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 AnggaAle (talk | contribs) at 07:14, 23 May 2024 (→Thanks: 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 ("This post came up as 73% likely to be written by a bot. If you are using a bot, please don't.") 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]

There are various detectors, I'm aware of GPTzero. They're not perfect, but it's a tool. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this vandalism warning with legal threat mixture familiar: Special:Diff/1212737774 – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:2155:6FF7:21E3:4759 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE. the above

Can you add The local bishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Timefordindins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), initiating SPI? Apologies I can't do it due to time constraints. Thx.-- 82.13.47.210 (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they're trying to get the rise of you, here's another account: Alby Sebastiani (diff). – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:243A:A254:1976:1CDD (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Alaimo wiki change

Hello,

I added a credible source (which is the only source online) for Marc Alaimo's (Marc Alaimo) theatrical history which was not accepted because it was a blog link.

Ms. Ward has written extensively on Alaimo (and knows him personally) and has published his complete theatrical history in 3 parts (with information directly from him) in her blog here: https://elisaward.blogspot.com/2021/02/marc-alaimo-theatre-part-i-1959-1971.html

This is the best (and most accurate) reference and should be considered valid in this case, even if it is a "blog post". Thanks! Eccentric Euphemism (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric Euphemism I converted your link to the article to a standard internal link(double brackets like [[Marc Alaimo]]), the whole url is not needed.
Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources because they are self-published and usually lack fact checking, editorial control, and other standards of journalism. See WP:BLOGS. One possible pathway for this information is if the author is recognized as a subject-matter expert and has had other work published in reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alaimo has not had that much published on him (if anything) as he is a very private person. I don't know what other info you need because I know it is completely accurate and she is considered the "subject matter expert" by any fan I've come in contact with. It's frustrating that links to articles that are inaccurate are considered "valid" when completely accurate blog posts aren't accepted. Eccentric Euphemism (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered adding to the article about Marc Alaimo on Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki? This content would likely be accepted there. Wikipedia has stricter sourcing standards, especially when writing about living people. I don't dispute the accuracy of the information, but blogs are just not usually considered acceptable. Perhaps Mr. Alaimo would authorize her to write and publish a biography about him through a publisher that would have an editor examine it first.
If you are aware of sourced information about a living person that is inaccurate, or a source is not being accurately summarized, please point that out so it can be addressed. We are only as good as the volunteers who choose to participate. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:13:14, 12 March 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Starcruexz


Hey i think some links are significant coverage can you suggest me https://www.dnaindia.com/business/photo-gallery-ebikego-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-two-wheeler-rental-platform-2801410


Starcruexz (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an independent source, as it is largely based on an interview with the founder of the company. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see your user talk page for important information requiring a response, thank you. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for bug-page deletion created inappropriately

Hello sir. I have just realised that some unwanted User pages was created randomly with my minerva.js during my sandbox Template initial test. I don't know if is right to leave them or delete them since it wasn't actually a real User page but a js bug creation. The affected page are as follows: User:Null/sandbox, User:Null/sandbox/sandbox2 and User:Minerva/sandbox/sandbox2. Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want them, I can delete them. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i definitely don't want them as they aren't a subpage Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thanks very much. Thisasia (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Subpages deletion request.

Good day @331dot Sorry to have bothered you, please I would like to delete these redirect pages, User:Thisasia/common.js/common.js, User:Thisasia/sandbox/common.js User:Thisasia/Status2User:Thisasia/sandbox and these sanebox doc pages, User:Thisasia/sandbox/Doc, User:Thisasia/sandbox/doc and then with User:Thisasia/StatusChanger.js Thanks God bless.
Thisasia  (Talk) 11:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi?
Thisasia  (Talk)03:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, guess I missed this. It's done now; you may get a faster response if you just tag the pages for speedy deletion so any admin can respond. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oww thanks so much for these, very much appreciated. God bless and have a good time.
Thisasia  (Talk) 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard Discussion

It occurs to me that I should have signposted you to a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review as you were involved in the block review. I think I pinged you in, but apologies for not notifying you here sooner. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangaru Thalli

Hi, i want to publish the article regarding a program ruined by BBG group which helps girl child for there education.

What would you suggest and how can i publish the article.

Sakshi gilada (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please comment on the other discussion you started. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok Sakshi gilada (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Thinker78 (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

User:Thatsoddd sockpuppets

This user continues to use sockpuppets and IPs to edit enwiki despite being blocked - you last declined their unblock request a few weeks ago:

Some relevant discussion on Commons is here.

Thanks! Llacb47 (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

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

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals declined

The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Woah almost 12 years now thats what I call an og! Bally125 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the chair

Please see ExpertPrime's latest contributions. They've resumed the edit warring. 2A0E:CB01:10:1A00:146C:3E24:4E5C:2A09 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the weirdest controversial pages I've ever seen. I have to admit, I'm tempted to section-blank the bit about sub-saharan Africa which is sourced to a single, rather old, article in a single journal plus the description of a chair in a museum. It's... pretty weak sourcing. But because I sense there is a history here I thought I'd check with you regarding landmines before I go and do my ogre routine. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, weird indeed. It sounds to me like you have a good case for doing it, so go ahead. You could post an explanation on the talk page or just in the edit summary if you prefer. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freoh

Hi, 331dot. Would you kindly take a look at this edit? I don't think it's fair for an editor to keep up an unblock request that falsely claims the block was based on a personal grudge, while removing a message calling out that misrepresentation. Beyond mere aspersion-casting, both the comment and the revert summary falsely imply that the original block explanation cited the disagreement he is fixated on. Now, WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME exists, but so does WP:NPA, and there is also a general expectation that editors will not deliberately deceive the unblock-reviewer. I was fine with leaving the PA up alongside a rebuttal, but, as he'd previously demonstrated minutes after you downgraded his block, Freoh neither understands what a personal attack is nor will he tolerate any comments on his talkpage that question his alternative facts about his editing career. I'd AGF'd up till now, even in blocking him, but at this point I'm fairly convinced he's just trolling.

All the best. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it I would tend to agree with your assessment- they shouldn't be deceiving reviewers. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that involves you, regarding an appeal to remove a topic ban and 0RR restriction. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal to remove topic ban on politics and 0RR restriction. Thank you. Bcmh (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the appeal text shows no evidence of plagiarism or copying from ChatGPT, despite looking like it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does a user's efforts on being concise and organised now face such adverse scrutiny? Bcmh (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I would say a third of the requests I see are written by bots; if you didn't use a bot, okay. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you for clarifying Bcmh (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the chair, unfortunately

Hi there,

I'm feeling at a bit of a loss. I was watching a thread at AN/I about racist inclusions at History of the Chair. Central to this was complaints about two sections: the section on sub-Saharan Africa, which was weakly cited and tiptoed up to the border of WP:SYNTH and a hidden edit comment, which inaccurately claimed that chairs did not exist prior to European contact in Sub-Saharan Africa and insisting the prior section not be removed.

Per a discussion on AN/I I deleted these inclusions on April 9 and didn't think any more about it until today when a user who seems to be a single-purpose account reverted this change and then seemed to imply I had some connection to another user, ExpertPrime, who, apparently you blocked over an edit war over this content? I was not yet engaged on the page when ExpertPrime was blocked which happened some four days before the AN/I thread which brought me to the page. But it appears to be related.

I've reverted my version of the article back with the suggestion that better sources be found for re-inclusion but I thought before I went farther here I'd actually check with you for some back-story here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article talk page has been a target of racists posting racist comments. That particular passage you removed from the article is controversial in part due to race as well. I would suggest that discussion attempt to reach a consensus about the passage at issue first. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand there seems to be racist shenanigans occurring on the talk page, though this seems to have been cleaned up fully by now. On the other hand, there seems to be a concerted effort to have a section removed, using the racist comments as an excuse to do so. I have my concerns about Developed it entirely (talk · contribs), who started the ANI thread used to remove that section. It looks like a burner account which was reactivated shortly after your block of ExpertPrime (talk · contribs). Would you mind running a CU check on those accounts, and if confirmed I'd suggest reversing/striking the results of that ANI thread whilst we get a proper consensus on the actual talk page. We can't let bad faith editors like this influence the way we write articles. 195.11.188.203 (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a CU. You would have to start an SPI. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I promised to check out of this
discussion entirely and have done so. The constant veiled accusations that I am other users or that I'm secretly using burner accounts is really unprofessional and borders on WP:ASPERSIONS. If anyone insists on pushing racist narratives on this article, I can safely and proudly say that I did what I could, was punished for it, and left it alone. Please stop trying to drag me back into this. ly ExpertPrime (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were not punished for anything. Blocks are not a punishment. You were blocked to prevent disruption. You are free to pursue your grievances if you can do so without disruption. There are legitimate ways to do this. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
semantics aside, I'm only replying because I've been passively accused of being multiple other editors and that needs to stop. I said I'd stay out of that racist argument and I'm keeping my word. Please just stop bothering me and accusing me of being disruptive. Have a good day. ExpertPrime (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything to you, you came here. If you don't wish to respond further, don't. I didn't ask you to stay out of anything, and I'm disappointed you have chosen to not be involved due to a misunderstanding. All you needed to do is stop edit warring. That's still the case. In any event, best wishes to you. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much!

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I don't know where or why you think I was socking to edit war, but I haven't, I've been away and busy, and I expect experienced users to assume - and those familiar with me to understand - that about my character. A gentle reminder to AGF. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif The IP made the same edit that you did, and that article(List of largest funerals) has a general history of edit warring. If that wasn't you, however, I apologize. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me - thank you for the apology. I noticed after replying at my talk that this was several days ago, so I've removed it and consider the matter closed. I don't consider you an editor who would sling wild accusations, so thought a gentle reminder would suffice on this end, but no worries. Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Middleton family edit discussion

(Redacted per request) I don't want to prosecute or pursue anything, nor am I "protesting". I'm just trying to think of what would be beneficial for everyone and helpful for this valuable editor. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My having brought it up previously isn't an effort to harass, just seeing what people think. Your memory is better than mine, I only recall one other instance(but I believe you). I make dozens of posts almost every day so some get past me. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final reply to account

I gave Altitude Fitness Enterprise Holdings one final reply to give them a chance at a proper unblock. However, if they just respond by complaining about how unfairly they've been treated (which as you know, they haven't), maybe it's time to revoke talk page access. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. I always want to help but people have to want to take it, and I'm not sure they will. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Check

can you help me to edit Draft:Vaibhav Palhade and to Publish it i tried it But I'm Unable to move it what to do need your guidance 331dot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelbird1967 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you at the AFC help desk. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

cc:@User4edits:

Hi 331dot, I thought you would be interested in this SPI. I believe there is a paid editing campaign going on regarding Sri Lankan bios for sometime. My suspicions started with this SPI case. Because apparently they are sticking to "one article, one account" strategy, it is hard to observe patterns. I could be 100% wrong here. Cheers. Chanaka L (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Jahir

@Acroterion: Tyrone Jahir continues to “double down” despite your warning and is again stating that his claims that I am racist are true.[5] [6] I’ll take this to ANI if you wish, but prefer avoiding the drama boards. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to communicate with me or Acroterion? 331dot (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it, they're blocked for two weeks now. I see no need for ANI, this is clear-cut abuse after many warnings. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both, should have said so. Thanks Acro. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just making sure I get it. :) 331dot (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget...

Just a quick heads up, this IP is a possible sock of the IP you just blocked: 124.217.63.44. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

I made a mistake when reporting CraigMokhiber - I meant to report it as a misleading name, not a promotional name. Since then, they have claimed here that they are Craig Mokhiber. Is this a case where we would demand proof of identity? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, I've decided to do a well-known person block, which can be removed once his identity is confirmed. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a bit concerned his signature displays a link to his website. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW

Now I've the chorus from Lady Marmalade earworming. And the self defense against fresh fruit skit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fbob88

Apart from the age and the username (and now, the reference to 88), I'm on board if you decide to lift the block. The blocking admin is no longer active and I see no reason why this needs more than just one admin to decide to lift the block. There's no CU evidence of a compromise (I was a bit surprised by that) or sockpuppetry. I think if they are going to be problematic, it'll likely show up pretty quickly. WP:ROPE and all that. --Yamla (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I was leaning that way but I was expecting different answers, I guess. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

This guy is falsifying history, by clear false claim that Marin Držić was Croat! He was Serb! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.55.19 (talk)

You must not edit war, this is considered disruptive and is not the way to handle a dispute. You should use the article talk page to discuss your concerns and offer sources you have to support your claims, so that editors can arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say. You will be blocked if you persist with edit warring, and as the topic is a formally designated contentious topic, sanctions may be placed on you. See your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also need a reliable source connected via a hyperlink to back up your claim (or in this case, many). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:1OhitRcopyright.jpg

Hi 331dot. Since you're an admin, perhaps you might know of a way check whether there are any more files like this being used in English Wikipedia articles. I stumbled across this file via WP:THQ#What is the Wikipedia policy on AI generated images? and asked about it at c:COM:VPC#File:1OhitRcopyright.jpg because I wasn't too sure about the validity of the license. It doesn't appear that the uploader of this image uploaded any more, but they might have used another account or others might have done something similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a way to specifically check for AI imagery; where we found one by a particular editor and a particular subject area, perhaps those things could be examined to look for them, but I probably don't have the time to invest in such an enterprise. :) 331dot (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought as much (i.e. it's just a matter of chance) but just wanted to check. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An apparent repeat offender that's back to their old ways...

If you could look in on their recent editing at this article, I'd appreciate it. I've invited them to the article talk page to discuss but no response yet. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Dear Admin, My own Wikipedia WrestleMania 42 is of course created by me. But there was a Wikipedia with that name that was very vague and not quite finished after a user redirected it. Later, after I created Wikipedia, the article went under the previous creator's name. I want admin sir that wikipedia be made in my name. WrestlingWikipedian (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:The Paul Show/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:The Paul Show/sandbox. Thanks! 331dot (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~Sigh~

I think we both know that one may work for two or more businesses simultaneously, though I am unsure whether their name is a common one or tends towards uniqueness. That each follows the other leaves my antennae all of a dither. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are too many coincidences, and too much dissembling, to ignore here. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More fun from the Ibru section

Re:the archived COI report, [7], another likely sock/meat account can be added: RoaringEdits (talk · contribs). 331dot, you followed up there, and Jay Kenechukwu (talk · contribs) never responded, but did let us know that the guidelines don't apply to them [8]. Don't know that there's anything actionable there--on the other hand, sneaky editing does merit attention. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started an SPI. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added another account, imperfectly as the formatting tries my competence. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sneaky edits? I have no relationship with subjects I edit their pages. Every edit I Carry out on Wikipedia is backed by verifiable citations from independent sources. It's never an opinion neither does it convey my bias.
I am done going back and forth on this topic. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a community project and you need to discuss your contributions with the community when requested. If you are unwilling to do this, you should not participate here. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
maybe if you ask nicely I will. Instead of outrightly accusing me of having a conflict of interest.
A certain user even suggested I run the roaringedit account. Now these are blatant accusations I wont tolerate.
Like I said, every edit I Carry out here is backed by verifiable citations from independent sources.That I choose to pay attention to certain pages is my choice and within my right. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where anyone has been rude to you. So, could you please answer the question? Do you have a conflict of interest, yes or no? 331dot (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see you are now blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But worth keeping an eye on Ibru related articles for any future socking. Per some of my reversions today alone, the histories of the related accounts suggest they were undisclosed paid contributors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do like "maybe if you ask nicely I will." 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett1203

Hi, do you mind if I unblock Bennett1203? He basically renamed himself by creating a new account and has been trying to behave ever since, even though he didn't go through the formal procedure to unblock the original account, which he wishes to abandon in favor of the one you blocked. The edits he has made with this account have been good faith efforts even though his talk page indicates that much of his work gets removed, but that isn't unusual for a newbie. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this issue I'm content for you to handle it as you see fit. Seems reasonable. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

APRmusic

I see that you were the blocking admin on this, and the user is requesting unblock. They were blocked as promo username, which I guess makes sense, but I don't see the promo edits, just a somewhat eager Rush fan. If you don't mind I am going to respond to the request and unblock. jp×g🗯️ 04:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks for letting me know. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article not showing on Google

Good day, please I wrote an article about an Artiste and it's on mainspace and not yet on Google.

Please what's the solution 🙏🏿🙏🏿 Draykaayrg (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not appear in Google until a New Pages Patroller reviews it, or after 90 days(I think). 331dot (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. Please is there anyway I can get patrollers to review it? Draykaayrg (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patrollers are volunteers, there is no way to speed up the process. You can only be patient. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. I really appreciate your response you've been giving me🙌🏿❤️ I'll be coming to you each time I got questions 😁❤️ Draykaayrg (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for information! AnggaAle (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:331dot&oldid=1225245472"