User talk:331dot/Archive 8

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

Shamsheer Vayalil editor again[edit]

I think there's a chance (maybe not a very big one) that this guy is playing us. After your last comment at the HD I started a response asking him to clarify his 'obsession' with the page and pointing him to WP:COI. He's used 8 or so IP addresses so far (over a 2 week or more, period) and every one of his edits have been to do with Vayalil's page. Unfortunately, I got an EC with him replying to you... in the wrong place and unsigned. I'm not sure how we handle a WP:SPA, particularly when spread over multiple IPs but it looks as thought here's some connection or 'agenda' here? As advised previously by an Admin. in respect of a disruptive editor of F1 articles I have a note of IP addresses used and talk pages where advice has been left. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comment; I must leave my computer shortly and won't have time to look into this further for a bit. Feel free to bring this up with another administrator or at WP:AN. Thanks 331dot (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information[edit]

Thank you. I think I will practice with small edits,( which I have been doing since before I signed in), until I get more comfortable with how Wikipedia editing works. Thanks again for responding so quickly. GrandmasterCheckmate (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STACKOZ[edit]

I just saw your comment in the block log. just for info - OZ is a short/nickname for Australia and the website he linked to beared the same name with an australian adress. Thank you for taking care of this spammer. --Denniss (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denniss Thanks for the information, glad to learn something. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're a 'Featured Host'[edit]

You may have seen this announcement that all the 'Featured Hosts' - whose names and pictures randomly cycle round in the Teahouse Header - have just been updated.

As you are currently one of the 29 most active editors at WP:TH, your name and an image has now replaced that of an inactive host. But because you haven't yet added yourself to the full list of active hosts, I have simply used the default image of a cup or green tea. It would be great if you would now consider doing two things:

  1. Check or change the 'featured host' image allocated to you. Edit it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/4
  2. Create a host profile for yourself, and choose a relevant 'profile picture' - click the 'Experienced editor?' button in the TH Header to formally sign up to create a host entry which new editors may read.

Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Waiting for a review[edit]

Hello. I`am waiting for a review on my article for more than 2 months now. Will my article be reviewed any time soon? I am asking because the person who reviewed before declined it and told me that he will leave the article for someone else to review it later on. It`s been 2 months and still nothing. Just wondering. Any info on this would be appreciated. Kristijanwh (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristijanwh: Reviews are done by volunteers(who do what they can when they can) in no particular order, as all drafts appear in a category that reviewers pick out of based on their own reasons; it could be reviewed in 10 minutes, or two months from now. You will need to be patient. You had initially posted this to my talk page archive; I moved it to my actual talk page(here). 331dot (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your attention[edit]

Hello, in case you are interested, the recently blocked Auxallryduck seems to be abusing the ability to edit User talk:Auxallryduck (see here). Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I privately disturb you for a moment?[edit]

Hello & nice to meet you, I just wanted somebody to check the spelling I added to current events of the current day, before being told off for insulting the English language lol. Thanks. --LLcentury (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Socratic Barnstar[edit]

The Socratic Barnstar
I had no idea how to respond after seeing the editor's contributions, but you came up with this: It is not enough to merely be correct, information must be sourced to an independent reliable source, which is unlikely for the subjective statements you were attempting to add. I am humbled by your eloquence. Orville1974 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to extend XXzoonamiXX's block...[edit]

...at least until he accepts that he is bound by it, rather than socking to continue his long-term edit warring and POV-pushing at 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and his editing of articles related to U.S. participation in World War II (specifically the Pacific Theater).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnysimms27[edit]

I usually don’t like talk to other users like this but after what I ended up seeing. I practically wish I never signed up here sometimes. That Al-Quaeda thing just scares me. The sniper scares me. I know he might’ve said it as a threat. But it just scares on how evil some Wikipedians can be. I never thought I would ever see something like that in my entire existence. I really am glad that you took care of the problem because he could’ve said something worse. I’ll be scared for a couple of days because of that writing. A.R.M. 03:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARMcgrath I don't blame you for feeling that way. I can say that I've seen that exact message before and not just here, it could be a message that has been copied and reposted around the internet. All such messages should not be easily dismissed, but in this case, the first clue that they don't mean it is that the message referred to "gorilla warfare" and not "guerilla warfare". 331dot (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SIJOPTG2[edit]

Sorry to step on your toes a bit there, but the user is a  Confirmed sockpuppet and blatantly trolling. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MostynMom and unblock request[edit]

I'm willing to unblock based on the most recent unblock request. I was wondering if you had any lingering concerns. Sasquatch t|c 07:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasquatch: I would prefer if the user would agree to not edit about their clients at all for a period of time(at least 6 months) given that they are in marketing and SEO, so they can develop an edit history that shows they can make proper edits. Given their statement "I was unfamiliar with the topic that I was given to update" I'm not sure I believe her statement that "I'm not specifically paid to update their Wikipedia entries." I would like to, but I can't support an unblock at this time given what I know now. However, since they state they will use edit requests, I'm willing to not oppose an unblock if you are satisfied. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the user if they would voluntarily accede to such terms. If they do, I will unblock and see where it goes from there. Sasquatch t|c 10:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NC[edit]

I am willing to discuss the issue here. Leave the edit alone till we hash it out. I believe you will be persuaded by the points I will make. First, Wikipedia is based on good faith editing. The people who I said are notable are in fact notable and it would be a disgrace on their memory and everything they did in their lifework to dismiss their contributions just because there is not a page yet devoted to them. I can edit in citations later after we agree on how to proceed. Next, the citation you mentioned for Yanceyville being on some list of poor places is under dispute. I feel it is unfair to say ok, let's smear the town based on a disputed citation. Once that dispute is settled and it's settled fact or not then we can safely base what is said about the town on the page devoted to it. I hope this makes sense. Otherwise, anyone can cite anything, and it can be disputed - but the smear still stands as truth indefinitely, in some cases, for many months if not years. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peabodyb I meant the article talk page, but this is ok too.(this is a user talk page) No one is smearing any town or disrespecting any person. Wikipedia goes where the sources go. The source was accurate at the time it was added, and it should not just be removed. It may need to be put in context or rephrased to reflect the age of the statistic. We don't delete Abraham Lincoln because Donald Trump is currently president.
In order to include someone in a list of notable people, there must be an article about them. This is longstanding Wikipedia practice. (see WP:SOURCELIST, "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well") Otherwise, there is no way to know if the person is actually notable for verification. I would suggest that if you believe these persons meet the notability criteria for people, that you create the articles for them. Wikipedia is not a memorial to any and all people regardless of any good work they have done. 331dot (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to further discuss this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, but you are allowing,in putting it back, a reference to nothing that is supposedly providing evidence of fact. Have you clicked the citation in question? There's nothing there that supports the claim. You basically just did a disservice to Wikipedia and I wonder how many other articles you mess around with without bothering to see if the citation is at all relevant. Are you a high school student, or have you ever had to write a research paper of substance - because you can't just put citations to things that bear no relevance to the point you're making. It's no wonder at the grad school level it's looked down upon to reference Wikipedia. I can see why now. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained how you can proceed. Grad schools are quite correct in not using Wikipedia as references as Wikipedia is not a reliable source and does not claim to be. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019[edit]

Hello 331dot,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Do you mean I have to give my IP or his IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmvarco (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JC7V7DC5768[edit]

Hii, This user is hard blocked by ArbCom 2 months ago, Can you remove their special user rights? Are these rights permanent? Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 13:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't ArbCom have removed them? I would suggest asking the blocking admin. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Okay Regards! -- CptViraj (📧) 14:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristijh[edit]

The dilemma lies in that I think it is compromised and under control of a vandal and I do not want to aid in block evasion.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We might be at the point where there is nothing to be done about it. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politikk[edit]

This does not say it's a CU block, but can he not appeal to arbcom? Little hazy on that. That's all he's got left if so.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim I hadn't considered that; I don't see why they couldn't try. You can propose that, unless you'd like me to. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the worst that could happen is they decline to answer and someone reads me the riot act for suggesting it. What about asking the blocking admin first? Oh, I already e-mailed DoRD. Trouble is, on reading the SPI and my brief discussion with DoRD, I believe this is TIAYN. (sigh)   Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I need to not duck the hard parts.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is TIAYN as well. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

119.224.3.221[edit]

It appears that 119.224.3.221 does have an account based on recent edits on his talk page.[1][2][3] He's obviously accidentally posted using his account and then tried to cover it up. Isn't this block evasion? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Newslinger. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, CCN Markets, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Newslinger talk 01:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user BoogieFreeman and possible new account[edit]

@331dot: Hi. I wasn't really sure who to notify, but as you were the admin who blocked BoogieFreeman I thought it best if I informed you. I've been made aware of this user and their edits, primarily those concerning the articles for the main installments, and article on the franchise itself, of the Uncharted video game series, which I have an interest in and made a number of changes to in the past. What I had noticed from BoogieFreeman is that most of their Uncharted-related edits involved (usually unnecessarily) extending or re-wording large swathes of prose for various sub-sections, or using questionable terminology e.g. a game receiving "wholesale critical acclaim" or otherwise including something in the lede that conflicts with what's in the article.

My reason to bringing this user up is that I have strong suspicions that, since being blocked on 30th May 2019, they have created a new account called TinTinHunter, whose first edit was on 12th June 2019. Aside from editing some articles on pop culture, they have also edited those on sporting personalities and football (soccer) seasons, similar to what BoogieFreeman had also done. The grammar and length of their edit summaries are also very similar. What really stood out to me, however, is that I have noticed in the past week TinTinHunter reverting large section(s) of the prose in the articles for Uncharted and Uncharted 4: A Thief's End to the previous edits that I know BoogieFreeman carried out (see my prior paragraph on editing examples). I just thought it very unlikely that an entirely different user would revert back to how certain paragraphs were written, weeks after they were changed by another person.

Obviously as BoogieFreeman has been blocked, if they have created a new account then their problematic behaviour and editing may still continue. What is Wikipedia's policy on creating a new account? Is this sock puppetry, or does this only apply to two accounts being used concurrently? On the other hand, perhaps this matter is of little importance and anyone is allowed to make a new account and edit as they see fit, being blocked only if they disobey the rules of Wikipedia? Please can you kindly advise. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibenboy94: If a user is blocked, it is sock puppetry and block evasion for them to create a new account; they must be unblocked first. Otherwise, blocks would be ineffective as any blocked user could just create a new account. I would suggest that you start a sock puppet investigation so that additional eyes can look at it besides me. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Just curious, but how long roughly does it take for investigations to clear and the use of sockpuppetry confirmed by a clerk, or does this vary due to the circumstances? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there is no specific timeframe; like everything else on Wikipedia, volunteers do what they can when they can. It also may depend on the circumstances. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Troll[edit]

Greetings! Our UTRS troll is back. :-( If you review an UTRS appeal that contains a threat to sue or other legal threat it is likely to be them. Please refer such appeals to Tool Admin for email/IP ban without replying. Thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just Chilling I was wondering what to do in that circumstance. Thank you very much for the information. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EWBCORP[edit]

Hi 331dot

Back on 1 May you blocked EWBCORP (talk · contribs) for "advertising or promotion" and non-compliance with the username policy. I suspect that the same set of users are back under the name NewEWB001 (talk · contribs). The account has been used three times, in each case to update the East West Bank earnings report.

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia for Biography[edit]

Thank you so much for your help. They were actually reached out to by a company to create a Biography, and I was asked to gather info from family and friends and coworkers. Of course I'm in my beginning stages, so ALL info is helpful. Thanks again! Tia Tropicana (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tia Tropicana: Note that info from family, friends, and co-workers is not acceptable; information must be in published independent reliable sources(for verification purposes) that shows how you meet the notability criteria for people. If you are saying that you were approached by a company offering to write you a Wikipedia article, I would strongly advise you against doing so- and most importantly do not hand over any money up front. A company cannot make any guarantees to you about any article they will write or promise you a certain result(such as guaranteeing that it will not be deleted) despite what they might say. You may want to read Your First Article to learn what goes in to writing an article. It is not as easy as many people think it is- and it is harder when one has a conflict of interest, is a paid editor, or is attempting to write about themselves. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources state about you. While technically possible, most people cannot do this; I've been here many years and yet to see it happen. Anyone you hire must also declare that they hired you and will be blocked if they do not do this. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Discussion
Please explain the difference between the placement of endorsements. You are inflating the value of one candidates endorsements over another. This not only provides a continuity issue but also misleads readers toward believing that only the incumbent has been endorsed which is not the case. If you are making the argument that only candidates that are party nominated can have their endorsements placed there then you are also providing misleading information as Susan Collins has not declared she is running and there are multiple Republicans in the Republican primary for Maine's senate seat. Doc2830 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between an endorsement for the general election and an endorsement for the primary election. Sen. Manchin, for example, endorsed for the general election as he wants her back. It is true that Sen. Collins has not expressly stated that she is running again(though she is raising money), but the endorsements for her are general election endorsements, not primary election endorsements(as she does not yet have a credible primary challenger). As the Democrats do not have a nominee yet, no one has endorsed the Democratic candidate because there is not one. There have been endorsements for the Democratic primary, which are listed there. We cannot control who endorses which candidate at which time, but it is up to us to place them so they are associated with the correct election. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up[edit]

The KKKMMM1488 account was a candidate for a hard username block regardless of the socking. Not sure what region of the world you are from, but KKK equals Ku Klux Klan, and 1488 is Fourteen words. All white nationalist stuff. Not sure what MMM is, but I'm assuming @Jorm and Beyond My Ken: would know if it was some racist nonsense. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely a neo-Nazi username, no fucking question.--Jorm (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I figured something was up due to the evasiveness. 331dot (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"MMM" might have something to do with this. If the account was from Australia, that would make the connection more plausible. In any case, it's not something I've seen before - but the "KKK" and the "1488" are enough to indef it, IMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I see now that it is a sock of MMMcMaster, so that explains that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of unsigned template[edit]

I see that from time to time you use the {{unsigned}} template. You may not have noticed that the template says: "This template should always be substituted." Not doing so means that there is additional clutter in the page's edit history when a bot comes along to correct the transclusion. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Biddulph I assume you caught me omitting the substitution; I try to do it but I obviously did not in this case. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Thank you 331dot (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saonmedia[edit]

Hi 331dot. Thanks for taking care of this case. I was wondering if it should be clearer to the editor that this is probably not so much a case of mere connected contributions, but most likely paid contributions. This should be relevant. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 20:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

proposed deletion of Tim Tech Consults and Musasizi Timothy Karubanga[edit]

Hello 331dot, I kindly request you to take time and go through the above mentioned pages.I created the above pages with the aim of letting Ugandans and other people around the world know about them. Tim Tech Consults is one of the biggest companies in Uganda which have not been on Wikipedia. And its founder Musasizi Timothy Karubanga is a youth influencer, motivational speaker, Ange investor and award winner of Young entrepreneurs awards 2016.I gave them reliable sources but still Domdeparis nominated them for deletion citing Undeclared paid edit , something I strongly disagree. I don't know the subjects of the pages mentioned physically and I did it in good faith. I don't know if this is an attack or something because I have created so many pages for people and companies I don't know or I'm not connected to. I request you to help me get out of this challenge of having most of my work deleted because it waters down my efforts as an editor. Check my editing history and the pages I have created, you will find out what I am telling you. Warm regards Agaba Perez (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hello my account has blocked due to useless edits. I had failed in unblocking it can I create a new account. 2405:204:419F:FACB:E8AC:70FF:FE81:1018 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been blocked, you are evading your block by posting here. You should not create another account. You should return to your account and make an unblock request, as the block notice you were given describes. You can also read WP:GAB for information on how to craft an unblock request likely to be accepted. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User talk:Kayvon2008[edit]

User talk:Kayvon2008, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Kayvon2008 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Kayvon2008 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kayvon2008 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bridging action[edit]

Thought I'd better put up a report to ANI about user:OvertounBridge but you beat me to it! ANI report withdrawn, thanks for your action, . . dave souza, talk 19:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious editing[edit]

On 9th August Environmental technology was edited by a series of seven new editors. None of the edits were useful but none amounted to vandalism. All of these editors made other edits, none of any value , and a couple made 10 edits. Several made edits to their own sandbox of copy and pasted material. Then they stopped. It looks as thouigh this is the set-up of a sleeper cell for some future purpose. I had thought about filing a report at SPI but I could see no grounds for that. I have avoided directly linkng to any of their usernames to avoid giving them notice of this enquiry. Should I be concerned or is this just paranoia? Any advice welcomed. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Velella Looking at it quickly, it looks to me like a group of people advocating for some sort of environmental cause. Possibly a group at a club or organization of some kind. It might just be worth keeping an eye on to see if they persist in their efforts. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS question[edit]

Hi 331dot! You put UTRS appeal #26306 into the Tool Admin queue without noting what action you were requesting. Could you please clarify? Thanks, -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo Please accept my apologies. I've placed a quick comment in the request. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize! Just wasn't sure what you wanted done with the request. All taken care of now! -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AN page edit[edit]

I saw your note. I don't agree that the edit wasn't needed. Civility is a policy and the language used was not civil. That is a reason by itself to edit the comment. Also, the comments actually made more sense without the profanity, so I actually didnt change the meaning of what was said. I also realize Wikipedia is not censored, but that's for articles, not talk pages.

I'll leave the edit alone though, as I also know BRD is policy too! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it was something worse than what was there, like the F word, I might agree, but in general it's not good practice to edit the comments of others. Personal attacks can be redacted(there's even a template to do so) but otherwise other people's comments should be left alone in most cases. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To some people the "g" word is worse than the "f" word , so it's a matter of perspective. Just saying! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of anon and FPSfan3000‎‎[edit]

Thank you for that. Tried to give them a stern warning, but they just didn't heed the message. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of User talk:Qwjhdsj[edit]

I was about to block indef as block evasion from User talk:Kusimbii and see you gave him a short block. It is definitely block evasion, after the previous account was blocked for posting the same content to Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Please take a look and see if you want to change it. Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 19:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexf: That's a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. Surprised to see them back so soon on enwiki. They've taken lately to trolling much smaller projects. GMGtalk 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks -- Alexf(talk) 20:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had just acted to stop the disruption initially. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

If User:ProudCitizen looks for reinstatement, please let me know. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sebastian Based on their last statement, I don't think that's what they are going to do, but I will try to remember. It sounds like they intend to sock. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they will. I wish there was a way to preventatively note the narrow IP range and monitor it for activity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

Hi 331dot. Can you delete User:NOGooks/sandbox? 大诺史 (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thanks for your answer to my question.foobar (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you mail![edit]

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

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for UTRS response and help.--Kingbjelica (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello.[edit]

Hello. I want to ask you for the suspension of my accounts, "User:인천직전" and User:아이린스카. Due to the matter of my Korean accounts, I stop using those accounts and make the new account for new starts. I wish you may read this and help my problem. Thank you. 웬디러비 (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
I have seen you regularly helping others and wanted to let you know that your contributions are appreciated. Many thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable[edit]

I see you blocked this user's first account. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The second choice was a tad better as it didn't suggest they had some official function here as their first choice did. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was amazed they recycled "group" after you told them "we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website". But their third try is finally fine. Bishonen | talk 01:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

user:Nmairead[edit]

user:Nmairead is deleting stuff on with out a reason and might being impersonatibg Mairead Nesbitt, a lot like how someone was using Lisa Lambe's name on Lisa Lambe. Could you check it out? Kay girl 97 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An enormous chunk of the article was a copyright violation which has now been deleted. Please do not add or restore copy-vio material . Tanks  Velella  Velella Talk   22:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Johnny Test (season 1)[edit]

I reverted the edit but before he/she changed the rating to TV14, and vhanged multiple episodes names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.187.226 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you attempt to discuss the matter should they attempt to readd it, per WP:BRD. If that fails, you can then make a report to WP:ANEW or WP:AIV as appropriate. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JustDial Edit Reversed But Why?[edit]

I recently updated information on JustDial Wiki page. But it got overturned due to the fact that it fel promotional. In reality, JustDial launched two new services which I rightfully added under their already existing Products & Services paragraph. And I am no way associated with the entity that there is any kind of promotional benefit for me. It was an update to their line of products. I even hyperlinked for authenticity. Please look into the matter and do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLister (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olamide Zaccheaus[edit]

I would like to know why this page was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcaholic (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falcaholic It was deleted because articles that have been deleted per the result of a deletion discussion (as this article was, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olamide Zaccheaus) cannot be recreated until the reasons for deletion have been addressed. In this case, this player does not yet meet the notability criteria, WP:GRIDIRON, as they have not yet appeared in a regular season game. Merely being signed by the team is not enough. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted twice though the 1st time he hadn't made the roster or anything he was just an undrafted player that could never make the roster. He has made the roster and has yet to appear in a game, but that is not valid reasoning to me because there a plenty of wiki pages of player that never make a 53 man roster and are always on the practice squad. Look at these examples never played an NFL down still have a wiki page Ryan Nall, Manny Wilkins, Christian Blake, Emanuel Hall, Nick Fitzgerald, and Brett Rypien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcaholic (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falcaholic Please read other stuff exists; other potentially inappropriate articles(note, I have not examined them) existing does not automatically mean your inappropriate article can exist too. Each article is judged on its own merits. I only addressed the article in front of me. You are free to return to the deletion review discussion you initially started, but I suggest that you wait until Sunday to see if this player enters the game, which would resolve the notability issue. If he appears in the game, I would be happy to restore the article. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Profkvela (formerly Cacicamedia)[edit]

Hi 331dot. I've removed the block you placed on this user, per a new username and an adequate unblock request. Just dropping by to let you know; any issues, feel free to ping me. Yunshui 雲水 07:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:81.108.53.238[edit]

Could that be a cookie block? [4]. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely clear on what that is, but it seems possible. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JustDial Page Edit Reversed But Why?[edit]

I am writing to you again. I recently updated the information on JustDial Wiki page. But it got overturned due to the fact that it felt promotional. In reality, JustDial launched two new services that I rightfully added under their already existing "Products & Services" paragraph. It was an update to their line of products and all I mentioned was facts. I even hyperlinked for authenticity. Please look into the matter and do the needful — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLister (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheLister The edits you made were not sourced to independent reliable sources, and one was not sourced at all. Wikipedia is not interested in what the company says about itself, Wikipedia summarizes what third parties state about it. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiConference North America in Boston 8-11 November[edit]

Your userpage notes that you live in Maine and do admin projects on wiki. Thanks for the admin projects.

I am writing to invite you to WikiConference North America in your region in a couple of months. If you want to see how this event was last year, then check the previous schedule. Join if you have interest and availability. I appreciate what you do on wiki, thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, WikiCon is a super fun experience. The last one was only about five hours drive away from me. But I'm probably too far from Boston. If you can go you totally should. You'll meet a lot of interesting people. GMGtalk 00:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the information, and thank you, but my schedule and situation won't permit me to go at this time. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship Village Vietnam[edit]

Hi 331dot!

I wanted to take you up on your offer to act as a intermediary between the revisions to the Vietnam Friendship Village page. I have declared my conflict of interest in my user page per your request, and I have put up a draft Here.

Please let me know what you think of my revisions, and I would be happy to make any changes you see as being necessary.

Thank you for your time! TylerBinghamNiagara (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm about to say may sound harsh, but I don't mean it that way. I simply want to be clear to give you the best possible information.
So the first thing I can tell you is that the mission statement needs to go. Mission statements are wholly unencyclopedic. They are impossible to independently verify, as any organization is free to change its "mission" at any time. Mission statements are also usually just flowery language which describes what the organization does in a favorable manner. Wikipedia is not interested in how an organization describes its own mission; it is interested in how independent sources describe it.
I see the organization's own website used as a source; this should be avoided except in limited circumstances(that are described at WP:PRIMARY). Again, Wikipedia isn't interested in what an organization wants to say about itself.
The Development and Projects section is almost completely unsourced. The section on volunteering should be removed, as it is unsourced and seems like the only possible source would be the organization itself.
The documentaries listed in the Media section either need their own articles(and would need to meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable film) or need independent sources. :You are certainly free to get(and I would even suggest that you should) other opinions, by submitting the draft for a review using Articles for Creation, but I truly believe you will be told something similar to this by other reviewers. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about sounding harsh, this is the kind of information I need. I have been thrown into someone else's project and very much so needed to know where their copy stands in regards to wikipedia's rules (I even said to my partner before I posted this that I had a feeling wikipedia would hate how much of this was uncited and self-cited). I appreciate your blunt response, and your direct remedies. It makes this easier for me in the long run.

Thank you for your help TylerBinghamNiagara (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Hello 331dot,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trumps Height[edit]

stop adding in line that its been disputed as the claim is mere speculation it would be like adding in a line to obamas birthplace by saying it disputed and linking to a claim that he was born in kenya 148.77.10.25 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Not only is that discussed, there is an entire article on it at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it has it's own page it's not mentioned when it says he was born in hawaii according to you his page should say "Obama was born on August 4, 1961,[6] at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii." "This is disputed" and link to the page you reference.148.77.10.25 (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but that's not the point, as Trump's well documented history of telling outright lies to the level of thousands over his term(I can cite that if you really need me to, but any Google search will reveal that) makes it quite reasonable to note that his official height is disputed. However, I am not invested enough in this matter to pursue it beyond what I have said here. If there is a talk page discussion on this, I may or may not comment. Good day. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Winged Blades of Godric. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Tin Zar Maw, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

∯WBGconverse 10:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on 6 pages[edit]

I've noticed vandalism on 6 pages. The dates of the episodes were changed. Here are the pages.

  • Johnny Test (season 1)
  • Johnny Test (season 2)
  • Johnny Test (season 3)
  • Johnny Test (season 4)
  • Johnny Test (season 5)
  • Johnny Test (season 6)

Can you undo the edit? 72.76.127.231 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO![edit]

Hi. I'm contacting you in regards to your reply on AsmiGCU Talkpage. I am new to Wikipedia and quite honestly I feel hesitant to delete an article. I think that the article should be deleted but that doesn't mean it actually qualifies for deletion. This is why I was hoping if an Admin would see the case and decide what to do with the page. This article has no citations and has literally 2 paras, whereas it's 'counterpart' (?!) here has more detailed info. I'm not fully familiar with the Wikipedia lingo and quite frankly, I was more confused after reading this article, instead of getting some answers. -AsmiGCU (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AsmiGCU Administrators have no more authority than any other editor; just some extra buttons. It is not up to administrators to determine if a page should be deleted in most cases (unless we are talking about speedy deletion or proposed deletion). Usually there is a community discussion about it, at the end of which an administrator will assess the discussion to determine what happens. That's why I pointed you to the AFD page, but I can understand that it is daunting to review. Please say again what your reason is for thinking it should be deleted? I haven't reviewed the page yet. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no citations and has literally 2 paras, whereas it's 'counterpart' (?!) here has more detailed info. So if detailed info about one thing already exists, then why should there be another article of the same thing? Although its best if you take a look for yourself! :)|AsmiGCU (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-editing[edit]

I apologize for re-editing against the rules. I’m editing from my phone and figured it wasn’t working so I re-edited. I will no longer edit. As far as being neutral on your part, if there are no legal definitions of terminology, why are you choosing a far left definition. Why not only allow the legal terminology. Why do you allow and lock from re-editing your demeaning terminology for those that are “far right”. You are far from neutral and terribly biased. If you are willing to remove my bias, why don’t you remove the bias from what’s already there. PartyLike1776 (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock[edit]

Can you compare the edit histories of CineFixTV (whom you blocked) and TVexpertfan2019? It looks like the same person creating multiple sandboxes of the same kind of content. Still, I don't know if this is a problem if their username problem has been addressed with a new account. That's why I didn't take it to SPI without consulting you first. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I soft blocked the original name, it's not socking. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The helpdesk is for helping...[edit]

...not for offtopic discussions about whether you've actually read the page section you linked to and some offtopic stuff. Poveglia (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to keep going but remember the law of holes. Poveglia (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poveglia I am aware of the purpose of the Help Desk. I object to you closing a discussion to which you are a party. Please allow someone impartial to do it. I certainly am not going to reply if you don't wish to participate, but I am quite comfortable with my position and views. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to participate; but why do it there where it is super confusing for someone who just posted a request on a helpdesk? They don't want to see us squabbling. I was very surprised to find an admin userbox on your userpage. Would it be better if we talk here? Poveglia (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
People close sections they're involved in all the time. Literally. Happens 10 times per day. If you want to have the WP:LASTWORD then you can have that here, its your talkpage, but let's not confuse the newcomer. Poveglia (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[5] GMGtalk 21:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: Seriously the first thought that crossed my mind was about you! Our conversation was hilarious. Poveglia (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed you'd be happy having the offtopic stuff collapsed because it would make your mistakes less visible but apparently that assumption was not correct. For that I apologize. To be honest I am kinda curious how you would reply to that thread; especially after your comment dated 21:38, 23 September. Poveglia (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little interest in having the last word. It seems that we simply have very different methods of operation here, which is fine. I am willing to hear any comments you might have about any mistakes I made. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I am honestly curious about your point of view (because I do not understand it at all!) and the storm in the teacup died down I'll try to explain my point of view. If you would be so kind to explain yours then we may end up understanding and even agreeing with eachother! I am using partial quotes out of context; feel free to correct me when I misinterpret them or misunderstand your position or what you were saying. You wrote: "Please see WP:REALNAME". I clicked that link and it links to a section about usernames. The "username" of the OP was an ipv6 address. That is what I would consider to be a mistake. There are a bunch more but this may be a good start. Poveglia (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point in bringing up realname was that a process exists to verify the identity of individuals claiming to be someone for whom an article exists about them; this is to guard against impersonation. We don't just take their word for who they claim to be- even if assuming good faith. If someone claims to be Barack Obama, we don't just take their word for it, even if we have no reason to doubt it, we ask for it to be verified. This is to protect both Barack Obama and us at Wikipedia. I was trying to suggest that the same be done in this case. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is a bit of the puzzle solved. I think we can agree that it is super-unlikely that Obama himself would show up at the helpdesk, but someone who is slightly less famous might. I do not think it is super-unlikely that this person is who they claim to be.
Per AGF I do not accuse the person of lying; I just check if the sources agree with them. In this case they did partially; the date matched but the year didn't.
I think its rather impolite to assume/claim/suggest that someone is not who they say they are when there is no evidence to the contrary and it is not unlikely that its them. Poveglia (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, verification helps the person, too; it's not just about the Wikipedia end. However, I accept your good faith, differing point of view. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update to a Wikipedia Page[edit]

Hello,

I need to update a wikipedia page. I tried to do it but sections keep getting deleted.

Can you please help me?

Thank you.

Sheree Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shereemartin2010 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shereemartin2010 You are adding promotional content to the article about what I presume is your company. This violates several Wikipedia policies, including WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject wants to say about itself, only in what independent reliable sources state about it. Please read the information on your user talk page before further edits, as you must make some mandatory declarations. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

It is not my company or my page. Is there someone I can give edits to so it can get updated?

Please advise.

Sheree Martin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shereemartin2010 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shereemartin2010 How did you come to edit the article? Also please sign your future talk page posts by putting ~~~~ at the end. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to edit it as a 3rd party, independent writer. Can you please tell me how to get it updated? Can I send someone the info in a word doc? Please help as I need to get this done asap.

Thanks Shereemartin2010 (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You must review and comply with the Conflict of Interest policy and the paid editing policy. The latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. Please read the information I put on your user talk page to learn more about your situation and what you can do, but the information you were attempting to add will not be accepted. In addition, Wikipedia has no interest in any deadlines you might have from the company. Feel free to show them this message. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Truth[edit]

Verifiable facts form the truth, that's a given, but Wikipedia seems to be infested with people who deny them. For example : my edit about England's no go zones was removed even after I cited the relevant BBC article. My article about Anti White bias syndrome was scheduled for deletion when I had just written the preamble and no content whatsoever was posted. Your highfalutin advice fails to impress me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magatism (talk • contribs)

Magatism It was not offered with the intention of impressing you, just for information. You also did not accurately summarize what I said, but your username suggests to me that you aren't really interested in what I said anyway. If you are here to be a truth fighter, things likely will not go well for you. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is as unbaised as a peg-leg on a listing ship. 67.52.60.180 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

You just undid an edit I had made, without bothering to explain why. You put grammatical errors and extremely sub-encyclopaedic writing back into the article. Why did you do that? 46.208.236.192 (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my explanation from your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a silly message that gave no explanation of anything. Try again. 46.208.236.192 (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have already exceeded WP:3RR. If you have concerns about an edit, you must discuss it with the other user in a civil manner and not edit war. It is true that you are under "no obligation" to make any edit, but you do need to be civil and collaborative, respond to inquiries, and discuss issues. Continued edit warring will result in your being blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained why you undid my edit. Did you even read the text you put back? 46.208.236.192 (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you removed my explanation, you were edit warring. Being correct in your edits is not a defense to edit warring, you must discuss the issue with the other editor and then use WP:DR if that discussion fails. If you don't accept my explanation, there's nothing more I can say. I get the sense that you are not new at this despite your IP indicating you haven't edited before today. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your email[edit]

Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, now, thanks for resolving that matter. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bite[edit]

Information icon I noticed that a message you recently left to 68.68.183.110 may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Your harshness was in the Mark Dice talk page.--Thinker78 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with this comment. Methinks you should reexamine what "biting the newcomers" means. It does not mean what you think it means. General Ization Talk
I simply think it was unduly harsh.--Thinker78 (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thinker78 I appreciate you giving your opinion, but I think that it was harsh to tell editors that we all lie and are all communists. I think I was a lot nicer than they were, and I don't think that user is interested in contributing to Wikipedia so much as they are interested in being a truth fighter and pushing extreme right wing views. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people who think Wikipedia has a liberal bias. The way you answered was pretty much reinforcing that view and made it look like as if Conservatives are not welcomed in Wikipedia.--Thinker78 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia will continue to summarize what independent reliable sources state and let readers decide for themselves what is true. See WP:TRUTH What precisely about that answer "made it look like as if Conservatives are not welcomed in Wikipedia"? General Ization Talk 22:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome persons of all views, and don't feel my comment communicated otherwise. What I do not welcome is attacks on other editors, such as calling them communists and liars generally, without cause. I personally know many conservatives who do not do that and are capable of interacting with editors who hold different views civilly and collaboratively. The person I responded to does not seem to be one of them. I stand by what I said. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@General Ization: Ummmm the concern is about the other part that you did not write, "No one forces you to read Wikipedia. You are free to find your own echo chamber that will tell you what you want to hear and better fits with your political views". I don't know about you but for me this looks like it is admitting to the charge of having a left bias and that it is telling the editor to go elsewhere because this is not a place for conservatives. I don't say it says that but that it looks like it is saying that. As an administrator, @331dot:, you probably shouldn't have taken the flaming bait though. But we all have our days I reckon that. We are human after all.--Thinker78 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as saying that we deal in (reliably sourced) facts here, not punditry or POV. On occasion, the facts are unflattering to conservatives and/or their causes. If the editor (or you) interpret that as meaning that we are unfriendly to conservatives, so be it. General Ization Talk 00:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christinna Kuan[edit]

I notice that you deleted Draft:Christinna Kuan as blatant advertising. The article has been recreated at Christinna Kuan. I can't see the deleted content of the draft, so I don't know if the promotional content is the same. I removed some puffery from the new article, but it still looks iffy to me. Is it a G4 or G11 candidate? Peacock (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I started a related SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carsson Tan. Peacock (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PCock I don't recall there being a deletion discussion so G4 would not apply, and the texts are different enough IMO. The re-creation is much less blatantly promotional so I would probably have a difficult time deleting it as G11 IMO. It probably would need a discussion(though it would probably succeed). That's what I know as it stands now. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (film) edit warring feedback[edit]

I wanted to follow up and say I appreciate the feedback the other day, and think you didn't get the chance to see I am all for collaborating with others. But thank you for the feedback, and hopefully we have better engagements going forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco685 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bold[edit]

Will remove all added emboldens sections, however, I feel that these edits do add to the clarity, readability and overall quality of this article Jlkeck1138 (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jlkeck1138 The edits have already been removed. It shouldn't be necessary to bold the headers, as the header is already appears bold and has separation from the text itself. This isn't done on any other articles that I am aware of. If you can cite a specific policy to support your edits, please do so; otherwise, you will need to achieve consensus for your proposed edits. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Gumshoe97[edit]

I noticed one of my comments was reverted, why is this??? Gumshoe97 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I removed your comment from the Teahouse talk page, as that page is for discussing the operation of the Teahouse only Please use the actual Teahouse to extend a hello to others. Thanks 331dot (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AdBuzzPR (now User:MomLifeBlogLife) sock[edit]

User:DoItAllMom put up the exact same draft that was deleted under G:11 last week. Ad Buzz PR also lists the reality show Serhant is on as a client on their company website and Emilia Bechrakis Serhant appears to have just gotten a book deal (announced literally the day after the first draft went up) as well so I think it's safe to say that this is a full-on WP:PAID editor. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Douxdeal[edit]

Hello 331dot, thank you for handling such unblock requests. Would you mind having a second look on this case please? Not sure if you watchlist such requests usually, but the user added a bit more information following your feedback - although the template and formatting are hopelessly broken, and User:Shwqs/sandbox is already taken apparently. GermanJoe (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gat you[edit]

I hope this the place to be..how can your grievances reach the government through Wikipedia??Alekii777 (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alekii777 Wikipedia is not a forum to communicate grievances to your government. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A long, hard block[edit]

Hi 331dot,

Fitting a certain perennial nuisance with Wikipedia's equivalent of cement socks is an enticing idea, but I'm afraid the consensus among the bleeding heart crowd is against the length of this particular block. Thanks for putting a stop to today's round! Favonian (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian Well, that was a big whoops on my part. I appreciate you pointing it out. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known, real person[edit]

You do know, I assume, that Pierre Delecto is not actually a real person, right? I am hoping that your use of a clumsy form to put me in my place was just a matter of expedience and not true ignorance? - 332dash (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

332dash I was not putting anyone in any place. I responded to a report at WP:UAA and took what I felt to be appropriate action. Since you proposed a new username, I assumed you did not object. If you did not want to change your name, you should have just made an unblock request indicating that without proposing a new name(someone else would have reviewed such a request, not me). Using "Pierre Delecto" would suggest that you are Senator Romney, which is why the name was reported. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I did not want to change my user name (not my "name"), and I would have submitted an unblock request, what do you imagine the odds would be of the Wiki-authorities ruling in my favor and allowing me to keep the non-real user name "Pierre Delecto", overriding your block? I have heard many of you admins back up each other, especially defending a case of injustice against a new editor.
Also, what is going to be done about user names Doc James which suggests he is Doc James Cigars, Pierre de Lyon which suggests he is Pierre de Lyon, Maddox which suggests he is Maddox, and Fernando which very strongly suggests he is Billy Crystal's hit portrayal of Fernando Lamas? - 332dash (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know how many edits you had when I saw the report so I'm not "biased" against new users(who I want to be here) or you personally; and I am offended that you think I am in a special club that backs each other up when I don't even know them. I have better things to do with my time than that and blindly backing up people I don't even know doesn't help the encyclopedia, which is the only reason that I am here. If you want to try to challenge/report the usernames you mention, I don't think you would get too far as they are all more common and general than the name you chose. If you want to change your name back go to WP:CHUS and do so. If it's such an injustice against you over a little thing than you shouldn't have any trouble changing it back and I'll accept the trout slap. I have nothing else to say. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on my Ring Laser edits![edit]

I'm happy for your explanation and suggestion about noting on the article's talk page why I removed the "dubious" tag. IrlSmith (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romney alias[edit]

I noticed you had Pierre Delecto change his username, and remembered that we also have someone using PierreDelecto. Their first two edits were unsourced changes to a BLP, but they seem to have ceased, so just wanted to pass it along for your judgment. Home Lander (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The RDX Sports page i was creating![edit]

Hello 331dot,

Thank you for your review of the RDX Sports page i was trying to create. You are right i am an employee of RDX Sports and although i thried my best to keep the tone of the write-up as neutral as possible it still seems to have over stepped the Wikimedia guidelines. I appreciate your review but is it possible for you to tell me what i can do to create a page for my company on Wikipedia? should i tone down my writing even more and use a completely neutral voice and what else? i see that a few of our competitors already exist on Wikipedia and i would like to have my company featured on Wikipedia too. this will not only lend authenticity to our brand but create awareness as well. Please do help if you can. thanks.

Sharon Lazarus — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharonLazarus (talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SharonLazarus I must be frank with you-and I apologize- but Wikipedia has no interest in creating awareness of your company or in building your brand. Those are promotional purposes and not permitted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable company). Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself. Because of these things, not every company merits an article on Wikipedia, even in the same field. Your competitors meriting articles does not automatically mean your company does too. Please read Other Stuff Exists.
Because of your conflict of interest, you should not be the one to write about your company. Please read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID if you haven't already, this is mandatory. If your company truly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, an independent editor will take note of your company and write about it. Also understand that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable; There are good reasons to not want one. Anything about your company, good or bad, can be in an article as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. You cannot lock it to the text you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it.
If you just want to tell the world about or promote your company, you should use social media or your own website. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sorting out my IP block issue[edit]

Can now update the fruits of todays research onto several local churches among other features --Roypenfold (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Mahveotm (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019[edit]

Hello 331dot,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Hello 331dot, can you rename my alternate account Ian Base to Andrew Base (alt). Andrew Base (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in the request. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to BioSteel Sports Nutrition Inc. wikipedia page[edit]

Hey there,

I'm hoping you can help me with making some changes to the BioSteel Sports Nutrition page. I understand I have a conflict of interest, which you pointed out to me in a reply.

The changes I had made were factual but have since been removed. How do I go about making them stick?

Regards,

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soucypaul (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soucypaul I don't see where you had made edits to that article, so I can't evaluate them for you- but I would concur with the advice you were given at the Help Desk. You must formally comply with the paid editing policy first; this is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement for company employees/paid editors and you can be blocked if you fail to make the appropriate declaration. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit a Post [permanent dead link][edit]

Hi 331dot, i see at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook there is a [permanent dead link].

[504] Park, N., Kee, K. F., Valenzuela, S. (2009). immersed in social networking environment Facebook Groups, uses and gratifications and social outcomes.pdf Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes[permanent dead link].

here is the new reference: https://creativerebel.de/cloud/Being_Immersed_in_Social_Networking_Envi.pdf if you want you can edit it.

thanks :-)

regards CreativeFreeze (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC) CreativeFreeze[reply]

"proper suppression" of Pete Buttigieg article[edit]

Latest edit indicates that the reason given for suppression was copyright violation, yet it does not appear to be a copyright violation.. 172.58.227.184 (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comment; please confine discussion about the article to its talk page. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certain sock of User:Tristan.Ackley[edit]

User:Thepotate has recreated Draft:IBUYPOWER and it's almost identical to the two that were CSDed by Tristan.Ackley before he was blocked for promotional editing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for social media contact[edit]

Hello my friend I was woundering if I can talk with you in some social media site like fb or ig ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carla.tima (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to answer your questions on this page; but as a matter of policy I do not conduct Wikipedia business off of Wikipedia. If- and only if- what you want to ask involves sensitive, private information, you may email me. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sock[edit]

Hi 331dot. You blocked this user yesterday for the persistent addition of unsourced content but I see they are back with a new account performing a succession of identical edits as the blocked user. Could I trouble you to cast an eye please. Robvanvee 05:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Collins re-election bid[edit]

I am just wondering why you reverted by edit when the source states she is running for re-election? Billybob2002 (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billybob2002 The headline is misleading and the text itself does not say she is running. She herself has said she has not made up her mind and will decide by 2020 or so. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2022 Maine gubernatorial election for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2022 Maine gubernatorial election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Maine gubernatorial election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jaclar0529 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda don’t know how to get around this website[edit]

Pls help I’m kinda new tho ProProDaBroIsTaken (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may try using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Contents[edit]

The contents listing includes in its lead section: "Wikipedia is a compendium of the world's knowledge... bird's eye view...", while the article about Wikipedia begins with "Wikipedia is a multilingual online encyclopedia created and maintained as...". This makes me feel like the lead section of Wikipedia:Contents exhibits some bias, but I'm not sure if I should do something about it, because it is, after all, Wikipedia's contents listing and not a fact-checked article. You're an experienced editor, so I thought it might be a good idea to consult you.

Please ignore my anonymity.

106.215.12.94 (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely understand what your concern is, but you are welcome to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Contents. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is the wrong page to post this (I am new to Wikipedia)[edit]

Hello, my name is Jeremiah, and I have recently made an edit to the Franz Liszt, and Paganini article. The edit that I made on the Franz Liszt page got taken down because it was not helpful, the edit was to fix the grammar, why did they remove it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremiah J Parker (talk • contribs)

Jeremiah J Parker I would suggest that you ask the person who actually removed your edit directly(which you can find in the edit history of the article) but in looking at that edit history, you added a great deal of information but it is not immediately clear what you are trying to accomplish; it seems like a lot more than grammar changes. I would suggest two things, one, that you discuss any changes you feel are needed on the article talk page(Talk:Franz Liszt) so other editors can reach a consensus with you as to what should be done, if anything; and two, before you do that, you may want to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia and how it operates before attempting to make such a large scale change to an article.
You may find it easier to make small changes, one at a time, rather than one massive change. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent 3RR closure[edit]

Good closure but my comments I thought I'd saved before you closed were not saved. Note that the OP with less that 300 edits (with that account) claimed to know the rules better than User:Wallyfromdilbert who has over 6000 (see Talk:Steven Crowder and the arrival of another editor who doesn't seem to edit in the area at all to revert and attack Grayfell.[6] Just FYI in case you encounter the two again. Neither one of them is going to be happy here if they keep editing in this area. Hope this makes sense, in a rush. Doug Weller talk 09:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm learning something every day here. :) 331dot (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username and COI comments[edit]

Hi, just so you know I've requested my username being changed. Also I will also add COI statements if that's appropriate to my edits. Not sure if that happened yet though.

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.[edit]

What would suggest? should I instead delete the references? The references I can cite are mostlt podcasts. What should I do? Please help me Noreen Ly (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is not sufficiently covered in independent reliable sources, it does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Podcasts are not usually independent reliable sources, as they often lack editorial control and fact checking. No amount of editing can make something notable; it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I appreciate your comment to AriGold30862 regarding donations to Wikipedia (Talk:Prince Andrew, Duke of York#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_August_2019) I will never understand why anyone thinks they should be rewarded for a donation, be it editing privileges or a t-shirt. It kind of flies in the face of the concept of donating. Thank you for your comments on the subject. History Lunatic (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

User: Margareta unblock request[edit]

Hi, your response to my unblock request says, "The range that IP address is in is correctly blocked as a webhost; you will have to use other means to edit." I am not sure how I should proceed from here. I travel frequently and use a VPN, so my IP changes often, but it appears I am blocked for a year—so logging in from a different IP address won't seem to work. You say "you will have to use other means to edit," but it isn't clear to me what those means might be. I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2006, and it looks like I got a year-long block because once I signed in from a bad IP? Is that correct? Is there any way to clear this? Or do I just have to wait for a year before I can edit again? If so, how do I make sure that I don't accidentally trip another block, since I don't have control over whether a particular IP might be blocked by Wikipedia as a webhost? Any advice you can provide would be appreciated. Margareta (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, not sure what happened, but it appears I can magically edit again! Margareta (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Margareta (edit conflict) It is not permitted to use a VPN to edit Wikipedia- unless you reside in a country that restricts access to the Internet in general or Wikipedia in particular(Turkey, China, and others) or can show some other exceptional need. You could ask for an IP block exemption, but the fact that you can edit my talk page at least sometimes, though, would work against the idea that you have an exceptional need to have such an exemption. However, I invite you- the next time it comes up- to ask for such an exemption from whomever reviews an unblock request you make. For maximum fairness to you, I will not review any other requests you make for this matter. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply.... but...[edit]

Hi 331dot, Thank you for your quick response for my article draft - HappyShappy.com. I appreciate it and am wondering if you could help me.

Firstly, I'd like to clarify that I'm in no way related to or promoting any organization. Neither am I receiving any monetary compensation. There is no conflict of interest. I'm a freelance journalist working in the startup ecosystem. This startup is one of the many organizations that I've come across during my research. Secondly, regarding what you said about the sources. "The sources you offer are routine business announcements or press release-type sources. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to give significant coverage to, and not in what a business wants to say about itself, either directly or through primary sources." I've read the many Wikipedia pages about independent and reliable sources, and I'm a bit confused. Two out of three sources (Hindustan Times & The New Indian Express) I've cited are one of the leading newspapers in India. So, what kind of sources does Wikipedia consider relevant? I ask this as I'd like to write about two to three different subjects - a 75 year old library, an Award-winning Singer and a local Rail Museum - each of which have been covered by similar 'level' of sources. 

Lastly, I've been suggested by several Question - Answer forums and websites about writing at least three paragraphs about each subject to get an article published. Is that correct?

Once again, appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasBha (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JasBha It's not the news outlets themselves that are the issue, but the content itself. Both the sources you cite are based almost entirely on interviews with the founders of HappyShappy; interviews with staff members/company founders are a primary source and thus not independent. Wikipedia is not interested in what the founders of a company say about their own company. Primary sources can only be used in limited circumstances- Wikipedia is interested in what secondary, unconnected sources say about an article subject. 'Startups' usually do not get coverage outside of interviews, press releases, and routine announcements, which is why they don't usually meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for businesses.
As a freelance writer, are you working for free? If you are being paid by someone to write- even if not by the subjects you are writing about- that must be disclosed per the paid editing policy(a Terms of Use requirement). 331dot (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earning in the wikipedia[edit]

Calling it means possible? Nnanna Eze Godfrey (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nnanna Eze Godfrey I'm not sure what it is that you are asking. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rabbi Zaltzman[edit]

  • Wow*. He really, really, *really* doesn't get it.Naraht (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

the user Amicable Always is just here to spam around and promote a pedophile, because he said the article he created was about the tulsi plant, but an article about the tulsi plant already exists, but in his article he promoted the pedophile in it, you can view this diff for more info https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amicable_always&diff=next&oldid=930133236 Gumshoe97 (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumshoe97 In examining the discussion, I am concerned that you are using uncivil language and personal attacks against the other user. No one will listen to any legitimate points you might have while you are doing that. There are proper ways to address editor behavior that may be improper, but if you use them beware that your own conduct will be examined as well. If you are unable to civilly engage with other users about any concerns you might have about topics related to your religion, I would suggest that you stay away from topics related to your religion. If you are able to civilly engage with other users, you are free to do so and make use of proper procedures to address concerns you might have. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will take note of that, but the user is hell bent up on what he is doing is right, so can you take any action, because even when I talk civilly he doesn't listen! Gumshoe97 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who edit Wikipedia do so because they are doing what they believe is right. You believe what you are doing is right, do you not? Everyone has to figure out how to get along with each other, and failing that, to use proper processes to work through disputes. You may wish to read more about dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me on the amicable always issue, because I end up swearing, and the problem never gets solved. Gumshoe97 (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be appropriate to involve myself in the merits of the issue. If you cannot control your language when discussing your concern, I would suggest taking a step back from Wikipedia itself or at least the subject matter until you are able to discuss it calmly. This is not an uncommon thing to do among Wikipedia users and would be a sign that you are trying to respect Wikipedia policies on civility. Once you are able to discuss the issue without incivility, you should make use of dispute resolution to attempt to resolve your concerns. If that fails, your last resort could be WP:ANI- but you should exhaust all other possibilities of a resolution before going there. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! But if you read the original article, do you think it violated WP policies? Gumshoe97 (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, I don't wish to involve myself in the merits of the issue. If you feel an article or content in an article violates a Wikipedia policy, you may pursue it in a calm, civil manner in collaboration with other editors using established processes. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chican@ Studies Article[edit]

Hi! You commented/reverted my changes about changing Chicana/o to Chican@. You said that I should gain more consensus, what would that entail? Mentioning it in the Talk page? My apologies, I am making these edits for a class and I am new to editing pages. Thanks! Tjc81 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tjc81 While in general any editor is free to be bold and make changes to or expand an article, in practice if an editor wants to make a large scale change to an article, they should seek consensus from other editors(or at least attempt to) before making such a large change. The change you were making also involves changing the title of the article, which requires a page move that could potentially have effects beyond just that article(links in other pages, redirects, etc) and may need discussion. Since you have already made most of the changes, I would just post to the article talk page explaining what you did and why you did it. If you need to move the article to a new title, you can make a request at Requested Moves(In this case, I'm not sure if it is technically possible for the "@" to be in the title). 331dot (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

You know how I was involved in a dispute with Amicable Always, that got resolved (kinda) because he got blocked, but what should I do now, because there some users who are suspected socks from Amicable always, and I'm worried they might start this again, so can you help me? Gumshoe97 (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, you may start a sockpuppet investigation, but read about doing so carefully. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPEs[edit]

So after reading the legal threat ugliness that happened with Benetembry, I saw that they alluded to having other undisclosed paid editors working on clients' articles. Using this link, I found the names of Mr. Embry's management - four separate firms, no less. I don't know which of them our blocked editor worked for, but two of them list their client rosters: https://www.thelinicomnagency.com/, https://www.catalysttcm.com/.

I hate the thought of going through every single person these firms represent, and checking extant articles for signs of the UPE activity. But there might not be any other way. Maybe a call for help at WP:COIN would get more eyes on it? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drm310 Yes, it might be worth bringing up at COIN to get some eyes on this. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me[edit]

hiee, pls help me to save the article from deleteing, this artile is about Agnel Roman. he is a one of the well-known music Directors in india. you can check other wikipedia articles like Ragini MMS, Panithuli, Maazii, Mickey Virus, Jigariyaa that mantion his name so that he has notability. and The Times of India is the reliable source. you can see the article in the same. what else is needed ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annki777 (talk • contribs)

Annki777 You should not cite other articles as a reason for yours to exist, as those other articles might be inappropriate as well. Please read other stuff exists. Please also read about the notability guidelines for people. As noted in the deletion discussion, the sources barely mention him or are otherwise inappropriate. IMDB is not appropriate as it is user-editable. What is needed are independent reliable sources with significant coverage- not just a brief mention, press release, or routine announcement- where those sources have chosen on their own to give the significant coverage. No amount of editing can confer notability upon this individual, it depends on the sources. I am sorry that this does not do what you might want me to do, but I must be honest. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 331dot , pls check official upload by the youtube channel of the music label T-series : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P5Gw67JH9E there is a mention.

I'm sure there is, but there needs to be more than a mention. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request to re-evaluate the Alio Industries Page[edit]

ApalRamanGoel (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I request you to kindly re-evaluate your decision to delte the Alio Industries page, which has been recently done by you. Our idea behind the insertion of this page is not any advertising but to let people know more about Hybrid Hexapods which is a rapidly developing robotics technology and helping scientifc development in the area of linear motion.

ApalRamanGoel Who is "our"? If you are affiliated with the company, you are required to read and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory) What you state as your purpose is considered promotional on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not for merely providing information. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia has no interest in what the subject wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have a question[edit]

I have a question that can I remove topics or clear my talk page ? Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kitaab Ka Kida You are permitted to remove content from your user talk page(there are some exceptions such as declined unblock requests while blocked), though archiving is preferred. Removing content is considered an acknowledgment that it was read. See WP:USERTALK for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Kitaab Ka Kida (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Impeachment of Donald Trump[edit]

On 19 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Impeachment of Donald Trump, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  Nixinova  T C   02:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers[edit]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well 331dot. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]


Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Block on User talk:TEFCinc[edit]

I am not sure they do understand or intend not to stray as the request for unblock is a little whiny about her life's work. That said, go ahead and unblock if you wish. Will watchlist and see from here on. (note: I prefer comms through talk pages rather than email). Cheers. -- Alexf(talk) 11:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'll try to remember that(no promises!) 331dot (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page revocation for latest Nsmutte sock?[edit]

Hi, do you think you could give User:Christian charity, who is Nsmutte, an infinite holiday from their user talk page? Cheers (also holiday cheer), --bonadea contributions talk 11:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was done. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019[edit]

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers[edit]

Merry Christmas, 331dot!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Conflict of interest? General Election 2019 Final Predictions[edit]

How can I have a conflict of interest on a page where I post somebody else's already published data on a page where no opinions are posted?

I do not understand why my edit has been removed when I was simply adding to the database that was already there, how were the other predictions added then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradleyC2019 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BradleyC2019 Had you used the username "PolliticoUK"? 331dot (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malico1983[edit]

Is that still a WP:CORPNAME? Or does the 1983 change that? Added links to their website.-- Deepfriedokra 12:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra The company was founded in 1983 so it is still a CORPNAME. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA[edit]

I was aware of that for promotional usernames as mentions on the TW tab to wait until the user edits, however, I was not aware of this for usernames that imply shared use. Thanks for the clarifying and taking the time to give feedback! :) ~riley (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~riley In general the only usernames that are blocked without having edited first are extremely vulgar or offensive names, like racial slurs or the worst curse words. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks very much[edit]

have a good new year, and thanks for your patience with the issue at hand, so to speak... JarrahTree 12:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be an admin[edit]

Dear 331 dot O would love to be an administrator but I don’t know what I have to do to become one Tramfan1203 (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to you. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael French page[edit]

Hi, I have been trying to edit the above page but apparently I'm doing it incorrectly. I have removed much of the old text which was incorrect and have replaced it with accurate information but I think I may be 'sourcing' incorrectly. Can I get some assistance please. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey For information on adding sources, please see WP:CITE. As the article is about a living person, it is vital that information be cited once in the article. Please read the Biographies of Living Persons policy for more information. If you intend to make a wholesale change to the article, it is a good idea to discuss what you want to do on the article talk page first, to allow any other editors who follow that page to comment. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey If you represent Michael French, you must also review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement if you are paid). If you have a conflict of interest, you actually must make suggestions on the article talk page, in the form of edit requests. Please understand that Wikipedia articles summarize what independent sources unaffiliated with the subject state, and not what the subject wants to say about themselves. If you have independent sources, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not paid by Michael French. I understand that the page cites unaffiliated sources but many of these are incorrect. His date of birth, years active and many of his early theatre roles. Plus there are many that haven't been cited which are the ones I've included. It is not my intention to be 'disruptive' to the page, only to make sure the information is factual. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey Even if you are not paid, it would still be a conflict of interest if you represent him here, and you should disclose that if you do. If you have sources with the correct information, please offer them and detail the exact changes you feel are needed as a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have asked for a formal edit on the 'Talk' tab of the Michael French page. Is this correct? MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have started a discussion- which is correct- you should then post {{request edit}} in that discussion and detail the exact changes you feel are needed along with the proper independent reliable sources to support the change. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi - Could you please tell me where I can submit an "edit template" for the Michael French page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk • contribs) 16:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the instructions linked to in posts directly above your post. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested a block at AIV. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Wiki Article help[edit]

Hi there, thanks for getting back to me, it’s much appreciated. The old page I mentioned was an article about a methodology accredited by international professional accreditation organisation APMG. The article had been up for several years before it’s removal a few years ago. It may have been that it wasn’t notable to the wiki member who reviewed it a few years ago, however the methodology is now being taught at college level in the area of computer science and I think it could do with a page. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks again! ConnorC96 (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ConnorC96 Notability is determined by coverage in independent reliable sources. In short, this is defined as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I can't tell you if the subject you speak of qualifies, but I can say that it doesn't break a rule to attempt to write an article about a subject that was deleted- you just need to address the reason for deletion. I'd suggest using Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft, this way you get other eyes on it before it is made part of the encyclopedia, and you can sort out those issues first instead of later. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll take a look at that, thanks very much for your help. ConnorC96 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:331dot/Archive_8&oldid=995710741"