User talk:Newslinger

Restore Offensive Security or as a draft, if available?

Hi Newslinger, Over here [1] I requested an undelete or move to draft of the deleted Offensive Security, and haven't seen any action, because that person has been inactive. Last time, asking you to do it was enough to make it happen before you got a chance.[2] Could we do please do that again? Or undelete/move to draft if you beat them to it? Thanks! -- Yae4 (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi again, Newslinger,

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

Does this look like targeted hounding by an admin, to you? Or still just good ole admin due diligence? In context of JzG's April 5 sparse edit history and all... And people wonder why editor retention is a problem? Sigh. To think I was just telling someone IRL how refreshing it was to see someone (Re4sonkernel) come along to improve an article, be upfront when asked about COI, cooperate, and try to work together within the WP rules. Then along comes JzG, again. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Yae4, while a small amount of content from primary sources is accepted in articles, WP:PSTS states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." The version of the Kali NetHunter article at Special:Permalink/949270994 had over half of its content cited to primary sources, which did not meet the most generous interpretation of the WP:PSTS policy. The edits discussed here appear to be acceptable under the hounding policy, which states that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." If you think you are being followed in a way that does not meet the policy, you may escalate the issue to the incidents noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The state of related articles does not necessarily reflect best practices, unless the article is a good or featured article that has not been significantly altered since its review. Unfortunately, many of our software articles suffer from improper sourcing. The LineageOS article, with the "Preinstalled apps" and "Unique features" sections, has similarities to an old version of the /e/ (operating system) article before it was significantly changed.

Please review Wikipedia:Requests for comment (WP:RFC) thoroughly if you plan on starting an RfC on Talk:Climate Feedback. The most important section of the page is WP:RFCBRIEF, which describes how the RfC statement should be formed. Specifically, the RfC statement should be "neutral and brief", and the standard of neutrality here is very high. You can express your opinion freely in the survey and discussion sections of the RfC, but not in the RfC statement. I have found the RfC format in Talk:Axios (website) § RfC: Paid Wikipedia editing to be a clear way of communicating the options to the commenters. Keep in mind that RfCs almost always have an exclusive focus on content, and that conduct disputes belong on the incidents noticeboard.​ — Newslinger talk 09:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

In case you didn't know

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for reading the "Notes on OpIndia". The editor of OpIndia (Nupur J Sharma) declared "war" on Wikipedia, and the notes are like caltrops – if OpIndia ever mentions my username again, they will expose their readers to something that most certainly does not "keep up the narrative".

As for the coronavirus, Sharma was repeatedly tweeting about how the coronavirus isn't a problem, and that everyone needs to disregard it. After Narendra Modi addressed India on 19 March, Sharma flip-flopped and started tweeting about social distancing (with accusations against Muslims and Chinese people mixed in). Strange world. — Newslinger talk 23:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems weird for someone so involved to block an account that has not edited in almost eight years. Meh. PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Suggestions?

Any suggestions/advice for how to deal with things like "Go away, anti-science POV warrior."[3] Or this sort of "warning"[4] Also, is it considered appropriate to raise questions on Noticeboards without informing others on the related Talk pages?[5] I note the first, re: Skeptical Science, was raised by the name-caller, and the second, re: Nakamura (article I created), is by the same editor who posted a "warning" on my Talk, both without notification (and I'm called tenditious?). -- Yae4 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yae4, while the comments you linked to are negative in tone, I do not think they are sanctionable on their own. You are free to escalate your report to the incidents noticeboard, but discussions there tend to be counterproductive unless the behavior you report is serious enough. Editors are asked to use the {{Ftn-notice}} when mentioning "specific editors" on the fringe theories noticeboard, although this does not appear to be a strict requirement. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The tips at WP:CIV § Dealing with incivility might also be helpful. ​— Newslinger talk 07:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Climate/Health/Science Feedback on RSPS list

A late congrats to you and Snoogans...I suppose...

This looks like small version of what cartoonist and web developer John Cook and blogger Dana Nuccitelli et al went through to create the global warming or climate change "consensus" studies.

Re: "Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source"

This determination was based on 3 "surveys" of Wikipedia editors (with 15 participants giving opinions). Mixed support opinions are assumed to count as full support, giving 87% (13 of 15) of editors support the consensus view. LOL

Oh the irony of EmVincent using Wikipedia pillars for A/B/C Feebacks, but also COI editing the Climate Feedback article.

Full support: Snooganssnoogans, Andromedean, Galobtter, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, MastCell, Ronz, Newslinger, Nblund: 9

Mixed: Obsidi, Daß Wölf, jps (?), ImTheIP: 4

No: PackMecEng, Peter Gulutzan: 2

Just argumentative: Hob Gadling

Note: The 4th discussion didn't really discuss Climate/Health/Science Feedback at all, although it's in the title. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newslinger, I appreciate the guidance, and I'm trying to follow it; however, the actual applications at WP seem more questionable the deeper one digs. "Fringe theories" guideline was started early 2006.[6] Climate change denial was started in mid-late 2007.[7] Skeptical Science started blogging in 2007 (Coincidence?), and that article is an embarrassment of primary sourcing, but nobody has done or said anything (?, except some ignored commenters on the Talk page, since 2013). Environmental_Research_Letters, which published Cook and Nuccitelli's "most downloaded paper for that week" has zero sources; are they a "reliable source?" Parent company, IOP_Publishing article is a similar story. When the SKS article glowingly describes that "Best article of 2013" does it also point out, "Corrections were made to this article on 31 May 2013" or "Further corrections were made on 30 October 2013"?[8] Nope. The 3 pillars sound great in theory, but a claim of 97-100% consensus (on what exactly, isn't really clear) shouldn't be used to justify only really applying those core policies to a select subset of articles. In my experience, that is exactly what is done. BTW, I've seen the List_of_climate_scientists (notable ones); Are there sub-lists of "pro-alarm" or "anti-alarm" notable climate scientists? This category[9] doesn't do it, because the "D" brand is too broadly applied... Sorry to go on, and thanks again for all your suggestions and time. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia doesn't have an "official view" on any subject unrelated to the encyclopedia itself, and article contents are based solely on a proportional representation of reliable sources. Article content may change significantly when new information surfaces. From some of our discussions, I get the impression that your style of editing involves gathering sources to support a predetermined view (e.g. that /e/ does a disservice to the FOSS community, and that the scientific consensus on climate change is exaggerated). While that is the standard way to write an essay, thesis, or dissertation, it's not particularly compatible with the neutral point of view policy. The ideal way to write an article is to start with a clean slate, examine the available reliable sources, and let the sources speak for themselves. Unfortunately, this tends to be more difficult for topics that one is interested in.

Thank you for all of the contributions you have made so far, and for collaborating with me on several articles. I hope you enjoy your time in the nice weather doing things that make you happy. You are certainly welcome back if you ever decide to return. Cheers. — Newslinger talk 11:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Article Moved to Draft

Hello Newslinger, recently you've moved article to draft for it being under-sourced but I am failing to see what was missed. Would you be kind enough to expand on which parts of the article are under-sourced so I can go ahead and make the necessary changes? Thank you and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editiorchief (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Once you locate at least two independent reliable sources that show significant coverage of Matstubs, please cite them in the draft. When the draft is ready, please click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" link at the top of the page. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 02:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled A Quiet Place sequel. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled A Quiet Place sequel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my edit to Mullvad!

Hello Newslinger, I just want to say thanks for undoing/fixing an edit I made to Mullvad (and clarifying it). I completely misunderstood the free in FOSS up until now, and I'm glad to have finally learned it. I'll be on the lookout for that in the future, since it seems to be quite the interesting topic, and I'll also be more careful before changing things I don't yet fully understand. Cheers! ChromeGames923 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

User talk:SonicClubIsBack

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

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

A pie for you!

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

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

Violation of WP:Editing on Breitbart News

Hi Newslinger,

With your reversion on the Breitbart News article, I have noticed you may be engaging in edit warring, specifically regarding reversions to removals of content which is poorly cited and tagged dubious (specifically regarding the use of the term "many traditional conservatives", which comes from the opinion of a columnist, and probably is contentious material

Please do not breach WP:3RR PompeyTheGreat (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

PompeyTheGreat, it takes at least two people to edit war, so please heed your own warning. Please also observe WP:ONUS, specifically the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 07:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C WP:NPOV supersedes WP:ONUS, specifically WP:WEIGHT, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat (talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

But the user who created the Bo Winegard article here on Wikipedia told me (on another site) that they were evading a ban here. Is this credible enough to report? If so, where might I report it? Comrade GC (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Oops, apparently the WP:OUTING policy is much stricter than I had thought. Please send off-wiki evidence to the Arbitration Committee, even if it is used on-wiki in other ways. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

​I see that you're also discussing this with Bishonen at User talk:Bishonen § I would like to report a Nazi committing ban evasion. Since this new information was not previously disclosed on-wiki, you will most likely have to email the evidence to the Arbitration Committee. — Newslinger talk 00:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

ygm

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

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

Filter you might find useful

Saw your HenryFriedberg SPI report from a few weeks ago (via a new COIN thread). Just wanted to share a filter you might find useful: 1016 . It flags when an edit adds local filesystem links - usually it's just a misguided new editor trying to upload a picture, but every so often it finds more...interesting links, like what you found in that SPI. It's on my normal filter watchlist because of that. creffett (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Happy First Edit Day!

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

A special award for your excellent work at RSN and elsewhere

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

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

Please help

Can you please add this closed discussion to WP:RSPSOURCES? I am afraid I might mess-up if I try because I am not familiar with the wikitext used there.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 09:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

While a few RfCs are prematurely closed if the result is obvious (under the snowball clause), we usually don't do early closures for noticeboard RfCs about sources, since they affect a lot of articles and we want to give everyone a chance to participate. Also, editors who express an opinion in an RfC are generally not supposed to close them, since the closure procedure asks for an "uninvolved editor" to perform the closure. The purpose of this restriction is to limit the amount of influence any one editor has over the RfC result.

I see that you've closed the RfC in Special:Diff/951864560 referring to point #1 in WP:RFCEND, but for the purposes of the perennial sources list, withdrawing an RfC is not quite the same thing as closing an RfC. This is because RfCs on the list are only highlighted if they are "uninterrupted" (i.e. not withdrawn or removed). Withdrawing the RfC demotes it to the same level as a normal discussion, and I'm not sure if The Indian Express currently has enough significant discussions to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:RSPCRITERIA.

Since Indian sources are underrepresented on the perennial sources list, I think you might want to restore the RfC and let it finish completely, so that The Indian Express can be added to the list. Is this something you're willing to do? — Newslinger talk 09:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Help with POVFORK

Hi Newslinger, I created a WP:SIZESPLIT of the section 2008 Kandhamal Violence from the article Religious violence in Odisha and moved the content to an already existing redirect 2008 Kandhamal violence since the size of the section exceeded more than 50 kb as per WP:PROSPLIT and kept on expanding it since it's a very notable incident.This user User:Srijanx22, out of nowhere accuses me of WP:POVFORK and replaced the entire article with a redirect. The user went on to do the same to another article 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal that i have created from the start just days before. The user also reverted the content Violence against Christians in India and now has reported me to the adminstrators notice board here User_talk:Suneye1#POVFORK_and_using_Wikipedia_for_advocacy. SUN EYE 1 12:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

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

My recommendation to you is to focus on the content, and resolve this dispute through standard editorial processes. If an editor wants to delete a new article you created, consider asking them to nominate it for deletion instead of redirecting. If an editor wants to merge an article, the procedure to use is a merger proposal. Likewise, if you are not sure about whether there is consensus to split the Religious violence in Odisha article in the first place, you may want to temporarily re-merge the article and then initiate a split proposal on the talk page. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 12:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Problematic editor

Hi. I'd like to ask for your thoughts on this talk page section and the article's edit history. User seems to be problematic — he keeps on accusing without proof. Thanks. —Hiwilms (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

COI board

Hi Newslinger,

I have replied to your COI board post. Rest your mind at peace, no one is going to sue you or cause legal problems, not from me at least. I am no lawyer or Opindia representative/champion. After posting my reply, I read some of the old issues you piped in your OP at noticeboard, I do realise there seems to be some long messy emotive history, which I can appreciate might have been stressful and painful for those involve. I do not understand the whole issue but I understood Opindia was banned because of their editor breached/doxed privacy of someone/unknown editor. I also read my own OP, I had not mentioned any names, so I was surprised why people are getting edgy and paranoid. I did realise, I had mentioned the heading of an article in my OP. I reread that article, and did realize that article mentions two people having, a journalist and you, I had not remembered your or his names before, Only now I realised this. Anyway, article does not dox you and all it seems to say is that you and other guy had some kind of edit war and block war. That was not my concern at all. After that issues, the article moves to next issues and goes on to say that wikipedia editors are for sale and then it moves to a 3rd issues which that there is cartelization at wiipedia. 1st issue of 2 of you havign edit war is of no concern to me, my concerns are next 2 issues. Hope you understand better. Please do me a favor:

1. If you are worried about any legal hassles or someone witch hunting you, get this out of you mind. Nothing of sort is coming your way. At least not from me. Just enjoy your life. I come to Wikipedia for fun, once in a while when I want to destress by editing. If you are not enjoying being here, perhaps take a break. That is the reason I did not want to make registered account, less apps, less notification, less addiction, more real life. Peace of mind is more important than wikipedia or social media, please do not get too emotionally attached to it. I really hope you are not gonna worry about legal issues any more. Before today you were a stranger to me, and I do not to be the indirect cause of your stress.

2. I have already posted my reply. If you still have more questions please post on the notice board and inform me on my talkpage for me to reply. If you are okay, then I will stop monitoring that noticeboard and leave it to you deal with it.

3. About my OP on article talk page, after reading your OP in the noticeboard I get a feeling that there is a lot of emotionally messy history which I am not aware of. This might trigger emotional responses in people, who might have been involved in that past mess. I really wanna keep out of it. So please help me by isolating the concerns raised in my nonpersonal post from any personal/emotional legacy issues of all these strangers. Please reread my OP after couple of days, this time by totally emotionally presuming it is not about people but about processes and concepts, and then please respond to it. ie. are there any actionable reforms that could be taken? Who are the editors, if any, selling their services? About the issue of editing the Opindia article (point 1 in my OP), I still believe UNDUE WEIGHT is given to one primary source, which comes across as grinding the axe against Opindia. That is how it came across to me as a neutral third party who had been uninvolved with the legacy issues.

4. Thanks for the teahouse party invite. I have been editing for a while as an IP, always deliberately remained IP for the reasons cited earlier (more peace of mind, less addiction).

Stay safe, stay healthy, relax your mind. Good night. Hugs. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Newslinger. Ad Fontes Media, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 01:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi News,

Regarding the Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, we have editors using a NYT piece that includes an edit made on behalf of the Biden campaign, and at the RS/N, Wikipedians are expressing an array of opinions on whether and how the source should be used. It seems a formal RfC is in order. I was wondering if you could advise on how to set that up in the most neutral way. petrarchan47คุก 00:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verywell

Hi Newslinger! There is currently a discussion on WP:RSN about Verywell, a family of four websites owned by Dotdash. Three of them are blacklisted, and I don't believe they should. See here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Verywell

Last December, you altered the entry of Dotdash at WP:RSPSOURCES to state that Verywell was blacklisted due to "persistent abuse". You then changed this to "persistent violations of WP:MEDRS". Do you happen to remember what this was based upon? Do you have evidence that Verywell is unreliable? I personally don't think it is. The Verywell sites have review teams of board-certified physicians. The sites are also certified by the Health On the Net Foundation, which I guess should assure some degree of quality.

Your input at the Reliable sources Noticeboard would be appreciated. :-) Thanks, Manifestation (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)