User talk:331dot/Archive 12

Concern regarding Draft:Blaux

Hello, 331dot. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Blaux, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Randy Bishop has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Randy Bishop. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrMattHedrich

Thanks for stepping in on this. This is a tough one; I'm pretty sure he has good intentions, but some serious competency issues, given his recent edits to his talk page. Some of this edits to entertainment topics are relatively harmless [1], but outside of altering Disney synopses, we have edits like this [2] and [3] (good faith, but questionable detail inclusion and wording) and this [4] (huh?). Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to acknowledge your comment but I'll have to give a more thoughtful answer later. :) 331dot (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohnoitsjamie Yes, I think that they want to help, but they are in over their head. One reason I advocated for unblock appeals to continue to be made on-wiki (as opposed to moving them all to UTRS) was that making the request itself is an indicator of committment to the project and knowledge of things like formatting- and in this case, they seem to have difficulty with that. Throwing their other edits on top of it, I'm not convinced that they should be editing right now. I think that the SO that I proposed to them in March is still the way to go- and I'm not sure I would accept it after 6 months- but that's a start. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request you declined

Re: [5] - you may be interested to know that the user has already created another account, continued with their long-term pattern of nonsensical vandalism, and been blocked again....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi

I live in Delhi and know more about Delhi riots than you, so before you undo any change read about it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningfire22 (talk • contribs)

Burningfire22 Wikipedia does not summarize personal knowledge or personal opinions, but what independent reliable sources say. Most Indian media is too biased on this event to be used as sources in the article on the riot. We cannot assert people are guilty of crimes until and unless they are convicted in a court of law, not a court of public opinion. You are now blocked from the article due to edit warring; if you wish to collaborate with others on what the article should say, and or the sources are inaccurately summarized, please discuss on the talk page, but please review prior discussions first. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also review WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Hi thanks for blocking it for the moment. How can i report it or get account access back. Where should i apply? I've mailed to stewards too as emergency suggested there. 103.10.31.47 (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMPROMISED for guidance in that area. If you already contacted a steward, that's pretty much all you can do. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the connection between my account User:Suryabeej after it got hacked any similar ip? Cause yesterday that account put afd and was well known about previous afd and removed that from my account after it got hacked. 103.10.31.47 (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have that ability; you would need to ask a checkuser. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Instead of annoying experienced editors who are doing their best to combat vandalism, why not protect the article in question (Scottish Premiership) from idiotic editing? Bye. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jmorrison230582 If you are annoyed that I have asked you to abide by Wikipedia policy that you should be well aware of after your extensive experience here, and use basic human civility when performing your actions, that says more about you than me. If you wish to see an article protected, please request it at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure

Hi 331dot I have made a disclosure as per your instructions on my user page. By doing so, do I have the right to make changes on the articles which I have listed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijeshe (talk • contribs)

Ijeshe I have moved your comment from the archive. You should not directly edit articles related to your conflict of interest in most cases(exceptions are written here), but you should make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on article talk pages. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should also declare your conflict of interest on those article talk pages. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Official"

I've just checked some of this user's deleted edits and he's a minor. Deb (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean it's okay to unblock them? :) 331dot (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's okay for him to use his own name. And if you believe it is his own name. Deb (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hi. Just a courtesy note to say I've gone to ANI per your suggestion. Thanks. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a suggestion, more of a telling you the options that you have. I don't recommend it, but that's your choice. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that's acknowledged. :) 92.24.246.11 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, I am not an active contributor on English Wikipedia, and I do not have a background about the process of moving categories, so can you help me and move this Category to "Kuwait Emir Cup", please? According to the main article. Thanks in advance.--فيصل (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might suggest that you ask at Requested Moves so that you get someone 100% confident that they can carry out such a move. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

en-WP and India

If you haven't seen this one before, it's pretty good: A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Was this message meant for me? I tried checking the latest entries and didn’t see my username pop up. Perhaps it’s my lousy WiFi just being slow. Celestina007 (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! I see it now. Thanks for the notification. Celestina007 (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your reply on the Help page

Thank you for such a prompt response to my question on the Help page. In looking at the Wikitia site, there seems to be no obvious or designated place to make a complaint and, as I pointed out earlier, the process for editing is tied to a payment system which, in the circumstances, seems to be quite wrong. As to my Wikipedia draft article, I have tried to ascertain whether a resubmission is reviewed by the same person or whether it has to await a new review : I'd be grateful if you were able to shed light on this? My thanks again. Hunaniaeth (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunaniaeth There is nothing to prevent the same reviewer from conducting a review, though it could be someone else. Regarding Wikitia, you could ask the Wikimedia Foundation for advice, but anything more than that would probably require more time and money than it is worth. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Zoli Toth

Thank you for your feedback. I included so many references because a previous rejection was based on not having enough. I could certainly have less references. I thought that every statement needs to be supported with a reference. I'll take your advice into consideration. Have a nice day! Bela Adu (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Bela Adu[reply]

Bela Adu All information does need to have a citation or reference- but before you add anything and everything you can find, you first need to establish that this person is notable, and the way to do that is with fewer references of higher quality, not lots of references of lesser quality. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I can support my statements by using one reference multiple times, rather than adding independent references with overlapping information. Got that! But how would you define a high quality reference? Does it necessarily have to be in English? I do appreciate your help. Bela Adu (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Bela Adu[reply]

References do not have to be in English. It helps, but it is not required, see WP:NOENG. The page Your First Article explains things better than I could. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to answer me! Bela Adu (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Bela Adu[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for putting up with my constant boring torture regarding Sushant Singh Rajput. Hope I didn't piss you off 🙄. Take care - Call me Karthik 😉🤞 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Adopting me?

Hello there 331dot I've been observing your reviews and the way you have been guiding others I felt is really amazing, I will be pleased to assist you and learn from you , would you mind adopting me? Thanks Suryabeej (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I regret that adopting users is not something that I have interest in doing at this time, but you will likely find someone to do so at WP:ADOPT. I can answer specific questions here or at the Teahouse, in a limited fashion. I just can't fit adoptions in right now. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for guiding me, i hope that Ill be getting someone who can be mu mentor, keep doing the great work Thanks [[Surya^beej]] ^⋠talk⋡ 13:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rejecting

After rejecting the article multiple times, you guys think that the nature of my edit gives the impression that i have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting this topic. I would like to clarify that there is no monetary benefit of me promoting the article. I have worked with the Subject in the past and i think it is important for people to know about the person who has so much to educate about yoga, pranayam, meditation etc. In today's time when people are stressed about so much happening around, i think Yoga is something that can help them in multiple ways. Sanjeev Bhanot created Antastha Yoga series that stimulates the central nervous system, develop your inner strength and flexibility, and regenerate you by activating your lifeforce. Antastha Yoga helps you therefore mentally to manage the challenges of meditation & to understand and use the body mind connection for yourself. Physically it increases your flexibility, lowers your blood pressure, reduces stress hormones, improves your joints & muscle toning as well as digestion & sleep, regulates your cardiovascular & hormone system & increases your general energy level. There is so much that the person has contributed on the same and it is extremely disappointing that you, the reviewers on wikipedia think that it is not notable after providing multiple references for the same.

THERE IS NO MONETARY BENEFIT INVOLVED. If wikipedia meeds a monetary benefit from all the articles that gets published, that is a different matter. And if that is the case i would like to spread this information about wikipedia other digital platforms.

Jyotsanaj03 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotsana03 If you have no paid or compensated relationship with the subject(which does not have to be a "monetary benefit"), okay. Your actions sent several red flags to the rest of us. You definitely have a conflict of interest that you should formally disclose. As you've been told, the sources you provided do not establish notability as Wikipedia defines it- which may be different from how you or others define it. As you have found, writing a new article is not as easy as it appears- and doing it without experience editing existing articles first often leads to the bad feelings that you have. You are, of course, free to tell others of your views of Wikipedia regardless of their accuracy. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

If you template 1 warn an individual on UPE, are they allowed to remove it from their tp? Celestina007 (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users are free to remove most content from their user talk pages(there are some specific exceptions). Doing so is considered an acknowledgement that the removed post was read. If a user removes an UPE post and takes no action, that should be treated accordingly. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pewdiecake2music keeps getting rejected

Can you please help me inprove or aprove my page im begging you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogmusic45 (talk • contribs)

Dogmusic45 There is no need to beg; however, as I said, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is nothing that you can do to change that at this time.

As you have found out the hard way, successfully writing a new article is one of the absolute hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Diving right in to article creation with your first edit, without an understanding of the process and what exactly goes into a new article, often leads to bad feelings and disappointment as things that you don't understand are happening to something you invested a lot of time in. Users greatly increase their chances of success by first editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. I would suggest that you spend a few months editing existing articles for that reason, and it will also help you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Avignonesi has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Avignonesi. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse

Thanks! Emat20211 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Enat20211[reply]

Response to Quantized Inertia edit attempt and post

I am trying to respond to a message, but I am not sure if I am in the right place.

I attempted to edit the Quantized Inertia article, as the proponent of the theory is too busy. I am not in his employment. I just follow him in Twitter and offered my help. He tried editing the article and his edit was erased, as was mine, then it was restored.

I will not attempt to edit the article again. Other guys better at this, or Mike himself, will. Thanks for your message and I hope you get my reply.

Best regards,

Jose Lopez

SkyLoop019 If you are not in his employ, you are not a paid editor, but you still have a conflict of interest; that's the case with anyone who communicates with an article subject about an article about them(or something the person is involved with). You may want to let Mike know that he may make formal edit requests on the article talk page, he should avoid direct edits due to his own conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	You wrote such a beautiful paragraph to that person who asked about writing a new article on WP:HELPDESK recently. It seemed so caring and cushioning! I loved it! Abillionradios (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think "hypothesis" is more generally accepted in scientific communities? Seriously?

This is an engagement in malicious rhetoric. Do you think people are stupid and do not realize that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark19651965 (talk • contribs)

Mark19651965 What I think doesn't matter, what matters is what independent reliable sources generally state. Wikipedia does not give equal time to all possible theories about a topic, it depends on what sources say. I've said what you can do to demonstrate that, if it's the case. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Alaska Fairbanks is a reliable source. They were testing a hypothesis. Obviously. But your discussion pages ignore that fact.

This all comes down to ugly rhetorical spin. Language has its own, built-in reliability, independent of "sources". At least it does for reasonable people. For example, a discussion board's use of the word "Truther" pejoratively is evidence of undue bias. Furthermore, "promote" is another incorrect definition of what A&E does. All you need is a dictionary and a grade school education to know that. It is more correct to say: They "advocate".

Look, the presence of undue bias is blatant and that reflects poorly upon Wikipedia. Ultimately, this unprofessionalism undermines user confidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark19651965 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Address the substantive issues or allow dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark19651965 (talk • contribs)

Mark19651965 Please sign your future posts with four tildes(~~~~). Advocation and promotion is semantics. There is no difference as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, everyone and everything has biases. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. You are on a course to being blocked if you do not radically change your approach soon. You have been told how you can work on your dispute; you have barely attempted a talk page discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't truck with threats. And if it is "just semantics" then you won't mind changing it, right? You know, "semantics" is simply a euphemism for "rhetoric" deployed by people who want to deflect their accountability for intentional persuasion and connotation. Mark19651965 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark19651965 That goes both ways. I've said how you can proceed. I have no further comment. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't go "both ways". You said it doesn't matter. I say it does. Therefore, logically, you should change, as it doesn't matter to you. Smarten-up.

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Modulus12 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP is back

5.178.202.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom you blocked for edit warring 4 days ago[6], is back and continues warring in the same article[7]. It seems the block wasn't effective. Any ideas? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for longer. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal is back with the same editing pattern: 103.210.146.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Can you block pls? — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Jenkins

its me i already started one can you delete it for me please🤗🤗🤗 Deborah Jenkins (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you pls delete my blog for me please🍒🤗🤗🤗... Deborah Jenkins (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Debbie J[reply]

Deborah Jenkins You are welcome to remove the content that you placed on your user talk page yourself. If you do not intend to participate in this project to write an encyclopedia, you may request a courtesy vanishing. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK.So how do i delete it myself? Deborah Jenkins (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Jenkins You simply edit the page again but instead of adding content, remove it instead. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Blaux

Hello, 331dot. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Blaux".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came by to say "Hi!" and saw Twinkle left this message from me. I checked and you did have the first edit to this page but you were draftifying the content for another editor. Any way, happy weekend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:DeepFriedWaffles

I was clearing out CAT:UNBLOCK when I declined this user's unblock request. I did not notice at the time that you were working on it. You did not place the request on hold.

I did not mean to step on your toes. If you feel differently than me about the outcome, you may revert me and replace the review with your own. I won't mind. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC No problem. Really the only thing I was waiting for was to decide whether or not to decline it basically as you did or to give them a second chance decline. That's why I didn't place it on hold/idle it. Thanks for letting me know. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:16ConcordeSSC

Can you redact User:16ConcordeSSC's personal information in Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion#Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021, like you did on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Urgently need willing mediator? -Apocheir (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. 331dot (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For working hard at CAT:UNBLOCK I award you the Admin's barnstar! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WHY?

you sent me a block warning....but I dont think i did something wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamjeed Ahmed (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring and shouting; please contribute to the discussion on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you have now been blocked. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello, I found your name on the top of the list of active Wiki admins, so I thought of messaging you. I am a new Wikipedian, so I am seeking help from you. A few days back, I had seen a place in wikipedia, where one could request for sources. I cannot find it now. Can you give me the link???? Thanks. The Dark Lord Returns To The Earth (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Lord Returns To The Earth I don't recall the name of such a page at this moment, though it likely exists. I assume you wish to have help finding sources for the article you recently created. I see that you moved it into the main space yourself- I would advise you to move it back to draft space and run it through Articles for Creation first so that other editors look at it before it is formally an article, and not afterwards. Succeeding at creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and diving right in often leads to frustration, disappointment, and other bad feelings that I don't want you to have. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. Actually I am a new Wikipedian, and don't know much. I found a video on Wikipedia, and they did like that. And so that is what I did. However I really don't know how to undo it. I would be really glad if you do it for me. Yours sincerely. The Dark Lord Returns To The Earth (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Help Again

What is the legal and right process to challenge and remove unsourced data in Wiki. I mean, can I just remove it, and right 'unsourced' in the edit summary? Thanks again, The Dark Lord Returns To The Earth (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Lord Returns To The Earth Yes, if you see something unsourced, you can remove it with such an edit summary. If the article is about a living person, you actually must remove it, especially if controversial, see the Biographies of Living Persons policy. If others disagree with you, they may restore it, in which case you should discuss it with them on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mr /Miss Dot. The Dark Lord Returns To The Earth (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LG U813 needs to be LG U8138

331dot, Welcome, I have a important notice for you, the notice is: LG U813 just needs to move to LG U8138. 100.11.109.181 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what this means. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG GRAMMAR: LG U813 → LG U8138. I know that is not correct, but it’s OK to incorrect, someone makes LG U813 as a mistake. That’s OK! Don’t worry you can fix this grammar. 100.11.109.181 (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally millions of pages on Wikipedia and you are just posting what seems to be random letters and numbers without saying what page or article they are associated with. If the article or page is not protected, you may make the edit yourself. If it is protected, or you feel uncomfortable doing it yourself, you may make a formal edit request on the associated talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not protected. See at List of LG mobile phones 100.11.109.181 (talk page) 13:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you may proceed as I have stated. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlin

I can't find your reply 331 so posting under help; and shocked how poor wikipedia ux is - the furthest thing from user friendly, I can't think of a website that's worse. Fk. I can't find where you took the time to give me feedback after following the link and searching the title several times. Greatly appreciate you effort, if wikipedia were intuitively designed I might be able to better contribute, as well as others. A basic forum is easier to follow than this. TheGremlin Jun 15,2021

TheGremlin You're probably having trouble because Help Desk posts are archived quickly, you would need to find it in the archives, or examine the edit history of the Help Desk. You can look at your contribution history for help knowing what date to look for(it looks like June 7).

Wikipedia is built for encyclopedia writing more so than it is for communication. The Foundation does work on changes but it is hard to find changes to satisfy millions of people from around the world. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This link goes to the version of the AFC HD that includes my reply to you. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer

My ban has now expired and I User:Thegameshowlad am requesting a Standard Offer for my account to be unblocked. I have spent the last 6 months in reflection, reading policies thinking about what I did wrong and how to can stop it from happening again, I know policies very well and I think I am capable of been unblocked. I regret my actions and I have learned from them and if you give me a chance I will act in a better manner in future. Yours sincerely 82.41.12.175 (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of evading your block to tell me that you wish to appeal, please appeal via WP:UTRS. As you are banned, no administrator can unilaterally lift the block, and a community discussion is required. Make your statement on UTRS and request that it be transferred to a noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not so well as they think. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response: BusinessEnergyQuotes.com draft article rejection

Hi there. Thank you for taking the time to review my draft article.

I totally understand and am aware that I under a conflict of interest when it comes to writing the article. I attempted to follow the guidelines in this page. I disclosed my affiliation with the company in my user page; I have provided five sources to support the content of the article.

What more can I do to put this draft article in a better position for it to be accepted and published?

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan61vv (talk • contribs)

Johan61vvYour draft just tells about the company. Wikipedia articles must do more than tell about the subject, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. I would suggest setting aside the information about the company itself and just gather a minimum of three independent sources with significant coverage("significant coverage" goes beyond just telling about its existence and what the company does) and summarize those to get the article started; once accepted, the technical information can be added later. Press releases, staff interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Okay, understood. Thanks for your help.

IP user 88.245.195.203 throwing insults

He was already warned several times by different users at his talk page but he is still harassing me.(Last harassment) Could you block this user please?--V. E. (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to this, 5.46.191.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same editor per their own admission, so could that IP be blocked too please? FDW777 (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Visnelma, thank you for bringing the IP's actions to admin attention. Stay strong. 331dot, thank you for taking a swift action against them. Wishing everyone a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help!

Some random IP addresses are violating WP:FILMLEAD on the page PAW Patrol: The Movie. Can you please change access to the page to autoconfirmed? This is what they did and why I want the permission to be changed.

Please reply, this is very annoying. Their edits have also been reverted by another editor, see for yourself. Thanks, Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 14:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DinosaurTrexXX33 I will do so, but please make requests like this at WP:RFPP; it's usually better to use the appropriate noticeboard instead of approaching admins directly for something urgent(in case the admin you ask is not online when you ask). 331dot (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot I'm very sorry, I have been on here for 10 months. I don't know much. Signed, Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 14:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DinosaurTrexXX33 Do not post your age anywhere on this public website, for your protection. If you haven't already, please read WP:YOUNG for guidance that you should follow, perhaps read it with a parent, guardian, or older sibling. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Sorry, signed, Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 14:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine

		Sunshine!
		Hello 331dot! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding `{{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}}` to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy first day of summer, 331dot!! Interstellarity (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bon voyage

Tried and failed to ping you to a new chapter in that old Armenian parliamentary tale, on account of your small D. Then tried to tell you here, but the sign said you were away. Long story short, relax and enjoy your trip, we'll have everything taken care of (one way or the other) by the time you get back. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals

This is an LTA spamming requests. If there's no other edit on the talk page I've just been deleted them as G5s. I'm guessing they're determined to connect to any blocked webhost/proxy they can in order to overwhelm CAT:RFU, so a short term edit filter may be required. @Zzuuzz:, any ideas of what might work?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip and good information. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumtut001

Hi, please don't block me. PAW Patrol: The Movie is an American-Canadian film and those users are kept on changing it to Canadian since they don't know anything about the movie. So please unblock me. Thank You. Sumtut001(talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumtut001 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sumtut001 Please see my comment on your user talk page, and place any further comments there. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish War of Indepence

Alright! Why not consider removing the extended protection?Erennica (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erennica I'm not removing it, you may request it at WP:RFPP, but I don't think you will be successful. I have said how you can propose changes to the article. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User page help

Hello, I'd like to ask for the permanent deletion of all revisions in my user page between the 30th of April, 2019 and the 14th of October, 2020 (4 edits in total), if possible. Oqwert (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oqwert I can remove them from public view, but they cannot be permanently deleted. An oversighter can remove them from view even by admins, that's the strongest removal possible. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is good enough, you can go ahead. Oqwert (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have done as you requested, please confirm. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect, thank you! Oqwert (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likely editing while logged out by user you blocked

You blocked User:Chicora26 yesterday for making legal threats to do with Josh Kimbrell , and today two IPs, 2600:6C5E:5E7F:4E29:F1E3:4F70:18C:34E6 and 2600:6C5E:5E7F:4E29:40D0:91A6:1AC0:8748, edited the page, changing the wording of a sentence saying that charges against Kimbrell were dropped due to a lack of evidence to saying that the charges were dropped due to the allegations being false, which paints the charges in a more negative light. This seems similar to Chicora's behavior before making threats, which was to remove the whole paragraph about the original charges and the charges being dropped. A range block might be in order for block evasion Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk response

You might want to fix your link here in case anyone reads the archived question and gets confused.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee Indeed, thank you for the heads up. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome template

Will you give me one of those welcome templates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBFEE (talk • contribs) 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse revdel

Hi 331dot. I'm just curious about that last revdeletion you did at the Teahouse earlier today per WP:RD5. Is it something you can discuss? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted their personal contact information. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar, for protecting PAW Patrol: The Movie

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you so much! You are such a good admin! It was so annoying seeing those users keep changing edits, and happy fourth of july! Signed, Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 14:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added response post

Hi there, I just added a response to your question is "who we is" From Help desk‬ in "‪15:36:28, 6 July 2021 review of draft by Kwokng‬". Kwokng (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for the reply and clarifying for me. I've replied again. Kwokng (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following that page, so there is no need to inform me of your replies. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption continues

Hi 331., just a quick note that 5.178.202.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has returned from the block you imposed but continues with the same type of disruption – pushing "American" to non-US companies, corporations and products.[8][9][10][11][12]. Repeated warnings have zero effect. Thanks if you could help again. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

45137

Martin did contact me on IRC, but I lost message due to my IRC clumsiness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noahpdoty

Hi 331dot, I just saw your message about conflict of interest. I am currently an intern at the organization I'm writing about. I'm more than willing to forfeit my editing privileges for this article, but nonetheless, I think it is a notable organization worthy of its own article. I can site multiple external sources as well as effects from the work they've done, however, I don't think the article would be written unless I do it or encourage someone else to do it. I know Wikipedia discourages people from writing about entities they are affiliated with, but I believe that means it is still allowed, right? Should I avoid this if I'm the only one who will write it? Is there a way I can encourage an unaffiliated editor to right this, or would my encouragement be considered affiliation? I want to thank you very much for how helpful you've been with this, and I hope I'm not being a burden. I also know I have to disclose the organization I work for in my account too, right? Also, does any of this change if I am not being paid for my work? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahpdoty (talk • contribs)

Noahpdoty I would first emphasize that creating and submitting a draft is the correct way for someone with a conflict of interest to go about creating a draft related to their COI. So in that regard you have done nothing wrong. Please consider what I posted on your user talk page merely information for you to be familiar with.

I will note that under the paid editing policy, being an intern counts as a paid editor, even if the internship is unpaid-in-money. As an intern you are compensated with the experience of the work, so you will need to make the formal paid editing declaration.

It is true that discouragement from creating articles related to a COI is not the same as being forbidden from doing so. As I said, submitting a draft is the correct way to go about it, so you are farther along than many people I see here. I will say that most people in your position have great difficulty in editing as Wikipedia requires. To succeed in writing about your organization, you need to set aside everything you know about it, all materials put out by the organization(such as press releases, its website, interviews with its personnel, announcements of routine activities), and all materials that just briefly mention the organization, and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to extensively write about your organization. Most reviewers of drafts look for at least three such sources for a draft article to summarize. I would gently note that Wikipedia is not a way to recognize or call attention to organizations that do good work; we're only interested in summarizing what sources say about them. I would suggest that you read Your First Article for more information about the article creation process. If you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that if you get a draft about this organization accepted, you would have to make edit requests for any subsequent changes, as would any others at your organization or successors to your position. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Super Air Jet

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Super Air Jet. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deletion review for Amandari

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Amandari. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Mail Notice

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.

Celestina007 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DT intro

Howdy. Would you be interested in reviewing & closing an RFC at Donald Trump, concerning that article's intro? GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to do so, but it will take me time to review the discussion and things like the policies offered in arguments. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singer

Hi, I have cited articles by TOI and other reliable news websites, The singer is not up and coming. He has made a name in Malayalam music and is trying to establish independent music as well. He is not a nobody. His work has also been listed systematically with listing existing on wikipedia itself. I dont understand how many more articles are needed. The person who declined the article said not adequately supported by resources however in his msg to me he said its not that you have to have a citation for every detail so this is kind of confusing. request you to please review the article once again and if edits are required they can be done. The article is not biased in its writing as well. every line that describes the singing style has been written by another source in a published news piece on known websites. Zeenatameet (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeenatameet You said on the help desk that the singer is up and coming, so are they or aren't they? Please review the notability criteria. In any event, I have examined the sources in the draft. Almost all of them are interviews with the subject; an interview is a primary source, being the person's own words. Wikipedia wants to know what others that are unconnected with him say about him, not what he says about himself. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The singer is not up & coming. Most of the musicians are written about when they are interviewed. So you are saying that publishers like TOI, The Hindu and Deccan chronicle interviewing artists is not of any significance?Zeenatameet (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeenatameet There is nothing wrong with the publishers as publishers; but yes, interviews do not establish notability. That doesn't mean they can't be used in articles in some circumstances, but not for notability. I'm not even sure which aspect of the musician notability criteria they meet. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need to move?

I recently moved Atta Mills Institute to Draft:Atta Mills Institute and at the same time you tagged it with many tags, so should that page be again restored to an article or is it better as a draft? Exclusive Editor _{Notify Me!} 07:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ExclusiveEditor No, it can be left as a draft. 331dot (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Hawkes Template

appreciate your feedback

I have explained it to the users, then they just keep putting it back up. i do not know the subject. I am a first user and in addition I had references ready and did even get a chance to use them, there are too any wiki users making assuptions and just acting quickly. Its very hard to make a simple edit it seems..... its like a power game with some of them

now please remove the template -otherwise you will be providing false information. If I can help in any way by showing you L dont know the subject let me know..... its been a very poor experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteriousmusicman (talk • contribs)

I've responded at the Help Desk, please continue to respond there. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks

Would you mind doing the honors here? The allegations on that Wordpress site are obviously ridiculous, but nonetheless it's tiresome to have it dredged up by the occasional critical-thinking-challenged user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dainius Kreivys biography

Hi,

You have recently edited the article for Dainius Kreivys. I appreciate you protecting the page and blocking me from editing, however There has been quite some movement happening on that page, The user adding those edits has been doing this across several political figures adding speculative and untrue information, whilst using very negatively charged language (for example one paragraph stated that he was “convicted” which is completely untrue and unfounded and even the cited sources does not mention any conviction). This looks like a coordinated approach to negatively portray certain individuals, by using information found on tabloids who themselves speculate what they have written.

I have been removing and monitoring those pages for that purpose, as the person adding those changes cannot based it on reliable sources, I wanted to ask for help for it to be removed please.

Thank you Jovaišai (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've said how you can proceed, please comment on the article talk page and make your case. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is block evasion, myself having blocked an ip for the same type of edits you've just blocked them now for. -- Longhair\^talk 11:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't looked into this article deeply yet, but that would make sense to me. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I will make my case, however please make sure to review.

Thank you Jovaišai (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Both,

I have added a topic in the talk page of the article explaining the ambiguities and inaccuracies there. Please could you kindly review, I have broken down the article and explained (explanation is in brackets below every chunk of text that has a source), many thanks. Jovaišai (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking a position on this dispute, as I know little about the subject. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to bring in a 3rd party to moderate ?

The IP address that is adding those changes has been doing across other biographies as well, purely adding negative content about them. (Which is incorrectly translated and by my analysis, on purpose) Jovaišai (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jovaišai You may use dispute resolution procedures, but they usually require that all efforts on the talk page to resolve the dispute be exhausted first. I would also suggest that unless you have hard evidence that you not make accusations of bad faith on other editors, see WP:AGF. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know and I will refrain from accusations. Would then it be sensible to suspend the information that is disputed on the page until we come to an agreement?

Thank you Jovaišai (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the information was present before your edits, the status quo of the article should be maintained. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the information was added only recently and that is why I wanted to correct it. The status quo was when there was no commentary at all, it is all very recent. I have added my responses to the authors comments.

Many thanks,

Re: Draft:Crystabel Goddy

Hi 331dot,

Thank you very much for fixing the links for me. I am grateful. I also appreciate your clear and objective information, they are very helpful. They will definitely help me on Wikipedia going forward.

However, going forward, I want to please ask that if I reference the filmography links, will the article be approved? I guess that's the main thing remaining from your assessment.

Looking forward to your response.

Thanks and regards, Segun.

Segunoloye (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Segunoloye6} That will help, but the key is in demonstrating that the person meets the definition of a notable actress. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused

Hi :@331dot: I recently help Wikipedia by adding budget of movie along with reference but one user remove the editing along with warning of suspension. What I do know thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneyatri (talk • contribs)

Oneyatri I don't have time at this moment to look into your situation deeply; but please discuss any issues with your edits on the relevant article talk page, and not with other editors directly on their user talk pages, especially if you have been asked not to. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that you have asked several other editors; please only use one method of seeking assistance at a time, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Lefson pge

Hi there 331dot!

I wonder if you could help me. I'm trying to publish a page for Joanna Lefson, an animal rights campaigner. I believe that the page was originally tagged for speedy deletion because it was viewed as self-promotional. I have since given the page a substantial re-write and bolstered it with legitimate references from reputable media sources. I'm not sure what else needs to be done to convince Wikipedia that this is not a promotional page but a person of legitimate interest? Please advise!

Many thanks. Joanne Lefson (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Lefson If you are not Joanne Lefson, you will need to change your username immediately; please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to make a username change request. Perhaps you confused creating an article with creating an account. This is why what you are writing is seen as self-promotional. Your user page is not article space, or space to draft an article, but a place for you to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user. Once your account has been renamed, you may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again 331dot,

Thank you for your prompt response. I am indeed Joanne and I am also creating a page for myself. I do realise that this is a red flag for wikipedia editors, but if you see the page and interrogate the references you will see that I am a person of legitimate interest in South Africa and the wider world of animal rights and animal arts. I have been covered in National Geographic, the UK Times, on the BBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, and across many other media. I had an academic triple check that the copy on this page was written objectively and that the references were legitimate before resubmitting. As far as I am aware, there is no rule against somebody submitting their own page so long as it is objective, neutral, fact-based, and heavily substantiated – which it now is. The error message I receive is that I have used a "deprecated source" but there are approximately 50 sources on my page and there is no indication which source is deemed problematic. Please could somebody therefore provide me with some more specific feedback as to why this page is continuously flagged for speedy deletion.

Many kind regards,

Joanne

Joanne Lefson I'm curious as to why you referred to yourself in the third person initially, but okay. It is true that it is not absolutely forbidden to submit an autobiographical article, but it is strongly discouraged, and with good reason, as most people naturally write favorably about themselves, even unwittingly. If you are going to pursue it, you should use Articles for creation. There are actually good reasons to not want an article about yourself.

I don't have time right now to fully analyze it, but I can say that any article about you should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Sources must do more than just tell about what you do, they must go in depth about it. I may be able to say more later. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback 331dot. I do understand the good arguments for being suspicious about people creating pages for themselves and their interests, and hence I made sure that somebody aside from me critically read the content, edited, deleted, and substantiated as necessary. I earnestly believe that this submission does now meet all of Wikipedia's standards for submission, including around persons of note. To give full disclosure, I have also submitted a page about Pigcasso, the painting pig that I trained, who has far more independent media coverage than the other animals featured on Wikipedia's animal made art page.

Please could you let me know specifically what it is in the references on my page that are not passing muster so that I make the necessary corrections.

Many kind thanks!

Joanne

Joanne Lefson (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Lefson I would say that Pigcasso might very well merit an article; if you would like I could move it off your user page into Draft space so you can submit it for review.

In terms of the article about you, (which as an administrator I can still view) while I haven't examined all the sources- most of the sources you offer don't seem to have significant coverage of you personally. Many of them seem to have to do with Pigcasso(which is why they might merit an article) and others have to do with Oscar the dog(who might also merit an article, though I'm less certain about him than Pigcasso). A Wikipedia article must do more than tell about a person and what they do(in my experience this is a common pitfall with people attempting to write about themselves). It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Sources that consist of only briefly mentioning you, or interviews with you, would not establish notability, because Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you. I think I said before that in order for you to succeed in writing about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and limit your writing to summarizing what the independent sources with significant coverage say about you. In my experience here that is hard for most people to do about themselves. In my years here I have not seen someone succeed in creating an autobiographical article; it has probably happened, but it is rare and I haven't come across a successful example. Could you be the rare person who succeeds at it? Sure, it's possible. I think you have read the autobiography policy but you may also wish to read Your First Article. You are certainly free to get other opinions- I don't claim to be the last word; you may use the Help Desk or Teahouse to ask others. If you have further comment, please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi riots - verdict of religious blame on what is subjudice

Hey there,

Thanks for what you do. I noticed the delhi riots article was last edited by you. May I request you to revisit the part that says ' "caused" chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims"' - citations linked to international papers behind paywalls. The case reports since the investigation have a different facts that are coming out with the case still subjudice. To simply accuse an entire 1.3B community on wiki is strange for what's still being investigated. CCTV pictures include (not limited to) shahrukh (not Hindu) pointing an actual gun at a policeman , Tahir Hussain (not Hindu) an accused minister suspended for alleged involvement.

What we know is what wiki should reflect? Something like - 'The riots were caused at the back of growing civil tensions since the NRC Protests in India'. TruthBeforePolity (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TruthBeforePolity Please see WP:PAYWALL. A paywall is not a barrier to using a source on Wikipedia, nor must sources be free to access. Journalists have to pay rent and eat, too. You are free to purchase access in order to examine the sources. I'm fairly sure they do not say that the all of the hundreds of millions of Hindus are responsible, but that those responsible are Hindus. I don't know if that is true or not, but it is what independent reliable sources say, and that's all we are concerned with, see WP:TRUTH.

I'm short on time at this moment but in the interim please review the article talk page archives as you are not the first person to bring this up. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pigcasso!

Dear 331dot,

Thank you so much for your continued engagement and support. Your comments are understood and I appreciate the difficulties that I will face in getting a personal profile published. I am happy to place this on the backburner for now.

I would very much appreciate if you would move the Pigcasso page into drafts so that I can review it! On the same note, may I go ahead and upload the page for Oscar?

Warm regards,

Joanne

Joanne Lefson (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Lefson Okay, I have moved it to Draft:Pigcasso and added the appropriate information to allow you to submit it for a review. It could take a few times to make it through to work out any problems(the bare URL links for the sources will need to be formatted into citations, see this page for information on how to do that) but I think there is a chance. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help to copy deleted edits to my sandbox

The page I created was deleted from Wikipedia, I would like to save the content from it to use for a draft. Would you copy it to your my user page so I can work on it? I don’t know how to copy and paste it. There are three edits I contributed that were deleted. Thanks! Russell Moxie (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Moxie You have no deleted contributions associated with your account. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for taking seriously the point I have been making re INT/C, although we are not in agreement. Unfortunately, many of those concerned with maintaining the status quo there seem more concerned with trying to belittle me than considering the point I am making. Although I do not agree with the practice that you are defending, you have at least held your side of the discussion with respect and decency. Kevin McE (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McE I appreciate your words. I try to keep in mind that people don't always see Wikipedia the way that I do. I can't say I'm successful at it 100% of the time, but I try. Please accept my best wishes. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pigcasso cont.

Dear 331dot,

I have added the citations for the Pigcasso page using the wiki citation bot. Please could you let me know what further changes are required to have this page published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanne Lefson (talk • contribs)

Joanne Lefson I think it would be worth submitting. I'm not guaranteeing it will be accepted on the first try(I don't often review drafts and I wouldn't call myself an expert at it) but it's certainly further along than many drafts I see. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock responses

I have a question about this response I've seen from you: " If you are not a sockpuppet, you will need to give a plausible explanation as to why technical evidence would indicate otherwise." That's utterly unfair, especially to an innocent or naive user. How is such a user to have any idea whatsoever why technical evidence, to which they are not privy, might indicate anything one way or another? I suggest you leave checkuser blocks to checkusers to review; don't decline unblocks that you couldn't accept anyway. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon Thank you for your comment. (really) If I'm not supposed to, I'll gladly stop doing so, but I thought it might be helpful to checkusers to weed out requests. WP:CUBL states "Without first consulting a CheckUser, administrators must not undo or alter any block that is specifically identified as a "checkuser" block", it doesn't say anything about not being involved at all. I've seen users respond to my statements with something like "this is a shared apartment" or "this is an office building" or whatever, I thought that's what was being looked for. As I said, I'll gladly stop if I'm not supposed to be doing this. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less concerned with policy here than practicality. Practically speaking, I'm around CAT:RFU most of the time, and I pretty routinely run my own CU on checkuser blocks when an unblock is requested; 99% of the time the result is either no useful information or verification of the previous CU findings. So I'd suggest let ones like this ripen; give a day or two for one of the RFU-inhabiting checkusers to act on it. By the way, one of the things I do when I have extra Wikipedia time on my hands is to go to CAT:RFU and sort the unblock requests by age. When I'm doing that, I put on different glasses: I look for reasons to accept the requests. I often can find one, even if it's simply "AGF and see what happens". I probably did a hundred of those earlier this year; I think one came back to bite me. Anyway, no big deal, I sounded kinda harsh there; sorry about that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I want you to know I did not take your comments as harsh. I will take your good-natured advice seriously. Thank you 331dot (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sihlle Rage

"Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." (WP:BLOCK).

Also, as I'm sure you know, this message appears when you click on Unblock: "Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I apologize. I usually do ask but I obviously forgot in this instance. I can reblock if you are opposed. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think re-blocking immediately would be fair to the user. I'm glad it was just an oversight; I appreciate the apology. Perhaps you could monitor the user's edits a bit because I'm skeptical they can edit successfully.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out in what way 331dot controls the Sihlle Rage account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: "controls" is a funny word. :-) I blocked the user, and 331dot unblocked without talking to me first.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23I'll do my best. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pssst...down here!

The real conspiracy theory isn't that the escaped monster was created in a lab, but that it escaped illegally and powerful people conspired to cover it up for ethical and legal reasons, which other powerful people agreed to hush the [heck] up for political and economic reasons. A conspiracy theory can often be based on a true lie. But even a Big Lie can't be a conspiracy theory by itself, needs a conspiracy element, always. Anyway, I hear footsteps, gotta run. Just think about it, and stay golden! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed log

If an anonymous IP posted something on a user talk but it was strike down (log removed) by an admin, can the the user request to remove the strike? If not, can he request to send the text to his email for private viewing on the condition that he won't reveal it publicly?--2409:4073:287:7D6E:55C9:1F6B:9264:24 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can request anything that you wish(probably WP:AN would be the best forum), but unless the admin grossly erred in suppressing an edit from public view, I can't think of too many circumstances where such a thing would be reversed. I also think it unlikely that such an edit would be emailed to someone, but it depends on the circumstances. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Surely when you're an admin you're automatically autopatrolled? How could you not be? Bishonen | tålk 11:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

And look, Wikipedia:Autopatrolled says "Administrators automatically receive this right". Bishonen | tålk 11:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen I thought so, but for the last couple days I've had to patrol my edits. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Well, sometimes things are just buggy. I have watchlisted my own userpage, since it does get vandalized now and then, but it does not, ever, show up on my watchlist. I asked about this at the VP once, but got nothing. (A boring problem, I suppose.) So, after you "gave" yourself the autopatrolled right, has it started to work? Bishonen | tålk 15:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I can't look at your watchlist, but I just put my userpage on my watchlist, made a couple of edits, and they showed up when I refreshed my watchlist. As to 331dot, I don't quite understand when you say you've had to autopatrol your edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for testing, Beeb. If I remember rightly, my userpage used to show up on my watchlist, back in the Jurassic age. And then it stopped. Had I done something different to it? That I can't remember. Bishonen | tålk 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Things worked much better in the Jurassic age, the simpler life. Nothing has gone well since the dinosaurs became extinct. Have you tested it recently? As my mother was fond of saying, what have you done for me lately?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get it either. I'm going to go back to just having the regular admin rights and see what happens. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Testing it.) Hey, it's working again! The Reiwa era must be auspicious! Bishonen | tålk 20:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

A further query about notability and references

Good morning 331dot! You replied to me on the Teahouse the other day with regards to my article: Draft:Naza Alakija, but unfortunately my message was archived before I was able to get a bit more clarification on a certain reference. You mentioned that interviews do not count as notability, as they feature the Subject's own words, however I asked about the introduction to the interview, which is written by a notable journalist and features details about the Subject. Would this not suffice as a reference? Please see an example I am referring to: https://businessday.ng/life-arts/article/naza-alakija-empowering-entrepreneurs-to-build-tech-solutions-to-fight-climate-change/ Very grateful for your help! Very best, Shepherdonhydra (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherdonhydra That might work for certain details in the intro, but it is not significant coverage that establishes notability. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming! So I need at least three independent articles, none of which are interviews? Would an article from Unicef count as being notable enough, for one of the sources? https://www.unicef.org/afghanistan/stories/you-have-challenged-me-nothing-impossible-nazanin-alakija Many thanks! Shepherdonhydra (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure that would be significant coverage. It is a photo essay merely showing that this person was in Afghanistan and telling what she saw. It doesn't go in depth into why she is significant. The piece describes her a a supporter of UNICEF; undoubtedly many tens of thousands of people support UNICEF and its goals. But yes, you should have three sources with significant coverage at a minimum. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Presearch page on wikipedia

Hello 331dot, thanks for your guidelines.

You are right, there may be a conflict of the interest, because I'm one of the developers of Presearch search engine. This account is mine and it's not used by anyone else.

About the draft - I've received the link to it from my college. He is a manager of our community. He is having some issues with publishing the article in Wikipedia and he shared this information in our project's chat. So, I've visited this article and I've noticed that it sounds a bit like self-promoting. I've removed the sections that were unnecessary and which could be seen as biased.

We want to have a page in Wikipedia and we would be grateful if someone of the Wikipedia community could help us with that.

Jejopl (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jejopl You must make a formal paid editing declaration on your user page, User:Jejopl, as soon as possible. This is a Terms of Use requirement and not negotiable. Please also read about conflict of interest

The draft about your search engine was rejected, and as such it will not be considered further. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves or their products. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources that have been offered do not meet that standard, and since it seems unlikely to do so, the draft was rejected. Unless there is major new information and coverage that the reviewers did not consider, there is nothing more to be done with it.

Articles are typically written by independent editors completely unconnected with the subject they are writing about. (this includes being asked by the subject to write an article, that would be a connection) Typically, an editor will take note of a subject in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Be advised that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one.

If you want to tell the world about your company or search engine, you should use social media or other website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, 331dot. I appreciate your help and that you've spend the time for explaining me the rules of Wikipedia. Maybe one day we will be big enough to have a place here. I really want to believe that most of the articles are written by ″independent editors completely unconnected with the subject they are writing about″.

Cheers! ;-)

Jejopl (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jejopl It's not about how big the company is, but about how independent reliable sources cover it. Small companies can merit an article while large companies do not, because no one writes about them. It depends on the sources.

I said that articles are typically written by independent editors. There are examples of someone with a conflict of interest successfully creating an article, but it's not common because people with a conflict of interest have difficulty writing as Wikipedia asks of them, or because the sources out there are not appropriate for establishing notability. This case is the latter- what's out there is just not appropriate at this time. That does not mean it will be that way for all time, just not now. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Sorry for being rude last week

Igec133 (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi on Wiki we have a problem with 178.143.62.94. He constantly erases ideologies with references and adds its own there without a single reference that would refer to it. He does it in these articles: Republic, Next Slovak election, Direction-SD For the context of this dispute, see also Vacant0 talk page, section Republic. Can we do anything about it? Thank you for your response. :) --Igec133 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fixed sources for Lawn Chairs

Hey, I added some sources for lawn chairs. Can you check the article again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeSinclair1 (talk • contribs)

LukeSinclair1 Patents for lawn chairs are not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You need reliable sources that have extensively written about lawn chairs or the history of them. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

Can you revdel this one, too? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done; forgot the first time. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like it's still visible in this diff, though. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, think I got it now. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thank you! And thanks for catching this while I was AFK :) ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

The message I get is you are currently unable to edit Wikipedia due to a block on this IP address. Thanks, Setjona (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Setjona If you could edit this page, you are not blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking User:COSComm

I'm wondering whether {{uw-causeblock}} might have been the better template; that's what I had it created for, after all, was not-for-profits doing promotional editing with presumably the best of intentions. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, although a representative of a city government or police department doesn't seem like a "cause" to me(though they aren't out for profit) as the user seems to be interested in representing the interests of their government/department. 331dot (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've worked for various govt. agencies on and off since 1974, so maybe I'm biased, but I certainly think of a government as a non-profit. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely appreciate the different perspective and I will keep it in mind going forward. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANEW

Hi, 331. Re your warning at ANEW: the users have each reported the other to WP:AIV, and have both alleged that the other is a spambot.[13][14] I don't know if that makes you inclined to warn them more severely, or block? Bishonen | tålk 11:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hello

Hi, i propose to block 178.143.62.94 from editing because of repeating vandalism like this.(1)(2)(3) etc. --Igec133 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the future please report vandalism to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange comment

Curious how your first contribution is to come directly here - what exactly is curious, and why do you think it was my first contribution? 46.208.236.181 (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was the first contribution under your current IP address. Either you are the same individual who has been discussing that matter, or you were recruited there, as the odds that you randomly found that user's name are close to zero. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was perfectly obvious that edits from both IPs were made by the same person. You had absolutely no reason to assume or insinuate bad faith. 51.6.138.48 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't obvious at all, the IPs are radically different. If you potentially can end up with different IP addresses it might be helpful to note that in your comments to avoid confusion. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious. What other possibility was there, that did not require an unjustified assumption of bad faith? Or, you think your assumption of bad faith had some justification? 51.6.138.48 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to assume that what is obvious to me is obvious to others, please do the same. It seemed to me that you made your first contribution under an IP address and that it was directly to a place that would be odd for a new user to find on their own. You gave no indication that you were the same individual. The best way to avoid this confusion would be to create an account, but if you exercise your valid and legitimate ability to decline to do so(fine with me), it's on you to make it clear when you, the person, are posting regardless of your IP. I have nothing else to say about this matter; if you are going to go to RFCN, I suggest that you do it. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

directly to a place that would be odd for a new user to find on their own - indeed, so the obvious assumption is that it is the same person. You assumed and insinuated bad faith. I do not appreciate that. You also do not seem to understand, still, that I am following the instructions at WP:RFCN, which required a message to be left for the user, and time to be given for them to justify their username. 51.6.138.48 (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've told me you were the same person. I believe you. Okay. Let's move on, please. I can only go by the evidence in front of me. Your message was responded to and instead of continuing to discuss it with them, you should do RFCN. It assumes bad faith to assume others are acting in bad faith. I just didn't know what was going on. That's all. I've told you how you can avoid this confusion. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: I am following the process at RFCN. Why are you repeatedly telling me to use that process when I already am? And I did not assume that you were acting in bad faith, you assumed that I was acting in bad faith. You had an obvious explanation for what you saw - IP addresses are reassigned constantly and my contributions on the previous IP only began on 4th September - but you decided to question my legitimacy with your "Curious..." comment. So sure, let's move on. Now that I know you are perfectly willing to assume bad faith, I'll bear that in mind in whatever future dealings we have. 51.6.138.48 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I say it because you aren't doing it; your comment to the user has run its course and been removed by them. You may bear in mind whatever you wish, I know the truth, you don't know what is in my mind. What is obvious to you is not to others. Good day. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To falsely claim that I am not following a procedure that I am following to the letter is really astonishingly disrespectful. And check the user's talk page history before making stuff up; they did not remove my comment, someone else did. 3h11m elapsed between that removal and your message above accusing me of not following the process. Where in the procedure does it say that I should have followed up within less time than that? 51.6.138.48 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for communicating disrespect. Not my intention. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Re they did not remove my comment, someone else did: That's not true. DagosNavy was the first to remove your comments, here and again here. Only after that, when you continued to harass them, did somebody else remove a comment. Since your IP varies and you won't leave them alone, I have now semiprotected the talkpage in question. Bishonen | tålk 08:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Here are the details of the messages I have left on this user's talk page:

[15] Initial message after I noticed their extremely offensive username
[16] Reply, after they replied to my first message
[17] Reply to a third party who had commented
[18] Reply to user's reply to me
[19] Template, as required by WP:RFCN (you MUST ensure that the user in question has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page)
[20] Reply to User:331dot's insinuation of bad faith
[21] Template, as required by WP:RFCN (After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}))

So, over the course of three days, one message to the user, two replies to their comments, two replies to other people's comments, and two templates required by WP:RFCN. And for that, you accuse me of "harassment" and of not leaving them alone? That is absurd.

And as for the removals of comments:

[22], [23] comments removed by the user but then restored in full a minute later.
[24] comments removed by the user
[25] First mandatory template removed by a third party. This is the edit to which User:331dot was referring when they claimed that my comment had "run its course and been removed by them", as you can see from the times of the comments.
[26] Second mandatory template removed by the user.

After the user deleted my comments, I posted to their talk page only because I was required to do so. 51.6.138.48 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look?

Hello, I just looked at the "recent changes" for the first time and found this User talk:Homebuyers21. I don't think that is allowed, and the admins page you're at the top of the list. Oddabitz (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oddabitz Looks like someone took care of it. Instead of contacting specific admins, you may make reports of inappropriate usernames to WP:UAA. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Thank you! It took me like 5 minutes to find your page and type the message, that's probably why it was already taken care of :) Oddabitz (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]