User talk:331dot/Archive 4

My new page about Czech Chemical Society was marked for deletion. However, I don't know why. It is the same as the pages of e.g. Hungarian Chemical Society od Royal Chemical Society. CCS exists for 150 years and it surely has it's place in Wikipedia. So I do not understand the complaining about self promotion or so. The second page is about the Associations of Czech Chemical Societies. OK, this is not exist for 150 years, but this organization is mentioned on the page of journal Chemické Listy. Please, help me to make these pages better. R Liboska (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

is not permitted

. I agree that an organization with a long existence would likely merit an article(which is why I did not mark it for deletion as not significant) but not in the format that was written at that time.

Articles on Wikipedia are all judged on their individual merits;

Teahouse, an area for new users to ask questions. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I am understand; thank you for this help. But is it possible to park this page in some draft area? I need some more time to find such "indipendent reliable sources". There should be some, however I do not know where to look for them. In addition - deletion of that page broke some links on other pages (Chemické Listy, Antonín Holý) R Liboska (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Articles for Creation where you can submit a draft to volunteers for review before it is posted. I wish you luck 331dot (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Does it mean that the deleted page is lost? I've got no backup. :-( R Liboska (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator that deleted it should be able to restore the content if you let them know you want to keep working on it. You can either contact them(go to the title of your page and the username of the administrator should be displayed) or you can visit

this page to request that it be restored to Draft space. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

hi, i answered in this page about deleting sand picture article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sand_picture

Hello again, I deleted links to shopping pages, and added new links. please check the article sand picture.868,383,950edits (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear talk:331dot

This is regarding the MusicDealers page. I have made some revisions and am looking to communicate with you regarding them. Will you please reach out to me in reference to it? I am an independent third party. Will you please advise?

Thank you,

Mdragoiu1099 (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Monique[reply]

Dear talk:331dot

This is regarding the MusicDealers page. I have made some revisions and am looking to communicate with you regarding them. Will you please reach out to me in reference to it? I am an independent third party. Will you please advise?

Thank you,

Mdragoiu1099 (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the article as it is currently; it still lacks independent

it is notable as a business. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you've G3'd it. I went for A11 before withdrawing - Zooper Dooper's are a real thing. Though you'd never believe it from this article.Cabayi (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: I stand corrected. Thanks for the information. Not sure what should become of the page currently- I must leave shortly so if you think something should be done, feel free. Thanks again 331dot (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try a redir to Ice pop. Let's see if that sticks. Cabayi (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...deleted A1 before I got there. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The crowd comparison photo shown is debunkted by CNN with their gigapixel photo. http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/01/politics/trump-inauguration-gigapixel/

Now, I'm not saying that CNN is always telling the truth, but the photo is clearly true. It's of course clear that Trump had a smaller crowd that Obama, but that does not mean that the comparison photo is correct. TV-coverage shows a much larger crowd than the one shown in the photo.

Wikipedia should be above this kind of fake news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.18.187.144 (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean that the photo was faked or altered, which seemed to be your suggestion. In any event, if you feel the comparison photo should be removed or its caption altered, it should probably be discussed on the article talk page. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan is not an EDM artist or a record producer and may not be best known for being in the wanted now, however he was formerly in the band. Please accept these changes. This is factual, can it be edited to reflect please. Thank you. — Preceding

@JMGlobal: As indicated, you will need to discuss this on the article talk page first; you also need to review your user talk page and respond to the posts there. Thank you 331dot (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you direct me to these as i'm not sure what you're talking about. Thanks. — Preceding

If you are using a computer to edit Wikipedia, at the very top of the screen you should see your username, along with "Talk". If you click the word 'Talk', that will take you to your user talk page. It may be lit up stating that you have messages. Alternatively, if you look at your first post above, there is a link that says 'Talk', that will also take you there. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end so we know that you wrote them. Thanks 331dot (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this and this. The image of the delicious salty liquorice fish is (I think) the only photo I have myself taken and uploaded to Wikipedia, just before I ate the fish. Very important it doesn't get vandalized! ;-) Bishonen | talk 21:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello 331dot,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 817 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at

PERM

, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering

Orangemoody

, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community
   ban
   .
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community
   ban
   .
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Down East Polo Club was founded in 1978. It was the only polo club in Maine in 2001, but that may have changed. See:

• Tapley, Lance (August 23–30, 2001). "Maine's most exotic sport". The Portland Phoenix. Retrieved February 6, 2017.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

Want to create it? Horace Laffaye's books should have more info.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm the best person to do so as polo lies outside my areas of interest. I'd perhaps be willing to get it started but I'm not sure I would have the time to do additional research. 331dot (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A referenced stub would be better than nothing. Would you be able to take a few pictures over the summer?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. My personal situation limits the time I would have to engage in such a project. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your feedback. This is my first article of which I plan to write others regarding acting, stunt player and screenwriting. I practiced on my own and appreciate your assistance as nobody has taken the time as you did and I wanted to thank you and ask for your assistance in any edit you feel is appropriate. I agree with your suggestion for martial artist. I used IMDB with regards to references or wikipages.

kind regards,

Jack Martin (Taekwon-Do) (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

neutral point of view

.

Regarding IMDB, I would tell you that user-editable resources like that are generally not considered

Articles for Creation to do that. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

A tag has been placed on Rawal NA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GAB^gab 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Doorpk Pakistan, 331dot.

Unfortunately Winged Blades of Godric has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The company seems non-notable.No Google hits in sec. sources.Feel free to revert if you think otherwise.

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Winged Blades ^Godric 17:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was my mistake.Apparently you had added the correct tags but the creator removed them.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has CSD-ed it.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please advise how to present the significance of a public association that encourages public edits to Google maps and to creating new street views. We are the first an only NPO and NGO to monetize public posting of 3D panoramic geolocated images in a public forum. — Preceding

I've answered you on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page

New revision is available. See talk page for details, thanks. Josh Klint (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

My page is not LIVE yet, it was updated on 15feb2017 by me and user name is also changed from Nilipdeb to Nilip Deb. I tried my name Nilip Deb to search in Wikipedia search box and nothing comes out, even in few pages where my name is included, created by others, is also showing my name BLACK in color. Hope there is no major mistake I made during creating my page.

Please help me out and let my page or user page go LIVE

Thank you so much.

--Nilip Deb 08:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@

Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nilip Deb:I'm not sure you understand what Wikipedia is for- your user page is not a substitute for an article, or a page for you to promote yourself. Please review some of the policies I have linked to above before you edit further. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reported this long-term vandal and nothing has been done.[1] Could you please step in? 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly able to report a user like that, but you still cannot edit war, even if you are correct. I honestly don't know who is correct, but the dispute needs to be discussed on the talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say I'm correct, since he's continually gutting reliable sources from Survivor Series (1992) and has been doing it for over a year now. 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 817 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this Snooganssnoogans editor cut and pasted the same text from a non RS source (Indy100) into dozens of articles. Indy100 is the independent's version of Buzzfeed's "12 different ways your candbars are racist"-type model. I tried to undo these edits but I was blocked by ‪General Ization for vandalism... was I in the wrong? If not, can you fix them? I don't think I should edit articles until my block expires. 107.77.223.135 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)‬[reply]

In all honesty you probably should not be editing while logged out at all; it could be seen as block evasion. You need to make the appropriate block appeal if you wish to be unblocked. I am not 100 percent familiar with this matter so I defer to the admin's judgement. If someone is editing improperly, you should make use of available dispute resolution procedures. 331dot (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katarn Labs is not and has never been an organization, I find it rather funny that you would merely assume this and request my name be changed rather than do a simple google search KatarnLabs (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KatarnLabs: Then I apologize for disturbing you. I don't think it unreasonable to think that "Katarn Laboratory"(labs) might be an organization or establishment. Not every organization has an internet presence, and even if it did, people use the internet and Wikipedia in different ways. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Impeachment of Park Geun-hye, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 06:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Whom'st'd've
	Yes, you have done this TheOnlineAuthority (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I took your advice and created a section on talk page. I stated my reasons there why Anzulovic should not be used as a source. Hope we can come to an agreement. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I have no position on the matter as I know little about Serbian history; my only interest in the page was seeing the change reverted a couple times. See

bold, revert discuss; once you make a change, and are reverted, it is up to you to explain it on the talk page and explain why it is needed. I might suggest contacting the original person that reverted you to discuss the matter. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. 91.148.77.114 (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my arguments are on Nordic countries talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakeni9 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

standard procedure is for the status quo to remain while those seeking a change justify it, explain why it is needed, and gain consensus for it. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello 331dot. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 14:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

regular users generally should not be templated. Thanks 331dot (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Please can someone reply? It's my first time here and I don't know why I am being treated in such a draconian manner when I have been working hard to change the article to meet your guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kincl4 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for your experiences here so far. No offense is intended by anyone. I would stress that is is rare for a new user to successfully create an article on their very first try. It is something that takes skill and practice. I see that the deleting administrator has moved the page to your user space where you can work on it until it is ready for posting. You may want to take some time to learn how things are done on Wikipedia before attempting to do so, and even start small at first by editing existing articles to get a feel for editing, before moving up to creating an article.

Your page about the game(you state it is a magazine, but an RPG is a game regardless of format) was flooded with external links to the game, which suggests to others you were promoting it, even if that wasn't your intention. In order to have an article on Wikipedia, the article must indicate with independent

notable per guidelines. I would suggest reviewing those guidelines before you work on the article further. If you have any other questions, please post them here. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I would further add that the article must not simply consist of praise about the game, even if cited. That could also be seen as promotional. I would suggest looking at other articles about similar subjects to get a feel for how they should be structured. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kincl4 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC) The magazine is called "HyperPlay RPG" because it's about RPGs! It is not a game. "Computer and Video Games" was a magazine, not games. "Mean Machines" was a magazine, not machines. "Total Film" was a magazine, not a film. Etc etc. Just because something ends "RPG" does not make it a game. All this shows that none of the links I submitted have been checked, just arbitrarily dismissed. I have completely watered down the page to make it vanilla and substantiated anything remotely subjective with objective links (i.e. by third parties). Please approve the page. Kincl4 Kincl4 (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the confusion. My suggestion would be for you to submit your article through

reliable sources. The sources given seem to be glowing reviews of the magazine without really indicating how it is notable or significant, at least to me. There is no rush to get the article up to snuff, there aren't time limits. I'm also wondering if you are associated with this publication in any way. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Kincl4 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC) I am the editor of the magazine. I note that this is not against your policies. All praise is independent, neutral and substantiated. I am astonished about your comment on notability when I have included in the references at least 5 separate articles/pieces of independent, non-affiliated coverage/reviews explaining how the fanzine is notable. How many other (video gaming) print fanzines are there available these days? Perhaps this should be passed to a moderator who knows about independent magazines and/or 1990s magazines and gaming. I've wasted too much time on this already. It's Wikipedia's loss not to cover independent print media - a sad reflection of the times, and ironic really, considering Wikipedia's original purpose. I will not be donating again. Kincl4 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, donations to the Foundation do not affect your edits in any way. I've never given a penny because I am not able to, but I'm still here. But it's certainly your choice to give or not.

If you are the editor of the magazine, you need to review the

Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I would add that you cannot insist that only experts in your field review the page; all articles on Wikipedia can be edited and reviewed by any editor at any time. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kincl4 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC) It's not the reviewing of the page, it's the initial approval of the page: if you don't understand why a homemde independent print fanzine/magazine is notable in this day and age, perhps someone else will. There is no point going any further. If the article is unacceptable in its last form (who knows if you saw that?) I can't edit it down any more because it will say virtually nothing. And I never said that a Donation should affect anything - I was merely explaining why i won't donate again. Kincl4 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, the best way for you to get someone else to review it would be to submit it through

reliable sources that aren't glowing reviews. It is true that is tough with some subject matter, such as independent print media. Again, I urge you to review the notability guidelines for what is being looked for, as well as the conflict of interest policy. Best wishes to you 331dot (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Kincl4 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC) And what if there are no reviews apart from glowing reviews? Kincl4 (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kincl4 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC) I've thought of something negative I can say with reference to a third-party comment or two (about the size of the fanzine and its price). How do I edit the article please? Kincl4 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just a matter of saying positive and negative things. All I can tell you is that there needs to be independent

paid editing polices

(the latter, only if you are paid). I wish you luck.

The article is located at User:Kincl4/Hyperplay rpg for the moment. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kincl4 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC) I have read the guidelines. I have added criticisms. I have requested someone else write a page. How can I get more "notable" revieweres when you don't accept the reviews of Nintendo Life (nintendolife.com), which even basic research will show you has the most trrffic of any independent Nintendo website in the world?! Can the article please be published now? I don't mind if you put "magazine" after HyperPlay RPG so it reads HyperPlay RPG magazine. Kincl4 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an Articles for Creation submission tag to your draft. If you click the button "Submit your draft for review" and then save, this will bring it to the attention of users who review articles and they will either accept it and move it to the encyclopedia for you or offer their views on how it can be improved. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 331dot the Wikipedia page Rajeev Kathpalia is a pure Vandalism and hoax because this page creater user has same name of this article. Please Nomination it for Speedily Deletion. LIKE RZZ 12:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

vandalism. It also does not seem to be a "hoax" as the article seems to be cited. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Musfiq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musifq.mehdiyev (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Musifq.mehdiyev: The above statement is the sort of thing that you should make on the article talk page when removing cited information. I would also add that it is not unusual to provide a specific example of something when a general statement such as that is made. If you dispute a reference like HRW(which is considered an authority on the issue) you should do so on the talk page, to get a consensus among editors. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, are you really so pathetic that you stoop as low as to try to delete me because? I don't see how I "violated" any rules so it honestly doesn't make sense. Wikipedia is not a trusted website for facts because anyone can post anything they desire. So my page can be used as a fact page just as well as yours would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WussPopinB (talk • contribs) 15:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

verifiable. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

{@

edit warring noticeboard. Being correct is not a defense to edit warring. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You would need to ask an administrator to do that(I am not one). 331dot (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

doing this? I am quite capable of doing it myself, and it's quite irritating. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want me to report usernames? 331dot (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know exactly what I'm asking. Your sarcastic, rhetorical response is not worth responding too. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I in no way whatsoever am attempting to be sarcastic- you posted a link to a report I made about a username. I do not know what you are asking. I saw the name, and reported it. I didn't think I had interacted with you in any way, in fact. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you had done it twice now made me think that you had seen the word "promotional" in the recent changes log, and decided to report them for me. Apologies about the tone, just one of my editing pet peeves. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 09:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for giving offense; I merely saw the name in the log and that they had created a page about their company(it appeared in the edit summary). I didn't see that anyone else had edited the page at that point. I try not to step on other people's toes but I'm sure it happens which I don't take pleasure in. I can understand how it might be annoying. I'm always working to improve how I edit and I try to take feedback as best I can- which I will try to do in this case. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you are being sincere, so I apologize again about the tone I took with you. It wasn't necessary, obviously. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 18:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem. I've been in the same position and understand. I wish you well. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi user 331dot, this is the user that u just suggested to delete his own biography, please delete that biography as i do not want my personal information to be exposed world widely. please help me delete that page. thx prefix:User talk:331dot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Branson1120 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Branson1120: I have marked the page as an author request deletion; however, you seem to be indicating that your account is compromised(if it was used by your brother to prank you) and as such it will likely be blocked shortly. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I have remedied some of the issues on the page relating to sources and I would like some feedback from you on other problems, specifically to do with issues of notability. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oamir (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oamir: I've posted on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment regarding a proposed edit to the Emerald Theatre page and the Macomb Music Theatre page, yes, there should only be one page. The historic venue has had many names, and was operating as the Emerald Theatre from 2000 - 2012, when it was sold and the new operators named it the Macomb Music Theatre. It operated as the Macomb Music Theatre until 2014 when it closed. It was reopened in 2016 as the Emerald Theatre again. There should no longer be a Macomb Music Theatre page, as no such venue has existed since 2014. I am disclosing that I work for the company who purchased the venue in 2016; however, my edits are factual. Not sure how to proceed.Pr4dhp (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you the same person as Dhp31? If so, which username will you be using? 331dot (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same person. I will be using Dhp31. When it merges, the Emerald Theatre should remain, as the Macomb Music Theatre is the obsolete name. It's causing a problem, because Google includes the current wikipedia description for the Emerald Theatre, which says that the business has closed down. We don't want our customers thinking that the venue is still closed. I did subsequently do a Suggest Edit on the talk page, so hopefully that will be considered when merging. Thank you for your help. I am having some difficulty with the codes needed to communicate on wikipedia. Dhp31 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an idea of when the proposed merger will take place to merge Macomb Music Theatre into the Emerald Theatre? Note comments on the merger by User:Diannaa--Dhp31 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the comments and have no objection to them. We may need to get the attention of an administrator who would be willing to perform the merge, I'm not sure if they will see it automatically or not. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you delete my page on the religion that I follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Strama (talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

reliable sources. I highly doubt that's the case here. Nothing has been deleted yet, only an administrator can delete a page. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Please sign your talk page posts with~~~~ so we know you wrote them. Your page is still there at this moment. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't get any reason Contested deletion about CD Choice Music check news ref please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismailim (talk • contribs) 08:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very old company in bangladesh CD Choice now re-lance CD Choice Music

The article states "The Record label was founded in 2017". I would suggest further discussion take place on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref owner email me about this article i got receive this Record labels Trade Licence & Logo Trade Mark By Gov't BD snap Snap Eamil Provement This old company are CD Choice 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismailim (talk • contribs) 09:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my inconvenience of edits today, I would suggest further to place order. KaplanAL (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

Many thanks for your comments and the Welcome 331dot. Unfortunately, I realized my entry on 1980's Sydney band Spyglass Guest didn't conform to any notability standard until after I created it. In the meantime I have requested it to be removed. Today has been a very steep but enjoyable learning curve for me in the Wiki community. Thanks again. Biloxiblue (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my post about Ulnes Walton because I had no other reference. How do I reference what I have known for the last 65 years and what I have gleaned from the locals in the Ulnes Walton area? This includes my Grandmother, who talked in the way that Shakespeare wrote. If I quoted her oft spoken "Ee dostoowenta cupotea" or 'Ee tha's geet thi fustian britches on" or even "Aye - oo's a cre-atching un" no doubt you would not have the knowledge to translate? I have and I could tell you the derivatives and how her 'childer' was actually more correct than 'children' and why she said 'shoon' instaed of 'shoes'. You should be encouraging intelligent contributions such as mine and helping to keep alive the 'proper' pronunciations? Etymology and dialect are my passion and I don't see why you should question my input when I have lived less than 2-3 miles from Ulnes Walton all my life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildieswife (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

reliable sources. While I believe what you say, your word(or the word of any user) is not a reliable source. The information must be documented somewhere. Reading the information, it sounds like it would be written down somewhere; in a book documenting the history of the area, the local historical society, etc. We want and encourage intelligent contributions, but we need more than people's word. I'm sorry that is likely disappointing to hear, but these standards are important principles of Wikipedia. The pages I have linked to in this post might help you to learn about this. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

The BHO says, re Ulnes Walton "The local pronunciation seems to have been Oves Walton or Oos Walton; see Ducatus Lanc. passim." They probably gleaned this information from people like me? After all - the written word does not give pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildieswife (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wildieswife: I'm not sure what the BHO is(British History Online?) but as long as it is something that can be verified, that may be acceptable as a source. The source does not have to be online, just something that can be verified(a book that is not online is fine) 331dot (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could put this link after my 'claim' that Ulnes Walton was pronounced "Ooze WAH tun". The British History Online says 'Oos Walton' but my rendering is more accurate. They also appear to be talking post Norman Invasion, when people started to try to write down what they heard (often inaccurately) whereas my roots will go back before that. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol6/pp108-111 They also quote another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildieswife (talk • contribs) 13:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I think that should work. I will add it. I apologize for this difficulty and wish you nothing but the best. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a line about this; I invite you to reword it if you think it needs improvement. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how come no blocks are happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.155.38 (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal appears to be using a floating IP. One range of them was blocked, but they switched to another. I see some of the pages they have targeted have been protected; that's likely the only thing that can be done. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of that, he attacked me first on valid entries on Australian soccer players. He should be banned. Get off my back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesleazyhorse (talk • contribs) 11:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesleazyhorse: From what little I've seen, that doesn't seem to be the case, but even if it were, you are not permitted to fight fire with fire. You can only control your own behavior; if others behave badly towards you, there are appropriate avenues to address it, and without personal attacks- which does not help your cause. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you run Wikipedia or something? The high priest of infringements on policy. Just leave people to their own devices, and stop criticizing or i'll have you filed down. Clearly you own the joint, so please do tell me how to manage myself as purely as you, so I can win some fancy wiki awards.

@Thesleazyhorse: No one "runs" Wikipedia, this is a collaborative project, where users are expected to work together in a civil and respectful manner. While users have certain amounts of latitude, if others disagree with their conduct, the user is expected to work to resolve the issue and not make personal attacks. Disruptive behavior like that will only lead to it being brought to the attention of administrators and a likely block. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reply and level of expertise. However in future please do not reprimand me in relation to matters i'm personally dealing with in the context of other users, who have themselves contravened terms and conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesleazyhorse (talk • contribs) 11:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesleazyhorse: I will respect your request to not post to your talk page, however I can and will report inappropriate behavior if I observe it, just as any user can do. I would encourage you to, instead of making personal attacks, to report users who are uncivil, or if you are in a content dispute, to use the dispute resolution processes available to you. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your comment. I've been trying to edit the page for the past two weeks and got a few push backs from an editor called Kleuske. I'm not sure why we are getting reverted, but I'll try to contact him and see what we're doing wrong. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avitalourcrowd (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

paid editing policy

and declare such status.

I would add that it is possible the awards your company has been given may merit inclusion, but the format of how they are included should be discussed, for various reasons. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We" mentioned in the reply is not any group of people. it is just a word to use in collective sense.

The page is not a part of promotion of any product or service.

I felt there is a need to share the information. thus created the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigneshnaik2507 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

this page for information about that. The deleting administrator explains this further. This is an encyclopedia, and not just a place to share information. I would again ask you if you represent Creditmonk. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't represent creditmonk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigneshnaik2507 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigneshnaik2507: If you don't represent CreditMonk, what group did "we" refer to? In any event, I would suggest taking some time to learn more about Wikipedia before attempting to create an article. Very few new users can successfully create an article on their very first try. Some links are posted in a Welcome on your user talk page that should be helpful. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have been updating the CDSB wiki page with up to date information. The awards section, and the change of job title for Lois Guthrie are both purely factual and therefore not subjective, promotional or a conflict of interest.

The other sections that were edited were rehashed from their website, so I will reword them in a way that details what they do, in order to make them read more objectively and sound less promotional.

Please review the individual edits rather than mass-undoing as the page needs to be updated in order to be as accurate as possible. 5.148.2.202 (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to update with the new content as given by the company itself, but it is being roll-backed? Why ?

If you represent or work for Careem, you should not directly edit the Careem article, as it is a

paid editor. Please see your user talk page.331dot (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

There appears to be a bias against the inclusion of Canadian literary festivals, writers and writers association in Wikipedia. I just had a very factual article about the Kingston WritersFest speedily deleted (within 12 hours). There wasn't even time to contest the deletion. Zip and its was gone! The festival is certainly of interest to Canadians interested in the literary arts and is of high literary merit. The article was similar in content to articles written about other writers festivals in the world. How can we correct the under-appreciation of literature from Canada? Literary Muse (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Articles for Creation where you can get feedback before the article is posted. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

event notability criteria apply in some way, and have the sources to show it, you would stand a chance of success. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

A cup of tea for you!

331d, I thank you for moving that page I created. Now here's a cup of tea! Dinglebat500 (talk page) (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum Foundation Wikipedia entry

Hello,

As the content I added has been marked with a WP: Promo, I wanted to ask the basis over which mission, vision and project explanations have been marked as such. The first two times it has been a lack of sources/reference the reason why I have had that section of the content marked out, but this time I did cite the sources over which I found my information. I've tried to find second and third party sources to provide an outsider's perspective and not rely solely on the foundation's official website, yet I am still getting this comment. What are your suggestions upon wording to make it work? I am doing my best providing official sources like Magnum Photos, which is a different entity than Magnum Foundation, as you might have noticed, and official statements from other partner organizations that explain the work being done. That is part of the reasons why I rely on posts from the Pulitzer Crisis Center, the Inge Morath Foundation, Prince Claus, Parsons and photography estates consortiums. How can I improve that section then? I know it is definitely more complicated as it is not solely informative as the grantee and project list, but I want to make this work.

Best Praeliamf (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Praeliamf[reply]

@

organization notability guidelines

. Not every organization merits a page here.

From your username (the "mf" at the end) I assume that you are somehow associated with this Foundation; if so, you need to review the

paid editing policy(the latter of which is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you have a paid association) before you edit further. If you do have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the page directly, but instead post what changes you would like to see on the article talk page first(click "Talk" at the top of the article, then edit normally). 331dot (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Praeliamf (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)PraeliaMF[reply]

Sorry for the confusion about your username, I have removed the COI tag from the page. You certainly don't have to use or provide your real name if you don't want to, and you may remove it from this page if you wish(or I can). I have no wish at all to violate your privacy.

Since you aren't associated with the company, that does change the perception of your edits by others(such as me and the others who reverted them); it is then just a matter of style. Since you bring up sources a little, I can say that

organization notability guidelines are met instead of just listing what the Foundation does. Using just the Foundation's website also doesn't support a notability claim on its own(as notability depends on significant coverage in outside sources) 331dot (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll now erase my name, for the sake of my privacy. This is solid progress advice! Thanks!! In that case, I'll revert to looking out for news articles from various news outlets and other organizations to accomplish this approach. It'll go way slower than today, as in it might take me a couple of days to finish uploading the information, but this is solid ground I can work on. Praeliamf (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)PraeliaMF[reply]

I wish you luck. I might respectfully suggest that you make a note on your user page or user talk page just stating that you are not editing on behalf of an organization(to avoid others thinking what I did) although you don't have to. I'll also tag the page as being worked on so others will at least give it a chance. Best wishes to you 331dot (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Jesse Owens— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on the talk page about having been declined multiple times at AfC. My recommendation is if a draft has been declined at least three times, and it's clear no substantial improvements have been done (incremental citations to good, solid sources are fine, spamming with YouTube / Facebook / Google links are not) and it is clearly promotional and unsalvageable to just tag it with {{db-g11}} there and then. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice as I am sometimes unsure how to treat such a draft. I will try to keep that in mind for the future. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have requested a new user name but I neither take money for my wikipedia edits nor require any. The edit on [Nawaz] a Pakistani politician was solely based on the source. To further clarify, I was verifying sources of that information after reading a viral post regarding her education. I read the source article and corrected Wikipage accordingly. Thanks

@Sbmurtaza: You aren't employed by Rabt Media? Or are you a volunteer of some kind? [2] 331dot (talk) 07:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Nope, that's the name of my social enterprise. I happen to be a journalist and researcher with a focus on social development. Sbmurtaza (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbmurtaza: To clarify, you don't derive income from It? Sorry to press this but it is important. Thanks 331dot (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: No, Wikipedia account was made since during my thesis I saw a lot of ambiguity created by false or slanted information in Pakistani digital arena using source links like the one I just edited and I keep editing any and such errors whenever I come across one. I will look into the rules and regulations before attempting any paid ventures. The only page I've created so far is Pakistan Carrom Federation and on voluntary basis without charging any money to the said sports federation. I hope this would suffice? However, I do want to know if it is against wikipedia rules to create a bibliographic (person is alive) page for my father who happens to be a known journalist in Pakistan? Sbmurtaza (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could be seen as a

Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm guessing Twinkle automatically sent me this notice from you because I had moved his page to his userspace, leaving the redirect behind. I had tagged the redirect for deletion as well but it looks like he tried to reuse it again. Home Lander (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you created the redirect which the user then changed back into an article as you know. My apologies 331dot (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's not my regular habit either to uncheck the box to "notify user" (or whatever it says) at the top. Home Lander (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

before you grossly accuse me like that why dont you read the whole conversation i had with User:Sjö!!!! see User_talk:Sjö#east_german_communist_party and Talk:List of totalitarian regimes, my messsega on User:Sjö talkpage is simply APOLOGIZING FOR MY SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY BAD ENGLISH LANGUAGE! he fully understood what i meant and even thanked me on my user notice box! ADMINS FEEL FREE TO CHECK THAT! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukrainetz1: There wasn't a need to haul me into ANI for this, which is meant for major conduct issues requiring administrator intervention that can't be resolved elsewhere; I am sorry for giving offense but if you had calmly explained it to me, I would have apologized(which I have now done). 331dot (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you are apologized! i only posted that at WP:ANI because i thought i got into trouble and wanted to come there before you did! see the ani thread no disrepect but when i was i ip editor there were users which i call "rapid actionmen (who bans blocks and warns 100 users at a single time..etc..." Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• your question "Are you intending to create articles? This is an encyclopedia, and not free web space for you to just create parodies. What is the purpose of your parodies?"
• User:Home Lander: "Autobiography For the above reason I've moved your article to your userpage. Please heed the above advice when it comes to your editing"
• you: "Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Creighton William Brown, to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies.
• you: For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox."
• ........"I'm not sure you understand that this is an encyclopedia, and not social media for you to write about yourself. For information on what is permitted on User pages, please see the Userpage policy."

• • I apologize too...i realise there are people who have been on wikipedia longer and know it better...i should not reacted like that either...everone makes mistakes including me Ukrainetz1 (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

see my apologize above! Ukrainetz1 (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Thank you 331dot (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

am going to ask an admin before trying anything...the thing was it was not the text that was "gone to the gutter" it was the "infobox", you DONT have to apologize for that! how could youve controlled my computer anyway and prevented me from pushing a button... Ukrainetz1 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i mean you had to apologize and you already did (and am thankfull) at the ani but not what i wrote in this section Ukrainetz1 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 817 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again

HERE

.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read

THIS PAGE

.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comment, I've reverted my nomination for this article: this seemed newsworthy to me, but, as you say, nothing has really happened other than a war of words. Thanks for your comment. -- The Anome (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot:

I am married to one of the Weather Channel meteorologists who is being BLACKLISTED for some reason by Wikipedia.

I edited the entry about the on-air personalities a few days ago and was quite surprised to see that it was deleted. The next time I edited it, I provided the requested sources, references, webpages, etc. to confirm that Kelly Cass and Alexandra Wilson are featured meteorologists on the Weather Channel. But, for some reason they keep being deleted! If somebody needs to have the references and sources emailed to them directly to stop this unwarranted harassment, I would be happy to do so. DMacks and bbb23 are not acting in accordance with the Wikipedia terms of use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keybeeny (talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you that the Kelly Cass link you placed in the article simply redirects to the same article(if you click

judged on their own merits

.

I think it unlikely that either of the users you name has violated the Terms of Use. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this editing dispute about Weather Channel meteorologists I started a discussion at AfD. —Guanaco 02:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 331. Just an FYI, but if you find a long article that has no reference, it's usually a good idea to poke around and try to see if it's been copy/pasted from somewhere. In this case, the article has actually already been deleted twice as a COPYVIO, and this version ain't no different it seems.

I appreciate your advice. I was not on a computer at the time and my intention was to go back later and check for that. But I am glad you did so. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I cheated. I tagged it a long time ago and it popped back up on my watchlist.

TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I was trying to create a fresh opinion polling page for after the 2017 UK general election. Sorry for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.pB321 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you user eenglish

Jaimiehellokitty (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my formatting error over at WP:ITNC. I didn't know if I was breaking convention, but felt it should be brought to attention. Apologies for any inconvenience caused, and forgive my foray into experimentation. Thanks Stormy clouds (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize because I probably sounded harsher than I actually meant to be. I just had never seen that before. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user,

Few minutes ago i created a bio wiki for a model / actor in Maldives and was reported for deletion. Kindly i need your help to fix the issue. Since Maldives is a small country this kind of articles is really important for actors, modes, public figures and artist. I would like to request you to help me through posting the article and make that as my first article on wiki.

@MaldivesSuggest: I have posted a reply to your comments on Talk:Abdulla Shareef. Please visit that page and edit it directly to respond; I am happy to discuss this matter there. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this contribution took me 1 hour to write. I used multiple online and offline sources for my research and was very upset when you instantly took it down after I had put so much time and effort into it. I hope you will reconsider and put my writing back up. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.191.25 (talk • contribs)

Hello. Please do not be upset; reversions are a common Wikipedia practice, and no offense is meant by those who do them. I reverted the passage because it did not contain the sources you claim to have. If you look at other Wikipedia articles, you will see that they have citations included with the content. This is for

original research and cannot be accepted. If the sources themselves state what you wrote, then that is fine and all you need to do is include the sources in your passage. It is still stored in the history and can easily be restored for you to add the citations if you wish. If you need assistance in doing so, please ask me or any other user. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the altert. I didn't know that. However, I just translated the French page (I am not the creator of the French page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UMMofficiel (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UMMofficiel: That's fine; to clarify my earlier post, your username cannot be that of an organization or position and must indicate that only one person is using it. A name with "official" in it could theoretically be used by anyone affiliated with the university, and as such does not meet the username policy. Please use the link I posted to your page to request a username change(you don't have to use your real name, just something that indicates you and only you are using the username). If you want the name of the university in your username, a name in the format of "JohnDoe of UMM" would be acceptable.

If you are affiliated with the University you wrote about, you will need to review the

paid editing policy. If you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello 331dot. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

@SoWhy: I respect your views on this matter. I would respectfully state that I'm not sure the musician with the article meets notability guidelines themselves(in reading their article) but we'll see what happens. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but no one argued against it yet and as long the musician's article exists,

WP:ATD-R says to redirect there instead of deleting. Regards SoWhy 10:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

PS: No need to discuss it further though since the creator requested deletion in the meantime. Regards SoWhy 10:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it's like this IP user doesn't care at all about any consequences. And the worse thing is, I've posted the matter on WP:AN/I and nobody's doing anything about it, and it's been up for 12 hours now... —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will file a vandalism report for the harassment if they do it again. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot man. This guy is seriously getting on my last nerves. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report now filed. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 13:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block was extended to a month and talk page access removed(I think by the blocking admin acting on their own rather than due to my request for a longer block at ANI). 331dot (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think he might have seen the user's activities and chose to extend as per your request probably. Either way, he's a done deal for now. Won't have to worry about him for a very long time. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	A token of my appreciation for your help for the past 24 hours with the edit-warring dispute. I wasn't expecting your help or anyone else's, but I appreciate it nonetheless. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I just wanted to thank you for your help in The Teahouse. I hope to someday become as experienced as you!

WarriorsFan30112335 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsFan30112335 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Look forward to participating and hopefully helping. RaqiwasSushi (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ITN for information and guidelines on what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Firstly, DraKyry's version states, In the article published by CNN, the author Andrew Kaczynski explains the process that allowed the organization to discover the real identity of the user. After blackmailing him with that information, the user was forced to post an apology. This is a defamatory falsehood — no reliable source has said anyone was blackmailed by anyone. This alone is a flagrant, screaming BLP violation — it's almost but not quite stating that Kaczynski is guilty of a crime.

Secondly, DraKyry's version includes a number of entirely-unreliable sources making claims about Kaczynski, including Twitter posts by random people and a story from Breitbart.com, which is categorically banned from being used as a source for living persons articles by dint of its long history of fabrications, misrepresentations and lies about people it politically opposes.

Thirdly, DraKyry's version misrepresents reliable sources, specifically where it states, based on a NYMag article, Kaczynski could have avoided the Internet vigilantism if he hadn't written the line — the reliable source explicitly does not use Kaczynski's name and instead puts the responsibility on CNN as a whole. Using the source in this way is introducing a deliberate factual error which depicts a living person in a negative light.

All of these issues have been extensively explained to the user on their talk page, but to no avail whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I appreciate your comments. Looking at what little I've seen, I've come to see what you are describing. I also am aware you are an experienced user and probably knew what you were doing. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For one my name isnt a company two i am part of NXT — Preceding

Hello 331dot, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The
  tutorial
  has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, it's fairly common for people to list SPIs and it isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially when you are reporting accounts as well as SPIs. Or what we call a

A tag has been placed on Prof. Dr. Elchin Khalilov requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

If it was me I would start a COIN discussion about the latter case(the one you are more skeptical of). Such a discussion would likely involve debating how WP:PAID applies to that editor. Even if they are correct that they weren't editing at the specific direction of their employer, it is difficult to know when they are at work and when they aren't- and unless they are paid hourly I don't think that would make much of a difference. It's certainly something other editors should be aware of through the COI policy, even if they technically don't need to declare as a paid editor.

And thinking further, it depends a lot on the manner of their edits, too. If they are editing promotionally it would be harder to believe that they were editing off the clock(so to speak). It's definitely murky cases like that which should be discussed.

For the former case that you are more inclined to believe, I probably would do so, especially since they disclosed easily enough. Hopefully this helps you; feel free to ask questions in follow up if you need to. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, I read your comments and would love to take them into consideration. Perhaps you can work with me to make the messaging sound more neutral?

As well, I found sources to lines of text that you had issues with: http://www.globalresp.com/ http://globalfinancial.ca/

Leslie16 (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

notable per guidelines

. The websites of the company are not independent sources that establishes notability(though it could be used for basic information like their address or number of employees). What you need are things like news stories or anything not associated with this company to establish notability. Please understand that not every business merits a page here.

I don't mean to sound harsh but I think you would be better off to start from scratch. I would suggest that you consent to deletion of the article, and then review

paid editing policy(which means if you seem to have a paid relationship and don't declare it, you would be blocked from editing until you do). The more open you are about any association you have with this company, the better your edits will be received. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi 331dot, I hope you don't mind me tacking speedy templates onto the article, but I couldn't help concluding that this is the product of a

I noticed this revert. Please see the note I left on that user's talk page. I'm wondering if this should go to ANI. Most of the edits are completely original research, which the editor edit wars over. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably agree with this user that the American politics Arbcom warning should probably be given first. I don't know how exactly to do that, though. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You have just intervened in the Brexit wars. Would you like to act as mediator? It would help if you could read German, as I suspect Womblez is unable to read the cited Spiegel source and is therefore edit-warring instead of joining in the existing Adenauer/de Gaulle discussion on the Brexit Talk page. Thanks. 81.131.171.187 (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I likely would not be helpful as a formal mediator due to being unable to read German. Some options are listed at

this page. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Reading your proposed link, I suggest that a request for Formal Mediation is the way to go. Is that appropriate for dealing with Womblez, or do you think I should be considering other measures, and use Formal Mediation only as a last resort? 81.131.171.187 (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably start with

Request for Comment. Formal mediation requires you(or whomever participates) to show that the parties in the dispute have discussed it between them and been unable to reach consensus- and as such should probably be a last resort. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Done, thanks. I doubt I will get anywhere. But do me a favour and keep an eye on Womblez and any sockuppets over the next few months. There are elections in Germany and Italy in September/October 2017, and Brexit negotiations in Brussels until March 2019, so we can expect hot-headed editing on relevant Wikipedia articles over the coming months. Signing off now. 81.131.171.187 (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 331dot, thank you for your advice, I am doing a complete rewrite right now to conform with your guidelines, keeping it neutral and adding more references. The Article is just to complete the enumeration of available Load testing tools. Da-agency.de (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dot,

Thankyou for your concern about the recent editing of mine on Brian O'Shaughnessy's page. While I appreciate the sincerity behind your safeguarding, you must realise that I am only partially complete with editing this article and that I will reference it in time. As someone who is academically qualified, I realise the importance of this and I will continue to do this as I finish editing the article. I must admit I was not aware that this should be the natural course of action. I appreciate the concern as to the verifiability of the final product and so I may send it to you and some other power-users for proofreading. If you would be happy to do this I would be very grateful. Then we may then review changes on it objectively, considering a finished product. Please also consider the references on the page, as they already verify a large portion of the information that I have written.

Furthermore, on the matter of a conflict of interest, while I may have a personal, familial connection to this person, I assure you that all of this information is perfectly accurate and can be verified not only by a large number of sources, which I will do so in due course, but from members of my family who are extremely academically accomplished and thus I would like to add that we perfectly understand the importance of being completely neutral, which in this case is a privilege afforded to us by dealing with recent history and so please do not be concerned on this behalf.

Many thanks and best wishes,

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterways12 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Waterways12: Thanks for your message and clarification. I only bring up COI so that you are aware. As long as you remain open about it and seek other input as you are you should have no problem. In your case it is relatively minor and I don't feel it prevents you from editing the page. I was only concerned with the sources and language style; since you will be working on it I see no problem with you restoring and fixing what you put and if you like I am willing to proofread at you request (and given time) Best wishes to you 331dot (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

this page for information on doing that. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Jana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jana585 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Hi. You questioned or commented on my reply to a link at Wikipedia:Teahouse.

Please don't switch between list marker types. See

Speaking of accessibility, it's a reason why I clarified

@PrimeHunter is partly right on not realizing links from visuals. It's due to links not being underlined in some MediaWiki styles though this has been partially mitigated by focus/hover links having underline. Additionally WCAG 2.0, 1.4.1 Use of Color is partially mitigated by color contrast of links (blue). It's maybe not ideal, but there seems to be a lot of proponents removing underlines from hyperlinks (for reasons I also understand, things to do with visual semantics).

See also

I appreciate your advice and will take it under advisement; I have read varying advice in this area and it is hard to anticipate the abilities and needs of individuals who contribute so I will just keep trying to do what I can. I do apologize for incorrectly interpreting your comment. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not
  tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script
  .
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Apologies. I just noticed no one had seemed to mentioned that yet. 185.206.224.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. This deletion was inappropriate and I am sure 331dot will apologize for his/her failure of judgment in due course. Welcome to Wikipedia. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my edit in the discussion I reopened due to your comment. You're welcome. I have nothing to apologize for. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can i create a page?? And hiw can i create a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanan khalid (talk • contribs) 10:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Your First Article before attempting to do so. If you have any other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I want to make an article now so tell me the steps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanan khalid (talk • contribs) 10:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I again strongly suggest that you not dive right in to creating articles. Many people who do that are often disappointed and upset when articles they create are deleted, and I do not want you to be either of those things. However, you can learn what to do by going clicking on

WP:FIRSTARTICLE to learn more. I regret I do not have time at the moment to go into details. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

On 2 September 2017,

Kenyan general election, 2017, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 02:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

http://www.031business.com/2016/07/19/gelvenor-becomes-proudly-south-african/

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/gelvenor-textiles-sold-to-south-african-investor-2016-07-20

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/smallbusiness/gelvenor-parachutes-south-africa/index.html

http://www.innovationintextiles.com/gelvenor-scoops-international-iff-innovation-award/

http://www.yarnsandfibers.com/news/textile-news/south-african-investor-acquires-gelvenor-textiles#.WZP_ilUjG00

Please can you advise on how to go about this process.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coetzee07 (talk • contribs)

@

WP:PAID

) to read and comply with those policies; complying with the paid editing policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I would suggest posting information about a conflict of interest or paid editing relationship on your user page.(if on a computer, click on your username located near the top right corner of the screen)

Regarding creating this page, you can visit Requested Articles by clicking

WP:RA

and follow the instructions there to request that others create an article, however that process is severely backlogged and it could take some time.

It is good that you recognize that it is not preferable for you to directly write an article about your company yourself. There is, however, an indirect way for you to write one, if you feel that you can do so dispassionately and with a

WP:AFC) you can create and submit a draft which is then independently reviewed by another editor before being formally placed in the encyclopedia. Doing this allows for you to get feedback to make changes. Using this method to create an article is likely much faster than the Requested Articles process, assuming you can write it with a neutral point of view as I described. If you think you can, I would suggest first looking at other articles about businesses to see how they are structured and written, to get an idea of what is being looked for. If you don't think you can write with the required neutrality, or don't wish to, your only option is to wait for someone to see your request at Requested Articles. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi 331dot, I can see from the edit comments on the British Exploring Society page I've been trying to update that you regard my writing style as 'promotional' - what does this mean? Many Thanks, Br1t0n (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer on your page. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am completely new to Wikipedia editing / adding and just wanted to create / add a page for a band. I have received several messages about removing maintenance templates, but I don't know what these are and am certainly not doing it intentionally. Your help would therefore be appreciated. Also - the page I created now appears to be deleted? Presumably because of this maintenance template deleting transgression? Can you please tell me (explicitly and with instructions) what I need to do (or not do)? Thanks.

Breadmonkey2 (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I also don't know if I have done this correctly)

@Breadmonkey2: Hello. Yes, you have posted a message here correctly. :) Regarding the deletion, it appears that the page was deleted for being promotional. While I did not put up the page for deletion, if an administrator feels that a page meets any of the listed speedy deletion criteria(one of which is for being promotional), they can delete the page without delay or discussion.

Regarding the maintenance templates, those were simply the messages in the yellow box at the top of the article that just point out issues with the article that need to be resolved. I apologize for the confusion about them since you weren't removing them intentionally. You also do not have to keep the messages on your user talk page, removing messages from your user talk page is permitted.

As for the article itself, I think that the administrator deleted it because the page did not have independent

notability guidelines for bands

(if you click those two links you can review those pages). Not every band merits an article on Wikipedia; only the ones that meet the listed criteria do. Please understand that successfully creating a new Wikipedia article is actually one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Users who dive right into article creation quite often are not successful and end up disappointed and hurt. Users who are most successful started smaller by editing existing articles and working their way up.

If, however, you have the appropriate sources indicating how the band you are writing about is notable and still want to give it a shot, I would suggest that you first read

Teahouse, an area for new users to ask questions. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Kostas20142: I'm honored that anyone would think I would merit having admin powers here. I actually am already an admin on the Star Trek wiki Memory Alpha(under 31dot) so it's not totally foreign to me, though I understand this is a different ball of wax. If you think it would be worth taking the poll I would be willing to(do I need to put that in myself?). I would also be interested in knowing why you think I would be worthy of the admin powers. Thank you very much 331dot (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes you need to do this yourself, unlikely RfA. I believe you are worthy for many reasons. First of all you are active at NPP and I find your job done there impressive. Having the tools you could carry out the deletions on your own (and I would trust you with that) or block the inappropriate usernames you often spot. After all you show a more-than-satisfying understanding of the username policy. I also believe that another positive aspect is your contribution at teahouse. Your AfD stats are good (would not mind if they weren't but some !voters would raise it). These are some of the most important ones. You have created around 15-20 articles, none of which deleted, so no one can realm raise concerns about your content creation. So, yes I feel you should take the poll. --

talk) 09:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I appreciate your comments. I will post on the OCRP page at some point today. Thanks again 331dot (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second the thought. Your presence at the Teahouse is nothing but positivity. I would definitely support the nomination. Alex Shih^Talk 17:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the ORCP is more than positive so I it continues like this, and you agree, I am going to create your nomination subpage and look for a co nominator ( don't worry it won't be difficult, I have a few in mind. Are you ok with it? --

talk) 17:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd like to see if some more opinions come down before proceeding further. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Kostas20142: Considering the good feedback I have gotten in the poll I think it would be better to wait a little more before getting into the process. Perhaps I could pass now but I know that the trust of the community is important and that it wouldn't help to rush into the process before gaining that trust as broadly as I can. Can we discuss this again closer to the end of the year? I appreciate your comments and willingness to work on this. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah of course! Email me when you feel ready! --

talk) 10:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You've got my vote, for what it's worth. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mine also. I think this would be a better place if you had extra tools. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just noticed that you've nominated my post for deletation. May I know what wrong? Or what changes I can make to keep that page? I'm ready to make changes according to guidelines, need little suggestion from you. Payal7496 (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

notability guidelines for bands(please review). Sources like the band's website, social media posts, blogs, and where their music is for sale are not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. If you need time to find appropriate independent sources that indicate how the band meets at least one aspect of the notability guidelines, the article can be moved to an area where you can work on it without fear of deletion. If you would like to do that, please ask. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I would like some more time, and change the article according to guidelines. I'm reading the guidelines at the moment. Payal7496 (talk) 09:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will then move it shortly and post a link on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several external links to his page to prove his existence.

Hope this helps you guys to not delete his page.

Regards

Mike charnock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecharnock99 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proving his existence is not the issue; he needs to be shown to be notable per

WP:NFOOTY. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

patfacts Patfacts (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(

^talk 17:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I would concur with Timothyjosephwood- especially since I don't recall the content of the page off the top of my head right now. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Patfacts (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, Thank you for pointing out the issue's i will check for other reliable sources as you mentioned and will fix it.Draknight (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am one person and I am part of the Whitley family. It is not a business and does not represent one. What I am attempting to do is make wiki have the correct historical information. I have newspaper clippings from late 1880s to the future. I used Whitley family because it is easy to remember so that I can log on easily. I am a senior citizen, one person, and that is easier for me. I am not being paid by anyone to do this. I have posted things over the years and have never received any payments. It is very strange and a bit unnerving to be attack this way. It was better when I just used my IPS address. At this time I am one of the foremost historians on Hollywood History. If you feel I will be banned for my name let me know and I will try to come up with something else. /* Whitleyfamily */ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitleyfamily (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are
  WP:ACTRIAL
  . The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began
  autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page
  .
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The Aetherverse

Advising you that I've proposed this article for deletion. MartinezMD (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maine House of Representatives

Here is a citation. Sorry about the lack of one. I was editing on my phone and was having issues copying the link.

Regards.

https://bangordailynews.com/2017/09/22/politics/lawmakers-party-switch-gives-greens-a-seat-in-the-maine-house/

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing No Thirty, 331dot.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Unsourced. Possible OR.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting

to explain) 09:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

What you said

"If a user has a good faith reason to reopen it, they can (but not just for the sake of doing so." So? What are your reasons for closing? This nomination has barely been open for 12 hours, and attracted with few exceptions mostly nonsense votes. Let it run at least for a full day, to allow a consensus to emerge.

Disagree about "nonsense votes". ITN does not have an arbitrary minimum discussion time. Consensus seems clear. If you disagree, you should go to the talk page and not edit war. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesbourne Primary School

Hi. I am responding to your offer to help me with this article. This is a listing about a state funded primary school that many thousands of pupils have attended since 1901. I have declared my interest as the senior employee. What next please?

@

WP:PRIMARY) I may be able to provide more of an explanation later today, but for now I would work on finding independent sources before attempting to resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Consider it

You are often seen apologizing at teahouse. Why you add such content for which you have to apologize latter? 119.160.97.16 (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we are discussing a specific post, please point it out. I am only human and I make mistakes. If you want a perfect Wikipedia user, you will have to look elsewhere. I haven't been informed by Teahouse regulars that my posts are problematic and in fact have been told my contributions there have been noticed positively (see ORCP section above). 331dot (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for you are positive. But I remember at least 4 times... 119.160.97.123 (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving your views, but I am not sure what the point of this conversation is. I won't deny I've made mistakes, and when they are pointed out to me I apologize. I guarantee I will make mistakes in the future. No user here is perfect. Again, if you have a concern about a specific post, please point out the post you are concerned with; otherwise, I can only tell you that I'm just an ordinary human being who makes the occasional error, and that I have not been told by Teahouse Hosts or regulars that my posts are problematic. If I was, I would gladly correct the issue. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Haresh Karate, 331dot.

Unfortunately Joe Roe has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Surely you didn't mean to review this?

To reply, leave a comment on Joe Roe's talk page.

– Joe (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it and tagged it on the assumption that the creator was still working on it. Since they don't seem to have, I agree with your deletion rationale. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Griot Museum of Black History

Hello, I would ask you if you work for or represent the museum you are writing about; certain Wikipedia policies may be applicable to you depending on your level of association. Thanks 331dot (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, No, I learned of the museum just today. I work only for a non-profit healthcare organization. I was surprised to find no article on Wikipedia. Hopefully this article [The Griot Museum of Black History] will be helpful to those who are wanting to learn more about African American history in the St. Louis region. Regards, JimSinclairSTL JimSinclairSTL (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve an article?

Sir i like to improve an article what should i do? Davidjonesxp (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:TEAHOUSE, an area for new users to ask questions. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Pendle & Burnley Grand Prix

331dot,

This article was created to populate with details and history of a 30+ year sporting competition held every year in East Lancashire, UK. The page is not intended to promote the event but detail the history of the event for those interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkirbond (talk • contribs) 10:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AFC) to submit a draft for review. I would ask if you are affiliated with this event; certain Wikipedia policies may be applicable to you depending on your level of association. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

topic Trip n howl

thank you very much for your answer, I appreciate it. With the best regards Amanda Amanda froxy (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

politics in Maine
... you were recipient no. 1487 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness

Please see the new issue raised at: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Loel_Guinness / Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Loel Guinness I expect the whole article will be deleted soon, certainly this section. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Thanks for the information. I would say that you are likely correct. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry about that. As usual trying to reply on

WP:TH is a mess of edit conflicts, and I'm finding this new interface for resolving them more trouble than it's worth. – Joe (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem at all. It happens. Best wishes 331dot (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Paxton

Hello, I called the mover of the Bill Paxton page "experienced" because I saw they had been on WP for 11 years, I didn't notice they only had 300 edits. And the only reason I pointed out they were experienced is because they should know better. I hope that makes sense. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 00:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: Thanks for your answer. It appears we each looked at a different detail as I did not notice how long they had been registered. I might have been more inclined to take your position if I had. Thanks again for the clarification. Best wishes 331dot (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kotleba - Peoples Party Our Slovakia

Hello today i removed ideologies that this party never accepted and you are constantly putting them back even when i gave your proof ,,http://www.naseslovensko.net/en/our-program/,, this is their OFFICIAL party program there is stated that this party is not NEO-FASCIST or neither NEO-NAZI.. you are using references form FOREIGN MEDIA not even from Slovakia i am from Slovakia i know party members alot of them. So give me one reason you should leave those non sense ideologies of that party there.

The information is cited with what seems to be independent reliable sources. If these sources are incorrect, please explain on the article talk page and get consensus for your position. That is how we do things. Wikipedia actually cares little about what an article subject says about itself. What the party claims its views are can be included, but other views can be as well if they appear in a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the work of wikipedia is to give people accurate information than this is not wikipedia... If your reliable sources are media and not their official program than that is a big desinformation. At least add Disputed or Non-Recognized ideologies to that party, you can not say for example that dog has only 3 legs when someone said it to you and wrote an article about it when you know the trooth and you have the proof, do you got me ? toxickrtek (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about truth or accurate information. (See

WP:V) Undoubtedly the party will describe its views favorably while others who are more dispassionate will describe them differently. I've told you how to properly proceed; I encourage you to do so. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Newbie

Hey I have read the note you left me on my talk page and I want to thank you for letting me know about it. I have added some citations from local indian newspapers to the edit I have made. Tomwick (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwick: I saw that. Thanks 331dot (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello 331dot, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see
  User:Primefac/revdel
  .

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:25:09, 24 October 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Pol.res.pic

• Pol.res.pic (talk · contribs)
  • User:Pol.res.pic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pol.res.pic (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i requested it

Thank you 331dot for the message. I have requested the change of username. I do not want to make a profit out of writting Wikipedia articles. I am just using the information of a client to create their page for their foundation, but as a volunteer. I will not be paid for this article and future articles.

Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibloon55 (talk • contribs)

North Luzon Philippines State College

Hi there, saw that you noticed the recent activity on

WP:COI, but they don't seem to be hearing the concerns about their edits. I'm at a loss for how to proceed and wondered if you had any suggestions? Thanks. Marquardtika (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:PAID and really should not be editing the page directly. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I would probably wait to see if they come back and attempt to add the same promotional material again. 331dot (talk)`

Thanks for the feedback. Looks like the article has been deleted and SALTed by an admin. Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MS coordinator

Dear 331dot,

Thank you very much for prompt reply and critical comments. I understand that MScoordinator is misleading. This username was invented ad hoc without any particular reason. We confine our attention on specific areas of science (see listed categories). I have nothing to do with any business and professional writing of articles for Wikipedia. I am a new user (an individual person) of Wikipedia; we are trying to edit and prepare new articles devoted to specific topics. The current draft reports basic and statistical information. As soon as we will get a clear anwer about one missing detail the sanbox will be submitted for review. It is intended to provide more advanced information based on selected citations from scientific papers/books. To conclude, I can surely change the username into any unspecified name(MS is not related to my initials). If so, I have to learn how to save and use current sandbox for further editions before publication. Please advice. I am impressed by quick replies and help. Excellent work. Thank you again for your help. Regards,

talk) 15:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Commonwealthalliance

Dear 331dot,

I have already made a request for a change in my username that is currently pending. Thanks for letting me know about my username's implication of my potential affiliation to an organisation.

Yours truly,

Commonwealthalliance -

talk

) 12:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding

talk • contribs) 11:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC) [reply

]

Apologies for not signing my message earlier. -

talk) 12:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

In reference to the page of Bernard Malik

Hi 331dot I noticed that there are two tags on the page of Bernard Malik. 1. The notability factor 2. Reference issues

Can you please suggest me how can we improve this ?? It would be really great

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sn6054884 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

Your First Article

to learn more.

I don't know if you are or not, but if you are associated with this person, you will need to read the conflict of interest policy at

WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi 331dot Yes this time i improvised the article by pointing out proper and authentic sources and by eliminating those parts that either doesnt have any source or are having poorly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sn6054884 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

reliable sources. Please read my post above; and I again ask if you are associated with this person in some way. Thanks 331dot (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sn6054884: I would highly suggest that you consent to the article being turned into a Draft, where you can work on it until it is ready and submit it for a review to get feedback before posting. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot No i am not associated with this person and The references that i attached has somewhat mentioning with this person if you will read the page the you will see that most of the references are either from news articles that are published or government websites, none of the references are from person's own domain, all of them are from neutral aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sn6054884 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a blog; blogs are not considered

reliable sources as they are usually posted without any editorial control by another party. The second source is only a brief mention of this person explaining their involvement. The third merely confirms the existence of the organization mentioned. The other sources respectfully seem to me to be of dubious reliability and only name drop this person. In order to have an article, this person needs to have sources with in depth coverage of them that explains how they are notable. If you need time to find such sources, I again suggest that the page be moved to draft space which will give you time. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Did not mean to make my username sound like a group or organization, it is not. I just set out to start writing articles on notable fathers. Is there a way to change my username? Subsequently, it will be something generic to appeal to Wikipedia.

Username

Did not mean to make my username sound like a group or organization, it is not. I just set out to start writing articles on notable fathers. Is there a way to change my username? Subsequently, it will be something generic to appeal to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadsofamerica (talk • contribs) 19:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CHU. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Article Mariano Goybet

Hi, It's not a mystake we have a problem with the contributeur Henri1958 and his family on the same article on the French Wikipédia [3] : fake informations on his family without any sources. Thank you.--Heinzlied (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Consumer Surveys - Alabama Poll

Hello I was curious why you thought the Google Consumer Surveys were not credible for AL Senate. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaMcCarthy (talk • contribs)

@LisaMcCarthy: I would prefer if this article content matter was discussed on the article talk page, so that others interested in the article can comment. Please read my post on your user talk page about frequent reversions. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LisaMcCarthy: That said, see the edit summary on this edit. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE BIAS

You constantly delete my added, sourced information in order to keep a one-sided viewpoint on Wikipedia. We know the claims against Roy Moore bear no evidence, so what's wrong with pointing out that they bear no evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopbeingBIAS (talk • contribs) 23:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did once, and this is not the forum to debate the validity of the claims against Judge Moore. I would inform you how to properly express your concerns, but your username and actions make it clear that you have an agenda here. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My username makes it very clear that my agenda is to eliminate bias. This is the forum to debate the validity of my claim, which is that the accusations against Roy Moore have no supporting evidence. Therefore, my edit is substantiated. Please refrain from reverting my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopbeingBIAS (talk • contribs) 23:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of edit warring, please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. You risk being blocked if you continue to edit war. 331dot (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For being one of the top 50 reviewers of the last 12 months. Thank you very much for your reviewing! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology

Is it worth reporting Bitfirms for edit warring - continues to remove cited material from the article without providing any rationale? Dan arndt (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give them a last warning and start a talk page section first but it's probably heading that way. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they got blocked already. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]