User talk:331dot/Archive 16

Help me at Draft:Patuakhali Government College. InfoShahriar (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What help is it that you want? 331dot (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sources, cross check those and add some sources if you find. I translated from bnwiki and added more sources. InfoShahriar (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review; you shouldn't do that unless it is in a state that you think it will be accepted. If I were to review it, I would decline it, as it does little more than state that the college exists and tell of its offerings. To establish notability(see

Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Help me fix it. InfoShahriar (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find or provide sources for you. Do you have an association with the college? 331dot (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in my area, so I know about it. InfoShahriar (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are soliciting help from several people. We can't do the work for you. If you need help to know what to look for, I would suggest that you use the

new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
• The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
• An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

• A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
• 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system
  is open.
• The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
• A
  Level 2 desysop
  .

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in
  consider blocking the whole subnet
  rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

---

I would like to talk with you about the edit you made on the official page of Danny Makkelie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikumaru (talk • contribs) 10:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rikumaru What is it you would like to say? 331dot (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that you read the posts I placed on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In our opinion, Danny Makkelie is being deliberately harmed by citing what the media thinks of a specific decision. Referees make weekly decisions where public has an opinion on. This is also not written on Wikipedia and rightly so. Wikipedia is not a blog where people can express opinions and judgement. In comparison with other referees, this is not treated proportionately. Whether a decision is right or wrong remains subjective. In addition, UEFA has stated that the penalty was correct and therefore the addition has no added value and only causes damage and discussion. Rikumaru (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dispute resolution

are available.

You also alluded to a legal threat("a jurisdictional complaint to Wikipedia");

making legal threats is not permitted on Wikipedia. We cannot stop you from pursuing legal action according to the laws of your country if you so choose to, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia, nor can you edit if you have a legal action underway related to your edits. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both at the same time. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

To clarify, I'm not taking a position on the merits of your concerns- only saying that you are going about them the wrong way. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last year I already explained in a discussion that the context should be factual. Mentioning that Makkelie gave a penalty in the semi-final of the Euro is enough information. That the Spanish newspaper and or other media questioned this decision should not be mentioned on his profile. In that case we can criticize decisions made by referees, ministers, etc on wikipedia every week. If people want to know what has been written about a decision, they can turn to Google or newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikumaru (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit this section for replies, do not place them at the top of my page. As I said, you must discuss your edits if they are disputed. I don't see where you discussed it a year ago(unless it was under an IP or a different account). Wikipedia is not merely factual, it summarizes what independent

reliable sources say. If they discuss a controversial call by a referee, that's usually valid content on its face, again, unless you have a logical argument preferably based in Wikipedia policy to argue otherwise, or a preexisting consensus to point to. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Rikumaru Please respond to my question above; who is our, and do you represent this person? 331dot (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources in the article clearly show notability of the article subject. If you disagree, please start an AfD to settle this matter once and for all. Pavlor (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlor AFD is not supposed to be the first destination, but the last. The sources seem to say that it is an emulator and give its specifications. What's significant about it? Why do you oppose giving a tag a shot at improving the article? I have today interacted with someone who attempted to submit a draft about an emulator that was rejected, and they said "other articles are the same as my draft" so I decided to look. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few "once and for all" moments here. Nothing is in stone. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure consensus may change, once and for all... until then. As of sources, there are two sources already in the article contributing to notability of the article subject. The first one is an Amiga Review (Czech Amiga magazine) article about Game Boy emulation on Amiga, which is mostly devoted to Wzonka-Lad (with some space for two other emulators and the Game Boy hardware in general), the second one is a short article in Amiga Format (UK Amiga magazine). Other sources in the article are either too short (amiga-news.de), of unclear reliability (Amiga Report disk mag), or primary. Assuming similar coverage in other Amiga magazines of the late 90s (which aren't online yet, so search is somewhat harder), I don't think notability is an issue here. Pavlor (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlor I'm not sure notability should be based on assumptions of sources that aren't in the article, but otherwise I don't have the time to invest in a battle to get the article removed, so I removed the tag. I was just taking a look in response to the situation I described above. I maintain, however, that AFD is not the first destination, but the last, when it comes to notability. Please have a good day 331dot (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry, I was probably somewhat annoying. I'm rather overprotective when it concerns computer history related articles (last living Amiga fan, you know...). You do great job at gatekeeping junk at the AfC. Happy editing! Pavlor (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads-up as I think you're the person most likely to see the effect, good or bad. I've added a {{clear}} at the start of {{Unblock-spamun}} so that indenting the template will no longer cause it to eject the text from its enclosing box. Feel free to revert if it causes issues, Cabayi (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi Thanks. What causes the template to be indented?(especially when it is only one indent) Is it only people doing it themselves? Visual editor? 331dot (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to have a wise answer but, honestly, no idea. I'm guessing it's inexperienced users doing it themselves. As with most renaming stuff, it seems easier to try to make it idiot-proof than to try educating users how to do it right. They'll never need that knowledge ever again. Cabayi (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your blocks of some users (

]

SunilNevlaFan I only need to revoke TPA if they further abuse their access; I'm watching it. If you want to attempt to post in Filipino and explain what's going on, feel free. (I know I could post a translation but those are imperfect). 331dot (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ILoveBaklava123 and Sweetapplecyder have already been blocked by

✨ 16:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks like there is some sock puppetry involved here, too. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser is involved now, it looks like. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot.

I have a small request. I am currently writing my first Wikipedia article, and I have made some good progress on it. However, I'd like the advice of someone that is much more experienced with Wikipedia Article writing than I am. I saw you on the Teahouse and it seems that you know what you are doing. Do you mind reading what I have and leaving constructive feedback?

My draft is God is my Co-Pilot (Book)

If you cannot read this, that is ok too.

Thank you, A1139530 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not in a position to look at it in depth right now. For feedback, please submit it for a review. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] and see [2] and later posts. I'm guessing they are also the IP. The page is pretty unreadable. I think a block from the talk page is appropriate, and I'm a bit concerned about them possibly trying to get ECP this way, but I don't think that's the case considering the editor's possible CIR. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've reinstated the block. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any problem with deleting most of his talk page posts since the last one? Doug Weller talk 11:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that's a problem. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I made a mistake opening afd for a notable person here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Humble, can you please close this as speedy keep. Thanks. zoglophie 09:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will; in the future, it's not necessary to approach an admin directly, simply note it in the discussion. I do dabble in AFD occasionally but it's not usually in my wheelhouse, so to speak. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your note. Can I close that myself? zoglophie 09:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've taken care of it. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry for the failure. You gave me the opportunity and I did not use it well. I am sorry. Happy new year, health and safety Vergth (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at the edit request I made? You said I would need one approved before I could be unblocked from a page. I replied to my mentor but they haven’t responded, nor has anyone else to the request. Not sure if I did it wrong or if it’s because the article itself isn’t protected but I’m blocked from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnPeuPar2 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may work, but the edit is premature as they haven't held office yet(which is different from notability as a politician which only requires winning an election). 331dot (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

over the last month ive noticed people(often ip users) vandalising articles and the edit summary is قصة ميسي which translates to ' Messi's story' i am working on a user script where you can search edit summeries with specific words/charachters,but for now just keep a look out for it. cheers!~ ItsMeKeys (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting of the draft Draft:AliSS the article is about a known singer and the info in the article cited from the reference links the links is not an interviews and we add the massive number as we think required please adjust the article name and check the links and publish it as we think it’s suitable thanks Joelmatomi (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the definition of a notable singer. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don’t represent the singer, i want to publish a new article in wikipedia, i searched for a new subject to make an article, the singer is notable and i mentioned the references and tried to adjust the article in the suitable manner, I think the info are cited and if you could check it again Thanks Joelmatomi (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joelmatomi You didn't answer my question, who is "we"? You have submitted the draft for review and a reviewer will eventually look at it. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we : me and my sister, we collaborate to write and search for references and interested in writing owning to achieve higher levels of success in editing 😇 Joelmatomi (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your notice, see edits like this for an idea of why I was making multiple reverts. Blindly replacing even the wording in the url of the reference and thus creating a broken link, and the other is a single-purpose account dedicated solely to pushing the same angle! How is one to deal with this sort of malarkey? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reporting the edit warring of others. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

How am I to discuss with a tendentious editor who is replacing even the wording in the url of references to push their angle? That type of edit belies a state of mind which is not conducive to productive discussion.

The other account you warned is a single-purpose account created a few days ago which has only edited these same few articles to push this angle. He also made another revert after you gave them the talk page warning about edit warring. Original research has been added with that edit but I haven't reverted it again as I don't want to continue the edit war. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would suggest requesting page protection or reporting them as edit warriors. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you as an administrator have warned me as well as him not to edit war. I've acknowledged the warning and not continued, but the single-purpose account continued the edit war less than an hour after you gave the warning. And they've been rewarded for the ignoring the warning as their version of the article with original research included has remained live and viewable for the readers of Wikipedia since. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Situations like this are annoying. The IP editor is making changes that are directly contradicted by the cited sources, and is presenting no new sources of their own, but they are jumping about on different IPs making communication difficult. I have reverted their changes; I'll ask another admin to protect the page at RfPP. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 14:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - looking at the history - I suspect the IPs are Wa944, who has been adding the same content at multiple pages about this person and his family members. I'll go and have a word... Girth Summit _(blether) 14:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Girth Summit. It is frustrating and I should've handled it better than the edit warring.

The problem seems to be that there are sources which mention this info about Fife/Scotland, but it's likely circular reporting or even citogenesis. When Alexis Mac Allister was interviewed by The Times, it's stated "he does not know if the reports that the family have roots in Fife are true", and "“I don't know if there is something that is Scottish but my family was from Ireland,” he says. “The surname is Irish.”" The Fife/Scotland info does not seem to be corroborated by himself or his family, and is largely based on the common wisdom that "Mac" surnames are Scottish and "Mc" surnames are Irish (although Mc is just a shortened version of the Irish language Mac).

Then the single-purpose account and IPs are taking this to be a conspiracy of some sort because they read the circular reporting about Fife somewhere, know it to be true and demand it be stated on Wikipedia. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been able to figure out where this stuff is coming from? I just took a look at the article McAllister_(surname), which has seen some strange editing in recent days about its levels of Scottishness versus Irishness. It feels like there's something going around on social media, and we are seeing the results of it here. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of editing of these articles because Alexis Mac Allister played for Argentina in the world cup final against France on Sunday.

The Scottish/Fife angle seems to originate from a 2008 article in the Scotsman, which says (Carlos) MacAllister's roots are in Fife, with no further explanation. That's the earliest reference to Fife I can find. The article then goes on to talk about the ancestry of Alexander Watson Hutton at length. The Wikipedia page for Carlos Mac Allister at the time talks about his "Scottish sounding name", so it's possible whoever wrote the Scotsman piece about Hutton noticed this and decided to chuck in a mention to Mac Allister to pad out the list of 'Scottish Argentine footballers'. I've been unable to find where exactly in Fife the Mac Allisters are supposed to have come from, the sources just say things like "believed to come from Fife", "rumoured to have origins in Fife", or matter-or-factly state they came from Fife without expounding on it or explaining how they arrived at that conclusion. Carlos Mac Allister gave an interview to an Argentinian outlet that predates the Scotsman piece where it's said, ¿Qué relación tenés con tus orígenes? Ninguna, pero me encantaría conocer Irlanda. Algún día voy a ir. Talking about his origins being in Ireland, no mention of Scotland. The Scottish/Fife origin is possible, but it also could be a case of circular reporting that Wikipedia is regurgitating!

The Donabate info originates from a Dickie Mac Allister, which an Irish Times article says was secretary of a hurling club in Argentina and is a cousin of the future Argentina star (Alexis). That article in turn references a 2002 article, where Dickie talks about the Irish origins of his family. Recent articles have also expanded upon the connection, Noel tells a story of how they sent a letter to the hurling club in Argentina's capital asking for some information. Much to their surprise, a return letter arrived from the club detailing the Mac Allister family's history all the way back to their time in Donabate. The "Noel" here is Noel McAllister, who is related to Dickie, and specified that his relative Joseph left Donabate for Pergamino in 1865, then later also brought over his nephews John and William to Argentina. This is the summary that I was trying to get across in my edits. Also mentioned in that version is that Carlos Mac Allister said the family have Italian heritage, but the single-purpose account kept removing that bit as well for reasons unknown! NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was I being too trigger happy? Just checking why the CSD decline. Only mention of company is social media, a shopify store and companies house. Interested to know your reasoning so I don’t repeat mistake. Equine-man (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equine-man I understand why you did it, but I think they did well enough summarizing what sources they provided(even if they don't establish notability) to avoid a G11 deletion. I also tend to think Draft space gets a tad more leeway. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, understand what you mean. Have a great day! Equine-man (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I renamed this user from the global rename queue a few moments ago. After that, I noticed, this account is spam-only and you declined rename request earlier. Actually, I didn't realize then, that username is not the only problem here. I should be more careful. Should I revert my action? —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 06:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya No, you don't need to revert it. :) The main problem is their editing. I just usually don't bother to carry out a rename unless it looks like the user will be unblocked soon- but there's no reason not to if the username is okay. Don't worry. :) 331dot (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And quite often a user like that will request a rename via Special:GlobalRenameRequest anyway. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has BKFIP been seen from northern UK IPs? Acroterion (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but that's who I was thinking it might be. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's the same aggressive tone and self-induced air of grievance. Maybe a cousin? Acroterion (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello 331dot: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir,there is one user 103.225.190.142 who is continuously editing pages without any sources releted to seige of janjira and maratha mysore war so i want you to block him to prevent vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samarth Wale (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dispute resolution are available as well. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

(talk page watcher) 331dot, if you blocked Akash Kharat the legend as a sock of Prathmesh Bhale, I suspect that Samarth Wale is also a sock of Prathmesh Bhale.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added the Professor in Practice line about Lucian as he was given the role on January 1, 2023. I work in Durham University's communications department and was asked to update his wikipedia profile. I included a [3] citation to his university profile which states he is now a professor in practice. I'm not sure what more you'd need to approve this edit? Thanks 129.234.35.82 (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I placed some information on your user talk page, but I will repeat some of it here; Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one; we have articles. If you work for the University, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal

edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page(Talk:Lucian Hudson). 331dot (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you the only one that has been asked to make this edit? At least two IP addresses have also attempted to make it. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your guidance. I was unaware of the editing protocols but I shall follow your instructions. We just wanted to ensure the article had the most up to date information about Lucian. It may be that someone else in the dept has also tried to edit hence the other attempts. Thanks again 2.100.253.37 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your own IP seems to be dynamic/variable, I would highly advise you to create an account. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Do you think 2.152.232.37 and Veronikacuesta are possibly connected? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The account was created after the IPs last edit, so it's possible. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only stumbled upon this after seeing

WP:HD#Issues templates posted on this article. Someone has already added a {{uw-coi}} to the IP's user talk page. Do you think that's sufficient for the time being or is an SPI warranted here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think an SPI is needed as the IP has not edited since Veronika was blocked. If that's her IP, the autoblock will prevent evasion. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the block was the obvious logged out edit warring. See [4][5]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's too bad they aren't seeing the issue here. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Guideline and policy news

• A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal
  .

Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The
  discretionary sanctions
  procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

---

By the way. As you were the one who resolved my appeal for having my IP blocked for using VPN. Just to let you know that, as this had caused me a mess, I've stopped using it. So that you won't be surprised when you see that I edit Wikipedia without any problem. Best regards. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

⌛️⌛️⌛️ 90.254.56.9 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what's up with this user User talk:90.254.56.9 (almost no contribs, so guessing it was so egregious they were all revdelled). But their edits in the last few look like an intent to be disruptive. Mind reapplying the block to forstall whatever it is they are planning/playing at? (not just to your talk, they are posting in several other locations) This one was especially weird [6] Heiro 01:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just wait it out. I'm patient like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.56.9 (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a full block is in order. Interestingly, one editor think's it's me. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already 3 different references to 3 different mass media. The reasoning that the sources provided are of "dubious notability" is a subjective and particular opinion that does not correspond to reality. They are independent digital newspapers from the Valencian Community (Spain), current and active, written by journalists.

It's not completely true that I have remove the "notability maintenance tag repeatedly removed by article creator". I only have remove the tag two times, and the last time, I added before removing the tag, another mass media reference (right now 3 references to diferent mass media), as the Wikipedia rules indicate.

I can't find the reason to delete this article and other articles of other encyclopedias wikis has no problems in Wikipedia in English, as all of these: Enciklopedio Kalblanda, Sarvavijnanakosam, Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español, Vienna History Wiki, Banglapedia, Metapedia (neo-nazi encyclopedia!) and so on. I'm a collaborator of Wikipedia since year 2008 and I have created many articles in Wikipedia in English, Spanish, and other languages and this is a strange behavior.--Valencian (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll discuss this on the nomination discussion page. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot! This was a while back, but I see you stepped in to help with an edit war on Sattriya a couple of months back. Did you happen to get a picture as to what was going on there? I came across a very odd job add for a paid editor on that article, looking to hire someone to (from my reading of the job description, anyway) protect a preferred version. No one has been hired yet, but it is one of the stranger ads I've seen, so I'm wondering what the context is that I'm missing. - Bilby (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby I'm happy to tell you what I can. I think there are two competing or at least differing dance groups whose representatives were edit warring over whose images should be in the article. I've been trying to get them to discuss and hash it out on the article talk page, which I don't think they've done but they have at least stopped edit warring. I'm not sure why the groups are competing with each other- maybe so their own dancers are depicted as representatives of this dance form(which I'd never heard of until I came across the edit war)

Furthermore, each group licensed the images as the personal work of the respective users when it was clear(and later admitted) that they were professionally taken. I believe one of the users corrected this but not the other. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps at least one of them has given up trying to do it themselves and wants to hire someone to. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. :) As no one has been hired it is just a matter of interest, but I think this is the first time I think I've seen someone specifically hired to edit war, rather than to 'make changes that stick". I'll keep an eye on it to see if anything happens on Upwork. Thanks! - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir I have provided correct reason in edit summary after editing the Mughal Maratha War but it is deleted by one user without proving sources as he only stated that Sambhaji was executed which is not correct as i have mentioned in edit section. Kindly take action on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathmesh Bhale (talk • contribs) 13:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afaik, AE sanctions can only be repealed by a consensus of the community at AN or by a consensus of administrators at AE. Minaro123's appeal merited either a procedural decline or a copy-paste to AN/AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam According to the instructions provided on that user's page, it's different for a partial block(as they have access to the rest of the encyclopedia). It says "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure])." What you refer to is only for a total block. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I felt they merited being unblocked, I would have asked the blocking admin to authorize it. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for your empathetic comments helping to keep things civil WRT Vector! I imagine it can feel like a Sisyphean task, but it hasn't gone unnoticed. VQuakr (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr Thank you very much. All I want to see is some civility, compassion, and understanding here, as well as honest information. I'm not saying people should like it, but let's express concerns in the right way. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the few times you've pointed out that closing an RFC isn't a straight vote count, as well. Who would have thought that closing the SashiRolls unban discussion wouldn't be my most contentious close in the past few months? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: it's never the ones you'd expect. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bludgeoning everyone at the Village Pump discussion. You are an admin and should know better. ~ HAL333 06:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 I totally reject the accusation that I am bludgeoning anyone. I am making legitimate comments as part of a civil discussion. I find this claim ironic given the massive unfair and (by some)uncivil bludgeoning the Foundation is getting. That said, you're going to get what you want because I'd already decided that I probably would dial back my participation there so I avoid further frustration. I don't need you to tell me what I should know. Good day. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take a step back, look at your edit history, look at the comments you received in the RfC as well. You were clearly bludgeoning, in a very tiring way. I'm glad to hear that you were going to reduce your participation there, as it wasn't frustrating for you alone, and it isn't behaviour I'm used to see from you.

Fram (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Fram Thanks for commenting. I don't intend to look at it again. It's just sad to see what's going on there. People don't have to like anything, but they should at least be correct with the information they are basing their dislike on, and be civil with their disagreement(many are, but I've seen plenty that aren't). It's not dictators in a ivory tower who didn't listen to anyone. That's just false. It's people, trying to do their best. If people don't like it, that's fine, no problem with that. It's the intellectual dishonesty I find frustrating. There is nothing to suggest that the new RFC will be more representative than the prior one. Anyway, sorry for writing this. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Then where is the proof they are actually listening?? Then why have they not rolled backed the change yet, despite nearly the entire community demanding to do so? Then why are they not listening to the myriad of posts reporting endless flaws in the new skin? Then why is their only response the “our research” stonewall that has been debunked many times? Tvx1 19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not unfair given what they unilaterally subjected the community to. What they did is just NOT how you act in a community project. They deserve every single bit of this backlash.Tvx1 19:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tvx1 Thanks for your comments; everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. It is utterly false that the "entire community" is demanding anything. I've seen some praise for it, and people naturally are quicker to air grievances than offer praise. I don't wish to debate the matter further as I don't think that would help anyone, including me and you. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is not that some people don't like it- there's nothing wrong with that. It's the manner in which that is being expressed and the falsehoods it's based in. Dislike it all you want- point out every error- but people should be civil and act based on the facts. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For all your tireless work in a variety of areas, too numerous to mention. Your efforts definitely don't go unnoticed - thanks! Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are abusing your power by barring me from editing without an official warning or a request made. You obviously just did it on behalf of your autistic furry buddy. Can you give a single argument as to why the linguistic theory is racist? And a single argument why calling another people's rituals as "meaningless blabbering" isn't racist? İstemekistiyorum (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

İstemekistiyorum There is no requirement for warnings, but I gave you one in this edit. You also received other warnings for removing content. I have no interest in the substance of your dispute, only in preventing edit warring. Being correct is not a defense to edit warring. If you wish to contest your block, please follow the instructions that I left on your user talk page(and you removed) and an uninvolved administrator will review it. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the logo is me and for my website then why it is clamed to delete and diclined the article Goobleindia (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goobleindia If you indeed created the logo, apologies, though that would be unusual. However, if you license it as your own work, this would mean that anyone may use it for any purpose, including commercial(which would mean others could theoretically make money off your logo and you would not be entitled to one penny from them). If you license the logo under fair use(which is what logos are typically licensed under) that would not be able to happen.

Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. I wouldn't worry about images until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia.

Please read about

paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Creation of page

Hello, i saw that you are considering the page Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack) but it seems that it is not a page yet, it is still a draft 191.113.200.183 (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I simply placed the submission information; anyone who feels it is ready for placement in the encyclopedia may click the "submit your draft for review!" button on the screen to formally submit it. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that and it is still a draft, make it a page please 191.113.200.183 (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,081 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot. Last month you unblocked Bcmh after they promised to stop edit warring. Unfortunately they have resumed this behaviour, reverting seven times at President of Singapore over the past 48 hours. Would you be able to reimpose a block? (the block last time was for two weeks as they engaged in sockpuppetry to edit war elsewhere). Cheers, Number 57 21:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	For engaging with patience and civility my query about why a page wasn't notable. Thank you! Pluke (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If appropriate, would you consider blanking this page. While the editor is blocked the strange accusations againsgt many and various people remain. I appear to be being called racist in some subtle manner on it. I'm old enough and ugly enough to put up with that, and yet the page is, well, you be the judge as the admin most recently involved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider it(I'm not presently in a position to devote the time needed). 331dot (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed virtually all of the disruptive material; I've only left the last declined unblock request. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm biased, good call. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, when you said in this edit "you may make another unblock request for review by someone else", you were obviously telling nothing but the truth, I'm not so sure that mentioning it was wise. 🤫 We don't want to encourage more waste of everyone's time. 🙁 JBW (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JBW I appreciate the advice; perhaps sometimes I take being fair too far. Working on it. :) 331dot (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what it's like. Sometimes I catch myself slipping into being too nice, but I always manage to fight it off.😡 😈 JBW (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following
  Arbitration Committee
  to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following
  extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan
  .

Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the
  their noticeboard
  .

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

---

Hi 331dot. Are you able to check the content of the deleted userpage

]

Drm310 The company that was written about was called "Iceberg Thermal Inc". I've heard of "Camp" as a surname so this username is likely okay. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for checking that! --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

my draft article is been declined all the time . i have mentioned he is a supporting actor still they are asking about some main carector movies . what can i do to make my article geets aproved Rohit3648 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohit3648 the draft has now been rejected with no option to resubmit. If he has only even been a supporting actor then there is no amount of editing you can do to have the draft accepted. Your time is probably better spent on other tasks. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming movies are coming of him with major roles . After the launch of the movies people can easily read about his past works and know about him . That's the reason of creating his wiki page .please approve it . It will be helpful for many . And by this he can get more and more projets . Just watch his acting on few movies you will get to know how good a ctpr he is . Just watch his short movies in YouTube Rohit3648 (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohit3648 Wikipedia is a lagging indication of notability if he becomes notable enough for people to write in detail about him in reliable sources after these "major" projects then an article my be possible, but not before. We have no care about his publicity or his desires or even his fans desires. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit3648 Mcmatter is quite correct. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. If he is going to be notable later, you can request to be able to resubmit the draft at that time. Wikipedia also has no interest in helping his fans- you should use social media to do that. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you again but you are the only experienced Wikipedia admin here who have helped me so far. you mentioned that I should change this article

I am writing to focus more on his political life as an ambassador is a notable person instead of focusing on his literary work. I have added more sources and deleted some parts I couldn't find a source for. however, some of the sources are just books or governmental magazines in Persian that I doubt you can find online, and books are by the author (but are not self-published). So i want to ask : 1- does these books count as reliable source ? since most of them don't have ISBN and one cant find their content online. 2- or should I just delete most parts that are not directly related to his political work ( most of the Life and Education section) since his political work has good sources ?

I would be extra thankful if you could check this article and give me your honest opinion. I didn't re-submit it since I fear that it could get rejected. Bear1375 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information from books that he wrote (regardless of who published them) would not be an independent source. Sources

do not need to be in English

, nor do they need to be available online- they just need to be publicly available(such as a book in a public library).

I will take a look at it when I can, although I don't know when that will be. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just wanted to express my thanks for your help with trying to create my first article. I've taken your comments on board and some some further research on the subject (Draft:Leon Emirali). It turns out he stood in multiple elections and made news during these periods, so I'm hopeful that gets it across the line - in any case I wanted to express my gratitude for your guidance and kindness. Hopefully I'm becoming a better Wikipedia editor day-by-day. JoinFluffy250 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I see your quick and constant vigilance at Logan Yuzna and not only appreciate your help there, but also everywhere else on the project that you practice such attention to detail and integrity. Thank you. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I posted for the first time this morning about how best to create a page for my digital album. I just wanted to say thanks for your reply. One other replied and I was able to reply direct, but I wasn't with yourself. I am new to Wikipedia and am learning more about how it all works! Thanks again. ME Mattekinsmusic (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore TPA? Rope? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably worth a shot. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I've dug up Draft:Amit Choudhary, which was created two years ago, supposedly by the same person (similar usernames), and deleted per G11. Do we consider that socking, or should we leave them the benefit of the doubt that they forgot the password of their old account? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the "h" for you. :) It's not socking unless the first account was blocked, so let's just assume they forgot their password. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know who this is? I'm afraid I've nothing to offer them, but . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:Julian the PHILOSOPHER(constancekilledhisfamily) and whoever the cross-wiki abuser behind it is. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a
  F10
  (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a
  P2
  (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A
  requested moves
  process a guideline.

Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

---

Sorry i am new to wikipedia, and I don't know that only admins can block someome i want send him a warning but ended up sending bloc messages because he was vandalizing Selfiee page you can see in history. I also requested materialscientist for block because he is destroying whole page. Sorry if i made a mistake but after this block message he stopped doing edits. Tousif.15 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to not get in to warning users until you understand how to do so. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for guidance Tousif.15 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to provide pictures of the locations I talked about in the school, would that be sufficient evidence towards my claim?

Talunathefox (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

verified. Perhaps you should call your local newspaper and ask them if they would be interested in writing about the conditions of the school. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Help

So i have this editor, admin btw, who keeps accusing me , falsely, of having a COI in unconventional ways. You decided to stop the discussion, could you please ask him/her to stop making the false accusations, and report back to me.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't close the discussion so you could then argue your case to me personally. I think you shoukd get back to editing. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey can I remove the block message since my username has been changed? Mm37. (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey did you message me? Mm37. (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to, I confused your page with another. I apologize 331dot (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's ok 😁 Mm37. (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you declined A7 based on "here is a claim of significance". The article at the time of the decline has: "Irenge Guhanika Benjamin, kwnow professionally as Landen Guhanika, is a congolese musical artist. Born in may 2003 in DRC, and raised in Bukavu" with similar in the infobox. How is this a claim of significance? Is being described as a "musical artist" enough for a claim? Mvqr (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. All that is required to avoid A7 is a claim of significance, they don't have to actually be significant(and I suspect this person isn't, but I don't know, which is what a discussion is for). If the article had lacked career information, and perhaps not mentioning that they have a professional name, then A7 would qualify. Just how I see it. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as most amateurs have a nickname and describe themselves as musical artists or the like. I do thank you for taking the time and explaining. I will take it to AfD. Mvqr (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to report a sockpuppeteer, but can't create a new SPI or even post to ANI, and I've seen your work on sockpuppets a few times. (Yeah, I know, create an account...) Can you please have a look at User_talk:Gobautista#Use_of_multiple_accounts? I can't get a reply out of them, just what looks like evasive action to avoid a block. Thanks. 2A01:4C8:49:B2A2:D8D9:97FF:FE57:E2CC (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try another warning by me and see what happens. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This might also be relevant: [7]. 2A01:4C8:49:B2A2:D8D9:97FF:FE57:E2CC (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. You declined an unblock at User talk:AbdulImru. However, I discovered that the unblock request was made by a different account (123movieC) - but they were writing as if they were the blocked user. Leads me to believe that this is a case of block evasion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it is. Guess I should have checked that. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_America_News_Network&diff=prev&oldid=1144678943, and compare to every previous edit. I think this IP might need to be blocked per above rationale. Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that one edit is enough. While the post was a little ranty there was a legitimate question buried in there, one with a good answer(as you put in your edit summary). 331dot (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given your assistance and involvement at the Logan Yuzna page, I was hoping for some assistance. I suspect a sockpuppet, but am not comfortable or familiar with those upper-eschelon investigations. If I laid out my anonymized thoughts on the matter, would you be willing to counsel whether I should proceed with formally-recognized processes? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious even without you telling me anything that someone is engaging in sockpuppetry on that article. You could start an SPI to make it official and have it on the record. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no no! I meant: "based on your great help there, could I present you with a different issue I've encountered, and ask for your advice?" — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apologies. I would be willing to offer my counsel to you, yes. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I've been discussing an editor's infobox-formatting edits. It's been civil, though they've been using unusual polarizing language to describe my edits as compared to theirs. Our discussion reached a standstill yesterday, with their comment, Regardless, it appears neither of us have the needed consensus unless other editors weigh in.

Then, 27 hours later, a second editor came along and made the same edits to the article for which the first has been advocating. These users have 1.15 and 0.86 years of respective editing history, and six of the second editor's scant 126 edits have overlapped with the former—all of which have been the making same infobox-formatting edits being advocated-for by the first editor.

This feels… suspicious? I'm extremely hesitant to start slinging around accusations, especially with a limited set of data. What do you think? Is this something I should have looked into, or am I being too cynical & suspicious about an article and editor with whom I'm having a disagreement? Thanks so much for your advice! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say. I don't know if six edits is enough overlap. The other user could just be monitoring edits related to biographies. I probably wouldn't do an SPI yet. You could inform the other user that their edit was already in dispute on the article talk page and request that they self-revert and join the discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed something else: the second editor overlapped one of my edits (performing the exact same formatting change), but only after the first editor and I began editing at odds to each other. Out of only 126 edits, to follow me to an article after I began opposing the other editor? To a un-mopped and inexperienced editor, that feels questionable. Am I permitted to share with you the articles and editor names, just to make sure somebody else is seeing what I'm seeing, or is that wildly inappropriate and only for the formal process? Thanks again! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can share it if you want to, though I looked at the situation you are describing. With this additional detail it may be worth doing an SPI. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are Jonny Kim and Huan Nguyen. The editors are GuardianH (talk · contribs) & MBelmear (talk · contribs); the latter began editing on 6 May 2022, 104 days after the former, and their other interactions are here.

• 1 February 2022: GuardianH edited the Kim article saying, Smoothed out Kim's Education tab in the infobox to align with standard format. I reverted that formatting saying, IAW infobox instructions of 'Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant.'.
• 16 February 2023: GuardianH replaced their formatting without an edit summary. I don't think I realized it was the same editor from a year prior, and repeated my edit summary.
• 6 March 2023 (16:37–16:43): GuardianH replaced their formatting a third time saying, rv, this format is per the standard.
• 6 March 2023 (22:02): MBelmear made the same formatting change to the Nguyen article saying, I formatted the education to match other articles within the info box.. I reverted that formatting (and other changes) saying in part, + sentence case & ordering of individual list entrants IAW infobox instructions.
• 12 March 2023: GuardianH began the BRD discussion at Talk:Jonny Kim#Education format.
• 14 March 2023 (06:50): GuardianH said, Regardless, it appears neither of us have the needed consensus unless other editors weigh in.
• 15 March 2023 (09:51): MBelmear replaced GuardianH's formatting preference saying, Formatted education in info box.

With your admin experience, am I seeing correlation in coincidence? It feels too pat, especially when GuardianH and I have stalemated our discussion, only to have MBelmear come in and make the same edit. However, bigger-picture patterns and likelihoods are above my head, and I recognize the statistical possibility I'm wrong. For that matter, I'm also too inexperienced in such technical matters to deduce whether there are other unnoticed confluences/evidence that might support my concerns. What do you think? I'm so thankful for your time and expertise. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I was to make a guess(and this is just that, a guess based on what I see here) I might say that this could be

meat puppetry more than anything. I think this might be worth doing an SPI on. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I will. When I start that process, may I name-drop you to say, "I was uncertain about whether this was appropriate; after discussing it with 331dot, they thought it might be worth the effort." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may say you talked with me. 331dot (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Given the now-existence of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GuardianH, I'm not engaging with the below in the interest of propriety. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may weigh in on my behalf, I say unequivocally that I have no relation whatsoever with @MBelmear; it is a coincidence that they have decided to edit the page for Jonny Kim after I have, and, from a cursory examination of their edit history, we have completely backgrounds and interests. @Fourthords has accidentally drawn a false equivalence here. I don't know anyone from Montana, and I wouldn't decide to create a sockpuppet to edit a page when I was the one to establish the lack of consensus to make any changes.

What is unusually polarizing is not my talk page attitude, but rather the markedly unorthodox formatting that is in the education section for Jonny Kim—it sticks out like a sore thumb. From checking @MBelmear's edit history, they almost exclusively do formatting edits pertaining to actors and other popular figures; it is not surprising that one of these formatting edits was an attempt to fix the weird formatting of the education parameter in Jonny Kim. On a pure correlative/interactive level, I am more likely to be a sockpuppet of Fourthords than I am to be one of @MBelmear.

I'm willing to comply with any needed inquiry as to my identity. I'm unfamiliar with the SPI process though. GuardianH (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the post I added to the Lincoln Highway talk page regarding your edit reverting my changes to the article. I have provided factual evidence for the fact that other transcontinental auto trails and auto trail associations preceded the Lincoln Highway. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 07:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming this is your alt-account, giving the re-direct to your userpage, etc. Cahk (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Neutralhomer unblock request. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latest variant of something I've recently been reading quite often:

You added a large number of images- probably too many- and claimed them as your own work in terms of copyright. This would mean that you personally took them with your own camera.

If careless you and conspicuously consuming me go on a walking trip together, and just after we set off you exclaim "Oopsie! I left my camera at home. And my phone's battery is dying so I shouldn't use that"; and I magnanimously offer you my spare Leica, adding "Take it home when we get back tomorrow night, and give it back to me after you've copied the data", would copyright of the photos you took not be yours? (Or would we need a signed and notarized affidavit for this?) More broadly, does ownership of the camera matter at all? -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it wouldn't matter but I find it's easier to explain that way. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be editing with less sodium 72.213.11.193 (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, though I wasn't offended. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you indeffed this IP? I thought it was standard practice to not block IP addresses indefinitely. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I put on the user talk page, it isn't an IP address, though it closely resembles one(which is not permitted per policy). 331dot (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might this be related to 24.159.269.l95 (talk · contribs)? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's possible. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone who's wrong on the internet: It appears this user is, in fact, a user. As a user, they violate the username policy. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 19:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neat. The reply feature resolves conflicts... wish it didn't. Lmfao ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 19:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please add the sentence mentioned here to the article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/editor/3 2406:7400:98:7B4C:BD85:C840:E276:7949 (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion about this issue there, thanks. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really commend all the wonderful work you are doing on

]

I thought

I thought you might appreciate the first question in the Requests for comment/FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think it would be sensible to propose moving

]

CityUrbanism Hi, if you are trying to say that the German sports team should get the "BVB" redirect over it being a disambiguation page, you will need to open a discussion and make a case as to why it should be that way(basically establish that most people looking for "BVB" are looking for the sports team). I'm unfamiliar with this topic but that's what I can say generally. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how many people follow the BVB article currently it may need to be a

Request for Comment. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Self publishing

In general, can I add or correct information about myself if I can cite it from a reliable source, or does editing an article about yourself violate Wikipedia guidelines? Toddmeagher (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit request(click for instructions), other editors will be more likely to see and act on it. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• A
  Arbitration enforcement noticeboard
  .

Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

---

CU cleared by Guerillero.. Want I should restore TPA? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra Thanks for letting me know. I can do it. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for taking part in talk page clean-up by removing posts violating NOTAFORUM. However, I noticed that some of the inappropriate discussions you removed, like this, are still visible as of this writing even though they contain personal information. I have requested oversight of this. I suggest using revision deletion until an oversighter gets to it. Zoe Trent Fan🎤💍 18:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it has already been suppressed by an oversighter. Happy editing! The person who loves reading (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your un tribute. You rightly deserve it.

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?t=505 1.39.238.41 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that page and respect people's right to free speech. If you have some grievance with me, I'd be willing to work on it in proper channels once you stop inappropriate behavior like evading blocks. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought -- chastising unblock requestees for including their request in a header is just confusing to them - there's some or another of our automatic things putting the requests there (probably the reply mechanism), and most blocked users don't yet have the skills to notice that that's happened or to fix it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My intention was not to chastise, just to make sure they knew they had three open. I appreciate your perspective. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given their track record and fondness for the term "troll," I can only assume that they have no concept of irony. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you are correct. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you have handled the unblock request of CanadianSingh. Can you also handle this one? Thanks >>> Extorc.talk 16:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason you are bringing this to my attention? Their open request is visible to all admins. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to add a courtesy ping to you at my recent AIV report [9], I found the report had been automatically reverted by a bot [10], but I still want to make sure you are aware of the situation. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your block of 120.17.217.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for personal attacks. Unfortunately they seem to be continuing to use their talk page to make further personal attacks despite your warning not to. — Czello 10:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what your opinion is on some very large sandboxes I've stumbled across recently, during my scan of the recent changes page. I'm not suggesting anything overtly untoward is happening, but they've triggered my

. They both look to be vast collections of content that might never be intended for use in the mainspace.

User:Bd999k/sandbox is an exhaustive sandbox about a variety of topics about sustainability. Of concern to me is the opening section called "Collaborative Rationale". It begins with "One of the many primary benefits of our wiki site is its expansive selection of sustainable topics." It almost looks like someone is using their sandbox as an internal wiki for their organization, not to mention the suggestion of shared use.

all recently created.

Added this next one after my first message... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Etolbert2/sandbox is another large sandbox containing content about military vehicles. This one has five recently-registered SPAs making edits to it.

I really have nothing more to go on other than a hunch, but this doesn't seem like the proper use of userspace sandboxes. I am right and if so, what would be the next steps to deal with it? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted all three as

WP:NOTWEBHOST. The first one was definitely promotional, at least more than the other two. We'll see what happens. They are similar enough I wonder if you stumbled on a class or something. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

yup, what was deleted was an english project that was trying to teach us how to write and publish (without ever publishing) something to the internet about any topic you choose. The collaborative rationale was a general ~750 - 1250 word piece of work that aims to explains the goals, benefits, and how to further develop our sandbox wiki page. The rationale was also supposed to include why we choose our topic, but we never got the chance to put that in. Our teacher thought that since it was in our own sandboxes, without submitting to review, it was all fine. But clearly that wasn't the case as now all of our work is now gone before the due date. Shunkehe (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the reason why so many new wiki users were contributing to one sandbox; because we were learning how to use wikipedia for the first time and we were writing on one single wiki page. Shunkehe (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pls this was for an english project :(( Irios6 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:COPYVIO. Given the comment above by one of the editors of said sandboxes, it seems like these are being used as collaborative workspaces (akin to Google Docs), which certainly violates the former policy, so deletion is probably the appropriate course of action here. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

( Bd999k (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia Education Program materials to see how they can design lessons more compatible with this project to write an encyclopedia. If you're going to put content on Wikipedia, even in your sandbox, it must have some purpose related to improving this encyclopedia. The text in the sandboxes that I deleted was not written in an encyclopedic style, it was in more of an essay format and if it was about "publishing something to the internet" it wasn't related to improving this encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I should have linked it to my email now. I will notify him next time so this doesn't occur again. Thank you for understanding. Shunkehe (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have sent it. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I found another one: User:Brandonye23/sandbox --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, and regrettably yet another one: User:Kbrittt/sandbox. Also possibly a sock of Bd999k/Shunkehe due to subject area overlap. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some of the edits it appears to be a Georgia Tech English class of some kind. 331dot (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger evidence of socking, see the edits of Brandonye32 (digits inverted from first account). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the puppet indef and blocked the master a week. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pls i had an english project :(( Irios6 (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Education Program materials to see how to design lessons incorporating Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Joffe Books page

Hi, could you please review this page when you get a chance. Multiple independent sources, I believe meet notability guidelines.

Draft:Joffe Books - Wikipedia

thank you! Dave Trevor (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've submitted it for another review; one will happen in due course. I prefer that such things be handled through the review process, otherwise I would be bombarded with review requests. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to be aware of the Martyn Percy article, do You have any ideas about what to do about it? As it is mostly edited by SPAs, possibly page protection would be useful. TSventon (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. I've decided to. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I assume you don't have any easy ideas about how to deal with a page about a page which is dominated by friends and opponents of the subject? TSventon (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not easy ideas. It might need to stay protected for awhile. Maybe topic bans if the talk page gets bad. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Faster328#Unblock/unlock request for Faster328. This is my unblock request. Additionally, I would be able to use one account as my sockpuppet accounts are globally locked. 218.212.76.59 (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should not evade your block further by posting here. This will count against you in any unblock request. If your account is globally locked, you need to contact a Steward and get that removed first before we can discuss your unblock request. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd drop a message here as I'm not experienced enough to know how to deal with this thoroughly, and you're an admin who has been active today.

I was looking at the page for Silver Surfer (TV series) and noticed the very broken infobox, then decided to take a look at the page history, I noticed a very large number of small and unusual edits from one IP, and then looked at their contribution history and saw a lot of activity on small are rather odd edits across a lot of pages.

Also going to ping @Geraldo Perez: as they appear to have had interactions with this editor previously, placing a few warnings on the IP's user talk page in feb.

90.195.157.253 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the user may not be familiar with previewing their edits unless there is some other issue I am not seeing. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]