Jump to content

User talk:331dot

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by That Coptic Guy (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 3 March 2024 (→Inquiry on the existence of a particular script: 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.

A kitten for you!

Your efforts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk are sincerely appreciated. You are a real gem!

– DreamRimmer (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For diligently overcoming the mind-numbing tedium and futility of working CAT:UNBLOCK -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 12:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point this out too:

<This>. Not sure if they can even use those, but I saw before. – 2804:F14:80CF:A701:1D38:7B07:9146:FD2D (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot about vegan sandwiches[1]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 21:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#article_scenario

Teahouse thoughts

hey! I'm just curious what you think about my contributions at the Teahouse—I want to make sure I'm giving the best advice possible. It's good that other editors give different perspectives on the same advice and say things in different ways, but I want to be sure there's not a sense where other hosts have to "fill in the gaps" for me, per se. Cheers! Remsense留 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about your comments stands out at me as problematic right now so you're probably doing pretty good. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Red-tailed hawk

Hello, 331dot. You have new messages at 7bot's talk page.
Message added 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections and stuff

I find myself wondering about the utility of chiding people requesting unblocks for not using Wikipedia jargon correctly. I'm not sure how it helps at all to point out to a requestor that "blocking" and "banning" mean two different things within Wikipedia; all they know is that they're no longer allowed to edit, and the fine difference between the two of them doesn't have any bearing on their situation. Likewise, lecturing them on the terminology "page" vs. "article" doesn't really provide any useful clarification to the naive new users who only know they've been prevented from putting up the information they desire. Were I a blocked user, I'd be nothing but annoyed by such marginally relevant (and condescending) instructions. Maybe I'm wrong about this? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that personally I try to be precise with language and it helps everyone to be on the same page, but perhaps there are times I should let that slide. I do think there is a tendency (especially amongst promotional editors) to treat or view a "page" differently than they would treat an "article", so I do sometimes point that out, but certainly if someone appears to not have English as their main language I would avoid doing so. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not attempting to be condescending; just trying to provide clarity and help people out/ 331dot (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you are, but I've never seen a response from a requesting editor to indicate any understanding of the corrections. And among the established community, we often use "page" and "article" pretty much interchangeably; after all, it is a Wikipedia page, and Wikipedia pages in mainspace happen to be articles. So they're not wrong when they say "pages" -- they're just being imprecise. Maybe something like "Wikipedia pages are more than just pages -- they are articles, and they have particular requirements to be included in Wikipedia" might be helpful? I dunno. But the terminology is the least of their problems if they're blocked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a few say "oh thanks, I didn't know" (nothing I could pull up right now) but that's neither here nor there. I appreciate your viewpoint and comments and I will take it under consideration. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've always smiled when I've seen 331dot hit that pedantric tune. However, I do agree that a change in wording might better score a run. Words have meanings and are important. Getting the point across is also important. I know I've caught myself and had to backspace out the word "page" and replace it with "article" when I'm explaining, though less so more recently particularly because I've seen 331dot kindly chastise a problem user so frequently. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Pachu0168

Hey, just wanted to let you know that some ducks have been recently been editing Loy Krathong & Muay Thai.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

quo vadimus?

User talk:MoviesandTelevisionFan#Unblock request -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page perms

Heya, would you be interested in revoking <this fellow>'s ability to misuse their talk page like that? (went here from the active admins list). – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:D01C:8A7:BA70:8AAE (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :). – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:D01C:8A7:BA70:8AAE (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Teahouse!

You've done what I have been trouted for in the past: WP:HD#Want to request English translation for Russian page. ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I did. :) 331dot (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

aren't finding the "email this user" link.

maybe he got muted. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but preemptively? 331dot (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know the answer to that one. Presumably, user sent a series of emails? Anyway, I thought I addressed the very good reasons for blocking them in my decline. Please unblock if you disagree. Thanks for all you do. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Sjsjsjsisisisisk's talk page

Hey,

User:Sjsjsjsisisisisk is repeatedly reverting block notices. This is like the 10th time I've reverted him, is there anything that can be done (I have reported him to administrator intervention against vandalism already, but as he is already blocked it is removed by the bot that patrols AVI.

 🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 15:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, he was blocked as I was typing that message.
 🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 15:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #83037

AhmedGamal has been sitting a while. OK to unblock? Restore talk page access? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth an unblock. Happy with whatever you think, though. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for Axel Söderqvist draft

Hello, you denied my draft about Axel Söderqvist, for not having any sources about him. However, the source i provided called lagstatistik is an individualized source that documents his specific footballing appearances? 987123Wiki123 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

987123Wiki123 That's not exactly why I declined it. I declined it because the two sources you provided do not have significant coverage of this person that shows what makes them important/significant/influential- what Wikipedia calls the definition of a notable person. We don't want a mere documentation of the person's activities, we need a summary of independent reliable sources that discuss the person in depth. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never

broiled a pork shoulder steak before. Hope it came out alright. Temp 164F . Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user MaineDomesticViolence

For what it's worth, the blocked editor never answered this question [1]. Probably doesn't matter now, as the other account looks dormant. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OCTMGH

Could you check the current unblock request. I had reblocked two weeks ago as I felt I had unblocked in error, and it languishes. Could you see if it's adequate for unblocking? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they need to find something else to edit about. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's a load off my mind. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the temporary unblock

Thank you for your unblock. I'm a low-frequency editor WikiSloth, I honestly just raised it because I thought it was weird for people on trains being blanket-banned from editing even if their accounts have a history of good citizenship, not because I was in dire need of a personal unblock. I guess that means I only wasted your time; I'm super sorry about that! v_v Thank you for unblocking me, though! I appreciate that kindness. Have a wonderful day. ♥ -pinkgothic (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party unblock request

I wanted to discuss with you third-party unblock request. I understand that the sanctions "ban" and "block" are different, and I used the word "ban" not in a sense similar to that of Wikipedia topic ban, but in a meaning of to "prohibit". I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BeingObjective#c-331dot-20240207102700-December_2023 I wanted to ask to unblock the user. What can you recommend? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Masiutin Unblock requests must come from the blocked user themselves. I'm not sure what your interest with this user is, but if you want to discuss Bbb23's block with them, you should do so as non-unblock request comments(just pinging them should do it) on that user's talk page. (I initally said you should go to Bbb23's page directly, which you could, but the affected user's talk page is probably better.) 331dot (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I messed the users 331dot and Bbb23 because they looked similar, as an alphanumeric combination, so I mixed up the usernames. However, if you think that there is no reason to unblock the user after a few months have passed, than there will be no unambiguous consensus, so the user Bbb23 will probably notice the same patterns of behavior as you noticed. I am not an administrator and don't have experience or understanding on how to analyze the user's behaviour to make a conclusion that you made, or other administrator can make upon a reasonable review of the user's behaviour. Thank you again for your time, and sorry that I mixed up the usernames. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. No problem. Thanks for your message. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also asked on what my interest with this user is. My interest is solely in his expert knowledge and ability to dedicate time to editing medical articles. I found out that Wikipedia is somewhat harsh on measures. Theoretically, the rules state that minimally sufficient penalty should be applied, i.e. if there are two penalties that could prevent further bad behaviour, the lessser penalty of the two should be applied. Unfortunately User:BeingObjective got permanent block. I also cooperated with user User:Maneesh on medical articles, but he got permanent topic ban that practically blocked him from editing medical articles that we were working on, as these articles were related to sex hormones and other issues related to sex. I myself got permanent block on German wikipedia, mainly for using automated translation tools, although I asked a lesser penalty, such as an ability to edit in a sandbox only but not in the main userspace, and there were users who wrote they were willing to cooperate with me. Therefore, I think that Wikipedia is practically applying harsher penalties when there are alternatives, and I am concerned about it. I don't know why User:BeingObjective was blocked, and whether sanctions applied to him were proportional, because each case is different, but his contributions for the medical articles I was working on were valuable. I sometimes need a peer to check my edits, and I cannot find one, so User:BeingObjective was such a peer. That is the essence of my interest in unblocking. However, the interest of all Wikipedia community should be considered, and, especially the goal of making good encyclopedia should be considered as the primary goal. We are not a social network, we write Wikipedia. Therefore, all the pros and cons should be weighted on each particular case. I'm not competent to do analysis of User:BeingObjective behaviour, but his contributions to the articles I was also working on was very valuable, that is what I currently miss. Is my explanation sufficient? I understand that Wikipedia has strict policies and guidelines in place to maintain the quality and reliability of its content and the main goal is making a good encyclopedia, so that if interactions between the users was inappropriate but the content was good, all pros and cons should be weighed fairly, therefore, I do believe that contributions of User:BeingObjective should be taken into account when weighing all factors involved in this particular case. Thank you for taking the time to consider my explanation. Looking forward your feedback on my explanation and my reply to the question you raised on my interest in this case. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issues given as the reason for the block are difficult to handle with a block having an end date; the issues fundamentally related to failing to hear community concerns and attitude; in this situation we don't want the user to just wait out their block, we want them to address the concerns. The good of Wikipedia is not served by users disrupting Wikipedia with their attitude and failing to hear the concerns of said community. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for your explanation. I also noticed that the user was somewhat "harsh", but I was willing to tolerate that because his contributions outweighed that "harsh" attitude that he manifested sometimes. As an example, see the page that I edited: RCCX. I asked for an expert review using a template, and I also posted messages in related WikiProjects, but still could not find somebody to check the content.
I think that my explanation of my interest was sufficient, thank you again for your dedication. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, from a quick look at this user, there are very serious concerns about their editing behavior. That they made good edits shouldn't excuse these things without an explanation and committment to change. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you very much for your attention to this issue. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend page of Australian private equity company

Hi 331dot - I'm LizziePEP, a COI/paid editor slowly making renovations to the Pacific Equity Partners Wiki page. I noticed you in the backlogs of other Wikipedia articles, and would like to ask if you might be able to give me some pointers on proposed changes I've put forward to other editors (from whom I haven't heard back for some time). Any help you could provide would be much appreciated! See the first topic in my Sandbox for the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LizziePEP(New)/sandbox. Cheers LizziePEP(New) (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're more likely to get someone to look at your proposed edits if you propose them on the talk page in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). It looks like you have used the talk page previously, though not marked as an edit request- doing that will draw the attention of editors whom otherwise may not be following that article to be able to comment on your proposed changes. I would say based on a quick look that the proposed additions sourced to the Australian Financial Review are probably fine. Less sure about the investment schedule. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 331dot, thanks very much for your timely response. I really appreciate the advice. I will try the edit request route. Thanks, LizziePEP(New) (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Help

I would rather not engage this user on my talk page any further, but they also need to realize that uncivil comments are not okay. Could you take a look at my talk page here? (as I don't think they care much to hear from me any more)  【💬】 08:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't be editing related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all, only accounts that are 30 days old with 500 edits may do so. I warned them of this and against further incivility. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going?

Not trying to stalk you, but how's Maine? I've never actually been there myself. I know their slogan is "The Way Life Should Be." NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Great to visit. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually been telling my mom we should go for spring break, but she says it's way too cold there lol. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with hate speech in talk page?

Hi 331dot, asking because you were recently active and I can't find the relevant policy (which I am sure exists but my Wiki-fu is failing me) - what should I do with this talk page diff (cw for hateful comments about a trans person)? I have already removed it from the talk page but not sure if it needs a revdel or similar more serious removal. Thanks for your time! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdeleted it. That should be sufficient. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 331dot, much appreciated. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Contributions to Emmanuel Lemelson Page

Hi User:331dot, you've made some insightful posts on the Emmanuel Lemelson talk page. Particularly in discussion regarding the use and interpretation of sources. Link 1 Link 2.

I've started, at the encouragement of an other editor, a new section for proposed edits here.

I hope you will continue to engage with the page as it would benefit greatly from more editors being involved. Link

Thanks for your consideration DownEastLaw (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Kall

Hello, in case you don’t get notified, I wanted to let you know that I resubmitted my draft (Draft:James Kall). I removed the unsourced claim that you listed in your comment, as well as added quite a few more citations to the article. This actor in particular has been in countless theater productions, films and television programs. Majority of which are discussed in the sources i provided. I wanted to keep you updated on this matter, and didn’t want you to think i was trying to go around you. Thank you for your time and for what you do on the encyclopedia. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, that's the correct process. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP block evasion

You blocked an IP for evasion and I assume this is the same user[2] making disruptive edits at Talk:Al_Gore#Request_for_comment:_Al_Gore. Nemov (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are not disruptive. Kindly refrain from making accusations against other IP users. Remember, IPs are human too. 92.40.213.238 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is also using .237. It might require a range block. Nemov (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would take me time to do that, I'm not an expert at it yet; may need to be reported. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll do that. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far Rockaway and Cred and what about them?

One day long ago, my dad got pulled over for 40 in a 30 zone. He pointed to all the other cars whizzing by and asked the cop, "what about them?" The cop replied, "You're the one I caught." LOL. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... essentially your dad was speeding, right? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or I'm mistaken that isn't your dad you're talking about. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax

Hello, you deleted Emannism, is it possible it isn't a hoax and only a misspelling [[3]] Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a draft which described a supposed religion that worships Emma Watson called "Emmanism". 331dot (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok there went my AGF attempt right out the window. Thanks for clarifying, sounds like a good catch. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to answer questions. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User you banned evading.

Hello, I believe User_talk:Worldanimalsfoundation has simply made a new account: Special:Contributions/Adilhassan77, they've continued to add those same links and articles that they have written themselves. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle That sock got blocked, probably in response to this post. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent SPIs

Hello, I'm not sure why this user is pinging me for help after you politely asked them to disclose a connection at their user talk, but yesterday I had a string of similar pings from a sock of this master. The involved article yesterday was also connected to this master. Hope that's useful. Wikishovel (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The topics are pretty different, a Bangaldeshi person and a bank in the Congo. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was thinking the same at first, but if it's a sockfarm, they're not picky about who they write about, or where the subject is located. UK bios written by subcontinental socks can be quite funny reads for this reason. But no particular knowledge of the DRC is needed to write about a bank. Wikishovel (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it to the SPI. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen of discussion

Please, reopen this discussion per WP:BADNAC. Zsohl(Talk) 12:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to properly evaluate this request right now, please go to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Civic Caucus Page

Hi, in your denial comments you said you agree with the other reviewers comments which has me confused. Each comment has been addressed and edited. Do you have any new comments? I talked with Star Mississippi who is happy with the new version as well a few different editors have changed the format so it is in accordance with Wikipedia format. Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time at present to take a deeper dive into the draft; if you have spoken with someone who finds it acceptable, you should ask them to move it into the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it is their policy like it seems other editors to never review a page twice. If possible it would be great if you could take another look at the edit history and older comments. Like for example the comment below yours refers to a section that no longer exists and was removed and other edits format have been made. Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my decline. The sources you have offered do not establish that your organization is notable as Wikipedia defines it. I understand that your organization thinks that what it does is important, and it may even be so, but we need independent reliable sources that say that. Your sources are
  1. an interview on a blog, which is not independent and not reliable(blogs are almost never reliable sources)
  2. the obituary of the founder of the organization which says that he was important; Obituaries are usually written by someone associated with the deceased person.
  3. same as #1
  4. an opinion piece that is paywalled but seems to be an opinion piece that may or may not have been subject to editorial review and fact checking
  5. also an opinion piece
These don't establish notability. Organizations trying to force the issue of creating an article aren't usually successful, as they are too close to their organization to write as Wikipedia asks. I agree with the reviewer who said "This will not be accepted unless it's fundamentally re-written by someone with no ties to the Caucus." 331dot (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I can try my best to find more sources Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's up to you, but that would not resolve the issue of you being too close to your organization. Were you directed to attempt this task? 331dot (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasnt it was a independent project but I do work for them. Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this?

[4] I think they are back at WP:ANI#Harassment by Star_Mississippi Doug Weller talk 08:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's either this individual or someone associated with them. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to block the IP

Hey, 331dot. Just wanted to let you know, the IP you warned reverted your edit, calling you a transphobe and saying that Wikipedia is run by Nazis. I would recommend blocking them for a while. I know they might return under a different IP, but it's the best i can think of under the circumstances. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was reverted thankfully by another user, but the IP might need to be blocked nonetheless. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry on the existence of a particular script

Hi 331dot. :) Firstly, I see you commenting on unblock requests and on SPI all the time, so thanks for your efforts there!

Out of curiosity, I wanted to reach out and see if you have a particular script I might not know about. Your diff here seems to suggest the existence of a script that detects bot-generated written content? I'd love to know what you used to find out if that comment was written by a bot or not.

Thanks again for your many contributions and long service to the project — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:331dot&oldid=1211666203"