![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi! We don't know each other but I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your blacklisting of Zoominfo yesterday. I was the one who originally caught the sockpuppet operation, and was pleased to see the swift repercussions. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and although I don't have the New Page Reviewer right yet, I am quite enjoying the work involved. I have a few other possible cases I'm following up on; would it be OK if I presented them to you here, or would it be best if I posted them on the COI noticeboard instead? I am not fully familiar with a) how protocol works and b) how you personally deal with these issues. So thanks again and have a great day! Best, PK650 ( talk) 22:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger, thanks for your comment on WP:UAA about my report. I just want to clarify the ratio of my request: I felt that the term "Oficial" (Official in english) could refer to the promotional staff of the artist, that is to say that it implies a shared use. Cheers, -- DoebLoggs ( talk) 11:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Newslinger
Thank you for creating Black Boy Joy.
User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
...and the award for most convoluted section targeting goes to...
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I got a message from you that I have edited a post here, and I didn't know that it can be counted as spamming. I am really sorry about that. I did not know about that, I really apologized for my mistake. I am totally new in the Wikipedia editing part, and I was just trying to put some extra information there, And I don't want to be harmed anyone for my mistake. And I don't want to be blacklisted anyone for my fault. The domain that has been blacklisted for my fault is mobileprice-bangladesh.com. I will be much more careful about this in the future. I am really sorry. Regards Shamim93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamimbd93 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
One time COIBot was reporting all of that, but it was giving quite some false positives and it kept on reporting for some. Maybe I should turn it back on .... -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, you may find edit filter 499 ( hist · log) relevant. — Newslinger talk 15:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I have to say if you use an app like Facebook particularly, you're getting a lot of tracking, so I'm not sure how much "less" it is really... [1]. I didn't want to muddy the waters over there, but if you think it should be, please let me know. -- Yae4 ( talk) 04:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
On 5 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MicroG, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the LineageOS operating system refused to integrate MicroG software, the project forked its own version, with MicroG pre-installed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MicroG. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, MicroG), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Wug· a·po·des 22:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger,
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.
Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.
All the best,
Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Newslinger, belated congratulations on your adminship! I notice, however, that you are missing out on some of the BLING you are now entitled to. I recently created the the article User:MelanieN/Admin bling to let new admins know about all the shiny stuff they are now entitled to. Feel free to adorn yourself! -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I have made a series of 12 user warning templates, shown in User:The Lord of Math/warn. Would you like to have a look and give some feedback? Thank you. tLoM (The Lord of Math) ( Message; contribs) 06:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
"be vandalism"or
"contain vandalism"would be better?
"inability".
I need to post an article about myself because I'm doing a research project for school. I sent you a goat because youd be a goat if you did this for me. If you want to talk to me about this my email is tjcerasi@gmail.com
VanessaCurty (
talk)
01:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for "spam". One week passed, but no approving or feedback here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/AutoWikiBrowser#User:Estopedist1 -- Estopedist1 ( talk) 06:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I've finished reviewing your history with AutoWikiBrowser on the other projects, and you are now listed on the check page. Thank you for volunteering to improve Estonia-related pages. — Newslinger talk 09:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking at a request for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Derbent concerning Special:Contributions/2605:E000:151E:8550:81C5:4902:5209:3CB5. Looking at those contribs shows you page blocked Special:Contributions/2605:E000:151E:8000:0:0:0:0/50 to prevent edits to Caucasian Imamate. I'm hoping you might understand what the IP is up to now, and whether it is a problem that should be handled with a wider block. Meanwhile, I will protect Derbent. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger. I have already disclosed my employee status with Nagarro and the change made during the editing has been reversed. Does the page still require the paid tag? Please suggest if there are further steps to be taken. Furthermore, I had requested for partial page protection as the page gets edited frequently with wrong information. Buzztrack ( talk) 12:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Would you mind adding linkbacks to my script in there? (And I'm sure the others would appreciate them too.) It helps with the Special:WhatLinksHere results. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --
Hell in a Bucket (
talk)
19:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger, you have me a little confused with this unblock] of a username violation. The username was not changed and the user showed no signs of wanting to discuss. Additionally, they were not talk page blocked, so they would've still been able to edit their talk page to discuss. Could you please explain? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 19:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to block BlueEnvy again. It's been two months since BlueEnvy's last edit, so I don't think it makes a difference whether they are blocked at this point. — Newslinger talk 20:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Background: A redirect was changed to a new page.( History) The intro/lead for the new page was the same as Section "What is vym?" in the overview at a source. [2] In reviewing the new page, GermanJoe deleted almost all of the introduction/lead and changed it to a brief statement, calling the source not reliable, and vanity press; and calling the copied text a "copyvio". After Talk discussions, Germanjoe changed mind and agreed the source was reliable (valid self-published), and restored it as a source; however, the question of copy/paste was not resolved, and GermanJoe suggested I may get other opinions. [3] So, I'm asking for your opinion. More details: The software is licensed under GPL2. [4] The page the excerpt was taken from says, "This page was exported directly from vym." [5] Recent source files do contain nearly the same wording that was copy/pasted, although not precisely the exact same. The logic, therefore, is: Output Help info from a GPL2 software, from a web page, may be freely copy/pasted (as long as credit/source is included), which was done. I know the cautious thing is to always reword everything, but... I'm pursuing this further because being under a "blocked from editing without further warning" 3rd warning status is an uncomfortable threat, which I believe is not warranted. I also note my previous 2 warnings were, IMO, based on very conservative interpretations of copyright fair use (i.e. my copy/pastes were very small excerpts of much longer articles). Last, if preferred, I could take this to copyright Q's. [6] -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about the warning on your talk page – copyright is very tricky and difficult to get right. If you treat all outside text as proprietary for the purposes of Wikipedia, you won't have an issue in the future, and your own wording would most likely be more encyclopedic than the original text. Feel free to ask the copyright questions noticeboard, since the folks there are probably more experienced in dealing with copyright issues than I am. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can you take a look at this user's conducts on the Gorani language page? It's getting ridiculous and I've reached my three-revert rights [7]. Unexplained removal of academically-sourced content and accuses it/me of having 'ethnic motives' -- Semsurî ( talk) 10:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Semsûrî. Unfortunately, since this looks like a content dispute and not obvious vandalism, I am unable to intervene in favor of any particular version of the article. Have you considered discussing the issue on the talk page ( Talk:Gorani language), asking one of the relevant WikiProjects ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages) for input, starting a request for comment, or escalating this to the dispute resolution noticeboard?
Also, please be careful not to violate the three-revert rule. On the Gorani language article, I see four reverts from you and four reverts from برسام on 25 March. Because of this, I have to send each of you a warning. In the future, even if another editor is the first to revert an article, please try to discuss the issue with them instead of repeatedly reverting the article back. Once there is consensus on the talk page for a particular version of the article, feel free to implement that version. ( Silence implies consensus. If there are no responses on the talk page after a day or two, feel free to restore the article to your preferred version.) — Newslinger talk 06:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger,
Could you look in on this thread and advise on how to move forward? Serious allegations against Biden are being blocked from the article with claims of poor sourcing and undue weight. Biden's response to them is also being removed. From past experience with allegations against powerful politicians here, I wanted to get advice early on in the process. Thank you, petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Newslinger! I looked at this username and didn't think it needed to be blocked for that reason – it seems to be a typical Mark at WidgetsUSA name, where the first six letters are the person's name and the rest that of his company. However, I doubt if it'll be a great loss to the project if it stays that way ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed your edits on Natalie Portman and wondered why you're removing the Forbes articles, there are nothing wrong with them as far as I am aware. In fact I was wondering if it was a miss-lead interpretation of contributors. Forbes operates differently in some area's and contributors with Forbes, quite a few of them specialise in a particular field of the news. Others make up the bulk of research work, that shouldn't be negated. [8]. Govvy ( talk) 09:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
Govvy, in
past discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard, most editors considered Forbes.com contributor articles equivalent to
self-published sources due to lack of editorial oversight. The
Columbia Journalism Review confirmed that the contributor model used by Forbes.com suffers from poor editorial oversight; one contributor said,
"In terms of editorial oversight, I wrote 164 articles for Forbes in three years and I received feedback from my editor maybe a total of six times."
The
Poynter Institute noted that
"There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing."
BuzzFeed News presented a case in which
a contributor used Forbes.com and other contributor platforms to promote his clients with
sponsored content without disclosure.
The Outline documented
another case of the same situation.
All in all, the Forbes.com contributor platform does not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
required by
WP:V and
WP:RS. Feel free to escalate this to the
reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like to solicit opinions from others, but it's unlikely for the consensus in the
last 11 discussions to be overturned. (Forbes staff articles
don't have the same issues, and I don't remove them because they're not considered self-published.) —
Newslinger
talk
12:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am trying to write an article for an Argentinian Based music company "Chaos Music". But I am getting the following error. "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism". If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact an administrator on their talk page or by email.
Can you please help me resolve the issue. I Will really appreciate it...-- Rashijain1992 ( talk) 16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Newslinger - I can't seem to locate the RfC or discussion that created or decided Perennial Sources could be a supplement to the RS guideline. Can you point me in the right direction or provide a diff so I can review the process? Thanks in advance... Atsme Talk 📧 17:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled A Quiet Place sequel. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled A Quiet Place sequel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --
Yae4 (
talk)
00:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger, recently you've moved article to draft for it being under-sourced but I am failing to see what was missed. Would you be kind enough to expand on which parts of the article are under-sourced so I can go ahead and make the necessary changes? Thank you and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editiorchief ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Has had a record certified gold"criterion for musicians, which applies to the song's credited artist but not to the song's producers.
Once you locate at least two independent reliable sources that show significant coverage of Matstubs, please cite them in the draft. When the draft is ready, please click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" link at the top of the page. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 02:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke TPA.-- Cahk ( talk) 07:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Any suggestions/advice for how to deal with things like "Go away, anti-science POV warrior." [9] Or this sort of "warning" [10] Also, is it considered appropriate to raise questions on Noticeboards without informing others on the related Talk pages? [11] I note the first, re: Skeptical Science, was raised by the name-caller, and the second, re: Nakamura (article I created), is by the same editor who posted a "warning" on my Talk, both without notification (and I'm called tenditious?). -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
Yae4, while the comments you linked to are negative in tone, I do not think they are sanctionable on their own. You are free to escalate your report to the
incidents noticeboard, but discussions there tend to be counterproductive unless the behavior you report is serious enough. Editors are asked to use the {{
Ftn-notice}} when mentioning "specific editors"
on the
fringe theories noticeboard, although this does not appear to be a strict requirement. —
Newslinger
talk
05:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The tips at WP:CIV § Dealing with incivility might also be helpful. — Newslinger talk 07:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger, I just want to say thanks for undoing/fixing an edit I made to Mullvad (and clarifying it). I completely misunderstood the free in FOSS up until now, and I'm glad to have finally learned it. I'll be on the lookout for that in the future, since it seems to be quite the interesting topic, and I'll also be more careful before changing things I don't yet fully understand. Cheers! ChromeGames923 ( talk) 01:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for the introduction, I look forward to working with you. Ashlesh007 ( talk) 10:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Newslinger,
With your reversion on the Breitbart News article, I have noticed you may be engaging in edit warring, specifically regarding reversions to removals of content which is poorly cited and tagged dubious (specifically regarding the use of the term "many traditional conservatives", which comes from the opinion of a columnist, and probably is contentious material
Please do not breach WP:3RR PompeyTheGreat ( talk) 07:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.El_C 07:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
El_C WP:NPOV supersedes WP:ONUS, specifically WP:WEIGHT, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
But the user who created the Bo Winegard article here on Wikipedia told me (on another site) that they were evading a ban here. Is this credible enough to report? If so, where might I report it? Comrade GC ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I see that you're also discussing this with Bishonen at User talk:Bishonen § I would like to report a Nazi committing ban evasion. Since this new information was not previously disclosed on-wiki, you will most likely have to email the evidence to the Arbitration Committee. — Newslinger talk 00:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Saw your HenryFriedberg SPI report from a few weeks ago (via a new COIN thread). Just wanted to share a filter you might find useful: 1016. It flags when an edit adds local filesystem links - usually it's just a misguided new editor trying to upload a picture, but every so often it finds more...interesting links, like what you found in that SPI. It's on my normal filter watchlist because of that. creffett ( talk) 03:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Your work as an admin is not being graded, |
Hi Newslinger, Over here [12] I requested an undelete or move to draft of the deleted Offensive Security, and haven't seen any action, because that person has been inactive. Last time, asking you to do it was enough to make it happen before you got a chance. [13] Could we do please do that again? Or undelete/move to draft if you beat them to it? Thanks! -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, Newslinger,
Does this look like targeted hounding by an admin, to you? Or still just good ole admin due diligence? In context of JzG's April 5 sparse edit history and all... And people wonder why editor retention is a problem? Sigh. To think I was just telling someone IRL how refreshing it was to see someone (Re4sonkernel) come along to improve an article, be upfront when asked about COI, cooperate, and try to work together within the WP rules. Then along comes JzG, again. -- Yae4 ( talk) 22:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."The version of the Kali NetHunter article at Special:Permalink/949270994 had over half of its content cited to primary sources, which did not meet the most generous interpretation of the WP:PSTS policy. The edits discussed here appear to be acceptable under the hounding policy, which states that
"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."If you think you are being followed in a way that does not meet the policy, you may escalate the issue to the incidents noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The state of related articles does not necessarily reflect best practices, unless the article is a good or featured article that has not been significantly altered since its review. Unfortunately, many of our software articles suffer from improper sourcing. The LineageOS article, with the "Preinstalled apps" and "Unique features" sections, has similarities to an old version of the /e/ (operating system) article before it was significantly changed.
Please review
Wikipedia:Requests for comment (
WP:RFC) thoroughly if you plan on starting an RfC on
Talk:Climate Feedback. The most important section of the page is
WP:RFCBRIEF, which describes how the RfC statement should be formed. Specifically, the RfC statement should be "neutral and brief"
, and the standard of neutrality here is very high. You can express your opinion freely in the survey and discussion sections of the RfC, but not in the RfC statement. I have found the RfC format in
Talk:Axios (website) § RfC: Paid Wikipedia editing to be a clear way of communicating the options to the commenters. Keep in mind that RfCs almost always have an exclusive focus on content, and that conduct disputes belong on the
incidents noticeboard.
—
Newslinger
talk
09:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You're named on Opindia. "harbinger & promoter of vandals". Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reading the
"Notes on OpIndia". The editor of OpIndia (Nupur J Sharma) declared "war"
on Wikipedia, and the notes are like
caltrops – if OpIndia ever mentions my username again, they will expose their readers to something that most certainly does not
"keep up the narrative".
As for the coronavirus, Sharma was repeatedly tweeting about how the coronavirus isn't a problem, and that everyone needs to disregard it. After Narendra Modi addressed India on 19 March, Sharma flip-flopped and started tweeting about social distancing (with accusations against Muslims and Chinese people mixed in). Strange world. — Newslinger talk 23:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems weird for someone so involved to block an account that has not edited in almost eight years. Meh. PackMecEng ( talk) 03:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you please add this closed discussion to WP:RSPSOURCES? I am afraid I might mess-up if I try because I am not familiar with the wikitext used there.— Vaibhavafro 💬 09:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
While a few RfCs are prematurely closed if the result is obvious (under the snowball clause), we usually don't do early closures for noticeboard RfCs about sources, since they affect a lot of articles and we want to give everyone a chance to participate. Also, editors who express an opinion in an RfC are generally not supposed to close them, since the closure procedure asks for an "uninvolved editor" to perform the closure. The purpose of this restriction is to limit the amount of influence any one editor has over the RfC result.
I see that you've closed the RfC in Special:Diff/951864560 referring to point #1 in WP:RFCEND, but for the purposes of the perennial sources list, withdrawing an RfC is not quite the same thing as closing an RfC. This is because RfCs on the list are only highlighted if they are "uninterrupted" (i.e. not withdrawn or removed). Withdrawing the RfC demotes it to the same level as a normal discussion, and I'm not sure if The Indian Express currently has enough significant discussions to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:RSPCRITERIA.
Since Indian sources are underrepresented on the perennial sources list, I think you might want to restore the RfC and let it finish completely, so that The Indian Express can be added to the list. Is this something you're willing to do? — Newslinger talk 09:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger, I created a WP:SIZESPLIT of the section 2008 Kandhamal Violence from the article Religious violence in Odisha and moved the content to an already existing redirect 2008 Kandhamal violence since the size of the section exceeded more than 50 kb as per WP:PROSPLIT and kept on expanding it since it's a very notable incident.This user User:Srijanx22, out of nowhere accuses me of WP:POVFORK and replaced the entire article with a redirect. The user went on to do the same to another article 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal that i have created from the start just days before. The user also reverted the content Violence against Christians in India and now has reported me to the adminstrators notice board here User_talk:Suneye1#POVFORK_and_using_Wikipedia_for_advocacy. SUN EYE 1 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
My recommendation to you is to focus on the content, and resolve this dispute through standard editorial processes. If an editor wants to delete a new article you created, consider asking them to nominate it for deletion instead of redirecting. If an editor wants to merge an article, the procedure to use is a merger proposal. Likewise, if you are not sure about whether there is consensus to split the Religious violence in Odisha article in the first place, you may want to temporarily re-merge the article and then initiate a split proposal on the talk page. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 12:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger,
I have replied to your COI board post. Rest your mind at peace, no one is going to sue you or cause legal problems, not from me at least. I am no lawyer or Opindia representative/champion. After posting my reply, I read some of the old issues you piped in your OP at noticeboard, I do realise there seems to be some long messy emotive history, which I can appreciate might have been stressful and painful for those involve. I do not understand the whole issue but I understood Opindia was banned because of their editor breached/doxed privacy of someone/unknown editor. I also read my own OP, I had not mentioned any names, so I was surprised why people are getting edgy and paranoid. I did realise, I had mentioned the heading of an article in my OP. I reread that article, and did realize that article mentions two people having, a journalist and you, I had not remembered your or his names before, Only now I realised this. Anyway, article does not dox you and all it seems to say is that you and other guy had some kind of edit war and block war. That was not my concern at all. After that issues, the article moves to next issues and goes on to say that wikipedia editors are for sale and then it moves to a 3rd issues which that there is cartelization at wiipedia. 1st issue of 2 of you havign edit war is of no concern to me, my concerns are next 2 issues. Hope you understand better. Please do me a favor:
1. If you are worried about any legal hassles or someone witch hunting you, get this out of you mind. Nothing of sort is coming your way. At least not from me. Just enjoy your life. I come to Wikipedia for fun, once in a while when I want to destress by editing. If you are not enjoying being here, perhaps take a break. That is the reason I did not want to make registered account, less apps, less notification, less addiction, more real life. Peace of mind is more important than wikipedia or social media, please do not get too emotionally attached to it. I really hope you are not gonna worry about legal issues any more. Before today you were a stranger to me, and I do not to be the indirect cause of your stress.
2. I have already posted my reply. If you still have more questions please post on the notice board and inform me on my talkpage for me to reply. If you are okay, then I will stop monitoring that noticeboard and leave it to you deal with it.
3. About my OP on article talk page, after reading your OP in the noticeboard I get a feeling that there is a lot of emotionally messy history which I am not aware of. This might trigger emotional responses in people, who might have been involved in that past mess. I really wanna keep out of it. So please help me by isolating the concerns raised in my nonpersonal post from any personal/emotional legacy issues of all these strangers. Please reread my OP after couple of days, this time by totally emotionally presuming it is not about people but about processes and concepts, and then please respond to it. ie. are there any actionable reforms that could be taken? Who are the editors, if any, selling their services? About the issue of editing the Opindia article (point 1 in my OP), I still believe UNDUE WEIGHT is given to one primary source, which comes across as grinding the axe against Opindia. That is how it came across to me as a neutral third party who had been uninvolved with the legacy issues.
4. Thanks for the teahouse party invite. I have been editing for a while as an IP, always deliberately remained IP for the reasons cited earlier (more peace of mind, less addiction).
Stay safe, stay healthy, relax your mind. Good night. Hugs. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Newslinger.
Ad Fontes Media, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion
here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.
EnterpriseyBot (
talk!)
01:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to ask for your thoughts on this talk page section and the article's edit history. User seems to be problematic — he keeps on accusing without proof. Thanks. — Hiwilms ( talk) 06:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi News,
Regarding the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, we have editors using a NYT piece that includes an edit made on behalf of the Biden campaign, and at the RS/N, Wikipedians are expressing an array of opinions on whether and how the source should be used. It seems a formal RfC is in order. I was wondering if you could advise on how to set that up in the most neutral way. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger! There is currently a discussion on WP:RSN about Verywell, a family of four websites owned by Dotdash. Three of them are blacklisted, and I don't believe they should. See here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Verywell
Last December, you altered the entry of Dotdash at WP:RSPSOURCES to state that Verywell was blacklisted due to "persistent abuse". You then changed this to "persistent violations of WP:MEDRS". Do you happen to remember what this was based upon? Do you have evidence that Verywell is unreliable? I personally don't think it is. The Verywell sites have review teams of board-certified physicians. The sites are also certified by the Health On the Net Foundation, which I guess should assure some degree of quality.
Your input at the Reliable sources Noticeboard would be appreciated. :-) Thanks, Manifestation ( talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The phrase "persistent abuse" is generic language used in most of the entries on blacklisted sources. Domains are generally only blacklisted if almost all links to them are added in violation of some policy or guideline, and most domains are blacklisted for reasons unrelated to reliability. Based on the discussion at WP:RSN § Verywell, it looks like the rationale in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2018 § verywellmind.com was spam-related and not related to WP:MEDRS. In Special:Diff/932917271, I had misinterpreted Jytdog's comment in the blacklisting discussion ("added to pages by students and people new to editing about health") as a reference to WP:MEDRS, and I apologize for the mistake.
I've just changed "persistent violations of WP:MEDRS" back to "persistent abuse" in Special:Diff/954810043. You've already started a discussion at the right place ( WP:RSN § Verywell) to re-evaluate the reliability of Verywell, and the result of the discussion will determine whether Verywell's reliability classification should be changed. I see that a previous discussion you started on the spam blacklist noticeboard at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2020 § Verywell did not result in any action. Feel free to start another proposal for removal, if you believe that Verywell does not need to be blacklisted. — Newslinger talk 12:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Nupur J Sharma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hatchens ( talk) 12:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Let me know if there are any more problems. I blocked them for 3 days and made it clear what would result in a new block. Ironically I'm asking them to read AgF while not having any good faith towards them myself! Doug Weller talk 12:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger - I'm a bit concerned over the deprecation of The Daily Caller. In fact, now that new evidence has come to light, I'm thinking some of the sources that were downgraded, and even deprecated, need to be revisited. What do you suggest as the best way to go about it? Atsme Talk 📧 18:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger! Re your comment here, would you know which of the tutorials is currently screenreader-compatible? If so, I'd be happy to mark them. Ideally, it would be good to ensure that the Help:Intro series is screenreader-compatible if it's not already. I'm not sure how difficult that would be, but I could certainly try. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A late congrats to you and Snoogans...I suppose...
This looks like small version of what cartoonist and web developer John Cook and blogger Dana Nuccitelli et al went through to create the global warming or climate change "consensus" studies.
Re: "Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source"
This determination was based on 3 "surveys" of Wikipedia editors (with 15 participants giving opinions). Mixed support opinions are assumed to count as full support, giving 87% (13 of 15) of editors support the consensus view. LOL
Oh the irony of EmVincent using Wikipedia pillars for A/B/C Feebacks, but also COI editing the Climate Feedback article.
Full support: Snooganssnoogans, Andromedean, Galobtter, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, MastCell, Ronz, Newslinger, Nblund: 9
Mixed: Obsidi, Daß Wölf, jps (?), ImTheIP: 4
No: PackMecEng, Peter Gulutzan: 2
Just argumentative: Hob Gadling
Note: The 4th discussion didn't really discuss Climate/Health/Science Feedback at all, although it's in the title. -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow."— Newslinger talk 23:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have an "official view" on any subject unrelated to the encyclopedia itself, and article contents are based solely on a proportional representation of reliable sources. Article content may change significantly when new information surfaces. From some of our discussions, I get the impression that your style of editing involves gathering sources to support a predetermined view (e.g. that /e/ does a disservice to the FOSS community, and that the scientific consensus on climate change is exaggerated). While that is the standard way to write an essay, thesis, or dissertation, it's not particularly compatible with the neutral point of view policy. The ideal way to write an article is to start with a clean slate, examine the available reliable sources, and let the sources speak for themselves. Unfortunately, this tends to be more difficult for topics that one is interested in.
Thank you for all of the contributions you have made so far, and for collaborating with me on several articles. I hope you enjoy your time in the nice weather doing things that make you happy. You are certainly welcome back if you ever decide to return. Cheers. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The
/e/ (operating system) article also used to have poor sources before they were removed. While you did add policy-compliant content at times, the content you added about /e/ in multiple articles was frequently negative, and when viewed alongside the
website you created were associated with that [https://ewwlo.xyz/wikipedia.html attacked specific editors on Wikipedia], was simply too much for me to ignore. You are free to create sites like ewwlo.xyz, but I strongly advise you to remove pages naming specific Wikipedia editors in conjunction with statements of intent such as "...has not yet been exposed and blocked. We at ewwlo will continue working to make that so", as they violate the
policy on off-wiki attacks.
The "positive and negative" rule is not a particularly good fit for certain topics, as it introduces a false balance between majority and minority views. For any topic, if the majority of the coverage in reliable sources is positive, then the majority of the article should also be positive. — Newslinger talk 22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
OMNIRom fact check: The IBTimes source has been in the article since published, November, 2013. From RSN discussions, IBTimes was considered a relatively reliable source until recently. This is another way the RSPS methodology is flawed - reliability varies with time (and author, editor, topic,...).
e rom fact check: Your involvement started the year before mine, around time of your participation in deletion discussion in December 2018.
"website you created..." fact check: Please retract this statement. While my username is mentioned at the [https://ewwlo.xyz/wikipedia.html webpage you linked] at ewwlo.xyz, and the facts there look 97+% accurate, I do not have any control of the site. I hope the stated off-wiki stalking and (ridiculous) statements by user "1984brave new world" (probably aka Caliwing, Indidea, Dxxxx, etc.) is also a concern to you.
I understand the issue with positive/negative balance, but again, without metrics, a majority/minority balance isn't rigorous, so 50-50 is at least some kind of verifiable thumbrule. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The trick is as follows, either you use:
play.google.com.sbdtube
if you want to blacklist a link only, or
\bplay\.google\.com.*sbdtube\b
to blacklist a specific regex. When you use a BLRequestLink or BLRequestRegex, it will ignore the domains in the {{ LinkSummary}}s that may be there. So if you have more complex rules next to domains, you will have to put the domains also in a {{ BLRequestLink}} so that it takes all of those. I hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't you find it kind of ridiculous striking so many comments? We don't normally do that across the board for blocked users. There is a user script that shows when a user is blocked with a strike-through of the name, should anyone want that information, it is available. -- Green C 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Many editors, including all IP editors and most editors on mobile devices, do not have access to the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" preference, and only a subset of logged-in editors with access to the preference choose to enable it. Further, most blocked editors are not banned, and only banned editors are subject to WP:BANREVERT, while the user preference only identifies blocked users. Striking the comments and adding a note make the situation unambiguous to all editors. — Newslinger talk 17:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
With three editors expressing concerns here, I've stopped the striking and I'm going to ask the administrators' noticeboard for feedback. The feedback I receive will determine whether I revert any of the strikes and whether I continue striking comments inside or outside archives. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The administrators' noticeboard discussion is at WP:AN § Striking comments from banned sockpuppets and modifying archived comments. — Newslinger talk 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Just curious, was there a reason why this IP range block includes registered users as well? I had a user contact me about IPBE but I figure it might be easier to just remove that particular restriction. Primefac ( talk) 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
[18] Doug Weller talk 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on H:SANDBOX requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. scope_creep Talk 10:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Bigsundar possibly a NoCal sock? NickCT ( talk) 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:spa}}
, and file a
sockpuppet investigation only if the account's future edits fit NoCal100's behavioral patterns. —
Newslinger
talk
13:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
On 21 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ad Fontes Media, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the founder of the media watchdog organization Ad Fontes Media has compared low-quality news sources to junk food? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ad Fontes Media. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Ad Fontes Media), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salt substitute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bitter ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 ( talk)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
User:HamiltonProject and user:ElKevbo need to be reviewed they are going against official documents to edit as they wish... possible vandalism 2603:9000:6504:12BD:E0EE:9B74:DED8:35A6 ( talk) 21:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nextdoor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.-- Moxy 🍁 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Thanks for responding to my message asking for help with Traefik! Kcmastrpc ( talk) 22:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
Can you merge this page with its parent article. I have already intimated the matter with the list's creator, with no response. I think this can be directly moved per WP:MERGEINIT, and it is unlikely to be contested. 157.46.171.221 ( talk) 07:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I only just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion (student movement) (2nd nomination), which you closed as delete, after one other participant expressed support for the nomination.
An article on this topic had previously been kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion (student movement). Between those discussions, a new WP:SPA editor MHuski ( talk · contribs) had almost completely replaced the content, [19] deleting all the history and citations which had given grounds for notability before.
As the closer of the second AfD, would you be willing to undelete the article and move it to draft space, where I might reinstate whatever old content remains of encyclopedic value? (As an admin I could do it myself, but am asking you as a courtesy and to avoid WP:OWN.) – Fayenatic London 20:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The No Spam Barnstar |
For your block of User:Stefano Penna for UPE - I never would have thought that a botched image link could come back to bite someone so hard. Passenger pigeon ( talk) 11:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hello Newslinger,
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to find out more about the protection you applied on the page Ryan-Mark Parsons. The semi-protection expires shortly and I'm worried that it will continue to be vandalised because the subject is controversial and most of his media coverage is contentious. I feel there is a large risk that once the protection is removed, IP addresses will target the page once again. Would indefinite protection be necessary to mitigate the risk of this happening again? Thank you. JPA24 ( talk) 20:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Very helpful :) JPA24 ( talk) 13:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Och, OpIndia seems to be hell bent on dominating even Wikipedia, as can be seen (Redacted). Do you or anyone at Wikipedia have any plans or should we just ignore them? (I’m using Scottish words like "och" just for the sake of doing it) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Talk 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, our goal is to write comprehensive articles that are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. With that in mind, it's important to keep the OpIndia article up-to-date. I did a search, and it looks like two reliable sources published stories on OpIndia being pulled from several ad networks after they published an article with the headline "Since Halal is legal, non-Muslims have the right to advertise that they don't hire Muslims: Here is why". I'm going to add that into the article now. — Newslinger talk 17:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger, doesn’t it seem odd that ever since OpIndia started its barrage against Wikipedia, at least 5 people have complained on Talk:OpIndia about the alleged bias against OpIndia already? Or is this normal for any controversial topic?
I’m listing each user here:
And I’m listing each edit request on the talk page that clearly would benefit the news site here:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
However, off-wiki canvassing has indeed attracted editors to Hindutva-related topics on Wikipedia. In addition to an editor of OpIndia's own Twitter request ( archive), non-neutral editing guides ( archive) have been posted in pro-Hindutva subreddits. The best way to counter off-wiki canvassing is to familiarize yourself with discretionary sanctions and request arbitration enforcement against bad-faith editing patterns. If you have evidence that an editor has a conflict of interest, the conflict of interest noticeboard would be the best way to address the issue if the evidence is on-wiki, while serious off-wiki evidence can be emailed to the Arbitration Committee. Sockpuppetry can be reported in sockpuppet investigations, but only if there is clear evidence linking two or more accounts (or IPs) together. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 09:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, Newslinger. I forgot to ask this yesterday (typical me) but maybe you could use a Template:FAQ to explain why OpIndia is not an accepted source, why its article is very negative and how Wikipedia’s neutrality policy works (in simple layman terms if possible, and keep it uncollapsed by default)? Of course, some people will act as of they didn’t see that but surely it may stop anyone receptive enough and reduce traffic and baseless complaints on the page… RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Talk 03:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you reverted my edit citing no reliable source on the page TheWire. However, I tried citing OpIndia, tfipost, swarajya magazine as source but wiki won't allow me to.
Moreover I am going back to make one change which was from the Wire website itself (after you allow it then only). Warm Regards, -- Parlebourbon ( talk) 17:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the early response. I just wanted to ask that, Ifound that OpIndia had been blocked since it was a right wing forum, but its article page is full of references filled with Left-Wing forums.Although I am very new here, and, I may be bold to say so, but the reality in India is that any online content belonging to right-wing is just scrapped off as trash, whereas same is not applicable to any specific left wing forum. I sincerely request wiki moderators and admins to ponder over this matter.
I will make a mental note to not cite source which is closely related to article itself. Thanks, Parlebourbon ( talk) 17:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, primary sources are allowed in articles, but secondary sources are preferred when available. Both are subject to the due weight test. — Newslinger talk 17:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for insight.
Parlebourbon ( talk) 04:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm reviewing https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31450. You blocked in March as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive. User of course denies being a sock. If you don't UTRS much, be careful of the buttons at the top. The button to comment is at the bottom. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
it seems you put an sanction on me regarding teapot issue i never mentioned anybody or any contributor why are you so angry i dont even mentioned anyones name of any thing about you .i think you are so insecure about yourself. cant i raise question about persons with full wikipedia rights and their partial behaviour towards the left and right wing differently , may be you are neutral and independent person or you receive complaints from left wings about things on the matter like is seen guy in your talk page redredblue mainly ,opindia may be not realible or trustworthy but the article on opindia is totally defamtory and locked and reference are used from left wing portal whom opindia also exposes in the their article the war between these portals. opindia is blocked also because there are some links on opindia about bias behaviour of left portals claiminf as neutral or independent .rest the wiki article about opindia is clearely biased and only mentioning the one sided things . hopefully you must understand rather than blocking guys like me for raising a questions about the doubts scroll also published hate agendas and false news which is checked by government fact check pibfactcheck organisation but they are not considered what a irony they are nowhere mentioned in their wiki aricle there failure at several time but opindia is blacklisted where they exposes it ,if you are a neutral person you must see those proofs on opindia website and also by [ https://facthunt.in/posts/1189/Food-Corporation-of-India-refutes-the-scroll's-report-that-65-lakh-MT-food-grains-wasted-in-four-months fact hunt ]
that guy is refrained for 1 year on wiki for editing whom is complainting about opindia to you here so you can understand the left agendas driven by these types ,they dont want anybody to raise questions about them then they start social image alter process Loneltrussia ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
yes Loneltrussia ( talk) 19:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
OpIndia ( RSP entry) is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and you can see the related noticeboard discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 § OpIndia and Swarajya. The FAQs at the top of Talk:OpIndia may also answer some of your questions about the OpIndia article. On Wikipedia, whether a source is considered reliable is not based on whether it is biased, but on whether it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you are unsure about whether a source is reliable, you can discuss it on the reliable sources noticeboard, where it will be evaluated by other editors.
Finally, please read the simplified ruleset if you have not done so already. It explains the most important policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and will help you understand how articles are written. — Newslinger talk 23:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I needed your help to check article, Hindutva, which appears very biased on a single reading and has been sourced with court statements which are primary sources. Isn't this wrong? Parlebourbon ( talk) 13:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned in our last conversation, primary sources are not prohibited on Wikipedia articles, and there are situations in which it would be appropriate to use them. However, if a reliable secondary source could be used to support the same claim, the secondary source should be preferred. (The primary source can optionally be cited alongside the secondary source if there is consensus to do so.) The main consideration for whether a primary source should be used in an article is due weight. — Newslinger talk 23:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks! I will check more sources first. After that I will go to the dispute resolution of talk page. Parlebourbon ( talk) 17:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger. It’s me, RedBulbBlueBlood9911. I created this account since someone with access to my device changed the password and it wasn’t linked to an email id. I have copy-pasted my original userpage, talk page, watchlist (I manually readded every page I remember), common.js page and signature for this account (and linked it to my email id), but I need you to do the following:
Thanks, RBBB9911 Talk 07:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: I will be far less active from now on for about an year at the least. My current edits are just to transfer my old content. RBBB9911 Talk 07:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
RBBB9911, please don't be embarrassed, since many people have gone through similar situations. Wikipedia:Wikipediholic § Software that may help provides some software suggestions, but I don't think they would do you any good, as you would still be able to disable or uninstall them at any time. There are also apps that encourage good habits and discourage bad habits, such as Habitica (formerly HabitRPG), which does this through gamification. I'm not too familiar with Habitica, but here's a review that tells you more.
Ultimately, the best way to maintain a good Wikipedia–life balance is to prioritize your life before Wikipedia. You are not obligated to edit Wikipedia, and there is no deadline to achieving any of your on-wiki goals. Wikipedia will still be here when you have time to edit, and the community will appreciate your contributions regardless of when you choose to provide them. Take care. — Newslinger talk 10:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks, Newslinger. RBBB9911 Talk 11:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Newslinger I think WP:SOCK of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balusingh12 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Realyaru are interconnected. Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Swarajya Magazine wikipedia entry currently is showing a biased version with derogatory connotation. I am working to put the article under 'disputed' banner. Baransam ( talk) 11:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you help me add mini map at article Draft: Nguyen Huu Cau High School? Thanks. AutoVida123 ( talk) 19:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! AutoVida123 ( talk) 14:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You're entitled to disagree, you're not entitled to your own facts, especially when what you are saying is contradicted in black and white right above where you are saying it. Just because nobody else here really cares, presumably because arguing that the Mail has been treatted unfairly is an unpopular opinion, doesn't make your behaviour any less right. Brian K Horton ( talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gaslighting and DAILYMAIL and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian K Horton ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Sources limited from use on Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Barnstar | |
For all the on and off site harrassment you've had to face and thank you for all the work you have done on the RS Noticeboard, I've learned a lot just from observing you, hope you don't mind. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC) |
Hi there. I just noticed your edit in my talk page and apologise for the delayed response. I would like to appeal to be considered to be removed my sanction on edits on topics related to India, Afghanistan, Parkistan,etc. I understand the whole context of responsible editing and wish to request for the removal so that I would be able to edit freely. Thank you. Hari147 ( talk) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wondering why you decline certain submissions? I'm working with the creator of the "PysimpleGUI" page that was created in 2018 and I found this note regarding its rejection. https://en.everybodywiki.com/PySimpleGUI<ref> <ref> 2018-12-25 T12:00:28Z "Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) ( AFCH 0.9.1)" Can you explain what needs to be done to meet the general notability guidelines? I am not knowledgeable on wiki guidelines so your help would be much appreciated.Thanks so much. 18:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.99.82 ( talk)
Draft:PySimpleGUI was deleted on 25 June 2019 because it had not been edited in six months. If you would like to continue working on the draft, please let me know and I will restore it for you. — Newslinger talk 23:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me about this, if you could restore the draft for us to edit, that would be much appreciated. Thanks so much! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
12.175.99.82 (
talk •
contribs)
18:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask: how do I pronounce your name (in my head)? I see it often and wonder what it means. Thanks GPinkerton ( talk) 00:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi! We don't know each other but I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your blacklisting of Zoominfo yesterday. I was the one who originally caught the sockpuppet operation, and was pleased to see the swift repercussions. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and although I don't have the New Page Reviewer right yet, I am quite enjoying the work involved. I have a few other possible cases I'm following up on; would it be OK if I presented them to you here, or would it be best if I posted them on the COI noticeboard instead? I am not fully familiar with a) how protocol works and b) how you personally deal with these issues. So thanks again and have a great day! Best, PK650 ( talk) 22:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger, thanks for your comment on WP:UAA about my report. I just want to clarify the ratio of my request: I felt that the term "Oficial" (Official in english) could refer to the promotional staff of the artist, that is to say that it implies a shared use. Cheers, -- DoebLoggs ( talk) 11:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Newslinger
Thank you for creating Black Boy Joy.
User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
...and the award for most convoluted section targeting goes to...
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}
. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
signed, Rosguill talk 22:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I got a message from you that I have edited a post here, and I didn't know that it can be counted as spamming. I am really sorry about that. I did not know about that, I really apologized for my mistake. I am totally new in the Wikipedia editing part, and I was just trying to put some extra information there, And I don't want to be harmed anyone for my mistake. And I don't want to be blacklisted anyone for my fault. The domain that has been blacklisted for my fault is mobileprice-bangladesh.com. I will be much more careful about this in the future. I am really sorry. Regards Shamim93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamimbd93 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
One time COIBot was reporting all of that, but it was giving quite some false positives and it kept on reporting for some. Maybe I should turn it back on .... -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, you may find edit filter 499 ( hist · log) relevant. — Newslinger talk 15:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I have to say if you use an app like Facebook particularly, you're getting a lot of tracking, so I'm not sure how much "less" it is really... [1]. I didn't want to muddy the waters over there, but if you think it should be, please let me know. -- Yae4 ( talk) 04:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
On 5 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article MicroG, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the LineageOS operating system refused to integrate MicroG software, the project forked its own version, with MicroG pre-installed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MicroG. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, MicroG), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Wug· a·po·des 22:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger,
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.
Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.
All the best,
Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Newslinger, belated congratulations on your adminship! I notice, however, that you are missing out on some of the BLING you are now entitled to. I recently created the the article User:MelanieN/Admin bling to let new admins know about all the shiny stuff they are now entitled to. Feel free to adorn yourself! -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
I have made a series of 12 user warning templates, shown in User:The Lord of Math/warn. Would you like to have a look and give some feedback? Thank you. tLoM (The Lord of Math) ( Message; contribs) 06:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
"be vandalism"or
"contain vandalism"would be better?
"inability".
I need to post an article about myself because I'm doing a research project for school. I sent you a goat because youd be a goat if you did this for me. If you want to talk to me about this my email is tjcerasi@gmail.com
VanessaCurty (
talk)
01:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for "spam". One week passed, but no approving or feedback here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/AutoWikiBrowser#User:Estopedist1 -- Estopedist1 ( talk) 06:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I've finished reviewing your history with AutoWikiBrowser on the other projects, and you are now listed on the check page. Thank you for volunteering to improve Estonia-related pages. — Newslinger talk 09:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking at a request for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Derbent concerning Special:Contributions/2605:E000:151E:8550:81C5:4902:5209:3CB5. Looking at those contribs shows you page blocked Special:Contributions/2605:E000:151E:8000:0:0:0:0/50 to prevent edits to Caucasian Imamate. I'm hoping you might understand what the IP is up to now, and whether it is a problem that should be handled with a wider block. Meanwhile, I will protect Derbent. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger. I have already disclosed my employee status with Nagarro and the change made during the editing has been reversed. Does the page still require the paid tag? Please suggest if there are further steps to be taken. Furthermore, I had requested for partial page protection as the page gets edited frequently with wrong information. Buzztrack ( talk) 12:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Would you mind adding linkbacks to my script in there? (And I'm sure the others would appreciate them too.) It helps with the Special:WhatLinksHere results. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --
Hell in a Bucket (
talk)
19:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger, you have me a little confused with this unblock] of a username violation. The username was not changed and the user showed no signs of wanting to discuss. Additionally, they were not talk page blocked, so they would've still been able to edit their talk page to discuss. Could you please explain? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 19:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to block BlueEnvy again. It's been two months since BlueEnvy's last edit, so I don't think it makes a difference whether they are blocked at this point. — Newslinger talk 20:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Background: A redirect was changed to a new page.( History) The intro/lead for the new page was the same as Section "What is vym?" in the overview at a source. [2] In reviewing the new page, GermanJoe deleted almost all of the introduction/lead and changed it to a brief statement, calling the source not reliable, and vanity press; and calling the copied text a "copyvio". After Talk discussions, Germanjoe changed mind and agreed the source was reliable (valid self-published), and restored it as a source; however, the question of copy/paste was not resolved, and GermanJoe suggested I may get other opinions. [3] So, I'm asking for your opinion. More details: The software is licensed under GPL2. [4] The page the excerpt was taken from says, "This page was exported directly from vym." [5] Recent source files do contain nearly the same wording that was copy/pasted, although not precisely the exact same. The logic, therefore, is: Output Help info from a GPL2 software, from a web page, may be freely copy/pasted (as long as credit/source is included), which was done. I know the cautious thing is to always reword everything, but... I'm pursuing this further because being under a "blocked from editing without further warning" 3rd warning status is an uncomfortable threat, which I believe is not warranted. I also note my previous 2 warnings were, IMO, based on very conservative interpretations of copyright fair use (i.e. my copy/pastes were very small excerpts of much longer articles). Last, if preferred, I could take this to copyright Q's. [6] -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about the warning on your talk page – copyright is very tricky and difficult to get right. If you treat all outside text as proprietary for the purposes of Wikipedia, you won't have an issue in the future, and your own wording would most likely be more encyclopedic than the original text. Feel free to ask the copyright questions noticeboard, since the folks there are probably more experienced in dealing with copyright issues than I am. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can you take a look at this user's conducts on the Gorani language page? It's getting ridiculous and I've reached my three-revert rights [7]. Unexplained removal of academically-sourced content and accuses it/me of having 'ethnic motives' -- Semsurî ( talk) 10:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Semsûrî. Unfortunately, since this looks like a content dispute and not obvious vandalism, I am unable to intervene in favor of any particular version of the article. Have you considered discussing the issue on the talk page ( Talk:Gorani language), asking one of the relevant WikiProjects ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages) for input, starting a request for comment, or escalating this to the dispute resolution noticeboard?
Also, please be careful not to violate the three-revert rule. On the Gorani language article, I see four reverts from you and four reverts from برسام on 25 March. Because of this, I have to send each of you a warning. In the future, even if another editor is the first to revert an article, please try to discuss the issue with them instead of repeatedly reverting the article back. Once there is consensus on the talk page for a particular version of the article, feel free to implement that version. ( Silence implies consensus. If there are no responses on the talk page after a day or two, feel free to restore the article to your preferred version.) — Newslinger talk 06:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger,
Could you look in on this thread and advise on how to move forward? Serious allegations against Biden are being blocked from the article with claims of poor sourcing and undue weight. Biden's response to them is also being removed. From past experience with allegations against powerful politicians here, I wanted to get advice early on in the process. Thank you, petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Newslinger! I looked at this username and didn't think it needed to be blocked for that reason – it seems to be a typical Mark at WidgetsUSA name, where the first six letters are the person's name and the rest that of his company. However, I doubt if it'll be a great loss to the project if it stays that way ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed your edits on Natalie Portman and wondered why you're removing the Forbes articles, there are nothing wrong with them as far as I am aware. In fact I was wondering if it was a miss-lead interpretation of contributors. Forbes operates differently in some area's and contributors with Forbes, quite a few of them specialise in a particular field of the news. Others make up the bulk of research work, that shouldn't be negated. [8]. Govvy ( talk) 09:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
Govvy, in
past discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard, most editors considered Forbes.com contributor articles equivalent to
self-published sources due to lack of editorial oversight. The
Columbia Journalism Review confirmed that the contributor model used by Forbes.com suffers from poor editorial oversight; one contributor said,
"In terms of editorial oversight, I wrote 164 articles for Forbes in three years and I received feedback from my editor maybe a total of six times."
The
Poynter Institute noted that
"There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing."
BuzzFeed News presented a case in which
a contributor used Forbes.com and other contributor platforms to promote his clients with
sponsored content without disclosure.
The Outline documented
another case of the same situation.
All in all, the Forbes.com contributor platform does not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"
required by
WP:V and
WP:RS. Feel free to escalate this to the
reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like to solicit opinions from others, but it's unlikely for the consensus in the
last 11 discussions to be overturned. (Forbes staff articles
don't have the same issues, and I don't remove them because they're not considered self-published.) —
Newslinger
talk
12:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there,
I am trying to write an article for an Argentinian Based music company "Chaos Music". But I am getting the following error. "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism". If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact an administrator on their talk page or by email.
Can you please help me resolve the issue. I Will really appreciate it...-- Rashijain1992 ( talk) 16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Newslinger - I can't seem to locate the RfC or discussion that created or decided Perennial Sources could be a supplement to the RS guideline. Can you point me in the right direction or provide a diff so I can review the process? Thanks in advance... Atsme Talk 📧 17:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled A Quiet Place sequel. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled A Quiet Place sequel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC 678 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --
Yae4 (
talk)
00:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger, recently you've moved article to draft for it being under-sourced but I am failing to see what was missed. Would you be kind enough to expand on which parts of the article are under-sourced so I can go ahead and make the necessary changes? Thank you and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editiorchief ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Has had a record certified gold"criterion for musicians, which applies to the song's credited artist but not to the song's producers.
Once you locate at least two independent reliable sources that show significant coverage of Matstubs, please cite them in the draft. When the draft is ready, please click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" link at the top of the page. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 02:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke TPA.-- Cahk ( talk) 07:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Any suggestions/advice for how to deal with things like "Go away, anti-science POV warrior." [9] Or this sort of "warning" [10] Also, is it considered appropriate to raise questions on Noticeboards without informing others on the related Talk pages? [11] I note the first, re: Skeptical Science, was raised by the name-caller, and the second, re: Nakamura (article I created), is by the same editor who posted a "warning" on my Talk, both without notification (and I'm called tenditious?). -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi
Yae4, while the comments you linked to are negative in tone, I do not think they are sanctionable on their own. You are free to escalate your report to the
incidents noticeboard, but discussions there tend to be counterproductive unless the behavior you report is serious enough. Editors are asked to use the {{
Ftn-notice}} when mentioning "specific editors"
on the
fringe theories noticeboard, although this does not appear to be a strict requirement. —
Newslinger
talk
05:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The tips at WP:CIV § Dealing with incivility might also be helpful. — Newslinger talk 07:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Newslinger, I just want to say thanks for undoing/fixing an edit I made to Mullvad (and clarifying it). I completely misunderstood the free in FOSS up until now, and I'm glad to have finally learned it. I'll be on the lookout for that in the future, since it seems to be quite the interesting topic, and I'll also be more careful before changing things I don't yet fully understand. Cheers! ChromeGames923 ( talk) 01:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for the introduction, I look forward to working with you. Ashlesh007 ( talk) 10:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Newslinger,
With your reversion on the Breitbart News article, I have noticed you may be engaging in edit warring, specifically regarding reversions to removals of content which is poorly cited and tagged dubious (specifically regarding the use of the term "many traditional conservatives", which comes from the opinion of a columnist, and probably is contentious material
Please do not breach WP:3RR PompeyTheGreat ( talk) 07:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.El_C 07:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
El_C WP:NPOV supersedes WP:ONUS, specifically WP:WEIGHT, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
But the user who created the Bo Winegard article here on Wikipedia told me (on another site) that they were evading a ban here. Is this credible enough to report? If so, where might I report it? Comrade GC ( talk) 19:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I see that you're also discussing this with Bishonen at User talk:Bishonen § I would like to report a Nazi committing ban evasion. Since this new information was not previously disclosed on-wiki, you will most likely have to email the evidence to the Arbitration Committee. — Newslinger talk 00:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Saw your HenryFriedberg SPI report from a few weeks ago (via a new COIN thread). Just wanted to share a filter you might find useful: 1016. It flags when an edit adds local filesystem links - usually it's just a misguided new editor trying to upload a picture, but every so often it finds more...interesting links, like what you found in that SPI. It's on my normal filter watchlist because of that. creffett ( talk) 03:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
|
Your work as an admin is not being graded, |
Hi Newslinger, Over here [12] I requested an undelete or move to draft of the deleted Offensive Security, and haven't seen any action, because that person has been inactive. Last time, asking you to do it was enough to make it happen before you got a chance. [13] Could we do please do that again? Or undelete/move to draft if you beat them to it? Thanks! -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, Newslinger,
Does this look like targeted hounding by an admin, to you? Or still just good ole admin due diligence? In context of JzG's April 5 sparse edit history and all... And people wonder why editor retention is a problem? Sigh. To think I was just telling someone IRL how refreshing it was to see someone (Re4sonkernel) come along to improve an article, be upfront when asked about COI, cooperate, and try to work together within the WP rules. Then along comes JzG, again. -- Yae4 ( talk) 22:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."The version of the Kali NetHunter article at Special:Permalink/949270994 had over half of its content cited to primary sources, which did not meet the most generous interpretation of the WP:PSTS policy. The edits discussed here appear to be acceptable under the hounding policy, which states that
"Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."If you think you are being followed in a way that does not meet the policy, you may escalate the issue to the incidents noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The state of related articles does not necessarily reflect best practices, unless the article is a good or featured article that has not been significantly altered since its review. Unfortunately, many of our software articles suffer from improper sourcing. The LineageOS article, with the "Preinstalled apps" and "Unique features" sections, has similarities to an old version of the /e/ (operating system) article before it was significantly changed.
Please review
Wikipedia:Requests for comment (
WP:RFC) thoroughly if you plan on starting an RfC on
Talk:Climate Feedback. The most important section of the page is
WP:RFCBRIEF, which describes how the RfC statement should be formed. Specifically, the RfC statement should be "neutral and brief"
, and the standard of neutrality here is very high. You can express your opinion freely in the survey and discussion sections of the RfC, but not in the RfC statement. I have found the RfC format in
Talk:Axios (website) § RfC: Paid Wikipedia editing to be a clear way of communicating the options to the commenters. Keep in mind that RfCs almost always have an exclusive focus on content, and that conduct disputes belong on the
incidents noticeboard.
—
Newslinger
talk
09:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You're named on Opindia. "harbinger & promoter of vandals". Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reading the
"Notes on OpIndia". The editor of OpIndia (Nupur J Sharma) declared "war"
on Wikipedia, and the notes are like
caltrops – if OpIndia ever mentions my username again, they will expose their readers to something that most certainly does not
"keep up the narrative".
As for the coronavirus, Sharma was repeatedly tweeting about how the coronavirus isn't a problem, and that everyone needs to disregard it. After Narendra Modi addressed India on 19 March, Sharma flip-flopped and started tweeting about social distancing (with accusations against Muslims and Chinese people mixed in). Strange world. — Newslinger talk 23:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems weird for someone so involved to block an account that has not edited in almost eight years. Meh. PackMecEng ( talk) 03:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you please add this closed discussion to WP:RSPSOURCES? I am afraid I might mess-up if I try because I am not familiar with the wikitext used there.— Vaibhavafro 💬 09:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
While a few RfCs are prematurely closed if the result is obvious (under the snowball clause), we usually don't do early closures for noticeboard RfCs about sources, since they affect a lot of articles and we want to give everyone a chance to participate. Also, editors who express an opinion in an RfC are generally not supposed to close them, since the closure procedure asks for an "uninvolved editor" to perform the closure. The purpose of this restriction is to limit the amount of influence any one editor has over the RfC result.
I see that you've closed the RfC in Special:Diff/951864560 referring to point #1 in WP:RFCEND, but for the purposes of the perennial sources list, withdrawing an RfC is not quite the same thing as closing an RfC. This is because RfCs on the list are only highlighted if they are "uninterrupted" (i.e. not withdrawn or removed). Withdrawing the RfC demotes it to the same level as a normal discussion, and I'm not sure if The Indian Express currently has enough significant discussions to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:RSPCRITERIA.
Since Indian sources are underrepresented on the perennial sources list, I think you might want to restore the RfC and let it finish completely, so that The Indian Express can be added to the list. Is this something you're willing to do? — Newslinger talk 09:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger, I created a WP:SIZESPLIT of the section 2008 Kandhamal Violence from the article Religious violence in Odisha and moved the content to an already existing redirect 2008 Kandhamal violence since the size of the section exceeded more than 50 kb as per WP:PROSPLIT and kept on expanding it since it's a very notable incident.This user User:Srijanx22, out of nowhere accuses me of WP:POVFORK and replaced the entire article with a redirect. The user went on to do the same to another article 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal that i have created from the start just days before. The user also reverted the content Violence against Christians in India and now has reported me to the adminstrators notice board here User_talk:Suneye1#POVFORK_and_using_Wikipedia_for_advocacy. SUN EYE 1 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
My recommendation to you is to focus on the content, and resolve this dispute through standard editorial processes. If an editor wants to delete a new article you created, consider asking them to nominate it for deletion instead of redirecting. If an editor wants to merge an article, the procedure to use is a merger proposal. Likewise, if you are not sure about whether there is consensus to split the Religious violence in Odisha article in the first place, you may want to temporarily re-merge the article and then initiate a split proposal on the talk page. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 12:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger,
I have replied to your COI board post. Rest your mind at peace, no one is going to sue you or cause legal problems, not from me at least. I am no lawyer or Opindia representative/champion. After posting my reply, I read some of the old issues you piped in your OP at noticeboard, I do realise there seems to be some long messy emotive history, which I can appreciate might have been stressful and painful for those involve. I do not understand the whole issue but I understood Opindia was banned because of their editor breached/doxed privacy of someone/unknown editor. I also read my own OP, I had not mentioned any names, so I was surprised why people are getting edgy and paranoid. I did realise, I had mentioned the heading of an article in my OP. I reread that article, and did realize that article mentions two people having, a journalist and you, I had not remembered your or his names before, Only now I realised this. Anyway, article does not dox you and all it seems to say is that you and other guy had some kind of edit war and block war. That was not my concern at all. After that issues, the article moves to next issues and goes on to say that wikipedia editors are for sale and then it moves to a 3rd issues which that there is cartelization at wiipedia. 1st issue of 2 of you havign edit war is of no concern to me, my concerns are next 2 issues. Hope you understand better. Please do me a favor:
1. If you are worried about any legal hassles or someone witch hunting you, get this out of you mind. Nothing of sort is coming your way. At least not from me. Just enjoy your life. I come to Wikipedia for fun, once in a while when I want to destress by editing. If you are not enjoying being here, perhaps take a break. That is the reason I did not want to make registered account, less apps, less notification, less addiction, more real life. Peace of mind is more important than wikipedia or social media, please do not get too emotionally attached to it. I really hope you are not gonna worry about legal issues any more. Before today you were a stranger to me, and I do not to be the indirect cause of your stress.
2. I have already posted my reply. If you still have more questions please post on the notice board and inform me on my talkpage for me to reply. If you are okay, then I will stop monitoring that noticeboard and leave it to you deal with it.
3. About my OP on article talk page, after reading your OP in the noticeboard I get a feeling that there is a lot of emotionally messy history which I am not aware of. This might trigger emotional responses in people, who might have been involved in that past mess. I really wanna keep out of it. So please help me by isolating the concerns raised in my nonpersonal post from any personal/emotional legacy issues of all these strangers. Please reread my OP after couple of days, this time by totally emotionally presuming it is not about people but about processes and concepts, and then please respond to it. ie. are there any actionable reforms that could be taken? Who are the editors, if any, selling their services? About the issue of editing the Opindia article (point 1 in my OP), I still believe UNDUE WEIGHT is given to one primary source, which comes across as grinding the axe against Opindia. That is how it came across to me as a neutral third party who had been uninvolved with the legacy issues.
4. Thanks for the teahouse party invite. I have been editing for a while as an IP, always deliberately remained IP for the reasons cited earlier (more peace of mind, less addiction).
Stay safe, stay healthy, relax your mind. Good night. Hugs. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Newslinger.
Ad Fontes Media, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's
Main Page as part of
Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion
here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you.
EnterpriseyBot (
talk!)
01:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to ask for your thoughts on this talk page section and the article's edit history. User seems to be problematic — he keeps on accusing without proof. Thanks. — Hiwilms ( talk) 06:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi News,
Regarding the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, we have editors using a NYT piece that includes an edit made on behalf of the Biden campaign, and at the RS/N, Wikipedians are expressing an array of opinions on whether and how the source should be used. It seems a formal RfC is in order. I was wondering if you could advise on how to set that up in the most neutral way. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger! There is currently a discussion on WP:RSN about Verywell, a family of four websites owned by Dotdash. Three of them are blacklisted, and I don't believe they should. See here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Verywell
Last December, you altered the entry of Dotdash at WP:RSPSOURCES to state that Verywell was blacklisted due to "persistent abuse". You then changed this to "persistent violations of WP:MEDRS". Do you happen to remember what this was based upon? Do you have evidence that Verywell is unreliable? I personally don't think it is. The Verywell sites have review teams of board-certified physicians. The sites are also certified by the Health On the Net Foundation, which I guess should assure some degree of quality.
Your input at the Reliable sources Noticeboard would be appreciated. :-) Thanks, Manifestation ( talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The phrase "persistent abuse" is generic language used in most of the entries on blacklisted sources. Domains are generally only blacklisted if almost all links to them are added in violation of some policy or guideline, and most domains are blacklisted for reasons unrelated to reliability. Based on the discussion at WP:RSN § Verywell, it looks like the rationale in MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2018 § verywellmind.com was spam-related and not related to WP:MEDRS. In Special:Diff/932917271, I had misinterpreted Jytdog's comment in the blacklisting discussion ("added to pages by students and people new to editing about health") as a reference to WP:MEDRS, and I apologize for the mistake.
I've just changed "persistent violations of WP:MEDRS" back to "persistent abuse" in Special:Diff/954810043. You've already started a discussion at the right place ( WP:RSN § Verywell) to re-evaluate the reliability of Verywell, and the result of the discussion will determine whether Verywell's reliability classification should be changed. I see that a previous discussion you started on the spam blacklist noticeboard at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2020 § Verywell did not result in any action. Feel free to start another proposal for removal, if you believe that Verywell does not need to be blacklisted. — Newslinger talk 12:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Nupur J Sharma, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Hatchens ( talk) 12:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Let me know if there are any more problems. I blocked them for 3 days and made it clear what would result in a new block. Ironically I'm asking them to read AgF while not having any good faith towards them myself! Doug Weller talk 12:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger - I'm a bit concerned over the deprecation of The Daily Caller. In fact, now that new evidence has come to light, I'm thinking some of the sources that were downgraded, and even deprecated, need to be revisited. What do you suggest as the best way to go about it? Atsme Talk 📧 18:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger! Re your comment here, would you know which of the tutorials is currently screenreader-compatible? If so, I'd be happy to mark them. Ideally, it would be good to ensure that the Help:Intro series is screenreader-compatible if it's not already. I'm not sure how difficult that would be, but I could certainly try. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 05:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A late congrats to you and Snoogans...I suppose...
This looks like small version of what cartoonist and web developer John Cook and blogger Dana Nuccitelli et al went through to create the global warming or climate change "consensus" studies.
Re: "Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source"
This determination was based on 3 "surveys" of Wikipedia editors (with 15 participants giving opinions). Mixed support opinions are assumed to count as full support, giving 87% (13 of 15) of editors support the consensus view. LOL
Oh the irony of EmVincent using Wikipedia pillars for A/B/C Feebacks, but also COI editing the Climate Feedback article.
Full support: Snooganssnoogans, Andromedean, Galobtter, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, MastCell, Ronz, Newslinger, Nblund: 9
Mixed: Obsidi, Daß Wölf, jps (?), ImTheIP: 4
No: PackMecEng, Peter Gulutzan: 2
Just argumentative: Hob Gadling
Note: The 4th discussion didn't really discuss Climate/Health/Science Feedback at all, although it's in the title. -- Yae4 ( talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow."— Newslinger talk 23:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't have an "official view" on any subject unrelated to the encyclopedia itself, and article contents are based solely on a proportional representation of reliable sources. Article content may change significantly when new information surfaces. From some of our discussions, I get the impression that your style of editing involves gathering sources to support a predetermined view (e.g. that /e/ does a disservice to the FOSS community, and that the scientific consensus on climate change is exaggerated). While that is the standard way to write an essay, thesis, or dissertation, it's not particularly compatible with the neutral point of view policy. The ideal way to write an article is to start with a clean slate, examine the available reliable sources, and let the sources speak for themselves. Unfortunately, this tends to be more difficult for topics that one is interested in.
Thank you for all of the contributions you have made so far, and for collaborating with me on several articles. I hope you enjoy your time in the nice weather doing things that make you happy. You are certainly welcome back if you ever decide to return. Cheers. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The
/e/ (operating system) article also used to have poor sources before they were removed. While you did add policy-compliant content at times, the content you added about /e/ in multiple articles was frequently negative, and when viewed alongside the
website you created were associated with that [https://ewwlo.xyz/wikipedia.html attacked specific editors on Wikipedia], was simply too much for me to ignore. You are free to create sites like ewwlo.xyz, but I strongly advise you to remove pages naming specific Wikipedia editors in conjunction with statements of intent such as "...has not yet been exposed and blocked. We at ewwlo will continue working to make that so", as they violate the
policy on off-wiki attacks.
The "positive and negative" rule is not a particularly good fit for certain topics, as it introduces a false balance between majority and minority views. For any topic, if the majority of the coverage in reliable sources is positive, then the majority of the article should also be positive. — Newslinger talk 22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
OMNIRom fact check: The IBTimes source has been in the article since published, November, 2013. From RSN discussions, IBTimes was considered a relatively reliable source until recently. This is another way the RSPS methodology is flawed - reliability varies with time (and author, editor, topic,...).
e rom fact check: Your involvement started the year before mine, around time of your participation in deletion discussion in December 2018.
"website you created..." fact check: Please retract this statement. While my username is mentioned at the [https://ewwlo.xyz/wikipedia.html webpage you linked] at ewwlo.xyz, and the facts there look 97+% accurate, I do not have any control of the site. I hope the stated off-wiki stalking and (ridiculous) statements by user "1984brave new world" (probably aka Caliwing, Indidea, Dxxxx, etc.) is also a concern to you.
I understand the issue with positive/negative balance, but again, without metrics, a majority/minority balance isn't rigorous, so 50-50 is at least some kind of verifiable thumbrule. -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The trick is as follows, either you use:
play.google.com.sbdtube
if you want to blacklist a link only, or
\bplay\.google\.com.*sbdtube\b
to blacklist a specific regex. When you use a BLRequestLink or BLRequestRegex, it will ignore the domains in the {{ LinkSummary}}s that may be there. So if you have more complex rules next to domains, you will have to put the domains also in a {{ BLRequestLink}} so that it takes all of those. I hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't you find it kind of ridiculous striking so many comments? We don't normally do that across the board for blocked users. There is a user script that shows when a user is blocked with a strike-through of the name, should anyone want that information, it is available. -- Green C 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Many editors, including all IP editors and most editors on mobile devices, do not have access to the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" preference, and only a subset of logged-in editors with access to the preference choose to enable it. Further, most blocked editors are not banned, and only banned editors are subject to WP:BANREVERT, while the user preference only identifies blocked users. Striking the comments and adding a note make the situation unambiguous to all editors. — Newslinger talk 17:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
With three editors expressing concerns here, I've stopped the striking and I'm going to ask the administrators' noticeboard for feedback. The feedback I receive will determine whether I revert any of the strikes and whether I continue striking comments inside or outside archives. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The administrators' noticeboard discussion is at WP:AN § Striking comments from banned sockpuppets and modifying archived comments. — Newslinger talk 21:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Just curious, was there a reason why this IP range block includes registered users as well? I had a user contact me about IPBE but I figure it might be easier to just remove that particular restriction. Primefac ( talk) 18:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
[18] Doug Weller talk 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on H:SANDBOX requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. scope_creep Talk 10:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Bigsundar possibly a NoCal sock? NickCT ( talk) 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
{{
subst:spa}}
, and file a
sockpuppet investigation only if the account's future edits fit NoCal100's behavioral patterns. —
Newslinger
talk
13:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
On 21 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ad Fontes Media, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the founder of the media watchdog organization Ad Fontes Media has compared low-quality news sources to junk food? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ad Fontes Media. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Ad Fontes Media), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
-- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salt substitute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bitter ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 ( talk)
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
User:HamiltonProject and user:ElKevbo need to be reviewed they are going against official documents to edit as they wish... possible vandalism 2603:9000:6504:12BD:E0EE:9B74:DED8:35A6 ( talk) 21:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nextdoor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.-- Moxy 🍁 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Thanks for responding to my message asking for help with Traefik! Kcmastrpc ( talk) 22:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC) |
Can you merge this page with its parent article. I have already intimated the matter with the list's creator, with no response. I think this can be directly moved per WP:MERGEINIT, and it is unlikely to be contested. 157.46.171.221 ( talk) 07:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I only just noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion (student movement) (2nd nomination), which you closed as delete, after one other participant expressed support for the nomination.
An article on this topic had previously been kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion (student movement). Between those discussions, a new WP:SPA editor MHuski ( talk · contribs) had almost completely replaced the content, [19] deleting all the history and citations which had given grounds for notability before.
As the closer of the second AfD, would you be willing to undelete the article and move it to draft space, where I might reinstate whatever old content remains of encyclopedic value? (As an admin I could do it myself, but am asking you as a courtesy and to avoid WP:OWN.) – Fayenatic London 20:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The No Spam Barnstar |
For your block of User:Stefano Penna for UPE - I never would have thought that a botched image link could come back to bite someone so hard. Passenger pigeon ( talk) 11:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC) |
Hello Newslinger,
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to find out more about the protection you applied on the page Ryan-Mark Parsons. The semi-protection expires shortly and I'm worried that it will continue to be vandalised because the subject is controversial and most of his media coverage is contentious. I feel there is a large risk that once the protection is removed, IP addresses will target the page once again. Would indefinite protection be necessary to mitigate the risk of this happening again? Thank you. JPA24 ( talk) 20:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Very helpful :) JPA24 ( talk) 13:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Och, OpIndia seems to be hell bent on dominating even Wikipedia, as can be seen (Redacted). Do you or anyone at Wikipedia have any plans or should we just ignore them? (I’m using Scottish words like "och" just for the sake of doing it) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Talk 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, our goal is to write comprehensive articles that are in accordance with the policies and guidelines. With that in mind, it's important to keep the OpIndia article up-to-date. I did a search, and it looks like two reliable sources published stories on OpIndia being pulled from several ad networks after they published an article with the headline "Since Halal is legal, non-Muslims have the right to advertise that they don't hire Muslims: Here is why". I'm going to add that into the article now. — Newslinger talk 17:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger, doesn’t it seem odd that ever since OpIndia started its barrage against Wikipedia, at least 5 people have complained on Talk:OpIndia about the alleged bias against OpIndia already? Or is this normal for any controversial topic?
I’m listing each user here:
And I’m listing each edit request on the talk page that clearly would benefit the news site here:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 ( talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
However, off-wiki canvassing has indeed attracted editors to Hindutva-related topics on Wikipedia. In addition to an editor of OpIndia's own Twitter request ( archive), non-neutral editing guides ( archive) have been posted in pro-Hindutva subreddits. The best way to counter off-wiki canvassing is to familiarize yourself with discretionary sanctions and request arbitration enforcement against bad-faith editing patterns. If you have evidence that an editor has a conflict of interest, the conflict of interest noticeboard would be the best way to address the issue if the evidence is on-wiki, while serious off-wiki evidence can be emailed to the Arbitration Committee. Sockpuppetry can be reported in sockpuppet investigations, but only if there is clear evidence linking two or more accounts (or IPs) together. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 09:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi again, Newslinger. I forgot to ask this yesterday (typical me) but maybe you could use a Template:FAQ to explain why OpIndia is not an accepted source, why its article is very negative and how Wikipedia’s neutrality policy works (in simple layman terms if possible, and keep it uncollapsed by default)? Of course, some people will act as of they didn’t see that but surely it may stop anyone receptive enough and reduce traffic and baseless complaints on the page… RedBulbBlueBlood9911 Talk 03:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you reverted my edit citing no reliable source on the page TheWire. However, I tried citing OpIndia, tfipost, swarajya magazine as source but wiki won't allow me to.
Moreover I am going back to make one change which was from the Wire website itself (after you allow it then only). Warm Regards, -- Parlebourbon ( talk) 17:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the early response. I just wanted to ask that, Ifound that OpIndia had been blocked since it was a right wing forum, but its article page is full of references filled with Left-Wing forums.Although I am very new here, and, I may be bold to say so, but the reality in India is that any online content belonging to right-wing is just scrapped off as trash, whereas same is not applicable to any specific left wing forum. I sincerely request wiki moderators and admins to ponder over this matter.
I will make a mental note to not cite source which is closely related to article itself. Thanks, Parlebourbon ( talk) 17:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, primary sources are allowed in articles, but secondary sources are preferred when available. Both are subject to the due weight test. — Newslinger talk 17:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for insight.
Parlebourbon ( talk) 04:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm reviewing https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31450. You blocked in March as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FixerFixerFixer/Archive. User of course denies being a sock. If you don't UTRS much, be careful of the buttons at the top. The button to comment is at the bottom. Cheers, -- Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 09:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
it seems you put an sanction on me regarding teapot issue i never mentioned anybody or any contributor why are you so angry i dont even mentioned anyones name of any thing about you .i think you are so insecure about yourself. cant i raise question about persons with full wikipedia rights and their partial behaviour towards the left and right wing differently , may be you are neutral and independent person or you receive complaints from left wings about things on the matter like is seen guy in your talk page redredblue mainly ,opindia may be not realible or trustworthy but the article on opindia is totally defamtory and locked and reference are used from left wing portal whom opindia also exposes in the their article the war between these portals. opindia is blocked also because there are some links on opindia about bias behaviour of left portals claiminf as neutral or independent .rest the wiki article about opindia is clearely biased and only mentioning the one sided things . hopefully you must understand rather than blocking guys like me for raising a questions about the doubts scroll also published hate agendas and false news which is checked by government fact check pibfactcheck organisation but they are not considered what a irony they are nowhere mentioned in their wiki aricle there failure at several time but opindia is blacklisted where they exposes it ,if you are a neutral person you must see those proofs on opindia website and also by [ https://facthunt.in/posts/1189/Food-Corporation-of-India-refutes-the-scroll's-report-that-65-lakh-MT-food-grains-wasted-in-four-months fact hunt ]
that guy is refrained for 1 year on wiki for editing whom is complainting about opindia to you here so you can understand the left agendas driven by these types ,they dont want anybody to raise questions about them then they start social image alter process Loneltrussia ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
yes Loneltrussia ( talk) 19:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
OpIndia ( RSP entry) is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and you can see the related noticeboard discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 § OpIndia and Swarajya. The FAQs at the top of Talk:OpIndia may also answer some of your questions about the OpIndia article. On Wikipedia, whether a source is considered reliable is not based on whether it is biased, but on whether it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you are unsure about whether a source is reliable, you can discuss it on the reliable sources noticeboard, where it will be evaluated by other editors.
Finally, please read the simplified ruleset if you have not done so already. It explains the most important policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and will help you understand how articles are written. — Newslinger talk 23:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I needed your help to check article, Hindutva, which appears very biased on a single reading and has been sourced with court statements which are primary sources. Isn't this wrong? Parlebourbon ( talk) 13:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
As I mentioned in our last conversation, primary sources are not prohibited on Wikipedia articles, and there are situations in which it would be appropriate to use them. However, if a reliable secondary source could be used to support the same claim, the secondary source should be preferred. (The primary source can optionally be cited alongside the secondary source if there is consensus to do so.) The main consideration for whether a primary source should be used in an article is due weight. — Newslinger talk 23:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks! I will check more sources first. After that I will go to the dispute resolution of talk page. Parlebourbon ( talk) 17:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Newslinger. It’s me, RedBulbBlueBlood9911. I created this account since someone with access to my device changed the password and it wasn’t linked to an email id. I have copy-pasted my original userpage, talk page, watchlist (I manually readded every page I remember), common.js page and signature for this account (and linked it to my email id), but I need you to do the following:
Thanks, RBBB9911 Talk 07:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: I will be far less active from now on for about an year at the least. My current edits are just to transfer my old content. RBBB9911 Talk 07:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
RBBB9911, please don't be embarrassed, since many people have gone through similar situations. Wikipedia:Wikipediholic § Software that may help provides some software suggestions, but I don't think they would do you any good, as you would still be able to disable or uninstall them at any time. There are also apps that encourage good habits and discourage bad habits, such as Habitica (formerly HabitRPG), which does this through gamification. I'm not too familiar with Habitica, but here's a review that tells you more.
Ultimately, the best way to maintain a good Wikipedia–life balance is to prioritize your life before Wikipedia. You are not obligated to edit Wikipedia, and there is no deadline to achieving any of your on-wiki goals. Wikipedia will still be here when you have time to edit, and the community will appreciate your contributions regardless of when you choose to provide them. Take care. — Newslinger talk 10:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks, Newslinger. RBBB9911 Talk 11:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Newslinger I think WP:SOCK of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balusingh12 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Realyaru are interconnected. Please have a look. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Swarajya Magazine wikipedia entry currently is showing a biased version with derogatory connotation. I am working to put the article under 'disputed' banner. Baransam ( talk) 11:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you help me add mini map at article Draft: Nguyen Huu Cau High School? Thanks. AutoVida123 ( talk) 19:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! AutoVida123 ( talk) 14:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You're entitled to disagree, you're not entitled to your own facts, especially when what you are saying is contradicted in black and white right above where you are saying it. Just because nobody else here really cares, presumably because arguing that the Mail has been treatted unfairly is an unpopular opinion, doesn't make your behaviour any less right. Brian K Horton ( talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gaslighting and DAILYMAIL and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian K Horton ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:Sources limited from use on Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Barnstar | |
For all the on and off site harrassment you've had to face and thank you for all the work you have done on the RS Noticeboard, I've learned a lot just from observing you, hope you don't mind. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC) |
Hi there. I just noticed your edit in my talk page and apologise for the delayed response. I would like to appeal to be considered to be removed my sanction on edits on topics related to India, Afghanistan, Parkistan,etc. I understand the whole context of responsible editing and wish to request for the removal so that I would be able to edit freely. Thank you. Hari147 ( talk) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I was wondering why you decline certain submissions? I'm working with the creator of the "PysimpleGUI" page that was created in 2018 and I found this note regarding its rejection. https://en.everybodywiki.com/PySimpleGUI<ref> <ref> 2018-12-25 T12:00:28Z "Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) ( AFCH 0.9.1)" Can you explain what needs to be done to meet the general notability guidelines? I am not knowledgeable on wiki guidelines so your help would be much appreciated.Thanks so much. 18:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.99.82 ( talk)
Draft:PySimpleGUI was deleted on 25 June 2019 because it had not been edited in six months. If you would like to continue working on the draft, please let me know and I will restore it for you. — Newslinger talk 23:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me about this, if you could restore the draft for us to edit, that would be much appreciated. Thanks so much! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
12.175.99.82 (
talk •
contribs)
18:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to ask: how do I pronounce your name (in my head)? I see it often and wonder what it means. Thanks GPinkerton ( talk) 00:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)