Open main menu


Shamsheer Vayalil editor againEdit

I think there's a chance (maybe not a very big one) that this guy is playing us. After your last comment at the HD I started a response asking him to clarify his 'obsession' with the page and pointing him to WP:COI. He's used 8 or so IP addresses so far (over a 2 week or more, period) and every one of his edits have been to do with Vayalil's page. Unfortunately, I got an EC with him replying to you... in the wrong place and unsigned. I'm not sure how we handle a WP:SPA, particularly when spread over multiple IPs but it looks as thought here's some connection or 'agenda' here? As advised previously by an Admin. in respect of a disruptive editor of F1 articles I have a note of IP addresses used and talk pages where advice has been left. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment; I must leave my computer shortly and won't have time to look into this further for a bit. Feel free to bring this up with another administrator or at WP:AN. Thanks 331dot (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the informationEdit

Thank you. I think I will practice with small edits,( which I have been doing since before I signed in), until I get more comfortable with how Wikipedia editing works. Thanks again for responding so quickly. GrandmasterCheckmate (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


I just saw your comment in the block log. just for info - OZ is a short/nickname for Australia and the website he linked to beared the same name with an australian adress. Thank you for taking care of this spammer. --Denniss (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Denniss Thanks for the information, glad to learn something. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You're a 'Featured Host'Edit

You may have seen this announcement that all the 'Featured Hosts' - whose names and pictures randomly cycle round in the Teahouse Header - have just been updated.

As you are currently one of the 29 most active editors at WP:TH, your name and an image has now replaced that of an inactive host. But because you haven't yet added yourself to the full list of active hosts, I have simply used the default image of a cup or green tea. It would be great if you would now consider doing two things:

  1. Check or change the 'featured host' image allocated to you. Edit it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/4
  2. Create a host profile for yourself, and choose a relevant 'profile picture' - click the 'Experienced editor?' button in the TH Header to formally sign up to create a host entry which new editors may read.

Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Waiting for a reviewEdit

Hello. I`am waiting for a review on my article for more than 2 months now. Will my article be reviewed any time soon? I am asking because the person who reviewed before declined it and told me that he will leave the article for someone else to review it later on. It`s been 2 months and still nothing. Just wondering. Any info on this would be appreciated. Kristijanwh (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kristijanwh: Reviews are done by volunteers(who do what they can when they can) in no particular order, as all drafts appear in a category that reviewers pick out of based on their own reasons; it could be reviewed in 10 minutes, or two months from now. You will need to be patient. You had initially posted this to my talk page archive; I moved it to my actual talk page(here). 331dot (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

For your attentionEdit

Hello, in case you are interested, the recently blocked Auxallryduck seems to be abusing the ability to edit User talk:Auxallryduck (see here). Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

May I privately disturb you for a moment?Edit

Hello & nice to meet you, I just wanted somebody to check the spelling I added to current events of the current day, before being told off for insulting the English language lol. Thanks. --LLcentury (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The Socratic BarnstarEdit

  The Socratic Barnstar
I had no idea how to respond after seeing the editor's contributions, but you came up with this: It is not enough to merely be correct, information must be sourced to an independent reliable source, which is unlikely for the subjective statements you were attempting to add. I am humbled by your eloquence. Orville1974 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

You might want to extend XXzoonamiXX's block...Edit least until he accepts that he is bound by it, rather than socking to continue his long-term edit warring and POV-pushing at 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and his editing of articles related to U.S. participation in World War II (specifically the Pacific Theater).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


I usually don’t like talk to other users like this but after what I ended up seeing. I practically wish I never signed up here sometimes. That Al-Quaeda thing just scares me. The sniper scares me. I know he might’ve said it as a threat. But it just scares on how evil some Wikipedians can be. I never thought I would ever see something like that in my entire existence. I really am glad that you took care of the problem because he could’ve said something worse. I’ll be scared for a couple of days because of that writing. A.R.M. 03:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

ARMcgrath I don't blame you for feeling that way. I can say that I've seen that exact message before and not just here, it could be a message that has been copied and reposted around the internet. All such messages should not be easily dismissed, but in this case, the first clue that they don't mean it is that the message referred to "gorilla warfare" and not "guerilla warfare". 331dot (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:SIJOPTG2Edit

Sorry to step on your toes a bit there, but the user is a   Confirmed sockpuppet and blatantly trolling. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

User talk:MostynMom and unblock requestEdit

I'm willing to unblock based on the most recent unblock request. I was wondering if you had any lingering concerns. Sasquatch t|c 07:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sasquatch: I would prefer if the user would agree to not edit about their clients at all for a period of time(at least 6 months) given that they are in marketing and SEO, so they can develop an edit history that shows they can make proper edits. Given their statement "I was unfamiliar with the topic that I was given to update" I'm not sure I believe her statement that "I'm not specifically paid to update their Wikipedia entries." I would like to, but I can't support an unblock at this time given what I know now. However, since they state they will use edit requests, I'm willing to not oppose an unblock if you are satisfied. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I asked the user if they would voluntarily accede to such terms. If they do, I will unblock and see where it goes from there. Sasquatch t|c 10:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


I am willing to discuss the issue here. Leave the edit alone till we hash it out. I believe you will be persuaded by the points I will make. First, Wikipedia is based on good faith editing. The people who I said are notable are in fact notable and it would be a disgrace on their memory and everything they did in their lifework to dismiss their contributions just because there is not a page yet devoted to them. I can edit in citations later after we agree on how to proceed. Next, the citation you mentioned for Yanceyville being on some list of poor places is under dispute. I feel it is unfair to say ok, let's smear the town based on a disputed citation. Once that dispute is settled and it's settled fact or not then we can safely base what is said about the town on the page devoted to it. I hope this makes sense. Otherwise, anyone can cite anything, and it can be disputed - but the smear still stands as truth indefinitely, in some cases, for many months if not years. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talkcontribs) 02:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Peabodyb I meant the article talk page, but this is ok too.(this is a user talk page) No one is smearing any town or disrespecting any person. Wikipedia goes where the sources go. The source was accurate at the time it was added, and it should not just be removed. It may need to be put in context or rephrased to reflect the age of the statistic. We don't delete Abraham Lincoln because Donald Trump is currently president.
In order to include someone in a list of notable people, there must be an article about them. This is longstanding Wikipedia practice. (see WP:SOURCELIST, "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well") Otherwise, there is no way to know if the person is actually notable for verification. I would suggest that if you believe these persons meet the notability criteria for people, that you create the articles for them. Wikipedia is not a memorial to any and all people regardless of any good work they have done. 331dot (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "331dot".