User talk:331dot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edit regarding Tao Wells[edit]

Hi, I made an edit regarding Tao Wells. I refered to him as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist due to a number of posts he made to his facebook account "Wells Tao" where he referred to scientific modelling of the collapse of the World Trade Center as "fake" and said "If you believe a little plane made this engineering marvel collapse (referring to the World Trade Center) twice, you need to do some research." He subsequently deleted comments on his post which showed scientific modelling regarding the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, and referred to them as fake news. He also posted an article to his blog on May 1st, 2015, entitled 'the visible donut hole in the pancake theory" detailing what he saw as "holes" in scientific theories surrounding the collapse of the world trade center. Mr Wells is, in fact, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and it's in the public interest that the wikipedia article makes that clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

We need independent reliable sources (and several of them) to source such a claim in order for it to be in the article. We can't just rely on your opinion, no matter how accurate it might be based on his internet postings. Please review WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Are his own social media posts not considered reliable sources of his viewpoints? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No, because Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about someone, not what they say about themselves. If you have independent sources that report on his viewpoints, that would be acceptable, but not merely his own postings. Using his postings as a source and then saying he is a conspiracy theorist based on that is original research, again, no matter how accurate it might be. Wikipedia cannot determine him to be a conspiracy theorist itself, but it can report on others calling him that. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

now SantaBarbaraArtHistory[edit]

Hi. As far as I can see, Sullivangoss has gone ahead and created a new account while still blocked, for SantaBarbaraArtHistory. That was actually the name they requested in their unblock request. They're working on a new draft not one but two Sullivan Goss gallery artists: Draft:Patricia Chidlaw and Draft:Nicole Strasburg. I see these as I have a regular "draft+artist" search. Seems like their interest is solely in promoting their gallery. I will leave you to deal with the socking and block evasion, as my comments perhaps got in the way last time. --- Possibly 21:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


Can you please see this page Pramod Bhagat. Even after protection by Titodutta once here, the IP and unconfirmed users continue to change his birthplace from Hajipur as referenced by many reliable sources to incorrect Attabira, Odisha. Please see it's talk page for further information. This page needs to be semiprotected for few months atleast. 🌌Zoglophie🌌 15:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not, at present, in a position to address this. Please request page protection at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedily Delete[edit]

I wasn't trying to promote or use as a social media site. I was adding the criteria that nucrash had suggested last year. I wasn't trying to promote my campaign. Can I reupload page if I take the senate stuff out? I'm a little confused.

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Gena Ross (talkcontribs)

Dr. Gena Ross Please read my help desk comments. My advice is that you not attempt to write about yourself(or enlist a campaign worker or any third party to do so). It's only going to end in frustration and hurt feelings because you don't meet the criteria for an article, see WP:NPOLITICIAN. Once you are elected to Congress, you would then merit an article- and as a representative-elect someone would eventually write about you.
Please read about how a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. If you still want to attempt this despite my warning, you must use Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A "YouTube channel" is a website[edit]

Please comment at User talk:NWIndianaElevators. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


Hi. I need some technical guidance. I have helped new editors many times by giving them Wikipedia tutorials in person. I also conduct offline workshop occasionally as there are lack of editors in our state. As due to place and internet availability issues, I need to use my internet connection or laptop to teach them. I refrain from using my connection or laptop due to fear that I might be accused of sockpuppetry in future. Are my fears right? Can I use my laptop or connection to create new accounts for them or teach them? What should I do? --Gazal world (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Gazal world I think the best thing to do (assuming you have the technical means to) would be to create a video of yourself creating an account(or using WP:ACC to request one) that you could then provide to others.
So if you want to create accounts for others, there are two paths available. If you want to be a volunteer who works on account creation requests submited to WP:ACC, you could seek the Account Creation permission. If you want to create accounts for others as part of an event that brings others to the project, you can seek the event coordinator permission. The option involving ACC would probably not help you since you want to create accounts for specific new users, so you would probably want to seek event coordinator permission. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I don't think I should apply for 'Account Creation permission' or 'event coordinator permission' anytime soon. I will apply for these rights when I need them. For now, I am tutoring my student-friends from my own laptop. I am not giving them video tutorial because I am currently with them, and I believe tutoring them in-person is more effective. --Gazal world (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Certainly you can guide others in creating accounts, and good luck in doing so. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for bothering you again, but I observed a weird thing. This is because I have no knowledge about technical stuff. When one of my students try to create Wiki account, they receive 'Account creation error' See this image. The person has never edited Wikipedia, never created account. So how did this happen? Is there any solution --Gazal world (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I think that might be beyond my expertise; I think someone at the help desk may know. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok. No problem. I will ask someone else. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/LuckyDesigns[edit]


This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (the person being discussed is a notable figure within their industry and achievements )— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudz2000 (talkcontribs)

Do you have a question about this deleted article? 331dot (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.[edit]

23:01:44, 21 September 2021 review of submission by Kim at Partner ESI[edit]

Hello, I would like to know why the article was rejected twice for the same reason (reading like an advertisement), when the page for Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. is very similarly written. If there is a specific part in the article that reads like an advertisement, can you please explain which part? I'm not sure what else to change. Thank you. Kim at Partner ESI (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Kim at Partner ESI Please read other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to pitch in and help us manage the six million plus articles here, please identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.
The draft is advertising because it just tells about your company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.
I see that you declared a conflict of interest, if you are an employee you must make the stricter paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I will add that the best articles to use as a model are those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify: what is being questioned are my sources? The sources I included are not enough to establish notoriety? I added the paid declaration to my talk page now. Kim at Partner ESI (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Kim at Partner ESI The sources just cite various business transactions. That does not establish notability (not "notoriety" which has a negative connotation) as Wikipedia defines a notable business, at WP:ORG. A Wikipedia article should not just summarize the routine business transactions of the business, such as raising capital or acquiring a competitor, or similar. A Wikipedia article about a company must do as I describe above. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
I always see your work here! You deserve it, at least, I think you deserve it!:) Banzhowen (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle For Dream Island Wikipedia page[edit]

Battle For Dream Island is an animated web series with anthropomorphized objects, it was created 3 times, once in 2011, and twice in 2013. It got deleted for not being notable enough, and eventually it got permanently banned to be created by an admin (who is no longer an admin, that’s why I’m not asking him) but this was at the time Jacknjellify the YouTuber who made the animated web series only had around 6k subscribers, which is small. Now they have over 1 million subscribers, and it seems like that’s notable enough, compared to other YouTubers on Wikipedia.

While subscribers doesn’t guarantee it’s notable enough on Wikipedia, BFDI (Battle For Dream Island), created an entire community of object shows with as described before anthropomorphized objects.

Battle For Dream Island was also mentioned on this Wikipedia page on animated series’ so I think it deserves a Wikipedia page now, can you reallow it to be created? Because as mentioned before the admin who banned creating it, is not an admin anymore. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiMakersOfOurTime What matters is if this topic gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notable web content. If you have that, you may create and submit a draft at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


For your thoughtful comments at the Hakuho ITN nom. I do appreciate them, even though it faces a bit of an uphill battle to get consensus. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Conversational Advertising - Paid Interest[edit]

Apologies I was not aware of where to add the paid interest. I have added this to my page as suggested. The wiki page written is sourced and I make no reference to the client. Our intention is just to make a particular type of advertising known, this supports any company that is involved with conversational advertising and is not specific to the client, hopefully this helps. What are my next steps? Should I resubmit? or can you edit and approve?

LucyDigitalVoice Thanks for disclosing. If you are not editing about a specific client, but a general part of your industry, you are probably okay to resubmit. I will say Wikipedia has articles or drafts, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. I would urge you to, if you haven't already, review Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


Hi! I am a new user, and my name is Peter (in hungarian "Péter"). Have a nice day! Szerkesztő5555 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

My request for an IP block exemption[edit]

Via the Unblock Ticket Request System I filed the following request: Hello, I hereby ask for an IP block exemption for the account "Marsupium" on the English Wikipedia per WP:IPEXEMPTCONDITIONS. Today after many times before I've run into a range block, this time of while trying to edit from the network of the German long distance train system that I use regularly. I don't need the exemption for editing anonymously via proxy but rather to bypass the range block. For the same reason a global IP block exemption was granted to my account (cf. A previous request I made in January 2021 expired before it was answered by anyone unfortunately. For any questions I'm available at my talk pages at the English Wikipedia or other Wikimedia wikis or wikimail. Thanks a lot for any help in advance, Marsupium

You've declined that request giving the advice to make the request from my account, while giving the IP address. In the request I gave the IP range "", my specific IP in that case was

When logging in at under the "For administrators that are here" tab and trying to file a new request this action is aborted with the message "This action can only be performed by users who are not logged in." Now I'm kind of helpless where to make the request from my account. Fortunately, today I'm not reliant on the concerned IP range, but I will be again in the future. Hence, I'd be very happy to resolve the complicated block issue beforehand in order to be able to edit the next time and for any help telling me where to put the request. Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Marsupium You should click on "If you have a user account" to make your request, not the administrator only area. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I think I've done that the last time already. After submitting a message was displayed that the appeal is incomplete and an IP missing or similar, I've edited the appeal, added the IP and I think it was converted into an appeal for a case without a user account. This happened to me this time again, when trying to file yet another one leaving the incomplete state as is the system complained about "spam our system with appeals". I'll try again later and leave a note here. --Marsupium (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


There are things that you can do on your end to adjust how you view Wikipedia. What things?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I think screen settings can be adjusted. Unless I misinterpreted the comment(certainly a possibility). 331dot (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't easy to understand his comments, but are you talking about a hardware solution?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess I thought he could adjust brightness or contrast to achieve what he was trying to. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

More than one, less than two[edit]

I actually met Moshe Levi back in the day. He was really nice. And really tall (as advertised). El_C 21:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.


  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


Thanks for reviewing the revised article. While I understood why the original was rejected, this is less clear to me. I added several new reputable sources (e.g., El País, Crónica Global, Business Insider España), all of which had substantial stories on BCN3D Technologies within the last year or two. Is the problem that they're Spanish-language publications? Would appreciate any further insight you can provide into your decision. Jhofferman (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Jhofferman The sources seem to mostly be announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish that the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. A Wikipedia article about a company should not just tell about the company and what it does, but it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage (which does not include interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, etc) choose on their own to say about it. Please see Your first article. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, and sorry for the belated reply (I've been traveling). At the risk of beating a dead horse, I just want to confirm that you properly evaluated the new sources I added to the revised article. Two brief examples: El País article is exclusively about BCN3D, talks about uniqueness of hardware manufacturing in Spain, cites the company's pioneering of dual-head printing, and chronicles recent growth. Author is "a journalist in the Catalan newsroom and writes about economy, innovation and technology." Business Insider article is exclusively about BCN3D, discusses their history and what makes them unique, describes the company as "a benchmark multinational in the sector." Author is a contributing editor who was worked with Business Insider Spain for a year. Of course I understand that BCN3D isn't Apple, but they occupy an unusual niche in European manufacturing, have an interesting origin story, and are a going concern. As always, appreciate your efforts. Jhofferman (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The El Pais piece is based on an interview with the CEO and the owner of the building housing the company. The Business Insider article is largely based on an interview with the CEO of the company and another staff person- even leaving aside that the author worked with them and as such probably is not entirely independent of the subject. Both also tell of routine business activities. These do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Dave Donovan[edit]

You deleted the article without responding to my contesting of the speedy deletion, the article did not meet the criteria, as the banned user did not create the page in violation of their ban. The page was created in October 2020, whilst the user was banned in October 2021.

The subject also meets the notability requirements, particularly considering all the other Australian journalists of less note who have Wikipedia articles and thus I have recreated it. --Simba1409 (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The user you speak of was a sock of another user. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd also urge you to review other stuff exists. It could be that the other journalist's articles you speak of are also inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

-- There is no claim or evidence that the DanJensen account was the sock of another person who was ALREADY banned before the Dave Donovan page was created.

Regardless of other journalists, as the owner of an online media organisation David Donovan is clearly notable. --Simba1409 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Simba1409 Anyone can remove a PROD, so that's fine. I simply restored it since that wasn't why I deleted the article. I reviewed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MickeyViolet. Since you recreated it yourself this discussion is largely academic, but you can challenge speedy deletions at deletion review. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

This account above looks like another sock. Ten years inactive and suddenly creating articles from drafts? Come on! --Pete (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Howdy. The meat-puppet is also being a bit of a jerk, by continuing with the "...get over it" bit, in his posts. His apparent refusal to indent his posts, is also annoying. GoodDay (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


I put his unblock request on hold. He got renamed, and I think from his request it might work out for him. Any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Case I might be missing something but I think that they are an employee of Trackless Vehicles Ltd. ("This Wikipedia user is not paid to write content; "unintentional self-promotion") and should abide by COI/PAID with regards to their company and possibly when writing about competitors. That said, if you are satisfied, that's fine with me, I'm not particularly invested in it. :) 331dot (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Piratenation101 article draft "Ginny Favede"[edit]

Please excuse my confusion if this is the incorrect place/way to post this. I recently saw your message on the Ginny R. Favede draft, but still feel that several of the sources would constitute reliable secondary sources that establish notability (e.g., I understand that primary quotes within the article are sometimes commonplace, but there is a large body of newspaper material establishing this woman's credibility from a strictly editorial, journalistic perspective. If perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point about reliability of secondary sources, could you possibly give an example from the following related page (another university president from West Virginia) of a source that I should include instead? Jerome A. Gilbert

Thanks so much again. Really just trying my best to learn the ropes and help out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratenation101 (talkcontribs) 14:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Piratenation101 It's not the sources themselves that are the problem, but their content. They just tell what she does, not why she is important- and the ones that go into detail seem to do so by quoting her. There needs to be in depth coverage of her personally, not just what she does. I would note that the article you linked to above is also marked as problematic, and has the same issue. The best articles to use as models are those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
331dot Thanks so much for the helpful resource. I will try to find some sources that fit the mold of what's present in the Good Articles directory.
Out of curiosity, what marks the difference between a problematic article being accepted (as was the case with the Jerome A. Gilbert page I linked) and a problematic article of similar ilk (such as mine) not being accepted? And, do such problematic articles need to be taken down or listed for admin attention? Again, just trying to learn the ropes--you've been most helpful. Piratenation101 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Piratenation101 A completely valid question. Only non-autoconfirmed users are required to submit drafts using AFC; once autoconfirmed, it is no longer required and such users may create articles directly. Some problematic articles also predate the creation of the AFC process- but either way, it's possible to create articles without it. It's still a good idea to use that process until one gets several articles accepted, and gains the experience, even if technically able to create articles without that process. If one creates articles directly, it is assumed they know what they are doing and any issues are treated a little more harshly. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Problematic articles, when detected, are usually marked for attention(just as the Gilbert article is) and given time for the problem or problems to be addressed. If that does not happen, or there is some urgent issue that cannot be resolved, it can be nominated for deletion using one of the available processes. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks so much for all of the useful advice, 331dot!
Piratenation101 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused with this block you made against عمرو السعدوني:[edit]

Who was he a sockpuppet of anyway? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but there is a concerted effort to attempt to create an article about a nonnotable actor. Possibly meatpuppetry more than socking. 331dot (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspect MEAT[edit]

As user User:Shahp67 who joined today, has started editing at the same article as User:Hillary1900, and with similar kind of edits, I have asked for a disclosure at their talk page. Jay (Talk) 06:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that another user (existing) with a COI with the subject has been ignoring repeated requests (here and here) to stop editing the article, and has been removing maintenance tags. Jay (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

rollback on Great Molases Flood[edit]

I see on why I was wrong, but I should not have been rollbacked by the previous editor and given a vandalism warning. That was messed up. (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

You weren't given a vandalism warning, but a message that the edit appeared to be unconstructive, with encouragement to discuss it with the editor if they were incorrect. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Request on 15:52:45, 9 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Rami9610[edit]

Hello 331dot, I just saw the declined submission post and your comment on my talk page. Regarding your comment, although I can agree with annoucements being insuffecient to fully constitute a reference section of a Wikipedia article (hence, of the 13 there are 2, of which are used solely to reference dates and no other information), I would have thought that press-realeases are classic examples of secondary sources and could be used as stand alones for atleast a stub-class article. The ones that I used are well-known or atleast, just reliable, industrial analys/news firms within the imaging industry (2 are international, 2 are Czech-focused).

I would just like to state that I am inexperienced in creating articles on here (as you might have already surmised if you browsed though my talk page). I would just like to humbly ask you on how I can improve on chooisng the type of sources that can stand as adequate references or maybe what other types of reliable, seconday sources that would atleast be needed to supplement what I have used. (My apologies in advance if I have not written this message in the proper format)

Thank you, and have a good day!

Kind Regards,Rami9610 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Rami9610 Press releases are not secondary sources because they are written by the subject, even if someone else published it. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject- that means no materials put out by the company, including interviews. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update[edit]

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere
    The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny
    Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising
    It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates
    There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
    Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling
    There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
    Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Trance Fury page confusion[edit]

Hello 331dot,

I'm so sorry about the confusion of my page. I selected paid promotion by accident as there is no paid promotion. I did, though, state that I'm the creator of my page and I've marked that as such which I believe is in the wikipedia terms. How do I remove paid promotion? I'm trying to do everything by the book. This site is not easy to navigate ;-)

---MF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt at TFR Records (talkcontribs) 15:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Matt at TFR Records Your username is "Matt at TFR Records" and you are writing a draft about a musician which states their label is TFR records. If you work for TFR Records in any capacity, you are a paid editor and must make the required declaration. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk:CityofLakeCharlesOfficial[edit]

The two separate warnings are from an edit conflict. I added a COI tag, along with a text message below it, but only the COI warning got through...on top of your warning. Weird. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A thought[edit]

Your comments here have raised some eyebrows, which then got it brought to my attention. I do not believe that the OUTING policy allows for us to dox users ever, even if they say "sure, go ahead and air my dirty laundry". Additionally, I'm genuinely not sure giving the specifics of the information leading to the block (which I have seen and support) will do anything other than make a direct connection to an off-wiki location; they'll still likely deny it. I guess you have your own game plan and idea of how this will work out, but I guess I'd just like to encourage caution and not go further than absolutely necessary when divulging information. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Primefac I appreciate your comments. I've seen that sort of thing done before, but I'm happy to not do so. I agree caution is called for. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Was this brought to you privately? (I'm just curious, I don't need specifics) 331dot (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it was sent to me directly. Primefac (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


I don't understand your answer to that question, which was the only posting to WP in the last eight years by the IP you responded to. Maproom (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The IPs were close enough that I think I thought they were the same. I've removed my comment. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Block denial[edit]

That's fair I suppose, if kind of annoying! :) Thanks for reviewing. Zerbey (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Zerbey As I said, if you have a privacy concern, you can request an exemption. Somone with your editing history could probably get one. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
331dot, I think it'll be easier to just proxy off my real IP for Wikipedia edits. Opening up the entire NordVPN class space is just going to open up people who want to abuse Wikipedia and that's not worth the hassle it would create for the admins, unless there's a way to make an exception on my username and I don't think that's technically possible in MediaWiki. Zerbey (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm requesting help[edit]

The draft "Nima Bank" was rejected and I understand that, but I have a question here. Can the page with the same name ever be created? or Is it only me who can't create this page? I made significant changes to the rejected draft and created very valid citations to back it up (since that was the reason it was rejected in the first place) but it just seems to me that you never read the article and deleted it because it was previously rejected. Hey and I hold no grudge here, you're doing an amazing job and thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooz1370 (talkcontribs) 13:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Rooz1370 Rejection does not mean that there can, for all time, never be an article about Mr. Bank(regardless of who creates it). What it does mean is that there cannot be an article about him right now, because of the reasons given by the reviewers. I did review the article and I happen to agree with what they said.
If you have new information that was not considered by the reviewer that rejected the draft, you will need to appeal to that reviewer.
And even if you are technically able to create articles directly, it's a good idea to have the experience of getting drafts passed through AFC anyway first. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello 331dot and thank you for your response, as per your suggestion, I did try to communicate with the reviewer who rejected the article in the first place. But since they are not answering, I was wondering if there is a way which I could notify them? and since I have made changes to the article, could you please review the article Draft:Nima Bank and let me know if you think there are changes that still need to be made? Thank you again.Rooz1370 (talk

Rooz1370 You may communicate with any user directly by posting to their user talk page, as you did here. There is a link to the reviewer's talk page in the message rejecting the draft. Reviewers do not necessarily watch the AFC Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes you are right I did try to reach them by posting on their talk page but the reviewer is not answering. But again I understand. This is the correct way of approaching this matter. Thank you.Rooz1370 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rooz1370 Hatchens has not contributed since the day you posted on their page, they may not have seen your post yet. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

331dot Hello again, I hope you're doing fine. Hatchens has still not replied back to me. I'm desperate. I've been waiting since the 18th of October and Hatchens has since been active on Wikipedia. I have made three separate tries to reach them and there has been no communication back. Rooz1370 (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No one can force Hatchens to respond to you. If they don't wish to further discuss the matter, they don't have to. I obviously don't know their reasons, but perhaps they don't see your changes as sufficient improvement. If that is the case, you will have to let this go for a little while until something fundamentally changes about the subject of the article. As Wikipedia has no deadlines, what is the source of your desperation? 331dot (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thank you for your response. My desperation comes from the fact that there's nobody who I could get further help with, regarding my new edits. I really want to improve the article and in the process learn as much as I can. But obviously, I can't do that if I could get no response from the people to whom I should be talking. Rooz1370 (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

A rejection of a draft means that the reviewer sees no chance of improvement sufficient to address the reasons for the rejection- which in this case was for not meeting the definition of either a notable actor or a notable director/creative professional. Most reviewers are very thorough and will examine the possibilities of a draft meeting notability guidelines even if it doesn't at the moment of submission. I interpret Hatchens not discussing the issue with you as evidence that they did that and still rejected the draft. I realize that is disappointing and even frustrating, but it happens to everyone. I'm sorry, you will need to eventually move to a different topic or other edits. My suggestion would be that if you want to learn more about editing and creating articles, that you edit some existing articles, this will allow you to better examine what goes into an acceptable article. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Motive for removal[edit]

With all due respect, this is not helpful if no reason is provided. Going by consensus is an important policy, but it doesn't mean users get to veto based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there is strong support for inclusion in several WP policies and no support to suppress information in any policy, then one cannot just blanket revert by claiming lack of consensus - that would be nothing short of a veto. Now, you and others may have valid arguments for removing the information, in which case it should be presented on the talk page. Jeppiz (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz If you are the one seeking a change, it is up to you to obtain the consensus for it. You seem to already be in part, at least, aware of the reasons the article is the way it is currently- that we are waiting for formal charges due to WP:BLP. Newspapers/media may publish what they wish, but we have a policy regarding the information at issue. 331dot (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My blocking[edit]

Hey there.

I had just blocked my Wikipedia account, because it does not meet our username policy. Try suggesting a better username that fits well with our policy. Was this my block for one warning for a few years? I was mostly proud by this.

-- (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Please log in to your account and follow the instructions there. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

Hi I’m in a sticky pickle with a user who was previously blocked, you had declined there block in the past. I’m here to report an issue with this user, they have constantly reverted an edit I made months ago on Unsteady. There excuse is by far the oddest one I’ve ever come across while editing on here, stating because I’m using the wrong template in the edit summary the entire edit is wrong.[1] — Makes no sense. You can also notice my reply back to them and they are still insisting just because I’m using the wrong template in the edit summary the entire edit is wrong. I’d like to see something done about this due to the fact if you go through the users talk page you can see a heavy amount of warnings for edit warring and some history of being blocked. Thank you. Pillowdelight (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Pillowdelight I have also self-reverted the edit for now. Neel.arunabh (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I would encourage both of you to discuss this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Content Approval[edit]


You left a comment on my talk page about my article Capital on Tap saying I need to declare my conflict of interest. I have declared my conflict of interest, so I'm not sure what else to do? It clearly says on my profile 'this user has a conflict of interest' with said company. Could you please advise how I should continue? I declared this before I ever wrote the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollyWoodward97 (talkcontribs) 08:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

HollyWoodward97 Yes, you declared a conflict of interest- but if you are employed by Capital On Tap in any capacity, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, which is different from the conflict of interest statement and a Terms of Use requirement. Please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I've also left a comment on your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I think I've fixed it now! HollyWoodward97 (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that meets the requirement. There is also a version of the declaration for your user page which I would place there in substitution of the COI notice, but you don't need to rush and do that. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

RE: Your post on my talk page.[edit]

Hi, thanks for letting me know about the "edit warring" policies. I wasn't aware of them and ill keep them in mind. I'm happy to compromise on how to edit the page as you indicated. Is standard practice to leave something on their talk page? I wasn't intending to cause a disturbance or anything. I originally only edited it because i had seen vc under the name of other people in a similar spot on british and other VC recipients. The Victoria cross usually comes with a VC after the recipients name, as it is in the main text of the article. I only wished to add VC to the other elements to reflect what at the very least Keighran and Donaldson have in their autobiographies.

Thanks :) Lazeus (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Lazeus Yes, you may ask the other editor directly on their user talk page, or on an article talk page(though your issue involves multiple articles- perhaps the Help Desk would be better than an individual article talk page). 331dot (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
If you are unable to resolve the dispute after discussion dispute resolution is available. 11:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all your arduous tasks and tireless contributions at the Teahouse, On behalf of the collaborative project, I want to say a big big thank you. Posterity would remember all your good works. Celestina007 (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

iPhone page[edit]

iPhone page is protected! Make a reference named "Apple skipped iPhone 9." in the iPhone X section! Gldgenga471834gldben (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Gldgenga471834gldben Please direct any comments about the iPhone article to its talk page, Talk:iPhone. If you would like to propose a specific change, and have an independent reliable source to support it, please see WP:ER for instructions on how to make an edit request. 331dot (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

OK! Fine! Gldgenga471834gldben (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun[edit]

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, help[edit]

Dear 331dot, I have a problem with the user MrsSnoozyTurtle who continuously marks my articles as promotional (most recent is the article about Dragana Dujović), often a few minutes as I publish them, but doesn't want to point out the specific (issue)s. I want my articles to be better and in accordance with the rules, but I don't see the purpose of just acting as a judge. WikiDiaspora (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiDiaspora Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone and what they do- that is considered promotional. A Wikipedia article about a person should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please review the policies describe in the maintenance tags.
Do you have a connection to the subjects of your edits? If so, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear 331dot, thanks for the reply.
I understand what you're saying, but this user doesn't even get to read my articles, and she marks it as promotional in a minute. To me, that doesn't really look like something done by someone who wants to contribute and help. For example, I've reduced the article about Dragana Dujović to just a few sentences by resolving the marked issues, but she immediately reverted the previous tags. Now, I'm just asking her to tell me exactly which sentence is still a problem, so that I can have an example of how to proceed with the other articles with issues.
Additionally, take a look at the article about Sanja Papić and tell me why it deserves to be published more than the article about Dragana Dujović. The second even has more (independent) sources.
And finally, once again, I'm not connected to any of the subjects I'm writing about. I write about various personalities, organizations, and events from diaspora communities around the world. WikiDiaspora (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
You have already asked the user on their user talk page, I suggest waiting for a reply. As to the Sanja Papić article- I'm not sure it does deserve it, actually, and I've marked it as such. Please understand it is possible for an article to be created without being approved by anyone(although it is inadvisable unless you have a lot of experience in article creation) and that the draft submission process has not existed for the entire time Wikipedia has existed. As such, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us, and go unaddresed, even for years. If you are using other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions and for your time. I'll use good articles as a model. Also, I'll wait for MrsSnoozyTurtle to answer me. Regards. WikiDiaspora (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting subpages created by banned user[edit]

Hello, following some images I found that a banned user created many user sub-pages (some are huge, e.g. with repetitive content and images deliberately confused and manipulated. I think that they should be all deleted per G3, G5, and G13.

- It seems that the main user was "Favoritismo", banned in January 2020:

- Later he re-created identical confusionary sub-pages as "Rallyismo":

- Then "FlamingSkateBoard":

- Then "CrabsPlankqon":

- Then "QutanRawr":

- Then "EggYolkLol":

All the accounts have various of these sub-pages.-- (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Please mark any pages you feel meet the speedy deletion criteria as such, or make a report to WP:ANI, the reply will likely be faster. I personally prefer to handle matters through the proper channels instead of being approached directly. Thanks 331dot (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Done.-- (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Request on 06:48:03, 15 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by IoanaJo[edit]


I am new to wikipedia and don't have so much knowledge of writing an article. Can you please let me know exactly where I did wrong on my article?

Thank you! Ioana IoanaJo (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC) IoanaJo (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

IoanaJo Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "The article about McDonald's does not just tell about McDonald's offerings and when they began, but how others see the history of the company and its influence on things like the fast food industry, employee conditions, advertising work, and so on. Any article about Spartan Restaurant does not need to be that extensive, but it must do more than tell us that it exists.
If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has officially requested that the pejorative “Mormon” not be used. This was never the name of the church and has been used in the past to disparage and marginalize adherents to that faith. The term “Mormon” is seen as disrespectful and inaccurate. We don’t call black people negros anymore and not should we call The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints “Mormons.” It is appropriate to use the term “Mormon” when talking about the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but it is not respectful or correct to refer to this religion using archaic or defamatory language. You do not have to believe in the religion to be respectful to its followers. Tennesseebound (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Tennesseebound, please see MOS:LDS for the current guidance on terminology, as well as Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints for previous and current discussions on the issue. You are welcome to participate in the discussions on that talk page, but it's best to familiarize yourself with that page in the Manual of Style and the previous discussions first. Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Tenneseebound I am aware of the rebranding the church is doing. I suggest that you work to change the Manual of Style- where I'm sure this has come up. Please see MOS:LDS and bring up your concerns on the talk page, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints Once you get the Manual of Style changed, I will be happy to change it myself. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with the processes of Wikipedia. What I can say is that the church is not “rebranding.” It’s always been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This is not a rebranding. Similar to “deadnaming” or using a trans persons old name when they have expressed a desire to be known by the new name these requests should be respected despite of any procedural hurdles. Tennesseebound (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Again, TB, this is an ongoing discussion taking place in the appropriate place, which is not on the talk page of some other random editor. Follow the links that 331 has provided. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for giving you trouble.[edit]

I don't know how I managed to misread that. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller I appreciate it, but no apology is necessary. These things happen. I am just glad it was resolved for the user and take it as a learning experience. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Please can you help? Amending Sophie Dix's Page[edit]

Hi 331dot

Please could you help?

I'm trying to amend Sophie Dix's page. I am a director who is working with her on one of her films. It has too much info on Weinstein's abuse. That was a long time ago and it's unfair and abusive to have all of that on her page. Also she is now a single parent living in Oxfordshire with her two daughters. She no longer lives in Hampstead. Please can you change it to this below?

Personal life

Dix Lives in Oxfordshire with her two daughters Georgia Dix and Violet Dix.[1] In 2012, she stood as a candidate for the Green Party at the Hampstead Town council by-election, receiving 207 votes.[2] She stood again in 2015 and received 597 votes, coming third with 11.3% of the vote.[3]

In October 2017, Dix joined the growing number of women who have alleged that producer Harvey Weinstein sexually harassed, sexually intimidated, and/or sexually assaulted them.

Thanks very much Best wishes Deva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devafilms (talkcontribs) 23:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Devafilms If you work with Dix, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. The proper thing to do in this situation is to make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, Talk:Sophie Dix. A Wikipedia article will not necessarily state what the subject wants it to say, but your comments and suggestions are welcome. It is a legitimate line of inquiry to ask about the length of the relevant information, but you shouldn't make changes yourself. 331dot (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I've hard-username-blocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

hlep me in publishing new article on laxminiya Youth club[edit]

I have already submitted the real source of data in the Nepalese online news and sites about Laxminiya Youth club. I have submitted each and every proof about the realibity of the club. Please help me to add this article. As, i am new to wikipedia, I donot know the whole functioning and coding but I have written the fact article. I am trying to submit the article many times but it was rejected. Please approve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshshah24 (talkcontribs) 06:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Niteshshah24 As I said to you before, Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, or for a group to tell the world about itself. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization(please review). The key there is "significant coverage". Sources that merely report the existence of the club, or merely report what it does, are not signficant coverage- and that's all that you offered. If those are the only sources available, the club does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further at this time.
If you are a representative or member of this club, you need to declare that, please review conflict of interest. If you just want to tell the world about the club, you should use social media, a website owned by the club, or other website with less stringent inclusion requirements. I realize this is disappointing and perhaps frustrating to hear, and I am sorry, but not every subject merits inclusion here, and Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good works. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

TruthandContext was a sock[edit]

So CU blocked. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

List of best-selling manga (someone changes the list even sources say opposite)[edit]

Hello I read both Naruto & Detective Conan sources in the list. Naruto Shueisha (official publisher) source says it has sold 250 million copies, Detective Conan one says "it has 250 million copies in circulation worldwide (including copies not sold)" Naruto should be above as of now. But User:Yujoong changing the order. He first removed Mangaplus/Shueisha source of (most reliable source) Now both User:Yujoong and Creating User:Cosmo Sentinel changing the order everyday as they want. Can you prevent or warn them ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruderhymer (talkcontribs) 11:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Please attempt to resolve any editing dispute on the article talk page. If that fails, you should attempt dispute resolution. You may also request page protection at WP:RFPP. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 07:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ice age 6 draft[edit]

Moved to the location of the discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator's privileges -- abuse of power[edit]

Your reason for upholding the block is totally superficial and provides no evidence for the case you are trying to make. BrandonTRA (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

BrandonTRA I stand by what I wrote in declining your unblock request. You are free to make another request for a different administrator to review. What happens to it will be up to them, not me. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I stand by what I wrote in pointing out the superficiality of your decision. BrandonTRA (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
BrandonTRA As I said, you may make another unblock request. If I am determined to be in error, I will accept that for future reference, but I don't think I am. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I see little point in appealing to another administrator. My experience in dealing with controversial subjects like JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories tells me that administrator's are not equipped to address such subjects, and will reflexively side with those who want to restrict material -- even where there is no strong, valid reason for doing so. That said, Wikipeda is still much more useful in presenting different sides than any other encyclopedia. Much more useful than Britannica. BrandonTRA (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Whether you appeal or not is, of course, your decision. You are still free to discuss matters on the article talk page while blocked from the article itself. I didn't side with anyone, I only evaluated the request in front of me. Your specific claims are not germaine to that, but how you handle them is. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not buying it, sorry. BrandonTRA (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Your edit history on that article is blatantly sufficient. Deleting warnings doesn't mean they are not part of the record. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Warnings about reverts which are posted without a valid reason are irrelevant. Warnings can be given by anyone and were, in this case, posted by unscrupulous editors without a valid reason. Warnings were handed out by these editors as a pretext for blocking. You need only examine the history to see that this is the case. BrandonTRA (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I've reported this to ANI (to get someone uninvolved; although here the disruption is rather obvious). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

User:TheCreatives/Dante Santiago[edit]

Hello 331dot. I appreciate you, contacting me. 2 things I'm trying to figure out. 1st, how to change my username to either The Creative or something else. (Btw I'm an unbiased new contributor.) 2nd how to have this artist name on the page instead of User:TheCreatives/Dante Santiago. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCreatives (talkcontribs) 21:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

TheCreatives You may submit a username change request at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. You already have the appropriate information in the draft to resubmit it for review(click the "Resubmit" button in the notice at the top); but you will first need to have addressed the concerns of the prior reviewer, that you need to show that Mr. Santiago meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician or a notable person more broadly. Associating or working with notable people isn't enough, as notability is not inherited. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for helping me! I spent alot of hours for that. Merry Early Christmas too! Lil Moon Teddy (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Criedley unblock[edit]

His answer seems OK to me. How 'bout you? Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've unblocked. Thank you for the heads up. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Im a bit late to send this, but thanks it really helped me! Lil Moon Teddy (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello 331Dot[edit]

Im trying to make this article “Aerial Animals” but is this article already exist? Lil Moon Teddy (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Lil Moon Teddy (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Also terrestrial and aquatic

This is my article (Not yet published and not yet written only in this user talk)

Terrestrial Animals Terrestrial animals are those that live on land. Their body structures are adopted to walking, running, and crawling on land. They may be living on the surface of the land or burrow beneath the soil. A terrestrial habitat can be a forest, desert, or grassland.

Aquatic Animals Animals that live in the water are called aquatic animals. Their bodies are capable of staying in water all of their lives. Aquatic animals may live in Marine (saltwater) or in Freshwater. Some aquatic animals are called Aquatic Mammals.

Aerial Animals Animals that fly and spend most of their time flying are called aerial animals. Almost all aerial have wings and they have lighter bones than other animals. Im gonna add pic too if there’s no article as same as mine.Lil Moon Teddy (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Lil Moon Teddy You may not be aware that there are articles called Flying and gliding animals, Aquatic animal and Aquatic mammal, and Terrestrial animal. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for informing me! Im going to just keep trying find articles that is not same as mine. Lil Moon Teddy (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).


Administrator changes

removed A TrainBerean HunterEpbr123GermanJoeSanchomMysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


I read the Help and Teahouse pages for entertainment... Yes, I am weird.

I see the perennial request for the ability to delete an account. The answer often includes "All edits must be attributable to an account".

Why can't edits be attributed to a closed or deleted account? The name likely needs to be prevented from being reused, but as a computer programmer, the phrase "All edits must be attributable to an account" doesn't seem to tell the whole story.

Like, "it's Thursday, you can't eat pancakes"... (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

All edits must be attributable to some identifier for legal reasons. Deleting an account (which we don't have the technical ability to do anyway) would prevent edits from being associated with it. The best we can do is a courtesy vanish which randomizes an account name. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)