User talk:331dot/Archive 5

Closed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Pentecostal Mission. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's WP:BURDEN. Like the other editor, you don't appear to have made any effort to participate in discussion on the talk page of the article. MPS1992 (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply ] @ WP:DTR. I am aware that there seems to be a desire to remove unflattering information from the article. That is not sufficient cause. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply ] If you wish to be considered a regular, act like one. See WP:PG. MPS1992 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply ] Thanks for the tip. I've been told I might merit having admin powers so I must know something of policies. If you want to discuss this, go ahead and I'll see you there. 331dot (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Let's hope that won't be necessary. I'm sure you might well merit having admin powers, but only if you keep a cool head. MPS1992 (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] I'm referring to the article, not me. 331dot (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Indeed. Thank you for finally dragging yourself to the article talk page instead of continuing to edit-war. Wouldn't it have been easier to go down that route to begin with? MPS1992 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] I didn't drag myself anywhere and frankly I resent the characterization you have given my involvement. As I indicated, the burden is on those seeking the change. I've never indicated a refusal to discuss anything. When others appear merely to be editing to sanitize an article for the sake of doing so, I will act. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] ... which would explain your first revert. It doesn't explain your second revert, it doesn't explain your apparent unwillingness to read WP:BURDEN, and it doesn't explain your failure to appear at the article talk page until we'd been through multiple rounds of this foolish discussion, as well as multiple reports to RPP. If you don't want to receive a templated warning for edit-warring, then do not edit war. I'm not sure I can explain it any simpler. MPS1992 (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply ] @MPS1992: Mind explaining this revert? --NeilN talk to me 03:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] (ec)That is, of course, your opinion which differs from mine. You are not in my mind and do not know what I am or am not willing to do, nor do you know what I have and have not done. I'm not the only one who has reverted the information in dispute. [1] [2] [3] 331dot (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] No kidding, and one of them just popped up right here on your talk page! Nice. How many of them do you see edit-warring over this content, as you have done? MPS1992 (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] We can keep talking about me or we can talk about the article content. I await your participation in the discussion there. I will have no further comment here on this matter. 331dot (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I came here to talk about your editing. I was rather surprised by the reaction. Before I came here to talk about your editing, I had already gone to the article's talk page to talk about the article. As I said, I'm glad to see that after several rounds of this, and posts elsewhere, you also finally found your way to the article talk page. Will that be a step forward? I hope so. MPS1992 (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For the communication. Yes, I do understand some people get confused by the moniker SEO. at the end of my name, I am a professional SEO for almost 30 Years and I use it as an attorney or doctor use Esq. or Ph.D. No one employs me, however, I do own several businesses as a now hands-off investor and have been a part of the digital revolution since 1984 as one of the first FIDOnet hubs in the state of Florida moving electronic mail for AT&T and the Government. That's 10 Years pre-internet then becoming one of the first internet providers in the state of Florida providing Internet to the Broward Sheriffs Office, Boca Raton Police Dept. and Deerfield Beach City Hall and of course the residential areas of south Florida. I find editing and correcting flaws in WikipediA a way of unwinding and still being productive at the same time.

Cheers Robert DiSalvo SEO (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert DiSalvo SEO: In that case, I apologize for disturbing you and wish you well. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added an article but was flagged because I had added the services offered by the business. However, I was referring to Safaricom Kenya wikipedia page and found to contain the same things that I had been told not to add (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safaricom). Now how do I go about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbaschild2017 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OSE

. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, people do what they can when they can do it, and as such not every page is checked before being posted. There are likely tens of thousands of pages on Wikipedia that should not be here if examined closely. An inappropriate page existing doesn't mean the one you created gets to as well. I don't know if the page you cite is appropriate or not, but each page is judged on its own merits and not based on that of others.

"Flagged because I had added the services offered by the business" is not exactly what I said. I said that the entire piece reads as a business profile and not an encyclopedic article. The page you created has no independent

WP:ORG

to learn what merits a business an article here. Not every business merits a page here like on social media. Please also take the advice already given you to on your user talk page.

I again ask if you work for this business or are otherwise associated with it. This is important to know in order to be able to tell you which Wikipedia polices may apply to you. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot! Thanks for signing up to to take the AN/I survey. As you don't have email enabled, I am unable to send you the survey link. You can enable email in your preferences, or email me at pearleywikimedia.org and I can send it on to the address you use. Regards, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PEarley (WMF): Oops, I guess I thought I had it enabled for some reason. I believe that I have enabled it now. Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Link has been mailed to you! Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I and all of GALECA appreciate your generosity and time in helping our little org. :)))) Blurbadeeblurb (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blurbadeeblurb: I am glad to help out Wikipedia wherever I can. I don't mean to harp on it but you will need to review the policies I mentioned at the Teahouse(it also appears that someone added information about them to your user talk page) as these are very important policies. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 331dot. I believe I addressed the COI concerns in my communication with the other user you mentioned, CordlessLarry. I filled out the form and understand the policies and will adhere to them and aim to be as transparent as possible in my contributions to the Dorian Awards page. I deleted our group's main logo to remove any appearance of promotion, and also deleted information I recently added that is not easily verified for now. I hope that does the trick in alleviating any current problems with the page. THANKS again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurbadeeblurb (talk • contribs) 12:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blurbadeeblurb: Thanks for your efforts on this. I was not trying to suggest any improper actions on your part, merely trying to help you avoid any potential issues in the future; as Cordless Larry indicated, we'd rather have people looking at articles than not. Thanks again and best wishes to you 331dot (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I totally get it - thank you for helping protect GALECA from possibly looking cheesy. Checks and balances are important now more than ever it seems. ! :) Blurbadeeblurb (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajballavpur High School is a Govt. sponsored high school, so it's page is surely not for promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripan Mondal (talk • contribs)

@

notable. If you wish to properly contest the deletion, click the "Contest this deletion" button in the deletion tag(though as the page creator you are not permitted to remove the tag yourself) and explain your reasonsing and/or offer any sources you have. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, you've noticed that the page contained advertorial type of material. How could I improve on this point?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklfnp89 (talk • contribs)

@Jklfnp89: I've replied on the article talk page; I will make a further reply there. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am wondering why you think the Julian Schwinger Foundation of Physics Research is not deserving of a wikipedia entry. It is a charitable nonprofit organization that supports scientific research by awarding grants. You diagnose a lack of "notability" and I would like to understand how you arrive at this assessment.

Further, I am accused of a conflict of interest, supposedly for the minor edits I made to the draft page. Must I conclude that I am not allowed to edit any page that mentions my name? If so, I shall leave the many factual errors in the page about me uncorrected. For the record, I note that that wikipedia entry was put up by someone unknown to me, without my knowledge and certainly without anybody asking for my consent and my verification of the stated facts.

Thank you, BG Englert — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGEnglert (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your page, please make further replies there. Thanks 331dot (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You have suggested that I might be employed by or closely affiliated with the U. of Notre Dame. I am an attorney, but I am retired, and I never did any work for the University of Notre Dame. I live in Dallas, Texas, not South Bend, Indiana.

I have been making contributions to Wikipedia for 30 years. This is the first time I have signed in before making a contribution. Had I known my signing in would have aroused suspicion, I would not have bothered.Atty Frederick Wagner (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atty Frederick Wagner: I apologize for the confusion, but in identifying yourself as an attorney and editing about the University of Notre Dame, it appeared that you might be an attorney working on behalf of the University to edit Wikipedia. Since you state that is not the case, there is no issue. I apologize for the confusion. I would add, however, that Wikipedia has not been in existence for 30 years. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 331dot. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have left some additional references on the talk page of the Info-metrics article to establish notability. Would appreciate if you could comment on these? Arnob (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still have some concerns about the article,(it still reads like a research paper to me) however my lack of knowledge about the subject itself may be interfering with how I view the article. I might suggest that you visit the

Mathematics WikiProject and request assistance on its talk page(there are posts on it dated yesterday so it seems to be monitored). If it is not mathematics so much I may be able to find a more relevant Project that you could inquire at. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for cursing in the edit history, I continued on the fandom meme the user used for that edit and I should have just not done that, thanks for calling me out on that Milliondoses (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do

I wished to acknowledge receiving your message. Unless you would prefer me doing so some other way, I will email you a reply; it may be later today or tomorrow(from my POV). 331dot (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have (rather belatedly) followed this up now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Acknowledging your message and letting you know I've replied. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• BLPPROD
  candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• 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) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Why, you're very welcome 331, let's hope this gets this situation off both of our chests. MitchG74 00:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Ucmate Downloader, 331dot.

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

Absolutely not suitable for inclusion.

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

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how is material already in an article and sourced from 3 authors and 4 books original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.134.240 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion and am not even aware of any dispute you have with Tgeorgescu. I only noticed your crude language and personal attacks in their messages. That needs to stop. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot. I hope that its everything OK with you, and I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. That was not my intention to make you think that I am not honest. First, the reason that iI removed many of the talks is becase im starting to improve my skills on wikipeda and many of 'my talks' where rooky mistakes. Yes i read the message but not seem relevant at the time. I never been in Kentucky, never even heard about WKPD is a TV station, since i live in europe. Its funny because W.K.P.D. are my real name initials....but the fantastic thing is that in the other side of the planet it's a radio...I HAVE A Radio and never knew it(lol). Sorry for the inconvinient 331dot.

You can even check my activity if i have even made the smalest edition on WKPD is a TV station page to see that is true the things that I am saying to you. Never heard about such station!

But thank you for the tips and kind support!

WKPDeditor (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I appreciate your reply and I apologize for the disturbance. Best wishes to you 331dot (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe a website supposedly completely unbiased should be using female pronouns when speaking of a transgender person. This shows bias and I will not stand for it. VV101RAM (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

edit warring is not permitted. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems that someone has pointed out policy in this area to you on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is biased, because I do not believe Danica Roem is a woman, as do millions of other people. You are clearly picking sides and your bias shows in your edits. It is a shame to see that even Wikipedia has lost its mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VV101RAM (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VV101RAM: You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, and I do not wish to debate them with you, although all humans deserve dignity and respect. However, Wikipedia policy supports the article as written, as another editor has shown you. You are welcome to work to change Wikipedia policy, but until it changes, the article is correct. Please stop edit warring and discuss this matter. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice on working to change Wikipedia’s gender pronoun and identity policy. However, I believe the way you have phrased your responses both here and on my talk page are biased.

May I ask how to influence Wikipedia’s gender pronoun and identity policy? Any links would be useful. VV101RAM (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to debate transgenderism with you. If you want to attempt to change Wikipedia policy, you should visit the talk page for the Manual of Style at

WT:MOS. I frankly don't think you will be successful, but you are free to try. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For the kind support and to be open do dialogue to new users! Even when information looks like against the newcomers, 331 dot, help with a gracious etiquette. WKPDeditor (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

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

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found

HERE

.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2018/01/01/detroit-lions-coaching-search-7-candidates-replace-jim-caldwell/980500001/

They and the Giants have asked permission to speak to him.

Danthemandtm (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Danthemandtm: Okay, but you claimed that he is already the head coach of the Lions. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my apologies, but I think it might be wise to include his attractiveness to teams and how he's under consideration Danthemandtm (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I recognize that the source is a "blog" on a website; however, the article is actually an interview with a high-level research and development scientist and Pd.D. in the field of incontinence technology. I am using Dr. Chimelewski as the source. The information he provided is accurate and provides a great history of incontinence inventions, which are useful for historians like me when writing thesis papers. While this article is on a website rather than a research paper, the article is on the website of a major company, which is in the industry of providing incontinence management supplies. The scientist interviewed works for the company.

I am a historian and an author; I'm familiar with the methods of careful research and primary sources. The article is on the website of a major company, and I would consider an interview with a research and development scientist a primary source. I very much feel like this information should be included in the article -- that it's helpful and provides insight into the history of incontinence management inventions. I happen to know Dr. Chimelewski, who is a fascinating, quirky, and knowledgeable man. Do you have any suggestions on how I can get his interview and information approved to be on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.195.90 (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

reliable sources. If that is true, you should make your case on the article talk page first. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

was closed by the nominator after brief discussion so withdrawn is more accurate. Unlikely to be renominated.
It appears that you underestimated Shhhhwwww!!.

You may need to review your !vote in light of the re-opening of the nomination. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How was that a personal attack? I was merely stating that Medeis was up in arms about calling BLP's defamatory names, in that case Trump. How is pointing out the hypocricy of then calling members of congress "parasites" a few weeks later a personal attack? I just don't get it. I don't care much now that you removed it but could you please explain how that is a personal attack anyway? 91.49.81.181 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at it further, I concede (and apologize for my initial viewpoint) that your comment was not an out and out personal attack and as such I reverted my removal. However, I think it is disruptive to the discussion so I condensed it. I would suggest that you move on from that line of discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but i am not happy with that. How about as a compromise you hat Medeis comment, in which they call BLP's parasites, as well as mine. Now it still looks like i did something offensive or the like. On top of that, how is a sarcastic comment calling for monarchy and calling people in congress "parasites" not disruptive to the discussion? And i would have moved on a long time ago if it wouldn't have been removed for a bogus reason by Medeis themselves. But anyway, do what you will. As is this is wholly unfair to me like this. My comment gets 'marked' as disruptive while the at least just as disruptive comment by Medeis gets to stand. Sorry to complain about that anyway, but it just is not fair to only hide my comment which was in response to a disruptive comment. Hide both or hide none. Anyway, really sorry to bother with this, haha. Have a good day anyway 91.49.81.181 (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Colin Stetson's assistant. I need to add links to his personal websites, but am not being allowed to do so. Thanks.

@

username policy

as a misleading username.

You should also read and comply with

WP:PAID

, before editing further. Complying with the paid editing policy is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use if you have a paid editing relationship(which you do if you work for him).

There are certain policies about external links, which you can review at

WP:EXT- but in short they are not normally placed within the main body of articles. Further, since you are associated with him, you shouldn't be adding links to his website without discussion among editors on the article talk page first. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CBNMKJUH's appreciation

Thank you for helping me with the citation problem. Hopefully the draft I'm writing will get published. If it does, I owe it to you.CBNMKJUH (talk) 1:17 PM, 6 February 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL
  will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the
  RfD
  .

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello - you've given some extremely clear and very helpful advice to many a newcomer at the

I would really welcome any constructively critical feedback you'd care to offer me so as to make it as effective as it possibly can be. I just want to make sure we give the best support in the best way possible, and I thought your "Teahouse perspective" on assisting newcomers could be quite valuable. If you haven't got time, just ignore this post - I'll quite understand. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed it and it seems pretty nice to me. I can't think of any specific criticism to give on it. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that's much appreciated. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was away for several days and didn’t know what was happening. Good to know there are good Wikipedians out there willing to cut that nonsense out quickly. Thanks again for the help man, much appreciated. Hope you have a nice weekend. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 331dot, for being so helpful!

ConnallES (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I have submitted a draft page for review. I believe that all of the criteria for publishing the page are met (reliable outside source).

Please let me know if you have any other questions.

The Conflict of Interest is that I am Jeff Collins's wife. I have intentionally made the article very bare bones and only added specific facts.

Thank you 15:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)15:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamontanus (talk • contribs)

@Lisamontanus: I'm not going to formally review your draft, but I think in its current format it is unlikely to be accepted at this time. The opening line there is certainly written correctly, but the article will need to contain much more information. As I indicated before, merely seeking public office does not by itself usually merit someone an article, so to be accepted it will need to indicate how else Mr. Collins is notable. If he wins his election, he would then merit an article as a member of a state legislature. Has he been written about in independent sources about his career or anything not having to do with him seeking public office? If all the independent reliable sources that discuss him are related to his seeking public office, it will be difficult to have an article here about him at this time. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My post is 100% neutral. I am simply describing the NRA's success in using well placed funding to reframe the interpretation of the 2nd amendment which has been very successful. I quote Warren Burger, a conservative justice, to avoid any accusations of lack of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruthWillBeTold (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPOV. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I am referenced as a DJ in Vince Aletti's The Disco Files 1973-78. The song and year as I described are referenced several times on Discogs. I am a DJ, did play the song in 1972, still spin it today. The mere mention of this song where it was not mentioned before requires detailed referencing? Please re-add, and feel free to reference the sentence, as I could not access either source above. I am a fan and would appreciate your adding this nod to "Rain" back to her Wiki page. Thank you, David Wolf Cleveland OH (a/k/a DAVEDJ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.176.10 (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made a claim, "remains a dance floor staple", that needs to be cited. While I believe what you say, we need more than just your word as all information must be

reliable source. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as

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 deleted 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. Smartyllama (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you templated the right user with this; this appears to be in response to 331dot reverting some page move vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving the article after blatant vandalism by Ragedoptic. Just noticed that the page security has been switched off - was that deliberate? Previously all the edits were either being automatically accepted or being held in a pending list until they could be checked by an official reviewer. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the protection expired today, including the Pending Changes. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, is it just a coincidence that someone was able to launch an attack on the page just as the protection expired? Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say one way or the other. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please sir there was similar pages with similar quality they work together in the same industry and they hold similar respect in this industry.. I refer some name who have their biography page in Wikipedia please check this such as Koushani Mukherjee , Bony Sengupta, Raj Chakraborty please check their pages they work together.. If they have their pages on Wikipedia why not Swastika Dutta get her respect from Wikipedia.. Please sir I respect your thought but am requesting once again to check my article and remove this deletion log.. Rakhi (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OSE, other similar articles existing doesn't automatically mean yours can be permitted too. As a deletion discussion is underway, it cannot simply be removed. You are free to contribute to it. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw your response to an editor asked to create an article by their employer. I run across that situation often and, if it is OK with you, I would like to use your explanation as the basis for some of my boilerplate. I got tired of composing responses to the same situations, typing the same things over and over so I gave in and started using a keyboard snippet manager to keep text around for editing and/or reuse. Anyway. I liked what you said and how you said it but I do not want to 'lift' it without permission. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 17:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Go right ahead. Anything to help. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 20:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 331dot. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Eureka (organisation). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Hi, I am failing to understand how updating the logo of the organisation or adding the correct number of members is promotional? The Wiki page is explaining what EUREKA is but is missing a part of what EUREKA does ie funding companies. How is adding the information promotional? ESEEUREKA (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESEEUREKA (talk • contribs) 10:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ESEEUREKA: Hello. My post did not specifically refer to your edit to the logo, but to your more substantive additions describing what this organization does and seems like it could have been pulled from its website(if it was, it would be a copyright violation). Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization or any article subject states about itself, but is interested in what third parties write about article subjects. Y

Your username seems to indicate that you are associated with this organization in some way, which is what Wikipedia calls a

conflict of interest. As such, you should really avoid editing the article directly, instead first suggesting changes on the article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article to access that page). I have posted information about this on your user talk page, please review that and make the appropriate declarations of any COI or paid editing relationship that you have. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESEEUREKA (talk • contribs) 10:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me what is required to add a new business to wikipedia? It had independent citations. The copy was neutral. What does it need to stop other editors removing it? Jasonleedodd (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ORG. Please review the guidelines. Currently, you offer just a press release as a source; in prior iterations of the page you offer only basic announcements of routine business transactions(the acquisition of the business) and a press release, neither of which are acceptable for establishing notability. Not every business or division of a business merits its own article on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Jasonleedodd:This is why I and another user have turned the page into a redirect; it seems that this division of Verizon does not merit its own article. You may want to start off mentioning it in an appropriate location of the more general Verizon article. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and AfD'd it since it's clear that the SPA has no intention of actually discussing it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Moose Point informational sign, June 2015.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you at RFA. I had assumed that you were already an admin, and given how swimmingly the process is going so far, it appears that you soon will take up the mop. I struggle to think of a better candidate for adminship, so thanks are in order. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Stormy clouds, top or mop? --Malerooster (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for answering my question! TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am a new editor and was told to come here to tell you I am not associated with the subject in any way. Michael is, unfortunately, a very popular name all over the world - I'm a Finn/American and only share an interest in New Orleans with the subject - I don't know how else to verify that -- Thank you

Mikkopresents (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikkopresents: Your statement is sufficient, thank you. You may want to make a similar statement to the person who initially claimed that you had a COI. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With 16 hours left, barring anything monumental, you will be an admin in no time (well.....16 hours to be exact ). Either way, enjoy this pint on me! Congratulations! I'm sure admins & 'crats will be around shortly to give you your bucket & congratulate you as well. All the best, TheSandDoctor Talk 05:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be offline when your RfA closes but I thought I'd drop off the party favors now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love Peperami. In all seriousness, well done, you do deserve it. Just don't wreck it like some recent admin promotees, and go steady. But you already knew that. Congratulations again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, congrats! Now go protect a page or something, dammit! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in to offer my congrats. We will need to air the room out after all that cigar smoke but it is well worth it. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Closure is pending, but congrats on the mop. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, when I was a 'crat, the one thing you'd look forward to was promoting a clear-cut admin. Well done again, sorry for the lack of 'crat input to do the deed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW for everyone else I no longer take AmEx. 23:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on your

• Congratulations 331dot!! Well deserved :-). -- Dane ^talk 23:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Very well done indeed, 331dot! Best of luck! Linguist
  ^unEins^uno 23:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I found the shirt. It was in a box in the back shed, so it may smell funny. ···
  Join WP Japan! 23:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations and good luck! Donner60 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Congratulations! Here's to hoping that we see many more sucessful RfAs soon. --Joshualouie711^talk 02:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations! Keep going. Happy editing! - Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 04:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Congratulations and well played sir. The answers you gave at the RfA were top-notch, particularly 9&10 ;-) Now, care to join me at
  CAT:CSD? In all seriousness, Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion is a good place to start; this is mostly page moves that require a redirect to be delete first. They're usually straight forward, and they're one of the few admin actions you might get thanked for! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Congratulations on your RFA 331dot :), Happy blocking ... err I mean editing :) –Davey2010^Talk 14:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Done. Have a view at Wikipedia:What you won't learn in new admin school - it can be so true at times. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to formally complain about the wiki mods, they blocked me again and again LOOK i think they should have their administratorish priviligigies removed and banninated from wiki!!!!1111one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.2.16 (talk • contribs)

If you end up with this on your talk page, or at an ANI thread entitled "administrator abuse by 331dot" - welcome to the club.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the admin corps.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Came across your page and realized that you are now an admin. So I wanted to say congratulations on the new tools. If I had known of your RFA any earlier you would have received a Support vote from me for sure. I'll never forget when you went out of your way to resolve the dispute between the IP user and myself despite the hostility he was showing, and yet you took things calmly and let the higher ups handle things accordingly. I have great faith that you will use the new tools with good faith and nothing less. Congratilations once again! —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add my congratulations here, too. Am thinking of starting an ORFA myself, sometime soon. Gulp! See you at the

Teahouse. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nick Moyes: The one stumbling block you have is a recent run of declined A7 speedy tags. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 and User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes, and remember that the barrier to A7 is very low. Once you’be nailed that, you are ready. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ritchie333. I will obviously need to be more careful now that the post-ACTRIAL floodgates have opened, and had already identified that my CSD experience was still quite limited. Thank you very much for the steer - those look like helpful extra guidance pages. I will read and inwardly digest, as they say. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...now that your RFA succeeded. Currently your userpage sticks out like a sore thumb since it has no mop topicon and is not in the Wikipedia admins category (while almost every other admin's userpage I've ever seen has one or the other).

Hello. Help improve the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.27.68.20.150 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure why you have approached me about this, but my knowledge of the subject is almost nonexistent and I would not be the best person to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recurring sock. Please ignore. Alex Shih (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]