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.
My IP address blocked. No idea what is the reason, maybe my fault or not my fault. I can't continue editing in wikipedia if blocked. Editing from 2402:1980:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 has been blocked (disabled) by NinjaRobotPirate. IP address: 180.75.233.37 (should be it) Ngancheekean (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs)
We are in a bilingual school, Édifice Filion. The school year will be over on June 2022, could you please block it into June 2022 to give us a chance for next year? CFDG123 (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
So yeah, as I did write in the summery box, Sprey was never involved in the creation of the A10 (the part I removed). If you read any of the design documents, you will not find his name, or find him on any of the photographs taken of the design team. Whose name you will find in those documents is alexander Kartveli, the designer of P-47, F-84 and F-105, yet on his Wiki page the A10 is not even mentioned. You can read up some documents and find these details. It is a shame that Sprey was taking credit for someones creation, who died in 1974 and people still believe it. So I, with many others, would be happy to see Sprey gone from the A10s Wiki page, as his ideas which never made it in the aircraft (thank God) would have caused the plane to be worse than it is/was. Also, if I have to provide sources, it goes the same for the part with Sprey. I can also ask my friend to vouch for me, that I made the A10. Other than that saying that he was the creator, there is nothing to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SneakyStephano (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SneakyStephano We refer to the encyclopedic content here as articles, not pages. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Unfortunately, we cannot accept personal accounts of something or people vouching for you as it must be possible to verify the information presented in an article. If the sources given in the article are not being summarized accurately, please tell us how on the article talk page, Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. If the sources are being summarized accurately, but you disagree with what they say or they are in error, you will need to take that up with the sources, and/or provide additional independent reliable sources that can be verified that support your proposed changes. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NoReformers, SneakyStephano, 50.90.211.22, all the same person, all reverting the same material, which is easy to see in the article history. I just don't have time tonight to pursue it. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings and Happy New Year, this new IP [[1]] continues to make unconstructive edits on Prince Marko page, even though they were warned on their talk page, and reverted by multiple editors, can something be done ? Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 07.Januar 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam I (obviously wrongly) assumed this was an immediate problem that needed to be addressed, given that I was approached directly, and as such I did not check the date. This is my error only; I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GregYoot I assumed that this problem was an immediate problem requiring attention now because you approached me directly. If you wish to report a longer-term habitual problem(I have not examined the entirety of the other user's record and don't intend to, so I don't know if that applies here or not), a venue such as WP:ANI should be used. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Errors can be made by anyone with a beating heart. You are an amazing editor, Dot, and I appreciate your contributions on the Teahouse and across the encyclopedia in general. --ARoseWolf19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 04:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC). 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.
Wayne Pinto at Chatterjee & Lal You do not have to be specifically paid to edit to be a paid editor; any paid editing relationship with the subject triggers the disclosure requirements. If you are employed by the gallery, that counts as paid editing, even if you were not specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Kartveli's role in the A-10 thunderbolt's design
I am messaging about the protected statis of Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II article as it currently prevents the needed editing of the article to include proper recognition of the lead designer of the A-X, Alexander Kartveli. The only designer credited in the article was a consultant not mentioned in any official records, Pierre Sprey. No members of the actual design team are mentioned. I realize that the article was placed into protected statis by as a result of repeated edits and reversions by multiple military Enthusiasts. To give context, Pierre Sprey is a controversial topic in the military aviation enthusiast community due to him repeatedly claiming to have created the designs of multiple military aircraft, including the F-15, F-16, A-10, and various unused designs. In reality he never helped design any of these models; with the only consulting he did that was related to any of these planes being with the F-15, where his consulting wasn't related to the design itself. This, along with his relationship with the "Reformers" and "Fighter Mafia", two groups widely despised in military enthusiast community as a whole, for reasons that need a better man than me to fully explain. However, I could care less about Sprey being in the article. What I do care about is that the lead designer of the project, a man who also developed the P-47, F-84, and f-105, is not given credit in the article. It's fine if you want to leave Sprey in the article but I want you to allow credit to be given to Kartveli, and to protect said credit from being removed by a reformer or any other biased/uninformed editors, as what occurred before you placed the article in its current protected statis. I apologize for not providing citations for my claims, as this this is the first edit I have done on Wikipedia and I haven't quite figured out how to add citations. Even if you don't believe me, I implore you to look into this matter further, or pass on the issue to an Admin you feel is more knowledgeable on the topic. Thank you, from a Concerned Enthusiast (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Concerned Enthusiast It's not a matter of me allowing anything or my personal knowledge; knowledge of the topic is not required to participate here. As someone with the administrator tools I(or any administrator) have no more authority than any other editor, I only have extra buttons that would be irresponsible for the entire Wikipedia community to have. I am curious as to the sudden interest in this article and its content; is there a concerted effort at work here or other means of prompting the interest of those interested in military aircraft?
If there is a dispute about the article's content, it should be discussed on the article talk page(Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II). Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what secondary, independent reliable sources state. If the cited sources are not being summarized accurately, please describe how and the specific changes that are needed. If the sources are being summarized accurately, but are in error, that will either need to be taken up with the sources to get them to issue corrections, or you will need to provide more current independent reliable sources with the correct information. I don't know if you are correct or not- you may very well be, but it must be documented somewhere to be included here. This is necessary for verification purposes. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - you responded to UTRS appeal #52351. I received an e-mail from the appellant, complaining that nobody has got back to them; I don't think they received your e-mails, or realise that it's been closed. I don't particularly want to engage with them off-wiki, given the content of certain e-mails they've sent me in the past, but if they genuinely haven't received your e-mails I guess I have a duty to let you know. Is it possible for you to check to see whether there might have been a technical problem that might have affected outgoing emails? (Pinging Deepfriedokra, who also commented.) Cheers GirthSummit (blether)07:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit I don't know too much about the technical aspects of UTRS, but I think if they lost their appeal key they would not be able to get back into UTRS to see their appeal and its discussion. There is no obvious technical problem that I see; they can try making another request. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thanks for your fast response and providing additional links.
I read "other stuff exists" and I have a question: On the wikipedia pages for Bitcoin as well as Bitkub, the community cited and provided references for "Problems" eg when Bitcoin had issues and Bitkub overloaded their systems and the SEC had to step in. This is good, and this serves the cause of Wikipedia because it gives a big picture, verified view of the exchange as an entirety, problems they've faced, fixes etc etc. As opposed to an entry like car rental ZipCar, which even links to the models they have for rent. Who cares whether they have a 4-seater sedan for rent ha ha! Unless I understand it wrong, the purpose of Wikipedia is providing only factually correct, verifiable and non-promotional info, so I'm trying to understand on exactly which points the entry falls down. The references are third-party, objective and published in newspapers with strict editorial policies.
I've also read the "guidance on sanctions" section. I'll disclose on my user page. Thanks for the help so far. Not my intention to waste editors time, I'm still a rookie but I enjoy editing Wikipedia entries too, it's addictive. Best.
Tnatsnok I fixed your declaration template; the one you used was for article talk pages, not user pages.
Regarding your comment, it's not for the most part the publishers of the sources that are the issue, but the content of the sources. I will examine them below:
is a link to a profile of a founder of the company. Not significant coverage of the company.
is the same, for another founder.
is the reporting of the raising of capital, a routine business activity that does not establish notability(if you haven't, please read WP:ORG)
also describes the raising of capital, as well as what the company considers to be its goal. That is also not significant coverage; furthermore, the company can change its goal whenever it wants.
describes the raising of capital.
is very much like source 4.
also like source 4.
describes the raising of capital.
I cannot examine it due to a paywall, but based on what it is citing it seems to describe what an employee of the company did. That is about the employee, not the company itself, and as such does not establish the notability of the company.
does not mention the company at all. It's also a blog, which are not usually considered reliable sources as they usually lack editorial control.
also does not mention the company at all.
is a press release that does not mention the company at all.
does not mention the company at all.
I cannot examine it but it also does not seem to mention the company.
does not mention the company.
describes the failure of a completely different company.
does not mention the company at all, seems to be describing some aspect of attempting to pass laws in Australia.
does not mention the company.
is an announcement of the launch of the company's platform, a routine business activity.
This is where the draft "falls down". These sources are not appropriate for establishing the notability of the company. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about the existence of the subject and what it does(and many of your sources don't discuss the company at all). An article must summarize what independent reliable sourceswith significant coverage say- it is not significant coverage to tell us that this company raises capital, that is a routine activity that most businesses do(unless there is some notable aspect of doing so like setting a worldwide record). I absolutely believe you that there are likely other articles with similar issues(this is part of the reason for special rules about cryptocurrency editing, being flooded with inappropriate articles) and we will eventually get around to them all, but that takes time.
The purpose of Wikipedia is not exactly "providing only factually correct, verifiable and non-promotional info", it is to summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Please see the five pillars of Wikipedia. I hope what I have said here helps you understand the issues here. You are welcome to get the opinions of others at the same help desk, but I think you will be told largely the same thing. I don't expect people to just take my word, though. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed feedback 331dot, I really appreciate the time you took. Apologies for slow response. I'll keep an eye out for better sources and hope it "grows into" notability. All the best.
Tnatsnok (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have redacted the edit history as well. Articles(not pages) are protected only due to ongoing, habitual vandalism that is difficult to stop with less invasive means; the user who made those edits can be blocked if they persist. That should be tried first, if needed. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I insisted I'm the IT manager of MBK Partners. How can I prove myself that I'm the employee here?
The editors(User:Imcdc) must register/change after confirming with our team before modifying the content, as unverified or outdated information may damage our company's reputation.
For example, 1. using the information of users who have already left the company may be legally problematic. 2. Our head office is not in Seoul. 3. MBK Partners and MBK Partners Special Situations are different entities.Jjosso (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jjosso You don't need to prove you work for the firm, but you do need to make a formal declaration, please see WP:PAID for instructions. As you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly, instead you may make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on the talk page, Talk:MBK Partners, detailing changes you feel are needed. Preferably they should be sourced to an independent reliable source, but we would like to know about any inaccurate information. 331dot (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot. Since you're an admin and you are also listed as an AfC reviewer, perhaps you can sort this out. There's no indication that any of this editor's drafts were ever submitted to AFC for review; so, it's not clear why there are {{AfC submission}} templates on many of them now that they're articles. Maybe the templates were added by mistake? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Codemiko would like her full name removed to protect her identity. I work for her manager and we have been trying to scrub her last name and correct spelling of her first name for weeks. Please perminately keep it as Yuna (no Youna Kang)at her request.. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbtheman (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss this on the article talk page, Talk:CodeMiko, so other editors that follow that article can be aware of this. What you are doing is like putting a genie back in its bottle- not easily accomplished, especially for a public figure whose name is out there, but we can hear what you have to say with regards to Wikipedia on that page. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two named accounts and an IP address that have been trying to do this for some time, but have still not made the mandatory disclosure required of paid editors. I think they need to do that before doing anything on the talk page of the article. --Orange Mike | Talk02:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.
Please see your user talk page; please discuss any editing disputes on the article talk page instead of in edit summaries. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The submission from my sandbox is to trial editing of the Electreon page and *receive feedback* on the draft.
You didn't even read the updated draft from the sandbox, which has been changed substantially, incorporating the feedback from the last few days.
Please do not accuse me of claims and jump to conclusions when you haven't even read what you are rejecting. Jacobariel91 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobariel91 I only reiterate what I told you; it does not matter if you submit the draft under a different title. Rejected means rejected. You even got a second bite at the apple.. You must move on from this, or you will be blocked. Your persistence is becoming disruptive. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And your lack of logic/cognitive application here is sad. You rejected a draft. I fixed it taking feedback into account. You rejected again, ignoring the feedback given. What's the point of feedback then? What's the point of improvement? It has nothing to do with the title of the submission, it's the content that's important. I'm sure you are a fairly intelligent human, so I hope one day you will learn/acknowledge the central point of improvement and Wikipedia's mission of enabling access to noteworthy, significant information about people, places, and things written in a neutral point of view (hint: that's what this draft is). I hope to not report you for failing to adhere to Wikipedia's mission. What's the point of your involvement in this project if you are rejecting pages (and those that have taken feedback into account, especially) that discuss noteworthy, significant content from a neutral point of view? Jacobariel91 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
below the block notice on your talk page: i put correct information in and I haven’t removed any other information. Please unblock me. There is no reason to block meSmat99 (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to post about this somewhere to give people advice in case any of the Help Desks get questions like this. You responded that the person should contact Facebook, but there is no such thing as getting help from Facebook. They don't care.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vchimpanzee The point is that we at the Teahouse cannot help with Facebook problems. There are ways to contact Facebook; what Facebook does with those communications is their business. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We(MBK Partners Limited)found that the following information does not reflect the current state.
Some of them are outdated and the others are wrong.
The information on Wikipedia is very important to us. It should be corrected normally, because if someone forwards wrong information, it can cause real damage to the Firm.
- Abbreviation of MBK Partners is MBKP. not MBK- Our name is not MBK partners. It should be MBK Partners(Capital letter)- Headquarters: Jongno~ << wrong. Have to remove.- One of the Founder has already left our Firm and he should be removed(Kuo-Chuan Kung)'
1) It is the largest private equity firm based in South Korea.
MBK partners head office is in Seoul with additional offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo.
MBKP is not based in South Korea and its head office is not in Seoul.
2) MBK Partners’ investment focus is in North Asia, namely South Korea as well as China, Hong Kong and Japan.
: MBK Partners balances its investments not primarily in South Korea but across the regions in North Asia.
3) It offers capital structure balancing, company merger, company acquisitions, financing consulting and other services.
: This statement is false. MBK Partners does not offer these services.
Jjosso You have done the correct thing by proposing an edit on the article talk page; a volunteer editor will review your request in due course. In the interim, please make the required paid editing declaration, which is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joeluwa Unfortunately your draft is in no shape to be published at this time. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone. For this person to merit an article, they must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources like news reports, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and it is even harder with a conflict of interest. It is usually recommended that new users first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial is a good idea as well.
You declare a conflict of interest(which should be on your user page and the draft talk page, not the draft itself, see WP:COI for how to do that); if you work for Grasp Games you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. Once you do these things, you may use Articles for Creation to submit your draft. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.
AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.
If there is no problem, we'd like to change some information. The basic idea is exactly the same. We just added a bit of details.
I have one more question, I read the 'Paid editing declaration" section you sent. However I can't still understand about it. Where can we put the information?
Do I have to make a new section for the paid employee information?
1. Description
[AS-IS]
MBK Partners (MBKP) is a North Asian focused private equity firm.[2][3]
[TO-BE]
MBK Partners is the largest independent North Asian private equity firm, with over $25.6 bn in capital under management. MBK Partners focuses exclusively on investments in its home markets of North Asia and has local investment teams based in its offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai and Tokyo.
2. Overview
[AS-IS]
MBK Partners was founded in 2005 by Michael ByungJu Kim and several other senior Asian executives from the Carlyle Group.[4][5][6]
In January 2022, a 13% stake of the firm was sold to Dyal Capital Partners.[6]
MBK Partners has offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul, Shanghai and Tokyo.[7] <<- It's on the description part
The firm has two main businesses, Buyouts and Special Situations.[8] MBK Partners' investment focus is in North Asian regions, namely China, Japan and South Korea.[2][3][8]
[TO-BE]
MBK Partners was founded in April 2005 by former senior investment managers from Carlyle Asia Partners and Carlyle Japan Partners, including the President of Carlyle Asia Partners, Michael ByungJu Kim.
The firm has two main businesses, Buyouts and Special Situations. MBK Partners Buyouts acquires companies through management-led buyouts, buys subsidiary businesses through corporate divestitures, partners with strategic buyers, takes publicly listed companies private and purchases and grows companies through add-on acquisitions.
MBK Partners Special Situations invests in customized, secured lending, secondary credit investments in stressed and distressed opportunities and non-control structured equity investments.
In January 2022, a 13% stake of the firm was sold to Dyal Capital Partners
3. Information (Founders)
[AS-IS] Michael ByungJu Kim
[TO-BE] Michael ByungJu Kim and other former senior investment managers from Carlyle Asia Partners and Carlyle Japan Partners
I noticed that there doesn't appear to be an active block on this account, although there really should be because of WP:CORPNAME. They have requested an unblock and name change anyway, hopefully that will be taken care of without requiring a block in the interim? --Drm310🍁 (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lavalizard101, the account Laplace Architecture was created before Laplace Studio and their edit history was entirely on French Wikipedia until recently. My guess is that they didn't know about the WP:SOCK policy, and they also seemed to be unaware that French and English Wikipedias are separate projects until I explained it to them. Not excusing their actions, but this seems more like ignorance than malice. So is a punitive block against the master warranted in this case, or just an appropriate admonishment and a rename? --Drm310🍁 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the existing article 'Pakistan Engineering Company' but now I am unable to add pictures to it. Wikipedia keeps showing an error. And it also says the article is a stub underneath. Please let me know how to proceed forward with both.
Mehr Miran Rakhi (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MehrMiranRakhi I have removed the stub tag. You will need to tell what the error message that you get is. I would note that if you work for or are otherwise associated with this company, you must make a formal declaration; please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to revert the changes I've made to the article about my organisation? I want to get clarity on how to correctly make some changes and then go back and update.
Hey 331dot, you reviewed and rejected an article I had been working on back in January known as Draft: Stem Player based on the tone of the article and the legitimacy of some sources.
Since then I have been working vigorously to try and remove any bias that may have been contained in the article, with tonal shifts and updated, more credible sources.
Woodlandsleisure I had declined it, not rejected it; rejected would mean it could not be reconsidered. My views on the draft remain unchanged. The assertion of notability seems to hinge on this product's association with Kanye West; notability is not inherited by association and it is still largely sourced to mere announcements related to the product, not in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. However, feel free to resubmit it to get an opinion other than mine, as I make mistakes. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic editing by user you unblocked some time ago
Hi, Dot. Not sure if you remember you unblocked BurritoQuesadilla in July 2021, as a second chance. I don't think he's living up to it very well in thisinstance. It's not vandalism, so in that sense he has kept his promise, but I'd call it trolling and a waste of time. I also see some worrying warnings postdating your unblock on his page, as well as some worrying responses to them. (He was nice as pie in July, just after your unblock, but then it wore off.) I don't know if you might want to speak to him again? Bishonen | tålk22:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Hi,
You recently made some suggestions on how to improve my article on the Ocean Peach People's Food Store that I found helpful. However when I resubmitted I got a very odd message as follows:
"This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)"
I was shocked to get such a blunt and untrue comment and then found that I can't even bring up a copy of my two articles that I am working on. Is this simply an aberration from an angry editor or am I doing something so wrong that I should be treated this way???
I wrote to Bbb23 to ask for help, but I thought I would also write to the last person who commented on my article to see if you might help me understand.
Thank you,
Davis
DavisHayden (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DavisHayden I can see what Bbb23 was thinking; as other editors told you, the tone of the draft was very promotional in nature. It had three reviews and I could see how another editor might think that was enough chances. If you have communicated with them, you can explain what it is you want to do exactly and describe the sources you have. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't reply to e-mail. If the user wants to discuss the problems with me, he can do so on his Talk page where I left the warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not that familiar with Wiki being new to it. I'll try to respond to Bbb23 on his talk page. I couldn't find it before, but did find yours so I'll retry. I can't see how it is promotional of the food store. It is just an article about how it started. If someone could point out directly what sentence they see as promotional, please point it out. Also, is there any way to get the page back up for editing or even so I can at least copy it for myself? Thank you for your quick response. DavisHayden (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Hey, Davis, I'm a member of a co-op here in Milwaukee myself, but the problem is that the article is too enthusiastic, too promotional and favorable. Language like "It was 'owned' by the people of the community and was focused on serving the needs of the community. Profit motive was usually not the focus of these cooperative stores and was not that of OBPFS" is not the dispassionate tone of a historian, it's the eager praise of an advocate. The fact that I find it appealing is irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk03:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you very much. You are the first person to actually tell me what was objectionable! That is easy to fix. If I can only access the article, I can fix it. DavisHayden (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only thing wrong with the article, just an example. The entire tone of the article is unencyclopedic. It's not quite as bad as the other article I deleted per G11, but it's bad enough. But it goes deeper than that. I have a fundamental problem with your creating these drafts. You have an obvious WP:COI, and your sole purpose at Wikipedia is to promote the school and the co-op. Your name is even mentioned in the co-op draft. I know you say that your involvement in the launching of the co-op was 50 years ago, but that doesn't erase your COI or your interest. I am not going to restore either of those drafts.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, You guys are tough editors! Ok, I looked up ”Coop” under different ways about a year ago and found no articles on coops in Wiki, but upon trying again yesterday, I found a link buried in the article about coops that I probably missed. It was a list of coops in the US and some of them had published wiki articles. So, I will rewrite this article to follow how they wrote them and hopefully you will appreciate the changed ”tone”. Although I have hundreds of presentations and publications in academic journals, I have never attempted an encyclopedia article. I did not keep a recent copy of the article so can someone at least email me a copy of it so I can look it over and get the list of references? I know I have an "interest" in the food store but I will do my best to make this a neutral article.DavisHayden (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
Technical news
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Hi! You sent me seemingly an automated and very general message which claims that I made changes to an article about the alleged Snake Island incident, yet it's about a claim which doesn't have any sources. The burden of proof should be on the one who claims something happened, and not on others to prove it didn't happen. Therefore, instead of labeling the whole article as "fake news", I only added the word "allegedly", because as of yet there is no proof of the event actually having been taken place. As mentioned later in the article, the Ukrainian navy admitted that their initial report on the event was false.
As the event created memes and a large impact, it would be unwise to outright delete it, but we also shouldn't have article about urban legends or outright fake news presented in a way as if they indeed happened. I though that adding the word "allegedly" was the softest and most neutral way to do so. --2A02:2F07:D60A:8D00:3872:33B:7421:5EFA (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is not fake. It is on tape. It appears to be incorrect that the troops were killed, but that is all. In any event, it does not matter what you or I personally think about it; if independent reliable sources generally use the word "allegedly", please offer examples on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 10:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC). 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.
Hi 331dot
I have been trying to publish a company profile with having a good amount of independent references but always my article gets declined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PERICENT.
My competitors are also using promotional words and less amount of reference but still, they are on Wikipedia.
Pericentjaipur Is there a particular reason you are now using a different account, with a more inappropriate username than the other account? In any event, Wikipedia does not have "company profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors who take note of a subject receiving coverage in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies where mere existence merits inclusion- competitors meriting articles(if they do, they may not) does not automatically mean that your company can get an article too. See other stuff exists. Meriting an article depends on the sources.
I will repeat what I said at the AFC Help Desk: Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company- and not based on any materials put out by the company like press releases or the mere reporting of its activities- showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article.
Pericentjaipur If you are an employee of the company, you must make a formal declaration as a paid editor, this is a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. See WP:PAID. Please respond to the username and account concerns I describe above. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed my grounds for the unblock - i.e. it was not edit warring as my edits were exempt from the edit warring policy. If you do not address this I will have to escalate this, and make it about your neglect of your admin responsibilities. Rebroad (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rebroad I'm willing to discuss this with you but mischaracterizations of this situation(I have "neglected" nothing) and threats will not get far with me. If you find my response unsatisfactory you are free to make another request for someone else to review, and any decision will be made by that reviewer, not me. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is now twice that you have neglected to address my basis for unblocking. Are you going to address my unblock request in full or not? Rebroad (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rebroad You are really overblowing your reaction to a one week partial block from a single article. I'm not sure what you expect to happen but I don't think you are going to get the result you want. I'm sorry you decided to go down this path when I offered you a different way. Good day. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
your words and your actions were not in alignment. you kept saying you were willing to talk, but you weren't talking! you were consistently avoiding talking about the subject I wanted to talk about - i.e. my unblock request. Rebroad (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Rebroad (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't respond to demands, threats, and mischaracterizations. I am not taking this personally at all. If you want to have a civil conversation, withdraw your ANI complaint(which is going to go nowhere anyway except to maybe get you a full block), stop with the demands, and have a conversation. I already told you what you can do if you found my request unsatisfactory. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your discussions and work with this user. I can't help but chuckle a little though at the thought of having to qualify that Martin Luther claims that he had a dream, and JFK cannot be proven to believe that this nation should commit itself. Canterbury Tailtalk14:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever noticed how anyone who has "facts" or "the truth" in their username has about a, oh I dunno, 97% chance of winding up blocked? Just a random observation.... Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In your response to my unblock request, you noted that User:Wugapodes was not involved - but that's a very narrow definition of involved. WP:INVOLVED says that " Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute". As I'd been critical (as well as complementary) to aspects of the close on their talk page (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3) how is that not a current conflict? Surely Involvement should be construed broadly instead of narrowly. Nfitz (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much - as it was related to the same dispute. If a clear-line (like a 3RR issue) then that would be different. Same way that a participant in a keep AFD isn't the one to close it - even with if the outcome is obvious. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz Admins could do (or would be willing to do) very little under that interpretation. I would suggest you focus on the merits of your block. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a very narrow definition. Even a standard definition would require one to avoid even the appearances of involvement. If you were to follow what WP:INVOLVED said, then your course of action would be clear. That you choose to interpret the policy so narrowly doesn't sit well. Nfitz (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And your interpretation is so broad that no admin who ever interacted with you in any way or even simply did something to a page where you were involved without directly interacting with you could do anything to you. I don't think you are going to get anywhere with the community with that broad an interpretation. The idea that Wugapodes would block you out of some sort of revenge for expressing an opinion on something they did is nonsense to me. I again suggest that you focus on the merits of your block and not attempt to wikilawyer your way out of it. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to go on record as stating that I have a strong opinion on an action of every single admin. I think it goes without saying, 331dot, that you can never take an admin action with regards to me, as I put the Ice Cold Ice messsage on your talk page above, and of course I've sent a thanks to Ponyo for taking care of some sock stuff. I've also said in the past that arbcom cases are no fun, so I expect if I'm involved in another arbcom case every arb will recuse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Massively disagree. How you don't think that there is the possibility of the appearance of involvement I don't know. I fail to understand why Admins frequently take a thin-blue line approach to any transgression, defending poor admin decisions to the death. Whether a couple of reverts in a few minutes, by someone who hasn't been sanctioned for 3RR or edit-warring during the last decades is a different issue. Had an uninvolved admin made the same call, I wouldn't have blinked. To suggest that this restricts any admin from taking any action is absurd. Nfitz (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly what is absurd is your "thin blue line" comment. Ridiculous. I have not, to my knowledge, communicated with Wugapodes at least recently, if ever. I call out bad behavior when I see it no matter who does it and would do so if Jimmy Wales himself did something wrong. Wugapodes was not involved. Now if you really want to pursue your grievance- and I advise you against it- take it to the proper forum and get off my page. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, little else to say. I didn't mean that personally - sorry if it caused offence. It's just a trend I see - and have seen here for decades ... that admins are treated with more discretion and lighter gloves than regular users - unless they really go overboard; I'd have expected a balance response to have been the block was fair but perhaps Wug wasn't the best to do it. Instead one admin won't even answer a polite question, and the other insists that Involved doesn't apply. We all know how challenging an admin at "the proper forum" invariably goes. Enough said ... moving on. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction over this. Subsequently DanH1922 has started talking and things are being sorted out. However I wonder if I could ask your advice on one point. If you remember I noted that the username was exactly the same as the media contact for the Poppy Factory, and DanH1922 has subsequently confirmed that he is indeed the Senior Communications Manager. However SVTCobra thinks that this might be construed as WP:OUTING, see User_talk:Martin_of_Sheffield#WP:OUTING. Can you advise on this please? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, I've found the section on oversight but it doesn't seem to apply in this case. However I've asked Oshwah who is an oversighter to do whaterver an oversighter does in this case. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Martin of Sheffield - I've oversighted the material in question. Next time, request oversight using private channels such as email, IRC, the oversight email address, or through the Volunteer Response Team. Never request oversight on Wikipedia (such as a user talk page), where information is public. This inevitably leads followers and watchers to the information that's supposed to be oversighted, which isn't good. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)23:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi good morning. i have just gone through your edit actvity and pattern for pages related to India , specially 2020 delhi riots. i found that somehow you are supporting the poltitical left narrative on wikipedia which is not a good thing as wiki is intended to neutral. you seems to be an experinecd editor. it is expected that as a human your dharma is not only to make this website but this world to be a neutral and level palying ground for all of us. your activity and socio political inclination is not good for this website . as one of the founder of wiki already mentioned that wiki is biased. this is because of the support of peoples like you. its my hunble request to you to be fair for everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kopumila (talk • contribs) 02:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
see man, the voice that i want to be heard out is subject to sanctions in the past, sanctioned by left -liberal media, sanctioned by intellectuals, sanctioned by politicians..... sanction wont affect us , especially me anymore. what i have done here is only humbly given my msg to one of the esteemed admin to be neutral and fair...... this voice cant be sanctioned any moreKopumila (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 331dot! You added some maintanancte tags on CapMan article 8 years ago. Can you check if they are still needed? The connected contributor stopped editing 7 years ago, do we still need to be warned about that? If I added the user on the Paid edits template on [6], would that be enough? I doubt there's no way to contact the user anymore and get them to do it themselves. Jjanhone (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it still needs some cleanup(specifically the unsourced Ownership and Investment area sections) to sounds less like a company brochure. I'm not sure that would leave much behind, but if you wish to address those areas and feel that addresses any potential bias problems, you can remove the tag. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm planning to add new parts from Finnish Wikipedia article. Once I do that I'll remove the old & unsources parts as well. As a paid Wikipedian I'm not allowed to remove the tags by myself, so if it is ok for you, I'll ping you once I'm done. Have a nice weekend! Jjanhone (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Kindly take in good faith another look at Draft:Qlone. It is a properly written contribution about a first of its kind photogrammetry app. I did quite a lot of cleanup following editors comments, but I don't see how coverage in sources such as USA Today, BBC, TechCrunch, Gizmodo and a significant feature by Apple in its WWDC alongside Unity and Cinema4D can be treated as non notable. Since you are a respected Wikipedia editor, I kindly ask you to reconsidere this article for acceptance and if you still feel its not ready, kindly provide your expert advice on how to improve it.
The fact that the article was declined several times shouldn't be used simply as prejudice since it was improved with every decline in accordance with the comments by the editors so its actually a good set of refinement cycles that made it better. USA Today, TechCrunch (written by staff), Gizmodo and the BBC are all considered good reliable sources so in accordance with Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, "There is no fixed number of sources required" and the reason that the BBC source is a YouTube video is due to the fact that they dont keep accesible links to their complete content and their YouTube channel serves as their accessible archive and that's why I chose it so everyone can see the full content on the subject matter. Most importantly, the presentation of Qlone by Apple, the largest information technology company by revenue and, since January 2021, the world's most valuable company is a clear indication for notability and gravitas, its not a passing mention but rather significant coverage in two major presentations it made to a worldwide audience of tens of millions. And next to only two other highly notable players as mentioned (Unity and Cinema4D). Please help me understand - If this doesnt guarantee notability, what does? there are many other apps with much less recognition on Wikipedia so I am honestly buffled. To summarize, please understand in good faith that the subject matter is considered notable for the reasons mentioned and kindly reconsider accepting it. Thank you so much and as a new editor I will highly respect your kind and prompt response.
JohnMcClaneSr (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JohnMcClaneSr It is true that there is no specific number of sources required for an article to exist- but to pass the AFC process most reviewers look for at least three. One absolutely fantastic source might work in some circumstances, but it is usually tough to summarize a single source, and a single source alone is not the best indicator of notability.
I will give a lengthier answer later- but I can say now that the issue with most if not all of your sources is not the source itself, but their content. In the case of the first source, the USA Today video, an interview with your CEO is not an independent source.
Please read other stuff exists. Other articles existing has no bearing on yours. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. The AFC process has also not existed the entire time Wikipedia has. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind and prompt response. Let's debate in good faith - the USA Today video is based on an original Reuters (also considered good reliable source) video story from an exhibition in which they looked around to see what is newsworthy, hence notable and secondary. There was no paid marketing involved and it was their own free decision to have a short interview with the CEO. If you feel this is not notable we can remove it. But then you have other beautiful reliable secondary sources such as the BBC, TechCrunch and Gizmodo. And I fully agree that other stuff exists has no bearing since I'm not questioning the approprietness of the others, I'm just saying that assuming they are notable, being featured by Apple must make Qlone even more notable.
I made a ton of efforts in getting the language to be from a neutral point of view and selected only the best A class sources. You sound like a good faith editor that loves helping new editors such as myself so I kindly ask that you reconsider accepting it now and moving it to the article space.
I'm now in a position to write a more lengthy reply. I was going to break down each source and explain why they are problematic. As I went along, however, they are all pretty much the same; they tell about the app and its features- and you've used those sources to do the same in this draft. You've done a good job with that, honestly. But the problem is, that's not what Wikipedia is looking for. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sourceswith significant coverage say about a topic. The key is significant coverage. We don't just want documentation that the app exists and documentation of what it can do. We want independent sources that discuss the app in depth and go into why it is significant, not just tell us that it exists and what it does. Is it revolutionary in the industry? Why? Has it accomplished something of significance? Has it influenced other apps? (rhetorical questions) That's just things I can think of off the top of my head, it could be anything that tells us why it is important- why it is notable as Wikipedia defines it.
You have 21 sources in the draft. That is actually a negative- we prefer fewer high quality sources over a lot of poor quality sources. Again, it is not the outlet(i.e the BBC) that is the problem, but the content. I fear that you may be too close to your company/the app to be able to see this. I stand by my rejection and will not place the draft in the encyclopedia. I don't mean to disappoint you, but I can only call them as I see them. Now, my word is certainly not the last word; I could have made a mistake or be wrong about something. You may post at the AFC Help Desk for further comment and to see if you can obtain a community consensus to allow for resubmission.
I don't know if you are editing at the direction of your superiors at your company; if you are, feel free to show them this message. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind and prompt response and for recognizing that I did a good job with the sources. Please note that this has nothing to do with the company or me being too close to the app. Its about striclty following the guidelines and becoming a good editor. I have aspirations for that but it feels like the AFC process is too harsh once the first editor declines your draft. In good faith I respectfully disagree that these sources are not showing significant coverage. It could be that the definition significant isnt mathermatically defined and therefore too subjective. You mention that an article should show why it is significant? has it accomplished something of significance? why is it important? Therefore, I gathered for you a series of notable uses of the app that show exactly that. If this is what you are looking for, I can easily add it to the article.
JohnMcClaneSr Respectfully, you are conflating mentions in media with "notable use". The sources you provided here largely just mention your company or that its app was used. It doesn't say that it was particularly significant for the user in most cases. #7 and #10 are probably the best sources you provided here, but 7 says in conclusion that the app is good for hobbyists but not professional work, and 10 says it "could" help anatomy educators, not that it does. My views remain unchanged, and I've already said how you can proceed at this point. I really don't have anything else to add. 331dot (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 331dot. I was going to give Commonedits (talk · contribs) a warning (or at least a curt "ANI is thataway") for this comment, and then saw that you've previously blocked them for personal attacks (a block they then socked around, apparently). Could you please take a look when you have a moment? Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)06:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert the mass deletion so I can continue to work on the article, in progress (further corrections of all sorts, and planning adding the King Nentres section - husband of one of Arthur's sisters in the best known tradition). --5.173.40.99 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be involved in the dispute itself other than to prevent edit warring. You may very well be correct, I have no idea, but I am not getting involved in that. Edit warring, hoewver, will not be permitted. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so can you revert and let me work? (And notice like how, for example, he just deleted almost everything in Hector de Maris and added "expand section" in the place of the content he just deleted - this got to be just trolling.) Please revert to the last good version, that is mine, so I can continue to work on the article. He can meanwhile explain the problems he sees with the article on the talk page for everyone to discuss. --5.173.40.99 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly advise you against editing the article further, at least directly, until you have resolved the dispute. You may submit proposed changes as an edit request. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god. This article was built by multiple people, obviously, over the many years, and this entire "dispute" here is over his unilateral mass deletions from the last week only.
And I have time to work right now, because I just employed today and I won't have much time since tommorow. So please revert to my "under construction" work in progress as I keepmake various corrections to perfect the article and maybe do add Nentress too.
If he convinces me, or others, that there actually are some problems with it, in a discussion on the talk page, which I started, then either I or others can than fix such problems on any later occasion.
I decline to do so, and am putting you on notice that if you do so, you will be blocked. Your edits are in dispute and should not be restored without a consensus. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this was the consensus, before he came just last week. Why is he allowed to just go in gut the article, the work of other people and not just me, even making things WRONG in the process, and then this is the protected version? Why won't you even just restore to the version from before his edits? --5.173.40.99 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So please restore to the consensus version, and I will then submit to you my request for my edit (which was my last edit, and you may look into it - countless corrections and additions, some removal of things wrong or confusing). --5.173.40.99 (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a discussion that established a consensus for your edits. The other user has cited policies in their removal of the content in dispute. I don't wish to review your edit request, as I would then be involved. Please submit it as the edit request process describes, on the article talk page. If you are correct, as you claim, this will come out through the process. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not my edits. I'm talking about his edits. Look into the article history. I'm talking about to restore the article from his uniloteralz never discussed with anyone, mass deletions from last week.
Again, look into the article history. And to reiterate, he never discussed making such drastic changes at all.
As I said, the other user has cited policies in support of their changes. If they have incorrectly done so, please describe how on the article talk page. I don't have anything else to add. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did describe this on the talk page already.
He didn't describe it on the talk page.
And he didn't even post edit summaries while editing, for that matter. Only writing "Copyediting" always.
So please revert to from before his "Copyediting" edits to the consensus estabilished between all the other users over the years.
Hi, you added the AfD template to this draft that I'm working on. I've deleted it, I don't plan to put it through AfD. I'm curious if you did that by mistake? CT55555 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555 I think you mean AFC not AFD. It wasn't a mistake, I often put it on drafts that I notice being created in the RC feed as most of the time it is new/inexperienced users creating them. I haven't examined your edit history, so if you are experienced in creating articles go right ahead. I might suggest that you use your sandbox instead of the Draft space(just a suggestion only). 331dot (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)
I go to the talk pages of various articles and I see IPs basically running themselves into the meat grinder. I think that their affinity for Trump is overriding their evaluation of long term consequences for their actions. Not all of them get blocked, but it happens. I'm wondering if there's some way to maybe suggest some sort of pseudo block for them specifically instead of a permanent block. So that if maybe things start turning around they can be given more leeway if they decide to appeal?
Fearless lede'r (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IPs are rarely, if ever, indefinitely blocked(what you term "permanent") because it's possible for different people to use an IP. Unless talk page access is removed(which is only in case of abuse of that page) they may appeal on it. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Im protecting the page from vandalization the user solarson has been adding unsourced content in the page and constantly removing sources please take a look at it, it's going against Wikipedia policies AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AuthenticSources2546 Note that term "vandalism" has a specific meaning here, and is not simply any edit with which you disagree. The other user may see what you are doing as vandalism. You seem to be saying that you are correct with your edits, but that is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. You must attempt to discuss this dispute on the article talk page first. Instead of disrupting the article with edit warring, there are channels of dispute resolution to make use of should discussion fail; you may also request that the article be protected from editing. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you can take a look at that page to confirm whether I'm right or wrong the fellow user has removed a reliable source and then inserted unsourced content into it for caste glorification,plz take a look at that page's history to confirm whether I'm right or wrong( AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC) )[reply]
I'm not involved to take a side in the dispute, but to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Even if you are correct, you cannot edit war. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah I know edit war is absolutely wrong but still don't u think protecting the page is absolutely necessary since the user that I reverted has been distorting articles based on history for the glorification of a particular community,any advice u provide as a senior editor would greatly help.( AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC) )[reply]
Maymooncuk As I have said, Wikipedia is not for posting a resume or a list of accomplishments. It is for summarizing what independent reliable sources state about a person. Independent sources are sources wholly unconnected with the subject in any way. A source is "reliable" if it has a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. These are things like news outlets or published books about a topic. Please read Your First Article. I am wondering if you have a connection with this person you are writing about. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kkpkopor's edits popped up in the recent changes feed, and I couldn't help but notice that they have 15 sandboxes. Their activity seems to be exclusively in them since September 2021. I know, WP:AGF... but a crop of unsourced and maybe-promotional sandboxes seems weird and a little suspicious. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already left them a warning about editing while logged out. Several of the sandboxes had edits from the same IP yesterday, an IP with no prior edit history. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that a shorter block would send the appropriate message. We will see; I've also protected the article in question. I don't know who is correct, but the edit warring the user is engaging in is not permitted. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note on Draft:Azmat Khan. I've updated it with references and also with information that makes this person notable. Would love any feedback. Also, I think the title should be updated to Azmat Khan (Journalist) to avoid confusion with the existing Azmatkhan article. I can't do that because my account is new.
AmarAkelo I won't formally review the draft yet. But what I notice is that most of it is not about Khan herself, but a summary of her published reporting. The article draft should be limited to what independent reliable sources say about her with significant coverage. The draft says "Her investigations exposing the human toll of war, have prompted widespread policy impact" but doesn't say what that impact is and how it was traced to her reporting.
Regarding the title, when the draft is accepted by a reviewer, it will be placed at the proper title, but you can leave suggestions for that on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It provides information to say that my local Walmart has a sale on televisions, but that is not encyclopedic content. Hi, I think I know what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure it came out right. I think you meant something like "Saying that my local Walmart has a sale on televisions is 'providing information', but that is not encyclopedic content." What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
Arbitration
Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Hi 331dot - Hope you're well. When I'm not editing, I like to spend part of my time helping other users at the AFC Help desk (although you usually beat me to it). I requested access to the helper script a few months ago, so I could easily comment on the draft page rather than the help page, but I was denied by PrimeFac because he thought my article history was weak, with a high percentage of deletions, and I needed more time at AfD. All of the deletions were 2015 and earlier, before I got the hang of sourcing. I ramped up my new article production, and subsequently wrote ten articles, which are all still up. This shows eight [[11]], and there are two redirects that I turned into articles, LiveWire (company) and Calendly. You also see me giving advice at the help desk. I still don't spend time at AfD, but that seems to be less important as long as I can provide good feedback to the other editors. Is there any chance you could give me helper script access, if even just on a trial basis? Also, my recent experience with new page patrol makes me sometimes question the judgement of patrollers. See Talk:Cue Health and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cue Health for an example of a sequence when an NPP editor summoned another, and decided to propose an article about a notable public company for deletion, and nearly succeeded. Here's another example of a new article I wrote about Orgain, a company recently bought by Nestle. It was immediately G11 tagged by another editor, but another editor declined it before I even got to it. [[12]] I'm not seeing what triggered the deletion, unless it was because it was a nutrition company, a known problematic category here with WP:FRINGE. I know autopatrol rights usually requires 25 articles, but could you review my recent contributions and see if I qualify yet? It'll take me a few months otherwise to hit 25. Thanks! TechnoTalk (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Permissions is not an area I do a great deal of work in, so my preference would be for you to ask someone more experienced in that area. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the judgement of both ToBeFree and Yamla, who each have much experience, and as such I don't wish to intercede for you. If you are not the geography warrior, I would suggest that you demonstrate that by abandoning editing about geographical topics. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for If you are not the geography warrior, ..., I rarely edit about topics that are immediately related to geography. As you can see from what they have been doing they don't care whether the edits are about geography. And I don't think presumption of guilty should be the way forward in any civilised society. No one should be expected to prove that he or she is innocent. 112.120.39.139 (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I see correctly, I blocked for edit warring. If I remember correctly, I did so because I didn't want to judge whether it was sockpuppetry or not. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a reason is valid or not is a matter of opinion. I would suggest that you achieve a consensus on the article talk page for your edits, including citing any Wikipedia policies that support your position. If that fails to resolve the disagreement, use dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If others are behaving badly towards you, bring them to WP:ANI. I've told you previously how to address the content dispute(admins do not settle content disputes). I really have nothing else to add. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 331dot, Blanchey has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Blanchey (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Only the Indian Army, Indian Navy and the Indian Armed Force are part of the Indian Armed Forces. Please don't anything else to the article. Thank youJabkan (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you reverted my edit? I have provided official sources, and waited long enough for others to respond on the Talk page. No one did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabkan (talk • contribs) 08:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you have anything to say other than blocking genuine editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabkan (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are removing passages that say certain organizations are not part of the Armed Forces(isn't that what you want to say?), along with some other things. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation and see also does not help people know that certain armed groups are not part of the armed forces, that might appear to be. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those passages explain why those organizations might outwardly appear to be part of the armed forces (at least one is supervised by the Defense Ministry) and exist to reduce confusion and clarify things for readers. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it is confusing at all to state "There are number of uniform forces in India apart from the Indian Armed Forces" and tell what they are. However, I've probably gotten too invested in this matter so I am going to remove my edit and disengage from this topic. I will, however, encourage others to review it. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jabkan Don't thank me, because I do not agree with what you are doing and think it does a disservice to readers. However, I don't wish to be involved in the matter further. Good day. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a disservice to the readers? I'm trying to make them aware about the topic they came looking for, rather than bombarding them with information they weren't Jabkan (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted to know what was part of the armed forces, it would help me to know what is not, especially if an armed group is part of the MOD. As I said, I won't be involved in the matter further. Perhaps one of the other editors that had reverted you will want to discuss it with you, they either will or not. I don't wish to discuss this further. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be specific in life, including everything which is not even related will make article infinitely long and unreadable. That would be a great disservice. Good day to you, sir! Jabkan (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:AFC § Copied-and-pasted draft?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Technical news
Happy editing! CiaPan (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
