User talk:331dot/Archive 7

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

I mentioned you here. ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ConAngel2000[edit]

Please Indeff for thumbing his nose at his topic ban.He's created at least 2 BLPs for nn YouTuber's today. John from Idegon (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018[edit]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello 331dot,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse response[edit]

Perhaps you know those people who would be able to answer the question. You claimed a community radio station had to meet the same notability standards as other businesses (extensive coverage). I was under the impression, although that may be just in the United States, that radio stations had automatic notability.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not an expert in the area, there are specific notability guidelines for radio stations. It's probably fair to say that the vast majority of them are notable, but the guidelines (WP:BROADCAST) give examples as to some that are not. Even if it is notable, there must be some sources about it. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten where I read this. Anyway, U.S. AM and FM stations do have links to FCC information and usually to radio-locator.com.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, 331dot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, 331dot. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

I need to be unblocked from wikipedia please! 331dot! 182.0.147.77 (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever you are, you need to request to be unblocked while logged in to your account. If your talk page access was removed, you need to use WP:UTRS. By editing while logged out, you are evading your block. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What account? 182.0.147.77 (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address is not directly blocked, and the fact that you edited my user talk page means that you are not prevented from editing. IP users cannot create articles directly, if that's what you are trying to do. Since you refer to needing "to be unblocked", I assume you were using an account and were blocked under that account. If you don't know what account you used, I can't help you. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfree Congressional images[edit]

Hey 331dot-- noticed that you pinged Benf2000 already about the Jared Golden image, but it looks like he's uploaded a ton of unfree images over at Commons for congressional candidates that should IMO be mass-deleted (they're just pulled directly from Twitter and FB). Is there someone I should ping over there to start the deletion process? Would know what to do on en wiki, but no idea what to do there. Nomader (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not quite sure about that either. Perhaps it would be worth bringing up at WP:ANI. It will be a little bit before I can do so. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already at c:COM:ANU. Everything has been tagged for deletion on Commons already. Possibly a block incoming, as they've apparently been doing this for like two years. GMG ^talk 16:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khockbot[edit]

I was previously khockbot , will my earlier account's password work for my new one ?And I have an ananswered question in teahouse . 223.176.85.28 (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, your password should be unchanged. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M y teahouse question has been answered . 223.176.85.28 (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I erase the edits on my talk page ? Grunthog (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may remove content from your talk page. The only thing you cannot remove is declined unblock requests while you are blocked- which isn't the case for you now. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kuzepema[edit]

You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for keeping an eye on things. :) Let's hope he doesn't edit war. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VPN Disabled, please unblock me.[edit]

I can see VPNs make vandals impossible to trace, but hadn't thought about it until I fell foul of the rule. I'm going to investigate split tunnelling but for now I'll decloak while editing! I'd like to know why there are restrictions on two factor authentication... forcing no VPN and no 2FA makes me feel very exposed to being hacked and impersonated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chas newport (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2FA is (I think) being tested among admins before it is potentially rolled out to everyone. The ban on VPNs is due to the potential for abuse by vandals who would constantly change IP addresses to avoid detection and blocking. If you use an account, the general public cannot see your IP. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the page I just spent 5 hours creating[edit]

The Naeleck page was deleted 3 years ago so the Criteria for speedy deletion doesn't apply because the notability status has changed and I added sources from the recent years thus improving the previous writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlmaha5 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlmaha5: If an article is deleted per the result of a deletion discussion, it cannot be recreated unless the reasons for deletion are addressed, and in my opinion they were not in this case. You are free to go to Deletion Review if you wish, but you may also wish to submit a draft for review using Articles for Creation, where someone can evaluate it before it is placed in the encyclopedia instead of afterwards. That way you avoid your work being removed. I regret causing distress, but I felt the speedy deletion criteria was met. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IdentityBeliever[edit]

Hi 331dot. Looks like IdentityBeliever should be permablocked as a sock of TryToBeFunny[1][2]. Cheers ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the information. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hello 331dot. I was in middle of editing Jacqui Philips page so that it adhered to copyright rules - and it was suddenly deleted mid-editing. I've had less than 12 hrs to address this issue. How do I now rescue the page so that it can be re-edited? Or do I start a new page. I think these deletions should give an original editor reasonable time to address the issue raised.Joelionheart (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joelionheart There are no deadlines here so I am wondering why you are time limited- but it is fine for you to start from scratch as long as there are no copyright violations 331dot (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberswarm2[edit]

Hi 331dot. CU evidence and edit history strongly suggests that this user is not Drowningseagull (while CU can't prove a negative, it does make a connection extremely unlikely, especially when one considers DS's other socks). I've therefore undone the block; if I've missed something important in terms of evidence, please let me know. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 10:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018[edit]

Hello 331dot,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Jack Massey Welsh, 331dot.

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

If you reviewed this article, please note that PRODed and CSD tagged articles should not be marked as reviewed, per consensus here. That's not necessarily to say that the tag is not applicable, this change is just to help stop things from falling through the cracks. Thanks.

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

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 10:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITN[edit]

Hi! I saw from article 2018 Men's Hockey World Cup Final that the match is completed but in [3] you said that let the match get completed and after that appropriate decision will be made. As an admin here, what do you think should be done?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.61.53 (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a consensus needs to be established for posting the event to ITN; there is not one currently. Feel free to contribute to the discussion there. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per your advice, I've mentioned my views. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.63.61.53 (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry[edit]

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello 331dot, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD\|Talk 07:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Isaiah Saw[edit]

I am on a Kafka-esque run-around trying to undelete an article on a modern Christmas song that has become repertoire of every major choir in the United States. Somebody who did not spend enough time looking at the authors of the song and the penetration of it into modern American culture deleted the entry thus impeding the information and knowledge exchange in Wikipedia. Please reinstate the entry so the information on the song itself can be expanded and information on the authors and cross-referencing to other articles in Wikipedia can take place. MtUllaHistorian (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I carried out the speedy deletion because in my opinion the A9 criterion was met because the article did not indicate why the hymn is important and the author does not have an article. If you believe you can address these issues, I would be willing to restore it to draft space where you can work on it with much less fear of deletion, submit it for review, and also create an article for the artist involved. If you don't find that satisfactory, you are free to go to Deletion Review. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The song satisfies independent notability criteria as it has been independently recorded and released by several national choirs in the United States and in constant peformance by every size and institution choir in the country. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs I am working on the article on Thomas H. Troeger (draft) and will work on the composer Glenn Rudolph. However the song itself is already a cultural phenomenon. I am not in music/choir/religion space and my independent analysis points out to the fact that I personally lived under the rock to have missed it. MtUllaHistorian (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've said how you can proceed- one of the two paths I mention above. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. You ignored these guidelines as outlined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs MtUllaHistorian (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I "ignored" nothing. I made a decision based on the information I had available. If you have different or new information, please offer it in your review request. As you have started a review, I believe there is nothing further to discuss here. Good day. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling[edit]

I think he is trolling [4]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soldertools1 unblock request[edit]

Hi, I have been following Soldertools1's request for unblock. It looks like the request was opened and closed in about 90 minutes by a bot with no opportunity for discussion. Since you responded to him, I'm guessing that you know more about it than I do. Does this bot perhaps queue up an unblock request elsewhere that will cause a normal review with the opportunity to make comments? If you don't know anything about it, then I'm sorry for wasting your time. It is confusing to me and I am sure it is confusing to Soldertools1.Constant314 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Constant314: They still have an open request(the blue box). They had simultaneously filed a request using WP:UTRS which was unnecessary as they can still access their talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Merry Christmas! Constant314 (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and happy 2019![edit]

Merry Christmas and happy new year! I was happy to see you have a successful RfA during 2018. I hope you will edit more happily in 2019 Hhkohh (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, 331dot![edit]

Happy New Year!

331dot,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Surf2Ship[edit]

Hi,

I recently created a page about a website called "Surf2Ship" which was deleted by you. Can I know the reasons and how I could contribute better? Would love to hear back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaztrorio (talk • contribs) 09:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, 331dot![edit]

Happy New Year!

331dot,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy New Year, 331dot![edit]

Happy New Year!

331dot,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Just Chilling (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just Chilling (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

At least 8 characters in length
Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI protection[edit]

Hey :). Do you think lowering the protection to autoconfirm only would be possible? I don't think the accounts used for vandalism even met that bar. Extended autoconfirm is a bit high and I fear legitimate users won't be able to participate. -- Luk ^talk 13:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luk I initially did autoconfirmed for three hours, but then the LTA came back after doing 10 edits to their user page so I upped it to extended autoconfirmed for three hours. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I missed that one, ok then! My personal opinion is that autoconfirm forces them to waste more time than we do by upgrading their dormant accounts, though :). -- Luk ^talk 13:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ban User:The Hallyu Bacon[edit]

Hello, would you mind if you block this account? I created the account but something on my com screwed up and I can't seem to change the password.
Poisonous Bacon (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be blocked? If you can't get into it and use it, no one else will either. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you for the heads up; I will soon not be a position to look at this issue thoroughly, in case you want to tell someone else. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As I look further into it, I hear more oinking :) Reporting to SPI. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Bagged and tagged —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help[edit]

Hello,

Your kind gesture is highly appreciable. Thanks a lot for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayantan life (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fipbazaar[edit]

Hello, you might want to revoke their talk page access. —RainFall 11:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.SQL ^{Query me!} 19:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SQL I wanted to acknowledge your message. Thank you, it is helpful. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia work.[edit]

Hello there. I have some stuff to do at the Wikipedia, but because I'm a new user, I can't. Could you please help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanfranciscoposse (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you want to do, but it would be a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial(click that link) and read some of the pages I linked to on your user talk page. That should give you some good basic knowledge about Wikipedia. In seeing your post to Talk:One Piece, I'm wondering what the urgency is in the need of your suggested edits. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are an established user already. Could you please do all of the stuff that I've mentioned at the One Piece talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanfranciscoposse (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ so others know you wrote them. If you don't have that button on your keyboard or phone, there is an on-screen button to add it(it looks like a scribble). I have no knowledge of Japanese manga, nor do I have the time to invest in learning about it or writing about it, as my areas of interest are different. Others who follow that article will see your post and help out if they can. Again, I am not sure what the urgent need of these edits is, as Wikipedia has no deadlines, but if you want to see something done quickly, the best thing to do is to learn how to do it yourself. The next best thing is to find other editors in that area of interest; there is a Anime WikiProject that you could ask for assistance. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Juanfranciscoposse: I'm not sure that "I'm not asking politely to do this. This HAS TO BE DONE" are ikely to help though :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there.[edit]

Hello there. May I clean everything up and start from scratch with my priorities? I did some comments but others have to be done first. May I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanfranciscoposse (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to say something different, or amend what you said, just make an additional comment. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) No. I want to clear up everything and start from scratch. 2) What are the requirements for editing locked articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanfranciscoposse (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll ask something different. Could you please delete my account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanfranciscoposse (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted; if you no longer wish to use it, simply stop using it. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They made another account doing the same thing to more articles. -- 1989 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI[edit]

But re. User:Indian Ethics Comittee whom you recently softblocked as a username violation (no prob, that's all I'd reported for), if they appeal, you might want to mention that before their username block, they edit-warred to remove sourced information [5] and then seemed to have continued to do so while logged out as User:141.76.121.211 :) so slightly more than meets the eye, this one. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 15:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamaas9[edit]

I've just blocked User talk:HistoryofTheAryans who admitted to being Jamaas9. Just thought I'd let you know. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message; could you refresh my memory as to my involvement? :) 331dot (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. forgot to reply.[6] Doug Weller talk 08:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation to discussion[edit]

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.General Ization ^Talk 01:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username change[edit]

Hi 331dot, as you are a global renamer can you change my username from Cedric Grazer to Cedric White?Cedric Grazer (talk) 09:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have no edits other than to your userpage, you should just create a new account. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: now I have main space edits so now can you change my username to Cedric White?Cedric Grazer (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not just create a new account as I suggested? 331dot (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if I create a new account I again have to start from beginning?Cedric Grazer (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question; why did you not create a new account when I suggested it and therefore wouldn't have had to start from the beginning? You don't need to answer, though; my time at the moment is limited, if you still want to change your username, you should make a request using one of the two methods listed at WP:CHU. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My new username has been approved .Cedric White (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuking[edit]

Hi admin, I would like to ask a favour from you, which is to nuke all the pages listed on my sandbox. The reason for deletion is already given below the header. Do help me delete those unnecessary subpages of the portals that are restarted (making the portal automated). Thank you and have a great day. ⊂Emoteplump (Contributions) (Talk) 14:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of which may be deleted under db-housekeeping (g6). :) ⊂Emoteplump (Contributions) (Talk) 14:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely confident in my ability to do that right now and I don't have the time to go through each page one by one at this time; I'd suggest asking another admin to assist you. My apologies. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SelavkaS2038 unblock request[edit]

I just saw your note here, if you look at the various accounts from SelavkaS2019 through to User_talk:SelavkaS2037, they all appear to be sockpuppets of the same user and blocked, so I would suspect that is what 38 there is referring to.219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username change to Paul Greenaway[edit]

I agree to not edit about the gallery GAGPROJECTS | Greenaway Art Gallery. What I would like to edit about is the artists that the gallery represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.203.101 (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So that we know it's you, please log in to your account and post this information on your user talk page. Note that you should not edit while logged out while you are blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse response[edit]

I am way behind but just read this. Asqueella was confused when you described what happens when there is an edit conflict, when in fact the person was having a problem due to "conflicting intermediate edits". That simply means, as I'm sure a veteran editor knows, that "undo" won't work when you try to revert.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

Hi. Sorry, it seems I missed your comment on UAA regarding Fuckyougirl. Do you want the block changed? Kanonkas : Talk 00:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, but you don't have to change it. I can certainly understand why you would do so. It's no problem. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

	Helpful Wikian
	thanks 331dot for helping me with my wiki adventure :) means a lot Jeriqui123 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justice4all5777[edit]

Hi 331dot, can you block this user? Since I reverted one of his edits because it was unsourced he has been making persistent personal attacks at me since then. I gave him a final warning but he hasn't stopped yet. Please look into this matter.Cedric White (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

plz block vandalz?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/165.161.18.43 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.21.154.9 209.51.172.142 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And a username? User:Marksellmedia. 209.51.172.142 (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to block the username. The IPs have been blocked. In the future, vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know but you're faster. I'd bother Ohnoitsjamie, but their talk page is locked. I'll put in a word with Jimbo Wales for you, on your next performance review. Thanks! 209.51.172.142 (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I think there's a BLP issue on British School Muscat, with revdel required... Thanks again, 209.51.172.142 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your answer[edit]

Thanks for your reply to my question on the help page. I've replied, but I don't know how to reply properly, I looked for a 'reply' icon but can't see one, and I don't know the coding language that these entries seem to use. Where can I learn how to communicate with people properly ? --Pteerr (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC) .[reply]

Pteer You have correctly posted to this page. There are no 'reply' buttons; you simply edit the relevant page; in this case, you edited my user talk page, which is the correct thing to do to communicate with another Wikipedia user directly. To comment on an article, you would access its article talk page; every article has a "Talk" tab at the top, click that to access the article talk page. You would then edit it just as you edited this page. If you have any further comments, you can click "edit" next to the section header above, which will open up an edit window for just this section.

You may find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot : many thanks for your help ! --Pteerr (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belichick[edit]

Don’t undo edits if you don’t know the difference between Super Bowl titles and NFL titles. Belichick is tied for NFL titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article stated "He is one of only five head coaches with four or more titles in NFL history". It doesn't need to name the specific coaches in the lead. Don't edit war; being correct (if you are) is not a defense. And unless you have evidence please withdraw your accusation that I am using another account. It would be quite the trick for me to obtain administrator powers under two different accounts. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s not true that you’re using different accounts you shouldn’t be worried about it and you made it more obvious by responding under two different accounts. Being one of five is not the same as being tied in first. So I’ll delete the other statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you refuse to withdraw your accusation against me, I see no need to further converse with you on this page. The edit warring board discussion will take its course. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine since the rule is against more than three revisions.

3RR is a bright line, but you can still be edit warring with fewer reverts. If you have further comment, please put it in the EW discussion. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round Hill Records[edit]

Hi 331dot. Thank you for your note on the page for Round Hill Records that I submitted. I worked hard to remove promotional wording and kept it to just the facts. All of the links are to legitimate news outlets and specifically reference the items I linked them to. Please let me know what you would like adjusted to remove the flag you have put on the article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twrch (talk • contribs) 16:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twrch I would first ask you what association you have with this label, if any. Certain Wikipedia policies may apply depending on your level of association. There is still much promotional wording in the article("ZYNC is the labels full-service creative sync team that specializes in placement for film, advertising, TV, trailers, sports & games. ", for one). I also note that many of the offered sources seem to be press releases or routine business announcements, which WP:ORG, the notability guidelines for companies, specifically state is not sufficient to establish notability. The content of the article should only be based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state; not just press releases or other primary sources. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if it will take you much time to work on it, that you allow the article to be moved into draft space where you can work on it with much less fear of deletion, and then submit it for a review when it is ready. I can move it for you if you would like to do that. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. I have been specifically hired by the label to build this page. I would ask you to look closer at those news articles. Billboard does not just run press releases. Several are interviews as well. I will work to source additional links, but I believe that a cursory glance at the information will show that this is a reputable business who represent and release some of the most important musical works in our society. They should absolutely have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twrch (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twrch: Since you state that you were hired to write the article, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to review and comply with the paid editing policy to formally declare that status. Failing to do this would put you at risk of being blocked. You should also review conflict of interest. Label staff interviews are also not acceptable sources to establish notability(again, see WP:ORG); Wikipedia is only interested in what independent sources have chosen to state about a subject. Not every company(or label) merits an article here, even within the same field. Notability is not necessarily inherited by association. It is possible for a company to have notable clients and not be notable themselves. What matters is what independent sources state about the company. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've put some information about this on your user talk page as well; also information about signing your talk page posts. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ShuttleXOS[edit]

I reported the user for Vandalism, please have a look in AIV. There is a whole site, with the pages this user created as partners. Daiyusha (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, it looks like they have been blocked. I probably would have done so, too. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Help[edit]

Really appreciated your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nostalgica80s (talk • contribs) 13:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the page[edit]

Hi 331dot, thank you for keeping an eye on wikipedia's quality of content. I've tried to put together the content describing Sewio Networks in the right way, however, failed in it as it was marked as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". Could you please advice what in particular should be removed or where citation should be added so I could correct the article? Thank you in advance for your help! Xpassa (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would first ask if you have an association with that company. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, yes I do. However I was editing the page that already existed to correct the facts such as removing "RFID" where should be "RTLS". 195.113.243.99 (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are Xpassa(remember to log in). If you work for this company, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy; the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement if you are a paid editor. (this includes being a paid employee or any sort of intern, paid or unpaid)

Since you have a conflict of interest, it is inadvisable for you to directly edit about your company or anything associated with it. If you want to suggest edits or corrections to existing articles, you should use the edit request procedure on the article talk page. If you want to create a new article- though again, this is strongly discouraged- you should use the Articles for Creation process. I would caution you that in order for you to be successful at creating a new article, you essentially need to forget everything you know about your company/its products/etc. and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources- and only then if the company/product/etc meets Wikipedia's special definition of notablility. The notability guidelines for companies are written at WP:ORG. I have been a Wikipedia user for many years- and I have seen few, if any, in your position succeed at this- though in theory it is possible. Please read some of these links, as well as Your First Article. You may also find the new user tutorial helpful. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could we discuss deletion of Yanet Garcia?[edit]

Hi, there was a a speedy deletion template for Yanet García placed on my talkpage and it was gone in less than four hours, before I even saw the notice. Apparently you are the deleting administrator and I should talk to you about it. Are you sure it was similar to the 2016 article that withstood deletion review? I created the article from scratch, not even knowing it had existed previously, with what I thought were solid sources including (I think) a biographical profile by Telemundo and some other Spanish-language sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Hello. In my opinion, the only major difference between the recent version and the prior version that was deleted was the addition of a few more sources, but otherwise seemed similar, and the concerns in the deletion discussion did not seem addressed. You are welcome to visit Deletion Review if you wish. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Tom Crowder[edit]

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

161.73.194.237[edit]

Hi! I wanted to let know that 161.73.194.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making reverts again just like the previous IP that was blocked. I don't know if this is the same case with the rest of the range. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KaiExpo[edit]

😪😯😥 Now I am crying too. Did not tell them they could evade the block from home. If school officials have a problem with the underlying block, they can email an appeal, blah, blah. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Group Article Erase[edit]

Hi 331dot, This is the first article that I'm writing to wikipedia. Sorry that I couldn't manage to do it properly. Can I do it again? and I'll try to be as neutral as possible? I will make sure that it complies with the wikipedia guidelines and review it before publishing it, Greetings, SergioGonz13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergioGonza13 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SergioGonza13 Do you work for the Napoleon Group? 331dot (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no 331dot, just a big fan of their company. I'm really into cryptocurrencies and stocks trading. So, I thought it will be cool to create an article about them, and being this my first article I guess have to be something interesting to me. SergioGonza13 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)SergioGonza13~[reply]

Since you do not work for the company, I have restored the draft and moved it to your current sandbox(User:SergioGonza13/sandbox). The most important thing to remember is that Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects. This means gathering as many such sources as you can find, and only writing the article based on what those sources say. Primary sources can only be used in certain limited circumstances and cannot be used to establish notability.

Further, promotional language like "dedicated to offering innovative solutions" needs to go; something being "innovative" is an opinion. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks for the advice 331dot, I'm kind of novice & I'm learning a lot. One last question: For example for the sources have to be only in english or can be as well in french?. Because there're some important mentions in famous newspapers in France that talk about them. Greetings and thanks one more time for the help. SergioGonza13 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SergioGonza13 Sources do not need to be in English(it's helpful, but not necessary). They just need to be verifiable and reliable. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that! thanks 3311dot SergioGonza13 (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adopting[edit]

🙏I know you said you don’t participate in adopting, but I was wondering if you could adopt just me? 🙏 NerdyKaiExpo (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that I am not able to do that at this time. I can suggest that you make use of the new user tutorial located at WP:ADVENTURE, and you are welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse, an area for new or inexperienced users to ask questions. If you are still interested in a mentor, you should visit WP:ADOPT; there are likely many others willing to help. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Byers[edit]

Are you seriously not interested in Grace Byers cuckolding her husband, or does that thrill you? Let facts stand. Lobo vs. Byers (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. So you don't have to go searching for it this may be connected to Empire Lawsuit (talk · contribs). MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarnetteD I softblocked them, so a change of username is valid- although they seem to be WP:NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lobo vs. Byers I'm not sure what your interest is in this matter- or if you are connected to the show or a person related by Byers- but if you have any independent reliable sources for your claims, you should bring them to the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Their ping wont have worked so, in case you haven't seen it, they made this edit and opened this thread User talk:Lobo vs. Byers#Accomplice on their talk page so your NOTHERE assessment may be correct. MarnetteD|Talk 17:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - I sent a ping from the SPI, but this is very obviously a serial sockmaster, Caradoc29105. ansh 666 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation (mine - not asking you for one!)[edit]

Regarding this account that you blocked earlier, I just wanted to say that the reason I didn't report them was that they were actually removing puffery from the article - there were a couple of issues with their text which I addressed, but it was probably better (more neutral and up-to-date) after their edits. I'm not complaining about the block - the account was clearly in breach of username policy - just explaining why I was discussing it with them rather than reporting at UAA. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Someone else reported them to UAA, which is what I went by. Thank you 331dot (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For gnoming in the unsung and unwatched areas of admining that are well thought and fair. You do work that is for the benefit of the entire project, and it is appreciated. Thank you for volunteering your time and for your contributions to the admin corps. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized Personality Form[edit]

Why doesn't Wikipedia just make a standard cookie cutter format and anyone who is in the same area has the same options? A: Can't hide by our POV's if we do that.173.15.73.108 (talk)

Let me give a for instance on issues about standardization. Bill Clinton was the 2nd President Impeached. One of 2. That's a highly notable status, and it means the House of Representatives determined he had committed such a deed as to be worthy of consideration for removal based on that act, only one other president in history had this happen and it's a big deal for a nation. Is that fact in the first 3 paragraphs of his article? Oh, yes it is, in the middle of the 3rd paragraph, buried in the center. But is this a POV choice? Let's look at the man who came into that office next. There was some interest around Florida, Bush is the 4th president (3 others previously) to win election without "popular vote." A feature of the Electoral College, something the US Founders offered to protect the interests of smaller States. We should find this in the same position, or similar? Nope, this factoid dominates the 2nd paragraph, turning the entire reading into a labor, in fact. And I can go on with this same subversive prejudice in formatting choices for people who are "Republicans," versus people who aren't. Mike Tyson is a convicted Rapist. That doesn't show up in his opening paragraph. Absolutely shouldn't as it's far less important than his knock-out record, as he's actually famous for being a boxer. There is all kinds of this mess going on, on all sorts of articles. Could this be standardized? Sure could, but even that standardization would be POV. But at least we'd know up front what was expected. Right now, it's stupidity and obvious, to anyone not involved, falsehoods about "objectivity." Solve it, and you have a useful data center offering facts to the masses. Don't, and you're the Sun. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of complaining to me personally about these issues, few if any of which I can solve on my own, I would suggest that you invest your time in participating in talk page discussion on the relevant articles. Differences like the ones you speak of between articles are the nature of the beast in a volunteer, collaborative project. If you can get consensus for some sort of standardization, have at it. You've indicated that's not something you might be interested in- which is your absolute right- but you should either take action to address the concerns you have or move on. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your page when it says you've been here for 6 years. I've been editing since you were in diapers. Complaining? Guess who actually tried to bring this issue to the attention of the whole of the project? Not you, you erased that post, twice. That censorship is the first tool, not redirect, is proof positive. That you literally called a response on your page, to a direct insinuation on mine, "rant" when you removed it, is proof positive. I don't expect anyone to bow because my generosity is dried up. I inform on my donations because at one point I believed in this project. Your repeated insinuations that this was about my cash, are evidence to me that you cannot read what I'm saying, because you've already POV'd in your mental script against anything I write. You cannot hear that this is a POV problem across the board, because, as you already said, I'm just here for Mark Dice. I was editing when you were in diapers. 173.15.73.108 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
- checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hate speech request on help desk[edit]

Hello 331dot, the hate speech was in Terrorism in the United States (reverted). Just noting, in case you need to revdel / block. GermanJoe (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: Thanks for the heads-up. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.222.212 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

trying to get this right[edit]

Wow! My apologies I have dabbled with personal wikis with an editor with no depth in understanding the html syntax.

I am way over my head, but I really want to contribute some content. I have wanted to provide some history related stuff and love citations.

I am an officer to a nonprofit and want to tell the story and clearly hoped for co-contributers beyond people I know. I can see how the user account is problematic but navigation to find answers communicate with the help section is daunting.

I think is best to close the Breitenbush Cascades, and think what might be as a simpler solution is to delete Breitenbush Cascades and create a new account under my real name and attribute that to the organization I belong to.

How can I delete the present account, and not blemish or cause ire with the name or term Breitenbush Cascades?

Breitenbush Cascades 21:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breitenbush Cascades (talk • contribs)

@Breitenbush Cascades: With the way Wikipedia is structured, accounts cannot be deleted.(this is for legal reasons as all edits need to be attributed to someone). If you don't want to just rename it by clicking this: Special:GlobalRenameRequest and filling out the information, you can just create a new account the same way you created the one you are using now, and abandon the account you are using now. Once you do that, you should post on your user page that you abandoned your prior account and name it so that you aren't accused of abusing multiple accounts. When you choose your new username, you can have your organization's name as part of your username, such as "YourName of Breitenbush".

Once you resolve the username issue, I would suggest that you use the new user tutorial at WP:ADVENTURE. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

Hello 331dot,

News

The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
{{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced unblock request[edit]

respected mam/sir, please unblock us, as we are founder of late Shri Harbhajan & Maa Vimal Brahmin is GOD foundation

(talk page stalker) It seems you are evading your block. That won't help your case. You should request to be unblocked at the talk page of your own account, and you will need to address the reasons for the block. This request won't be persuasive. Huon (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vmavanti[edit]

This editor has asked me not to post to his talk page, so I will not do so, but in those circumstances it is only fair that he should not make baseless allegations about me there that I cannot reply to. Could you please ask him to stop commenting about me, and to look in the mirror instead? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him to either stop talking about you or to permit you to defend yourself. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previously blocked user[edit]

Hello 331dot, I am just dropping you this message in case the report at AIV goes stale. This user is still up to the same stuff, no communication, no edit summaries, no sources for content. I gave them a templated and personally worded final warning asking them to use edit summaries and sources, but nothing. Most recent unconstructive edit was adding unsourced content to infobox not supported in article here. StaticVapor message me! 06:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey so the report went stale due to no response, I don't know if your willing to look into this. StaticVapor message me! 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Alex Scott-Samuel[edit]

Moved to User talk:Andydoc1. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My message here was to continue the discussion as one of the alternatives given in the Wikipedia advice. The post I put does not appear on my talk page so I will have to write it again. Unless you are able to replicate it...

If we follow advice we should be respected more... Andydoc1 (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it there, but that's all right. If you wish, I would be willing to start the articles for deletion discussion for you, though I will do so without taking a position on the matter. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provoke talk page access for MrNiceGuy2009[edit]

Hello 331dot! can you provoke talk page access for User:MrNiceGuy2009? He continues to abuse the talk page while being blocked. Thanks! VictorTorres2002 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean revoke? I saw the post he made, I would need to see at least one more unconstructive post like that in order to revoke talk page access. Until then, they should have the chance to make an unblock request. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)r[reply]

I will be away from my computer shortly, if they continue to misuse their talk page, please make a report at WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Thanks a lot! VictorTorres2002 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew hk to Yeahprobablyidk[edit]

Did Mathew hk, blocked for being too close to matthew hk, really chose a replacement name - Yeahprobablyidk - that is also too close to a different existing User? David notMD (talk) 10:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What name is it similar to? 331dot (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paid info[edit]

Hello.

Thanks for the comment on the page. I thought that COI covers that as I used the optional space to add the (Employee). Should I use WP:PAID only or both COI as well? I am the employee in the company but I am not getting paid to specifically crate the page here. I thought that COI will cover all of the conflicts (that were my thoughts when I read all the rules). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristijanwh (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristijanwh: I didn't see where you formally declared a COI either- I would suggest doing so on your user page or user talk page. Regarding WP:PAID, you do not have to be specifically paid to edit Wikipedia. If you are employed by, paid, or compensated by an article subject, you must comply with WP:PAID. This is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I declared it on the article that I wrote. Is that the wrong place? So, I should declare COI on my user page or user talk page and paid disclaimer on the article that I wrote, is that right? (Kristijanwh (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@Kristijanwh: Okay, I see it now, though it should be on the draft talk page(so it could be put on the article talk page). You should also declare on your user page (User:Kristijanwh) and better clarify your paid status. Please follow the guidance under "How to disclose" at WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I appreciate your help and patience. I submitted the article once more and I tried to do everything right. Thanks and have a nice day! (Kristijanwh (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

KE on the track EDIT[edit]

Hi,

I understand the comment. However, it is very important that people know KE is running a scam. There is much, much proof out there and he tried it with myself as well. How would you suggest i approach this? Thing is, he uses this wiki page to persuade people to send him money. He's also stolen beats before, the source for that major seven track i put up is a genuine magazine. I can't understand how that isn't a good source.

As far as i see it, wikipedia is being used as a source to rip people off of money and thus is responsible for displaying correct information. This man is a proven scammer, numerous sources out there. So, instead of just flaming me and threatening a genuine person, how about you provide information on how we can stop a scammer like this?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetsExposeKE (talk • contribs) 09:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

change username[edit]

Sorry I did realize that my account uses id. would show publicly. please change Billmf1 to my name, William P. McFeely. Thank you.W. P. McFeely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmf1 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you certain that you want your real name to be your username? 331dot (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hold off for now then. I guess I should read a few more how to lessons before continuing. Thank you. W. P. McFeely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billmf1 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Hope I didn't sound like I was giving the orders! Just poking my nose in, sorry. ——SerialNumber54129 15:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Serial Number 54129; I didn't think anything bad at all, I welcome input from others as I've missed things like that before. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Since you participated in indefinite blocking of user TIAYN in May 2018, I want to ask you whether it would be appropriate to replace the content of their user page with Template:Blocked user, or leave it as it is at this moment? Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you can't. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would do that myself, but I wanted to consult the admins who blocked the user indefinitely before I do anything... I agree with your opinion, but it seems that another involved admin (@Jpgordon:) have some different feelings about it. So I'm not quite sure how to proceed. --Sundostund (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon could very well be correct, as I haven't fully looked into this yet. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Admin Anniversary![edit]

Hey, I was just looking at your userpage and noticed today marks one year of Adminship. Nice! WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock IP address 186.137.218.201 request.[edit]

Hello there. Could you please unblock the IP address of 186.137.218.201 right away? He has already stated that he won´t go into the Wikipedia ever again in his life and has admitted that everything that he has done was wrong. He has also learnt that he can´t change the Wikipedia article of One Piece and will accept the way it is. But, however of all of this, he also wants to get unblocked because he can´t stand the idea of being blocked. So, I repeat once again, could you please unblock the IP address of 186.137.218.201 right away? If you can´t do it yourself, then contact Yamla, who´s the user who blocked him up in the first place. Thanks! Goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.45.154.238 (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The block evading user is back, please block. -- 1989 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uareanoob (disruptive username)[edit]

To answer your question, I was searching in userspace for vandal phrases and slurs etc and came across their userpage (whose deletion was of course long overdue :)). Adam9007 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what about this username? Adam9007 (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that blockable if they edit. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock IP address 186.137.218.201 request.[edit]

Hello there. Could you please unblock the IP address of 186.137.218.201 right away? He has already stated that he won´t go into the Wikipedia ever again in his life and has admitted that everything that he has done was wrong. He has also learnt that he can´t change the Wikipedia article of One Piece and will accept the way it is. But, however of all of this, he also wants to get unblocked because he can´t stand the idea of being blocked. Also, being blocked out of nowhere, witouth the ability to speak and for 6 MONTHS is out of proportion. So, I repeat once again, could you please unblock the IP address of 186.137.218.201 right away? If you can´t do it yourself, then contact Yamla, who´s the user who blocked him up in the first place. Thanks! Goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.39.228.75 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to respond, but I changed my mind. It's not true that you(I know it's you) can't change the article. You can, but you must do it the right way, in collaboration with others and according to guidelines and consensus. Nothing needs to be done as urgently as you claim. You are blocked because you have not demonstrated that you can work collaboratively and you insist that everything must be done urgently when it doesn't need to be. Continuing to evade your block only continues to demonstrate that you cannot follow guidelines and means you will probably never be unblocked, at least for a long time.

If you aren't going to edit again, then you shouldn't worry about getting unblocked, and just find something else to do with your time. You're going to have to get used to the idea of being blocked if you don't want to edit again. It doesn't affect anything else in your life so it shouldn't concern you. Further inquiries or requests about this matter will be ignored. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estimate on review on a article[edit]

Hello.

Hope you are doing good today. Do you know when could I expect the review of the article? When I submitted it first time, it took a very short time, a few hours to be declined a couple of time. I submitted the article again one week ago but no response. Do you maybe know when can I expect some information? (Kristijanwh (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@Kristijanwh: As your review submission states, there are currently 2671 submissions awaiting review. Reviews are not done in any particular order, and are conducted by volunteers who do what they can when they can. It could get reviewed in the next hour, or two months from now. There isn't any way to predict this, sorry. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that is a lot! OK, thanks for the info. That actually helps. I'll just wait then. Have a nice day! (Kristijanwh (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you... Viki-BSU (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked editor reemerges[edit]

Regarding User talk:Alauddinmondal20192016, please see this. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems. I've blocked that name. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fife College[edit]

I've requested a few changes to the Fife College page. Is there any sort of timescale (no matter how vague) for when these will be dealt with?

GordonP82 (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonP82: I've moved your requests to the article talk page(Talk:Fife College), the proper location as well as fixed the formatting of your request. There is no specific timeframe as this is a volunteer project, but the edit request will be visible to both editors who follow edit requests and editors that watch that article specifically. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonP82: I will say that I don't think your proposed edits are likely to be accepted, as they are basically just promotional material for the school. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources state about a subject. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I don't understand how these changes could be viewed as promotional. The "further education" and "St Andrews" edits are fixing factual errors. The next edit (about local learning centres) is moving a sentence that is in the entry already to a section that it is relevant to. This is currently in "Courses" even though it doesn't really make sense being there. GordonP82 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The campus situation is likely valid as an edit, but I'm less sure about the others. However, I am content to leave it to whomever reviews the edit request. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:CochraneIncontinence[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you blocked a new user as their account and username was flagged as being promotional in nature. I had previously instructed the individual to disclose all of their affiliations and COIs on their user page before starting to edit, and it is my understanding that this is what they did. I cannot view the content of their previous user page so I am having trouble advising the individual as to what to do next. Would it be possible to chat about this and figure out the best way to help encourage and support this enthusiastic new editor work within his or her disclosed COI to improve articles in an unbiased manner? it is my understanding that this individual is here with good intentions to improve articles (while disclosing their COI). Thank you for your time! JenOttawa (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JenOttawa: Hello. I blocked the user for two reasons, 1) their username violates the username policy because it is the name of an organization and website and 2) their userpage(now deleted) was promotional in nature and also suggested to me that they are WP:NOTHERE because their stated purpose (on their userpage) was "our aim on Wikipedia is to use the key findings of our systematic reviews to make pages even more informative". If that were true, posting their own organization's systematic reviews seems to me to be a severe conflict of interest. I had planned to type something different at this point but I see now in examining your own user page that you(and I assume CochraneIncontinence) are part of some official partnership with Wikipedia. I was not familiar with that sort of thing, could you please clarify this for me? Thank you. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @331dot:, thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I am sorry about missing the username policy. I will reach out to the individual immediately. I am a Wikipedian in Residence for Cochrane. Cochrane partnered with WikiProject Medicine to encourage medical experts to help improve Wikipedia articles using high-quality secondary sources such as considering evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews. In my role, I make suggestions for Cochrane Reviews that can be considered for articles, edit articles directly, and teach experts how to share knowledge as per WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS on Wikipedia. If an individual is a Cochrane Review author and is interested in contributing in their field, I refer them to WP:COI and suggest that if they are interested in contributing it would be best to make a suggestion for improving the article on the article talk page first to get community consensus and ensure that any COI is disclosed and the suggestion is not given undue weight. If you have any more questions I would be happy to discuss this further. I am learning constantly and appreciate the help from other Wikipedians. JenOttawa (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane reviews are generally considered very highly within the medical area and fulfill WP:MEDRS. I consider the COI to be slight as they do not have a COI with respect to the subject matter of the reviews. They of course should not write about Cochrane itself.

A bunch of us have been collaborating with Cochrane since 2012 or so. Many of us added these reviews even before the collaboration began. New versions of the reviews are published every few years and the Cochrane folks are helping us make sure we are using the most recent version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JenOttawa: @Doc James: Well, I thank you both for educating me. I was not aware of any of this, perhaps because I don't usually visit medical-related articles. JenOttawa, if you would want to ask the user to just propose a new username on their user talk page(it doesn't even have to be as a formal unblock request, I am watching it) I would be happy to rename and unblock them. 331dot (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. I will follow-up with the new Wikipedian on Monday. I appreciate your help and patience here @331dot:. Have a terrific weekend! JenOttawa (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not particularly well-liked[edit]

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=505

I think you should give some of these comments a read and assess your attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.207.36 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite comfortable with my attitude, but I am glad to be reminded of how important the freedom of speech is. I can't please everyone. If people want to have a civil discussion with me here about my actions, I'm always willing. If people want to go elsewhere and curse and trash me somewhere where I am not there to defend myself, that's their right. If telling me this is supposed to bother me, it doesn't; I knew this would happen when I was nominated. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, given a year has transpired between then and now, do you still stand by your decision with this appeal? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SungMinSeung&diff=next&oldid=838930775 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.207.36 (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it was correct based on what I knew at the time, and it wasn't just me that felt that way. I was quite content with the later unblock given the additional information that later came out. I'm going to make mistakes along the way, which is something that I made clear from the beginning in my RfA. All I can do is learn from them. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting issue[edit]

Hey, I have got your reply regarding my question. As you said,I had a discussion with that person who was reverting my changes. He/she gave me unreasonable explanations. I don't know how to proceed MridhulaSuresh (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that you find unreasonable? 331dot (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically out of process but...[edit]

I've worked enough with you on promo username blocks I didn't think you'd mine (and sorry if you do.) I went ahead and unblocked User talk:Harry123478k. The user page was pretty confusing, and I didn't want them to think they had to do anything more by waiting for you to reply to my ping and then me to you, etc. FWIW, the main reason I don't think they actually are a worker, despite the original name, is that they don't quite appear competent enough to be working for such a major outlet... TonyBallioni (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all, but thank you for telling me nevertheless. 331dot (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TomCat4680 (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you![edit]

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oofloopz (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I just check that this is correct. Is it ok to add a book as reference, it is not my book, but a book that is relevant to an article and it asks for inline citation. I would like to add it to wikispecies and wikipedia. Do I need to contact the publisher? (Rose00088 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)rose00088).[reply]

No, you do not need to contact the publisher to cite the book in an article. You may find WP:CITE helpful to read, for information on citing sources. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last move[edit]

[7] I thought? I bow to your arcane arts, though :) Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 08:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. I welcome you pointing things like that out to me, I certainly could have missed it. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. By the way, 3311dot you've got another fan :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subzzee[edit]

Hi 331dot, I noticed you restored TPA for Subzzee to allow an on-wiki appeal, despite the fact that the last on-wiki appeal this user was allowed to make contained a now-oversighted attempt at outing. Why do you feel it's appropriate for this to be handled on-wiki, when no attempt to address that outing was made in the UTRS appeals? (To be honest, it's surprised me that my change to the block wasn't then converted into an {{oversightblock}} by the OS who suppressed the outing originally.) Cheers, stwalkerster (sock | talk) 14:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stwalkersock: I did this per a suggestion at UTRS; however I was not aware of the oversight aspect so my action was correctly reversed. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just coming over here to let you and Boing! said Zebedee know. It should have been marked as an OS block a year ago, so sorry to you all from the team for the confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Gotcha, thanks - the comments on UTRS weren't there when I'd checked the first time, I probably should have re-checked before coming to you! I had thought it would have been obvious from my block summary plus the recently oversighted edits in the user's contribs plus the previous comments on the talk page that there was an oversight aspect to it too. Oh well, no harm done, and thanks to TonyBallioni for marking it as an OS block now. :) stwalkerster (sock | talk) 14:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, it was my suggestion at UTRS, but I hadn't realized the block was an oversight block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Boing! said Zebedee: No worries, I think the issue is that it technically wasn't strictly an oversight block, because I'm the one who yanked TPA and I'm not an OS so can't tag it as such! In retrospect, I probably should have prodded an OS to tag it as an OS block and this would have been avoided. Ach well - thanks all. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 14:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will read the guidelines and try this another time on a computer as the iPad is not cooperating![edit]

Got it, am retired worked in print media back when you had to have 3 sources to publish anything, before the internet when SPJ actually meant something.

My edits were to list all 6 of his grandchildren in order of birth, which are missing. This information has been verified by multiple news sources.

Also found some additional historical information on the name Markle which I thought was interesting regarding the name in Lancashire and was sourced from historical sites.

And lastly there is an error in listing the “Markle’s and Ragland’s” relatives by marriage to the British royal family.

By definition only the person who marries into a family becomes a relative by marriage into that family, ie, Meghan Markle. Her blood relatives are not related by marriage to the BRF. The Duchess is not a “blood” member of the BRF. She became a member of the BRF by marriage, which does not extend to her relatives. Sourced re the updated order of precedence that was issued by Queen Elizabeth II July 2012 and multiple historical documents. Laura A Collins (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and unable to resubmit to AFC[edit]

Hi 331dot hope you are well!

Thank you for your detailed response to my comment on Teahouse. My username is Dhaim.

The article I edited was RLC Ventures.

I feel very passionate about this topic, since the company has few attributes which I admire and feel make it notable/inspiration for a reader who is interested in finance and feels that ethnic minorities are under represented in the world of business.

Being from an Asian background as well as the Founder, this company has inspired me to believe I can achieved similar goals and feel it is a good role model to have.

I agree with you that press release (even from 3rd party sources) are not good sources and can be biased.

Also agree that Awards can be misleading and seem to be a promotional content.

Can you give me any guidance as to how I can restructure the article so it can inspire/inform future generation of investors whilst being unbiased. Also what content would be suitable(and what currently is suitable) to be included in the encyclopaedia.

Thanks!

Dhaim— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaim (talk • contribs)

@Dhaim: I truly regret to say that if you do not have independent reliable sources that show how this business meets the business notability guidelines, there isn't really much more you can do. No amount of editing can make a subject notable as Wikipedia defines notability. You can write a perfect description of RLC Ventures, but if it isn't notable as defined by guidelines, it does not merit an article here.

When you say you are writing this to "inspire/inform future generation of investors", that certainly is a worthy goal, but it is not something that Wikipedia is concerned with. Wikipedia articles are not for merely providing information, and inspiring any person or group would be outside of our mission to have a neutral point of view. My suggestion would be that you some other forum like social media, or a personal website that you control, or some other forum, to do what it is that you want to do. This is likely not good to hear, and I apologize, but I have to be honest. You are free to disregard what I am saying, but I don't think you will find too many others that disagree. Please at least read Your First Article to learn about what is being looked for in articles, which might also help you to understand why you are being told what you have been told. If you have additional questions, you may ask me, or you can feel free to ask at the Teahouse if you want the opinion of others besides me. Best wishes. 331dot (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect my talk page please[edit]

I'd prefer IP editors to have access to my talkpage, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I apologize. Only interested in stopping the harassment. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'm not harassed by anything on Wikipedia any more. Appreciate the thoughtfulness. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RDs, the community agreed to allow it to expand to two lines a few weeks ago, i.e. "five or six" became the norm. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I do remember that now. Looks like I needed a reminder, thank you. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18[edit]

Hello 331dot,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BrushyCreekBaptistChurch/sandbox...[edit]

Heh, I was in the middle of editing their sandbox article when you deleted it. Thought you'd appreciate my edit-summary about their first sentence Wikilinked claim to fame:

"dating back to the days of George Washington" has absolutely *nothing* to do with George Washington himself. One could just as easily claim "dates back to the days of Napoleon Bonaparte/Toussaint Louverture/King George III"...

Btw, they also looked to be probably indulging in some copyvios with the church's website. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Pakinam Ashraf[edit]

You indef'd this user a while ago while they were editing under another name, based on username policy and promotional edits. They have had their account renamed and would like to return to editing, and I am reviewing their most recent unblock request.

While perhaps they may one day become a valued contributor, I am skeptical. On the other hand, it doesn't appear to me that blocking policy supports an indef based on promotional editing alone. Could you please have a look and comment on the unblock request on their talk page, and perhaps consider unblocking them yourself?

Thanks, Uninvited Company 23:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UninvitedCompany It may be a bit before I can look at it thoroughly; (10-12 hours, give or take), if you go back before I can and see merit in unblocking, please do with my best wishes. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, and I would genuinely value your thoughts, as my mind is far from made up. Uninvited Company 03:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UninvitedCompany The user had indicated that they want to edit about 'youth empowerment' and before that stated that "My purpose from this article is purely to enrich and empower young people"(not improve the encyclopedia). They say the World Youth Forum was not their event, but I personally am not totally convinced they have no connection, given their (now deleted) draft. I would probably ask(and I will) them to agree to not edit about the World Youth Forum or youth empowerment issues, since they state they want to translate articles. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, it appears that they have made the promise you requested. Would you like to unblock them? Uninvited Company 17:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I have done so. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Papayanni new article[edit]

Good day

Today I tried to "make" a new page for Maria Papayanni (greek author) and i got a message that there was a previous attempt that was rejected. I was avdised to contact the administrator that deleted the page. I also saw thta the page was deleted because it was described as advertising So I am writing to you in order to ask you if I am allowed to write the article. It will be mainly have inputs from the relevant article in the german edition of Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Papayanni) and from some sources from Greece.

Sorry to waste your time and thank you in advance

Best regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jianmarin (talk • contribs)

@Jianmarin: You are free to write such an article if you wish(unless you were the one blocked for creating the draft initially). 331dot (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Australian Group Training Apprenticeships, 331dot.

El cid, el campeador has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

This needs far more work than a couple of tags

Please contact El cid, el campeador for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Username/BLP question[edit]

I first saw this at WP:COIN where the account Moribajah has been editing the article Moriba Jah. My first instinct was to report the user for WP:IMPERSONATE but then I saw that the user existed long before the article was created. What happens in this case? Do we just assume that the account is the actual person who is the article subject, or do we ask for verification after the fact? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question; I'm not sure, but there's no harm in asking the user first. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I asked and he responded in the affirmative. Not sure what to do next. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked them to follow the instructions at WP:REALNAME. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	Teahouse Barnstar
	This is for your valuable efforts on helping others in teahouse. PATH SLOPU 17:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regaring my help message[edit]

so, in order for the page to be relevant it doesnt matter that he has 3 000 000 subs, but there must be a notable article or something about him. what would you say would be notable enough for a youtuber? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxic strike (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally at least three sources would be needed; Those sources would need to be independent of the subject and have a reputation of editorial control and fact checking, and provide coverage beyond routine announcements or brief mentions. Interviews also do not establish notability nor any other primary source. You may find reading Your First Article helpful. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsheer Vayalil CIR IP editor[edit]

Just in cased you hadn't noticed, the IP hopping editor who was 'requesting' edits at Shamsheer Vayalil is back filling up the help desk with his demands again. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

avi[edit]

FYI - the account is a spambot. I, on average, find 2-15 accounts a day, every day with the same spammy non-sense.--Cahk (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]