Jump to content

User talk:331dot/Archive 15

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Glenstorm85 (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 4 September 2022 (→‎Herschel Walker and a Neutral Editorial Voice: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. If you are responding to an edit I made to an article, please comment on the article talk page. I welcome talk page stalkers offering any knowledge or assistance they have.

Some baklava for you!

You just beat me to a Teahouse answer; always good to see other users helping out newbies. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the strange formatting in unblock requests

I noticed your comment at the bottom of the page here. I've seen the same errors in multiple other unblock requests - for instance, here's a conversation I had with another blocked editor on the issue: discussion (starts about halfway down the page). It seems to be due to copy+pasting {{unblock|Your reason here}} (as displayed when viewing the page) into the edit window while replying in visual editor mode. I haven't been able to work out what to do about it, though. 97.113.167.129 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was beginning to suspect it had something to do with the VE. I don't know what to do either, though. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did the only thing I could think of - took it to VPT. Maybe they'll have more clues about what's going on. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there!

Can we be friends with me? Because I wanted to help out on editing articles and help contribute to this community. My goal is to help build an encyclopedia because I want to make this articles detailed and improve on research skills. Would you like to do that as well? Thank you. --76.20.110.116 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! U000drl01 (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my request

I am using the iPhone app, and yesterday I couldn’t edit a page in the Dutch Wikipedia (error message: you have been blocked), nor see messages that I had received - error message: “you are not logged in” although I was logged in. Logging out and in didn’t help. I could edit a page in the English Wikipedia.

Today I can see my messages (including your response) and edit a Dutch page. Strange, but happy that it works now. Mhcstraathof (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline problem

hi. Thank you for your comment. Could u please help me to edit the article? I was waiting about 4 month for submission. But now I received decline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydan Hashimova (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What help is it that you need? Please review my decline message and the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Happened To Me Too 193.188.123.188 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In re Kerrylei

I alerted them yesterday; they reverted it (and a bunch of other notes about their draft) off. I would assume high conflict of interest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:WebID Solutions

Hello 331dot! Back in April 2022 you told me to contact the reviewer directly who rejected my draft Draft:WebID Solutions. This reviewer happens to be User:Hatchens, a now indefinitely blocked paid editor who apparently manipulated Wikipedia. I believe that the rejection was a bad faith edit, as I had previously improved the draft by addressing all its quality issues. Thus I would like to appeal Hatchens’s illegitimate and unfair rejection. Kind regards, Cyan2021 (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyan2021 I think that the rejection was valid. However, out of a desire for fairness, I would be willing to allow you to resubmit the draft if you have significant, substantive changes to make to it. Any article about your company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business transactions/activities, and brief mentions do not establish notability.(this may be different from what the German Wikipedia requires) What are the three best sources that you have and can summarize? (three is the bare minimum needed to pass the AFC process) 331dot (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 331dot! I suppose that I have got very unlucky with the article. It contains virtually one single source that is a press release, and no sources that are staff interviews, or announcements of routine business activities etc. – the majority of the sources that I've cited are compliant with WP:SIRS. The best three sources in this draft would be Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (citation 3), Handelsblatt (citations 9, 12), and Tagesspiegel (citation 26). I have also cited Wirtschaftswoche (citation 2, 7), Heise (citation 6), Frankfurter Neue Presse (citation 17), Börsen-Zeitung (citation 13), Rheinische Post (citations 8, 16, 20), and Bundesanzeiger (citations 11, 14, 15). The draft also doesn't cite Wikipedia as a source – I have linked the abovementioned sources in the citations. This is possibly why User:Theroadislong told me "that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source"? I guess that I can definitely improve the draft by uniformly using WP:CS1, don't you think? I also suggest that a user with a good understanding of German have a look at the sources, if that's possible. Are there any additional changes that you think should be made to the draft?
Here are the brief summarisations of the draft's three best sources:
FAZ: The article (citation 3) was written by Helmut Bünder, an economics and trade journalist who has been writing for FAZ since 1999. Bünder's article discusses WebID Solutions monothematically, i. e. there are no other topics discussed in his article. Bünder briefly descibes the security measures undertaken at WebID Solutions and that the firm mainly does online identification for banks. Then he discusses how WebID Solutions came to be, what their daily business is like, where and how they work, and what their plans for the future are.
Handelsblatt: The first Handelsblatt article that I've cited (citation 9) was written by Katharina Schneider, a journalist specialised in finance and fintech. Schneider's article also monothematically discusses WebID Solutions. She briefly describes their business and focusses on their expansion into the US market. Additionally, she compares WebID Solutions to its biggest competitors on the German market and briefly explains that legal actions were being taken.
The second Handelsblatt article (citation 12) was composed by Elisabeth Atzler, a banking expert journalist at Handelsblatt. Just like the previous articles, her article also monothematically discusses WebID Solutions. The first quarter describes that Anacap has invested into WebID Solutions, the second quarter briefly describes the firm's business model, and the last half of her article describes the firm's recent (2018-2021) history.
The last WP:THREE-source for this draft would be Tagesspiegel (citation 26). The article was composed by Carla Neuhaus, head of Tagesspiegel's economy editorial department. Her article discusses nothing but WebID Solutions and has five sections of about equal size: The first two sections describe WebID Solution's business and what they do. The third section focusses on market competition that WebID faced; the last two sections discuss the pricing for WebID's service and compare it with the Deutsche Post's offline identification service.
Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cyan2021 I cannot read citation 3 as it seems to be behind a paywall. I read citation 12 first- and it (based on a possibly erroneous Google translation as I cannot read German) seems to be largely based on an interview with Frank Jorga, a founder of the company and its leader(or a leader), and as such the author is just repeating what they were told and not writing what they saw themselves. Citation 26 is also largely based on an interview with Jorga. It might be notable that WebID Solutions has risen to challenge the Swiss Post Office or some aspect of it, but there needs to be a source that says this that is not based on an interview with a founder of the company- because it would be expected that the founder of the company would see it that way. So these two are not suitable, and I can't read one of them. If the one I can't read doesn't contain an interview, that might work, but you would need a couple more like that to summarize. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are actually not largely based upon interviews. The authors of the sources have spoken to the managing directors of WebID Solutions, and they have cited them, because that is common practice in virtually all reliable German language sources. But please note that, this practice is not equivalent to interviews. This practice works because the authors of reliable German language sources do not repeat "what they were told". Authors of the reliable German language newspaper-like sources decide themselves what they write and what they don't write about. And I can assure you that, FAZ, Tagesspiegel, and Handelsblatt are among the, if not the best and most reliable German language newspaper-like sources that one can cite in a Wikipedia article. I can send you or any other Wikipedia editor PDF copies of the articles that are behind paywalls. Now, you say that you can't read German – can I ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation if a reviewer who understands German wants to have a look at the draft? Maybe that would be of great help. Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cyan2021 You can ask, but you may or may not get an answer. I think there are some fundamental cross-national or cross-cultural differences here between how we each see things here. There is nothing wrong with this, it just is. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question I had in Teahouse

Hi 331dot,

In the question about Highway 99 on Oahu, the problem isn't with Google Maps. The problem is that the map the user linked to was of the wrong thing.

I am not sure how to add this to our discussion without messing the posts there up, so I contacted you instead.

Thanks for your answer before. Stormplatter (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm doing this right

Hi 331dot, amazing that you have been here for 10 years! Regarding my draft at Draft:Wellous , would like to know under what circumstances are news articles considered to be independent and reliable sources, and when they are not.

I would also like to enquire regarding the Wikipedia brands project, and whether my ayrticle qualifies to be published under it.

Thank you very much for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briankoh97 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briankoh97 Regarding the brands project, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands.
You have three sources in the draft currently. The first, The Star, is based on an interview with the CEO and is a promotional piece with no specific author; the author is the paper itself("Star Picks") and clicking on that states "StarPicks brings you an insightful, useful and informative read with relevant promotional messages across an extensive variety of topics" so that is not acceptable as a source to establish notability. The second source is the company website itself, which is not an independent source. There are circumstaces where primary sources are acceptable, but not for establishing notability. The third source is an announcement or press release type story announcing the opening of a company facility. Again, that does not establish notability.
Any article about your company must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company that have chosen on their own to write about it, to establish that the company is notable. This means
  1. independent- the source cannot be affiliated with the company
  2. reliable- the source must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control
  3. significant coverage- the source must do more than merely report the activities of the company, and/or be more than a brief mention. It must go into what others deem significant about the company(not what the company considers to be significant about itself)
  4. chosen on their own to write about it- the source must not be prompted by the company to write about it, or be writing based on materials from the company itself, like its website, or an interview with a company official, or its press releases.
If a source is not all of these things, it cannot be used to establish notability.(it might be able to be used for other things, but not that.) As you note, I've been around for 10 years. In that time, I see very few people in your position succeed in writing about their companies. It is possible to do, but the hang up most people have is that they want to tell us all about what their company does. Most of them do a pretty good job at that- but that's not what we are looking for. We want to know what others wholly unconnected with the company say is significant about it. This often differs from what a company thinks is significant about itself(which a company is free to tell on its own website/social media). It's usually very hard- though possible- for a company representative to set aside what they know about their company and only write about what others say about it- if such sources exist at all.
Ford Motor Company and Microsoft both merit Wikipedia articles not because they do a lot of business activities like releasing new products or opening new facilities- but because independent sources have written about the influence of both companies in business, history, and society(Ford perfecting assembly lines, Microsoft software changing society, etc.)
I hope this helps you. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to watch another editor who is careless with their editing

Hi - Thanks for the Picsart edit. I noticed you’re an admin. I’m not, but tried to do some Wiki maintenance yesterday after coming across some garbled edits and going through the person’s edit history. Only two edits since April, so maybe not an issue any more with the warning I gave, but perhaps you know the best way to put this person on an anti-vandalism watch list? This didn’t seem to warrant a report on a noticeboard. What would you recommend as an appropriate action? The account is User:M.Shozab raza TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 13:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timtempleton Off the top of my head I'm not aware of a central potential vandal watch list that any community member can view, at least WP:VD doesn't indicate there is one; I could think of reasons that might not be a good idea to have, such as people deliberately vandalizing to get on the list("hey look! I'm a top Wikipedia vandal!!"). We do have the Long Term Abuse list but that is meant to track already blocked or banned incorrigible users. There is a list of most vandalized pages but that doesn't track specific users.
The best thing to do, at least that I can think of right now, is place the user's talk page on your watchlist, in case others warn that user for vandalism, thereby alerting you to check their contributions. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sushant Case

Let's talk about why the page should be changed and be neutral Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be changed, and is not "neutral"(but should be written with a neutral point of view). It summarizes independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fuh1242

Their attack on my talk page was the account's first edit. Should we bother trying to figure out which troll I upset? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you have some free time...... /s. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wish I had free time, I'd put it to a better use than tracking down an IP troll. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Lim_Zhi_Hang#Repeat_of_my_hope_for_a_decision_on_my_unblock_request_as_soon_as_possible_in_case_Wikipedia_administrators_missed_my_request_once_more

In case you want to say something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intedit226's other account

Is this one.[1] which I guess should be blocked as well. I wonder if he's a paid editor. Intedit226 says "I'm working on behalf of a legal team that is interested in ensuring the accuracy of this page, and will be happy to provide official sources/references for edits that we have suggested". Not sure if that means paid, but still this is not good. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please publish my statement

This user account is a bot operated by Cobi (talk), Rich Smith (talk), and DamianZaremba (talk). It is used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the bot policy. The bot is approved and currently active – the relevant request for approval can be seen here. Moheet1973 (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what this is for, or why you need me to post it somewhere. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia is losing its own acceptance popularity because of Wikipedia's collaboration with some yellow journalists in Bangladesh on Channel Sixteen. My name is Wikipedia's statement about my organization as well as the statements of the corrupt yellow journalists of Bangladesh. Wikipedia will maintain neutrality and keep the basic human rights intact. Please share my views on the Wikiria page of Channel 16 TV. Thanks Moheet1973 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moheet1973 I have no knowledge of what Wikiria is or of any collaboration with Bangladeshi journalists of any stripe. What I do know is that this is not the place to air your grievances. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate help desk advice

In this edit ([2]), you told an editor that they could request restoration of a G11 deleted article at WP:REFUND. While it's technically correct that they can request that, REFUND does not restore G11 articles, nor should they, so it would have been a waste of their time to go there. If they'd made such a request, it would have just been denied. The instructions at the top of the page specifically state Please do not request that pages deleted under speedy deletion criteria F7, F9, F11, U5, A7, A9, A11, G3, G4, G10, G11 or G12 be undeleted here. (emphasis added) Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My submission was declined. I have read the reasons but still have doubts

Hi, my submission was declined because the references I used, "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)." I read these pages. I don't have any affiliation with any of the references mentioned in the submission. The references are also stories by well known journalists and media organisations so they are reliable in that sense. The Morning Context repeatedly gets credited in many media publications like Bloomberg etc for the stories we write, should those be referenced? Or would those be also rebuked under passing mentions. I'm saying this because for a new media company, getting credited for our work in big media company is a pretty significant thing. Do help me understand and thank you for your time. AshishMishra1410 (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AshishMishra1410 It looks like you've attempted to declare a COI on your user page(it's not the right template); if you work for this company, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement.
Regarding your question, in examining your sources, I can say
  1. I can't examine this one due to a paywall(it's okay to use paywalled sources, though)
  2. is just an announcement of the start of operations of the company
  3. is a piece about a writer for the company written by the company, which is not an independent source
  4. is a piece about the raising of funds, a routine business activity which does not establish notability
  5. is a blog from Google about companies that were awarded funds, blogs are generally not reliable sources, and again the raising of funds is a routine activity
  6. is a summary of a lecture by the chief editor of the company, which is not significant coverage and is not independent
These sources do not establish that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. It is usually hard for new or "upstart" companies to merit articles about them, because it is rare for independent reliable sources to give them significant coverage on their own(not prompted by or based on materials from the company like its website, press releases, announcements). Companies must typically be established and recognized in their field to get such coverage(like The New York Times or BBC or CNN). Media companies are also tough because they do not often write about each other. Another news organization merely using your stories isn't necessarily significant unless independent reliable sources write about that fact beyond that it occurred. Please understand that not every company in a field merits a Wikipedia article, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

I have received your message saying " ... you may have a conflict of interest ..."

Yes, this is correct, I am part of the Board, even if only on an honorary basis: this is a medical federation, I am an engineer, I have my own IT company and I have no interest in the sector in which Femtec operates (indeed SPA and tghermal baths make me really disgusting).

I wrote this article because it seems strange to me that a Federation of 40 nations associated to WHO does not appear on Wikipedia, while many things of minor importance are published there.

If you find it useful, check it out, correct it and publish it. If you don't like it, delete it. I don't earn anything from publishing this article, I only wrote it because I thought I was doing it useful for Wikipedia. I've already wasted a lot of time publishing it because Wikipedia's instructions are insanely wordy and redundant. From your message I did not understand what I still have to do and so I give up wasting more time with Wikipedia. You have my text, do what you want.

And, of course, thanks for your support.

Massimo1940 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC) 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo1940 Your text seems to have been copied from the organization website; this is not permitted and as such the draft has been deleted. I'm happy to answer your questions and guide you further if you wish, I'm sorry that you feel you have wasted your time. Please understand that not every large organization merits a Wikipedia article, it depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources. If you change your mind and would like some help, please ask. I wish you nothing but the best. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your problems on reputable sources and non-biased content. For this I have included links to important medical organizations that mention FEMTEC. Of course most of the content of my article corresponds to the FEMTEC statements, the same content that I helped the President to write. Just to mention something similar you know, WHO: If you write an article about WHO, do you change the WHO statements describing its activity?
In any case, I did what I could and what I thought it was right to do. I see that you are very willing to improve the content according to your standard. Therefore I can only tell you to do it, so I can also understand how you approach this problem. I would be very surprised if you are able to change the WHO or the FEMTEC activities and goals, which are part legally associated to their statute and official documents.
Just let me know pls. if FEMTEC will be mentioned in Wikipedia or not. As I told you this is not my business, I hate thermal bath and FEMTEC people know that, I just like the web and all information sources of the web. As for this I am very grateful to Wikipedia because many years ago it inspired me the logic of the mark-up, which I applied in my CMS. Thanks to this today Google (https://web.dev/measure) gives my sites a performance of 100/100 that you will never see in sites made with other CMS. Obviously I have improved your mark-up and in fact according to Google my pages perform better than yours.
So I leave it to you to decide what to do with FEMTEC. I understand that it is better that I dedicate my journalist activity to my magazines and my TVs rather than Wikipedia.
Thanks for the time you have spent with me. Massimo1940 (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles exist to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic(we'll go with organization for our purposes), not what an organization says about itself. This includes what it considers to be its mission/vision/principles, or even what it considers to be its own history. The article about the WHO should not be describing what it says its activities and goals are, it should be summarizing what others completely unaffiliated with the organization say is significant about its activities and goals and/or what others say is its history. So no, we can't and wouldn't change what the WHO or FEMTEC says about itself- but that's not the content that we are looking for. A Wikipedia article can contain what others say the WHO says about itself, but not primary sourced information. With regards to FEMTEC, if independent reliable sources give it significant coverage, it would merit an article. If no or almost no such sources exist, it would not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sebastian Delfi

Hi 331dot,

I was hoping you could review the page Sebastian Delfi as it is ready for publish. Your assistance is greatly appreciated! Thanks! Apollosouthpaw (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review, as noted, this could potentially take some time. I don't usually take direct requests to "jump the line" as if I do it for one, I have to do it for everyone. However, I may do so when I have a moment, but no guarantees. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CenturionWealthManagement

I see you have soft-blocked this account. I was going to wait for it to become autoconfirmed (which is virtually certainly what it was aiming for) and then see what happened. The disadvantage of blocking at this stage is that it's likely the editor will now do the same process of build-up-to-autonconfirmation-then-post-spam but under a different and less obvious username, so that we may not notice it. JBW (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW. Yes, that occurred to me after I did it- though I am glad you have mentioned that. :) 331dot (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello - what does this tag mean

hello, thanks for your edits.

What does this tag mean? [3] 666hopedieslast (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is required to submit your draft for review. It's only required for IPs and new accounts, but it's a good idea unless you are very experienced in creating articles. If you are so experienced, or are just going to take the chance and move it to mainspace yourself, feel free to remove it. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Dear 331dot,

I would like to thank you for your great help. I will follow your guidance and will send an email to Wikipedia to address my case. Thank you. Scholartop (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should have checked

Hi! I didn't mean to second-guess you here, sorry about that – I saw the linkspam and blocked without checking the talk-page. Of course you'll undo that if you think fit. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) I'll just leave it, the linkspam should be addressed. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground edit-warrior continues to evade...

...all while blocked via this account; 158.181.81.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

this same person has been using different IPs, all from the same range to cause disruption on multiple articles,

  1. 158.181.80.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  2. 158.181.81.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  3. 158.181.82.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  4. 158.181.83.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  5. 158.181.83.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These are the ones I've come across so far. I saw the exchanges between them and you, along with Yamla, RickinBaltimore and Parsecboy, and thought you should know. Cheers - wolf 15:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made it a range block. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should do. Thanks - wolf 18:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you + A new subpage

You may not know me, but I was telling a sockpuppet whom I was unaware was that, a summary on how the NFL draft works, and during me editing and stuff, you got him out of here, and I want to say thanks, although I still wrote the entire thing. He also gave me my first Barnstar, which hurts me that I got it from a sockpuppet, so thanks for getting rid of those pesky socks.

I also made a subpage for the dead and I would like to ask you if there is anyone who meets my rules you would like to add on there. Sportsfangnome (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, but thanks. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rape69 blocked

Courtesy message. Sorry but I disagree. That name cannot be acceptable. Blocked. -- Alexf(talk) 14:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexf No problem. I could have gone either way, but I felt blocking it would spread it around more. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re your block of Venkat TL

Reasonable but Murder of Kanhaiya Lal is in 2 terrorism categories yet the sources mentioned do not actually call it terrorism. Looks like pov editors keeping it in. Venkat says BLPN failed, what do you think? RSN? Doug Weller talk 11:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so, yes. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I’m not sure what to do. I’d prefer to stay uninvolved, but… Doug Weller talk 18:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re your blocking of User:2603:7000:6F40:B5F0:6179:B90F:A22A:3894 and 2603:7000:6f40:b5f0:7d09:704b:bc0d:834

Hello, I see you blocked 2 IP editors doing vandalism on Karine Jean-Pierre. Thanks for blocking them. Usually, that would be unnotable considering vandals are common in Wikipedia. But I noticed something pretty interesting while looking at the blocks.

You see, you blocked the IP editors at 09:08 AM (may differ wildly due to time zones). Not knowing this, I reported them to AIV on literally, 09:09 AM. Literally, a 1-minute (or less) interval between them. Needless to say, I removed the reports since they were nullified 1 minute before. Thanks again. SpodleTalk 09:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Requesting your help, please!

I would like to report an error in the deletion of information on a page. Jungkook (the Main Vocalist of BTS) has been confirmed to have absolute pitch and this information was deleted from “the list of people with absolute pitch” page. I can provide multiple articles and sources that confirm this information. There is even a video of Jungkook proving this ability on camera. Can you please help to restore the correct information? I would greatly appreciate your help! Thank you!

Official video posted on the variety show, “RUN BTS” (Episode 150), of Jungkook proving he has absolute pitch on camera: https://m.vlive.tv › postRun BTS! 2021 - EP.150 - V LIVE

These are just several of the articles that confirm Jungkook has “absolute pitch”. I can provide you with more articles and more videos, if needed. Please let me know, thank you.

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/09/08/bts-jungkook-perfect-pitch-stuns-army-musical-prodigy-says-show/?amp

https://www.koreaboo.com/news/run-bts-jungkook-perfect-pitch-members-reaction/

https://kbizoom.com/charlie-puth-praised-btss-jungkook-a-miraculously-perfect-vocal-with-perfect-pitch/

https://www.sportskeeda.com/amp/pop-culture/news-miraculously-perfect-charlie-puth-heaps-praise-bts-jung-kook-s-impressive-vocals Moniinicole (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please bring this up on the article talk page, Talk:List of people with absolute pitch. Admins do not settle content issues or disputes. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to "Draft:American TV and Radio Commercials Festival"

Dear 331dot, thank you for reviewing my draft...I would be grateful for any help that you can give me in making it worthy to be approved. It is true that I have access to limited source material, but I am adding a citation from Backstage Magazine, and I have a scanned pdf of those pages...I hope this will be sufficient! If not, perhaps you would approve it if I simply added this information about the American TV and Radio Commercials Festival to the page about Wallace A. Ross that I created seven years ago? I look forward to hearing from you... many thanks, Valerie Ross Valerie Ross (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Ross It's not necessary to upload scans of sources; you only need to provide a citation that gives the publication information(so that someone could find it in a library or whatever public location it can be found in). Sources need only be publicly available.
It might very well be better to add the information to the article about Mr. Ross if sources are limited about the event- but anything you say about it must be pertinent to him, you couldn't shoehorn in everything about the event. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Draft:Muhammad Hamid Raza

Just letting you know methinks the submitter is a sock, so the draft probably won't be worked on from them. I've added it to my list of drafts to save, but I probably won't get to it anytime soon. Curbon7 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Need your help!

I hope this message finds you well, sir. On Wikipedia, I initially communicated with you as a senior. I'm working on tasks for newcomers and completing certain tasks that make sense to me (simultaneously I am reading various policies also). Could you maybe take a moment to look over my most recent contributions to see if I'm doing okay? PlayOboe (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious issues with your contributions. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spooky

This is getting spooky now! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Information icon Hello, I'm Coasterlover1994. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Coasterlover1994 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. I don't appreciate unsolicited NSFW links being left on my talk page Coasterlover1994 20:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, somebody is apparently spoofing you and signed their message with your name. Vandalism has been bad lately... Coasterlover1994 20:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coasterlover1994 No hard feelings. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

172.58.160.35

Could you please block them, this is continuing disruption. There is a short discussion on Drmies' talk page about it at User_talk:Drmies#Unrelated_disruptive_IP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‪CSCunninghamCCI‬, account has been partially blocked on Wikipedia.

You recently denied my appeal requesting lifting my 'partially blocked.' I am am not requesting you to reconsider your denial, I am only asking for clarification. You stated " Since you think you have done nothing wrong, there are no grounds to remove the partial block." How do answer a double negative statement? Did you take the time to review any of my edits? In my appeal of my 'Block' (Persistent addition of unsourced content: Conflict of interest editing, use of poorly cited, poor quality sources.), I stated that on at least two occasions I asked ‪Cullen328 to what 'unsourced content and use of poorly cited, poor quality sources., was he talking about, I never received an answer, how can I defend my self, when Cullen328 did not and would not identify what edits were 'unsourced' and what edits used ' poorly cited, poor quality sources?" How can I accept responsibilities for edits in question that have never been shared with me?

You further stated, " Having a conflict of interest doesn't mean you have to gain something from your edits." I would say that 100% the Scottish Clan pages are written and edited by members of that Clan and members of its Clan Society. Who else would be interested other than a 'Cunningham' to edit the Clan Cunningham.

How do report the interference of influencing a Wikipedia Editor into Blocking me? My Blocking only came about, after I reported an editor, editing the Clan Cunningham page, whose edits solely relied on his own self published book (Calbos.) As well as reporting that he violated two of Wikipedia’s policies. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research, and do not use Wikipedia to promote yourself. Has Calbos been blocked from editing the Clan Cunningham Page?

I look forward to hearing back from you, and reviewing your clarification to the questions that I have raised.

Thank you Steve Cunningham C. Stevens Cunningham (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Who else would be interested other than a 'Cunningham' to edit the Clan Cunningham", the answer is anyone that takes note of the Clan in independent reliable sources with significant coverage. That's how the vast majority of articles are written.
Cullen328 gave a detailed response to you regarding the poor sourcing of your edits, which is still on your user talk page. I would suggest that you address those things in another unblock request. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for Aleenf1

This is the proof of his wrongdoings: User talk:Aleenf1#Edit warring about the style of place names at 1988 Winter Olympics and other articles and User talk:Aleenf1#No valid reasons for reversions.--Hongqilim (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to confine further discussion of the dispute between the two of you to the existing ANI discussion. You should not further contact admins directly about this. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Hongqilim (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Submission decline due to "notability"

Hi :)

You declined my submission because you said there is no "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)."

However, you can see we have a lot of mentions, including BIG and NOTABLE news sources like the Wall Street Journal and techcrunch...

We don't have any affiliation with any of the references mentioned in the submission. The references are also stories by well known journalists and media organisations so they are reliable in that sense.

Could you please re-review? Pickadilly (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickadilly The issue is not the outlets themselves, but the content of the sources. They are almost exclusively announcements of routine business activities. This does not establish notability. Please read my comments on the draft. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Ememory has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ememory. Thanks! 331dot (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simple

331dot a simple question, you recently denied appeal to lift the block regarding my editing the Clan Cunningham page citing my violation 'Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy' do to my relationship with Clan Cunningham International editing the Wikipedia article 'Clan Cunningham.'

How can I overcome, conflict-of-interest policy, enabling me to update and add to the Clan Cunningham page? C. Stevens Cunningham (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSCunninghamCCI I suggest that you read the conflict of interest policy(this plain language explanation may help) which should explain how you can contribute in the area of your COI. This is not a secret, it's an open book test. Then you can make a new unblock request and tell us what you found out. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you C. Stevens Cunningham (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Kaylee Schmitz has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kaylee Schmitz. Thanks! 331dot (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally we don't block for impersonation unless the person has an existing Wikipedia article about them"

Is that so? Should it be so? It seems to me that if you have an account named Ferd the Wonderburfler, and the first thing you do is create Draft: Ferd the Wonderburfler, then you are asserting that Ferd the Wonderburfler is a notable person, and thus your account impersonates Ferd and should be blocked as impersonation of someone you yourself claim to be a notable person. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm going to have "Ferd the Wonderburfler" stuck in my head. :) Anyway, I can't tell you at this moment how I got that understanding. I guess there could be a difference between someone asserting that they themselves are notable versus someone pretending to be a notable person("User:DonaldTrump"). I don't know. Sometime I could dig around and see if I had a discussion about this. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicer than I...

You said this a lot nicer than I would have. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections on Samuel Barnett’s wiki page

Hi there, Thanks for your message. I’m fairly new to attempting to edit the Samuel Barnett page. I am Samuel Barnett. The information in the personal life section on the page is incorrect. My grandfather did not die of covid. I do not come from a lineage of magicians. This information was used today in an article about me in The Guardian newspaper and has caused problems for me. It isn’t true and I didn’t realise that information was on the wiki page about me. So I went in and corrected it. Hope this explains my actions :) Many thanks, Sam Amoshunter (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amoshunter If you are Mr. Barnett, you should avoid directly editing the article(not a page) about you. Instead, please make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on Talk:Samuel Barnett (actor). The passage you are disputing is well sourced; if it is in error, you will need to explain why and possibly speak to tbe sources to have them issue corrections. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, if you have the time, could you look into his edit request? I have literally 0 experience handling COI. I did determine that the magician part is fiction and just something for his theatre (see [4]). Thank you. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 18:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you very much for letting me know and for providing the link to do that. I appreciate it. Amoshunter (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we

I always refer to myself and the little man who lives in my tooth as "we." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll email you. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably needs a spamu block? I like this block better. Don't let them know how we know. I gave 'm the standard boiler plate decline. The little man in my tooth says hi. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A rookie making a rookie mistake...

It has become clear to me I have no idea what I'm doing. I was asked to submit an article here by my boss and ended up getting myself banned. Are you able to provide some insight on how to fix the article I submitted so I don't make the same mistake. I wasn't trying to advertise or promote the brand as I was trying to (poorly) site my sources. Thanks! 23.28.93.253 (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit while logged out, that is block evasion. Blocks and bans are different, you are blocked. Please return to your account and request unblock there. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation?

Hi 331. At Afchelp, you said "Generally we don't block for impersonation unless the person has an existing Wikipedia article about them". That was for a different user, but I have always wondered about user Pete Best Beatles. His user page says he is not really Pete Best, but still, why is his username OK? I'm just curious. Thanks. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a user is clear that their username is not meant to represent a famous person, and that they are not that person, it is not impersonation and the name is okay. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiholic

Hello there,

Can u tell me why you reverted my last edit? Not having a go at u ofc but I'm confused. It seemed like a WP:OUTING vio to me. I'm not the only one who thinks that and I didn't want Wikiholic's privacy being invaded. It seems like I've done something wrong and I'd like to understand what it is Stephanie921 (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears several editors disagree. I would highly suggest that you let the issue rest and an uninvolved admin will look at it if necessary. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! I'll let them deal with it.Stephanie921 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi 331dot, User "Entertainment4Reality" has a case going on here. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kosnsnkjsjsbbs PravinGanechari (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Michaelshea2004

Seems like they opened a new account at User:Sheamichael2004. Liliana (UwU) 07:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

Hi there. This edit from a PR/WP:CORPNAME user that Cullen328 blocked is a clear personal attack. I asked Cullen if he thought it would be worth revoking talk page access; he thinks it could be seen as retribution if he did it. So I'm asking an uninvolved admin - congrats, lol!

I still think it deserves some kind of a response, whether it involves revoking TPA or not. I don't like leaving the impression that lashing out with emotional outbursts and insults is in any way acceptable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to give a warning. We will see what happens. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L E M F R E C K

Regarding User:Noctown, their Draft:L E M F R E C K has been requested for undeletion by new user Contentedport. Noctown wanted to be renamed to Callingzooport. Jay 💬 18:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Aniket Dey has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Aniket Dey. Thanks! Hoary (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh . . . the notification above was automated, of course. I realize that you're not the perp! -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

viAct Page Creation Help!

Hey Buddy, reason for speedy deletion of viAct page I am not able to understand because my CEO asked me to create one on behalf of the company as we are featured by Forbes in Asia Top 100 List. How to create? Need your help on this. Surendra.viact.ai (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to respond on your user talk page, please make further comment there. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buddy! Appreciated Surendra.viact.ai (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some falafel for you!

please forgive me for what i said to you i know ill never meet you but still i feel so bad about it Baudimoovan (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for helping everyone at the teahouse today! Blanchey (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSCunninghamCCI Request to have Block lifted

Sorry if I am following protocol, I had this response on my Talk page for several day without getting a response. If I have posted this in the wrong place, please advise me, where it should be placed. Steve

Reply to 331dot re-question how will you contribute: My writings will be factual, supported by proper citations. I will keep to the facts without any editorializing. My edits should enhance the reader's knowledge of the subject matter or clarify existing writings. I will not use Clan Cunningham International (CCI) as a resource (citation), nor will I ever promote CCI through any of my writings. I will place a COI statement on the talk page associated with the page that I am editing, minor or major. As a page editor, I must remain neutral when editing and avoid conflicts with other editors. I must utilize the many Wikipedia services to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia and that of the page. I will submit my edits for peer review either utilizing Template:Request edit or COI noticeboard review prior to publishing any major changes to the page. If I am writing a new article, I will utilize the Articles for Creation (AfC) process again for peer review.

I hope I have answered your question; if you have any additional questions, I would be more than happy to respond. C. Stevens Cunningham (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Pop2KBass925

Thanks for your information. I’m in any way upset but I would just like to ask, are there any tips you’d give me to accept the draft. To fix it, I might make a website for my band, we do have 3 hits.

But I’m just wondering if you have tips. Thanks Pop2KBass925 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pop2KBass925 Whether your band has a website or not is irrelevant to any potential article about your band. I think that you have a common, fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place for people/companies/groups to tell the world about themselves and what they do. That's considered promotional here; you do not have to be soliciting or selling something. You've done a good job summarizing your band and its work, but that's not what we want. A Wikipedia article about a band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Not every band merits a Wikipedia article, it depends on the sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what any subject wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with it choose on their own to say about it.
Perhaps you saw my comment to your earlier; to succeed in creating a Wikipedia article about your band, you need to set aside everything you know about it, and all materials it puts out, and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability. So I will ask you two questions; 1, which of the notability criteria do you claim the band meets, and 2, what independent reliable sources do you have to summarize? 331dot (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information. I’m not trying to sell my music. I just love making Wikipedia articles. I am going to try to find so websites articles on my band and use those.
Yes I did see your comment.
When I linked my social media links to the band I meant to use those as references. Sorry about that. Also, our hit “Madison Feeman” was a hit so I’m wondering why I didn’t get that article auto-generated. Please don’t take the article down. I’ll work on it. Thanks for reading this long text. Pop2KBass925 (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pop2KBass925 Yes, social media links are not appropriate as references, nor is any primary source(for establishing notability). 331dot (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you say a "hit", did it chart? That would meet the notability criteria, as long as you have independent sources. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have some help please

You've misunderstood me. I don't think it should get deleted just because others aren't notable. I'm saying it should get deleted because it isn't notable. And there's no reasons why this non-notable article of a Western politician should exist, secondarily because non-Western ones don't. I'm trying to get it nominated in the same way as WP:Articles for deletion/Death of Mikhail Gorbachev where others can vote on it. Could u please help me start a vote page? Stephanie921 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie921 I just saw this after I wrote to you. Have you followed the instructions at WP:AFD? You had posted a proposed deletion, which is a different process meant for noncontroversial deletions.
Note that deletion discussions are not a vote, but a discussion. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Geraldo Saal has been created, which is apparently the real name of RALIE G. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cain and Abel

Should be accepted as the Christian interpretation. My matrix of resource; Let Scripture interpret Scripture. I disagree with your decline and respectfully ask you reconsider U000drl01 (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It respectfully ask that you reconsider my Christian interpretation of their story. Equating King Davids comments on Sacrifices and Gods acceptance/ or rejection U000drl01 (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As an observer, I would respectfully ask that you follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies on how to add material, including where to add it, and to use reliable sources that back your claim instead of your own interpretation. Your own interpretation would be considered original research, which is something we don't allow. And we don't just plop stuff like that above the header and lede of the article even if it is sourced. [5] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Why did you reject my edit? I know there are 1-2 misspells? Dale Leonard U000drl01 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Other than 1-2 typos and don’t understand why you did not regard my Christian interpretation as relevant. I’d like to say my expertise in this area is; let scripture interpret scripture. I believe King David’s description of acceptable and non acceptable sacrifices to God completely relevant. I don’t want to be argumentative but only to understand? Thank you Dale Leonard -U000drl01 U000drl01 (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U000drl01 Please edit this existing section for follow up comments, instead of creating new sections with every comment. If you are in full desktop mode(may be easier for you if you aren't), click "edit" instead of "new section" at the top of this page, or there is also an edit link in the section header.
Dennis Brown is correct above- please understand that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize independent reliable sources, and not our own views. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Walker and a Neutral Editorial Voice

Hello. You just accused me of removing content without an edit summary. This is inaccurate, as the record of my edit shows. My summary links to the Wikipedia editorial board's clear guidance on the proper inclusion of quotations in a manner that supports a neutral voice. In case you missed the link in my edit summary, here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations_and_neutrality . I encourage you to read it and re-evaluate your perspective on the quotes on question. Additionally, you may review the BLP violation notice posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Herschel_Walker

I will redo my edits and take a screenshot of my edit summary so that you will not be able to make the claim again. If you see a value in those quotations staying in the entry, then I encourage you to explain how they align with Wikipedia's guidance on this issue. Glenstorm85 (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:331dot/Archive_15&oldid=1108468383"