Newslinger

Hello Newslinger, A page name and redirect was done recently, changing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardano_(cryptocurrency_platform) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardano_(blockchain_platform)

The result was that page views on Wikipedia fell by 2/3. I looked at a redirect for Ripple you did in 2018, and there was no effect on traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_(payment_protocol)#XRP Has redirect from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xrp&redirect=no

Would you be able you be to check whether the redirect was done properly, please? IOHKwriter (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would like to appeal the latest result. An indefinite topic ban is too harsh and not fair, especially that the topic is very big and, since it's broadly construed, it covers about all of the articles I'm intrested in. I think the result ignored my cooparation and later attempts at fix the issues.-- Maudslay II (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just my 2 cents: I also think the result for User:Maudslay II is a tad harsh, for "first offence", so to speak. Though Maudslay II was sloppy on sources, they were correct on substance, in the articles I was able to check. There is eg, no doubt that the Israelis were behind the Maarakeh massacre, and loads of other bombings and assassinations in Lebanon at the time (just read Rise and Kill First, or their use of Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners). Since Maudslay II is a relatively new editor (~1000 edits), may I suggest a 6 months topic-ban would be an idea? Huldra (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If the user will edit constructively the topic ban may be lifted in six month --Shrike (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if Newslinger has been notified that there is an appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Maudslay II. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Newslinger,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please remove love jihad Shailender jain1 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I hope things are well. Wanted to check in with you regarding Sourceror, I know Ahmed would like to get in touch with you about closing out the project. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello Newslinger:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.Reply

Hey I created an appeal for a topic banned you created in March. I hope it can be repealed, due to my apologies for previous actions. Thanks have a good day. [1] 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You appear to have contributed to the discussion of Forbes magazine as a reliable source last April which resulted in what looks like an odd addition to the Reliable Sources list for Forbes. It appears odd because "Forbes" is listed as reliable but "Forbes.com" is listed as unreliable. This does not appear to work because many of Forbes staff writers have they articles available on Forbes.com as that magazine's electronic data base. The current presentation of these two sources as on the one hand reliable and on the other hand unreliable appears further to be inconsistent since the Forbes staff writers have their articles in both places. Could you glance at this on the listing of reliable sources page since they are listed back-to-back? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

ErnestKrause, I would suggest taking a look at the list again, it refers to Forbes.com contributors as unreliable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for getting back. The distinction of the two sources seems to say that Forbes.com is unreliable since it does not currently state an exception for Forbes staff writers. Also, since contributors do appear in the hard-copy version of the magazine, this distinction of staff versus contributor does not seem easy to apply. The hard-copy magazine which publishes both staff articles and contributor articles is reliable, but the contributors on Forbes.com, which include those published contributor articles in the hard-copy magazine, are unreliable? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) comment: The unreliable rating is applied specifically to Forbes.com contributors, not Forbes.com. For print articles by contributor, the description for Forbes.com contributors says Articles that have also been published in the print edition of Forbes are excluded, and are considered generally reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey. You doing alright Newslinger? You haven't edited in quite a while. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what my agenda is. It would be nice to know what I'm supposed to fix. My templates?? I wanna figure it out so I can move forward. GetWellSoonJun2921 (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Nicoljaus, indef topic ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The amendment request Amendment request: Nicoljaus, indef topic ban, has been declined by the Committee. You can review the closed amendement request here. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 12:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hope everything is ok. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Same here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ditto - hope you're OK Girth Summit _(blether) 07:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

+1 to this. Your work at WP:RSN is unrivalled. — Bilorv (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

++1 to this. I hope you decide to return one day. You are missed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Missed presence on RSN. Left an impression on a newbie. Hope to see you around again. --Chillabit (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

+1; hope all is well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

+1; I hope all is ok in real life. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure someone knows something Renat 13:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

He was quite active in protecting the Love Jihad page from Hindu religious extremists from India for a long time. However, several Hindu nationalist forums online directly made threats to his life and also encouraged users to try and hunt him down. From what I can recall at the time he said he was aware of these threats but that didn't seem to have stopped him from editing? I'm hoping nothing has happened to him but you can't really tell with religious extremists. Several weeks ago there was a mass conference involving academics who wanted to discuss the problem of Hindu nationalism in the West and the reaction was horrendously visceral. I'm really hoping Newslinger is okay and hasn't come across anyone who could have threatened his life. Alternatively it could be possible that he's gotten COVID? NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Newslinger! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed on the AFC's participants list, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 6 months. Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to regain access to the AFCH script, you can do so at any time by visiting WT:AFCP. Thank you for your work at AFC, and if you start editing Wikipedia again we hope you will rejoin us. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Both labeled "general unreliable" by Wikipedia users? [2]

Am I the only one who is troubled by this? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

EnlightenmentNow1792 It concerns me that Wikipedia is ignoring the work of professional organisations set up to assess the reliability of news outlets. I've tried to use Media-bias/fact check to justify a reliability rating of sources, only to be faced with hostility, and even [one accusation] of being associated with the company! I think the [only criticism of Media Bias] is that it's seen as a primary source despite amalgamating decisions from a range of fact checkers. In fact [Wikipedia itself] says "Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy"! Why? Perhaps our 'methodology' of deciding reliability ratings on Wikipedia needs to be discussed more generally! --Andromedean (talk) 13:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EnlightenmentNow1792 and Andromedean: please don't post here. Newslinger hasn't been around for over 6 months, which is concerning. He's not going to reply and you need to have this discussion elsewhere. I'm sure you now that WP:RSN is the appropriate place. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EnlightenmentNow1792: @Andromedean: User:Doug Weller is correct, this should be taken to WP:RSN — again. You are not the only one troubled by this. I started a discussion recently about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Allsides.com media bias chart, revisited, but it didn't get anywhere. I'd like to see the Ad Fontes chart un-deprecated. If you start a new discussion, raise the points I raised, and I'm happy to participate. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Disrupted discussion has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Levivich 16:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Wikipedia Admin Michael Grenier: I have been directed to a list of 112 Wikipedia Administrators with the power to provide draft copies of deleted articles. The person who directed me has the username of 'Sandstein'. I contact you because you are among those 112 admins, and I wish to retrieve the writing I did for a now-deleted article named 'Zack: Enfrentamiento Mortal'. I believe this page was deleted on December 11th, 2021. Quick side note that I am the creator of said deleted page. I do not wish for the page to be undeleted, I simply wish to obtain a copy of the page so I can keep it for my own viewing. I have a particular interest in the 'Plot' section of the deleted article, but it would be better if I may receive the whole thing. Thank you very much, OtherPancakes (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)OtherPancakesReply

P.S: I got the name wrong. I've contacted multiple admins and this is one of them. I meant to write 'Newslinger' instead. My apologies, OtherPancakes (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)OtherPancakesReply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Find a Grave logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Another editor (Llll5032) and myself are editing the BLP of Martin Kulldorff. We are the only two active editors of that page at the moment and we have reached an impasse regarding sciencebasedmedicine.org (SBM) as a reliable source for a BLP.

SBM is used to support a statement regarding the Great Barrington Declaration and therefore brings in to the mix WP:MEDRS.

In light of this closed RfC you contributed to, do you think sciencebasedmedicine.org is useable within a MEDRS + BLP statement?

Our discussion of the topic can be found here.

Thank you very much, in advance, for your assistance.

00:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) @Michael.C.Wright: Newslinger has not edited for ~8 months. You might be better off asking at WP:RSN again. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect GM Card and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 31#GM Card until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. I've notified you as you made this into a redirect. A7V2 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good to see you active; hope all is well. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Man I am so happy to see you back! Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 03:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Glad to see you around again! Elli (talk | contribs) 11:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Piling on! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeeep, it's great to see you're back! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just saw your username in a block notice. Good to have you back on board. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wow, almost jumped seeing you pop back up, so glad you're ok! --Chillabit (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, everyone! It feels good to be back, and I will continue contributing to Wikipedia for as long as I can. — Newslinger talk 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Newslinger! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to free and open-source software. I'd like to invite you to become a part of the free and open-source software task force, a project aimed at improving the quality of articles about free and open-source software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the free and open-source software task force for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks! GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found you since you are currently an official participant of WT:FOSS. It is great to see how much you contribute to Wikipedia every day. Keep up the good work! We would love to have you be an active part of WT:FOSS and FOSS topics too. Feel free to join our talk page to see what recently happened (a lot!) GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi GavriilaDmitriev, thanks again for this invitation. The ongoing 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is consuming most of my attention right now, but I'll be sure to contribute more time to FOSS topics after things settle down. I'm just letting you know that I intend to contribute more to the WikiProject later on. — Newslinger talk 21:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Responded at WP:ANI § User:Newslinger keeps on issuing me bogus warnings. — Newslinger talk 20:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your helpful edits to my two new articles NewsFront (website) and SouthFront. I created those articles after reading about them as major Russian disinformation sites in a 2020 US State Department report.^[1] Many of the seven sites mentioned there have no article, so I am working to create articles for some and to improve information about others. I have seen the good work you are doing in several articles about Russian disinformation, so if you have information to add on these topics, I'd welcome your help. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for creating these articles, HouseOfChange! I'll take a look at them and try to expand them when I get a chance. — Newslinger talk 21:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned right-wing being its "defining" characteristic. Says who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.89.214 (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources consistently describe Swarajya as a "right-wing" magazine; please see the citations at Special:Permalink/1076389263#cite_note-13 for details. Swarajya also openly advertises itself as a political magazine that leans right, as shown in editorial director Sandipan Deb's 2014 interview and Swarajya's current About Us page. As a political magazine, Swarajya's political orientation is a defining characteristic. Wikipedia is not censored and there is no valid reason to hide this information from the article. — Newslinger talk 23:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

1) Would you please share this article deleted in 2017, some of whose sources might be useful? I did not realize when creating SouthFront that there was an older version.

2) According to EU vs Disinformation, "What stood out in our research was the fact that in 2020 the number of SouthFront links added to Wikipedia increased by 397%, and most links were added after the takedown (especially in the second half of the year). Most of the links added to Wikipedia concerned conflicts in the Middle East.."[3] Their numbers include talk as well as article space.

I tried to follow up on this, and found an RfC and a MediaWiki discussion. I found only 4 links to southfront.org, all from talk pages.[4] What puzzles me is that en-wiki blocked links to SouthFront in 2019, but RS describes them as increasing all year throughout 2020. Any insight? HouseOfChange (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi HouseOfChange, I've restored the deleted article to Draft:South Front and the corresponding talk page to Draft talk:South Front, so that the usable content can be merged into the new SouthFront article. I see a couple of useful sources, including an academic journal, so that was a very good call. Thanks for suggesting this!

As for the increase in Wikipedia links to SouthFront in 2020, the data source (marketing firm Semrush) is probably counting links in all language editions of Wikipedia, and not just the English Wikipedia. I can't think of any other explanation. — Newslinger talk 22:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why post 3 identical notifications on my talk page? It’s not clear to me what each one refers to. Please provide clarification. Thank you. Quadrow (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Quadrow, each alert is for a different topic. The first one is for "post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people", the second one is for "articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles", and the third one is for "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour". Additional rules called discretionary sanctions apply to each of these three topic areas. Most editors who are active in these topic areas receive an alert about once per year, per topic area. — Newslinger talk 02:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would like to thank you for bringing to my attention the additional rules in the initial alert but the second and third alert serves no useful purpose for me as all the information appeared in the first alert as it was not clear that they were for additional topics. Indeed, I initially misconstrued it as spamming. I invite you to remove the repeated alerts and if I engage in any additional controversial discussions, I would be happy to receive a short comment under the same alert telling me which additional topics it applies to. Many thanks for assisting me to make sure I understand the additional rules. Quadrow (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

​Per WP:OWNTALK, you're welcome to archive or remove anything from your user talk page, with a few rare exceptions. According to the discretionary sanctions procedures, the annual alerts for each topic area are required for awareness, and the alert templates cannot be substituted with alternative messages. However, if you would like to opt out of these alerts, you can do so by placing the {{Ds/aware}} template on your user talk page and specifying in the template the topic areas you want to opt out of notifications about. If you have not yet read the discretionary sanctions procedures carefully, please take the time to do so, since they apply to all of your edits in these topic areas. — Newslinger talk 14:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Edited 16:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Re the combined Ds/Gs alert template part, I did this a few months ago. You can use {{alert}} and pass through either a DS or GS topic code and it’ll still work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for creating Module:Sanctions/AlertHelper! I've removed that part from the amendment request. — Newslinger talk 18:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for indeffing Special:Contributions/Saber403. Could you consider revoking their talk page access? They are continuing to be a nuisance, including pinging me. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I was just about to ask that. - ZLEA _T\^C 14:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Thanks for reporting this!​​ — Newslinger talk 19:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much. I'll let you know if similar issues arise, per beans. BilCat (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Hope you are doing well. I Actually i saw this written on AIV noticeboard Stale reports are automatically cleared by MDanielsBot after 4–8 hours with no action. What is considered as a stale report? Is it unanswered request or request without any actions from admins. Since there are some requests, with a clear reply eg not warned correctly. But my request was cleared by the bot without getting any such reply. I was wondering how it works. Just curious to know. Thankyou. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 15:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi 511KeV, a report is stale on AIV when it does not result in the reported user being blocked after a certain time frame. The bot does not care whether the report receives a reply, although it removes all replies when it clears a report. According to User:SQL/AIVStale, the time frame is 4 hours when there are 80 or more active administrators in the last hour. When there are fewer active administrators in the last hour, the time frame increases to a maximum of 8 hours for 40 or fewer active administrators. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 00:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou.  . _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 02:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Newslinger, I noticed today that @Hari147: appears to have violated their June 2020 ARBIPA TBAN with every edit they've made since August 2020 [5], and that nobody has noticed, as they've not been prolific. As the admin imposing the sanction, would you be willing to deal with it? Vanamonde (Talk) 05:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Done. Thanks for noticing this!​ — Newslinger talk 00:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Amendment request: Discretionary sanctions procedure page and templates has closed. 3 changes to {{ds/alert}}/{{ds/talk notice}} were approved and will be implemented by the Arbitration Committee and the clerk team.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, MJL! I'll submit proposed edits for the templates as soon as I can. — Newslinger talk 01:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://wlos.com/news/local/judge-dismisses-libel-lawsuit-by-asheville-woman-following-2016-trump-rally

yet still cited in the Project Veritas lede. IOW a judge dismissed an secondary source WP deemed reliable enough to use in the lede. The court is the highest publisher of repute. Leaving the above as an actionable libel claim. 2601:46:C801:B1F0:FD41:495D:1EA2:C773 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia, so please take care not to imply them in your words. There are dozens of citations in the lead section of the Project Veritas article, and it is unclear which one you are referring to. Feel free to submit an edit request at Talk:Project Veritas with a specific description of what you would like to change in the article, accompanied by reliable sources that support that change. — Newslinger talk 01:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good evening, I am an actress and stunt woman. I am looking to create a wiki page and want to confirm that my page would be considered notable. Are you able to help me?

Thank you Teacherswhorock (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Teacherswhorock: You shouldn't try to create a wiki page about yourself. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. Im grateful. I do not want to create the page, I am looking for someone to create it for me but am not sure how to go about it. I am listed as a cast member under a tv series here on Wiki, but my name is written in red because i do not have a page. Teacherswhorock (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome to add yourself to one of the lists of requested articles if you meet either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for entertainers, although the list does not guarantee that the article will be written. Generally, for people in the entertainment industry, people who are interested in you (including your viewers, your fans, or others who are aware of you) are the ones who will write the article, without your prompting. My recommendation is to focus on your career: make yourself the best actress you can be, and the publicity will naturally follow. — Newslinger talk 22:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Teacherswhorock, MJL is right. Wikipedia editors are discouraged from editing articles about any topics for which they have a conflict of interest, and that includes articles about themselves or their ventures. If you would like to write about any other topic, the notability guideline explains the requirements that need to be met for a topic to have an article on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

"If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor."

You left a notice saying that I have shown "interest" in the "Syrian Civil War and ISIL" as well as " Arab–Israeli conflict". Yet, I haven't edited a single article relating to either one of these topics (unless McDonalds Israel counts). Why were these notices arbitrarily left on my talk page? Can you explain the reasoning behind doing this, when I've never edited any articles related to either topic?

Thank you, PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi PeaceThruPramana26, the MintPress News article is part of both of these topic areas. Please note that, as the top of Talk:MintPress News states, there are active community sanctions on the MintPress News article. In particular, the "Editing restrictions for new editors" restriction prohibits you from editing the MintPress News article and the Talk:MintPress News talk page until you have made 500 edits on your Wikipedia account. — Newslinger talk 08:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Actually, you are free to use the talk page. My bad. The full details are at Special:Permalink/1045390397 § Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion. ​ — Newslinger talk 08:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

...the MintPress News article is part of both of these topic areas. Good Evening, Can you show me where this is connection is ? I've never even edited the MintPress News article before (I merely offered a suggestion on the talk page, like I'm supposed to before making contentious edits), and the link between this random left-wing press outlet based in Minnesota and the Greater Syrian Civil War + Arab Israeli conflict seems tenuous at best, even moreso considering the page itself isn't even tied to any categories or wikiprojects involving either Syria+ISIL or the Arab-Israeli conflict, so I really don't see what exactly justifies those warnings, especially seeing as I literally made those edits more than two weeks ago (which then begs the question: Why now?) PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article prominently describes MintPress News's coverage of the Ghouta chemical attack, which is part of the Syrian civil war, as well as its coverage of the Arbaeen pilgrimage claim in relation to ISIL. The article also describes MintPress News's stance on Israel in the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict, and a glance at the website (e.g. in its highlights page) shows that a large portion of its stories focuses on the Arab–Israeli conflict.

User talk page notices can be distracting, so whenever I send a discretionary sanctions alert, I check the editor's recent contributions to identify other topic areas that are covered by discretionary sanctions, and include alerts for all applicable topics. This minimizes the number of times that the editor receives new notices. Generally, I look through the last month's worth of edits or the last 20-ish edits (up to one year old for infrequent editors), whichever is more. Alerts are very important for topic areas affected by the 500-edit/30-day restriction, since it is common for editors who are unaware of the restriction to unintentionally violate it.

Discretionary sanctions notices are also critical for editors who use mobile devices, because the Wikipedia mobile website does not prominently display discretionary sanctions banners on article talk pages. Your edits to Talk:MintPress News are, to date, the only edits you have made on the Wikipedia mobile website, so it was important to send the notice to ensure that you are aware of the restrictions in these topic areas. — Newslinger talk 21:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Edited 02:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

None of this still answers why I received three arbitrary messages on my page for a talk page I edited two weeks ago just yesterday, after I coincidentally removed another unwarranted sanctions notice from my talk page hours from another user before; Also, I haven't seen any Wiki bureaucracy discuss MintPress News in relation to Syria or Israel and Palestine? Also, using this logic, any newspaper that covers a story extensively is at risk of being categorised as part of some sort of discretionary sanctions. Can you give me something more concrete which describes MintPress News being related to Palestine-Israel and Syria/ISIL? Thus far, it only seems to be a subjective opinion that MintPress is at all related to the aforementioned topics. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Your edits to Talk:MintPress News are, to date, the only edits you have made on the Wikipedia mobile website, so it was important to send the notice to ensure that you are aware of the restrictions in these topic areas. " So why then did you not send me the notice more two weeks ago when I actually made the edit? You appear to have been active in between that space, and yet I only received these notices after another user accuses me of edit warring, which honestly just strikes me as a bit more than coincidental. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: As far as I'm aware, the Wikipedia mobile and Wikipedia site are the same exact website, except the former is merely formatted for web usage. What's the logic of sending me a notice more than two weeks after I make a single edit for merely logging into my mobile phone and editing from there? This all seems really odd and arbitrary. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The MintPress News article has been identified as part of the Syrian Civil War topic area since 2014, and as part of the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area since 2018. If you disagree with this, you are welcome to submit a clarification request to the Arbitration Committee.

I had noticed your 3 April and 4 April edits to WION, an article on my watchlist, and sent you a discretionary sanctions alert for the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area in response to those edits. Before sending that alert, I scanned your recent contributions, was reminded that you had edited Talk:MintPress News recently, and bundled the alerts for the other two topic areas in the same edit. Since you had apparently not been aware that MintPress News is part of the "Syrian Civil War and ISIL" and Arab–Israeli conflict topic areas before receiving these alerts, but are now aware after having received these alerts, these alerts have served their purpose.

Talk page banners, including discretionary sanctions notices such as {{Gs/talk notice}} and {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, are visible on Wikipedia's desktop website, but hidden on Wikipedia's mobile website until the user clicks "About this page" under the page title. Most mobile Wikipedia users do not click "About this page", and are left unaware that the article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Therefore, it is especially important to ensure that mobile Wikipedia users who edit articles (or their corresponding talk pages) that are covered by discretionary sanctions are aware of the rules that are in effect. — Newslinger talk 07:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain to me how my dicussions are innappropriate? I am discussing the lack of balance in an article. Is this forbidden? JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi JoseLuisMoralesMarcos, one of Wikipedia's policies is that Wikipedia is not a forum. According to the talk page guidelines, article talk pages are intended for discussing improvements to the article, and when a discussion veers into political arguments or personal attacks that are unlikely to improve the article, the discussion can be closed and archived to allow editors to focus on more constructive discussions.

Your first comment, Special:Diff/1081300512, which proposed removing "western" sources from the article, is a suggestion that is not compatible with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and I recommend thoroughly reviewing all three of Wikipedia's core content policies before making further edits in contentious topic areas. The reliable sources guideline generally enables editors to use sources with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", regardless of the country they are based in, while questionable sources with "a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight" are generally excluded from articles.

In talk page discussions, it is recommended to focus on content, and not on other editors. Accusing someone of having "extreme views" because they display a Ukrainian flag on their user page, as you did in Special:Diff/1081319036, is considered a personal attack, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The discussion as a whole, now archived at Talk:Bucha massacre/Archive 1 § Dealing with propaganda war, had an inflammatory tone and did not contain any usable suggestions to improve the Bucha massacre article, which is why it is now closed and archived. — Newslinger talk 22:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

All I said was that 1) We should expand the scope of reliable sources to non-western sources due to the highly partisan editorial lines taken in NATO countries which is slowly sliding into McCarthyism (reliability of such sources should perhaps be reevaluated) and 2) The views on who was responsible of all sides to the conflict should be clearly portrayed and sourced in a neutral manner rather than censored and that 3) WP:FRINGE does not apply since there is limited neutral information on the event, or any event related to the Ukraine conflict. I believe such policies are being misused by partisan editors who are WP:GAMING the system. Is expressing this opinion on the talk page somehow forbidden? We cannot use legalese to quash debate.JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

In Special:Diff/1081300512, you claimed without evidence that there is "an unprecedented level of hysterical propaganda in the western world". This type of political comment is not helpful for improving articles. You also claimed without evidence that "NATO sources, with perhaps a few exceptions are clearly not reliable anymore". Historically, the consensus of the Wikipedia community is against blanket exclusions of sources from large geographic areas. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with using reliable sources from other geographic areas. If you find relevant content in reliable "South Asia, Middle Eastern maybe even Latin American sources", feel free to suggest these sources on the talk page so that they can be incorporated into the article.

The talk page guidelines enable editors to remove and archive "Off-topic posts" and "personal attacks". It is inadvisable to describe other editors as "partisan", since it goes against the principle of focusing on content, and not on other editors. Casting aspersions is a form of personal attack, so please do not accuse others of gaming the system without evidence. Finally, discussions on editor conduct generally do not belong on article talk pages; the appropriate venues for resolving user conduct disputes are listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Resolving user conduct disputes (WP:RUCD). — Newslinger talk 22:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Now reported at ANI, if you want to add your two cents there. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

For straightening that out with Delliot5. I was trying to explain to him that BritishToff had been indeffed but by the time I came back to the section it didn’t seem like further comment from me would be welcome. I appreciate the follow up because editor retention is ... shall we say my favorite wikirant? I might even send you a kitten the next time i’m on a device that supports that. On a related note, check out what happens to edit requests on that page. I have only seen one or two get listened to. Thanks again, that one bugged me. Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

No problem, it's always sad to see an editor leave Wikipedia over a misunderstanding, and I do hope Delliott5 changes their mind about leaving. Currently, the only active edit request I see on that page is Talk:Azov Battalion § Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022, a request that I believe would be better handled through the RfC that is being drafted. — Newslinger talk 07:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

	An ice-cold glass of Slavic Class
	In thanks, to cool you down for your efforts in the heated East Slavic topic area! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, EnlightenmentNow1792! Reasonable discussion is the best way to resolve many disputes. — Newslinger talk 09:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. But in particularly controversial topic areas (which I'd be bold enough to venture would include practically any article on a contemporary issue which includes the term *Nazi* in its first sentence) the search for a utopian "consensus" is impossible, if there are enough special interest editors, with enough determination, to ignore RS and WP:Policy. All you get is filibustering and obfuscation from the side aiming at disinformation, and the best possible outcome you can hope for from an RfC is essentially the equivalent of a straw poll that happily goes the right way (a.k.a. "mob rule"). EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not perfect, of course, but articles tend to improve over time as higher-quality sources, such as reliable academic and book sources, emerge. For topics that have received a lot of media attention, you may want to look out for academic sources that would eventually supersede the news coverage that the articles are initially based on. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have. They are ignored by the usual suspects, and deleted several times by the same, when I tried to add them to the article. A. Umland, O. Rybiy, K. Fedorenko, A. Shekhovtsov are the acknowledged experts on this precise field of study. Every time I try to add these sources to the article, they're deleted, I've added most of them to the talk page - ignored, in favor of blogs and random magazines/newspapers, often many years out of date. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

For the Azov Battalion article specifically, feel free to mention those academic sources when the RfC that is being drafted on the talk page eventually starts. After the RfC becomes active, you can also advertise it on the neutral point of view noticeboard and the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects to bring more uninvolved editors to the discussion. — Newslinger talk 11:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

How's this? [6] Horrendous? It certainly looks it to me! lol - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Sitel page has a section called "News" with a sub-section called "Involvement in 2022 data breach at Okta". I disclosed a COI and asked the content be merged with "History" instead of in a dedicated section, per WP:CRIT. The responding editor said they don't know enough to have an opinion. I was hoping you might be knowledgeable enough on the rules/norms to have an opinion on whether the section should be consolidated and approve or deny my request. Thank you in advance for your assistance if you decide to chime in. Best regards. DanSlavov (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi DanSlavov, WP:CRITS discourages section headings such as "Criticism" and "Controversies", but does not make a recommendation for or against the section headings I currently see in the Sitel article. However, the "News" heading as it is used in the article is in violation of the WP:NOTNEWS policy, and I've merged that section with the "Corporate history" section into a new "History" section in Special:Diff/1081591915. If there are any further changes you would like to make to the article, I recommend submitting an edit request on Talk:Sitel using the {{Request edit}} template. Another editor will evaluate your request and get back to you. — Newslinger talk 11:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Newslinger. Did you feel the security breach should have its own sub-section like that rather than being a paragraph in recent history? I defer to your judgment and expertise. Just wanted to make sure that was correct. DanSlavov (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

See [7]. I think the ban need to be indefinite. Veverve (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

By the way, juging from this edit, it looks like the IP has come back with an account. Veverve (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Newslinger! My heart dropped scrolling down your talk page, until finally you reappeared only days ago. It is a huge relief to see you are doing well and still a part of the project.

I have a feeling you might be able to help me, I’m wanting to reference a YouTube video showing Warren Buffet praising Marquis Who’s Who. The video is titled “ Warren Buffett Praises Who's Who in America” on the MarquisListeeVideos YouTube channel. I can’t seem to find any guidance on how this is done. Many thanks for your time, petrarchan47คุก 13:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, a while ago you blocked from editing regarding topics related to the Arab–Israeli conflict due my edit-warring. I wanted to know if it were possible for this to be repeal. I've learned my lesson regarding edit-warring I am under a 0rr for 3 months, so there is no concern. Thank you have a nice day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that you've worked on the article on Document.no. There is a rather similar website in Norway, Resett.no, where the article is experiencing attempts at whitewashing, removal of the scholarly sources (e.g. Figenschou) that describe it critically, and where it replaced with a rather self-serving text by an editor who seems to be affiliated with the website. It would be good if more editors could pay attention to the goings-on on that article as well. --Svantetos (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Svantetos, I've taken a look at the Resett.no article and it indeed appears to have been whitewashed via the deletion of high-quality academic sources in the same manner as the Document.no article used to be. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. — Newslinger talk 08:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Newslinger, revisiting something you've worked on: I'm populating a RS:P table for vaccines here (vaccine safety), and wondering how your API is working and how that could fit into a more automated update of such tables. – SJ + 15:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Newslinger, an article, Draft:Decatur Tribune, that I drafted and submitted for review in Articles for creation was declined by Afc reviewer User:Idoghor Melody on 6 June 2022. Idoghor suggested that I get a second opinion. See discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Idoghor_Melody/Archive_2#RE_Draft:Decatur_Tribune I have subsequently made significant improvements and now I kindly ask that after reviewing this discussion that you might render your opinion. I posted a request on the AfC help page on 28 June, but I have had no reply. BuffaloBob (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Newslinger. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Science Feedback, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, aardwolf68 here, I was just here to let you know that there might be some conflict with the F.A.M.E. page for Chris Brown's album, considering that I restored removed content and made the critical reception section as unbiased as possible. Please attempt to keep an eye on it as I can't really do much if some asshole (sorry for the language) wants to revert my edits and then engage in an edit war with me to make me look bad. Anyways, thank you for the support. Aardwolf68 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aardwolf68, thanks for bringing this to my attention, and for restoring the reliably sourced reviews to the F.A.M.E. (Chris Brown album) article that had been inappropriately removed by sockpuppets.

Here is a quick tip that you might find useful when editing articles that are being disrupted by sockpuppets: if you go to your Gadgets (in your Preferences) and turn on the "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" option, any link to a user page or user talk page of a blocked user will have a line through it. This makes it easier to identify users who have been blocked, including confirmed sockpuppets.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me or use the most suitable noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 06:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Newslinger, need your assistance to step in to resolve a dispute between two editors in relation to an edit on the MicroG page. The source is a cherry-picked sentence to portray /e/OS in a negative light. This on a page dedicated to MicroG! The sentence in question is "installing /e/ is a monster of a job" in the Reception section.

Full disclosure, I am an employee of ECORP, the organization that created /e/OS and cannot make the edits as I have a WP:COI. Mnair69 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mnair69, and thank you for disclosing your affiliation. Since I have substantially edited the MicroG article in the past, I can only participate on that article's talk page in my capacity as an editor, and not as an administrator (WP:INVOLVED). If you would like more uninvolved editors to examine the article, my first suggestion is to bring the attention of that page to the neutral point of view noticeboard (WP:NPOVN). My second suggestion is to propose edits that you believe would improve the article on the talk page of the article (Talk:MicroG), as you have already done in Talk:/e/ (operating system) § Edit request. Both of these avenues are available to you as a paid editor, as explained in the plain and simple conflict of interest guide (WP:PSCOI) – a helpful page that I recommend reading if you have not yet done so. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Newslinger thanks for the suggestions. Welcome your inputs on the Talk:MicroG pages to resolve this issue. Will also put in a request on the neutral point of view noticeboard. It is always better to have more people share their point of view Mnair69 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Update: As suggested here is the NPOV request link Mnair69 (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the discretionary sanctions alert. I presume the pertinent restrictions would either be on Love jihad or Talk:Love jihad or Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory. The specific pertinent restriction that I'm aware of is Discussion of whether Love jihad is a conspiracy theory MUST be posted to the conspiracy theory subpage.

So I come across a news story that reports a case of love jihad. Strictly speaking, I'm not posing the question of whether love jihad is a conspiracy theory, I'm providing a source that supports the claim that love jihad exists, but I think the real intent is to discuss this on the subpage. In any case, I've checked WP:Perennial sources, but am unable to determine from that whether the source is reliable. So I mention the story on the subpage. A helpful editor points out that it's a reliable source or it's not. Nobody should get bent out of shape, nobody has been disturbed except for those editors who choose to monitor the subpage (who presumably do this because they want to be sure we don't post links to unreliable sources on Love jihad). Most importantly, we leave this information posted on the subpage so we don't have to keep researching the same article and/or news source, because we've built up a history of these bad sources of information about love jihad.

If the subpage goes away, the same thing happens, except that it occurs on Talk:Love jihad instead. This generally results in a hostile rapid response, typically deleting the post along with a warning that it was violating discretionary sanctions, and the result is that a whole lot of heat is created, annoying just about everybody who monitors Talk:Love jihad. But more importantly, we don't have the information to discredit the news story or its source, so when other editors come along, they have no prior notice that this same story and source have already been rejected, and everybody gets all upset.

Please explain the flaw in my understanding. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fabrickator, I'd like to clarify that the "Discussion of whether Love jihad is a conspiracy theory MUST be posted to the conspiracy theory subpage" text on Talk:Love jihad is not a DS page restriction. The full list of administrative actions performed under DS is at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log (WP:AEL), and there are currently no DS page restrictions placed on Talk:Love jihad or Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory, while there is one active DS page restriction (extended confirmed protection) placed on the Love jihad article. However, DS also provides a dispute resolution process, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (WP:AE), for conduct disputes in topic areas covered by DS. The phrase "violating discretionary sanctions" is imprecise, because it could refer to any Wikipedia policy or guideline violation that took place on a page covered by DS. I tend to use clearer language that refers to the specific policy, guideline, or page restriction that was violated.

The kind of discussion you are describing, in which editors present sources to be evaluated and potentially incorporated into the article, is perfectly acceptable on Talk:Love jihad. For example, a discussion like Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory § Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 03 Sep 2022 does not violate the talk page guidelines, and would be welcome on Talk:Love jihad. An example of a discussion that did violate the talk page guidelines is Special:Diff/1108284271. That discussion treated the talk page as a comment section, and did not help improve the article. Personally, I would respond to comments like Special:Diff/1108284271 by asking the editor to provide reliable sources supporting their position. However, removing comments like that is also justified under the WP:NOTFORUM policy, regardless of whether it was posted on Talk:Love jihad or Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory.

Segregating viewpoints into two separate pages creates not one, but two echo chambers. Eventually, any proposals on Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory would still need to be reconciled with the discussions on Talk:Love jihad before they can be implemented in the article. Having one viewpoint discussed on a less watched page would not actually bolster that viewpoint at all; it would only delay the reconciliation. By merging the subpage into the main talk page, the viewpoint on the subpage would gain representation in the main talk page earlier on. — Newslinger talk 22:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Newslinger, what I can say is that my recollection of how things went with regard to suggestions about alleged reports of Love jihah don't jibe much with yours. At least some of the time, reports of Love jihad would be dismissed on the grounds that academic sources claimed this was a conspiracy theory. But that was if the post wasn't merely reverted. This isn't a scientific analysis and my recollections could be wrong ... and none of this overcomes my contention that it could be that we are using the same term to refer to two different things, one of which is a conspiracy theory and the other one is not.

It will be no surprise that I'm not sold on the idea that separate discussion areas are a bad idea. This is perhaps the more so if virtually all the time, the response is that the proposed source is biased or otherwise not reliable. Not being familiar with the "mainstream media" in India, it's tough to know which sources should be summarily dismissed and which should be taken more seriously. Of course, I would find it annoying to have somebody who keeps offering stories from Newsmax and OAN, citing all the terrible things that Biden had done and how fabulous Mitch McConnell was. But the fact is, once the subpage was set up, there were hardly any posts, and then people went back to posting reports of love jihad to the main talk page, where they were treated badly and the posts were generally summarily dismissed. The fact such posts were deleted meant that unreasonable effort was required to discover the bad things that were to be avoided. I think it's completely understandable that the other side doesn't want what it considers to be nonsensical clutter, but from my perspective, that's what would help me to understand what's considered unacceptable.

I'd like to think that I've made my points so well that I've completely won you over, but I realize that's unlikely. You can't blame me for trying. Fabrickator (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not enough to convince me; there are also all of the other editors at Talk:Love jihad § Proposal to merge Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory into Talk:Love jihad. While I am happy to answer questions about discretionary sanctions and other topics on my user talk page, your arguments about this merge request would be more suitable on the article talk page, since comments made on my user talk page do not count toward consensus elsewhere. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've finished cleaning up the critical reception stuff from X through Breezy, although it wasn't nearly as bad as cleaning up F.A.M.E. was. Thanks for the support, and if there was anything that I did wrong or could be improved on, please let me know. Thank you. Aardwolf68 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aardwolf68, thank you again for cleaning up these articles. I do want to note that reviews are allowed to be included in articles even if they do not contain a score, as long as they come from reliable sources. For album reviews, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources (WP:A/S) is a list of common music sites and their reliability, as determined by previous discussions. So, for example, the reviews from The Boombox and HotNewHipHop that were removed from the Heartbreak on a Full Moon article in Special:Diff/1109825428 should be restored to the article. The problem from before was that a former editor added fabricated reviews to the article and fabricated scores (based on both real and fabricated reviews) to the "Review scores" table. Any fabricated claims (hoaxes) are unverifiable by Wikipedia's standards and should be removed on sight. — Newslinger talk 20:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Newslinger You deleted this article 2 years ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guri (singer) (2nd nomination). After 2020, The actor appeared in films like Jatt Brothers and Lover in lead role. Now he has done 3 films in lead Sikander 2, Jatt Brothers and Lover. The singer and actor also nominated for PTC Punjabi Film Award.^[1] Also he has more news coverage after the article deletion.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} I believe this this article should be undeleted now. I want your reaction on this matter. Jksparkle (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jksparkle, for this article, I recommend submitting a deletion review (WP:DRV) for other editors to re-examine the article subject. If the deletion review concludes that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", the article could then be restored. If you submit the deletion review, please let me know so that I can temporarily undelete the article to allow other editors to examine it during the review. — Newslinger talk 21:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yup but please guide me how to request for deletion review. Jksparkle (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jksparkle, the instructions for submitting a deletion review can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review § Instructions. You'll need to use the source editor instead of the visual editor to do this; please see this tutorial for details. Please let me know once the deletion review is submitted, or if you're having trouble submitting it. — Newslinger talk 00:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Submitted ✅️ Jksparkle (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've temporarily undeleted the Guri (singer) article so that it can be examined in the deletion review. The outcome of the review will determine what happens to the article. Thank you for submitting this.​ — Newslinger talk 05:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

We should all support grammar.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Most definitely, and my only regret is not supporting grammar sooner.​ — Newslinger talk 23:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cyber Anakin § A mountain out of molehill? and Talk:Cyber Anakin#Starting_over. 129.205.183.52 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

A new publication. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Newslinger; I saw your name on the list of WikiProject SPAM members. I came across a Facebook-originated spammer today, and I noticed that the Geolocation placed it somewhere in Israel or perhaps Ireland, and noted as an open proxy. Is this something that Wikipedia could programmatically address, given that the constant is in the least-significant bits of the IPv6 address and not the left end as normal? Elizium23 (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Newslinger! Per your comments in Talk:Criticism of Facebook#Article should be split up, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing and leaving comments in the section I added to the talk page on 4 March 2023 to facilitate a new discussion about a potential move review and splits, merges, and retitle proposals for Meta Platforms family of articles. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you help me? I submitted an article to Wikipedia last September called, List of state political scandals in the United States. Six months later, an automated filter box appeared saying it had detected Deprecated sources but none were flagged. I checked the article and found I had used none of the listed 47 Depricated sources listed there. I asked for help at the Help Desk where two editors were puzzled by the use of the warning. One editor mentioned 8 references which he considered questionable, but not deprecated, so I removed them just to be safe. When I asked for more examples he didn't answer.

Am I missing something? If the autobot no longer appears, is it safe to resubmit? Johnsagent (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I was topic-banned by you regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict for edit-warring. I believe I have shown that I understand my mistakes and will no longer cause issues on this topic. I am requesting an appeal of the Topic Ban here. Thank you and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'd like to re-create a previously deleted page. The article is about a well-known Indian television actress. Please assist.

• 21:19, 14 November 2018 RHaworth talk contribs deleted page Indira Krishnan (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G5) (thank)

Arjunsoumithran (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello there old friend, I had noticed somebody was once again removing criticism from Chris Brown articles and I had fixed it, only for a user to come to my talk page spamming me with messages. I was hoping that we could just get this done and over with. Thank you in advanced. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Newslinger, unfortunately Aardwolf decided to twist the narrative. He's pushing his own personal opinion on the articles, making it look like it comes from critics' mouths. His edits have multiple typos and grammatical errors as well. The edits speak for themselves. Have a nice day All weekend on the weeknd (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I am once more going to request a repeal of the topic ban you imposed upon me. Thank you and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just spotted your username on a noticeboard - very glad to see you back on board, hope all's well with you. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Girth Summit and thanks for the message. I'm making some changes that should allow me to contribute more frequently to Wikipedia, though at a lower edit volume than my most productive years here. Glad to see you around. — Newslinger talk 12:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

missed you too. Elinruby (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

​And I'm happy to see that you're still editing. Keep up the great work. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Elinruby (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Intel 7, 10nm/7nm process. Thank you. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Newslinger. I see that you have create-protected Draft:Xmaxboysupdates. I wonder whether you might reconsider that. My experience is that in this kind of situation, where an editor has repeatedly created a page several times, evading blocks to do so, it is not just probable but virtually certain that they will come back and do so again, and if the page title is protected they will just use a new title. It is easy to watchlist the old title, and delete-&-block when necessary, but we can't possibly watchlist every conceivable new title they may think up, so the salting the old title will do nothing to prevent the page from being created again, and will just make it easier for them to avoid detection in future. Also, you can't put the genie back in the bottle: once the person in question has been forced to use a new title, they are likely to realise that using a new title is a good way of avoiding deletion in future, even if further titles aren't salted. JBW (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi JBW, I think your reasoning makes sense and I've unprotected Draft:Xmaxboysupdates. The blocked IP editors added timestamps to the now-deleted draft in a way that resembled a malfunctioning bot, and I believed that create-protecting the page would be the easiest way to stop those edits. However, in light of the other edits from the blocked IP ranges 71.212.112.0/21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 75.172.41.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I understand that keeping Draft:Xmaxboysupdates unprotected could help prevent disruption to other articles. Thanks for the advice. — Newslinger talk 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, now you have mentioned it, it's glaringly obvious that it looks like a malfunctioning bot, and yet, amazingly, I hadn't thought of that. If that is the case then create-protection might actually be the best way to deal with it after all. However, as you may have noticed, I have now tried partially blocking one of the IP ranges involved from draft space. I'll have a look and see whether it looks feasible to do that to ranges covering more of the IP addresses used. I'm reluctant to do too much of that, though, because of the potential for collateral damage, and I think total blocks on wide enough ranges to be effective are out of the question. JBW (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

​Thanks, the draft space partial block for the IP range sounds like a good idea if these disruptive edits are affecting multiple draft pages, although I'm not quite sure how to look up deleted contributions for an entire IP range. I'll also keep Draft:Xmaxboysupdates on my watchlist to see if this is effective, and I suspect we'll find out at 07:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC). — Newslinger talk 20:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) It turns out to be much simpler than I thought. The way I remembered it was that there were numerous IP addresses used, over several IP ranges, but in fact there are just 4 addresses, in 2 ranges. I've put partial blocks on Draftspace for both ranges, in one case for a month and in the other case for three months, because editing history suggests more of a risk of collateral damage for one range than the other. I'll see how well that works out. JBW (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately as far as I know there is no way of looking for deleted edits on an IP range, which I have often found frustrating over the years. Maybe someone should ask the technical people to consider introducing a tool to provide that service. JBW (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

​There's a MediaWiki feature request at phab:T183457 that was proposed in December 2017. This feature was intended to have been implemented when IP range support was added to the Special:Contributions page in phab:T163562, though it didn't make the cut at the time. — Newslinger talk 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Following that link, and then following links from there, and so on, I found that there have been several discussions on this and related issues, such as finding the history of past blocks within a range. It's a great pity that nothing seems to have come of it, since it seems to have been thought that implementing such range-deletion finding would be perfectly feasible. JBW (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

See [8]. And don't we have to use [[Template:Contentious topics/alert/DS\\ for alerts after their first one? I'm not sure that what you posted counts. Doug Weller talk 08:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Doug Weller, I did see that edit, but my general approach in most cases is to send a welcome message to a newly created account. Even if the account belongs to a returning editor, the message serves as a reminder of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A good-faith returning editor would benefit from refreshing their memory, while a bad-faith returning editor would lose the ability to claim that they were not introduced to the policies. Sending the message takes just a couple of seconds, so I don't think there's much of a downside.

According to WP:CT/DS § Awareness of contentious topics, when the discretionary sanctions system was replaced with contentious topics, the template requirement was drastically reduced. Now, the only requirement is that {{alert/first}} must be used if the editor has never been alerted to any topic area under either CT or DS. For example, in Special:Diff/1195295239, I used {{alert/first}} because the account had never received an alert. After the initial alert, I was free to use any message to convey any additional contentious topics, and I chose to use a simple sentence in Special:Diff/1195295672. A custom message has the drawback of not being marked with the "contentious topics alert" tag, so I try to offset that by noting the topic areas in the edit summary. — Newslinger talk 09:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Makes sense I guess although I'm tempted to ask if they've had another account. And thanks for the explanation about contentious topics. I clearly missed the last part of the relevant sentence. It does make it a lot easier not to have to repeat alerts.I agree that edit summaries are often useful to make it clear to others what the edit is about to make sure it's clear in the history. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

​Just to avoid any misunderstanding, when I post a welcome template on a user talk page, I'm not intending to dissuade anyone from questioning the editor about possible past accounts. If this editor continues to edit in a way that justifies being questioned, please ask them anything you believe would be helpful. — Newslinger talk 04:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This week you blocked Radom1967 (talk · contribs) as being a sockpuppet. Looks like he is back and uses an IP range 84.15.0.0/16, which points to Lithuania and edits exactly the same topics. In addition, there is also Soccsksargen1 (talk · contribs) (a new editor) who I suspect is the same person, because edits are made to the same topics of interest. I am not sure if I should report Soccsksargen1 at this time, because their edits seem not to overlap per Editor Interaction Analyzer. Would WP:CHECK show anything if you ran it? – sbaio 16:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sbaio, I see some behavioral similarities among the blocked account, the new account, and the IP range. I recommend filing a new SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eimukas22 with all of the available evidence for the new account and IP range, and specifically requesting CheckUser in the report. Since I am not a checkuser, my block of the previous account was solely based on behavioral evidence. A CheckUser scan will help determine whether the new account is related to the blocked account, and a behavioral analysis can be done on the IP range. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was sure you was a checkuser so I wrote here per WP:CONTACTCU. Guess I will have to open a new SPI again. – sbaio 08:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am Soccsksargn1 and have absolutely nothing to do with Radom1967 (and have never heard of that person). I am new to Wikipedia but have 40 years of experience with subnational income data, a doctorate in business, and more. Therefore my contributions. Soccsksargen1 (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

And my IP is in the United States, not Lithuania. Soccsksargen1 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

BTW. The name Soccsksargen1 comes from the Philippines subdivision (region) SOCCSKSARGEN (initialism) that has, to me, a nice ring to it. Soccsksargen1 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I filed a SPI for Eimukas22 a while before. Judging from behavioral evidence, I think that it could be plausible that Soccsksargen1 is not Eimukas22 because their edits do not come from the mobile site like Eimukas and edit mostly South/Central American GDP stuff instead of Lithuania/(more broadly) Europe stuff. The IP range, though, is as WP:DUCK-y as it gets for an Eimukas sock (mobile site, GDP data for Baltic/Eastern European countries mostly with other countries here and there). SS1's other behaviors are kinda like E22's, so it might still be useful to run a check on that account. Prodraxis _(talk) 16:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

When I read the article few months ago I did not see the last line properly. I don't know how I missed that as I did search function by typing bhagwa on that page. Nightingagleyt (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nightingagleyt, please keep in mind that the search feature of a web browser can miss content on the webpage if you perform the search before the page finishes loading or if the page loads additional content while you scroll down. Thank you for explaining, and I hope you continue to make constructive edits on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 19:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 2 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beeper (company), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 16-year-old high-school student reverse-engineered iMessage to let Android users text iPhone users with blue chat bubbles using the Beeper Mini app? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beeper (company). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beeper (company)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dear @Newslinger, In gaud saraswat brahmin page you marked all IP address as sock but last two were mine and not related to any sock.It is your own reply in sock page :per behavioral evidence.2409:4092:…..is common for the region based on this you have blocked me.I was waiting for discussion of esteemed source information.So which behaviour you are pointing out,you would have used CU in this case.Hope you know when they mark someone as sock the sock’s IP will be blocked.Joshi Punekar was 5 years old account do you think his IP remains same?.If you really don’t want any discussion in the talk page no issues I can move out. 117.255.26.202 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, which IP addresses from the Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin page did you use? — Newslinger talk 04:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@NewslingerIp changes with network but I can tell this one ->Existence of Sayhadrikhand before peshwas(1630) and origin of any caste is not edited in it(Perfectly verified and added quote page wise)

After this all the informations entered by me are mine with the exceptions.Before this I am not involved in any topic discussion. 117.255.26.202 (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The IP addresses that participated in the discussion Talk:Gaud Saraswat Brahmin § Existence of Sayhadrikhand before peshwas(1630) and origin of any caste is not edited in it(Perfectly verified and added quote page wise) are 2409:40f2:104b:83f7:540f:4927:2c85:9f40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 2409:40F2:1037:B004:84C9:7F2C:7962:9ACE (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

I've re-reviewed the behavioral evidence associated with these IP addresses and can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that these IP addresses have been used by the same person who used previously blocked sockpuppets of the Joshi punekar (talk · contribs) account, as detailed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar § 07 March 2024. — Newslinger talk 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, moving of the master on that sonju case confused me about g5 eligibility of this page: [9], would it be g5 eligible in this case or would too much bureaucracy overcome WP:DENY? Tehonk (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tehonk, a page is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G5 if:

• The page was created by a user who was banned or blocked at the time the article was created, and
• The page does not have any substantial edits by other users

User:Md Majedul Islam (Sonju)/header was created by Md Majedul Islam (Sonju) (talk · contribs) on 15 May 2023 and it does not have any substantial edits by any user other than sockpuppets of Smajedul (talk · contribs).

Smajedul and the accounts listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Smajedul were first blocked on English Wikipedia on the following dates, and all of these blocks are indefinite:

• Smajedul (talk · contribs): 8 March 2024
• Majedul Islam Sonju (talk · contribs): 21 June 2023
• Md Majedul Islam (Sonju) (talk · contribs): 8 June 2023
• Sonju Majedul (talk · contribs): 21 June 2023
• Sonju10 (talk · contribs): 8 March 2024

Since none of these identified accounts were blocked as of 15 May 2023, the page User:Md Majedul Islam (Sonju)/header does not qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G5.

Please note that sockpuppet investigations are generally filed under or moved to the name of the oldest sockpuppet account, which is not necessarily the account that was blocked first.

Some editors consider User:Md Majedul Islam (Sonju)/header eligible for speedy deletion criterion U5, as the account's editing statistics show that the account's edits are in userspace and the account has less than 50 mainspace edits. There is a range of opinions on how criterion U5 should be applied, as seen in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 84 § Quantifying "few or no other edits" in U5. Considering Smajedul's cross-wiki disruption, I find deletion to be appropriate and I've speedily deleted the page under criterion U5. — Newslinger talk 23:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Newslinger Thank you for such a detailed answer, that indeed clears up all the confusion, so thank you for clearing that up. I was also thinking about U5, but sometimes not everyone thinks the same about U5 eligibility as you said, but that discussion you linked looks very helpful, thanks for that as well. Cheers. Tehonk (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noting it for you, that this sock is evading his ban. See this. You should avoid warning that sock and just block whenever you see him. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for alerting me to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Observer1989. I'll keep that in mind when I see similar disruption in the topic area. — Newslinger talk 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I was going to request for oldtimemusic to be added to the spam blacklist just now, but I see you already got the job done. Thank you for being proactive! Mach61 09:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Mach61! Most of the credit should go to Bendegúz Ács, who removed these citations of unreliable AI-generated content from the affected articles so quickly. — Newslinger talk 00:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see meta research page). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our talk page. Zentavious (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've actually been creating redirects to RSP entries since last August, and I'm glad to see that one of them has come in handy. I appreciate the recognition. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem, and thanks for making these shortcuts. We do enough typing already, so any bit of relief is welcome. — Newslinger talk 08:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You posted one of these on my talk page, and I don't see one on yours yet, so I thought I'd return the favor. :)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—  Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In your edit above (Special:Diff/1221780388), you posted general sanctions alerts for the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and WP:RUSUKR topic areas on my user talk page shortly after I posted the same alerts on your user talk page (Special:Diff/1221744309). Please note that any editor who alerts another editor to a general sanctions topic area is already aware of the topic area, per WP:CTOP § cite note-13 and WP:OLDDS § aware.aware. Sending alerts to someone who just alerted you, as you have done here, serves no purpose procedurally and appears retaliatory. Please refrain from sending general sanctions alerts to editors immediately after they alert you of the same topic areas in the future. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 23:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there and thank you for handling the issue with user JollyRoger556. I happen to have their talk page watchlisted because woefully I’m the one who sent a welcome message after their first edits. In any case this has meant I’ve watched them continue to use it as a platform for Nazi propaganda and revisionism, eg here. I’m not sure what constitutes grounds for revoking talk page access, but wanted to bring the idea to you attention. Thanks for all your work. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Innisfree987, thanks for reporting this. The policy on removing talk page access (WP:TPA) states that "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring". There is some disagreement over the current wording, which is being discussed at WT:BP § Use of user talk page while blocked.

In my opinion, JollyRoger556 using their talk page to further their content dispute is "continued abuse", but this is mitigated by the fact that they were responding to a comment from another editor. If JollyRoger556 continues to discuss the disputed content without being prompted by another editor, I will go ahead and remove talk page access. (The editor is already aware of the Unblock Ticket Request System and has already submitted an unblock request there, which was declined.) — Newslinger talk 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for the explanation and for your attention to this! All makes sense. I appreciate it! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Back That Thang Up#Requested_move_14_May_2024 that may be of interest to you. Thanks, Llacb47 (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Anthony Castro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, hope you're doing well.

Shouldn't National File be added to the spam blacklist per WP:INFOWARS, considering it's an Alex Jones-linked site? I raised a request to have it added, but it went unanswered. Isi96 (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Isi96, I found your original request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2023 § National File and agree that National File has been used by Jones to republish InfoWars content, per your provided sources. If you make another request at WT:SBL, I'll add National File to the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 06:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done, I added a new request. Isi96 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Added. Thanks for reporting this. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

So I don't leave a misimpression, the sockmaster I was referring to with the polls is not the same one as the sock issue that came up during the arbcase. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I now see the unreliable poll additions in the article history. Thanks, SandyGeorgia! — Newslinger talk 03:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The poll tables are almost readable now; thank you!!! I couldn't even look at them, much less try to engage them before your improvements. I wish the main poll chart didn't scroll off the page, though. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you like the changes, SandyGeorgia! The table overflowing across the right side of the page also bothers me. Two possible ways to address the issue are to:

1. Use portraits instead of candidate names, as seen in es:Anexo:Encuestas y sondeos de intención de voto para las elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela de 2024#Candidatos postulados.
2. Limit the polling data on the main election article to those covering the major candidates and relocate the comprehensive data tables to an article dedicated to Opinion polling for the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election, as seen in es:Elecciones presidenciales de Venezuela de 2024#Candidatos postulados.

After simplifying the headers of the remaining poll tables and filling in the missing reliable polls, I'm going to start a talk page discussion on whether these possible changes are desirable. — Newslinger talk 03:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm indifferent; either works. What some may not understand is that neither the polls, nor the results, nor any of the typical stuff of elections have anything to do with what the outcome will be (Maduro remains in power), so the usual structure of an election article may not be applicable here. Not that I have a proposal (yet) to address that ... I do appreciate the cleanup, as that makes the rest of the article more readable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Newslinger, hope you're well.

Some time ago, I felt that we needed more guidance to aid the operation of WP:RSN and WP:RSP. Having closed a lot of those discussions, I feel there is more work to be done on the PAG framework in this area. I was going to run some thoughts by you as I think you’d be a good thought partner on this, but you were inactive at the time and this fell off my radar. I’m thinking back to that now, and I feel like this is still needed. Here’s some of the problems I think would be good to address:

• Effect of a source being listed at RSP. WP:RSPISNOT isn't really followed in practice, which means editors care a lot about the colour a source is given at RSP. For instance, I’ve seen talk page discussions regarding a specific source in a specific context, where discussion is bogged down with “but it’s yellow/red on RSP”. Or a talk page consensus arrives at one decision, but the source is still removed on drive-by. Thus, I think it’d be good to explicitly clarify to what extent a talk page may override a general determination listed at WP:RSP.
  Further, this ultimately means our coverage of entire topic areas can be changed by listing a couple of sources as reliable or not. I think that fact should mean we are deliberate about how these discussions take place. Hence:
• What makes a source unreliable? This falls into a few parts:
  • Structure of discussions. Surely if we're talking about the reliability (or lack thereof) of a source, we should be able to point to a bullet-pointed list of some specific articles by the source and quotes which are factually incorrect. Without this, RSN discussions are vulnerable to deciding on a source "based on vibes". In particular, editors often believe a source is or isn't reliable and comment this as if it's a "sky is blue" fact, without really providing or referring to any clear evidence. That works if the evidence has already been established in discussion by others and isn’t worth repeating, but that’s often not the case.
    The current structure of RSN is also difficult for closers. For instance, it’s hard to tell whether a brief !vote is based on evidence of the source's reliability, or a personal like/dislike for the source's editing and leanings, unless the editor makes this obvious. Thus, I think bias and reliability is sometimes conflated in these discussions (by different editors), and if it happens then a closer may be left to untangle the mess themselves.
    To wit, I think it’d be good for RSN discussions to be split into two sub-sections: a list of articles and quotes with falsehoods, and a !vote section that is the same as now, but editors may more clearly reference some article in the list and make an argument for why it's not a purported falsehood, if they wish. We might also want to reconsider whether the status quo 4 option RfC is a good template for RSN discussions to follow.
  • Standard of proof. What should editors look for to decide if a source is reliable or not? Do we need other reliable sources to explicitly call out the source as unreliable? How important are decisions by regulators (like IPSO), if they exist in the country? Can editors look at what a source is reporting and determine themselves whether it is factually correct? If so, how should they do this?
  • Consistency across sources. I am not sure our “standard of proof” is actually consistent between sources currently. FWIW I don’t think we should change how RSN currently works, but instead just codify current practices. Codifying what kinds of things editors should look for alone would help ensure consistency across discussions of different sources, and raise the quality of discussion.

What do you think of these things? Is it just me here? (talk page stalker comments also welcome). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pauldereck

(141.132.22.10 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC))Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Splashtop, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splashtop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply