User talk:Newslinger/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Blacklisting

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)

Hi PK650, thanks for starting the original sockpuppet investigation for Zoominfo. For the other cases, it would be best if you submit them to the conflict of interest noticeboard, since the noticeboard receives more pageviews than my talk page. I'll be happy to take a closer look at any cases if you ping me or if you leave a message here. Keep up the good work! — Newslinger talk 00:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

JOOSS Oficial

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)

Hi DoebLoggs, and thanks for clarifying your reasoning. In a 2017 RfC, there was consensus against blocking users for having "official" in their usernames, if they don't explicitly represent an organization. In recent years, I've noticed "official" being a common word in usernames across social media websites, even when the person doesn't have a management team. I prefer not to block an editor merely for using the word "official" in their username, unless they self-promote on pages outside of their user space. — Newslinger talk 11:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

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)

​I was surprised that having multiple pound signs in the URL worked at all. Before this, I thought the browser determined the anchor by looking at the text after the very last pound sign in the URL. Thanks for reviewing my redirects, as always, and you won't have to deal with them for much longer. — Newslinger talk 03:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my Mistake

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)

Hi, Shamimbd93. I've responded on your talk page. — Newslinger talk 00:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

username - link COI

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)

​These reports are mostly from WP:UAA, with a few from WP:AIV. When someone adds an external link that matches their username, that user most likely qualifies for a soft block since usernames aren't allowed to represent websites, with the main exception being when the domain is named after an individual. Was COIBot posting to WT:WPSPAM? Separate sections for bot reports and user reports on that page could make false positives easier to handle. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I can have COIBot respond to overlaps between username and domain and then report the domain in an automated report, just like the local and xwiki reports are being created. COIBot started off with doing this (finding overlaps), but we soon figured out that plain linkreports were also useful. Some of the more statistic determinations were directly built into the linkwatchers (now m:user:LiWa3; the 'this domain is only used by this user' type of statistics) and the original parts of COIBot were more neglected, focusing more on the reporting part as support for spam. The code should still be there, just need to see what is needed to re-activate it properly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Added lines here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. Regarding false positives, I think excluding cases where the username/domain is similar to the article title would reduce the rate of false positives for spam. However, I can't recall a case where the username matches the domain, and the user didn't have a conflict of interest. ​— Newslinger talk 14:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, you may find edit filter 499 (hist · log) relevant. — Newslinger talk 15:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)​

Tracking apps

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)

Yes, Facebook is obviously loaded with trackers, since it's one of the largest digital advertisers. My opinion is that "less" is usable because it's a relative term. While Facebook users with MicroG are still being tracked heavily by Facebook, they are being tracked "less" by Google compared to Facebook users with Google Play Services. I suppose we could qualify the tracking with "from Google", as in "... that MicroG lets users access Facebook, Telegram, and Signal on Android with less device tracking from Google than Google Play Services?", but I'm not sure if it's worth it. Since you submitted the DYK nomination, it's ultimately your call. — Newslinger talk 04:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Good enough. Maybe the article will eventually discuss it more, if/when a "reliable" source compares data for a typical Android phone with another d/e/vice using MicroG, loaded with the same apps. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for MicroG

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)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Newslinger,

Source Guide Discussion

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.

Redirects

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.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

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)

Your input is requested

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)

​I'm late, but it looks like other editors picked much more interesting articles than I had in mind. The article turned out great. — Newslinger talk 09:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Admin bling

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)

Thanks, MelanieN! I tend to be on the more reserved side when it comes to my user page (most of it is just one template), but I've added {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} to my userbox collection. See you around! — Newslinger talk 09:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you like the look of these warning messages?

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)

Hi The Lord of Math, the messages generally look fine to me, since they're not too different from the standard warning templates. I have a few suggestions:

• In the third and fourth templates, "contribute vandalism" is a strange phrase, since contributions tend to be positive. Perhaps "be vandalism" or "contain vandalism" would be better?
• In the seventh template, "unability" should be changed to to "inability".
• In all of the templates, you might want to add a space between your signature and the sentence before it.

I hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 06:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, the first, fifth, eighth, eleventh and twelfth templates correspond to the five respective warning levels. The other problems are just typos. Thanks for notifying me of these mistakes! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 07:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem! After using your custom templates for a while, if you think any of the standard templates could be improved using your new wording, feel free to propose changes to the standard templates on their respective talk pages.​ — Newslinger talk 07:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

But how does the transitioning between consecutive templates work? Are they fine? I designed these templates for a smooth transition. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 03:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence, The Lord of Math! I see that you've had the templates deleted, but the language in the templates were fine. Feel free to use the method you feel most comfortable with to communicate with editors, as long as it's in line with the policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 09:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually they are still out there, in a subpage of mine, but now I use it less because it is not compatible with Twinkle, Huggle or STiki. Thanks a lot for your feedback! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 10:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

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)

Hi VanessaCurty, writing about yourself is frowned upon on Wikipedia, as it is contrary to the conflict of interest guideline. Please consider requesting an alternative assignment from your school, and informing your teacher or professor about Wikipedia's rules. — Newslinger talk 06:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Request

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)

Hi Estopedist1, it will take a bit longer to review your history on Estonian Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, since you don't quite meet the edit count requirements listed in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage § Requesting access. An administrator will post a response to your request when they complete the review. Thanks for your patience. — Newslinger talk 07:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

yeah. It is embarrassing situation to me. 15+ years actively contributing to Wikimedia projects, but still too few contributions for enwiki mainspace :) Kind regards!--Estopedist1 (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

​Please don't be embarrassed. It's less common for editors to have in-depth experience in multiple Wikimedia projects. For example, I personally spend much more time on the English Wikipedia than on any other Wikimedia project, which makes it harder for me to evaluate work on other projects. I think it's great that you're offering your time on the English Wikipedia in addition to contributing to the Estonian Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.

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)

thank you very much!--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Re: "It's less common for editors to have in-depth experience in multiple..." Sorry to butt in, but... sometimes so called fringe cases are valid and important. :) -- Yae4 (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

2605:E000:151E:8000:0:0:0:0/50

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 Johnuniq, and thanks for semi-protecting the Derbent article at Special:Diff/943140971 § Derbent. After re-reviewing the contributions by 2605:E000:151E:8000:0:0:0:0/50, I expanded the range block from a partial block to a sitewide block. Thanks, LouisAragon, for keeping these Caucasus-related articles verifiable. — Newslinger talk 11:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nagarro Paid tag

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)

Hi Buzztrack, thank you for disclosing your relationship with Nagarro. I've removed the tag, as it no longer applies. On 6 March, I declined your request for page protection because the edit history of the article appears to be fairly stable, with few reversions. Please feel free to submit another protection request if editors start continuously adding information that is not verifiable to reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 12:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Newslinger. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Newslinger/common.js

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)

​Done! My ad blocker was interfering with the script installer, so I had added your script manually. I'll be sure to use linkbacks from now on to help with tracking. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI

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)

Thank you for the notice. It looks like WP:ANI § Indian Politics was resolved before I was able to see it. — Newslinger talk 06:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about an unblock

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)

Hi TheSandDoctor, to avoid biting editors, I generally don't block editors solely for username violations if they have already received a username warning on their talk page, unless they continue editing without addressing the warning. I blocked BlueEnvy for having a promotional username after deleting User:BlueEnvy under WP:G11, but did not notice that NonsensicalSystem had already posted the {{uw-coi-username}} warning on User talk:BlueEnvy. When I noticed the warning, I unblocked BlueEnvy to be consistent with how I usually handle these username violations.

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)

Hello Newslinger, thank you for responding & apologies for my late response. Of course we don't want to block new users, but sometimes it's the best way to prevent disruption (in this case, using the site for self promotion). UPOL also says essentially that users are only exempted from being blocked without warning if they are making constructive edits. This user only made a promotional edit to their user page. It is also worth noting that they could have discussed the issue on their talk page without an unblock since talk page access was never revoked. The templates are only intended for edge cases, as is mentioned in the docs of Template:Uw-username. While I appreciate your attempt to assume good faith, and to give the user a chance to discuss, I think that was a bit too lenient of an approach here. So, in this case I will be reinstating a block on the user, as you suggested. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll handle cases like this one more strictly in the future.​ — Newslinger talk 18:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Vym_(software) (Free/Libre Open Source) Output Excerpt Copyright Violation or Not?

• Vym_(software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

Hi, Yae4. Unfortunately, according to WP:COMPLIC, the GPLv2 and all other GNU copyleft licenses are not compatible with Wikipedia's CC BY-SA 3.0 license. GPLv2-licensed text is treated like non-free content, which means that we are generally not allowed to copy and paste the text into articles. There are cases where non-free content is allowed on Wikipedia, but they tend to be for attributed quotations and embedded media (images, audio, video, etc.), rather than unquoted text. For the Vym article, it would be ideal to paraphrase content from the documentation when a primary source is needed. Secondary sources are still preferred, if they have the information you need.

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)

Admin intervention

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)

An Admin eye needed at Joe Biden

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, petrarchan47คุก 01:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan47, I've responded at Talk:Joe Biden § Tara Reade. Administrators are able to take action on conduct disputes, but we're much more limited when it comes to content disputes like this one. Here, your best bet is to escalate the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Once you assemble reliable sources documenting the allegations, you'll want to argue that the incident is noteworthy enough to be included in the article under WP:BLP § Public figures (WP:BLPPUBLIC). The result of the discussion will depend on the strength of your arguments and the sources they are based on. Good luck. — Newslinger talk 07:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

THIS is why we like you. To be be clear, it is not my intention to complain about conduct. I haven't got the time to litigate that type of thing. I simply wanted the exact advice you gave: how to deal with this situation in a very straightforward manner according to the PAGs. I have observed in the past that a little input from an admin regarding PAGs can put a halt to any conduct issues that might be simmering (though this is not a comment on current events). Many thanks, News. Best, petrarchan47คุก 20:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Mark at WidgetsUSA

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)

Thanks for pointing this out, Justlettersandnumbers. I wasn't aware that Bezkod is a name. With that in mind, it's clear that BekzodiTicket.uz is an acceptable username under WP:ISU, and I've unblocked the account. I will do more research when evaluating these types of usernames in the future. — Newslinger talk 21:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know it was a name either until I searched for it. We live and learn! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Forbes

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)

Fair enough, In the past I've actually added a couple of those citations to wikipedia, don't ask me where I put them because I hella don't remember, going to have to remember now to double check if the writer is a contributor or not when it comes to Forbes. Govvy (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about the past citations; someone will eventually clean them up as people become more aware of the situation. Currently, most people on the Internet (and quite possibly most editors on Wikipedia) aren't aware of the large differences between Forbes staff writers and Forbes.com contributors. It's disappointing that Forbes chose to dilute its brand this way, but I suppose this is one way for them to survive as revenues in journalism continue to decline. ​— Newslinger talk 22:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Chaos Music

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 Rashijain1992, I've responded at WP:AN § Chaos Music. You can work on your draft at Draft:Chaos Music. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 22:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

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)

Hi Atsme, the RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 60 § RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?. There was also an earlier RfC on whether the perennial sources list should be linked from the reliable sources guideline at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 59 § RfC: Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 23:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Untitled A Quiet Place sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

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, SONIC678 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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)

Article Moved to Draft

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)

Hi Editiorchief, the sources in the current version of Draft:Matstubs are not enough to show that Matstubs meets the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for musicians. Specifically, the Billboard article is too insubstantial to count as significant coverage. The iEDM blog post is not considered a reliable source, since iEDM is an apparel store and not an actual publication. The RIAA certification should remain cited, but since the artist of "I'd Love To Change The World (Matstubs Remix)" is Jetta and not Matstubs, it does not appear to count toward the "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)

User talk:SonicClubIsBack

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting me know.​ — Newslinger talk 02:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions?

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)

Newslinger, thanks, I've looked at that plenty of times. FYI, others with broader view were already fed up with it too. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my edit to Mullvad!

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)

No problem, ChromeGames923! The article Gratis versus libre has more information about this distinction in a more general context. Homonyms like free can be confusing at times, and I'm glad you pointed this out in the Mullvad article so that the wording could be clarified. If you can improve the phrasing further, please do not hesitate to do so. — Newslinger talk 03:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Newslinger, thank you for the article link, that was very interesting! ChromeGames923 (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for the introduction, I look forward to working with you. Ashlesh007 (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the pie, Ashlesh007! I've sent you a link to a tutorial called The Wikipedia Adventure. It teaches you the basics of editing Wikipedia, and takes about an hour to finish. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia. Welcome! — Newslinger talk 10:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Violation of WP:Editing on Breitbart News

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)

PompeyTheGreat, I performed one revert in Special:Diff/950463367, as you have added the content without obtaining consensus on the talk page. — Newslinger talk 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

PompeyTheGreat, it takes at least two people to edit war, so please heed your own warning. Please also observe WP:ONUS, specifically the part that reads: 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)

Before that argument applies, you need to show that your proposed additions constitute due weight by establishing consensus on the talk page. — Newslinger talk 07:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, Newslinger. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure who to ask about this or where to post it...

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)

Hi Comrade GC, (Redacted) If you have other information that was not previously revealed on Wikipedia, you can report this to the Arbitration Committee through email. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place at User talk:Hciam § Previous accounts. — Newslinger talk 00:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Oops, apparently the WP:OUTING policy is much stricter than I had thought. Please send off-wiki evidence to the Arbitration Committee, even if it is used on-wiki in other ways. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 13 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)

Filter you might find useful

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)

Hi Creffett, and thanks for bringing this filter to my attention. It looks like this filter was created after HenryFriedberg's sockpuppets made those edits, so it's good to know that edits of this type will be caught and logged in the future. — Newslinger talk 09:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you, CAPTAIN RAJU! — Newslinger talk 00:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A special award for your excellent work at RSN and elsewhere

	"Ass In High Gear Award"
	Your work as an admin is not being graded, But it certainly is much appreciated, To know that you see with vision that's clear, And don't mind keeping your ass in high gear. Atsme Talk 📧 13:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, thanks for your kind poem and award! I'm glad to see your input in the perennial sources list. If you ever need help with the templates on that page, or if you have any suggestions for improving the list, please feel free to comment on the talk page and I'll do my best. — Newslinger talk 09:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Restore Offensive Security or as a draft, if available?

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 Yae4, thanks for working on this article. I've restored it to Draft:Offensive Security since it doesn't have any cited sources at the moment. — Newslinger talk 11:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

​I noticed that there was already a longer draft at Draft:Offensive Security that was deleted under WP:G13 (abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions). I've restored that draft to Draft:Offensive Security, and the article that was originally at Offensive Security is now at Draft:Offensive Security 2. — Newslinger talk 11:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

​Thanks! And double thanks for the extra digging!! It's a little odd that the newer draft2 has so much less than the ~10 months older one, but timing... :) -- Yae4 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem! — Newslinger talk 12:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

​Related: Do you agree Kali Linux NetHunter Edition and NetHunter should be combined? If so, any suggestion which should be kept and which become a redirect? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, both of the articles look like they're describing the same software, which is referred to on Kali's website as both "Kali Linux NetHunter" and "Kali NetHunter". I think "Kali NetHunter" is the best article title, since it is more concise and it is used in the title of the Packt-published book. Personally, I would merge Kali Linux NetHunter Edition into NetHunter, since the first article is less comprehensive and only cites primary sources. Whether you want to move "NetHunter" to "Kali NetHunter" is up to you. More sources use "Kali NetHunter", but "NetHunter" is more concise and neither title needs to be disambiguated.​ — Newslinger talk 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Done for now. Would it make sense to delete Draft:Offensive Security 2 now (I don't think I can)? If you have time to give things a look, I'm open to any other suggestions. Thanks again. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

​Great job on the article! If the edits in Draft:Offensive Security 2 were older than the edits in Offensive Security, I would have been able to perform a history merge. Unfortunately, Draft:Offensive Security 2 is the newer article so there isn't much that can be done. The draft is minimal enough that I've just redirected Draft:Offensive Security 2 to Offensive Security. — Newslinger talk 08:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, Newslinger,

• Kali NetHunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Re4sonkernel Talk page

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)

Yae4, It's not "targeted hounding", the page is on my watchlist and people keep adding self-sourced cruft. That is a plague on pretty much all software articles, and there are a number of articles where I have done the same - not all of them software, either (e.g. Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where at least one of the boosters got topic-banned).

Excessive self-sourcing is not cool. Wikipedia is not a marketplace. If you see other articles that contain excessive self-sourcing and PR, that is an indication that they need cleaning up, not an invitation to do the same for your pet product. Guy (help!) 11:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Watchlist, no doubt. The question is when added and why? Re: "people keep adding..." People keep adding?Really? Which people? Since when? Come on. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, sorry to butt in, but remember to assume good faith. I know that gets bandied around a lot, but it's good advice. JzG does a huge amount of good work here keeping spam off our site - he's given you a perfectly sensible answer, don't go looking for a problem where none exists. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Right. Thanks, but, Imagine you got significant help on Offensive Security from two other admins, Newslinger and Rosguill; discussing things (see above, and on the talk page), and addressing them as you went. Then JzG Guy, with only edit summary, "rm. self-sourced, marketing blurb, quote minng etc," deletes independently published sources and more. Now imagine similar (if perhaps less obvious) at Kali NetHunter.

Now compare with Climate Feedback, where JzG is, let's say, involved: 3 (of 15) self-sources, 4 (of 15) Poynter sources - technically "independent," but they promote each other, usually; the exceptions - "code of conduct violations" are suppressed from the article. Plus, 2 Axios sources, which Guy said should be attributed, are not. And that's OK by JzG/Guy... -- Yae4 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yae4, while a small amount of content from primary sources is accepted in articles, WP:PSTS states that "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)

Right. No comment on Offensive Security? When LineageOS, which looks to have similar percentage of self-published sources, was brought to his attention, the response was call to authority, and insult the new editor. And no interest in the article I had not (recently or significantly) edited. Climate/Health/Science Feedback NPOV problems aren't getting noticeboard interest from anyone except the previous editors. Would you help me do an RfC for the first 2 issues? -- Yae4 (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

For the Offensive Security article, your best course of action (as with any content dispute) would be to discuss the changes from Special:Diff/949426369 on the talk page. The Metasploit section did come across as promotional, since two of the first three sentences described a corporate social responsibility aspect cited solely to Offensive Security's website. While the last sentence cited reliable sources, I'm not sure if the brief mentions in the cited books constitute due weight.

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)

Thanks! That's helpful in a couple ways. I wish I'd seen it when starting this Axios.com RSN discussion, but it escaped my search... What's your view on Axios.com "general" reliability now? I note Climate Feedback still uses it, and without attribution... -- Yae4 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Axios isn't my favorite source for Wikipedia, since much of its content summarizes other reliable sources instead of providing original reporting. In most cases, I would prefer to cite the sources linked in Axios articles either in addition to or instead of the Axios article itself. Although I'm not thrilled with the fact that Axios hired a paid editor on Wikipedia, I don't think it's a significant factor that relates to the site's reliability as a source. It doesn't look like Axios is being used for controversial content in Climate Feedback article, but if you're uncertain about a change you would like to make to the article, then the talk page would be the best place to seek consensus.​ — Newslinger talk 10:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In case you didn't know

You're named on Opindia. "harbinger & promoter of vandals". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

​I saw that when it was released. Soumyadipta.banerjee, who harassed other Wikipedia users on Twitter over a hit piece on OpIndia that he helped author, is unhappy that his Wikipedia account had been identified and blocked. Soumyadipta.banerjee also confessed to engaging in undisclosed paid editing. He hired Chandan Manna, Jiahimedluke, and Bittu me to write the now-deleted Soumyadipta Banerjee article on himself. (He's not notable.) All of those accounts have also been blocked. All's well that ends well. — Newslinger talk 19:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I would think with a pandemic going on around the world, they would have moved on from harassing Wikipedia editors to helping Indian society. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Just read a previous version of your user page. I agree 100%. Well-said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

​It's strange! Banerjee's logic is also very questionable. He previously hired a paid editing agency to write about himself and other clients in violation of the Terms of Use. Fast forward to 2020, and he assists OpIndia with doxing a Wikipedia editor; I block him for that. In response, he publishes a rant on OpIndia that blames Wikipedia for the fact that he hired paid editors. What kind of distorted reasoning is that? He also criticizes Wikipedia editors who choose not to reveal their identities, because he's unable to dox them. Well, I suppose it's fortunate that Banerjee boasted about his paid editing operation, because he brought attention to some spam that needs to be removed.

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)

​The off-wiki harassment occurred earlier this month, and it's an especially egregious case. Although the Soumyadipta.banerjee account last edited in 2012, the associated undisclosed paid editing (which is in the process of being mapped out) is much more recent. Before the block, I had never interacted with the account or the individual who operated it. — Newslinger talk 03:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Please help

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)

Hi Vaibhavafro, I also saw your previous question and I don't think it's silly at all. By default, RfCs run for 30 days, and then a bot (Legobot) automatically removes the {{rfc}} tag. After that, any editor can list the RfC on the requests for closure noticeboard (WP:RFCL), and an uninvolved editor will eventually close the RfC using the instructions in WP:CLOSE (which includes writing a closing summary).

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)

Thanks for the concise reply! I have restored the RfC. However, I am afraid that I will no longer be able to keep track of what happens to that RfC due to real-life preoccupations (which is one of the reasons why I prematurely closed the RfC). Regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for restoring the RfC. Most RfCs tend to start with plenty of activity, and then slow down after a couple of days, so you probably won't be missing out on much. If you ever have any questions about editing, feel free to ask me here.​ — Newslinger talk 12:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Help with POVFORK

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)

Hi Suneye1, the incidents noticeboard is for resolving conduct disputes and not content disputes. At first glance, this looks like a content dispute to me, so I wouldn't worry too much about the noticeboard report. However, please respond to any questions on the noticeboard discussion so that other editors understand the situation. The incidents noticeboard is more likely to work in your favor if you are courteous, so please remember to be polite.

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)

COI board

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)

Ad Fontes Media has been nominated for Did You Know

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)

Problematic editor

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)

Just to add onto this, any chance of getting these two edit summaries removed? Greyjoy ^talk 07:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hiwilms and Greyjoy, thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I have more to say on this matter as soon as I receive a response from the functionaries. — Newslinger talk 08:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Newslinger! Thanks a lot for the quick and decisive action. This problem on the article has been going on for 2 years already. The article was already protected twice for content disputes. I thought that the blocked user's allegation was the last nail in the coffin.
Again, thank you very much! —Hiwilms (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

​​No problem. I haven't received a response from the functionaries yet, so I'll just say what I needed to say right now. In the future, it would be best to request oversight for issues like these. The list of edits that qualify for oversight is at WP:OSPOL. While administrators can perform revision deletion, some matters require oversight for an extra level of security. Thanks again for reporting this! — Newslinger talk 13:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Good to know, oversight is not something I have had to deal with before so appreciate the info. Greyjoy ^talk 05:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

​​One last thing: depending on whether the editors are available, it may take a few hours for edits to be suppressed or revision-deleted. Ideally, doxing attempts and egregious personal attacks should be deleted immediately, so they stay out of plain sight until they can be securely redacted from the page history. You don't have to be an administrator to remove this kind of content, so feel free to just do it. — Newslinger talk 09:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for advice

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. petrarchan47คุก 00:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan47, what do you intend to ask in the RfC, and on which page are you planning to post it? — Newslinger talk 09:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought posting it at the RS/N would be the best option. It would apply to both the Joe Biden page and Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (where the NYT article is currently being used as a source), and any other page that might have related content. petrarchan47คุก 11:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

​Since over a dozen editors have participated in WP:RSN § NYT Tara Reade coverage, your best course of action would be to start a new subsection in the discussion and ask everyone for their input about the RfC you're proposing. See "Straw poll: Daily Mail" for an example. RfCs related to ongoing discussions can be poorly received unless there is consensus for starting the RfC, and for the wording used in the RfC statement. I'm still not sure what you plan to ask in the RfC statement, but the proposed RfC would need to gain traction with the others in the discussion. — Newslinger talk 11:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, very helpful. I think it’s simple: we have a piece asserting that it’s an investigation into the validity of sexual assault allegations against the Democratic presumptive nominee, and the summary of the piece contains a substantive edit on behalf of the accused. It removed a caveat to their “nothing to see here” conclusion. The edited summary is being used in Biden’s BLP. Many editors are saying we should not use the NYT piece at all, as it isn’t independent. And there are others who say they agree with the edit so it’s fine, especially since this is after all, the NYT. Honestly, I can’t believe anyone has to address this; there should be no question that this piece - or at the very least, the edited paragraph - should be avoided or include a disclaimer/notation of the story and controversy behind it. Everyone knows the NYT did this, and when they see WP mirroring the piece with a straight face sans mention of the COI and controversy behind it, the reputation of the encyclopedia is damaged. But my real life work is not allowing me the time it takes to deal with this mess, so I have perhaps wasted your time here. Maybe someone else will pick up the reigns. Thanks as always, News. petrarchan47คุก 16:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, newspapers make corrections all the time. That's why we treat them as reliable sources. Doubling-down on an error is one of the diagnostics for unreliability. Deciding the NYT is somehow unreliable because they took on board a criticism of ambiguous language is perverse. We go with the current published version, as we do for all reliable sources. Guy (help!) 23:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The reporting about this doesn't call it a correction, nor does the NYT. It was a change made solely because the Biden campaign didn't like the way the former version sounded. This edit has had enough criticism that the NYT had to respond to it. Have you read any of the reporting? From the RS/N, "the removal of the sentence itself is now the subject of wide coverage: The New York Times (RSP entry), Fox News (RSP entry), Vanity Fair (RSP entry), The Hill (RSP entry) (thanks to MarioGom.

Kolya Butternut Kolya, I am sorry but my real life work is preventing me from giving any time to WP for at least the next week. Newslinger gives good advice above for the next step forward. I am hoping someone will take this on as I just can't.  petrarchan47คุก 04:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Me too!  The bottom line is there is no consensus to include the NYTs in Biden's article, but yet it keeps being added in.  It should be removed before any RfC.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich Courtesy ping. Please see also RS/N petrarchan47คุก 21:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Verywell

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)

Hi Manifestation, thanks for bringing up Verywell on the noticeboard. In the perennial sources list, whether a source is blacklisted is independent of the source's reliability classification. This is why each blacklisted source on the list has another icon in the "Status" column that indicates the source's reliability. The reliability classification of Verywell under Dotdash (RSP entry) is "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". I don't think Verywell is generally unreliable, except for "scientific and medical information in articles" as described in WP:MEDPOP.

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)

Thank you for your detailed response! I believe Verywell should not be blacklisted, because there is no proof of spamming. There are two LinkReports, verywell.com and verywellmind.com, but if you inspect them closely, you will see that they don't actualy show any spamming. I've started a new thread at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to request the sites to be unbanned. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nupur J Sharma

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)

Hi Hatchens, the Nupur J Sharma page is a {{R from person}} redirect from a person's name to the article on the website for which she is the editor. These types of redirects are generally not considered promotional. — Newslinger talk 20:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Newslinger, Linking to a title that redirects to a section or anchor within the article is acceptable, as it facilitates navigation in particular on long articles that cannot be viewed all at once on an average-sized computer screen. Refer, WP:SELFRED. But Nupur J Sharma redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.). - Hatchens (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite right. The name of the editor is backed by reliable sources in the OpIndia article, and there are plenty of cases in which a non-notable key member of a company or organization is redirected to the article on the company itself. For example, here are two discussions that found consensus to redirect the name of an editor-in-chief or managing editor to the article on the publication:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanthi D Suresh (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Hays

These redirects comply with WP:R#KEEP points 3 ("They aid searches on certain terms") and 5 ("Someone finds them useful"). WP:SELFRED states "Avoid linking to titles that redirect straight back to the page on which the link is found", but does not say that it is unacceptable to redirect to a page for which the redirect title is not the name of a section or anchor. Additionally, none of these redirects violate the spam guideline. ​— Newslinger talk 01:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite confusing and conflicting statements. I think, this time I would go with your words. Thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Aviks3

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)

Thanks, Doug Weller! I'm more concerned about Talk:OpIndia § Is this a coordinated Hit Job on Opindia?, but that incident is probably stale. — Newslinger talk 12:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

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 Atsme, to request reconsideration of a decision in a previous RfC, simply start a new RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard. The only thing I would ask is to please refrain from starting too many RfCs at the same time. I'm in the process of streamlining the changes passed in WP:RSN § RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process to make the noticeboard more manageable. — Newslinger talk 18:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thx - I'm in no rush, and fortunately, WP has no deadline. Keep doing the excellent work you've been doing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Atsme! — Newslinger talk 18:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Intro tutorial and screenreaders

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)

Hi Sdkb, I don't actually know. My comment was to address Moxy's concern in the RfC, but I'm unfamiliar with screen readers and haven't personally verified the compatibility of any of the tutorials. I am aware that The Wikipedia Adventure is not mobile-friendly, but am not sure about whether it is usable with screen readers. — Newslinger talk 06:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Climate/Health/Science Feedback on RSPS list

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)

I'm not sure why you're congratulating me. It is expected for minority views on scientific topics to receive reduced representation on Wikipedia (compared to the majority view), since that is the intended outcome of the due weight policy and the fringe theories guideline. If you would like to write more about topics contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, a more suitable venue would be Conservapedia, which prioritizes minority views in this field. ​— Newslinger talk 02:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're joking. So we're even. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Seriously though, am I being told, here and elswhere, in essence: Wikipedia editors must be followers of climate alarm (or "reality" if you prefer), and go along with whitewashing articles of even a fact-check organization (i.e. only touching on "science") article like Climate/Health/Science Feedback, or they will be topic banned? If so, why not add this as an easily found, more explicit policy statement? -- Yae4 (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, butting in again, but that question is heading into tendentious territory. I am quite certain that nobody has told you that you have to be a follower of the Climate Reality Movement, and to be happy with the whitewashing of any article, to avoid a topic ban; I'm equally certain that you know perfectly well why that isn't written in policy. Newslinger has been very generous towards you with their time, I don't understand why you feel it necessary to badger them with pointed questions like this. You are far more likely to influence others' opinions by asking honest questions and responding in a friendly, collegiate manner, even when you disagree. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I voted for Newslinger for admin and have expressed my appreciation for all their help and suggestions. Please don't take the question 100% literally, in isolation, but as trying to get at the essence of what I'm being told above here, and elsewhere, concisely. Fringe theories guideline does not address climate, but it is frequently referred to as though it does. How would you interpret what this (diff) tells me, from another admin, what not to say? And who to not be like - Heartland, or else. What I asked above is my interpretation of the suggestion of who to be like. If that's too direct or something, well, apologies. I'm not trying to be Pointy; I'm seriously trying to decide whether to give up on Wikipedia, or to attempt discussion of creating an explicit statement on climate in fringe theories guideline. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, my advice to you, when interacting with someone you disagree with, is to say exactly what you mean, as clearly and politely as you can. In a text-only environment populated by people from all over the world, nuance, humour, irony etc don't always come across properly. In response to your question about that diff, I read that as him saying that piping the phrase 'climate alarmist' to the Climate Reality Movement looks like you are pushing a particular POV. Again - just say what you mean, literally and clearly. If you're referring to the Climate Reality Movement, call them that. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thanks. Climate "reality" homepage says, "Join the millions using their voices and everyday choices to tackle the climate crisis." I will try to remember to refer to them as "climate crisis tacklers" in future, but "climate alarmist" is only slightly different, and takes one fewer word. Any comment on why fringe "theories" guideline doesn't cover climate head-on, or if it should? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, if you're referring to that specific group, you should probably just call them by their name. If you're referring more generally to other groups of people, you should ideally be specific and non-pejorative. If other people don't live up to that standard, don't sink to their level. As for the question on the fringe theories guideline, it's not something I've given any thought to, and I don't like giving half-baked opinions (which is not to say I never do it - I just try not to if I can avoid it!). I'll try to find time to read through the discussion, and if I find an opinion forming, I may decide to bake it properly and comment. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Climate change denial article has been categorized under Category:Conspiracy theories or one of its subcategories for many years. As fringe theories include (but are not limited to) conspiracy theories, I think it's clear that the topic falls under the scope of the fringe theories guideline, even though the guideline does not mention it explicitly. — Newslinger talk 23:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Yae4, you can be whoever you want to be, and no policy or guideline on Wikipedia will tell you to change your stance on any topic. However, Wikipedia is limited in how it can present information in articles. While I have spent most of my time on ensuring verifiability through reliable sourcing, the other two core content policies (neutral point of view and no original research) are also highly important. The only way to include content that is not supported by these three policies is to effect a change off-wiki that causes reliable sources to report on the subject in the manner you desire. Of course, this is not always simple or possible. Please take a look at the explanatory supplement on righting great wrongs if you have not done so already, as it explains how "Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow." — Newslinger talk 23:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I appreciate the guidance, and I'm trying to follow it; however, the actual applications at WP seem more questionable the deeper one digs. "Fringe theories" guideline was started early 2006.[14] Climate change denial was started in mid-late 2007.[15] Skeptical Science started blogging in 2007 (Coincidence?), and that article is an embarrassment of primary sourcing, but nobody has done or said anything (?, except some ignored commenters on the Talk page, since 2013). Environmental_Research_Letters, which published Cook and Nuccitelli's "most downloaded paper for that week" has zero sources; are they a "reliable source?" Parent company, IOP_Publishing article is a similar story. When the SKS article glowingly describes that "Best article of 2013" does it also point out, "Corrections were made to this article on 31 May 2013" or "Further corrections were made on 30 October 2013"?[16] Nope. The 3 pillars sound great in theory, but a claim of 97-100% consensus (on what exactly, isn't really clear) shouldn't be used to justify only really applying those core policies to a select subset of articles. In my experience, that is exactly what is done. BTW, I've seen the List_of_climate_scientists (notable ones); Are there sub-lists of "pro-alarm" or "anti-alarm" notable climate scientists? This category[17] doesn't do it, because the "D" brand is too broadly applied... Sorry to go on, and thanks again for all your suggestions and time. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I stumbled across the answer to my own question (Delete: ~36, Keep: ~19. Result: Delete.). It's likely I'll be topic banned, at least. Someone really ought to add a summary of wikipedia's official view of climate to Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, and make it more clear and obvious. Thanks again for all your wikipedia time. Looks like I'll be spending more of my time enjoying the warmth of spring and summer outdoors (duly distanced and masked, of course). -- Yae4 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yae4, WP:AE § Yae4 is still pending, and even if the discussion is not decided in your favor, you are able to appeal a topic ban after editing constructively in other areas (e.g. free and open-source software) for a period of time, usually six months. Areas covered by discretionary sanctions are significantly more difficult to participate in than other areas, but there are plenty of topics that remain available to you should you wish to return to editing in the future.

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)

It all sounds great in theory, but in practice things get messy. Re "Official view," I observed a (different) admin pushing political (and anti-religious) views all over WP. Call it what you want, but that being tolerated over many years time indicates those views are consistent with what I call "official views" from the top down. Re Neutrality, Everyone has their interests, and favorites. I respect your relative neutrality at eROM and Duval; however, compared with your editing at OmniROM and Resurrection Remix, which one you favor seems clear (no offense intended). I also note tolerance of a vague presentation of what microG actually does in terms of interacting with, versus "replacing" Google Play Services, and this vagueness also works in e's favor (and microG-Lineage's and others with microG). I find most existing articles, like e ROM and Duval particularly, have editor(s) who brought one side of the topic, but there are almost always other sides to the story. For articles I created, it's a matter of finding enough "good" sources to defend "notability," and you know which few got "attacked." Q.E.D. :D If there was controversy, my thumbrule was bring a positive thing and a negative thing from each source having both. WP could use metrics for balancing, but most of the WP "consensus" I've observed is just editors stating opinions, and somebody making a judgment call (which I call "popularity contests"). Anyway, thanks for the good wishes! -- Yae4 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Resurrection Remix OS still does not meet the general notability guideline with the cited sources, and I suspect the article would be deleted if it were nominated at AfD. I did not nominate the article at AfD specifically to give you a chance to find additional sources. The OmniROM article was improved after you added additional sources, although I would not have added the International Business Times (RSP entry).

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)

Resurrection Remix: Apparently they don't have much of a PR department with "news" contacts creating sources, but they have several scholar hits, so who knows.

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)

(Redacted)

Wikipedia is not the right place to resolve off-wiki disputes. Please use the conflict of interest noticeboard or the incidents noticeboard if there is specific on-wiki behavior that you would like the community to examine, and only if it clearly violates the policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed my comments as required Mnair69 (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

non domain blacklisting

The trick is as follows, either you use:

• Link/text requested to be blacklisted: play.google.com.sbdtube

if you want to blacklist a link only, or

• Regex requested to be blacklisted: \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)

Thanks, Beetstra. I should have re-read the notice at WP:SBL § Proposed additions. Do you think it's worth listing the templates in the editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist? — Newslinger talk 07:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Never hurts to be a bit explanatory there. I will try to have a look one of these days if I have time to write a bit about it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

​I've copied the suggested templates from Template:Spam-blacklist proposed additions into Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Hopefully, this makes these templates more visible. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

striking comments

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. -- GreenC 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi GreenC, JungerMan Chips Ahoy! is not just a blocked user. They are a blocked sockpuppet operated by a community-banned user with an extensive history of sockpuppetry and a long-term abuse page. Banned users are subject to WP:BANREVERT, although I prefer to strike comments instead of reverting them to retain the context of other editors' comments in discussions. Striking nullifies the weight of the sockpuppet's comments, and allows editors to properly re-evaluate the consensuses of the affected discussions. This is especially important for active discussions and discussions that affect the perennial sources list, but sockpuppetry interferes with consensus-building in all present and past discussions on any page.

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)

Seems like a waste of time and its been spamming my watchlist. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All editors are free to spend their time as they please. I made a total of three edits to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard within a span of 4 minutes, and am done with that page. — Newslinger talk 19:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup they certainly are though mass edits can be disruptive and it's bad practice to edit archives. I don't have a horse in the race though. PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The bad practice is creating dozens of sockpuppets over a span of 12 years. Nullifying these edits, which is supported by both the WP:BANREVERT and WP:BE policies, creates a disincentive against future sockpuppetry. Finally, I disagree that you "don't have a horse in the race", as I've noticed that JungerMan Chips Ahoy!'s opinions tend to coincide with yours in discussions that both of you have participated in. — Newslinger talk 19:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ha, I gotta ask now. You think striking though all their comments is going to disincentivize them or anyone else from socking? Also yes, socking is worse than editing archives that does not mean you should be editing archives. I think it was JzG that recently got whacked for that at ANI. I'll try and find it soonish. PackMecEng (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC) I cannot find the discussion I was thinking and do not want to imply JzG did something wrong without it. PackMecEng (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when a user creates sockpuppets to push a point of view, as NoCal100 did, nullifying their edits reduces the payoff of their efforts. WP:BANREVERT states, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban", and WP:BE states, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block". — Newslinger talk 20:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

As a checkuser I use WP:BANREVERT frequently and liberally, but I don't think I've ever gone into archives to modify them post block, at least not purposefully. I think you're taking this a step too far.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I am personally most concerned about the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard, as archived discussions still get indexed in the perennial sources list and this sockpuppet has been active since 2011. Do you have an opinion on these archives?​ — Newslinger talk 20:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

When you note that "archived discussions still get indexed" at WP:RSP, it looks like you're mainly the one doing the indexing? I don't see the concern being as pressing as you do. As you noted above, you can spend your time as you wish, but the editing of archives has generally been disapproved of by the community, so I wouldn't be surprised if other editors raise concerns.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean that the archived discussions are still factored into the sources' classifications on the list. Determining a classification involves assessing the consensus of each indexed discussion, and striking a banned sockpuppet's comments – in my view – transparently indicates that the comments are not factored into the classification for the benefit of any editor who wants to verify the classification.

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)

I think there is some confusion with can do something and should do something that we are disagreeing on here. PackMecEng (talk) 20:35, 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)

Consistent with the results of the discussion, I've reverted the striking of the comments in archived and closed discussions, but retained the striking of the comments in all other discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

IP block

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)

Hi Primefac, I've removed the restriction. I had originally applied this restriction because a large number of IPs in this range had been used exclusively for spam in a coordinated way (see WP:SBL § Google Play Store listings for Android apps by "pub" (com.sbdtube) and WP:SBL § mimzo.net), and I wanted logged-in users to be examined in case this was a paid operation. I now realize this was a mistake because the level of spam was not high enough to warrant a hard block, and I've converted the range block into a soft block. In the future, I'll monitor the normal channels (WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RSPAM, and WP:SBL) for spam, and refrain from hard-blocking IPv4 ranges and IPv6 ranges larger than /64 unless they are open proxies or subject to a much higher level of abuse. — Newslinger talk 05:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting

[18] Doug Weller talk 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

​Very interesting. There's enough coverage to include the incident in the OpIndia article, but I'm going to wait and see how the situation develops. — Newslinger talk 03:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of H:SANDBOX

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)

Sock?

User:Bigsundar possibly a NoCal sock? NickCT (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi NickCT, thanks for bringing this up. With only three edits on the account, it's hard to tell, but it's certainly a possibility. I would tag the comment with {{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)

Tagged. Thanks for reviewing. NickCT (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ad Fontes Media

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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

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)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

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)

CU

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)

Hi there. Wikipedia articles are not allowed to include material copied and pasted from other websites beyond what is allowed under fair use, unless the content on the website is released under a free license. However, it is acceptable to paraphrase non-free content as long as the resulting text is not too similar to the original text. There is a discussion at WP:ANI § Edit warring and sockpuppetry to add copyrighted text to Columbia University about your edits on the Columbia University article. — Newslinger talk 05:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

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)

fyi

PLS SEE Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Introduction page.--Moxy 🍁 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for responding to my message asking for help with Traefik! Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Kcmastrpc! I've shared some resources on your talk page that may be helpful for understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Editing gets a lot easier once you become familiar with them. Cheers. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum

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 there, the list of accolades is long enough that I'm not sure whether it should be merged into the Thondimuthalum Driksakshiyum article. I recommend adding a merge proposal to WP:MERGEREQ, which will allow more editors to express opinions on the merger. If there is consensus to merge the articles, an editor maintaining the proposed mergers page would then perform the merge for you. — Newslinger talk 08:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Fusion (student movement)

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)

 Done. Hi Fayenatic london, thanks for volunteering to improve the content in the article. I've restored all of the article revisions to Draft:Fusion (student movement). Although the draft currently contains the most recent revision, the old revisions are still accessible from the page history. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 08:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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. Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Passengerpigeon! We actually had a similar problem last month in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 157 § Potentially an undisclosed paid editor account, but with botched Dropbox links. These red flags don't show up too often, but if you ever notice one in the future, please don't hesitate to file a report on the conflict of interest noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 11:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Newslinger,

Your help can make a difference

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.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

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.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

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)

Ryan-Mark Parsons Page Protection

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)

Hi JPA24, page protection is generally applied only when necessary, since Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. When handling protection requests, I typically try to determine how long the page has been disrupted and then apply protection equal to the length of the disruption. For example, the Ryan-Mark Parsons article had been disrupted for about 3 days, so that's how long I semi-protected it for. If the article continues to experience disruption, please submit another protection request. Indefinite protection is usually only applied if the page has sustained ongoing disruption for a very long length of time. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 08:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Very helpful :) JPA24 (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

OpIndia, again…

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) RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi RedBulbBlueBlood9911, thanks for the heads up. I don't think any action is necessary. OpIndia is already on the spam blacklist after the doxing incident that was discussed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288 § OpIndia and Swarajya. I've also already blocked Soumyadipta.banerjee, the individual who facilitated the doxing (harassment) by providing the targeted editor's personal information to OpIndia. He admitted to engaging in undisclosed paid editing after the block, and I revised the block rationale to include that as a second reason.

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)

​One last note: in the future, it's best not to provide a link to articles that contain an editor's personal information when the editor is not openly disclosing that information on Wikipedia, even if the link is slightly modified. If the article is critical, it would be found with a simple web search anyway. — Newslinger talk 18:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Noted (both). RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 02:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

OpIndia socks?

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:

• Shubam2019 (started before OpIndia was banned, but continued discussion even after OI was banned)
  • Note: Rahul4931 and Rahul.of.m3 are also some possible socks who took part in the same discussion
  • Possible red flags: There are two journos at OI named Shubam, and one named Rahul. Shubam2019 has only 90 edits (25 in mainspace), while both Rahuls have only one or two each
  • My opinion: May be journos of OI
• IP 58.182.176.169
  • Time: 5:45 PM IST to 7:07 PM IST on 22 April
  • Location as per an IP tracking website: Singapore (that puts the time at 8:15 PM to 9:37 PM SST)
  • Possible red flags: Knows more complex policies like due weight, using OpIndia’s rhetoric, had the time to write all that he/she wrote
  • My opinion: There are two possibilities on whom this could be: either an OI journalist who travelled to Singapore for some reason or an OpIndia supporter
• Electranumera
  • Time: 3:57 PM IST on 7 June
  • Possible red flags: Only one edit, using the term "self goal" (I distinctly remember reading someone replying to OpIndia‘s tweet against Wikipedia on Twitter with this term)
  • My opinion: Either a journalist or a blind reader
• Levixius
  • Time of each post: 8:04 PM IST, 9:22 PM IST and 9:21 AM IST on 7 June
  • Possible red flags: Less than 100 edits when he/she claimed to "see dozens of violations of WP:NPOV" and that he’d/she’d start an NPOV dispute
  • My opinion: Probably just an editor with a misunderstanding, considering his/her other edits

And I’m listing each edit request on the talk page that clearly would benefit the news site here:

• 175.45.149.63 (Sydney) - The issue here is that the local time would be 12:24 AM if the editor was really in Sydney. This may be a VPN with the editor in India, where the local time would be 7:54 PM, 10 June
• Xcel 109 - only one edit at 1:03 PM, 21 May

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi RedBulbBlueBlood9911, these kinds of talk page comments are fairly common for articles which describe any well-known topic in a negative manner. The closest examples are Talk:Breitbart News and Talk:InfoWars. The only thing that distinguishes OpIndia from other unreliable sources is OpIndia's doxing. Their allegations of bias, on the other hand, are not particularly remarkable.

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)

Oh great, I suppose this means there'll be an influx of people editing to "ReVeRsE wIkIpEdIa’S bIaS". So I suppose the most appropriate way to handle this will be just sitting back and watching until someone adds unsourced lies, am I right? Or is there any plan like an automated notification for any editor who starts off by editing India-related articles? RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

​There is no such notification option beyond what is available through your watchlist. I would continue to assume good faith of new contributors, and only request arbitration enforcement for clear violations of the policies and guidelines after giving sufficient warning. If a new editor follows the policies and guidelines, then no action is needed. — Newslinger talk 10:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay - RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 10:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion

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… RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 03:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

​That's a great idea, and I'll add one in the next few days. Talk page message boxes are not visible on Wikipedia's mobile website or apps, but a notice would be better than nothing. — Newslinger talk 03:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, Newslinger. How’s the FAQ draft going? I’m asking this because I noticed another editor complaining about you guys at the Teahouse and was wondering about the draft… By the way, did you notice that this editor‘s allegations were more inline with OpIndia’s claims than previous editors’? RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, RedBulbBlueBlood9911. Let me draft the FAQ right now while OpIndia still has our attention. Yes, the editor who started this Teahouse discussion appears to be regurgitating OpIndia's claims without regard to their inaccuracy. — Newslinger talk 09:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing Talk:Breitbart News/FAQ and Talk:InfoWars/FAQ, I've created Talk:OpIndia/FAQ and added it to Talk:OpIndia. Please feel free to make improvements as you see fit.​ — Newslinger talk 10:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

reverting my edit

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 Parlebourbon, OpIndia (RSP entry) and Swarajya (RSP entry) have been considered generally unreliable by the Wikipedia community since a noticeboard discussion in March. TFIpost was discussed in May with the same conclusion. Although you could cite The Wire itself for The Wire (India) as a primary source, it would be better to use an independent reliable source that is not related to The Wire, if available. — Newslinger talk 17:18, 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)

I understand your concern, as I have read OpIndia's response to the March discussion. Evaluations of reliability are based on the reliable sources guideline, which does not take political orientation into account. WP:BIASED states that sources can be reliable even if they are biased or opinionated, and that applies to sources anywhere on the political spectrum. In the March discussion, editors took issue with OpIndia's use of doxing to influence political coverage on Wikipedia and OpIndia's 2019 rejection from the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry), among other problems. OpIndia's political orientation is not a problem; the problem is when OpIndia compromises its accuracy to achieve its coverage. Left-wing sources are evaluated in the same way, and you are free to discuss any source on the reliable sources noticeboard to gauge the community's consensus on its reliability.

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)

User:Rrraaaeee at UTRS

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)

Hi Deepfriedokra, I've commented with my recommendation. Thank you for bringing this up. — Newslinger talk 23:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

a issue sir

I'm a little (blue and white) teapot. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein)

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)

(talk page stalker) Teapot issue?? Bishonen | tålk 19:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

yesLoneltrussia (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bishonen:"Teahouse", as in Wikipedia:Teahouse#ADMINS_FROM_INDIA_MISUSING_THEIR_POWERS_FOR_MONEY_TO_PROMOTE_BIASED_PROPGANDAS_ON_WIKIPEDIA and linking to an article that named a specific admin. Meters (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, a Teahouse issue. I should have figured. Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

Hi Loneltrussia, I did not sanction you. I posted two messages on your talk page: the first is a standard notice informing you that the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area is under discretionary sanctions, and the second is a warning for making personal attacks. The discretionary sanctions notice is purely informational, and does not restrict your account in any way. Many editors who edit in these topic areas receive the notice about once a year for each topic as a reminder. As for the personal attacks, please do not make accusations against other editors without on-wiki evidence, as you did in this Teahouse discussion. That practice is known as casting aspersions and is considered a personal attack.

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)

Help is needed!

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)

Hi Parlebourbon, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution provides the recommended steps for resolving content disputes in articles. I recommend going to the talk page (Talk:Hindutva) and discussing your concerns there. The Hindutva article is very long, so it would be helpful if you could identify the specific sources that you are objecting to, and also propose a specific change to the article that would address your concerns. Since I have had no involvement with the article, I am not familiar enough with the cited sources to be of much use here, but I'm sure the editors on the talk page can provide a more thorough response.

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)

New account

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:

1. Convert my old pages into redirects to their equivalent pages (my old talk page should redirect to User talk:RBBB9911/Archive (Original))
2. Block that account since it has been compromised

Thanks, RBBB9911Talk 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. RBBB9911Talk 07:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi RBBB9911, I'm sorry that your account was compromised. This is an unusual situation, and I want to make sure that your current account belongs to you, and not an impostor. Are you using the same device and network that you used with the RedBulbBlueBlood9911 account? Also, are you willing to go through a CheckUser scan to verify this? — Newslinger talk 09:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead with the CheckUser scan. As for my old account being compromised, I kinda deserved it as I was neglecting studies (I promise to limit my edits to when I really am free from now on) RBBB9911Talk 09:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I've just declined RBBB9911's request for Extended confirmed. How will CU help? The problem is "someone with access to my device". CU will do nothing to show who now controls the device. This could just as plausibly be social engineering by the "someone with access" as a plea by the original RedBulbBlueBlood9911.

Regrettably this looks to be a harsh learning experience for the original RedBulbBlueBlood9911 both in computer security:

• Wikipedia:User account security,
• Password strength#Guidelines for strong passwords,
• Wikipedia:Committed identity,
• Help:Two-factor authentication
• Use 2FA if it's offered

and also who they consider trustworthy. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually CU can sometimes be useful regarding claims of compromise. Aside, @RBBB9911: there were some technical problems with login sessions around the time you experienced this problem, and as far as I can tell most people were logged out of their accounts. My advice is to try logging in again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Logged back in already, @Zzuuzz:. And just to clarify things for Cabayi, my parents changed my old account password as my studies were going down (I wasn’t being specific before as it was somewhat embarrassing). I promise to limit my activity, but now that I think about it, is there some javascript tool that can stop me from logging in at certain times of the day (I may have to use this to limit my activity)? I know of the tool that can enforce a complete wikibreak, but I want one just for blocking me at certain times of the day... RBBB9911Talk 09:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@RBBB9911: Just to clarify your clarification, are you saying you've logged back in to, and are in control of, your original account? If so my work is done here. Hopefully someone can find a technical solution to your other issue. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Logged back in to this account, zzuuzz. My parents changed the password for the old one. They won’t give that back. RBBB9911Talk 10:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, that's an unusual and novel situation. As far as I'm concerned, just make sure they don't edit with the account. If you actually want it blocked, I'd be happy to do that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually I asked for it to be blocked only because that was recommended at Wikipedia:Compromised accounts. Anyways, they aren’t even the Wikipedia reading type, so if a block is not compulsory, you can leave the account as it is, zzuuzz. RBBB9911Talk 10:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this, zzuuzz and Cabayi.

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)

Thanks, Newslinger. I’ve chosen a software limit (hopefully, I won’t feel the urge to go beyond the specified time limit). As for the pages in my old account’s namespace… RBBB9911Talk 11:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've redirected User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911 to User:RBBB9911 and User talk:RedBulbBlueBlood9911 to User talk:RBBB9911 so that anyone who clicks on a link from your old signature would be taken to the right place. It's important to have User talk:RedBulbBlueBlood9911 redirect to your current talk page, since your old account may receive messages from Twinkle that need your attention. I've redirected User talk:RedBulbBlueBlood9911/Archive 1 to User talk:RBBB9911/Archive (Original), as you requested. Does this look good to you? — Newslinger talk 11:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks, Newslinger. RBBB9911Talk 11:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Parents?! Always guaranteed to step in when you least want. Glad the wiki issue's resolved. Cabayi (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Common WP:SOCK

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)

Hi Amkgp, I see that Deacon Vorbis has already requested a CheckUser scan on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Balusingh12. A checkuser will examine the technical evidence. If the CheckUser scan does not return a conclusive positive result, I will take a look at the behavioral evidence. — Newslinger talk 08:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with you on reverting back Swarajya entry

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)

I did not revert your edit on the Swarajya (magazine) article, but I did send you a warning message because it is not acceptable to delete large portions of reliably sourced information from an article without consensus. ​— Newslinger talk 12:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Can you help me add mini map at article Draft: Nguyen Huu Cau High School? Thanks. AutoVida123 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Hi AutoVida123, and welcome to Wikipedia! I've added a map to the draft using the {{Infobox mapframe}} template in this edit. Please feel free to adjust it to your liking. — Newslinger talk 08:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! AutoVida123 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop gaslighting me

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)

I've referred this discussion to the incidents noticeboard at WP:ANI § User:Brian K Horton. — Newslinger talk 16:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A perfect example. Almost sounded helpful. Until you follow the link. Brian K Horton (talk) 17:29, 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

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)

A barnstar for you!

		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)

Thank you very much for the kind message, Tayi Arajakate! For the avoidance of doubt, I had to take a wikibreak to deal with a pressing off-wiki situation completely unrelated to anything on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Appeal against sanction to make edits freely in wikipedia

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)

I note that each edit this user has made between the sanction being applied and this appeal has been a TBAN violation. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. It seems like you have been following my edits everywhere in Wikipedia. I did not realize there was a block on me hence i appealed to User:Newslinger after this. I have not made any violations ever since this appeal. I would suggest that you move on and not unnecessarily stalk my posts. --Hari147 (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hari147, I am declining your appeal because it does not adequately address the concerns described in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267 § Hari147 (including the personal attack and the insufficiently explained edits), because the appeal was made too soon after the sanction was placed (20 June), and because some of the edits you have made after 20 June violated the topic ban (Special:Diff/964794670, Special:Diff/966305971, and Special:Diff/966306205). Please see WP:ACDS § Appeals by sanctioned editors for your other appeal options. To maximize the chance of a successful appeal, I recommend waiting at least six months from today, and using that time to make constructive contributions in other topic areas without violating the topic ban again. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

PySimpleGUI - Page

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)

Hi there, I declined Draft:PySimpleGUI because it did not meet the general notability guideline, which is required to establish that a topic is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. To show notability, the draft needs to cite multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic. The only source cited in the draft that would potentially count toward notability is the Opensource.com article, and the source is of borderline independence because the publication is owned by Red Hat. The other cited sources, which include directory listings, a forum post, and a blog post, are either primary sources or self-published sources, none of which count toward notability.

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)

Hi there, I have restored Draft:PySimpleGUI and you are free to continue improving it. Please feel free to ask me or the friendly folks at the Teahouse if you have any questions about editing. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

New slinger? News linger?

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)

Hi GPinkerton, my username is a combination of the words news and slinger, and it's a fancy name for a newspaper carrier. See this video for an illustration. I hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 00:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It certainly helps. Thanks! (And keep up the good work!) GPinkerton (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, GPinkerton. You as well! — Newslinger talk 00:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)