Jump to content
Search

User talk:331dot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Please place new comments at the bottom of the page. If you are responding to a post I left on your talk page, please do so there. If you are responding to an edit I made to an article, please comment on the article talk page. I welcome talk page stalkers offering any knowledge or assistance they have.

    I find the best thing about working with wikipedians

    [edit]

    Has become my expanded willingness to work in good faith with others, especially when I'm called on error, disagreement, or judgement. Thanks as always for keeping me straight and upright (just by being you). Don't be shy when you see me fall short of the glory... I've got plenty of BOLD for others, but my own behavior requires mirrors. Thanks for reflecting well on me, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The same goes for me, I appreciate questions, comments, advice, and constructive criticism about my actions. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seeing this mentoring suggestion take off? BusterD (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Hope it works out. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Roshan_G._Ragel

    [edit]

    Hi & sorry to bother you, I saw that you unblocked Roshan G. Ragel on the condition that they don't write about themselves anymore, but they've been repeatedly editing and submitting their draft to AFC since then (it failed twice today alone). Would this be a violation of the unblock agreement? I'm not sure how best to report this, so thought I'd best ask you first as the unblocking admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I'll look at it. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lemonrock

    [edit]

    Hi, what do you make of this Lemonrock? I was minded to unblock them simply because it's been so long since their block, and as they now seem to want to edit on topics unrelated to their COI. But resurfacing after so long does seem remarkable, and then it turns out they've had at least one other account, and when I asked if they had more than that, they avoided answering (perhaps just an oversight on their part, perhaps purposely). So thought I'd ask for your take, if you care to offer one, before going ahead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My view is similar to yours. Apparently Lemonrock according to the deleted edits is "a live music information website"(i tried to see it but it seems to be geolocked to the UK) so I feel like "web technology" may somehow be within their COI, but I'm not sure. I suppose they could have been just a reader these last 15 years, but it is a little curious. I would wonder if there was any recent block evasion but it's been so long I'm not sure a CheckUser would help. Maybe a WP:ROPE second chance? 331dot (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right about "web technology". I'd say ROPE, but with specific exclusion of anything to do with their own website (unless they put it through AfC, natch). Unless you object, I'll offer that to them tomorrow, if no one else has by then. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    [edit]
    The Admin's Barnstar
    I also see you reviewing blocks! Way to go! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with Draft:Sanket Goel

    [edit]

    Hi 331dot!

    I have been working on this article for a while now and suggesting edits on the talk page for implementation by neutral editors. I’ve been trying to ensure that the draft fully complies with Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing standards, especially given my declared conflict of interest, by only suggesting edits. I’ve used the COI edit request process and incorporated feedback from other editors, and I’m trying to be careful not to overstep. I completely understand that AfC reviews take time and depend on volunteer availability, but I wanted to ask whether there’s anything further I can do to make the draft easier to review or if you might be willing to take a look when you have time.

    Thanks! Shashy 922 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You've provided 37 sources, which is far too many; most of them seem to just document his published work; Wikipedia is less interested in that then in a summary of what independent reliable sources say about him as a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is something really weird

    [edit]

    [1] Doug Weller talk 19:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. It's a subpage of their userpage, who's going to see it? (Leaving aside the merits) 331dot (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But look out! Some people on Reddit are behind them. ;) 331dot (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Scary. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Global Traditional Taekwondo Federation

    [edit]

    I’ve carefully reviewed and rewritten the entire article. I’ve removed all promotional language, restructured the text, and updated the sources. The draft is now completely revised and neutral, essentially like a new article. I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look. Thank you for your time and guidance. I hope you can review the page again after these edits. Fahd Marei (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You have submitted it and it is pending; I don't review drafts on request outside of process as once it became known I was willing to do so I'd be inundated. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Guide to temporary accounts

    [edit]

    Hello, 331dot. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

    Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

    How do temporary accounts work?

    Editing from a temporary account
    • When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
    • All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
    • A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
    • As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
      • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
      • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

    Temporary account IP viewer user right

    How to enable IP Reveal

    Impact for administrators

    • It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
    • It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
    • Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

    Rules about IP information disclosure

    • Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
    • Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
    • See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

    Useful tools for patrollers

    • It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Tick Enable the user info card
      • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
    • Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
    • Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
    • The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

    Videos

    • How to use Special:IPContributions
    • How automatic IP reveal works
    • How to use IP Info
    • How to use User Info

    Further information and discussion

    Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Abiola Aderibigbe

    [edit]

    @331dot thank you so much for taking a look at the article Abiola Aderibigbe and leaving feedback. As a recent editor to Wikipedia, I really appreciate getting feedback from more experienced editors like you (who I consider my superiors LOL!).

    For context, editor @Ldm1954 did the last major copyedit a few days ago to take out any CV/resume tone, and he further educated me on Wikipedia articles reading as standard encyclopaedia entries. His words were "less is more". He also asked that I trimmed the citations on the articles which I did, with the kind support of editor @Bobby Cohn.

    I would however be extremely grateful if you could give me a steer on what you consider still reads in a CV/resume tone.

    On sources/notability, despite trimming references/citations, there are still 11 independent, secondary news pieces in national outlets ( E.g. Independent, The Nation, The Sun, THISDAY, etc.) which cover the subject in depth. My understanding is that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) but I’m happy to be guided if there’s something more I should do to make that clearer.

    If helpful, my plan is to add two more independent national sources in the lead and reuse named refs to avoid over-citation (as advised by Ldm1954 and Bobby Cohn), move any duplicate coverage to a short “Further reading” section (although I have also been advised not to create too many sections), and double check that awards/recognition section is only kept to items independently covered (Ldm1954 also kindly helped with this a few days ago).

    I would be extremely grateful for any and all of the wisdom you can spare! Thank you! I am looking forward to specific pointers 🎃 BBenebo (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The article as a whole just describes his activities and qualifications, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say about him and what makes him a notable person. The awards don't help because they lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The article describes a proposed law that he has advocated for, but many people advocate for legislation or regulations. It doesn't say he aided in passage of any legislation or has been particularly influential in even getting it considered. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot Thank you very much for the insight, I am grateful. I feel like I learn something new everyday. I'll further amend the article as you have advised to summarise what independent, reliable sources say about the subject and why that's notable. As an admin I know you are very busy, so thanks again for your words of wisdom and for taking the time to respond to me. I truly appreciate it. BBenebo (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    BBenebo Are you acquainted with Mr. Aderibigbe? You took this picture of him on September 19th (and also cropped it) and appear to have had pretty good access to him. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot Thanks for your question. I didn’t take the photo. It’s an image that had been published on the subject’s website and also used in national press coverage. I uploaded it to Commons so there would be a freely licensed version. The crop wasn't done by me, it was done by editor @Bobby Cohn (see file history, 30 Oct 2025). I have no paid relationship with the subject and I’m not editing on their behalf. If the Commons file needs corrected attribution/licensing (or a VRT permission), I’ll be happy to sort it.
    I’ve also updated the article per your direction to summarise what independent sources say about the advocacy and why it was covered. I’ve revised the lead to note that national newspapers profiled the subject's five-pillar proposal, and I’ve added an “Advocacy and media coverage” section consolidating coverage from the Independent, THISDAY, The Nation etc. attributing what those outlets reported. I’ve also tried my best to trim non-essential detail.
    If you’re willing, could you take another look and let me know if this aligns with what you had in mind? I’m happy to make further improvements. BBenebo (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So since you did not take the photo, it must immediately without delay be deleted from Commons. (as well as the cropped one) I'll go do so. The photos currently state that they are your personal work and that you hold the copyright. His website states that copyright belongs to him, so you cannot claim that the images are your work nor can you release the copyright so the photos can be used on Wikipedia. He could upload them and do so, as the copyright holder, but you cannot.
    Comments about the article itself I will save for the deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot Thank you for flagging the image issue and for your guidance. You’re right, the Commons file was mislabelled as “own work”. That was my error. Thank you for removing the image from the article. I’ll tag the file(s) on Commons for speedy deletion pending proper permission, and I’ll contact the copyright holder to request a licence before any re-use. I also appreciate your forthcoming comments at the deletion discussion. BBenebo (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My observations

    [edit]

    @331dot @Jéské Couriano @Day Creature @GoldRomean

    Following are my observations as peer feed back after reviewing Vipin Vijay article discussed at WP:BLP/N

    1) Shifting particular message from user talk to the article talk is avoidable complication. Idk if it can be reversed.
    2) This is a typical case where privacy support to ips in Wikis is weak and en Wikipedia has been behind the schedule to improve the privacy levels though I suppose from 4 th Nov improvements likely to be improved. (For this reason I am discussing the issue here and not at WP:BLPN.)
    2) It's advisable that web archives of the news sources from archive.org be taken note of properly. (We need to note that rest of main stream Indian news media seem to have either did not report or back tracked may be due to legal aspects.)
    3) Per Indian law respondent name too can not be reported until the committee reports seems correct. Legally complicated part/ grey area seems the Committee has once created a report (which got contested in high court) and high courts judgement is reportable or not? On that court may have to decide if Mid-day only main stream news media which reported can run the respondent name or will have to withdraw. If courts make Mid-day too withdraw news report in that case archives at archive.com are going to be important for Wikipedians/Wikimedia foundation.
    4) As far as WP:NPOVN is concerned Presently WP article incompletely covers "(Vipin) Vijay challenged the process in the High Court of Calcutta, but the court refused to be involved" I suppose presently article is not covering "but (high court) emphasised that (Vipin) Vijay must be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses before the ICC proceeds further. The court also instructed the institute not to take any coercive steps against him until a final report is filed." (Ref:Mid-Day) I suppose to fulfill WP:NPOVN that needs to be covered.
    May be above peer feedback would be helpful. Bookku (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with point 4 that as written now the line in the article at issue is simplistic and could be better written.
    I think the legal stuff should be handled by the WMF as an office action. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I should have pinged @Tacyarg to request help in the update. Mean while an ip seem to have deleted the section with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Bookku (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 1 is noted, with apologies. Doesn't look like it, but let me know if I need to get involved further here besides that. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think let it be. eventually it will get archived any ways, isn't it. Btw MOS:LEGAL guidance too doesn't cover many many aspects and most users won't be aware of such a page on WP. Bookku (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for info and record. No doubt the case may be sub-judice, but almost every stage of the case in Calcutta Highcourt (even upto October 25) seems available online, court orders are usually reportable, I did not see any restraint on reporting the court order as such. At least search on indiankanoon.org, I did not see any case recorded against Mid-Day. Though for WP court orders are primary sources just jotting down two relevant links for future ref. if needed, September, 2024, December, 2024.

    Thank you for warning

    [edit]

    Thank you for warning...I shall make no more contributions to Wikipedia from this day on 2603:6010:BB00:288B:B566:2BB2:4C38:37B (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see your first posting for my reply; that's not what was said at all. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding 66.168.83.74

    [edit]

    They evidently plan to RGW on their User Talk until access is revoked.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Taken care of. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    [edit]
    The Admin's Barnstar
    Thank you for your admin work, it is much appreciated Why vegan (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    [edit]
    The No Spam Barnstar
    Carried out in the line of duty as admin Why vegan (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    [edit]
    The Original Barnstar
    On behalf of all beginner wiki-users, I thank you for your guidance with this Barnstar. ApoieRacional (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – November 2025

    [edit]

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

    Administrator changes

    added Toadspike
    removed

    CheckUser changes

    added asilvering

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Not an paid advocate

    [edit]

    I am not a paid advocate. I never take any sorts of payment and I want my knowledge to be put into good use. For me knowledge can not be bought. I work on my own and write everything on my own. Thehistorian999 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thehistorian999 You disclosed a conflict of interest on your draft, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article Thehistorian999 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thehistorian999 Yes, I know. What is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The writer has a personal, financial, or professional connection to the topic . Right? Thehistorian999 (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will block you from editing unless you describe the general nature of your conflict of interest with K.C. Das Private Limited. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My earlier comment was a mistake — I do not have any conflict of interest or connection with the subject of this article. I have not received any payment or benefit for contributing. My edits are made in good faith and independently.I am a new editor i didn't know the meaning and I promise it appeared automatically there is no relation of mine with them. Even if I get banned I have no connection with KC Das I just wanted to make an informative page sorry it is my fault. Thehistorian999 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I suggest that you remove the COI disclosure from your draft and in the edit summary indicate you added it by accident. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it, thank you for giving me a chance. Thehistorian999 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

    [edit]

    Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Help template

    [edit]

    When you reply to an editor who has used the {{Help}} template, as you did in this edit, please remember to change the template to {{Helped}}, as I did here, so that the former template no longer flags the page as needing an answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I didn't actually answer their request(for help with editing) so that's why I left it open.(as did the user before me) 331dot (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maine Gov Election

    [edit]

    Sorry, I realized it after the fact. Either my phone glitched or I just didn’t look carefully enough NathanBru (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's no problem. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Meatpuppetry

    [edit]

    Hi 331dot, I'm concerned about the block appeal at User talk:ATLANTICARTIST. The block itself was pretty evidently a mistake and should have been overturned pretty quickly (the chance that a dormant UPE ring would resurface four years later to write an article about one of the same topics is basically nil). But even more concerning is that you declined to unblock on the basis that this would be meatpuppetry in any case. It's not meatpuppetry to write about the same topic that someone else writes about, especially not when the editor most recently blocked for it was blocked in 2020. -- asilvering (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    UPEs can be very persistent and are often willing to wait, or the person hiring a UPE might give up for a bit and try again later(I wasn't the blocking admin)but I suggested a topic ban to see if they were willing to accept it, since they were, I agree with unblocking(even without implementing the Tban). 331dot (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you know anyone in wiki project television

    [edit]

    Anyone who sees this message do you know anybody in wiki project television if you do talk to them on my behalf because I want to join the talk of the project Thegiantmouse00O2 (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You can talk to them yourself- you don't need their permission to join. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:331dot&oldid=1324061080"
    User talk:331dot
    Add topic
    Morty Proxy This is a proxified and sanitized view of the page, visit original site.