User talk:331dot/Archive 4

Please place new comments at the bottom of the page. If you are responding to a post I left on your talk page, please do so there.

Czech Chemical Society

My new page about Czech Chemical Society was marked for deletion. However, I don't know why. It is the same as the pages of e.g. Hungarian Chemical Society od Royal Chemical Society. CCS exists for 150 years and it surely has it's place in Wikipedia. So I do not understand the complaining about self promotion or so. The second page is about the Associations of Czech Chemical Societies. OK, this is not exist for 150 years, but this organization is mentioned on the page of journal Chemické Listy. Please, help me to make these pages better. R Liboska (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@R Liboska: I am happy to help you. I marked the page for deletion (and the administrator that deleted it apparently agreed) because it did little more than provide a link to the organization's website, which is a form of promotion/publicity that is not permitted. I agree that an organization with a long existence would likely merit an article(which is why I did not mark it for deletion as not significant) but not in the format that was written at that time.

Articles on Wikipedia are all judged on their individual merits; Other things exist. Just because other similar organizations have articles does not mean that the organization you are writing about automatically merits one too. The article must have independent reliable sources such as books, news articles, etc., that indicate how the organization meets the organization notability guidelines(please review). A primary source such as the organization's own website, while it can be used for some limited information, is not enough to sustain an article. I would encourage you to look for independent sources that describe the organization in depth, that is what is being looked for. If you have any other questions, please post them here. If you would like to discuss it with someone else, you can visit the Teahouse, an area for new users to ask questions. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I am understand; thank you for this help. But is it possible to park this page in some draft area? I need some more time to find such "indipendent reliable sources". There should be some, however I do not know where to look for them. In addition - deletion of that page broke some links on other pages (Chemické Listy, Antonín Holý) R Liboska (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@R Liboska: There are indeed ways to draft a page in a place where you can work on it. I will suggest two: There is a Draft namespace where drafts can be created: if you visit this page there is a space slightly down the page called "Create a new draft" where you can type in the name of your article to start creating it; such drafts are not deleted if they are being worked on(and are not spam, vandalism, etc.). When your draft is completed, you (or someone you ask) can move it into the main article space. If you want feedback on your work, you can visit Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft to volunteers for review before it is posted. I wish you luck 331dot (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Does it mean that the deleted page is lost? I've got no backup. :-( R Liboska (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The administrator that deleted it should be able to restore the content if you let them know you want to keep working on it. You can either contact them(go to the title of your page and the username of the administrator should be displayed) or you can visit this page to request that it be restored to Draft space. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

sand picture

hi, i answered in this page about deleting sand picture article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sand_picture

Hello again, I deleted links to shopping pages, and added new links. please check the article sand picture.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: MusicDealers

Dear talk:331dot

This is regarding the MusicDealers page. I have made some revisions and am looking to communicate with you regarding them. Will you please reach out to me in reference to it? I am an independent third party. Will you please advise?

Thank you,

Mdragoiu1099 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Monique

RE: MusicDealers

Dear talk:331dot

This is regarding the MusicDealers page. I have made some revisions and am looking to communicate with you regarding them. Will you please reach out to me in reference to it? I am an independent third party. Will you please advise?

Thank you,

Mdragoiu1099 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the article as it is currently; it still lacks independent reliable sources indicating how it is notable as a business. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Zooper Dooper

I see you've G3'd it. I went for A11 before withdrawing - Zooper Dooper's are a real thing. Though you'd never believe it from this article.Cabayi (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I stand corrected. Thanks for the information. Not sure what should become of the page currently- I must leave shortly so if you think something should be done, feel free. Thanks again 331dot (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll try a redir to Ice pop. Let's see if that sticks. Cabayi (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

...deleted A1 before I got there. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump's inauguration

The crowd comparison photo shown is debunkted by CNN with their gigapixel photo. http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

Now, I'm not saying that CNN is always telling the truth, but the photo is clearly true. It's of course clear that Trump had a smaller crowd that Obama, but that does not mean that the comparison photo is correct. TV-coverage shows a much larger crowd than the one shown in the photo.

Wikipedia should be above this kind of fake news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.18.187.144 (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the photo was faked or altered, which seemed to be your suggestion. In any event, if you feel the comparison photo should be removed or its caption altered, it should probably be discussed on the article talk page. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nathan Sykes

Nathan is not an EDM artist or a record producer and may not be best known for being in the wanted now, however he was formerly in the band. Please accept these changes. This is factual, can it be edited to reflect please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMGlobal (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@JMGlobal: As indicated, you will need to discuss this on the article talk page first; you also need to review your user talk page and respond to the posts there. Thank you 331dot (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you direct me to these as i'm not sure what you're talking about. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMGlobal (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you are using a computer to edit Wikipedia, at the very top of the screen you should see your username, along with "Talk". If you click the word 'Talk', that will take you to your user talk page. It may be lit up stating that you have messages. Alternatively, if you look at your first post above, there is a link that says 'Talk', that will also take you there. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end so we know that you wrote them. Thanks 331dot (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Salted herring

Thanks for this and this. The image of the delicious salty liquorice fish is (I think) the only photo I have myself taken and uploaded to Wikipedia, just before I ate the fish. Very important it doesn't get vandalized! ;-) Bishonen | talk 21:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC).

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello 331dot,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Down East Polo Club

The Down East Polo Club was founded in 1978. It was the only polo club in Maine in 2001, but that may have changed. See:

• Tapley, Lance (August 23–30, 2001). "Maine's most exotic sport". The Portland Phoenix. Retrieved February 6, 2017.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

Want to create it? Horace Laffaye's books should have more info.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm the best person to do so as polo lies outside my areas of interest. I'd perhaps be willing to get it started but I'm not sure I would have the time to do additional research. 331dot (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

A referenced stub would be better than nothing. Would you be able to take a few pictures over the summer?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. My personal situation limits the time I would have to engage in such a project. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Jack Martin (Martial Artist)

Hello, thank you for your feedback. This is my first article of which I plan to write others regarding acting, stunt player and screenwriting. I practiced on my own and appreciate your assistance as nobody has taken the time as you did and I wanted to thank you and ask for your assistance in any edit you feel is appropriate. I agree with your suggestion for martial artist. I used IMDB with regards to references or wikipages.

kind regards,

Jack Martin (Taekwon-Do) (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Martin (Taekwon-Do): Hello; someone else moved the page, just FYI. I would first state that, while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged to write an article about one's self(please see this page for more information) due to conflict of interest issues, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia tries to have a neutral point of view.

Regarding IMDB, I would tell you that user-editable resources like that are generally not considered reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Even Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles. I would highly suggest that you allow the page you are writing to be moved to Draft space, where you can work on it and take time to find reliable sources, and then submit the article for an independent review before it is formally posted to the Main encyclopedia. You can also use Articles for Creation to do that. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rawal NA

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Rawal NA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GAB^gab 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have (mistakenly) unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Doorpk Pakistan, 331dot.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The company seems non-notable.No Google hits in sec. sources.Feel free to revert if you think otherwise.

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Winged Blades ^Godric 17:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my mistake.Apparently you had added the correct tags but the creator removed them.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Has CSD-ed it.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

marked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Guilford_Studios_Inc for deletion

please advise how to present the significance of a public association that encourages public edits to Google maps and to creating new street views. We are the first an only NPO and NGO to monetize public posting of 3D panoramic geolocated images in a public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngs-inc (talk • contribs) 13:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I've answered you on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Revised Leadwerks article

The page Leadwerks_(game_engine) has been updated with the recommended revisions. Please see the talk page for details. Josh Klint (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New revision is available. See talk page for details, thanks. Josh Klint (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Nilip Deb page is not LIVE yet

My page is not LIVE yet, it was updated on 15feb2017 by me and user name is also changed from Nilipdeb to Nilip Deb. I tried my name Nilip Deb to search in Wikipedia search box and nothing comes out, even in few pages where my name is included, created by others, is also showing my name BLACK in color. Hope there is no major mistake I made during creating my page.

Please help me out and let my page or user page go LIVE

Thank you so much.

--Nilip Deb 08:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nilip Deb: Your page was "live" the moment you created it. I had moved it to your user page because it seemed to be an explanatory page about yourself, and not an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media. Writing an article about yourself is not forbidden, but highly discouraged per the policy on autobiographies(please click to review). If you are truly notable, someone will write an article about you eventually. However, if you have reviewed the notability criteria and truly feel that you merit an encyclopedic article about yourself, you can create one by visiting Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@331dots : My account was deleted and the info conveyed to me today, so again I tried with shorter editted version, hope this time it will get LIVE. Thank you so much. --Nilip Deb 14:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nilip Deb:I'm not sure you understand what Wikipedia is for- your user page is not a substitute for an article, or a page for you to promote yourself. Please review some of the policies I have linked to above before you edit further. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:TBBC

I've already reported this long-term vandal and nothing has been done.[1] Could you please step in? 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You are certainly able to report a user like that, but you still cannot edit war, even if you are correct. I honestly don't know who is correct, but the dispute needs to be discussed on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say I'm correct, since he's continually gutting reliable sources from Survivor Series (1992) and has been doing it for over a year now. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello 331dot,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Help?

Hey, this Snooganssnoogans editor cut and pasted the same text from a non RS source (Indy100) into dozens of articles. Indy100 is the independent's version of Buzzfeed's "12 different ways your candbars are racist"-type model. I tried to undo these edits but I was blocked by ‪General Ization for vandalism... was I in the wrong? If not, can you fix them? I don't think I should edit articles until my block expires. 107.77.223.135 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)‬

In all honesty you probably should not be editing while logged out at all; it could be seen as block evasion. You need to make the appropriate block appeal if you wish to be unblocked. I am not 100 percent familiar with this matter so I defer to the admin's judgement. If someone is editing improperly, you should make use of available dispute resolution procedures. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

About my username

Katarn Labs is not and has never been an organization, I find it rather funny that you would merely assume this and request my name be changed rather than do a simple google search KatarnLabs (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@KatarnLabs: Then I apologize for disturbing you. I don't think it unreasonable to think that "Katarn Laboratory"(labs) might be an organization or establishment. Not every organization has an internet presence, and even if it did, people use the internet and Wikipedia in different ways. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Impeachment of Park Geun-hye

On 10 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Impeachment of Park Geun-hye, 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. Stephen 06:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Congraduration

	Whom'st'd've
	Yes, you have done this TheOnlineAuthority (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Anzulovic

Hi,

I took your advice and created a section on talk page. I stated my reasons there why Anzulovic should not be used as a source. Hope we can come to an agreement. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I have no position on the matter as I know little about Serbian history; my only interest in the page was seeing the change reverted a couple times. See bold, revert discuss; once you make a change, and are reverted, it is up to you to explain it on the talk page and explain why it is needed. I might suggest contacting the original person that reverted you to discuss the matter. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Latvian integration

Hi, my arguments are on Nordic countries talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakeni9 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Krakeni9: I am aware of that, however standard procedure is for the status quo to remain while those seeking a change justify it, explain why it is needed, and gain consensus for it. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Hello 331dot. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Template:Z149 -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 14:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@KAP03: I am aware of that. If you are referring to PewdsDidNothingWrong, the edit summary by the creator stated "nigger faggot", indicating that the page was vandalism. Since it simply restated the title, I used that criterion. Perhaps I should have added the vandalism one as well, but the A3 seemed so blatantly obvious and unlikely to be expanded so I used that one. I've also been told that regular users generally should not be templated. Thanks 331dot (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Kincl4

I was told by your Speedy Deletion page to make changes to HyperPlay RPG, so I did. I received a message saying "You just made your tenth edit; thank you, and please keep going!" so I did. I received messages from "Alex" that I could not read in full. I can't seem to reply to these. I was told I was writing about a "game". I was not (it's a magazine).

I was told to substantiate praise so I was working on providing a surfeit of links. I was then cut off for doing those edits!

Please can someone reply? It's my first time here and I don't know why I am being treated in such a draconian manner when I have been working hard to change the article to meet your guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kincl4 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your experiences here so far. No offense is intended by anyone. I would stress that is is rare for a new user to successfully create an article on their very first try. It is something that takes skill and practice. I see that the deleting administrator has moved the page to your user space where you can work on it until it is ready for posting. You may want to take some time to learn how things are done on Wikipedia before attempting to do so, and even start small at first by editing existing articles to get a feel for editing, before moving up to creating an article.

Your page about the game(you state it is a magazine, but an RPG is a game regardless of format) was flooded with external links to the game, which suggests to others you were promoting it, even if that wasn't your intention. In order to have an article on Wikipedia, the article must indicate with independent reliable sources how the game/magazine is notable per guidelines. I would suggest reviewing those guidelines before you work on the article further. If you have any other questions, please post them here. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I would further add that the article must not simply consist of praise about the game, even if cited. That could also be seen as promotional. I would suggest looking at other articles about similar subjects to get a feel for how they should be structured. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Kincl4 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC) The magazine is called "HyperPlay RPG" because it's about RPGs! It is not a game. "Computer and Video Games" was a magazine, not games. "Mean Machines" was a magazine, not machines. "Total Film" was a magazine, not a film. Etc etc. Just because something ends "RPG" does not make it a game. All this shows that none of the links I submitted have been checked, just arbitrarily dismissed. I have completely watered down the page to make it vanilla and substantiated anything remotely subjective with objective links (i.e. by third parties). Please approve the page. Kincl4 Kincl4 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion. My suggestion would be for you to submit your article through Articles for Creation where you can get feedback on it before it is moved into the main encyclopedia. I don't think it would be approved in its current state, though, because I don't see an indication on how the notability guidelines are met (probably the ones for products). I urge you to review those; they generally require articles to have significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources given seem to be glowing reviews of the magazine without really indicating how it is notable or significant, at least to me. There is no rush to get the article up to snuff, there aren't time limits. I'm also wondering if you are associated with this publication in any way. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Kincl4 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC) I am the editor of the magazine. I note that this is not against your policies. All praise is independent, neutral and substantiated. I am astonished about your comment on notability when I have included in the references at least 5 separate articles/pieces of independent, non-affiliated coverage/reviews explaining how the fanzine is notable. How many other (video gaming) print fanzines are there available these days? Perhaps this should be passed to a moderator who knows about independent magazines and/or 1990s magazines and gaming. I've wasted too much time on this already. It's Wikipedia's loss not to cover independent print media - a sad reflection of the times, and ironic really, considering Wikipedia's original purpose. I will not be donating again. Kincl4 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated, donations to the Foundation do not affect your edits in any way. I've never given a penny because I am not able to, but I'm still here. But it's certainly your choice to give or not.

If you are the editor of the magazine, you need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you are paid in some way). The COI policy states that you should not directly edit about areas in which you are associated with. It is true that some subjects such as independent print media are difficult to cover under Wikipedia's guidelines, but those guidelines are necessary to ensure verifiability. As I indicated, your best bet to create an article about your own magazine is to use Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I would add that you cannot insist that only experts in your field review the page; all articles on Wikipedia can be edited and reviewed by any editor at any time. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Kincl4 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC) It's not the reviewing of the page, it's the initial approval of the page: if you don't understand why a homemde independent print fanzine/magazine is notable in this day and age, perhps someone else will. There is no point going any further. If the article is unacceptable in its last form (who knows if you saw that?) I can't edit it down any more because it will say virtually nothing. And I never said that a Donation should affect anything - I was merely explaining why i won't donate again. Kincl4 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

As I indicated, the best way for you to get someone else to review it would be to submit it through Articles for Creation. It's not a matter of editing the article to say virtually nothing, or us just taking your word that it is notable, but to indicate notability with independent reliable sources that aren't glowing reviews. It is true that is tough with some subject matter, such as independent print media. Again, I urge you to review the notability guidelines for what is being looked for, as well as the conflict of interest policy. Best wishes to you 331dot (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Kincl4 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC) And what if there are no reviews apart from glowing reviews? Kincl4 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Kincl4 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC) I've thought of something negative I can say with reference to a third-party comment or two (about the size of the fanzine and its price). How do I edit the article please? Kincl4 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It isn't just a matter of saying positive and negative things. All I can tell you is that there needs to be independent reliable sources that indicate how the notability guidelines are met. I can post relevant excerpts from them for you if you wish but you would be better off reviewing them for yourself. If you can't indicate notability at this time, the article will need to wait until such time as you can. I understand your position and the difficulty of writing about certain subjects, but there are good reasons such guidelines exist. I think the Articles for Creation process can help you get feedback from others. I again state that you do need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing polices(the latter, only if you are paid). I wish you luck.

The article is located at User:Kincl4/Hyperplay rpg for the moment. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Kincl4 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC) I have read the guidelines. I have added criticisms. I have requested someone else write a page. How can I get more "notable" revieweres when you don't accept the reviews of Nintendo Life (nintendolife.com), which even basic research will show you has the most trrffic of any independent Nintendo website in the world?! Can the article please be published now? I don't mind if you put "magazine" after HyperPlay RPG so it reads HyperPlay RPG magazine. Kincl4 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added an Articles for Creation submission tag to your draft. If you click the button "Submit your draft for review" and then save, this will bring it to the attention of users who review articles and they will either accept it and move it to the encyclopedia for you or offer their views on how it can be improved. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Rajeev Kathpalia

Hello, 331dot the Wikipedia page Rajeev Kathpalia is a pure Vandalism and hoax because this page creater user has same name of this article. Please Nomination it for Speedily Deletion. LIKE RZZ 12:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Likerzz: Be careful in using the word "vandalism", which is a deliberate effort to deface an article. That is not the case here; an autobiography, while problematic, is not vandalism. It also does not seem to be a "hoax" as the article seems to be cited. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Council of Europe page

Dear 331:dot,

I was born in Armenia and raised in Azerbaijan. When I checked wikipedia pages on azerbaijan and other related pages, i noticed that there a lots of one-sided information. Therefore, I have created this profile on my name to deal with these issues.

Regarding Council of Europe page, according to Wikipedia Policy, everything including articles, templates, categories and portals, must be written neutrally and without bias. As you might know this page is devoted to activity and establishment of CoE. However, in its critism part, there is written only in Azerbaijan which can be considered bias. Because if it is accepted or some administrators want this way there are also another reliable and cited critism about CoE activity which involves Italy, France, Armenia and other countries as well. Therefore, I suggest we should keep that there are some critisms and other issues without pointing any country. Such as The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity.

Furthermore, this article is about CoE and I dont see any relevance why an original research or report by an international NGO such as Human RIghts Watch should be added. Because this approach could lead to incorporating lots of information alike Human Rights Watch to CoE page. In the end, crisitm part may have more information comparatively whole article.

Imagine citizens of different countries are adding same type information with relibale sources. Lets put this way, imagine I am adding an information with relibale source from an int. NGO about some other country, which will be exactly case of Azerbaijan. Would it be acceptable?

Therefore, I suggest information on any specific country should be deleted.

Kind regards

Musfiq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musifq.mehdiyev (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Musifq.mehdiyev: The above statement is the sort of thing that you should make on the article talk page when removing cited information. I would also add that it is not unusual to provide a specific example of something when a general statement such as that is made. If you dispute a reference like HRW(which is considered an authority on the issue) you should do so on the talk page, to get a consensus among editors. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Bring it on

Wow, are you really so pathetic that you stoop as low as to try to delete me because? I don't see how I "violated" any rules so it honestly doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is not a trusted website for facts because anyone can post anything they desire. So my page can be used as a fact page just as well as yours would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WussPopinB (talk • contribs) 15:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@WussPopinB: I deleted nothing; an administrator did. This is an encyclopedia, not free web space to use as you wish. Wikipedia does not claim to be a website for facts; we do not deal in facts, but with what is verifiable. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Warsaw

Hi, I've been in an edit war with an unregistered user who is vandalizing the page, as well as offending me personally. Also a discussion would be of no use as it has been denied before by the same user. Oliszydlowski (TALK) 19:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

{@Oliszydlowski: If you feel that's the case, then you need to report them to the edit warring noticeboard. Being correct is not a defense to edit warring. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Again. I just wanted to ask if it's possible to delete the revisions with vile and crude language in the article Warsaw? User:Oliszydlowski 19:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You would need to ask an administrator to do that(I am not one). 331dot (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you stop...

doing this? I am quite capable of doing it myself, and it's quite irritating. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You don't want me to report usernames? 331dot (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm asking. Your sarcastic, rhetorical response is not worth responding too. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I in no way whatsoever am attempting to be sarcastic- you posted a link to a report I made about a username. I do not know what you are asking. I saw the name, and reported it. I didn't think I had interacted with you in any way, in fact. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you had done it twice now made me think that you had seen the word "promotional" in the recent changes log, and decided to report them for me. Apologies about the tone, just one of my editing pet peeves. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for giving offense; I merely saw the name in the log and that they had created a page about their company(it appeared in the edit summary). I didn't see that anyone else had edited the page at that point. I try not to step on other people's toes but I'm sure it happens which I don't take pleasure in. I can understand how it might be annoying. I'm always working to improve how I edit and I try to take feedback as best I can- which I will try to do in this case. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I can tell you are being sincere, so I apologize again about the tone I took with you. It wasn't necessary, obviously. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 18:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There's no problem. I've been in the same position and understand. I wish you well. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

hi

hi user 331dot, this is the user that u just suggested to delete his own biography, please delete that biography as i do not want my personal information to be exposed world widely. please help me delete that page. thx prefix:User talk:331dot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branson1120 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Branson1120: I have marked the page as an author request deletion; however, you seem to be indicating that your account is compromised(if it was used by your brother to prank you) and as such it will likely be blocked shortly. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Human rights defense center wiki-page

Hey I have remedied some of the issues on the page relating to sources and I would like some feedback from you on other problems, specifically to do with issues of notability. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oamir (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Oamir: I've posted on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk: Emerald Theatre

Per your comment regarding a proposed edit to the Emerald Theatre page and the Macomb Music Theatre page, yes, there should only be one page. The historic venue has had many names, and was operating as the Emerald Theatre from 2000 - 2012, when it was sold and the new operators named it the Macomb Music Theatre. It operated as the Macomb Music Theatre until 2014 when it closed. It was reopened in 2016 as the Emerald Theatre again. There should no longer be a Macomb Music Theatre page, as no such venue has existed since 2014. I am disclosing that I work for the company who purchased the venue in 2016; however, my edits are factual. Not sure how to proceed.Pr4dhp (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pr4dhp: Thank you for your disclosure. I have already posted a merge tag on the article; if some time passes and no one disagrees, an administrator will be able to merge the two articles together. In the future, if you feel any edits are needed to the article about your theatre, you will need to suggest them on the article talk page first per the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you the same person as Dhp31? If so, which username will you be using? 331dot (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, same person. I will be using Dhp31. When it merges, the Emerald Theatre should remain, as the Macomb Music Theatre is the obsolete name. It's causing a problem, because Google includes the current wikipedia description for the Emerald Theatre, which says that the business has closed down. We don't want our customers thinking that the venue is still closed. I did subsequently do a Suggest Edit on the talk page, so hopefully that will be considered when merging. Thank you for your help. I am having some difficulty with the codes needed to communicate on wikipedia. Dhp31 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Religious Discrimination

How dare you delete my page on the religion that I follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Strama (talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dan Strama: Assuming your religion is an actual religion (which it really doesn't matter if it is or not), it will need to have been written about in independent reliable sources. I highly doubt that's the case here. Nothing has been deleted yet, only an administrator can delete a page. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Then where has my work gone?

Please sign your talk page posts with~~~~ so we know you wrote them. Your page is still there at this moment. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

CD Choice Music

i didn't get any reason Contested deletion about CD Choice Music check news ref please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismailim (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This is very old company in bangladesh CD Choice now re-lance CD Choice Music

The article states "The Record label was founded in 2017". I would suggest further discussion take place on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ref owner email me about this article i got receive this Record labels Trade Licence & Logo Trade Mark By Gov't BD snap Snap Eamil Provement This old company are CD Choice 2008