@331dot its not made up in one day. Did you even read it. It began in 2014! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCmootje (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't have to have been made up today to be made up. The point of the tag is that there are no independent reliable sources indicating how it is notable. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An AfD in which you may be interested is located here. LavaBaron (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm a bit new to editing on wikipedia but I was wondering if you could help me. I created a page about a New York based musician and between you and the user "Bongwarrior" it was deleted. I tried talking to Bong Warrior and being reasonable but he's only returned my questions with snark and rudeness. I know the page was rough but I was in the process of editing it. Is there any way you could unlock wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_Stew_Drew in order for me to flesh out the full article? And if so could you prevent "Bongwarrior" from further harassing me and tampering with the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Potstewfan (talk • contribs)

@Potstewfan: I am not an administrator and I have no power to unlock a page, and even if I did, I would not do so here. 331dot (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, got your message. Not a company but have requested for username change. Sorry for the confusion, thank you.

And stuff like this is not infinitely more tendendtious? If you scroll down he bleeped another comment too. This one flagrantly PROVES the deception he wanted to whitewash as he has no counter-point.Lihaas (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I know is that there are appropriate forums to take other users to about their conduct if you desire. You shouldn't use nominations to do that; as you are essentially doing what you are complaining someone else is doing. You should be the bigger person if indeed you are being wronged. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For what it's worth, I was nominating Wogan then got edit-conflicted with Andrew so I replaced his nom (which I guess beat mine by a few seconds), then upon reviewing the article it was clear that it was far from suitable at that time. No idea why the illegible ranting took place. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since it takes (at least) two parties to edit war, I believe you forgot to warn the troll who started this edit war. WP:POINT is still a behavioral guideline, isn't it? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review WP:BRD, which is how things are supposed to work. You made a change(while invalidly calling someone a "troll"), it was reverted- it then should have been discussed, but instead you reverted again. You can only control your own behavior. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong and wrong. Look at my first edit summary—I did discuss it before I reverted it. Per BRD, the other editor started a discussion (as he should have), but then he discussed also reverted. Has it become BRDR? And wrong once again—while BRD is an essay, POINT is still a policy guideline.

But you're right about one thing: you control your own behavior, and your choice to take the troll's side speaks volumes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As does your snap judgements of other users as "trolls", a word you toss around far too easily. But you seem to know all about Wikipedia so I guess I don't need to say any more. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear 331dot

Thank you for the feedback. Could you direct me to where I might be able to submit my article for review? I want to add much more to the article but I am new to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time,

rkarkasRkarkas (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rkarkas: The first thing that you should do is post on your user page (click your username at the top of the screen) your conflict of interest(something like "I am Rkarkas and I work for/intern for Hillary Schieve/Mayor's office of Reno, Nevada") If you are being paid Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to declare that as well.

Since the page has already been created, I would suggest that you discuss any major changes to the page on its talk page (Talk:Hillary Schieve). You can post there like you did here, explaining what you want to do(possibly even draft your proposed change) and what the source of the information is. If you post the following exactly as you see it- ((help me))- on the page, someone will eventually come along and see your post. Keep in mind that we cannot simply take your word for something like awards Mayor Schieve has won; it must be written about somewhere; an important principle of Wikipedia is verifiability.

If you have any questions about this or any of the information that is posted on your user talk page, please ask.(If you don't wish to ask me, you can visit the Help Desk.) This probably all seems like a lot of information and I don't intend it to come off as harsh, though it might seem like it. I apologize- my only interest here is helping you do what needs to be done so you avoid difficulty in the future. 331dot (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, it's probably not a copyvio since it's the text of the old deleted article (full disclosure: I tagged it for deletion) and I don't think that was tagged as a copyvio from anywhere. As for promotional editing and sockpuppetry (that page was created under a different account), well...

@Blythwood: I understand; thanks for clarifying that for me. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. I am this close to opening a sockpuppet investigation, since the creator of that page was Rabbijason, whose contribs history and talk page are both worth a look... Blythwood (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at it quickly, it seems like it would be worth a look. IMO you should go ahead. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doing it now. Done here. Blythwood (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Junoloara is my profille i was only anwser the questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junoloara (talk • contribs) 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tips. All I'm trying to do is add factual information about Picture This to the List of NZ bands. I don't know how much more credible Wiki expects one to be than newspaper articles etc that I'm trying to add. I am the most reliable source of info for Picture This NZ Australia. It seems it is almost impossible to add to Wikipedia even though we have our photo on Wikimedia commons and photos on music sites such as Reverb Nation. Beautybeaut1 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You for your help. I also see that Picture This information has been added to the List of NZ Bands. This is great because all the information provided is factual. Please retain it. Yes, I do understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Thank You again. I have a picture of the band that I uploaded to Wiki commons but it may be too technically difficult for me to upload it here. I have been signed up here for far longer than 4 days, as well. I'm just happy to have been able to get this far, because the NZ band scene is not factually complete until all the bands that were present in its musical history are listed and accounted for. Beautybeaut1 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You for all your suggestions. Delete this factual article if you feel that you have to. This information is up on other music sites, as it rightfully should be. It is a part of NZ's music history. I feel that Wikipedia is an incomplete and poor source for information on this very subject if it excludes popular bands who actually existed. I found the Wikipedia experience and process of trying to simply add a band called Picture This to a list of nz bands virtually impossible, due to the pedantic nature of nitpicker, who need to apply some reality and sensibility. The list of NZ bands is horribly incomplete as there are so many bands not even listed here. My own experience of trying to get a band listed may offer a clue as to why. The comment that I am too close to the band Picture This is wrong, as any relationship to the band took place 30 years ago and newspaper clippings have not been written by me. The comment that I am trying to promote the band is also incorrect. It is a little bit difficult to promote something that I am a longer a part of.

Beautybeaut1 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beautybeaut1: Understand that I have no power to delete anything; only administrators can make that decision. I'm truly sorry you feel offended and have had a bad experience; no offense or bad intentions have been intended by me; in fact, I am simply trying to help you avoid problems with conflict of interest and other issues. There are reasons Wikipedia has the policies and guidelines that it does, which is to ensure a better encyclopedia. This isn't just a site where anyone can post anything about any subject without the ability to verify it. I would love to be able to take your word for what you claim; but can you see how that might be problematic? What if someone claiming to be John Key wanted to write his article without verifiable information? Can you see the issues others might have with that?

If, as you state, your band is part of New Zealand music history, it should be easy to find independent sources. (Did the band meet any of the notability criteria?) If you have newspaper clippings or articles, that would be sufficient- in which case you just need to properly cite them in the page. It would be nice if the newspaper articles were online, but that is not necessary; what matters is that they are cited. I would be willing to direct you to the instructions on how to do so if you wish. My only concerns here is that articles are properly cited and that any conflict of interest issues are minimized. Again, I'm sorry for giving you offense, but I only wish to help. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank You so much for your contribution to the deletion of a factually correct piece of information about NZ 80s band Picture This. Picture This was one of the top 5% of bands gigging and touring the North Island of NZ in the early 1980s. They have a rightful place on the List of NZ Bands, which is incomplete without bands who were present in NZ's musical history. The Reverb Nation site of the then Vocalist, Lianne Rowe which is available when you Google it, has press clippings from NZ and Australian newspapers in the photos section to verify the now deleted article.

I'm sorry, I did not appreciate your example, in particular the use of John Key, which I thought seemed like advertising for the NZ National Party. You could have given me a musical example instead. Beautybeaut1 (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am truly sorry you feel bad, but given that someone else actually deleted the article, they must have agreed that it did not meet the notability criteria for bands, or at least it did not appear to. As I have indicated, the best way to keep an article is to make sure it has independent reliable sources. If what you claim is true, I would think that would not be difficult for this band. Please review those pages I have linked to for more information. If you have such sources, and can show how the notability guidelines are met, there is no reason the page cannot be created again. I wish you luck 331dot (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry but this whole process is irrational and convoluted. The person who removed the piece of factual information, has problems and hasn't identified themselves to me either. When I added a link where people could find original newspaper article sources I was then told I was promoting myself, which I am not. I'm seriously not going to bother with Wiki anymore. What a shocking fiasco. Beautybeaut1 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS. You mentioned notability criteria, however the List of NZ bands contains bands who have no notability whatsoever. That list is not a credible source for NZ music because it has huge holes and omissions in it. It cannot be taken seriously. What a terrible experience this has been. Beautybeaut1 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why should something that was factually correct the first time around need to be rewritten? People don't spend hours of their time researching and compiling information, to have it removed. I really don't need your luck, thank you. I don't need 'luck', for something rightfully and factually correct to begin with. Please don't contact me again. Beautybeaut1 (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very well, though you contacted me, not the other way around. Agan, I am sorry that you have not had a good experience. I am still willing to help you- but you do need to understand the policies and guidelines Wikipedia has, and that it is not like other sites where people can post anything they wish. If you feel that some of the bands listed on the page you mention do not meet the notability criteria, you have the right to suggest their deletion. If you do want help in posting information about your band, I am willing. You can also contact the deleting administrator for an explanation and possibly restoring the text to your personal sandbox to work on it further. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

331dot,

I am new to Wikipedia and did not realize that the GOM link was listed under References, and I tried to add it to External Links. Just curious, why would it not be under References just like the other two items?

Also, I would like to add an ANALYSIS section whereby sub-topics related to the referendum can be added. Will you be setting this up, would you prefer me to take a try at it?

Thank you and regards, Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twa236ZY (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Twa236ZY: The External links section of a page like that is not meant for every group that has a position on the issue, which is not generally permitted; generally they will just contain links to the leading groups advocating an issue. There really isn't one for opponents of the background check referendum yet, but SAM has been more vocal about their position(at least in reliable sources) so I have put theirs to provide a link to that viewpoint. The Gun Owners of Maine's position on the issue is certainly relevant as an endorsement, but until/unless they take the lead on opposing the question they shouldn't be listed as an external link. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say I highly doubt The Maine Wire would be considered a reliable source as it is the media arm of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, an organization to advance conservative views and causes. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

331dot, I was trying to add some additional references, but may have messed things up. I will try to clean things up but may need your help to re-establish some things. Regards,Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twa236ZY (talk • contribs) 22:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. If you wish, you can describe the references you are trying to put on the article talk page(Talk:Maine background checks referendum, 2016) and we can maybe work something out or help you. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear 331dot, To try to avoid more problems I will spend a few days studying how Wikipedia works, how to properly edit, the proper etiquette, etc... I have a lot of factual information regarding this referendum that I would like to share with everyone, but I want to do it right and not cause problems. Alex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twa236ZY (talk • contribs) 04:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have any questions, I would be willing to answer them(or help you to find the answer). 331dot (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this acceptable? --WaltCip (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Can't say I'm surprised given their other comment that I removed. I'm not sure how to proceed(if anything needs to be done) 331dot (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Catching up now, I see that the person was blocked. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 331dot,

Approximately 10 hours ago, I received an email indicating that you have chosen to remove the page I have created, called Bookclip. As it was in the middle of the night at the part of the world I am currently in, I did not even get a chance to respond before it was swiftly removed altogether, after great deal of worked invested in it. For some reason, it was very urgent for you to remove it, stating that that the page would be "speedily deleted," as if the page was discussing some horrific topics.

My company had created a product called Bookclip, which is in the process of being patented in the USA (CAS2850-002 - Filing receipt, attached is the Filing Receipt from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office verifying that the above-referenced application was filed on November 12, 2014 and has been assigned U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/078,566.). We have also purchased the domain Bookclip.com for a small fortune. As could be indicated from the name itself, the Bookclip platform, which is completely FREE, allows users to create enhanced digital books that combine text, photos, animation and video clips into an interactive experience. These platform was created for users with no skill in coding or design whatsoever and could be of great service to various communities, not to mention - in the field of literature and education. Removing it without even investigating what Bookclip is, was quite harsh, which is why I ask for your help in adding it back to Wikipedia. To the best of our knowledge, we did not blow our own horn and did not used words such as "amazing, brilliant, superior" etc. to promote our technology; we simply wanted to clarify what the technology was and what it could be used for. The marketplace we have created for the interactive books is also free and consist of many social capabilities such as sharing, ranking and commenting on users' content, much like in this Wikipedia platform.

You may refer to a 2 minute video of the product, if it is still unclear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzIt5yZBnbA

I have no doubt that once you see this video, it would give you a better sense of what Bookclip does and how the content of that video defers from the content written on the Wikipedia page, from a promotional standpoint. Some of the biggest companies of the world have used this technology which gives it great credibility; you may want to check it out - I was sure to include references to their press releases. I am referring of course to companies such as DreamWorks Animation and Sony Pictures.

I sincerely look forward to hear back from you and hope that you would do right by us. If you do feel that something about the text was off, that is completely understandable, but please be more specific if you wish for us to understand what is unacceptable, and indicate what you need us to change about the page.

My kindest personal regards,

Gil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Abramovich (talk • contribs) 10:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please understand that while I initiated the process, it was an administrator that ultimately decided to delete the page. I believe everything you say about the product; that is not the issue. I tagged the page as promotional because it did little more than describe the product and did not indicate with independent reliable sources how the platform met notability guidelines. It is possible to be promotional without blatant advertising. Learning that you are associated with the platform, I must inform you about the clear conflict of interest in writing about something that your company has made. In such a case, it is still possible for you to get an article posted, but you should not do so directly- you should use the Articles for Creation process which allows for outside review to ensure that any conflict of interest is addressed.

I must also inform you that if you are a paid employee of the company, Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to clearly state that on your userpage; please see this page for more information.

I am sure this must have been disappointing for you and it is not my intention to cause you bad feelings or difficulty; simply to see that things are done the right way and to help avoid problems. I would suggest that you review the pages I have linked to in this post as it will help you if you wish there to be an encyclopedic article about your product. As I indicated, a good way for you to proceed would be to visit Articles for Creation which can help you create a page and reduce any conflict of interest(by allowing for outside review). If you have any further questions I can attempt to answer them the best I know how. Best wishes 331dot (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would add that if you would like the article text recovered for you to use as a starting point for recreating the page with independent reliable sources, you can ask the deleting administrator or visit WP:REFUND to request it. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

331dot - Thank you so much for your understanding, your patience and for elaborating on the process. At the end of the day, the product will be of great service for the entire community as it is highly productive and free. I do feel however that it is vital to explain what it is for and how to use it, as this platform is quite enormous and has many components to it.

Per your comments, please allow me to absorb your input and to resubmit. Would you kindly explain how do we go about creating the term again? Do we have to refer to the old page or simply start fresh?

Much obliged,

Gil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Abramovich (talk • contribs) 07:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first thing you must do is post on your user page (click your username at the top of the screen) regarding your association with this product, and the fact that you are an employee of the company that produces Bookclip. Wikipedia's Terms of Use require this- and other editors will look upon you much more favorably if you are up front about the conflict of interest here.

I would then suggest visiting Articles for Creation where there is a process to draft and submit articles for review by uninvolved editors before final posting as an article. When you visit that page, you can click the "Click here to create an article now" which will get you started. If you want to use your original text as a starting point, you can request that it be transferred to you(probably your Sandbox) to use as a reference point, as I describe above- though you don't have to if you don't want to.

Please understand that those who review your page submission will expect it to have reliable sources indicating how the subject is notable. You may wish to review those pages to get an idea of what is being looked for.331dot (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@331dot's please check this article and there are lot's of articles like this!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Wagner_(software) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfibaig (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every article is evaluated on its own merits; the fact that others in your field have an article does not mean you automatically merit one. Also, generally persons are not permitted to write articles about themselves due to conflict of interest issues. You have also essentially posted your resume, which is a form of promotion. All articles must have independent reliable sources indicating how the subject is notable. If you truly feel that you merit an encyclopedic article, you should submit one through Articles for Creation where it can be reviewed by others before posting. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just tried moving a plain document to a Wikipedia page. Immediately a COI flag was raised. Luckily, this was for a subsidiary topic of my Draft page. Will you please review my draft page and assist me in allowing it to be moved to a published Wikipedia page? Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:National_Kidney_Registry

Thanks,

ThomasNKR (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a comment on the Draft's talk page; further discussion can take place there. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you receive alerts when I update the Draft's talk page? I updated it. ThomasNKR (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page is on my watch list, though as I indicated, discussion can take place on its talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How come I am unable to edit or view the source of this wiki article? I wish to move this article, however before doing so I wish to save a copy of the source markup in case my page is deleted.

ThomasNKR (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi dot331, thank you for responding to the article so quickly. Have read all the guidelines and know how slippery a slope it is to write about oneself and have taken as many precautionary measures as possible to ensure NPOV and all other compliance, however am relatively new to wiki so still learning! Thank you once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolomonGilbert (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you kindly for the advise. Is there any more advise you can give me? I hope to be improving the community as much as possible. --SolomonGilbert (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if I have any specific advice to give you at this time, but the welcome page provides some basic information that is good to know. If you want you could also do the Wikipedia Adventure which helps to introduce Wikipedia in a better way than just reading about it. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please restore the deletion request, the condition of ghiberrish is clearly given, look at the etymology of 'democracy' and be rational in your decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.126.230 (talk • contribs)

See my reply on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to understand how this article does not comply with the Wikipedia notability guidelines. I removed the notability warning because I didn't think it was valid, and I'm unsure as to how to resolve a problem that doesn't seem to exist. Could you please shed some more light upon this or remove the notability warning if I am correct? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanlittle (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deanlittle: Right now the page seems to be you posting your own proposal/theory about timekeeping on Mars. That is original research and not what Wikipedia is for; per the General Notability Guideline articles must be shown to be notable with independent reliable sources. You may also want to review conflict of interest since this seems to be your proposal. If you have independent reliable sources (news stories, journals written by others, books, etc. not written by someone associated with you) please offer them on the article's talk page. It may also be better to further discuss any issues there. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I wanted to create an Artist page. I'm Qwes1, an underground Emcee from San Antonio, Tx. what do I have to do to get posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegent210 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that autobiographies are strongly discouraged due to conflict of interest issues. This is not social media, but an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown to be notable with independent reliable sources. I'll also note that the page you created about yourself promotes your mixtape ("on sale now") and Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes. If you truly feel you meet the notability guidelines for music and merit a page, I would suggest visiting Articles for Creation where you can submit a page for review to minimize any COI issues. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Left a note on the talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahaveer_Group_-_RSPL#Contested_deletion about the issues with the page, in case the page is removed before you see it a previous version of the article was moved to draft space by an admin here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mahaveer_Group_-_RSPL. Letting everyone know so we stop getting duplicate versions. JamesG5 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't want to make an issue of it publicly, but if there's a way I can message you privately I found some things that might amuse you. Let me know if you're interested. JamesG5 (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the thought, but I'm not really that interested. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did see it immediately afterwards; but thank you for informing me. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy to help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User:East London Line/Sandbox. I do not think that User:East London Line/Sandbox fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because The user has made more than a "few" edits to article space, and the content here could be useful in improving articles about rail stations or service. I request that you consider not re-tagging User:East London Line/Sandbox for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 17:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your reasoning, but I wanted you to know that I had tagged it because it seems to be someone keeping current information on conditions of the London Underground, which doesn't seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia's mission. Examining the user's edit history, they don't seem to have made even one edit in article space in some time, which would indicate that the information is meant to improve an article or articles. If you look at their user talk page, I did post a message requesting clarification, but got no response. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That may be, and you may be right about the purpose. But as the user has made at least 125 mainspece edits, even if not recently (I didn't check beyond the 1st page of results), and as the content might be helpful in improving articles, WP:CSD#U5 simply does not apply. You can nominate this for deletion at MfD if you like, However it seems to be doing no harm and not to be an excessive use of resources. DES ^(talk) 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your reply and I will assure you that I will not retag it with a speedy. 331dot (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would add that their last edit in the main space was in 2013. I'll still try to see if I can get a reply. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It also appears this came up many years ago and resulted in a similar view as you stated. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Give me 24 hours and I will have my customers write an unbiased Wikipedia page. I'm sorry for promoting myself. I will make it encyclopedic

"Having your customers write" a page is hardly unbiased. The best thing for you to do, if you truly feel your company merits a Wikipedia article(which not every company does) is to submit a page through articles for creation where it can be reviewed before posting. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You do realise the page you just CSD'd was a user page, not an article, right? I don't see how copy and pasting one's institutional bio fits G11. I mean, seriously, way to WP:BITE!

(The user is William Brown, by the way.) Joe Roe (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I take your word for what you say, although I don't know what you base it on. The passage was worded in such a way that it did not seem like it was written by Brown and meant to promote him; I have a low tolerance for advertising that I see. If it wasn't, then OK, but they made no indication of that. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a matter of fact bio copied from the faculty page linked at the bottom. Quite an understandable way to population your user page, I think, and quite understandable why it's in the third person.

Can I politely suggest that it would have been a good idea to take a second to think about the context, rather than jumping to the conclusion that it's "advertising" and slapping a scary CSD template and three canned messages on a new user's page 30 seconds after they created it? Joe Roe (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate any and all suggestions and will take it under advisement, though I still feel my response was understandable, even if incorrect, under the circumstances. I also wouldn't expect someone holding a doctorate, since that's who it seems to be, to be so scared by a simple message and would hope they would offer a reply to clear up any confusion I might have had. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you nominated NeuronSW for an A7 speedy deletion only 2 minutes after creation. This is excessively hasty, and not giving the creator a chance to finish their writing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Why did you delete the page if that was the case? 331dot (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the editor return afterwards and still not show a claim of importance, and it was hours later that I deleted it. Sometimes I will slap a ((hasty)) template on, if the A7 tagging was recent though. Or if I think the topic is good,completely decline the A7 nomination. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I can only say that I am more than willing to be corrected and that I don't claim to be a perfect participant here; I try to improve every day and won't stop working at that. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I went ahead and blocked here after your template. I blocked then saw it. A quick question. What is that template you used? I feel like an idiot not finding it. I used to use it but for some reason don't see it on the list. I ask because there is a part at the bottom I may disagree with. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used uw-coi-username. I don't know if you use TW but I found it under single warnings near the bottom of the drop down menu. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found it Template:Uw-coi-username. I thought that the last part, the "... if you intend to edit here as part of your job, or ..." may be inappropriate, but I am wrong. You are right. Maybe that should even be in the template. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Southern Sealing and Services, 331dot.

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

Please review this page again more thoroughly and ten mark it for deletion as apprpriate. Be sure to inform the author so that they can address the issues

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

Hi thank you for you concern. I am not Clancy Davis and am not trying to project myself as him. I assure you I am reading through guidelines, etc. to make sure the process of informing people on him is done in the right way! :) CLANCYDAVIS (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are not him, you will need to change your username, which you can do by visiting this page and following the instructions there. You will also need to add more to the page than just a picture, otherwise it could be speedy deleted. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you removed a ((db-person)) tag from Jon Sullivan (Kid). The entire text of the article at the time was "Jon Sullivan is a person used to live in London, UK. He went to school at The American School in London. He is a huge Donald Trump supporter. He currently works at the University of Nottingham." Why on earth did you remove the speedy deletion tag? Was it a mistake? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Talk:Jon Sullivan (Kid) they claim the title was an error and that this person is a scientist, and provided a link to a webpage at the university where this person works. I removed the tag because they indicated they were still working on the page. If you know things that I don't, feel free to take whatever action you feel appropriate. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) OK, I have now seen your talk page post, which goes some way towards explaining what you did, though I don't agree. However, in a situation like this it would help enormously to give an edit summary. Just "see talk page" Would be good enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do apologize; I try to include one but I concede I am not diligent enough. Always striving to improve around here. Thanks 331dot (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've looked further, and I am now convinced that the page was originally not about the university lecturer in question. The original text of the article was "Jon Sullivan is a kid that lives in London, UK. He goes to at The American School in London. He is a huge Donald Trump supporter." The claim that "kid" was a mistake for "scientist" is obviously a lie. Most probably, it was a vanity page about the person who created it. I can find no source anywhere to connect the university lecturer to either The American School in London or Donald Trump support. Everything suggests that rewriting it to appear to be about the university lecturer was just an attempt to avoid speedy deletion. In its current state it is a hoax, as well as lacking evidence of notability, so I am going to go ahead and delete it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your eyes. It's hard to know how far to take AGF but I seem to have been very wrong here. I apologize for causing you difficulty. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not intending to insult a other editor directly I was just saying the world could go to hell for some reason but I was not attacking them or intending to attack them. --~~122.107.216.220~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.216.220 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's good to hear, but commentary like that which prompted my warning doesn't help the situation. Edit summaries should do just that- summarize the edit. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article of Ray Sushree Ananya looks more like a hoax-she was born in 2009 for one thing...Wgolf (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wgolf: You're probably right. I've heard of child prodigies in chess so I was willing to give it a brief shot, but it doesn't seem like it's worth it. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah same here-at first I was thinking that, but then something seemed...off (if it is true its not a autobio but a COI then, unless if a 7 year old really has a Wikipedia account) Wgolf (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi There

I am from The Forum of Private Business - the original account was created along time ago and we have no way of finding the sign on or passwords for the account .... do you know how this can be done or do I need to just start again? Otherwise if I want to use the account I have created do I need to add Mrkting - The Forum of Private Business so it distinguishes the difference.The Forum of Private Business (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Forum of Private Business: I'm not sure what you mean by an original account; as long as the older account is not being used by you there is no issue in that regard- though please note that accounts cannot be shared(you use "we" above). Your username cannot be that of a company or organization; it must indicate you as an individual. You don't have to use your real name, but the account must indicate that only one person is using it; an example of an acceptable name would be "JohnPublic at TheFPB". Using "Mrkting"(which I presume means 'marketing' would not be acceptable. You can transfer your edits to a new username by following the instructions at this page, or you can create a new account, but doing that does not connect your existing edits to your new name. If you have further questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Forum of Private Business:I would add that you should not directly edit about your organization per the conflict of interest policy, instead first suggesting edits on the talk page of the article first- and that if you are editing here as part of your job or otherwise being paid to edit here, Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to clearly state that on your user page or user talk page(you can wait until you change your name). 331dot (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am completely new to wikipedia ....In short I work in the marketing department of the forum of private business. The wikipedia forum of private business belongs to the business I work for but I can not get into the account due to not knowing the sign on details - I therefore created the new account to amend the other account. I know the information is incorrect as it hasnt been updated for 7 years so why would I need to put an edit on a talk page for people to agree to me changing it when I know that the information is incorrect. Do I not just edit it? The Forum of Private Business (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Forum of Private Business: I realize that you may be new, and it is good that you are here. It is fine for you to create a new account if you cannot use a prior one- as long as this will be the only one you use from this point on. It may be a good idea to indicate what the prior account was on your userpage in order to provide full disclosure. As I indicated, you will need to request that your current name be changed to indicate you as an individual user.

Please understand that conflict of interest is taken very seriously here on Wikipedia. (Please review that page if you haven't already.) It appears improper when someone affiliated or employed by a company edits the article on that company, no matter how good the intentions are by the editor with a COI. Unless the information being fixed is totally factual and 100% uncontroversial(like the company's address, number of employees) you should first seek consensus on the article talk page from uninvolved editors before proceeding. It's probably a good idea to do that with any edit. The more open you are about your COI(and if you are being paid to edit here) the more likely it is your changes will be accepted by the community. Before you make any more edits, though, you should change your username as I describe above. If you need assistance in choosing a name or other questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you 331dot I have requested a name change now and just awaiting for that to be changed - many thanks for your help too :)The Forum of Private Business (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done what you requested, and also the same on another page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Can you please take a look at hr new page I created. I want to keep writing and contributing to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markelytics_Solutions_Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawazjaleel (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am new in Wiki and not familiar with referencing and citations procedures here. I am trying to correct, and have some control over the Wiki information about my music and career which has been written here and in other sources over the years by hundreds of writers. Also, to correct a misunderstanding about my nationality which should include me among musicians form Latin America as well as Hispanic-American ones. I will be happy to gather references to include with my entry. Maybe if I provide links, you or someone else here can help me submit them as I'm not familiar with the process. Is this an example of the referencing needed? for example to substantiate my entry of "Three-time Grammy nominated composer" links to the Grammy sites directly like for 2016 nomination: http://www.latingrammy.com/en/nominees Or 2010 nominations: https://www.grammy.com/files/11lg_final_press.pdf (page 25, Cathegory 42)? Also list of publications about my music and career as listed on Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=miguel+del+aguila+composer+latinamerican&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=miguel+del+aguila+composer+latinamerican&tbm=bks Or should I list separately each publication as such: Latin American Classical Composers: A Biographical Dictionary by M.Furman/G. Galvan. Indiana University Press (page 8) https://books.google.com/books?id=JrZnCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&dq=miguel+del+aguila+composer+latinamerican&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjh__q5qYLNAhVCx2MKHQfVARQQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=miguel%20del%20aguila%20composer%20latinamerican&f=false

Guide to the Pianist's Repertoire, 4th edition by M Hinson/W. Roberts (AHO page 9) https://books.google.com/books?id=kQDXAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&dq=miguel+del+aguila+composer+latinamerican&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjh__q5qYLNAhVCx2MKHQfVARQQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=miguel%20del%20aguila%20composer%20latinamerican&f=false

The Double Reed Magazine, (Volume 25 page 92) https://books.google.com/books?id=F14JAQAAMAAJ&q=miguel+del+aguila+composer+latinamerican&dq=miguel+del+aguila+composer+latinamerican&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjh__q5qYLNAhVCx2MKHQfVARQQ6AEIIzAB I appreciate your help in this matter. MigueldelAguila at ClassicalMusicNews (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Miguel del Aguila, Peermusic publisher Miguel del AguilaReply[reply]

@MigueldelAguila at ClassicalMusicNews: Those seem OK for references. My suggestion would be to first post them along with your explanation to the talk page of the article you are trying to edit(click "Talk" at the top of the article and edit normally). If you have not already, please review the conflict of interest policy and the policy on autobiographical edits. In short, you should not directly edit in areas where you have a conflict of interest, instead suggesting edits on the talk page first as I stated. I hope this helps you. If you have any questions about the policies I linked to, please ask. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also please understand that, even though the page is about you, you have no more right to control its content than any other individual who edits Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(removed sources listed by Miguel, for space purposes)

Thank you for response/advise. I will make changes you suggest. I trust my one sentence addition to this article will be accepted and allowed to be published then. MigueldelAguila at ClassicalMusicNews (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply 331dot. I am a bit confused as to how to proceed from here. As you suggested that my article might not fall under the category Biography of Writers and moved from there. How do I make sure it is not deleted? Also I would like to edit it and add more references and a photograph. Your advice would be invaluable. Godessofsmallthings 05-06-2016 Godessofsmallthings (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to had accidentally given the title of your page as the category you want to add to the page. The page was moved to Dwight Russel Micnhimer. While the page you have put at the title "Biography of writers" will be deleted, it is only because of the title and not the content of the page. Reading it quickly I don't think it will be deleted at its new title. Categories are added to pages by putting the following, including the brackets: [{Category:CategoryNameHere]] I must leave for a bit but I am happy to help you with anything else later. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

On 10 June 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Chemical element, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	hi, could you review my article again? I made changes as per the WIKIPEDIA POLICIES! And I have requested a username change! thanks Maricoinnovates (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you placed a BLPPROD for this article, I think the article is clearly a speedy delete candidate so why not CSD under A7? I ask because I'm not sure why the page should wait around for at least seven days to be deleted. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you wish to do so, I do not object; I gave it a BLPPROD because Georgia's population being small might mean that this person is indeed a notable person there, so I was willing to give them the chance to provide sources. I admit it seems unlikely, though, which is why I have no issue with you CSD'ing the page. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All good, the person identifies themselves as an internet celebrity, Youtuber if you will, so I figure that notability would be established worldwide. I'll leave it for now, if there's not improvement in a couple hours, or unless somebody else does so, then I'll put up a CSD template. Have a good day. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wanted to hear what you have to say beyond the discussion page as well about the fact that in that article there are news links from VentureBeat and Mint_(newspaper). Are they not reliable enough or how does it work?? Beyond wikipedia we are all humans. I do not want to be rude and genuinely understand some stuff here. Thank you. RR007 (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those may or may not be reliable sources; that's not the only issue. Most of the sources given are or seem to be press releases put out by the company that a few news outlets chose to republish. Press releases are specifically listed as not sufficient to establish notability for an organization, as they are not 'independent' sources. I also don't think it would meet the Depth of Sources requirement.

If Wikipedia was for merely listing businesses, I would have no issue at all here. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for subjects that are considered notable. Please review the links that I have posted(which both go to sections of the same page) to get an idea of what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@331dot: Thanks for doing that sockpuppet investigation. I have been mulling over doing this myself for the past few days, when those brand new red-linked users showed up. And how you described RR007 was accurate. Also, it was obvious that he was an experienced editor, trying to claim they are a newbie at one point. Talk about obnoxious and contentious! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Sounds like we were on the same page in that regard. :) 331dot (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @331dot, you had previously added a COI tag on the Alghanim Industries page because of some edits I made. I have reverted all of those edits, and will go through the talk page from now on to suggest any future edits. Would it be possible for you to remove the COI tag from the page? Thanks. Adam at Alghanim Industries (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can remove maintenance tags (with the yellow) yourself as long as you give a reason as to why any tag you remove is no longer applicable. I can do so if you wish, but as long as you remove it by saying "removed my COI edits in keeping with policy to discuss on talk page" or something similar in the edit summary, there should be no problem. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not you, obviously, but I wanted to be explicit if it wasn't clear. --166.137.97.250 (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

331dot, I'm assuming this is the way to respond. The Culbert page on Wikipedia provides details on this surname. I am conducting research on this surname worldwide. i want to expand the page by adding more details on the origins of the surname, where it can be found, and historical subjects associated by the surname. I want to find out if these additions to the Culbert page are in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I do not know how to decide if there is a conflict of interest here. I also do not know what you mean by "associates with". I AM a Culbert, hence my interest! I am a part of genealogical organizations. PLEASE CLARIFY what you want me to say, do, etc. etc., and where I am supposed to do it! Jhculbert (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jhculbert:, probably would have been more helpful to point you to WP:COI, the relevant Wikipedia guideline. If you have questions feel free to ask on my talk.

@331dot:, probably best to link to Template:Request edit, rather than actually including the template on your talk, because this makes it look like you are requesting an actual edit on Category:Requested edits, and not providing the template as an example. I am closing the edit request here to remove from the que. TimothyJosephWood 14:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood: Sorry, been away. I don't believe I posted the template, but the above user did due to simply copying a message from their page to here. Apologies for any confusion. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reviewing the above information, I don't believe there is any conflict of interest in publishing the articles on the Culbert Family. If others have issues with this determination, they need to pint out specific items. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhculbert (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jhculbert: As long as you aren't adding information about yourself or your personal family, I don't see an issue. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I am guido caldarelli, just created the page for network science society that you spotted for deletion, I wrote some explanation in the talk page contesting that, but there was no discussion on that, where and how this can be done ? Gcalda (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gcalda: Hello; pages tagged for speedy deletion can be deleted at any time as long as the reviewing administrator feels the criteria given are valid. No discussion is required- though if they saw your post they would have reviewed it. You can contact the deleting administrator for an explanation if you would like one, by going back to the page title which should display who deleted it. If you find the explanation unsatisfactory, you can ask for Deletion Review.

I tagged the page because it did not indicate with independent reliable sources how this organization met the organization notability guidelines. It was also written in a promotional manner, which is not permitted. Those points will need to be addressed for the page to be kept. If you would like assistance with doing so, I would suggest creating the page through Articles for Creation which allows for review before posting.

I would lastly ask you if you are affiliated with this organization in any way; if you are, there are certain things you will need to do depending on your level of involvement. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@331dot:Hi, as for the notability, the main activity of the society is the NETSCI conference. If you google that, you get quite a number of pages since first editions. Of course we are talking about a scientific society, we cannot expect to have the same coverage as football teams... I am very open to rewrite (or better to have the community rewrite the page if it stays on wiki for more than a couple of days) in a non-promotional way, whatever is the definition of the latter. Indeed, I haven't found in the present text any request to become affiliated or (even worse) judgements on other scientific societies or on the our own. We simply write what we do: organise conferences, give grants to students and keep network scientist talking to each other. Where the self-promotion is? I am very happy in following Wikipedia rules, because they make a lot of sense, but on this point i honestly believe there is no self-promotion, rather we are try to give information for people looking for it. Finally (as regards my involvement): as a scientist I founded it many years ago, now I am a member of it, I cannot take any decision on Society behalf, but I am happy to do whatever requested by editors or have the president and the board follow wikipedia editors suggestions. Best and thanks for your work Gcalda (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gcalda: One point I would make is that a page does not have to be advocating that people buy something in order to be promotional; creating a page that says "X society meeting at 7:00" is promotional because it only gives information, without indicating with independent reliable sources how the event is notable. Wikipedia isn't social media to merely post information; its articles must indicate how the subject is notable.

I am concerned by your use of "we" in your post above; please note that sharing a username is not permitted. If by "we" you mean your organization, you will need to review conflict of interest and the paid editing policy if you are editing as part of your job.

I would suggest that further discussion about the merits of the page could take place at the deletion discussion page(linked to in the red template in the article). Best wishes to you 331dot (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article that wouldn't die... It's at AFD now.--NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop Softlavender and Osama from edit warring Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Bosnia (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tim Bosnia: Four days is not usually enough time to establish consensus. Even if it is in this case, please post a comment on the page instead of edit warring. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hey @331dot

My name is Raj, Dhanish Karthik's age is 26, and I had referenced it with an article from "the Hindu" which is an Indian National Newspaper. I dont want to get into an edit war with blackandkolar so i thought i would let you know as well, thanks. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/for-the-love-of-acting/article8371967.ece Rsuri910 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your review fellow wikipedian on a userpage "WikiMultiNational". But this page is legitimate and governed by WikiMedia Commons headquarter-located in CA, USA. For more information, please talk to our talk page on WikiMultiNational or you can email us by sending your feedback on info-en@wikimedia.org. And once again, thank you for your review. --WikiMultiNational (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WikiMultiNational: Userpages cannot be used for promotional purposes or as free web space for your organization. Usernames cannot be that of an organization per the username policy. As such, I highly doubt your claims of an official affiliation. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you were operating in an official capacity, you would also be aware that speedy deletion tags cannot be removed by the creator of the page. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being me is just as significant as all other entries why is it up to you to decide whether it is or not? Klmills2012 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Klmills2012: I am a Wikipedia user, just as you are. The pages on dates are not meant to list the birthdays of every Wikipedia user, they are for listing the birthdates of those with articles. If you are someone who meets the notability guidelines and merits an article, fine, but we need to see the article first(which you should not write yourself); aside from that, do you really want your personal information like that on the Internet? 331dot (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm ready to apologise with anyone I may have offended however I find it unacceptable that some people treat Wikipedia like their own personal blog and keep imposing their own views even when they're obviously biased and inaccurate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.55.204.253 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to calm down and realize that there are proper processes and channels to resolve disputes, and you never resort to personal attacks; using them will not help your case and could get you blocked(and further prevent you from arguing your case). 331dot (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 331dot. You have new messages at Talk:Alitalia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

--2001:470:7C50:48FF:0:0:DEAD:BEEF (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am seeking peer review of the wiki page National Kidney Registry. Recently it has be flagged for possibly having a non neutral point of view. Could you please be of assistance by providing your peer review? Thank you ThomasNKR (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will look at it more thoroughly at a later time but the first thing that stands out at me is the external links in the article; if they are referencing a statement in the article, they need to be formatted as references; if they are simply a link to an outside website, they need to be removed. If needed, an 'External links' section can be created(you can look at some other similar articles to see how that is styled) with a link to your organization's website(though it should be just to the homepage). If you want someone else to look at it, you can request a formal peer review by going to this page. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear 331dot, thank you for reviewing my article. Since I am new at this, can you please point out to me the promotional characteristics or words. All I want to do is present the Centralus institution, just as Ernst and Young are presented. Any help will be highly appreciated. Thank you again, Era.To.All. Era.To.All. (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page describes the services and offerings of this company as if (to me, at least) it was a promotional brochure put out by the company. I'm also concerned it may be too soon for an article given the newness of this company, but the promotional aspect concerns me more. FYI comparisons to other articles about similar companies isn't always relevant; other things exist and each article is judged individually on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also ask you if you are affiliated with this company in any way; there are certain things you will need to do if you are, depending on your level of involvement. Thanks 331dot (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm Oluwa2Chainz. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Universalfarms, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I couldn't help myself on that one, with all the vitrol spewed during a tragedy in the USA. I'm not even a citizen and it grates on me, but you're right, erecting a wall of text with TRM would have solved nothing, and you were right to RV me.

Hey, thanks for your support on the ITN/DC thing.

Cheers --107.77.232.155 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GIVE ME MY PAGE BACK -oLLYHOWCROFT — Preceding unsigned comment added by OllyHowcroft (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not the one who actually deleted your page. You will have to speak to them- but I think any appeal unlikely to succeed, as the userpage policy is very clear that the sort of content you were posting there is not permitted. This isn't social media for you to write about yourself. If you were attempting to draft an article about yourself- that is also generally not permitted. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok then, thanks anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by OllyHowcroft (talk • contribs) 06:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I AM SORRY, I PROMISE I WILL NOT USE MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS TV WEB NETWORK (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mistakenly omitted the references. The article now has several references and can be re-reviewed.

Thanks for your help!

Xbsparrow (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've declined your A9 as the artiste does have an article Kanya Graeme (rapper). It's at AfD and its future isn't looking good, but it's still in existence so A9 doesn't apply. The link to the article wasn't right in the infobox, by the way, so you'd have seen a red link there. I've corrected it for now... Peridon (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peridon: No problem. Thanks for the information. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. Just a brief note to apologise for what I said at this RD discussion. I shouldn't have said you made a drive-by comment. I do wish the discussion had had more time, as it did get archived without a decision being made, but I am going to aim to move forward from this and help out, rather than spend too much time working out whether there was a missed opportunity there to get an article that (I think) was in a good state, up on the RD part of ITN. I do think it was a missed opportunity, and do wish there was a way to still get that article up on RD, but I fear the chance has gone. Hope you will accept my apologies and understand now why I posted higher up the page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about it, though I thank you for your words. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I just saw your talk on my page and I've replied. As an FYI, my username is nonobjective. PEO is an industry, and I personally am an expert and have been in the industry for the past 10 years. Working in both regional and national PEO's. The username Peoexperts is not representative of a company, or individual. It's simply about the industry I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peoexperts (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Maine Moose Trax has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable proposed Lacrosse team

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 06:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your message, I added the external reference link, while I had not finished editing the content. Was it the reason of removing? Appreciate it Operapmsexperts (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What was the purpose in your adding the link? To me it did not seem to be referencing anything. External links sections of pages are not meant to simply list links- unless you had some other purpose that I'm not seeing. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Let me explain why I tried to add a link: I saw on the page, "This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia", in addition to having only a single 'external link', which is a dead link. So that I thought of having it linked to a page with more info on 'Hotel & Model' would benefit the users, and of course would also give a good authority to the linking site itself. Of course the link's content is being written with related researches. If this is not what I am supposed to have done, my sincere apologies. Operapmsexperts (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. The message you refer to means that links to other Wikipedia articles should be added, not links to pages outside of Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that message actually still needs to be there, as there are a few such links on the page(any words that are in blue on the page). 331dot (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would stress that at no time did I think you were a bad editor, just unfamiliar with things- which isn't a bad thing, as there are things I'm still unfamiliar with here. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, thanks very much for encouraging me. Yes, you're right I am new to editing, but I am trying my best to learn and contribute as much as possible. Operapmsexperts (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is it that when I tag for CSD I get this paltry message and you get a fancy one that's twice as long? Is there a setting I'm missing or are you manually posting a template maybe? TimothyJosephWood 12:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use Twinkle to post CSD tags. I know sometimes it provides the 'help' text(encouraging posting a message on the page creator's talk page) if that's what you mean. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it will not let me upload a picture to my user page; all it says is - ((autotranslate|base=Abusefilter-warning-baduploads)). Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ovkyxu (talk • contribs)

@Ovkyxu: I believe you must have a certain number of edits or your account must be sufficiently old to be able to upload images. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the North Maine Woods page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Roxanne Quimby page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just left something on the main talk page by accident and it was my only copy (I cut and pasted it). You erased it understandably;Sross510 (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC) is there any way to get it back?Reply[reply]

It is still in the edit history. You should be able to copy it and place it elsewhere. Click "View History" when on Talk:Main Page and compare the two revisions(your edit and mine). 331dot (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that you tagged a page with the title "Wikipedians XXX in XXX" with users in it with WP:G3. Yes it can be called for vandalism. But it falls on WP:G10 as it harass other users and the G10 tag puts the page on high-priority queue for admin. Just want to let you know. Happy editing, NgYShung ^huh? 12:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to argue that the article/page International Society for Chilean Music (SIMUC) should be moved back to how it was. First, the legal name of the organization includes the "(SIMUC)" at the end. Second, many people know the International Society for Chilean Music by its acronym in Spanish (SIMUC) so it is important for the article to include the acronym in its title.Facóquero (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Wikipedia policies like this one article titles are not always that of the "official" name, the title of the article should be whatever English-language reliable sources use to refer to an article's subject(in this case, the organization). If you have such sources that use the name you initially did, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would further state that some more independent reliable sources indicating the notability of this organization would help a great deal; it honestly seems to me that it might be too new an organization to have them, but I hope to see them. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Superbossszkgjsa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:List of "Earthboundtales" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hey so this is how I had the article but I was told it wasnt in a neutral tone and not encyclopedia like with new research. So I deleted the extra stuff to make it like other lists that are articles but now I need to have that stuff so what should I do?

The page cannot be just a list, and needs to have encyclopedic text describing what it is you are talking about and how it is notable. What you need are independent reliable sources that indicate how the subject is notable. Looking at your sources they seem to be either user-editable (which makes a source not reliable) or they don't indicate notability. Frankly this term seems to refer to a random grouping of RPGs that have certain qualities. If you have independent sources that have written about this term(game magazines, news, reviews, etc.) please add them. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently you objected to my adding of facts related to Rep. Poliquin's tenure in the US House.

I added facts about his campaign finances from a well known, objective, source. I offered no interpretation of those facts at all. If facts are not "neutral" than I don't know what is.

I also added that his efforts to get the military to buy US made shoes was a continuation of work done by his predecessor in office (something noted in the source used for his advocacy of that measure too).

So, please kindly stop playing politics with the facts and restore my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.70.28 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before you accuse me of "playing politics" I will say that I am not a supporter of Rep. Poliquin. I'm not sure why Michaud needs to be mentioned(Angus King has also pushed the shoe issue) as it simply refers to the issue in general but I will restore that line. The part about his campaign finances may be better placed on the page about the election(I'm not sure) but I do see now it isn't an attempt to paint him negatively. I'll put it back and let others decide on which page is it better suited for. The part about the National Monument isn't needed as it referred to his views prior to the declaration. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the future, there is no need to make demands of others; a simple request for clarification can work wonders. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear 331dot,

This morning, I made (or tried to make) a few minor changes to the Wiki page of Ruth Chiquet-Ehrismann. You apparently oppose these changes because you see a conflict of interest. Indeed, I'm the widower of Ruth (but a scientist myself). Probably I should not have made these changes myself, but left it to the colleague who actually created the page. Sorry if what I did was against your rules (I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles). In any case, I just tried to link some of the terms in the article to other existing Wiki pages, and made a few very minor corrections in the text. I did not change anything in the content of the article.

Please tell me how to proceed further.

Best regards, Matthias Chiquet Matthias Chiquet (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Matthias Chiquet: I would first say that I am sorry for your loss. I apologize for the confusion I have caused you. I only posted the message on your page to make you aware of the conflict of interest policy. I don't actually have a problem with the things that you have added to the article about Ruth, because, as you indicate, they seem minor. I would only suggest that in the future you either post on the article's talk page (click "Talk" at the top of the article) about any changes you feel are needed before making them- or, if it seems like anything more than a minor change, to post an explanation on the talk page after you make it and request others look over your edits. The important thing is to just be open about who you are and be willing to work with others(which, as a scientist, I suspect will not be an issue for you). Again, I apologize for causing you difficulty. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to User talk:Okeydanny Please place further comments there.

It's not an edit war. Nothing's been done on that for days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97 IP 6 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@97 IP 6: First and foremost, one of your IPs was blocked (97.117.36.114); blocks are on the person, not the IP or username, so that's enough reason to revert your edits.

3RR must occur within 24 hours, but an edit war does not and can still be disruptive over an extended period of time. By my count you've reverted 6 times, including what I assume are your IP addresses. If you believe you are correct, then you must convince others on the article talk page, and if that fails, make use of the dispute resolution avenues available to you. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read my summary about what ADMINS Drmies and neiln have both said. dmacks was wrong to throw good edits away regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97 IP 6 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Describing the conduct of others does not help your case. You can only control your behavior; I highly suggest you revisit the IP address you were blocked under to properly request an unblock before further edits. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By now it's just tedious, and no one cares about the actual edits anymore. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the 97 IP user, Your arguments are actually irrelevant. Since you are blocked and blocks go with the person, you need to get unblocked before your edits will remain, it's that simple. If you were wrongly blocked, then it should be easy for you to get unblocked. Please stop posting long passages here. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically, if you touch another editor's talk page before you get blocked I'm just hitting the "mass rollback" button. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey uh, I am sorry for lashing out at you earlier. To be honest if it were not for you I would have lost my cool completely. It is just that certain attitudes from people tend to set me off. If the other editor would have just explained that the summary needed to a little less related to the source, I would have been able to explain that I was not finished and that revisions were still being made, but all they did was delete it. The second time I said okay, maybe I did something wrong, and I rewrote it again, but since I still was not finished it resembled the original article. the third time, she insulted the quality of my article, as if she is somehow superior. From there, she just kept deleting it every time I restored it, not letting me get a chance to fix anything. What was I supposed to do then? Next, I tried going to her talk page, and asking her what was the purpose of her actions, and if she had something she had to say, that I was willing to listen. Response: "You are too simple to see how divine I am." What the heck is that for resolution! That was a stereotypical, arrogant, and deluded response. So yes, I am rather agitated, and have tended to say things rather starkly. But that is only due to the fact that I have folks telling me to calm down when they see, the full situation, and instead of pulling the one instigating back, they always go for the guy who is ready to stand up for himself. All I am asking is for the other editor to stand down! If she has an opinion, then put it to me, and I can explain, resolve, compromise, etc. Come on, we see this kind of stuff happening in Kindergarten. We are supposed to be grown and mature....Anyway, I apologize, and thank you for trying to help me stay out of trouble, I really appreciate it. Arcmind (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I have observed I think there can be improvement in how both sides of this operate- though as I've said, only you can control your actions. If other people are behaving badly they will eventually be called out on it and there is no need to get in the gutter with them. (that is not an assessment of this situation, but a generalization). When I get in a difficult situation like this I find it helpful to sometimes briefly step away from the page in dispute; it isn't going anywhere and can be changed at any time. In my opinion it may be time to seek out outside assistance at the dispute board; if you do, I urge you to focus on the content under dispute(which is all that is supposed to be discussed on that board anyway) and not behavior. Arguing about behavior will only distract and deflect from the content dispute. The bigger person in a dispute is usually the more successful one in terms of their position. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, I will try to keep a level head from here in. I have already had her try to undo another legitimate article though there is perfect examples of it everywhere. However I am curious, when it becomes apparent, that this editor is just being a pain purposefully, what will happen then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it is obvious that someone is behaving badly, it won't take long for another user to see it and report them to WP:ANI or just directly to an administrator. You could certainly post at ANI, but if you do so, your behavior will be scrutinized as well and there is no guarantee they won't take action against both of you or even just you. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. I am not thoroughly concerned with what happens to me at this point, as I did violate policy knowingly. However I would like for the other editor to be put in their place, as they seem to have an air of arrogance. Still, I think things have begun to subside, I will make sure to describe every edit I make, and to explain when I defend an action I have taken. From there, I do not think I should have a problem, unless the other editor decides to mess with me for no reason at all. Arcmind (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 16 September 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Gérard Rondeau, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Stephen: You may want to recognize Zigzig20s; they created the article and initially posted the nomination; I simply added the template for them(and I guess I neglected to remove my signature). 331dot (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done already, but thanks for the heads up. Stephen 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country."

Ridiculous. Whoever came up with this pious declaration knows nothing about news. All news organizations make judgments about how widely any event will be of interest, and always have. And rightly so. Sca (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We aren't a news organization. Most of what we post involves only one country; if that is a valid reason to oppose a nomination, very little would be posted. However, if you would like to see the text removed, feel free to propose it. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's one thing to say that something is not of wide interest, but another to state "it's a domestic story" or "it's a US story so I oppose". 331dot (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semantics, but I'll keep that in mind.

Re 'not a new org,' agreed, but ITN is a news, or news-oriented, feature. Sca (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Apparently, if I avoid the nasty word domestic, my comments will be considered – ?? Sca (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments can and should be considered when they deal in coverage of the event and not where it occurs or the fact that it is only in one country. Stating that something is not of wide interest or not being covered well is very different. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi 331dot! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a very active Twinkle user (top 25, actually!). The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle User. Include the following information:

• Username
• Email where we can reach you
• Your city or time zone
• Best time to talk to you
• Your primary use of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I recently created the Todd Memorial Chapel page. You stated that it might be deleted because there is no online evidence of the claim that it is 100 years old. I am a member of the family with knowledge of the funeral home. There is actually a book which was written about the history of the funeral home and I am in contact with the author to provide factual evidence and pictures for the page. There is not much information on the internet becuase we are a relatively small funeral home only people in the funeral business know how long we have been around. I will be updating the page shortly with new evidence and pictures from the book which supports the fact that we are over 100 years old. Thanks

Jake3759 (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)jake3759Reply[reply]

@Jake3759: Since you state that you are part of the family that owns the home, you will need to review conflict of interest. The point of the discussion isn't just that the claim of significance isn't cited, but that the article does not indicate with independent reliable sources how your business meets the business notability guidelines. Please review those if you haven't already. The sources given do not have to be on the Internet- but there needs to be more than one to indicate notability. If your funeral home is as small as you state I'm not sure there will be sufficient sources available.

You may also want to review this FAQ page as it seems pertinent to your situation. Please understand that not every business merits a page here, not even those that are 100 years old. If you have further questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have requested ReCore to be peer reviewed. I'd appreciate your input. Cognissonance (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again,

I have checked the page you mentioned. Thanks again.

I have not been paid for my contribution to Wikipedia. Though I made changes on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_74 on behalf of RADIO 74, I just did it as a service, on a personal basis that is. This is not included in my working time, nor has this anything to do with my contract, as I am only a technician here. So I was not paid for my contribution to this article.

The article you gave me says : "If you are being paid for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you, who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship."

So is there still a conflict of interest with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_74 article ? I guess so for the fact that I am, so to speak, employed by RADIO 74 (radio74.org), in Europe [which is NOT "RADIO 74 INTERNATIONALE" (radio74.net)]. I said "so to speak" because I am employed by the TOTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, RADIO 74 (radio74.org) being a project of this association.

Nonetheless, since I am not paid for my contributions on Wikipedia, I will not mention on my user's page that I am employed by RADIO 74 (TOTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION that is). By the way (saying what follows for the readers that don't know it yet) I did NOT create this Wikipedia account to contribute to articles related to RADIO 74, but I created this account in 2014, to contribute to a French article on Christian Millelinnialism (the teachings related to the thousand years mentioned in the Bible, in Revelation chapter 20).

Thanks for your attention!

Best wishes of the blessings that are coming from God, and from the soon coming Lord Jesus, the Christ (Messiah), His only begotten Son,

Jonathan W. Taramini — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. W. Taramini (talk • contribs) 10:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@J. W. Taramini: You posted on your user talk page that you made edits "on behalf of RADIO 74" but you say above that you did so on your own. You either edited for them or you didn't. Which is it? Thank you 331dot (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The content of Dharmavaram, West Godavari District page is belongs to my village. in that page each and every line is researched and putted. i dont know what is the reason you people are deleting the content. that page is telling about our village tradition and culture and greatness. Please let me know any content suggestions or any other then we will worked on it. please dont delete the content. and keep it like that only. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasanthkundula (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vasanthkundula: I'm uncertain as to why you have contacted me about that page, as 1) it is not up for speedy deletion and 2) I have not commented on that article. I would note, however, that no one owns or has exclusive control over any aspect of Wikipedia content, and you cannot prevent others from editing it. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Maine State Route 24. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hortonhearsawho (talk • contribs) 13:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hortonhearsawho (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i had deleted the sections due to they being non-notable. Isn't that in compliance with wikipeidia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hortonhearsawho (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hortonhearsawho: I am happy to discuss this with you but I would like you to withdraw your hastily made ANI complaint; ANI is not meant to be the first step in dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:RickInBaltimore is on it right now. Hortonhearsawho (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hortonhearsawho: You can still retract your complaint if you choose, and I would request that you do before we discuss your removal of seemingly valid information(historical information is notable). As I said, ANI is not meant to be the first step in dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so we are clear: Back when I thought Hortonwhosahere was not a sock, I was opposing any sanctions against you that he appeared to be proposing. I believed that you had re-templated him after he removed the first one, because this was very strongly implied in the thread, and (if you had done that) it would have been technically inappropriate. I thought that the "reverts" he was talking about were on his user talk page. As it turns out, I was mistaken. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hijiri88: No problem. I've done things like that before and possibly will again. No hard feelings 331dot (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Camden Town tube station. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even your own? —96.246.193.252 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. Just got mad because the editor can't get the point that the hashtag should be there. KyleC24 (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

politics in Maine

Thank you for quality articles such as Alcohol laws of Maine and Carlton Bridge, for welcoming, warnings, notification of proposed deletions, nominations for ITN, for a statement of good faith, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seconded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you are correct in the title of a ballot measure that I had changed. I was going from the actual question that will be on the ballot which includes the term 'and transfers'. It is a very important point that people know this question applies to transfers as well, but the link you provided shows the Initiative Title as recorded by the Secretary of State. I will not make the change again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.64.170 (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to User talk:PalomaCapTeas.

Hello,

We are trying to update the Wikipedia page for Hampstead Theatre - mainly because it's mostly factually incorrect and we are having a lot of complaints from playwrights and previous Artistic Directors about it.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could have a look at the additions we'd like to make - this is not for promotional or advertising purposes, purely factual.

Many thanks

Jess Woodward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hampstead2016 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hampstead2016: First, please see your user talk page for important information about your username. Second, if you represent the Theatre(which I assume the "we" refers to), you will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest policy; in short, you should not directly edit in areas where you have a conflict of interest. If the Theatre is paying you to edit here or you are employed by them, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare such status(if that is indeed the case).

Having briefly reviewed the passage you are attempting to add, it reads to me like a promotional description of the Theatre and its history, something that one might find in a playbill or advertisement. It also needs to be cited as to where the information described comes from, preferably from independent reliable sources, though primary sources might be acceptable in certain situations. If the passage had citations and was made less promotional, it would likely be suitable for the article, but you should not add it yourself; please post it on the article talk page(click "Talk" at the top of the article) for review and posting by others; I may be able to do so at a later time, or others will. If you have any other questions, please post them here. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I have posted to the Talk page (I think). Please let me know what you think. Hampstead2016 (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your review of the page I just added Exclusive Man of the year award. Of the three issues you pointed out only the first is accurate. 1) I do have a connection with it's subject, though not closely 2) I believe this event meets the notability criteria as the event is: the only event like this in Ghana, wasn't aired live but was covered by media houses in Ghana, has a number of notable backers. 3) None of the 3 references are in anyway related to the organisation of this event. This should even help show what I stated in point 2.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply Sel (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for changing your name. I'm not sure what the nature of your connection to this event is- but any connection means you have a conflict of interest, and you should review that page before further edits. You should also review the event notability guidelines to see how this event might meet them. The page states that the first awards ceremony was this past June; I'm not sure such a new event would meet the notability guidelines and it may be too soon for an article. Two of the sources given just list the winners, the third seems to be a press release type of article. There is no rush to find more sources, however, and if you can do so, feel free, but as I stated you should review the conflict of interest page first.

The article also does little more than list the winners; it will need much more prose about how these awards are notable and the one passage lifted from one of the sources(the part about how this event 'blossomed') will need to be removed as it could be a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The guy who created it seems to have a history of non notable pages. (Some he makes them as redirects and then edits them or he will edit a redirect as well), if you check the pages he has created you can see some questionable articles. Here are some Oliver the 2nd, MaffYuu, Garcia Bros., Slow Hollows, Winter in Prague Wgolf (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think that the wikiproject should have a centralized discussion page that is not a talk page? Anyways, I added myself as a member. Moxhay (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you see a need for one, I think you should go ahead and create one. It certainly won't hurt anything. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. I also fixed the Wonderchef ad below. Moxhay (Talk * Contribs) 15:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 331dot. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

 Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of the 3 revert rule - it was my very first time editing and I failed. I promise to be better and will leave the editing of Katahdin Woods and Waters alone. You clearly have a better handle on it

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HELP! I have been trying to upload media images which we own the copyright to. Why am I being denied??????ECrum (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ECrum: I believe that to upload images your username must have been active for a certain period of time and have a certain number or edits.(both of which are small, but I don't know the exact numbers) Since you commented here, I will take this opportunity to ask you if you have reviewed the conflict of interest policy as the post I made on your user talk page suggests. You may also need to review and comply with the paid editing policy (if you are an employee or otherwise paid for editing here); if you are paid, doing so is required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Please review those two policies before further edits. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I read them. Where am I suppose to supply this Conflict of Interest information?? I am just an intern trying to create this page for my boss.ECrum (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can post information about a conflict of interest and/or being paid on your user page(click your username at the top of the screen) or user talk page.(click Talk at the top of the screen) It also should be done on the talk page of the article, either by you or someone else. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2016

Okay. I did it. Other Santa Barbara pages have images and logos so why can we not use the same when we are allowed and have copy right permission? What steps do I need to take to upload media onto our page? ECrum (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this page has the information on how to do that. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reversed the inclusion of the WCB in the Cabinet but that countered its clear inclusion on the cited page that the earlier editor had referenced. It feels to me like you need to have a counter-reference in order to exclude it. Is there a statutory definition of Cabinet departments? The question brought to mind the running discussion relative to the United States Environmental Protection Agency where the Wiki-article intro states, not completely helpfully and without citation but in line with my understanding, that the "EPA is not a Cabinet department, but the administrator is normally given cabinet rank"; if all that is any help. Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Swliv: I guess I was confused, I had thought that the cabinet was only the Department commissioners. I will change it back. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@331dot: I'd say just so it's clear he's only an Executive Director; I guess at this point membership is what the Governor wishes to designate; I thought maybe you had something more definitive to the contrary. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm Mr. Guye. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Bundes Bar Dushanbe, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Mr. Guye (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you be able to revert some of the content that wasn't bias or promotional (ie. the template) that a user contributed to a couple days ago.. It's an accurate reflection of the company, and updated some statistics that have become outdated. If so, that would be terrific. 203.82.108.18 (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What specifically would you like to see restored? From what I see very little of that edit was acceptable, as it read like a promotional brochue for the school. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 331dot.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crikey, that was a train wreck. I've indef blocked and I think I've deleted all the spam, if not, another admin should hopefully deal with it soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 331dot -- It's often better to tag unreferenced biographies of children not in the public eye, where the tone is partially or entirely negative, and especially where any personal information is disclosed, as attack pages (G10) as it will get admin attention much more swiftly. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Espresso Addict: Thanks for the advice. I guess I missed the negative part.... Oh well. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, 331dot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why

Agentrudda (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why what? 331dot (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 331dot,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 794 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .Reply[reply]

i highlighted that it's unsourced, he still reverted. [[2]]

i asked him to justify, nothing still reverted, including unsourced section. [[3]]

he has no interest in constructive editing NFLjunkie22 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Moved to JasonWesCrusherLind. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 331dot,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .Reply[reply]

Moved to talk. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello 331dot. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at IIMBlue. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheMagikCow: Thanks for the reminder, however I have a low tolerance for postings that seem to be to be blatant promotion of a group or event, as the article we are talking about seems to be(the page was created by someone with the name of the event as their name). If they change it before (and if) it is deleted, I would be happy to remove the tag. You are also free to, if you wish. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also note that they added the following to the page: "IIMBue 2016 consists of a stunning line-up of speakers". 331dot (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I share those concerns - and take that onboard now. I would say that under WP:BOLD given the promotion aspect that was warranted. I see that now it has been deleted - I guess I didn't quite put the promotional side togetehr before coming here - sorry! Thanks for pointing that out! TheMagikCow (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheMagikCow: You are welcome. I took no offense, as others don't know what is in my mind. :) Best wishes to you. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! And to you! TheMagikCow (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, I goofed. Thanks for fixing it! --Prmcd16 (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are you sticking your nose in this? You have nothing to do with the Rex Tillerson page edits that have gotten out of control. An agenda is clearly present and I REFUSE to allow Wikipedia to become some garbage propaganda tool for people to peddle and push their agendas. I've been creating and editing wiki pages for over a decade and recognize it for its beauty and power. When an editor post 4 pictures in a wiki page and all four are taken from the Kremlin, then deletes and claims copyright when an appropriate picture is put up, and then editor adds an "awards" line in bio window, but deleted every award list except the Kremlin award: there is a CLEAR agenda there. Get your facts straight, if you can't see the problem with that and the CLEAR violation of wiki rules then you are either obtuse or foolish. Ubie (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rjsulliv: Any Wikipedia user can comment on any page that they wish and edit most any page that they wish. If you don't wish me to communicate with you personally, I will respect that, but I stand by my comment. You need to be more civil, not conduct a dispute through edit summaries and take your concerns to the talk page. I would also urge you to lose the battleground mentality; if you are correct in what you say, it should be clear to everyone else. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for not putting in an explanation to my suggested edit, I don't edit that much on Wikipedia.

I felt the part about 'critical aclaim' was a bit misleading since I read the entire article and couldn't find anything matching that description amid numerous paragraphs that leaned towards outrage and outright criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.11.221 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Critical acclaim probably refers to his supporters, which there is likely sources for, but if they aren't there currently, it should be removed; I will do so with an explanation. Thanks for posting here. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of TNPoliticsNews (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Linguist If you reply to me here, please add ((ping|Linguist111)) to the start of your message 19:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies. Feel free to restore it.

Sincerely,

127W111. 127W111 (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Season's Greetings, 331dot! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Hello 331dot

I made changes to the following page that are valid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestron_Video#Releases

I will make them again. Please do not change them.

I also update other similar pages on a regular basis.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.81.177 (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saw your revert here. Seen any similar behavior elsewhere (perhaps another article)? Opened an SPI case here. --JustBerry (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JustBerry: I haven't noticed any other issues, although from the looks of it the person doing it isn't a newcomer. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, seems like it--after I filed the SPI case, realized the case may be related to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Supreme_Genghis_Khan. --JustBerry (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have declined your G4 nomination on Las Vegas Film Critics Society as the page is now much larger, with more references than before. So I suggest that you commence an AFD. It is ineligible for prod. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for the information. I'm not really concerned about the G4 given your assessment(as I obviously cannot look at previous deleted versions). I have tagged it as needing more outside sources but I think nothing else needs to be done at the moment. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redolta is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Redolta📱 ^Contribs 00:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice you changed the criteria on Little Diamonds playschool. The spam criterion was OK, but a play school counts as an educational establishment and doesn't come under A7. Why, don't ask me. Before my time, I think. They are liable to prod and AfD for lack of notability. This article was one of those bits of spam that tells you sweet FA about the subject. I remember one where I told the author that in more than three readings of the article, I still hadn't found out what the company did. They did strive for excellence in their solutions, though. I don't think he liked that... Peridon (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS I've never found out whether driving schools are educational establishments. They mostly appear to be spam anyway, or copyvio. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess I didn't put it together on that one. That's a good question about driving schools- though as you indicate most would be spam and I think it would be hard to have a notable driving school. They probably wouldn't merit A7 though. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to LTPofficial. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]