compliant username? Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 13:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri It's my belief that the user was gaming the system to get autoconfirmed and edit about the company by that name. I didn't see most of their edits as an improvement; this one replaced wikicoded figures with written figures. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Indeed, I misread that edit (I've now self-reverted). I can't say much about their intentions – I'm tempted to AGF as I see no signals at the moment that would suggest spam/promo other than promotional/shared-use username. Cheers, — kashmīrī TALK 15:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

{{help}} Radon difluoride (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you want help with? 331dot (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
manly fact checking Radon difluoride (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're asking, is there something specific you are doing? 331dot (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*That* username[edit]

Do you think it is ban-worthy or global block-worthy per WP:CHILDPROTECT also? I know I'm probably worrying a bit too much about a vandal, but according to that policy, if you endorse or condone that sort of behaviour on Wikipedia, that it warrants both a block and a ban. Do let me know if I am overreacting, though. Best, Patient Zerotalk 00:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the policy, I don't think you are overreacting. I'll take care of it. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I greatly appreciate your help. Patient Zerotalk 00:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watchers needed[edit]

A thread at Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#I._Antisemitism_insinuations,_II._Contemporary_use could use benevolent oversight from uninvolved admins. There has unquestionably been foruming and casting aspersions, and also some attempts by involved editors to delete or collapse others' comments that they have questionably construed as being foruming or casting aspersions. I don't think it calls for any disciplinary process, but moderation could be helpful. Sennalen (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas - discussing my edit[edit]

Dear user:331dot, You've recently reverted my edit to the article "Hamas" (See edit here)

Contrary to your comment, my edit did not conflict with the instruction "Do not change this to "terrorist" without gaining consensus on the talkpage first", since I did not change the text it referred to. Where I to change: "Hamas... is a political and military organization" to "Hamas... is a terrorist organization", then it would require a discussion and a consensus. However, I did not touch that text. Instead, I've just added the text: "...designated as a terrorist group by many countries (including the US, UK, EU, etc.)[1][2][3]...". This text was taken from the information box that clearly stated "Designated as a terrorist group by" and then mentioned US, UK, EU, etc.

I personally also hold the belief that it's not just designated by these countries, but should also be used by that term within Wikipedia articles, just as is used in the article about ISIS. But given that I'm aware that this might require a long discussion, I went with simply stating the relevant facts that are already present in the article.

Could you please un-revert your revert to my edit?

Thanks upfront, Tal Galili (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Tal Galili (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that mentioning the word terrorist in any capacity in the lead will require a consensus. It's a very powerful term and even mentioning it in the context of the nations that designate them such should have some sort of discussion. It may require balance with the nations that specifically do not designate them terrorists(like Turkey where Erdogan recently called them liberators). I regret disagreement with you but I don't wish to revert my edit. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel needed?[edit]

Hi! I've just reverted a vandalism edit (diff) and warned the IP, but do you think WP:REVDEL is needed here under RD2 or RD3? Thanks in advance. Liu1126 (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have done so. Thanks for reverting. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Liu1126 (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Ninjascrollqc/sandbox has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Ninjascrollqc/sandbox. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Evita Saraswati[edit]

Hi 331dot. Hope you're well. Could you please restore the article? The discussion happened in 2013 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raquel Evita Saraswati (2nd nomination)), not 2023, and there is a lot of new coverage about her since 2013 AfD. We may discuss it at another AfD, rather a speedy deletion. Skeus (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as a borderline notability case combined with Ms. Saraswati's wishes that there not be an article about her. Looking at the version of the article that was deleted, it's really not that much different aside from your ref bombing your draft(fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources). You moved it into the encyclopedia yourself- the best way to proceed would have been to run it through WP:AFC to see if reviewers agree that things have sufficiently changed since 2013 to establish notability to the point where the subject's wishes aren't considered.
I think you have two choices here; you can use Deletion review, or I can restore it as a draft so you can submit it for a review. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please move it to draftspace. Skeus (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have done so. I've added the submission template so you can submit it for a review. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Raquel Evita Saraswati 331dot (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Skeus (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that you read Referencing for beginners so you can format your references instead of having bare urls. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedy kept the AfD, since nobody actually wanted to delete the article. I'll let y'all figure out what you do now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skeus (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There![edit]

Hi @331dot. How was your day so far? I was wondering if you can help me with something! DieCrewls22 15:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like? 331dot (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They'd like to be blocked, and they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lynn.hamilton[edit]

I was a bit taken aback by your statement Being the owner of a company is a grey area in terms of the paid editing disclosure, because as the owner there is no one above you paying you, but an owner certainly has a financial interest in their company. Has this "grey area" you describe been discussed anywhere? I have owned a small business for 30 years and I have consistently taken either a salary or profits or both out of my business, to pay mortgages, buy groceries and electricity and medicines and computers and office supplies and gasoline, and to travel and buy books, and to buy sneakers and blue jeans for my sons, and rainbow unicorn gifts for my six year old granddaughter, and so much more. I would certainly consider myself a paid editor if I edited directly regarding my business, and there would be no doubt in my mind. I would not ever try to argue that as a business owner I am not paid, and I am certain that the Internal Revenue Service would not accept that argument from anyone else either. Thank goodness that I am a small fish. Can you please clarify this "grey area" you perceive? Because I believe that business owners promoting their own businesses in any way on Wikipedia are quintessential paid editors who are obligated to make the disclosure. Your thoughts are welcomed. Cullen328 (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 I don't have any discussions handy though I feel like I've brought it up somewhere in the past; I looked around WT:PAID a bit and it looks like there are occasionally some efforts to discuss it but it doesn't look like I was involved, at least according to my brief search- but I have seen it argued that a business owner is technically not a paid editor because no one(like a boss) is "paying" them or directing their actions, they are generating their own money. Personally I absolutely agree with you- which is why I termed it a "grey area" as I'm not sure if there is a consensus on that or not. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Civility Barnstar
Thanks for keeping me calibrated. You're a great editor and I look up to you a lot. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting action on two matters[edit]

In this this thread on ANI, two accounts are confirming themselves as socks and a third is accusing editors of being ethnic haters and Serbian (lol). Would you mind intervening at least on those three accounts, as I've been trying to get admin help on this for two weeks now. Additionally, requesting a range block from the page Raphael of Brooklyn from IP range 2003:c0:6f00::/43 due to persistent block evasion by Akhshartag. Any admin TPSs are encouraged to also respond. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP range. The rest of your request would seem to require a deeper dive than I'm prepared to do at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very much appreciated! It's fine about the ANI stuff, but this has been a couple weeks of significant disruption despite clear evidence of socking, hoaxes, and incivility. Is there anything I can do to get this sorted? ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you can do is be patient. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to mention that Drmies and Canterbury Tail had opportunities to untangle the web at ANI. A bit of an unusual outcome, with two separate sockmasters. The racially charged comment led to a 24h, which seems reasonable, considering no previous warnings. Drmies also expanded the IP block and protected the article. Thank you for what you had time for and for understanding my frustration. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VRT question[edit]

Hi! When you get the chance, would you please take a look at Ticket:2023120210007576? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I do not have the level of access needed to look at it. I think I only have access to tickets regarding processing renames(to match my renamer ability). 331dot (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

question about unblock requests[edit]

Am I understanding this correctly that unblock requests shouldn't usually be declined by the blocking admin? There are cases where I felt that the reason for the request is clearly justified, but I don't recall seeing the blocking admin decling a request and have not read anywhere that it would be okay. Would like to know if that is the norm here. :) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblock requests states "Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users when they performed the block". As with anything there may be rare circumstances where it would be okay, but that's general policy. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also try to avoid declining requests for users when I've already declined one, though I do sometimes decline blatantly unacceptable requests, or stale requests to avoid clogging the queue. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vista, CA edit question[edit]

Hi @331dot, I wanted to chat about the removal of 2022 American Community Survey Data from the Vista, CA page. The 2022 ACS is the most recent available demographic data for cities from the US government. The data was presented factually without any viewpoints or opinions. I would kindly contest that factual information requires a consensus to be posted on the page. 76.232.123.103 (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any information that is disputed requires a consensus to include in an article. According to the Census Bureau the ACS is a survey sent to random people, not a scientifically conducted count/data collection from as many people as possible as the decennial census is. You'll need to point to a policy, precedent, or other reason to include this information. Also note that it's far easier to update the decennial census every 10 years, and doing so is less dependent on the availability of volunteers as a more regular update is. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The link you provided does not say that the ACS is not a scientifically conducted data collection. It simply is not as comprehensive of a count as the US Census, but it is indeed a scientifically conducted statistical analysis. Many if not most large city pages have inter-census counts included for more current data. Do I need a policy or precedent other than that? If not, should I begin editing inter-census updates out of other nearby cities? Genuinely asking, as I'm new to this process. 76.232.123.103 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, taking a deeper dive it does seem that you are correct, according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline (under "Demographics") so I reversed my removal. That said, again, anything that is disputed should go to discussion where editors can then make their arguments(like citing a guideline or precedent as you did). Very few things are immune from debate. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for your help. To follow up, I was wondering generally if there are any specific Wikipedia rules or policies relative to deleting otherwise factual information. As in, if an editor deletes a cited fact that is presented without opinion, does that still require discussion before undoing the removal? Or could the removal be considered vandalism or something, given that the edit removed a truthful and relevant fact. I always assumed Wikipedia would allow factual information to stand, so long as it is in fact relevant to the topic of the page. I'm planning a series of edits to update the page in question, and plan to support them all with citations, but I'm concerned about getting bogged down in 'discussions' over things that are actual facts, if that makes sense. Discussions relevant to whether or not something is relevant to the topic, whether or not it is actually true, or supported by a given reference, etc I can see would clearly warrant discussion. Just wondering what to do in the case someone undoes a factual edit over an undefined or overtly subjective/preferential reason, and whether that still requires discussion before reinstating the facts. 76.232.123.103 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can only give you a brief answer right now; Editors should provide a reason for their edits, whether it adds or removes. Edits that cite policies or guidelines as a reason are stronger arguments. Information that is removed with no explanation, especially if cited, may be restored, but edit warring is not permitted. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist[edit]

Could i get you to add Sanctioned Suicide to the list Trade (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I am probably not the best person to do that as I don't have the expertise the big capital letters on that page warn about having. :) 331dot (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article tag[edit]

Hi 331dot,

I couldn't help but notice this conversation about MidWesterngal, regarding the article created for Matt Weinhold. I too was labeled as a paid editor when I'm not and I haven't been given the benefit of WP:AGF. The page was nominated for deletion which it passed. Would you mind removing the tag from Alfonso Cobo's page? But whether it needs additional copyediting or not is up to you to decide.

Sendero99 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done as requested, I didn't see any obvious copy problems. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 331dot! I sincerely appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia a better collaborative place. Let's all improve the encyclopdedia together and include the sum of all human knowledge. All the best, Sendero99 (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error- This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, I had raised the request for the mentioned block, But you have declined it. I have cleared the browser cache and I am not connected to VPN either. The Subject line is the exact error message I am getting. Please suggest what do I do now. Thanks. 2409:40F3:F:8909:E4A1:F9ED:A5B0:E946 (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that you edited this page means that you are not affected by a block. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
🤔 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assist/intervention on WP:ANI[edit]

Hey there. Could you help take a look on this issue regarding User talk:Visnu92? I do have concerns that particular editor has no intention of seeking consensus on his rampant addition of Tamil scipts. Thanks. hundenvonPG (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HundenvonPenang I'll take a look, but it is unnecessary to post on ANI and then also solicit admins personally to intervene- ANI is watched by all administrators. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. Apologies, I was wondering too as I have some concerns and I posted that some hours back but haven't seen any feedback. Feel free to let me know if there is anything I could do better too. hundenvonPG (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #81845 [edit]

Greetings. CheatCodes4ever (talk · contribs) has emailed me requesting a review. TBH, I done three already and am disinclined to restore TPA for another trip to WP:AN. Could you give it a fresh, thoughtful look and decide? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I turned it down, I don't think it would be a good use of time. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hailing you from the recently active admins list[edit]

Would you mind reviewing and handling this small thread? The complainant is frustrated because they've unsuccessfully tried several times to get an administrator to respond. Either way, thanks for your time. City of Silver 20:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, never mind, the offending user was blocked the other day. My mistake, please ignore. City of Silver 20:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

Thank you for considering my request to unblock. I would like the block lifted so that I could participate in any future discussion. I have already pledged not to participate in the discussion that led to my block. It has already been acknowledged that I did not violate any rules or guidelines. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "perhaps so" there refers to your final sentence in that request, not to you not violating guidelines. I am unwilling to unblock you to participate in a hypothetical future discussion; if there is a specific discussion you wish to comment on now, please say so. You may also make a new unblock request for someone else to review to see if someone else is willing to unblock. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very disappointing. Since I promised not to engage in the discussion that led to my block, it feels like the block is punitive, and not in line with the stated reasons for blocking: protect Wikipedia from disruption.
Since the request for unblock has now been rejected 3 times, I cannot fathom a 4th admin lifting the block. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe unblocking must benefit the project in some way. Since you can already edit literally every other of the millions of pages on Wikipedia, and you have not indicated a specific need to edit that particular page now, the block is preventing you from very little. Happy to reconsider when you want to discuss something there. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit is that there won't be a cloud over my head. Keeping the block could induce a snowball effect of more blocks.
If you don't want to unblock, perhaps you can reduce the block from indefinite to time served, or some other reasonable finite time? Where is Matt? (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My advice is that you ask the blocking admin if your pledge is sufficient for them to remove the block themselves. If it is, they will either remove it, or just say so and permit someone else to. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Am I right in reading the block log that the block was imposed today? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to lift the block if WiM will just say they'll stop calling people following policy "revert ninjas who weaponize ONUS", and indicate they understand the issue. This wasn't a block I wanted to make, and I spent considerable time trying to discuss with WiM to avoid it. Valereee (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:51:20, 15 December 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Mgjanulaitis[edit]


Hello, I followed the format of another business which I sold my company to years ago, Veriato (Veriato), however, my page was rejected and looks very similar from my vantage point. Can you please share with me what Veriato did to have their article accepted so I can do the same?

Mgjanulaitis (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mgjanulaitis We don't need the whole url to link to another Wikipedia article or page, I've fixed this for you.
Please see other stuff exists. These other articles you have seen could also be problematic, and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us, this is not a reason to add more inappropriate articles. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community. If you would like to help us, you are welcome to identify other inappropriate articles you see so action can be taken. We need the help.
Much of the Veriato article is indeed inappropriate, and I have marked it as such; the patent infringement lawsuit may be enough to make the company meet the definition of a notable company. In terms of your draft, in addition to the comment I left there, awards don't contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize. You need significant coverage in independent reliable sources that choose on their own to discuss your company and what they see as important/significant/influential about it, how it meets WP:ORG. A summary of the activities of the company or its offerings is not significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

this is the slowest moving DRV RV ever if it's the one I think they're irritated by. Happy Holidays! Star Mississippi 02:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you 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/Dec23}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages. 

★Trekker (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

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 2024.
Happy editing, Jerium (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jerium (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writerwiki2020[edit]

Thanks for blocking Writerwiki2020. As you may have noticed, this Draft:COLIFE was previously (re)created by Clapperboard2.0, whom Deepfriedokra suspected of socking but didn't block at the time. Is that worth doing now? Could save opening a SPI case. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably should be, so I did. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings[edit]


Christmas postcard featuring Santa Claus using a zeppelin to deliver gifts, by Ellen Clapsaddle, 1909
~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello 331dot: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year!
Hello 331dot:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, 331dot![edit]

Happy New Year!

331dot,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference terrorist01 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference terrorist02 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference boffey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:331dot/Archive_17&oldid=1195374133"