User talk:331dot/Archive 10

Hey 331dot:

I appreciate you participating in my changes. I am concerned that you erased everything I wrote. The wiki page I encountered was sorely underdone, lacking a lot of details, and lacking references. I provided extensive references for my additions. I am concerned that you didn't make minor edits, rather than erase all my input. Please discuss this in 'talk' with me rather than erase entire paragraphs. I made a number of updates to the 2020 Maine Senate Election, including recent topics relevant to the election that I thought were those most relevant. I hope we can resolve our editorial differences amicably rather than report vandalism.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:DD21:22D7:53C0:A906 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy saying an entire paragraph cannot be removed. Length of residency has not been made an issue in the election, add it to the candidate's articles. The burden is on you to discuss, see WP:BRD. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The residency issue was not my only concern. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: The is a source from Maine News Center. It has two references to this article. What do you mean there is no reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.116.143 (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References are not the issue. The issue is Wikipedia policy in writing about living people, WP:BLP, which requires complete accuracy. Please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned citation, not me. Moreover, this has nothing to do with providing unfactual or erroneous material about a living person.

These are the facts as reported by various Maine and national media:

1. Information was submitted sometime in the first half of 2018 to Maine authorities that rep. Bates was accused of underage sexual behavior with girls where he teaches (an all-girls school in Maine). 2. Gideon did not call for his removal or investigate. 3. The Bollard magazine published additional allegations. 4. Gideon, in response to the publication, asked for him to resign. 5. Bates resigned. 6. House rep. Sutton brought an ethics vote against Gideon for improper handling of the situation. 7. The House voted along party lines to reject the vote.

I welcome any additional facts, things I am missing. But, again, this is an important aspect of the campaign, just as the two candidates positions, controversial or otherwise. But I will not have you continue undoing the contribution for specious reasons. People have said it is unsourced (untrue). I sourced them. Then you say it is not factual (clearly false). Then others have said it is irrelevant, and uses bizarre language. These reasons are bordering on the absurd, and again, I will raise the concern of vandalism once again. You need to say specifically just what is unfactual or inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:9479:6E32:CFCF:841 (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of the references:

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/08/28/politics/maine-house-to-vote-on-investigating-handling-of-allegations/

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/08/20/news/democrat-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-resigns-maine-house-seat/

https://freepressonline.com/Content/Download-the-current-issue-as-a-pdf/Eye-on-Augusta-2015-18/Article/Eye-on-Augusta-House-Rejects-Order-Calling-for-Ethics-Investigation-Concerning-Sexual-Misconduct-Allegations/93/778/60709

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/08/08/republican-lawmaker-calls-for-vote-on-ethics-committee-investigation-into-allegation-against-dillon-bates/

Also, did you 331dot erase the talk page about this from the 2020 Maine Senate page? I can't find it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:9479:6E32:CFCF:841 (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It would have been more appropriate to continue discussion (consensus) rather than to use control and suppression (have user: Airplaneman lock the page.

I didn't say you were paid; I asked, given your persistence in repeatedly undoing my edits after I make the improvements you ask for.

WP:BLP: Yes, I agree about using neutral language, heavily referencing, etc. But having a vote on someone for a potential ethics violation as Speaker of the Maine House, 51-72 is something to mention.

Your conclusions are also specious: be more circumspect in your inferences. I am not sympathetic with Senator Collins, nor am I against Speaker Gideon. I believe that important, well-sourced references to key events expand knowledge. I fear you are motivated to protect Gideon, which is not acceptable.

As to your conclusion about Fredette: he said they didn't likely have enough votes, and, once Bates quit, that this was something they could move on from. It doesn't mean it wasn't a significant event.

I'm happy to pare down the blurb, but to suppress it and not allow it is wrong, unethical, and partisan.

Who said: 'potentially not handling it well'? She had 51 people vote that her handling of it was unethical. Trump wasn't convicted, but he still had a substantial minority of people vote to impeach him. That is noteworthy even though he is a living person.

I have given a very clear, fact-based account of what happened. You have not. You still have failed to explain which of any of the facts I cited which are inaccurate.

I welcome any additional facts, things I am missing. But, again, this is an important aspect of the campaign, just as the two candidates positions, controversial or otherwise. But I will not have you continue undoing the contribution for incorrect reasons. First you say it is unsourced (untrue). Then you say it is not factual (clearly false). Then you say it is irrelevant, and uses bizarre language. Your reasons are bordering on the absurd, and again, I will raise the concern of vandalism once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:9479:6E32:CFCF:841 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of the references:

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/08/28/politics/maine-house-to-vote-on-investigating-handling-of-allegations/

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/08/20/news/democrat-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-resigns-maine-house-seat/

https://freepressonline.com/Content/Download-the-current-issue-as-a-pdf/Eye-on-Augusta-2015-18/Article/Eye-on-Augusta-House-Rejects-Order-Calling-for-Ethics-Investigation-Concerning-Sexual-Misconduct-Allegations/93/778/60709

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/08/08/republican-lawmaker-calls-for-vote-on-ethics-committee-investigation-into-allegation-against-dillon-bates/

A majority of the House voted to impeach, not a minority. The Senate did not convict. I will not discuss this here further, please use the article talk page. Removing BLP violations is not vandalism, but you are free to pursue whatever you wish. The article will not be turned into a Speaker Gideon hit piece anymore that it will be turned into a Senator Collins hit piece. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help.. i appreciate it. Milestoneinstitute (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot,

I got a notification about you suspecting my publication as a spam,advertising or promotion. I am reaching out to you after reading all the guidelines of Advertising, marketing or public relations and do not believe that I have violated any of the guidelines. However,since we (me and my teammates) are new here would like to know and learn what needs to be submitted with our information to validate the information. We would be more than happy to submit any documentation if needed. Once again I do understand that we must have done some error but with you guiding me I am sure we can fix it.

Many thanks,

Ojas Joshi. Ojasjosh (talk) 09:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)ojasjosh[reply]

Ojasjosh First, you edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place for the named Wikipedia user to introduce themselves to the Wikipedia community in the context of their Wikipedia editing or use. It is not a place for the named user to tell anything and everything about themselves. See WP:USERPAGE for more information about what is permitted on user pages.

Second, you seem to have a common, fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is. It is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is only interested in telling what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the subject say about it. Furthermore, while not forbidden, autobiographical articles are highly discouraged on Wikipedia, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you in essence would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources state about you. Most people cannot do that. If you want to try anyway, you should use Articles for creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia.

Lastly, accounts are only for use by individuals and may not be shared. You should be the only one operating your account and should grant no one access to it. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I seemed to be cutting across you at User talk:DeweyDecimalLansky, but I was concerned that they could just sit out the 48-hour block and then be editing freely with the legal threats still standing. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but no apology is necessary. I thought that I was close enough to the timing of their post that they might respond, that's the only reason I waited a minute, but I have no objection at all to your action. This is a team effort. :) 331dot (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're most gracious. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Can you look at Special:Contributions/2604:6000:CCC8:2800:F557:99D3:40BD:59F5 if you're online at the moment? I've already warned them twice and posted at WP:AIV, but I have a feeling they're not going to stop until somebody stops them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) 31 hours anon only --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this Deepfriedokra. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You around? Kindly ping while replying. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

usernamekiran Yes. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will send you an email —usernamekiran (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sent. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

usernamekiran I have received your message. Thank you 331dot (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went offline soon after making the edit, and I realised it later that I hadnt conatcted an admin, I must have gotten distracted by something IRL. Just now I saw you also had edited that page. See you around —usernamekiran (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I want to retrieve deleted material for further editing. how can i get the page text back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linaotboga (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linaotboga What is your connection to the company? 331dot (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I use the services of the company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linaotboga (talk • contribs) 19:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do the honors here, i also recommend salting. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My mind got deleted back in February, I think by COVID-19. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you are doing well. I see that you salted Bilal Abbas Khan in 2018 due to repeated recreations by Pakistanpedia. Since the actor is now WP-notable, but has his article at Bilal Abbas instead, could you please create a redirect to the latter? Thanks, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:152.32.113.96 created User:Kyere314 and kept on vandalizing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question about what is my motivation to help artists? I can ask the same questions from Wikipedia helpers? What does motivate you to help me or others?! I think that's how we help each other to grow and to make information accessible to the public. I do editing books in my free time and nobody is asking me why I help to edit the books, with due all respect please let me know also who is a notable person in your opinion? Bahman Tavoosi as a young filmmaker has been recognized by international media and film festivals, how could he not be a notable person? It was easier in the past to edit Wikipedia but I find it more difficult to help Wikipedia nowadays. Regards Inception 111 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)inception 111^[1][reply]

Inception 111 I'm here because I want to help this project. I am not helping artists or writers or athletes or politicians or any group of people other than humanity as a whole, so they have access to this collection of human knowledge. If you are helping artists, how do you find them, or how do they find you? Do you stand on a street corner with a sign? Advertise on the internet? If you help them out of the goodness of your heart, that's wonderful- but it's also a rare thing without having some sort of interest in the subject, be it financial or personal, so please forgive me if that is the case.

Who I think is notable is not relevant, Wikipedia has a notability guideline for filmmakers; Mr. Tavoosi must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet that definition or at least the broader general notability guideline. I don't think the article does that yet. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply, I don't wish to recite our own interest when it comes to art. I have my own reasons to follow people or help any artist that not yet promoted, in this case, of course, I have seen the films and saw his talks but yes I would love to help artists ( as in my small community I do), same as you do for the humanity as a whole, but we try to help Wikipedia to put the puzzles together to make it whole. As an artist, I know how important it is to be recognized especially in the film industry and that's my whole motivation. Now that I am retired would like to contribute more to that if it doesn't become too much of a hassle. As for being a notable person, I hope you had a chance to look at the information that is provided on his page, he has plenty of sources which are listed on his page. Thank you for your attention.Inception 111 (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)inception 111^[2][reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum to provide recognition to artists or to any person. That's just promotion. Wikipedia exists only to summarize what independent reliable sources state. If Mr. Tavoosi is aware that you are helping him, even if he's not paying you, it is still a conflict of interest. If that's not the case, then fair enough. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said here that the subject should confirm their identity. However, identity verification via OTRS is only necessary if the user is blocked under Template:Uw-ublock-wellknown. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

• There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
• Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
• Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
• There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.58.163 (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not super important but I was wondering if you saw the email I forwarded to you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. Thank you for passing it on. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you blocked User:Chevytrucks=? Was there any reason beyond the the user name? that is not actually the name of a company, although it does strongly suggest the company, and that user did not do any promotional editing, that I can see. Why was not the user warning message about an inappropriate user name sufficient. If you felt that a block was essential, why not use the {{Uw-ublock}} or better {{Uw-softerblock}} both of which say that the user name is the sole or primary reason for the block, and both of which specifically invite the user to request a change of username along with the unblock? All the user had doen was star the Wikipeedia adventure. Please remember that our rules for usernames are nowhere explained during the registration process, so how is a new user to know that a name is considered a violation? Saying thst the user name ...is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia as {{uw-uhblock}} does seems to me over the line of WP:BITE. Am I missing some fact which would lead to a stricter block? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel The only reason I hard blocked was because this was their second effort at a username, after I soft blocked Fordtrucks. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that suggests even more that this person is not here for promotional purposes, but is some sort of fan, and therefore that a block is even less warranted. I ask you to unblock and replace the block with {{Uw-username}} or a custom message. Such a block may be technically valid, but strikes me as quite unwise. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 331dot. Thank you so much for removing the block!

I will once again apologize to Mr. Drat8sub on his talk page. thank you for helping me. Thank you.

BRICK93 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to get upset if insisting he is notable does not work. I have failed to convince them. Maybe you will achieve it. I hope so. Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know that :Charlotte Crosby is blocked only from editing Wikipedia,but since I is account too,whenever I open Wikipedia using his account, t says 'unavailable'.Please lift the block and solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr VeduFIFA (talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr VeduFIFA If you can edit this page, you are not blocked- but what do you have to do with a blocked user? And why did you move this page? 331dot (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review request. Thank you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, You posted the discussion to WP:AN, not WP:ANI. Adam9007 (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007, you're right quite. I distinctly remember selecting AN from the drop-down menu and the edit summary suggests that I did [1], yet all of my notifications are apparently pointing to ANI. Seems to be a problem with Twinkle. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you can find the thread here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. TBH, I think a compromise of collapsed infoboxes (see Frank Sinatra), would gradually end the passions around the topic :) GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can an autoconfirmed user move my draft to article space immediately? Is that advisable? Or should I wait for my draft to be reviewed? I was hoping you guys could help me move it? Thanks.

MediaManager1 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaManager1 Unless one is very experienced in article creation, it is strongly advised to submit drafts for review by independent editors using Articles for Creation. It's better for the encyclopedia and better for you, as any issues are found before the draft is formally part of the encyclopedia, instead of afterwards when it will be treated more critically. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply! Sorry, I submitted my draft for Article Creation befor I received your message. Can I still submit this draft for review even after submitting it to be created as a live article?

And how can I know if someone is an independent editor? Can an independent editor help me move my draft to article space if he or she is autoconfirmed? MediaManager1 (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaManager1 An independent editor is anyone other than yourself, the subject, or others in your organization. I would strongly urge you to allow the submission process to play out and not attempt to move the article (or have someone do it) yourself. Is there a particular reason you are very intent on getting your draft in article space? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the reply. Also, I replied to someone regarding sockpuppetry accusation.

I would like to share my reply with you, too: "Yes, you are correct. I was EditorManagerPH before I was MediaManagerPH, because when I signed up as EditorManagerPH, I didn't realize that I would be logged out. I forgot the password I used, because I thought I wouldn't get locked out, and figured I could change it in the future. But when I couldn't get back in because of multiple wrong passwords, I just created a new one. There was no bad intention or malicious reasons behind it. It was simply ignorance on my part. Now, I am logged in for 365 days on Wikipedia, and made sure I remember my password. Hope this clarifies it, and get the Wikipedians to be lenient as I have been very forthcoming about this issue. Thank you.😊"

MediaManager1 (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Special:Contributions/118.137.248.125 --WikiBayer (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to deal with this at present, please make a report to WP:ANI or WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me to make changes on my company Article Syedmehmood11 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syedmehmood11 I can't help you make changes to an article about a subject I know nothing about. In any event, the draft has been rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your company. You are required to make the formal paid editing declaration on your user page, please do this soon. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can i make a company Page?? Like others company haved Syedmehmood11 (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syedmehmood11 Wikipedia does not have "company pages". Wikipedia has encyclopedia articles about companies. Those articles are typically written by independent editors who take note of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. A company only merits a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, and Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results for your company or helping your customers. If you want to tell the world about your company, you should do so on your own website, social media, or other alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Recently I recanted a statement I made on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Elijah Joyce. Could you remove the part about me wanting to disrupt wikipedia to make a point? Thank you. CurrentWeather (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck that comment; comments should not be altered if they have been replied to, in order to preserve the logical flow of the discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:TH#Texas Elections and Politicians: Errors: Is it just me, or is there something weird going on here? Between the long gap since last edit, long gaps before that to seemingly useful edits, the bizarre claims in this post, and the follow-up on their talk page, maybe a compromised account (or operator)? It doesn't seem like garden-variety trolling. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Most of their edits seem to be about Texas in some way so it's a local if that's true. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please block user:OtraCuenta0909 for vandalism ASAP. She clearly won't stop until then. CLCStudent (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Template:Connected contributor to my talk page. Can we resubmit our article? Rogriverac (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rogriverac I'd suggest you avoid using "we" as it suggests that multiple people are operating your account. Your draft has been deleted, but even if it hadn't been, it would not have been accepted for the reasons I indicated on your user talk page. Please review the information and links I posted there. Your draft was largely sourced to your company website, which does not establish that your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You also wrote it as an advertisement for your company and not a neutral encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, or how it describes itself and what it does, only in what others completely unconnected with the company have chosen on their own to say about it. 331dot (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on the zscaler proxies at WP:AN#zscaler_proxies and you may have an educated opinion to offer. I'm unclear on what our policies and best practices suggests, around zscaler. --Yamla (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as part of a training session, I'm helping User:Kidspacepasadena improve their page—starting with adding citations and eliminating promotional content/tone. These edits are being made by someone affiliated with the organization but in the interest of complying with WP policies. Can you reverse this block on their account? They are working in good faith to make the corrections needed there. StaceyEOB (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StaceyEOB I made the block because of their username and the fact that their username suggests they were an employee of the museum, but they had not made the required paid editing declaration. They should also avoid directly editing the article about their museum as they have a conflict of interest, but they may suggest edits on the article talk page as edit requests. If they propose a new username on their user talk page and agree to both make the paid editing declaration and only make edit requests henceforth I would lift the block(they don't even have to do this as a formal unblock request). 331dot (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like she can't do that because she's blocked, and can't discuss with you here either. She said KP1979 for a username. Fine to make the edit requests instead of bringing the page into compliance herself.StaceyEOB (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StaceyEOB She still has access to her user talk page even while blocked; I didn't prohibit talk page access. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can act if needed but I would prefer she ask herself. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello manager 331dot, I want to start a clean start. I have announced on my user page that I need to do something else or not.--GB Eika (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "manager", I am an administrator. Is there a reason you are telling me? You don't need to inform anyone unless you are under sanctions from the Arbitration Committee, in which case you need to inform the Committee. If your old account was blocked, you can't do a clean start until the block is removed. 331dot (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No, my account has not been blocked and I have forgotten my password. Thank you for your information.GB Eika (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you
	for helping me so much Dart2.0 (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
• A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
• A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
• An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Hi.

I requested Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheNameIsMuhammadHusayn. It wasn't clear to me who the master was, but I didn't dig too far. If you know, please update the case. In the case, I mention-ping'd Cullen, who blocked the last one.

I didn't request CU originally, but as I dug around, I found an obvious IP, which I added, as well as the (empty value?) |CURequest= parm to the {{SPI case status}} transclusion at the case page. Is there anything else I need to do (I see it's in the right categories, but the status table still has it in the non-CU group – I don't know how often it is supposed to update). Thanks. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very knowledgeable about the SPI process, but it seems like it's okay to me. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup – it's moved to the CU group now. I primarily wanted to see if you knew who the sockmaster was (because of your message on their talk page). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 14:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I based that on their own statement that they had used other accounts, I didn't know what the account was- but if someone admits to that, it's usually true. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you tell me which is the correct way to create an unblock request for my case? You wrote that my request was not an unblock request, what did I do wrong and what must I do to ask to unblock my IP range (1 year is far too exaggerated)? 151.21.88.41 (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that you are blocked from editing only a specific article(partial blocks are new). Your statement was not an unblock request(though you correctly formatted it as one). Please read the unblock appeals guide to learn how to write an unblock request likely to be accepted, but the short version is that you need to demonstrate that you understand what you did wrong, that you won't do it again, and describe what constructive contributions you will make. Since your block is only from editing a specific article, you will need to explain what changes you wish to make to that article and how you will go about it. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had already seen the unblock appeals guide before writing my unblock request, in fact I used the template {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here ~~~~}} as written there. What was wrong with the form of my request? I said that the page was edited by a number of IP ranges and that it is not correct to block this specific range, but, as requested by the last user who reverted a vandalism, the most optimal solution would be protecting that page from anonymous and maybe new users, also considering that during the last year the only anonymous who edited the page was the vandal. Do you agree with my argument or is there something I said you disagree with? 151.21.88.41 (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You used the right template, but did not do what I describe in my post above that you needed to do. You were blocked for the actions of whomever is using your IP or its range. That's what your request needs to address. If it wasn't you, then say so. If it was you, then do as I ask above. Saying that the article should be protected instead of your IP range being blocked is not sufficient as that does not address the actions of those in the IP range. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right, then tell me if something like this can work please: "I am not the vandal who disrupted the article Dredg, he used also other IP ranges than this, not just here but in other wikis too, so please unblock this IP range and, rather than that, protect the page (as requested by the last user who reverted the vandal, who did not asked for a block but for a protection), in this way the vandal will not be able to edit the page using other IP ranges and this IP range will not be punished more than any other." 151.21.88.41 (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot guarantee you success, but that is a better unblock request. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that partial blocks allow for the targeting of a problematic IP range with a specific article, as opposed to protection which prevents all IPs from editing an article. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) 151.21.88.41 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331Dot! I just wanted to show some appreciation by thanking you for helping me at the tea house, the noticeboard, as well as in other ways since I’ve been on Wikipedia. Thanks again! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It not sound good , but I really not aware of this, I am not here for the promotion purpose. Actually I run my business and I just want to create my company profile just for the users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altafshah11 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Altafshah11 Wikipedia does not have "company profiles", not one. Wikipedia has articles about companies. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company or share its existence with the world, even if you are not selling something or soliciting customers. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use social media or your company website.

You will need to read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and make the required declarations(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory). 331dot (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Should I add the block of 843Name47Muhammad487296 to the case page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheNameIsMuhammadHusayn/Archive, or is it enough that they're in the category? If I should add it, should it be a new section named "06 September 2020" (date of the block) or ...? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure it's enough to be in the category. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in answer to your question:

I was asking because I want to become a spellchecker/vandalism remover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeycatcat (talk • contribs) 11:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You and deepfriedokra are participating in unnecessary policing over verifiable facts about artists. According to MusicBrainz, Discogs, iTunes, Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal and the 6,000 other digital platforms, Dorian (rapper)'s new album is entitled "True Support".

The fact this has become a back and forth and turned into a talk page discussion is stupid. I assume you are a working adult. As am I. Arguing about album titles on the Internet on Sunday evening is a waste of both of our time. Stop deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HireMeWiki (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in home video was a disaster, by IP address is so mad. It says, "STOP IT, YOU STUPID!!!! YOU LEAVE THOSE PAGES ALONE!!!!", "LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!", and " I SAID, LEAVE THOSE PAGES ALONE, YOU BLOCKHEAD!!!!". I Want you to Block This IP address is feeling 😠.NewAnimationMan (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP address due to personal attacks in edit summaries, including a death threat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you please help me with this. I am just a few days old on wiki.

I have edited a page multiple times and wiki says that I am doing it for payment. How to resolve this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arti Koul (talk • contribs)

Arti Koul I don't see where someone has said you are a paid editor. The article you edited has a tag which says paid editors may have edited it, but that might refer to other editors; I see at least one possibility there. If you are not a paid editor, then you have nothing to worry about. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special:BlockList/175.33.139.143 apparently didn't work: Special:Diff/978802319. Maybe because the block was on the redirect WP:Help Desk, not WP:Help desk? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC); updated —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's it. I'll fix it. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Hinako Takagi. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that, and why wud i want to use it huh? 46.43.176.74 (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for showing me this really helpful list, I'm currently reviewing it right now and would probably use it majority of the time I'll be adding sources to page. Thank you again! Willygeorgina (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LoganBlade (talk · contribs) is requesting unblock at UTRS appeal #34747. Would like to carry to WP:AN and restore TPA --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with you doing those things if you see merit in doing so. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like to message users when I delete their creations, and I use User:Deepfriedokra/g11 where needed. But I'm seeing more biographies G11 tagged, and I feel I need a fresh message or an adjustment of the current one. Would you mind commenting at User talk:Deepfriedokra/g11#Adjusting for biographies to help me help them? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

• The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

• The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
• Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

• The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
• Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

There's a redlink that is probably a typo in your remark here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am editing on wikipidia from past 4 years and have made more than 600 edits.The problem is that I lost my username and passwords three times .I recently made this new id but i am editing for years.I am from India and is native Hindi speaker with fluent english and begginer Frenxh knowledge.I hope you would make me administrater so that I can protect pages from being edited which can be tampered to create vandilism etc.Thanks. Tamilreporter123 (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilreporter123 If you've been here for four years, you should have learned by now that the smaller edit box is for section headers or edit summaries and not the content of your post(I've fixed the header). If you are using the mobile version or app you may find it much easier to use the desktop version even on a phone, as it has full functionality.

If you are interested in anti-vandalism work, you don't need to be an administrator to request page protection or report vandals. In addition, if you constantly lose your username and password, that frankly does not demonstrate good qualities in an administrator, as administrators need to keep their accounts secure. 600 edits is also too low for most users who participate in nomination discussions. We're trying to save you a lot of grief and disappointment by telling you that you would almost certainly not be given the toolset at this time. I would abandon any thought of getting it right now. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Tamilreporter123 (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have drafted this page - Draft:Atif Afzal (music composer) - adding neutral information per WP:NPV using WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS references. I have also worked on improving with the help of other community editors, as you can see in the page history. Requesting you for your kind review. Thanks.

--AAComposer (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you for some advice regarding a number of incidents performed by a recent IP editor. Checking the block-log of this user, this Long-term Abuse article comes up with extremely close behavior as to what I've witness/what is current occurring. More specifically, the most recent comment on that Long-term Abuse page hits the nail on the head on this IP's current behavior. I am not sure if I should proceed with this, and if so, where I should report this to. Any advice is extremely appreciated. Thanks, Transcendental36 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP in question. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance, Transcendental36 (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t know. I thought that after a month of doing other editing on similar pages to the Republicans who oppose Trump uncontroversially and specifying how I would improve my editing as well as apologizing to all the editors involved in a friendly manner, this would be an easy unblock. Then, I modified my unblock request multiple times including fitting the exact criteria which you brought up. Then I gave examples of edits which I would make that fit the criteria. I am still not unblocked, what more can I do? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you need to worry less about the letter of policy and more about the spirit of it. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

,That's the issue and you not knowing what it means is why you haven't been unblocked. WP:5P5 and WP:IARMEANS might help. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re saying that you’re not going to unblock me just because you don’t feel like it? Please have some sympathy and unblock me from this article. I see no reason why not to Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what I'm saying. As I said, that you don't understand why you are blocked is the problem here. I have no further comment. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand why I was blocked. I was adding content that did not fit the criteria which was crystal ball type material. Such examples were “not support or not endorse mean oppose” which I understand should not be added. I have agreed to follow the article guidelines strictly and gain consensus before adding anything that may even be remotely controversial. What more am I missing? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331 Dot, I’ve seen you make various other edits. I’m not sure why you’re ignoring me. I’ve been very respectful to you since the start of this ordeal and even beforehand. I expected after a month of editing living people on endorsement pages without any problems at all, this unblock would be very straightforward. However, it has not, and I have complied with what every editor has recommended if me so far. You have said now a few times that I am unsure of why I was blocked and when I tried to ask you what I still was not getting, you were saying things like “I have no further comment.” I am reaching out to you to be unblocked from this article and instead of being sympathetic and unblocking me, you are making me realize that there is some other policy that I broke. I am still understanding of that, what I’m not understanding is your lack of willingness to explain to me what further step I can take to become unblocked. You’ve already been dragging this out for a while, just tell me so we can move on Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lima Bean Farmer, I think you would be better served by addressing your question to the admin(s) who blocked you rather than 331dot. The blocking admin would be able to tell you what behavior caused your block if that is still unclear to you. Also read the blocking reason in your block log and any messages that were left for you. It is usually not a mystery. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Lima Bean Farmer: Interjecting here as you seem to be becoming over-heated. You will need to show that you can edit non contentiously and constructively in other areas. For at least six months from the imposition of the block. Frankly, I see your comments here and on your talk page as excessively aggressive and strewn with borderline personal attacks. You might want to consider taking a deep breath and stepping away from this topic for at least six months. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LizDeepfriedokra! I should probably move this conversation to my talk page after this so that 331 Dot doesn’t get a million pings (which I’m sure you already have, sorry about that!). As for contacting the blocking admin, I have done so and both blocking admins have said they will no longer handle the matter. They did not say they were for or against a future unblock of mine but that they are removing themselves from the matter. As for me understanding why I was blocked, I can see why on the page itself. I think I have addressed all of these problems in my unblock request, but 331 has said that I didn’t. Maybe you could help? I just want to know what I can to do in order to get unblocked. As for Deep Fried, it’s good seeing you again! I wanted to get another admin involved but I didn’t want it to be seen as canvassing or anything like that. It would look as if I was just trying to override 331’s judgement which I would not want to do. I have taken the last month away from this article and have been editing highly contentious articles (mainly endorsement pages) and have ran into no troubles since then. Also, I have apologized to all involved editors and many of them wished me luck. I have not been overtly hostile at all. I did get a bit annoyed with Boing said Zebedee after they refused to explain what I had to do, got upset that I couldn’t see what was in green, and then refused to remove their opposition. However I worked it out with them on their talk page and our interactions since have been friendly. They have recused themselves from this matter. I have not attempted to be hostile with 331 here, although it may have can across that way and I apologize for that. 331 was one of the first people to help me out when I joined Wikipedia and I greatly appreciate their work. What I’m just a little frustrated at is their refusal to explain to me what I’m still not understanding. I clearly addressed the policies which I was being blocked for and when I asked they gave me an article about how Wikipedia has no rules. I’m unsure how to interpret that. I think I have already shown I am competent enough to edit this article and waiting 6 months (5 months after the election is over) is kind of a silly request. I specifically have been trying to demonstrate my competency by being careful about my editing this past month. I thought this would be open and shut. Instead, I dealt with one admin who was hostile and now another one who won’t explain to me what I need to show in order to get unblocked. All I’d like is for someone to tell me so I can edit this article again. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer: Impossible for me to read green and tiny font. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra, I believe I have fixed it. Apologies, thank you for bringing that to my attention! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say any more than I have already said. I endorse the advice given to you by DeepfriedOkra above. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to cause you to lose trust in me, and I hope to have more positive interactions in the future, but anything more I have to say would just be repeating myself. There are some things we all (including me) have to figure out ourselves in this forum. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331 Dot, of course you don’t. I see there is reason for you to keep me blocked. I’m sure being annoyed by editors like me isn’t your favorite thing to do on Wikipedia! But ok let me get this straight

Problem: Blocked for editing warring

Solution I will take: Discuss, don’t revert, come to consensus, rfc if needed on talk page

Problem: Violations of wikipedia:OR

Solution: I will only look at articles containing the initial information (not an analysis) and make sure it states an explicit statement of opposition.

Problem: Violations of wikipedia:SYNTH

Solution: add only reliable sources that have explicit opposition. If I’m unsure or believe it will cause controversy, I will ask for opinions on the talk page before adding.

Those are the reasons I was blocked. More specifically, I have agreed to not consider “won’t endorse” and “won’t support” as opposition due to consensus. I have read all of your comments on my talk page and your talk page. The only thing outside of this realm that you addressed was a thing saying ignore all rules. I’m not sure how to interpret that. Other than that, I think I have addressed all of the issues. Do you agree with that? If not, I am specifically asking you to directly tell me exactly what I should do/be doing/not doing so that I can resolve this issue. And please don’t say that you’re just repeating yourself, I have addressed every issue that you brought up or that was brought up on my talk page and block. If there is anything else, it was not explicitly stated and I’d like to know for the future, for getting my unblock and for editing better in future (just in general). Once again, thank you for your time. Even though you currently disagree with my unblock, I hope you can at least understand my frustration. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to take DeepFriedOkra's advice above. If you do not find that satisfactory, you should make another unblock request so a heretofore uninvolved administrator can evaluate your request. This isn't about me. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer: There's like a gazillion articles on Wikipedia that need improvement. There are many projects looking for help. Your options are staggering in number. You can view some of them at WP:Community portal. I think it not unreasonable to ask you to edit something other than the one article out of millions with which you have problems. On a personal note, there are many article and subjects on Wikipedia I should not edit. This is not onerous. Thee are many other things I can do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have not interacted except in passing. I would like you, please, to take a look at User talk:Greenock1998 and consider whether I have acted correctly in this warning, and whether the editor has acted correctly in their posts that I have highlighted. I find it hard to assume good faith when I see posts like those I am callig out, but I am prepared to withdraw if I am advised to do so.

I have chosen to ask you because I think you have also not been involved with the editor concerned. You also understand the AFC process and the tasks that reviewers perform Fiddle Faddle 23:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with your warning, and I might add to it. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for your opinion. I believe discrimination of this sort to be counter to the purpose of Wikipedia Fiddle Faddle 23:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I think there may be a case for revdel here, I almost fired the big ANI gun but felt it ought to be raised assertively with the editor first Fiddle Faddle 23:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less certain that a revdelete is warranted, but I'm approaching the time I must step away until tomorrow. Feel free to bring this up with someone else. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We will see how the editor reacts, I think. There is also the impugned editor's reaction to consider. I am way past the time when I need to step away. Thank you for your help Fiddle Faddle 23:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot,

If you have any time, I would appreciate it if you could bring your knowledge to this discussion.

I was hoping to solve a problem of excessive deletionism which is based on poor arguments and evidence, but it's becoming the same go-nowhere debate as on the Deletion pages - it really needs an outside view.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sports seasons and bulk deletions / nuisance nominations

Best wishes, Demokra (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeaaaaah we are having a party up in heeeerrree. Apple Event yahooooo yeah oh yeah Hockeycatcat (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I ask you why my draft will not be considered further (as per your comment)? It seems I followed all the rules and include all the necessary references to the article. There are similar articles with even less information on Wikipedia. So, why mine has been rejected? I'll be grateful for your advice! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IutaJack (talk • contribs) 08:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IutaJack Please see other stuff exists; other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. 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. We can only address what we know about. Standards can also change over time so that what was once acceptable is no longer. If you'd care to point out these other problematic articles, we could use the help.

The reviewers gave you their reasons for declining the draft, if they had thought there was a chance of the topic meeting guidelines, they would have only declined the draft, not rejected it as they did. Please review those reasons and the policies described therein, as well as your first article. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don’t mind but I deleted the whole thread at the tea house since it was the improper place for that type of thing. Not purposefully trying to delete your comments or anything, just letting you know! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is inappropriate, Lima Bean Farmer. Once someone else responds, you have lost your right to remove the section. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it, but you told me “It is not a venue for lobbying to get your block on one article lifted” so I deleted it. So why do you have a problem with me deleting it? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because 331dot had responded twice, and it was an active conversation. Other Teahouse visitors can learn something from the thread. If you had posted and then reverted before anyone else had commented, there would be no issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a dispute with another user for a while [[2]], so far the discussion was very unproductive so I asked for a 3rd opinion. He makes accusations, when I give him a reply, he makes the same accusation, when I make the same reply he accuses me of "repetition", despite being merely the same reply to the same accusations he keeps making. The moment he loses the argument, he starts switching to ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself, with the conversation leading nowhere. He has often misinterpreted me in the past, but this time he went one step forward. In the RFC posted above, the said twice that I said something I in fact did not say: [[3]] and [[4]]. He argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it.

When in fact, I did no such thing. I wrote a reply with diffs explaining that I in fact did not: when I asked him for a source - [[5]] and when he replied not providing a source - [[6]]. He then posted one of his diffs as "evidence" that I indeed agreed with him - [[7]]. Where it stands to common sense, that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not a diff where you say that I said X. He then moved the goalpost, saying it was about an older source not this one, despite his original "funny you start to deny again I provided a source" being a direct reply to my "you failed to provide any source for that 10% claim", and the RFC being about this one. Now he keeps insisting in a bravado that "the fact that you acknowledged later I provided a source on the matter, is openly readable at the page", despite that not being the case. If that was the case, he could have easily posted a diff with my post, just like he posted a diff with his post. He is trying to lie that I said something I did not say to make me lose credibility in front of the RFC. I understand cases of misinterpretation either deliberate or by mistake, but this is completly another level, he is putting words into my mouth. What can I do? LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if you solicitate administrators with such nonsense, when already you failed once with this issue. After you've accused me about 5 times of lying not priving a source, after and administrator warned you at AN3 this is not a good direction (also, may be read on your talk page, more editions ([8]), you acknowledged your mistake (You provided a source -15:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)), anyone may check at the the Hungarian irredentism talk page.[reply]

Now, at the Hungary in World War II talk page when I was referring back to this issue, you replied : "Again misleading and fallacious argumentation, I provided 2 sources while you provided nothing."

- Conclusion: after you realized finally what a big mistake you did again by denying what you acknowleged before finally after an administrator warning, you try to explain yourself in a misleading way by citing in issues that did not happen 1 month ago. Do you think an admin, or any editor won't notice this? Do you think really by WP:BLUDGEON-ing all the pages you encounter will lead somewhere, denying the existence of diffs (which anyone would open would meet a compacted walloftext)? This is the WP:COMPETENCE issue and tendentiously disruptive editing you simply do not stop, despite more editors in more pages try to deal with you in a really time consuming way. Your reiterated casting aspersion "He is trying to lie", which now you continue, although especially for this you have been warned and blocked for, will have a consequence (especially you did it directly on front of an admin, which anyway may easily verify the validity of any statement). Sorry 331dot that this nonsense, also reached you, I'll notify the admin as well who originally supervised this issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• Instead of approaching me personally, please use a more appropriate forum like WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you see I did not wish to approach you, however will wait more feedback for now as mentioned, opening more discussions would just serve to endorse this copypaste/walloftext soap opera. Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Again misleading and fallacious argumentation. This narrative was already debunked and I know from personal experience that exposing his fallacies again won't change his mind. Should the admin request, I will explain how what he is saying is false. But I will do as you suggested and use the WP:ANI, thank you! LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste +1, diffs are against you, even if you expect they don't like and won't crawl through your walloftext.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, 331. Er, I had already blocked White Wolf Finance and given them a block template when you posted a COI notice on them. It may be confusing for them to be first blocked, then told that "we welcome your contributions". Do you dislike my block? Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen They had made an unblock request on UTRS and said they wanted to edit about their company. I directed them to their user talk page to make the request. The new UTRS system does not make it easy to link to pages on Wikipedia (like policy pages) so I told them that would not be permitted and that they needed to read some policies that I would link to on their user talk page. I didn't consider what the message actually said(as in welcoming them) and next time I will address that better. I support your block. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I noticed they didn't actually give any reason in the malformed request on their page that you removed. The new UTRS system sounds like a doozy, from all I hear. I had enough difficulty with the old one! Bishonen | tålk 14:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Hello. I wanted to invite you to the Current Event WikiProject as you have done edits on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates and other articles the WikiProject works on. Most editors aren't aware that the project became active again in April 2020. Just wanted to inform you about that and hope you join. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I noticed you put up a 'paid' banner on this article in January 2020. There is an OTRS queue for reports of paid editing that I am trying to work through one at a time. You participated in a help desk thread about a paid editing company, that could be related.

Thomas Mensah is a person who was born in Ghana. The image of Mensah in that article is credited to a member of Wikipedia Ghana's user group. There is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oralofori/Archive which is a complaint about someone else who turns out to be part of Wikipedia Ghana (see the conclusion at the end of the SPI: "Oralofori is apparently the Wikipedia Ghana public relations person"). Are there further steps we could take that would allow the 'paid' banner to be removed?

The queue that I'm working on is for the attention of checkusers, so they must believe that checks are justified in case of suspicion of paid socking. Are there any steps we could take that would persuade you to remove the 'paid' banner, or should any warnings or blocks be given out to those responsible? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more data point: we have an article on Oral Ofori, whose name rings a bell per the above. That article contains a link to oralofori.com. Opening up http://oralofori.com leads to https://theafricandream.co/about-us/ which sounds like a company that creates web sites and does publicity. But there is no mention there of creating a Wikipedia article for you. There is also a sort of a news blog at http://theafricandream.net which is linked to from a few places in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston If you see cause to remove the banner, that's fine with me. It's hard to recall but I think I tagged it only due to the content of the email in the talk page conversation you bring up, where the user said that article was mentioned in the email as an example of the editing company's work. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have removed the 'paid' banner for now at Thomas Mensah (engineer) If I see any overlap of editors with some of the other listed articles, might change my mind. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am concerned about the way edit request is being used by the editor Special:Contributions/EditorMax of RichmondFR and I wanted to get your thoughts as you were involved with them over their past COI edits. While responding to edit requests, I've noticed a pattern of this user making repeat edit requests in the form of what appears to be gaming the system by trying to shoehorn their articles as citations through proxy by using edit requests over numerous articles. Graywalls (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they are making edit requests before contributing and other editors are discussing it with them, I think that it's okay. COI contributions are okay as long as the COI is declared and they are requesting edits. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy @Orange Mike: as I see him in the thread. It's not clear from looking at one request, but looking at the series of requests, the primary purpose is starting to look like pushing his websites into articles through proxy with the particular editor fulfilling their requests not having an idea that they're repeatedly trying to push links into multiple articles through multiple requests. Graywalls (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC) @Orangemike: even.. Graywalls (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is Bhumi2tandon Can you please give your opinion in this matter.(Link below) Actually this is my first time drafting a page so not sure how opinion is sought here. Kindly provide your opinion so that the page can be reviewed.

Link to the discussion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sethusamudram_Shipping_Canal_Project#Proposed_merge

Thanks Bhumi2tandon (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about it to be able to form an opinion. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margie Bowes passed away October 22, 2020. I can confirm this due to the fact I knew her. I tried to change it because it had not been yet. I don’t know how to add the source, so I’m asking this be fixed to reflect her passing. Shawjt1999 (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shawjt1999 I believe what you say, but that is not acceptable as a source of information on Wikipedia. We need to have a published independent reliable source that can be verified. Even if it is just a one line death notice in a newspaper. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as I mentioned before, I do not know how to do this. Shawjt1999 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Shawjt1999, you may wish to consult WP:EASYREFBEGIN to get an easy intro to citing sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shawjt1999 First, what is your source of information? Another user attempted to source a post on her Facebook page, that is not acceptable either. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there is now a reference for the death. Please accept my condolences on your loss. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes John M Wolfson Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui Interface administrator changes Ragesoss TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla Yunshui Oversight changes Anarchyte Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

• Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

• Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
• Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
• Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

• The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
• The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

• A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

Thank you 331dot for deleting (multiple times) the above and their draft. Please have a look at User:Bigfashionnews1 also - same content but created earlier (I have open SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigfashionnews1. Have a nice day JW 1961 Talk 12:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me on my user page and at the Teahouse. Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In my opinion, the status of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh article is incorrect. If the state does not recognize it, the country to which it belongs must also be written in its status. For example, unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are not like Arsakh in the article. Arsakh's status was written by three non-UN member states. Sorry, is this important? Does it matter? However, they are unrecognized separatist organizations. Even four countries have recognized the independence of those separatist organizations. But Arsakh was not recognized by any state. Excuse me, why isn't the Republic of Artsakh article the same as the 3 unrecognized states article? Don't you think this is a double standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sword313 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessarily a "double standard" as this is a volunteer project where the people who write one article are not necessarily the people who write other articles in the same topic(unrecognized states). The article should describe this entity as independent reliable sources describe it. You should arrive at a consensus on the article talk page, in a discussion with other editors. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The submission you were referring to for 2020 Vienna attack was nominated yesterday, as mentioned it's ongoing and I don't understand why it's not on the front page considering this is a major event? --Excutient^Talk 10:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excutient The event has already been nominated and is under discussion; you are welcome to contribute to that discussion. We don't do a separate nomination of the same event for each day. It hasn't yet been posted because there is not a consensus to do so. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were issues with the blurb and it was removed so why are we waiting for another blurb lol --Excutient^Talk 10:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that we have an existing discussion on this, and any comment you have about it should go there. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, any chance you could approve my rollback request please? --Excutient^Talk 10:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance at WP:PERM tells me that in general one needs to have 200 edits or more to be considered for that permission; you don't yet have that many edits. If those that more regularly participate at PERM than I do see fit to grant it, fair enough. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have 200+ edits now, may I please have rollback rights? --Excutient^Talk 13:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have an open request at PERM, I would prefer that be permitted to play out instead of being approached personally. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I want to either correct the existing page on Tannaker Buhicrosan or set up an alternate one. Please advise? Thanks Paul Budden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Budden (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Budden If the existing article needs changes, you are welcome to make them, or if you don't feel comfortable making them yourself, which is fine, you may go to Talk:Tannaker Buhicrosan and propose them as a formal edit request(click for instructions). 331dot (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on why you want to create a new article when there is an existing one- did you simply rewrite it? 331dot (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes I did edit it as the information is incorrect according to the research I made for my book on the subject: PAPER BUTTERFLIES - Unravelling the Mystery of Tannaker Buhicrosan. But it was re edited back to what it was?

Thanks regards, Paul Budden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:14A6:2000:C9D6:B48E:BAD3:EC63 (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a lot of information without really explaining why it was necessary. As I said, if you have a large-scale change to propose, you should do it as an edit request on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I removed a lot of conflicting information that has no relevance or recorded accuracy.. I'm quite prepared to post an alternative page if that's better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:14A6:2000:C9D6:B48E:BAD3:EC63 (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've said what you can do to proceed; please visit Talk:Tannaker Buhicrosan and make a formal edit request there. If you have further comment, please edit this existing section instead of creating additional sections. Also remember to log in before posting so your posts are properly attributed to you. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting here just to give you a heads-up about continued disruptive editing from IP 209.117.66.2. I see that you are the admin who denied their block appeal back in 2018 due to persistent vandalism. I don't have rollback privileges so this revert was pretty annoying to do manually: [[9]] Would you recommend I take it to incidents or wait until further / more egregious disruption occurs? Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If further vandalism occurs, just report it to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion at WP:ERRORS surrounding the photo of Harris or Biden and what to do about it on the ITN section of the main page, I think you deserve credit for saying "look, let's just include both" given that it both solves the issue and recognizes the fact that Harris has just as much "notability" as part of the "news item" as Biden does (but for different reasons, as she won't be president). Thus, I'm giving you this custom-made recognition of that work. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear 331dot,

You rejected my content due to "Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, such as what it considers to be its "mission".

I don't tell anything about myself, it's a very good organization that I follow for many years and I think it's must be here too. And I write very objectively all that information with sources.

About "mission" while I am writing I searched many company's Wiki pages to understand how it could be. As you see YourMD's page has a "mission" section so if you can explain how they get approved I will be pleased.

Related page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your.MD

Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Secfumes (talk • contribs)

Secfumes Thank you for pointing out other inappropriate content; I have removed it. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible to get inappropriate information by us. For that reason, it is a poor argument to cite other similar edits as a reason for yours; see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your sensitivity,

I also removed the "mission" section from my article. As I said I added it after seeing from another page and removed it.

Could you suggest any correction to my article to be published ?

Thank you.Secfumes

Secfumes Please sign your posts with ~~~~ so others know you wrote them. As your draft was rejected, it unfortunately will not be considered further; it will only waste your time and that of reviewers to pursue this further at this time. This is because it does little more than tell about the organization. Wikipedia articles must do more; they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. The use of the term "startup" strongly suggests it is far too soon for an article about this company. Appropriate sources do not include the company website, press releases, staff interviews, product descriptions, announcements of routine business transactions like the raising of capital, and other primary sources. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

194.27.138.2 (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC) I understand dear 331dot, thank you very much for your time and explanation. Have a nice day.[reply]

Gah, and please always make sure you are logged in. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, but I didn't engage in an edit war or made disruptive edits. The long explanation has probably lead to a misunderstanding situation.

I was restoring the aspect of the page had before the Wikipedia:Single-purpose account user made such unsourced edits on 14th October 2020 using a currency exchange rate website that didn't show nor apport any data. I have restored the previous data just as I explained every of my edits in the page List of European countries by average wage just as I have explained every change in the talk page of Materialscientist, I still got reverted by that user who only said "he holds the real data" and accusing me of "inserting laugheable propaganda" and that kind of stuff. That happened again with myself trying to explain why his data got reverted, as it was unsourced while I got this answer in exchange.

So basically my point is asking him/her to prove the unsourced data (or why did he remove the previous data of that page) and I got 2 replies saying "people laugh at your propaganda" and "ban him, he's talking with a complex towards Italy" while I tried to mediate and I have shown proofs regarding my edits, which actually were just restoring the previous data the page List of European countries by average wage had. That's why I made an ANI against this user.

I also recall on @Deepfriedokra: to check again these edits, how can I exactly talk with someone in a talk page when I did it already and the only replies I got were like these? What I don't understand is that doing everything "legally" in Wikipedia terms, I got exactly the same punishment as the other user, while I firstly tried to solve this in a talk page just as I exposed all my arguments and sources, and instead of getting a 2nd part reply, I just got non-sense replies that didn't prove anything as well as accusations coming from this user, that's why I opened an ANI case. --Pfarla (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my decline. You don't have to break 3RR to be edit warring, and being correct in your edits is not a defense to it. You are free to make another request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the page List of countries by average wage now an Italian IP 80.117.253.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing the same changes that "Giolocam" has done yesterday, I highly suspect this might be a sock account of the same user given the fact he's 1. Removing the proper order to mess up the table to put Italy in an higher place than it belongs and 2. Just exactly after he got a partial block he's doing the same edits as he did yesterday with his account.

Can you please check the ANI? There is something bigger going on there regarding this user. --Pfarla (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting you Pfarla on the talk page. We could use the same method for Italyand Spain.I' m trying to close the edit war in civil way as several administrators required..Giolocam (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I think the person is viewing this as a trademark issue rather than a copyright issue though. If you aren't already watchlisting the page he wants edited, please consider doing so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same IP, who was warned yesterday for this sort of slurs [10] Is it possible to check registered users with this IP? It's not socking per say... I strongly suspect that 1 editor might be logging out so that he could edit as an IP in order to make more reverts. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is socking if they are deliberately editing while logged out to evade policies or scrutiny, and if that's happening an SPI may be started, in which a checkuser can be requested. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1: I was never warned, stop telling lies 2: This is my first edit. It can be checked that i do not have an account 3: Explain me and other editors how the Habsburg monarchy can be a Serb countries or regions. If you don't know history don't write nonsense and do vandalism on Wikipedia. By reviewing your edits ,you are doing this on purpose in the name of the Greater Serbia policy that led to the wars in this area. I don't understand how they tolerate it here and they haven't blocked you yet.78.1.189.150 (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to check that you do not have an account, as a negative cannot be proven. Please take this dispute off my talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the tip. This - "must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage" - looks like the key point for v2. KRL219 (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick message to say thank you for your rapid response to my request for IP block exemption!

Have a wonderful day Curt ^内蒙 02:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know a user you unblocked (see here User_talk:KRed221#Blocked) has violated the pledge they made to you and has reverted to making political edits, additionally many of these are disruptive.Eccekevin (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am so glad finally someone helped I met this guy Nizar Alsufi in Lebanon he was actually surrounded by lots of people which made me curious so I jumped and ask what is happening they say that he was famous because he taught the son of the king which he is know 32 years old maybe and he also helps everyone for free, he is so intelligent and kind, like you, I hope Wikipedia supports heroes who do great things without being seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Host 9099087 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please complete the draft for me Nizar Abdullah Alsufi because i sware i am soo tierd plz edit it and correct it I will be so glad and am so interested for my first article plz i will be so happy just do it i will do my work now. Soo bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Host 9099087 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be the best person to do that; the draft is not going anywhere and you may come back to it later, once you are rested, or even later. Drafts are only deleted after six months of inactivity. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2020_Delhi_RiotsSlatersteven (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerm (talk) has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

So i am a new user but i want to block 2601:600:A07F:8AE0:DD6A:BE9B:C072:846C because they vandalized and advertised on the Planet Zoo article. They did it on June 8, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerScientist (talk • contribs) 19:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TigerScientist Blocks are not a punishment, but are measures to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Typically the disruption must be immediate and either egregious or repetitive. I can't and won't block for one edit months old. In addition, IPs can be used by multiple people. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a distruption? "hello this is a warning that any one who thinks Wikipedia is a safe resors for your papers. it's not, everyone can edit all of this. so please make sure you check if it's correct. oh and, I love planet zoo! it's great! and if you need help each pixel Biologie on youtube she is great!!" TigerScientist (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @TigerScientist: The edit was immediately undone by a bot afterwards, so no further action is needed. Chances are whoever was using that IP to vandalise isn't using it anymore. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TigerScientist I might suggest that for your own reference you review the Blocking Policy. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot, User:Dj S UNIVERSE 'Q' has made a new sock User:THESUQ21931. Jerm (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I wasn't retired. I don't oppose reports of animal abuse to the proper authorities. Animal Control Abuse (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I finally created my new account called "Suleeabc1". Suleeabc1 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

First of all, no ill will intended in my revert, and an edit war on a talk page is the last thing I want. And I certainly assume good faith on your part, and hope you assume the same for me.

I know there is a trend, maybe even a consensus, on Joe Biden and elsewhere, to revert talk page edits on this subject. But I have to say, I fundamentally disagree. I think there is some failure to assume good faith on the original editors part, and there may also be a biting the newcomers problem as well.

Anyhow, just wanted to give you some insight into my thinking on this. Rklahn (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rklahn I respect your decision, but I think you are getting into a full time job that you may not want. It's not an issue of me disagreeing with the speech offered, but a desire to avoid repetition ad nauseam of the same misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does(summarize what RS say). 331dot (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. You are right, I do not want this job. But I do think there is some value in occasionally pulling one of these out of the weeds and expanding beyond the edit summary. But, TBH, I may not see the magnitude of the problem. I do not frequent the Joe Biden page, and my interest in the Kamala Harris page predates even her selection as a nominee for VP. Rklahn (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the clear conservatives that are doing this are not AGF of us, thinking that we are part of a conspiracy or unfounded fraud. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some people (even beyond editors) need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But I wholeheartedly agree with your statement here. Rklahn (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I have no hard feelings and wish you well. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

So on the Detachable Chairlift article, as you see it is 95% unsourced. I deleted the unsorced info but another person undid it and said it violated the neutral policy. Can I remove the unsourced parts? TigerScientist (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was reverted because the article is tagged as needing citation. If you feel the problematic text should be removed now, please discuss it on the article talk page with other editors. Note that admins are not in the role of granting or denying permission for edits; editors need to work things out. If discussion is unable to resolve an issue, dispute resolution channels are available. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You decline Koavf's unblock, but it's now at AN and your comments are welcome. Thanks! --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean by conflict. I just know that Hassan Mohammadi Nevisi is my professor and I ask you to publish this page and remove the obstacles.💖💖💖 Msmmsm1990 (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you remove and edit anything in this article that affects the interests of others so that the article can be published? Msmmsm1990 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will respond at the AFC help desk, please keep the discussion there. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! For some reason, all my edits to the page Shauna Barbosa are being deleted. I am fairly new to the Wikipedia community and there are several mistakes on that page. for instance, her list of poems is chronologically incorrect and incomplete, some facts are incomplete, others are untrue and the reference articles do not support what is written on the page. I would greatly appreciate if you either helped me edit the page or left my editing be and only checked the facts, I am not interested in spreading lies or editing fake information. Thank you for your time and effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissMoniBadia (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MissMoniBadia I've posted to your user talk page, please keep the discussion there. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Gene93k were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Insufficient references to independent reliable sources. Most of the references originate from the company or its CEO. The draft is also written in unacceptable marketing-speak.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:PanAgora Asset Management and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:PanAgora Asset Management, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

• Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 331dot! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you blocked Gremania, however, you did not revoke TPA on that account. Do you think TPA should be revoked on this account since it is revoked on the main account? I appreciate your thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it, but I prefer to give them the chance to do the right thing first(by returning to their original account) if possible. If they don't, it'll be yanked. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just wanted to hear your thinking. I think that is a fair assesment of the block. I trust your judgement. Interstellarity (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am done.--Hongqilim (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are done with, but someone else will review your current unblock request. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you know anything about our katra Vaishno Mata Alpha beast 2 5 0 1 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a user called Bijdenhandje who you helped with a block is being highly disruptive on the Young Sheldon TV page. He is edit warring over something so minor and does not appear to want to engage in discussion about it. Another user has left warnings on his page which he has wiped and it seems as if hes WP:NOTHERE. If you look at the page history he has made five reverts on the page in a short space of time breaking the WP:3RR rule. I'm asking because I saw you were on his talkpage here [11] Thankyou. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been put on WP:ANEW, so it should be handled there. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. I saw your decision to decline an unblock request here and in light of that, I was curious as to the point of a committed identity. If an account has been compromised and someone else has made vandalising edits on that account and the account was blocked as a result, then what is the point of a committed identity if it cannot get the block lifted?

Sdrqaz (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdrqaz No mention of a committed identity was made by that user, that I saw. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, that's not what I meant. I don't think they made one either. What I meant was that if there was a committed identity, would the unblock request be granted in that case? I was just considering whether to make a committed identity, in case my account was compromised. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. A committed identity can be helpful in cases of a compromised account. You can find out more here. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your prompt reply to my unblock appeal.

However, when I'm logged in I'm unable to add or edit any content due to my account being blocked (User: VZuloaga). I was instructed by the administrator who sent me the blockage notice that I could appeal via this User talk section.

Could you kindly advise on how to proceed from here or if I could provide additional information for reviewing my case? The page in question is Loesche GmbH

Thank you! 81.38.49.253 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to log in to your account and go to your user talk page, there is a notice at the bottom. Please follow the instructions there to request unblock on that page. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No such user? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra Vzuloaga. Took me a minute to figure out. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPE, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]