User talk:Newslinger/Archive 4

Hello Newslinger
Thank you for the warm welcome!

I am not hired or paid by any company to do the edits to Republic TV.

Regarding the revoking of my edit, i have cited a public source for the same and it seems accurate so why the revoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa.Corden (talk • contribs) 08:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for clarifying. Please be sure to read the neutral point of view policy and the policy on promotion, as this particular edit was extremely promotional and very much non-neutral. —  Newslinger  talk   16:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Promotional sockpuppet user
Hello Newslinger. I wanted bring your attention to this user. User:Cruz Mtz is using a music producer's name and is making edits which are similar to a user you had blocked. Dash9Z (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've blocked for having an unverified username that matches the name of a well-known living person (Cruz Martínez). They may request an unblock after verifying their identity, but only if they stop editing promotionally. However, since the block notice on User talk:Kumbia Kings invited the user to create a new account representing themself as an individual,  is not considered a sockpuppet. —  Newslinger   talk   01:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Dash9Z (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Henderson edits
Hello! If willing, can you look at the GregHenderson2006 thread on Coin? The user's contribs indicate they are solely here to promote their family history. Several of us in that thread thought he deserves a WP:NOTHERE block.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I see that User:Greghenderson2006 contains a list of nine articles for which Greghenderson2006 has a conflict of interest, and that Greghenderson2006 has started to use COI edit requests for some of their recent edits. Considering that some of Greghenderson2006's articles have survived deletion, I don't think I can issue a block on WP:NOTHERE grounds. If Greghenderson2006 continues to edit in an excessively promotional way, it might be worth proposing specific editing restrictions to mitigate the conflict of interest rather than a full block. —  Newslinger  talk   04:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Cruz Mtz
Hello. Please unblock this user. Identity has been confirmed in OTRS. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for verifying 's identity through WP:OTRS. I have unblocked this account. —  Newslinger  talk   03:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox close
please do not allow misinformation in the table - it has already begun. Atsme Talk 📧 04:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've mocked up a proposal at to steer the discussion forward. Please feel free to comment or suggest another alternative. I think the words "This entry is currently under discussion." should be enough to inform readers that the Fox News entries are not yet finalized. —  Newslinger   talk   05:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Anonymity...never know who all is participating in those RfCs. I'm really perplexed about whether or not we are doing the right thing regarding the process we're using to judge entire sources. Atsme Talk 📧 03:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Citizendium has attempted the approach of disallowing anonymous edits and requiring all editors to disclose their real names. However, it "was unsuccessful in achieving its original goals from fifteen years ago". I do not think it would be a good idea to enforce a real-name policy on Wikipedia. The username policy explains, "Consider carefully before creating an account in your real name or a nickname which might be traced to you, as these increase the potential for harassment, especially if you edit in controversial subject areas." The third pillar states that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and I believe that all editors (including ones that don't disclose their identities) should be able to engage in project-space discussions as long as they follow our behavioral norms. —  Newslinger  talk   00:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

the alternative venue
Of course, that looked less like a DS appeal than an indictment against other editors couched as an appeal. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 04:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. By moving it, I'm hoping that the next appeal will be made in the right place. —  Newslinger  talk   04:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the barnstar, ! I hope you can find some other topics that you are interested in, and work on improving articles in those areas during the next six months. It is much easier to write articles about less contentious topics, and the community tends to give more appreciation to editors who contribute to different subjects. —  Newslinger  talk   02:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert
Yes, it was labeled an essay. But, it was created by the author of the edit AFTER her edit and then referenced as if it existed before her edit. I suggest you self-revert. O3000 (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , (WP:TPO) states "The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." and "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". Your edit at Special:Diff/970058751 modified 's comment and removed a link. To address the timestamp concern, a more agreeable approach would have been to simply ask Atsme to indicate that the comment was edited. —  Newslinger   talk   00:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you shouldn't modify a TP edit after it has been responded to, to add support for your argument. I removed her violation as opposed to modifying her original edit. Secondly, it is patently dishonest to add a link to an essay you created after the post to act as if it existed before your post to support a concept that you have been pushing that someone else pointed out doesn't exist in WP policies and guidelines. Think about it. That's not how a dialogue works. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay to make that objection, but there are more amicable ways of doing it that don't involve editing the other editor's comment. For example, you could reply in the discussion that the comment was edited, and include a link to the diff. Aside from the timing issue, I don't see the problem with creating a new essay and linking to it in a discussion. —  Newslinger  talk   00:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't modify her comment, she did in violation of TPO and you restored her violation. And of course you cannot create a new essay and add it to a previous TP edit with responses. Think about it. O3000 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've asked Atsme in Special:Diff/970063294 to note that the comment was edited, and Atsme has done so in Special:Diff/970063336. Next time, would you please consider doing this instead of editing the comment again? —  Newslinger   talk   01:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, O3000 has been stalking me - this diff demonstrates that he even went to the trouble of counting my edits despite there being 5+/- editors doing the same thing - and it has become more than just aggravating - it is downright creepy from where I sit as an editor whose RL ID is known - especially when it's the same 3 or 4 male editors who have been bullying, baiting or stalking this female editor - perceived or otherwise - call it what you will. It is a violation of our CIVILITY policies. I don't believe in iBans but I don't know what else to do to stop his harrassment. O3000 is an editor who, years ago, complained about my use of the word *sigh*, and I even stopped using it for his sake. When an editor keeps having to bend over backwards to accommodate what now appears to be an editor who is taking advantage of my goodwill, it isn't hard to see that I'm not the one causing the problem. We are not supposed to always agree on a controversial topic - but he has gone overboard, and it's not fair to me because he is sucking the fun right out of the enjoyment I get from editing WP. This is a warning to him stop, and I'm making it in the presence of an admin because I don't know what else to do. Atsme Talk 📧 01:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Newslinger, I did not edit the comment, she did. I reverted a violation. And, it is still a violation. You must add a new comment as a new comment, not modify a four day old edit which had been responded to with over a dozen new edits by inventing an essay and changing history. As MrX stated, there is no such thing as POV Creep. Her original edit was tendentious and this edit was a TPO vio. As for her false accusation above, it is disgusting. Particularly in light of the fact that she recently made other false accusations against me (as pointed out by Bish) and refused to revert them. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All I did was add brackets to wikilink the words to the essay. You reverted that edit in MY comment section in an open discussion. What license do you have to do that? You need to STOP HOUNDING ME. Atsme Talk 📧 01:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is false. You created a new page and then linked to it as if it already existed to add substantial comment to an edit which had over a dozen responses. Now, you are making false accusations against me for the fourth time in the last couple weeks. If you have an accusation of hounding and stalking against me, make it in the proper forum. O3000 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A revert is a type of edit, and the comment is now guideline-compliant according to WP:TALK. I don't recommend interaction bans, but if both of you feel that a two-way interaction ban is necessary, then it can be implemented as a voluntary restriction. —  Newslinger  talk   01:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * News.., she just accused me of male bullying without a scintilla of rationale -- another outrageous personal attack making five in a week. No one in my dozen years here has ever suggested any such monstrous bigotry on my part. Does she realize that such false accusations harm women? It thoroughly disgusts me. I will accept a one-way IBan where she cannot respond to me. Obviously I would not accept a two-way IBan as all I have done is follow guidelines despite her continuing personal attacks. As pointed out by  O3000 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have the diffs - I provided them then and I can provide them again. And you're doing it right now. Leave me alone! Newslinger He constantly comments on my comments - I sure as hell don't go looking for him like he does me - one way iBan against him. I could have simply added the definition to my discussion but why do that and be accused of bludgeoning? I simply wikilinked to the essay which defines it. Jiminy Cricket! It's commons sense - who doesn't understand POV creep - give me a break. Not one editor said anything about it when it was mentioned elsewhere on WP, and I used in my SignPost op-ed. I didn't make it up. This has gone waaaay beyond ridiculous. I didn't a damn thing that was noncompliant, and everything I've said has backed-up by diffs. Call Bish - she knows I accommodated you the last time but this has gone too far. Atsme Talk 📧 02:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail
Armadillopteryxtalk 05:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Armadillopteryxtalk 09:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet
Hi, I raised some issues with a certain editor being a possible sockpuppet at ANI, you think there's sufficient evidence to go to SPI? Thanks--LucasGeorge (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, it would be best if you submit the evidence in a new sockpuppet investigation, and then replace your comment from ANI with a link to the investigation. SPI is the preferred venue for examining editor history when sockpuppetry is suspected. —  Newslinger  talk   21:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Request.
Hello, first of all, a warm greeting to you from me. You have been suggesting me with prestigious tips to write and provide a neutral and destined approach for the article "Jai Shri Ram" However, another mod named as "MelbourneStar" has been reverting my edits. It was suggested by you that the Introductory paragraph should be neutral. I did just that but he still flagged the edit. I am failing to understand his approach regarding this issue and thus gives out his possible support for communal atrocities. You seem to be like an unbiased and neutral mod who could see through the matter.

My next issue is, factshunt(.in) is a site which is not biased and could be trusted as a reliable source. I did provide this as a source but it still got flagged by him.

Wikipedia is a reliable source and trusted by people but at the end of the day. It is still managed by people, who are human too. I am thankful for the mod work you do for us but it saddens me to say that it would disturb the purity and reliability of the site if someone of its own (mod) has blind approach and motivates communal tendencies.

As per my right as an editor, I believe if my issues are not solved with a neutral approach I am entitled to rule against these issues by requesting a third person response and might even go further with the notice board dispute resolution for his edit. Apologies for the inconvenience caused. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parassharma1 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand that there is currently high interest in the Jai Shri Ram article due to a recent social media campaign. Yes, the article including the lead section needs to stay neutral, but neutrality is not the same thing as removing all negative content. If you compare the Jai Shri Ram article to the Takbir (Allahu Akbar) article, you'll see that the Takbir article contains significantly more negative content than the Jai Shri Ram article. Removing all negative content from the lead section of the Jai Shri Ram article, especially when the content is supported by at least 21 high-quality reliable sources, is not justifiable under the due weight policy. According to the edit summary of MelbourneStar's edit, your edit was reverted because it added citations to Twitter and to Fact Hunt. Twitter is a self-published source, which is never allowed for third-party claims regarding living persons. Fact Hunt admitted in March that it was rejected by the International Fact-Checking Network , which indicates that it is likely a questionable source. If you would like to ask for more opinions on the reliability of Fact Hunt, please start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. —  Newslinger   talk   21:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, as per your suggestion I checked Takbir and it does not have negative content in its introduction. Instead, there is a separate column under "Usage". I expect you to acknowledge me on this. The introduction should always be neutral. It is a kind request that you consider changing it. Thank you. Parassharma1 (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is a request for comment on this at . Feel free to participate. —  Newslinger  talk   12:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You said that the introduction should be neutral, I don't have a problem if you set that in an appropriate column like Takbir. I would like to pursue this case further. You just gave me an example of how Takbir has criticism but it doesn't have that in its introduction. I would like to know the reason for this discrimination.Parassharma1 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You can express your opinion at . Article content is determined through consensus, and if you do not participate on the talk page, your views will not be heard. —  Newslinger  talk   19:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

FAQs on all controversial Hinduism-related pages
Hello there, Newslinger. I am the same IP editor that first pinged you about adding an FAQ template to the article about "Jai Shri Ram", and I noticed that the Dark Lords at OpIndia seems to be planning on targeting other articles (whoopsies! I hope that You-know-who doesn't attack me for insulting him!). So, I thought it would be best if Wikipedia added an FAQ template to each such article listing and countering all possible arguments against Wikipedia's writing style. Here is a draft which I thought may outline what I mean:

Q. Why does this article show the subject in a bad light?

A. Wikipedia and its editors in no way intend to denigrate any culture/ethnicity/nationality/religion/organisation. Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say about the subject, and almost never based on what the subject says about itself. Reliable sources note that this subject is used in a negative way, and so this article notes that as well. This does not imply that the subject itself is inherently bad.

Q. I don't like what this article says! Can I edit it or at least suggest a change?

A. Yes, you may edit the article if it is not protected and you are sure that your change is acceptable. If you are not sure about your change, or if you can't edit the article as it is protected, please suggest the change using an Edit Request. Please remember that your edit must satisfy the following:
 * 1) It must be supported by reliable sources
 * 2) It must not involve removing negative information about the subject unless that information is not supported by a reliable source

Q. (Especially relevant to Jai Shri Ram) This article says that the subject is used for bad things, but I don't believe that it is used in such a way! Who is right?

A. Please remember that just because you have never seen this subject being used for bad things doesn't mean that it is never used for bad things. For example, you may have only seen cases where the subject was involved in only positive things, but at the same time, other people use the same subject for bad things. The article doesn't say "Subject is always used for bad things". On the contrary, it says "Subject is used by a certain group for bad things".

Please let me know what you think. 45.251.33.234 (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for crafting this well-written FAQ. I'm going to add it to Talk:Jai Shri Ram with some additional links to the relevant policies and guidelines. The only caveat is that the FAQ template does not show up on the Wikipedia mobile website, which means that most editors who use a smartphone to access Wikipedia will not be able to see it. However, it is still an improvement over providing no message at all, and I appreciate your help reducing tension in this topic area. —  Newslinger  talk   05:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response, Newslinger. Would it be possible for you to add similar FAQs on any such page that would trigger OpIndia? Or is it not necessary at the moment? 45.251.33.234 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. From what I understand, the two articles that have been repeatedly targeted by OpIndia are the 2020 Delhi riots and Jai Shri Ram articles. The article on the 2020 Delhi riots may benefit from having an FAQ, although I would expect the content to be different, since riots are generally considered "bad", and the controversy is mostly regarding where the blame should be assigned. I'm going to ask the editors at Talk:2020 Delhi riots whether they believe an FAQ would be helpful there. —  Newslinger  talk   05:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay then, though I think it may be better if you looked for some other controversial articles as well that still haven't been targeted and considered whether they are significant enough to warrant an FAQ. 45.251.33.234 (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the FAQ to the top of Talk:Jai Shri Ram, and you can edit it at Talk:Jai Shri Ram/FAQ to make further improvements. I've also posted an inquiry at to determine whether an FAQ would be helpful there. FAQs are usually not added preemptively – I'm not aware of any rule that prevents an FAQ from being added before there is disruption, but I think most editors would rather spend the time and effort on more pressing tasks. Thanks again for writing this FAQ. If you are willing, I would highly encourage you to sign up for a Wikipedia account, since it would allow you to create pages (like this FAQ) without needing to ask someone else. —  Newslinger   talk   06:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded, thanks for the valuable help, IP user! SerChevalerie (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome (I didn't see this message as my IP got changed due to a power cut), and thanks for your recommendation. I will consider using an account to edit Wikipedia later on (not now due to personal obligations). 45.251.33.198 (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Continuation
Hi again (my IP keeps on changing due to power cuts). I noticed that certain right-wing sources have been discussed regarding their reliability at WP:RSN, while left-leaning outlets appear to be less often discussed (especially outlets in the US and India). While I do agree that sites like OpIndia and Breitbart have no place on Wikipedia (or any other place besides the Fake News Museum for that matter), and that Fox News is sometimes not the best choice as a reference, I would like to know why right-wing outlets (extremist ones, to be more specific) seem to be more likely to be banned or restricted. Which of the following are possible factors? If I'm wrong in saying that right-wing outlets are more likely to be banned, then is it that right-wing outlets are only making more brouhaha about being banned than others?
 * 1) Right-Wing extremist outlets more frequently adopt racist or communal viewpoints, which for obvious reasons are more likely to result in the outlet being blocked
 * 2) Many Wikipedians tend to lean left, and so act with some bias either knowingly or unknowingly
 * 3) Right-Wing outlets tend to not follow basic journalism-related ethics for reasons that remain unknown

Thanks, 45.251.33.6 (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the media landscape varies from country to country. For US/UK sources, I performed a cross-analysis of Ad Fontes Media's Media Bias Chart and Alexa Internet's traffic rankings in December 2018 at . In the United States, low-quality right-wing sources tend to be much more popular than low-quality left-wing sources. The most obvious example is the far-right Breitbart News, which currently has a global Alexa rank of #250, while there is no far-left equivalent in the US with the same magnitude of popularity. Because low-quality right-wing sources are more popular in the US, they receive more attention on the reliable sources noticeboard and are deprecated more quickly. Indian sources, on the other hand, have not received much attention on the noticeboard regardless of political orientation. OpIndia and Swarajya  attracted quite a bit of attention after doxing a Wikipedia editor in retaliation for their edits to India-related articles, which resulted in most editors supporting their deprecation. If these publications had not doxed the editor, they would have likely escaped the Wikipedia community's attention for some time. There would have still been enough evidence to deprecate OpIndia (in particular), but the discussion would possibly not have happened due to lack of interest – although it's hard to say, because the 2020 Delhi riots still made international news.  From a global perspective, major sources that are furthest to the left are not based in the US, the UK, and India, but in countries like China and Venezuela. During the Venezuelan presidential crisis, Venezuelan sources received a surge of attention, which resulted in the deprecation of Telesur  and the designation of Venezuelanalysis  as generally unreliable. Chinese sources are currently under scrutiny due to COVID-19 and the Hong Kong national security law, and there are ongoing noticeboard discussions on the reliability of several Chinese sources.  I don't want to make any generalizations about the sources themselves (beyond the December 2018 analysis), since I don't have the data to draw any additional conclusions. On the reliable sources noticeboard,  has recommended Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics as an explanation for the current media landscape in the US, although I admit that I have not yet read it. As for bias in the English Wikipedia community, the article Ideological bias on Wikipedia examines this in detail. I hope this helps. —  Newslinger   talk   11:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So this means that Wikipedia's "bias against conservative sources" as claimed by OpIndia and Larry Sanger is merely because in the US and India, only conservative fake news is usually in the spotlight in both countries, am I right in saying that? 45.251.33.15 (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it makes sense to put OpIndia and Larry Sanger in the same sentence. They are talking about very different things. Larry Sanger is talking about bias. He never argued for fake news to be added to Wikipedia, as far as I know.
 * OpIndia wants to argue that its view of the world is not fake (understandably). The debate it needs to have is with other media. Arguing with Wikipedia serves no purpose whatsoever. We are bound by WP:V and WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I understand OpIndia, but just to clarify my opinion, I had put Sanger in the same sentence only due to the following:
 * He repeatedly tweets reports from The Sun which was deprecated, and controversial claims from National Review which is conservative according to Wikipedia
 * AFAIK, most of his tweets on Twitter were claims of unethical practices by Democrats, or about "Antifa", or outright conspiracy theories
 * I'm not saying that he is like OpIndia, but I'm saying that pairing his criticism of Wikipedia with his beliefs suggests that he believes that WP is too liberal, just like OpIndia does. 45.251.33.75 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The attention factor explains part of this. The other part is that both OpIndia and Larry Sanger benefit from portraying Wikipedia in a negative light. OpIndia writers have a history of attacking any publication that covers OpIndia negatively, presumably to defend the website's reputation, and they have published articles and social media comments indicating that they are unhappy about the Wikipedia article on OpIndia. For comparison, after the BBC published "Duty, Identity, Credibility: 'Fake News' and the ordinary citizen in India" (first released 12 November 2018), which identified OpIndia as a source of fake news, OpIndia published 12 separate articles attacking the BBC from 15–23 November 2018.  Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002 and has since taken on key roles in two Wikipedia competitors, Citizendium (which "was unsuccessful in achieving its original goals from fifteen years ago") and Everipedia (which Sanger departed in 2019). Here is the last paragraph of Sanger's "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased" blog post:


 * The blog post was apparently a promotional piece for Sanger's next venture. —  Newslinger  talk   13:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. So OI and Sanger are driven to a sizable extent not by ethics but by profits (monetary or in any other way) and success, which is why they attack Wikipedia. Thanks for explaining this again! 45.251.33.75 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, although I'm not sure if the motivation is necessarily monetary profit in either case. There's a possibility that OpIndia's main shareholders prioritize political impact over monetary profit. Sanger's Encyclosphere appears to be non-profit, so it's likely that Sanger is simply seeking some kind of success after leaving Wikipedia. —  Newslinger  talk   14:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be more of a perception thing, there are more or less equivalent number of left wing sites which are banned or restricted in some way or the other; for example Telesur, Voltaire Network, The Canary, Occupy Democrats, An Phoblacht, etc are all considered generally unreliable, The Huffington Post has an equivalent if not a worse status for use than Fox News. I don't know if they make less brouhaha than right wing sites, concerning India itself most outlets have not really been extensively discussed at all as of now, OpIndia came into the spotlight because of a doxxing incident against an Indian Wikipedia editor. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 11:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Newslinger's analysis of popularity of the media is probably the key. The "Left", which is not clearly identifiable to me, is generally anti-establishment. So it has to work harder and face more scrutiny. They quickly learn what is acceptable and what is not. The Right, on the other hand, happily wallows in its propaganda world, quite oblivious of the reality. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 07:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

What happened to SerChevalerie?
I noticed that an experienced editor by the name of SerChevalerie has disappeared from Wikipedia. Has OpIndia again doxed an editor (don't message me on my talk page, my IP keeps on changing so I'll periodically check this page)? 45.251.33.21 (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It does look like off-wiki harassment was the case here, unfortunately. If you ever make a Wikipedia account and believe that you might edit in controversial topic areas in the future, it would be best to isolate your Wikipedia activity from your personal identity. How to not get outed on Wikipedia contains some helpful advice. —  Newslinger  talk   07:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Page view spikes?
Hi Newslinger, What caused the |GNU_Taler|CrDroid|GrapheneOS|LineageOS|CopperheadOS ROM pageview spikes on 6/14? 8/4 was probably related to edit disagreements. What about 8/10 for GNU_Taler? -- Yae4 (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I'm not sure. Usually, page view spikes are caused by media attention or social media mentions. From a quick search, I didn't find anything that would explain why all of these articles received attention on 14 June. —  Newslinger  talk   07:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks, ! It's always good to be back. —  Newslinger  talk   07:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Need to Email You
Hi Newslinger! I need to privately email you to discuss something. Could you email me using the Email This User Function? Thanks. Feel free to delete this entry. Nkrox97 (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've made adjustments to my email settings, and you should now be able to email me through Special:EmailUser/Newslinger. —  Newslinger  talk   08:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of my Edit
Hey, there I just saw your edit on "Jai Shri Ram" Page. I would like to make an appeal and I think this would have been a mistake. I did mention "Possible Hindu-Phobic vandalism" on edit summary for a proper explanation of why info was removed from the page. I could write a new summary for explaining my edit in a much more complex form. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parassharma1 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I did not revert your edit, but I did send you an alert because the topic area (India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan) is controversial, and some of the articles in this topic area may be subject to additional rules. If you try to edit one of the affected articles, you will see a message above the edit window that explains what the rules are. The Jai Shri Ram article currently does not have any of these special rules applied, but some other articles in the topic area do. Feel free to explain your reasoning on the talk page, but please keep in mind that articles on Wikipedia are based on what is reported in reliable sources. You may find the simplified ruleset helpful. For the Jai Shri Ram article, you are more likely to have success by locating reliable sources and adding content that describes the ancient usage of the phrase, rather than by attempting to remove the current usage. —  Newslinger  talk   08:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Newslinger, I went through MOS:LEAD. It clearly states that the lead should be neutral. Please check the format of the lead once more. Jai Shree Ram lead is not neutral at all. Please fix it or at least start this discussion on the talk page of Jai Shree Ram. Thank you. Parassharma1 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your comment is a violation of your topic ban at . Please also review the neutral point of view policy, which states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." —  Newslinger  talk   09:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

How to deprecate a source?
Hi, I'm writing to you due to your activity on Deprecated sources. There's a small discussion at the end of WP:RSN about the procedure for WP:SNOW-closing a deprecation discussion. I could close the discussion and update Deprecated sources and WP:RSP, but do you know if anything else is required, like establish an edit filter or whatnot? I'm unfamiliar with the process. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Deprecating a source involves several steps:
 * Close the RfC with a closing statement indicating that there is consensus to deprecate the source. If there is consensus in the discussion to specifically refrain from one of the standard deprecation measures (auto-revert or edit filter), note this in the closing statement and skip the associated step.
 * Auto-revert: Create a discussion for the source under . Use SBHandler to add the domains associated with the source to User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList.
 * Edit filter: Add the domain to Special:AbuseFilter/869 in line 3, which starts with . This requires the edit filter manager permission, which administrators can assign to themselves.
 * Create or update the entry for the source in the perennial sources list and the deprecated sources list.
 * If you would like assistance with any of these steps, please let me know and I'll be glad to help. —  Newslinger  talk   07:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm going to copy those steps to a personal page for future reference. Are those instructions published anywhere? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I got it done. That took about an hour, longer than I expected. And I'll have to update the two pages in step 4 after the discussion gets archived. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It gets much quicker after the first time, especially now that you have the SBHandler script and the permission. I've copied the instructions to in case they will be helpful to others. Thanks for handling this RfC! —  Newslinger   talk   21:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I made a slight revision to step 4. Revert if you feel it's unnecessary. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks great. Thanks again. I will eventually get around to creating a user script that will help automate this process and other tasks associated with patrolling the noticeboard. —  Newslinger  talk   01:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If a source is just "generally unreliable" and not outright fake news/fabrication/conspiracy theories, is there a different procedure? If so, you may want to include the differences; maybe a different edit filter? ~Anachronist (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For any source that has not undergone an RfC with consensus for deprecation, updating the RSP entry would be enough. Sources that are generally unreliable should also have an entry in . I tried to explain the general procedure in WP:RSNPATROL and the rest of WP:RSPI. If something on that page is unclear, please let me know and I'll elaborate. An edit filter can actually be applied to any website regardless of whether it has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, as long as the filter meets the guidelines in . However, if the justification for applying the filter is that the website is unreliable, editors usually expect a discussion on the noticeboard beforehand. —  Newslinger  talk   06:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My question was in the context of an existing RFC consensus. I wouldn't consider deprecating anything unilaterally. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest user
Hello Newslinger. I need your help with this. As you know, has verified his identity as Cruz Martinez. He has been making edits which creates a conflict of interest (since these articles - his own article and Kumbia Kings - personally involve him) and violates NPOV. I believe action should be taken to prevent him from editing the articles. I'm going to give you the background as brief as I can. In the 1990s, music producer A.B. Quintanilla created the band Kumbia Kings. One of the members was Cruz Martinez. A.B. Quintanilla served as the band's leader, main producer, songwriter, and bassist. Martinez was the keyboardist and Quintanilla expanded Martinez' role to co-producer, songwriter and second leader. (Martinez' role in the first album is minimal compared to the second album.) In 2006, a dispute arose between Quintanilla and Martinez after Martinez had registered the band's name "Kumbia Kings" in Mexico as his own. Quintanilla left the band after this. This caused the band to split between Quintanilla and Martinez. Quintanilla formed a new band called Kumbia All Starz, bringing with him several Kumbia Kings members. Martinez, unable to release and perform music in the United States as "Kumbia Kings" since Quintanilla owns the rights to the "Kumbia Kings" name in the US, formed the band Super Reyes with the other Kumbia Kings members. I have included sources about A.B. Quintanilla forming the band. I put in the notes the fact that the albums are credited to A.B. Quintanilla and Los Kumbia Kings since he is the founder. Kumbia Kings albums are under A.B. Quintanilla's page in music streaming sites. Now he is editing into the article that A.B. Quintanilla is not the creator of Kumbia Kings and claims he is the original founding member. He has edited the page under different accounts (ex:, ). While I respect both Quintanilla's and Martinez' contributions to the band, as well the other members' contributions to the band, Wikipedia should not be a place where Martinez pushes his point of view or any falsehoods. P.S. Here is an interview with Kumbia Kings from 1999. It's in Spanish but A.B. Quintanilla is the primary one being interview since he is the creator of the band and he even explains how he came up with the band's name. Dash9Z (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've sent Cruz Mtz a reminder to use the corresponding talk pages at . If Cruz Mtz continues to promote himself on the Cruz Martínez or Kumbia Kings article without discussing the issue on the talk page, please either let me know or escalate this back to the conflict of interest noticeboard. —  Newslinger  talk   07:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate it.Dash9Z (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Small typo
Hi there, I love the Sourceror project. You have a missing word in the second sentence on your website -- I think you mean "the most frequently discussed sources" where you say "The most frequently sources". Hope this helps -- from a fellow WikiCred grantee, see WP:News On Wiki. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you so much for pointing this out! I've fixed the wording on the website. As a member of WikiProject Journalism, I'm looking forward to seeing the articles created through News On Wiki in 2020–21. Articles on newspapers are quite critical to Wikipedia internally, since they inform editors about sources that should be used or avoided in other articles. It is also important to support journalism, which provides much of the content cited in a large number of Wikipedia articles, and writing articles about newspapers is a great way to do this. I noticed that you mentioned proposing a notability guideline for newspapers in the 2019 submission. Is this something that is still being considered, or is adequate for now? —  Newslinger   talk   16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. We drafted possible criteria here: WikiProject Newspapers/Notability. Thus far we have not put it forward for broad adoption. I think it may be nearly ready, but it would certainly help to have more input or feedback. If you're able to review that draft, and make any changes or comments you think appropriate, it would be greatly appreciated! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Headlines RfC
Hi Newslinger. Just to let you know, I have closed the RfC you started about headline reliability. I know you tried to workshop some specific language to add to the guideline, so I wanted to defer to you on how to implement the result of the RfC. Mz7 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing the RfC, ! I've continued the workshop at, and this new discussion will determine the wording that will be added to the guideline. —  Newslinger  talk   17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on RSN
Hi. I added two related discussions on RSN, and was wondering if you'd take a look and share thoughts - Central Tibetan Administration, and another with a few Tibetan information sources. Got an editor that's been deleting without CON, labelling all as advocacy groups and not usable in any way. Even a few RS are considered by the editor as advocacy groups... Your expertise would be welcome. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The two sentences above beginning with Got an editor that's been deleting without CON are violating of WP:CANVASS, and, in the light of said user's disruptive conduct in recent days (and extending to before the enacting of their WP:ARBBLP topic ban), ought to be immediately sanctioned without warning. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you would like more editors to participate in the discussion, have you considered notifying related WikiProjects? You might find the Notifier user script useful for this purpose. —  Newslinger  talk   17:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks @. I'll look into it. Maybe it's unnecessary to ask, but does their participation qualify here as CON? Still learning. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Notifying WikiProjects would not be considered canvassing as long as you notify all WikiProjects that are closely related to the topic under discussion, particularly if the topic is divisive. For example, if the topic under discussion is a dispute between two countries and there is a WikiProject for each country, it would be best to notify both WikiProjects. —  Newslinger  talk   18:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Just read canvassing, and wanted to mention I posted the ping since it was suggested I let you know there are topics there for review, since you were described as the main editor at RSN. Canvassing wasn't the intention. Underscoring the edit conflicts and building the numbers of responses for CON was the intention, without knowing your fields of expertise besides RSN. Ok. Notifier is a really good idea. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

WTF?
What the fuck are you talking about? I did not "remove or blank page content or templates." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyph (talk • contribs) 06:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, you removed 1,347 characters from the QAnon article in Special:Diff/979151198, including the File:QAnon.svg image and numerous small details. The removals were not explained in the edit summary. For large-scale edits like this, it would be helpful to break them down into separate edits and provide an explanation in the edit summary for each change. —  Newslinger  talk   06:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I did NOT do that. I changed ONE WORD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyph (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The diff Special:Diff/979151198 shows an edit made by your Wikipedia account that removed 1,347 characters from the QAnon article at 03:04, 19 September 2020. Are you saying that you did not make this edit? —  Newslinger  talk   06:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

YES. I only changed ONE WORD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyph (talk • contribs) 06:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have access to your Wikipedia account? —  Newslinger  talk   07:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyph (talk • contribs) 07:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've escalated this discussion to the incidents noticeboard at . —  Newslinger  talk   07:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Help please
Hello Can I still talk on the arbitration and if so how do I do this please as I can't find how to do this, your help would be much appreciated. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looks like you were able to post a response before I could finish typing my answer. Please be sure to answer all questions for you in the discussion until it is closed. —  Newslinger  talk   11:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, thankyou for your help, when I add a discussion to talk how do I notify others about the discussion. Also how long do I have to weight untill I change the page if there is no feedback. Thankyou for your help. Shenqijing (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see dispute resolution for recommendations on resolving content disputes. —  Newslinger  talk   15:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to question about other eddtitors
The statement was about trying to get another editor to look at the page as I felt that it was unbalanced, I was just looking at arbitration and luckily it was done by the other party involved so we can make sense of what is happening on page.. I have added two other topics on talk including a similar page on Ayurvedic as this is a similar natuural Medical page, and a link to another Nature Magazine article that on the topic of TCM being added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation including their reasons. if you have time can you swing by and have a look please, that would be great. Shenqijing (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've copied this response to the discussion at . —  Newslinger  talk   15:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo manipulation
Ok - my question is why haven't the other networks been downgraded for the same reasons Fox News was downgraded? The same issues that caused the downgrading of Fox News have occurred in all other news sources, if not worse when considering the return of Pulitzers, and also includes photo manipulation such as what happened to AP, a news wire service, and the NYTimes among others. The talking heads (pundits) on all networks are no different from Fox talking heads in that they are all expressing their political opinions, but only Fox was downgraded. I agreed with the Fox close because I was under the impression that it would work the same way across the board, as did others, but that has not happened. Worse yet, the issues surrounding CNN, MSNBC, etc. whose political opinions/journalistic opinions align on an opposite parallel with that of Fox News have not been downgraded. I'm of the mind that downgrading one source's political news/opinions as unreliable while not doing the same for the political news/opinions of other sources compromises WP:NPOV, and some rather strong arguments were presented in that regard. In retrospect, the aforementioned gives the appearance that the grading process is negatively affected by Ideological bias on Wikipedia, and I am concerned that it has compromised the consensus building process and our ability to maintain a NPOV in our articles. It is truly sad to think that RS/Perennial is being used as a tool that favors one POV over another which, hopefully, was not the original intention but it does handicap our ability to provide all substantial views. I'm certainly open to your suggestions for correcting this problem as well as the best way to move forward. Atsme Talk 📧 12:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, photos are usually not accepted as citations on Wikipedia because interpreting a photo is often considered original research. In response to your main question, the simple answer is that the and  in August did not close with consensus to reclassify these sources. The extended answer is that – from these discussions – the Wikipedia community does not consider Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC to be equivalent in reliability for some types of content. Sources of each reliability classification are not necessarily evenly distributed across the left–right political spectrum, so the differing classifications for Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC do not by themselves indicate a problem with Wikipedia's consensus model. Additionally, Wikipedia's editor base includes not only Americans, but also plenty of editors from other Anglophone countries, which means that the consensus on the reliability of various American cable news networks among English Wikipedia editors is likely to differ from the consensus among general-population Americans. —  Newslinger   talk   05:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * RS/N should not have their own subset of rules & guidelines; rather the purpose of that noticeboard is to explain and/or confirm the applicability of WP:RS as currently written. Our rating system is seriously flawed and actually conflicts with WP:RS. do you trust movie reviews by reviewers who never even saw the movie? Is that not what we're doing in our RfCs regarding some of the participants? I'm of the mind that if the ideological bias on Wikipedia were reversed, Fox News would probably not have been so boldly downgraded - the results would more likely be the same as CNN's and MSNBC's, but that is just speculation based on my professional experience as a former media professional. My concerns now are retrospective in that Fox News was not treated fairly in light of the ratings given for CNN & MSNBC in the Perennial table. Fox News has both a Achtung-orange.svg and Argentina - NO symbol.svg section for its opinion shows (politics and science), whereas CNN and MSNBC do not, and not unlike Fox, they have more than their share of screw-ups. Of course, we know that bias does not make a source unreliable, but uncorrected mistakes do carry weight, and we also know that partisan opinions (all talking heads on all news cable networks) must use inline attribution, if not intext attribution; the same applies to fringe science and the opinions of talking heads who are not experts. Fox News was downgraded to boldly include those 2 separate sectons which, in retrospect, strongly indicates WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, because the same isn't applied to the opposition networks. Considering Fox News is the most watched, most trusted cable news network, and one of few to get the story right about Trump and Russian collusion, (including their talking heads), I find it rather bizarre that the gross failures and misinformation that was provided by the other networks over the course of 4+/- years regarding that subject are considered non-issues when evaluating those sources for reliability, and that is a problem. We are now hearing crickets about that fiasco from most left leaning sources whereas FOX is one of the few RS that is providing their viewers with important information and updates. I can't help but wonder if WP's downgrading of Fox News, and the resulting media attention it drew, Streisand effect, may explain why Tucker Carlson became the most-watched cable news show ever, according to a September 30, 2020 article in Poynter, wherein it states Tucker Carlson’s show not only had the highest-rated quarter, it had the best viewership numbers in the history of cable news. Good job, WP. SMirC-facepalm.svg Atsme Talk 📧 15:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , everything on Wikipedia is based on consensus. Policies and guidelines are written by consensus, discussions are decided by consensus, and article content is determined by consensus. Gauging consensus involves starting a discussion to find a result, rather than presupposing a result and then shaping a discussion to support it. When consensus does not align with an editor's position, the editor can change consensus by convincing other editors with differing views to adopt that position. If the others don't find the arguments convincing, the only remaining option is to accept the current consensus and (assuming that the editor's position has not changed) prepare more convincing arguments to be presented in future discussions. I found your "most trusted cable news network" claim interesting, so I did a little bit of research. A late 2019 Pew Research survey found that, among 30 major US news outlets, Fox News was the fifth-most trusted outlet (43%) among all US adults (behind four other cable news networks), but also the most distrusted outlet (40%). Breaking these numbers down by political affiliation, Fox News was the most trusted (65%) and 15th-most distrusted (19%) outlet among Republicans and Republican leaners, while it was the 15th-most trusted (23%) and most distrusted (61%) outlet among Democrats and Democratic leaners. As I mentioned before, the English Wikipedia community includes many non-US editors, so a survey of Wikipedia editors would most likely look different. However, the Pew Research survey provides a more realistic look at how Fox News is received among general-population Americans. —  Newslinger  talk   10:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do understand and respect consensus, and I also see areas where Bryce Peak's article is applicable with a slight modification to make it applicable to news media. SMirC-chuckle.svg Surveys are good fodder for consideration, but so are ratings. Media is going to spin survey percentages with reasoning that will satisfy their demographics, and that's just good business. On the other hand, we are an encyclopedia and must look beyond media spin and bias to satisfy our 3 core content policies. Consensus can change and it will. The NYTimes, even with its spin, provides a realistic approach to ratings, and their headline speaks volumes about Fox News: Boycotted. Criticized. But Fox News Leads the Pack in Prime Time. Common sense tells us there's a reason for it, and we can either dismiss or spin the reasons, but when we do, are we considering the definition of "mainstream" and/or "conventional"? Does consensus benefit the project or the ideological bias on Wikipedia? Short answer, it depends on two things: the numbers and the closer(s).  Our 3 closers summarized their close as follows: In other words: for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable. That close is not what we see in the table at WP:RS/Perennial for Fox, whereas CNN and MSNBC which had the same results regarding science & political, (op-ed) are presented differently in the table, and that is what concerns me and what I believe must be changed. Atsme  Talk 📧 18:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC) And then there's this huge screw-up by CNN re:Sandmann that was...uhm, overlooked when evaluating reliability? It's another reason I strictly follow our PAGs! 20:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , why did you add "relative to Professor Bryce Peake's" to my comment in Special:Diff/981342163 and then respond with "...I also see areas where Bryce Peak's article is applicable..."? I'm not familiar with Peake. Now that I have a better idea of what you are looking for (changes to entries in the perennial sources list), I can recommend the following venues for further discussion:
 * If your arguments focus on analyzing the content in previous noticeboard discussions, the best venue for your proposal is WT:RSP.
 * If your arguments focus on new arguments not presented in previous noticeboard discussions, the best venue for your proposal is the noticeboard itself.
 * I'm reluctant to participate in discussions about American politics that are not limited in scope – American politics is not one of my core interests, and you'll obtain more comprehensive feedback from other editors who are more engaged in this topic area. —  Newslinger  talk   00:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I got distracted, opened another tab to find the link to Peak's article that I was referring to, came back to this page, posted the first part of my thought "relative to..." (obviously in the wrong place because it should have followed my linked consensus to Peak's article, not yours,) and it all went to hell in a hand basket from there. I did something similar not too long ago for the same reason, got distracted, opened another tab to get links, etc. Back on point and I'll make it brief - the Perennial table should only include the closers' summary exactly as they worded it less "In other words": In other words: for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable. Period the end. All the other embelleshments should be removed. It should be handled like the The Australian, CNN, and others like it. Why was it changed from this to something that is not the exact summary of the closers? Atsme Talk 📧 01:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. The Fox News entries were the result of the long discussion in . If you would like the CNN and MSNBC entries to be revised, you can start a new discussion at WT:RSP. From what I can see, the CNN entry did not change after the, and the resulted in the MSNBC entry being created in Special:Diff/973344732. It would be best to have this discussion on WT:RSP, which is watched by more interested editors than my talk page is. —  Newslinger   talk   01:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, you linked to a discussion that took place after the panel's close of a formal RfC at a different venue. The closers' summary statement was unambiguous as I indicated above. For consistency, the Fox News section in the Perennial table should appear as all other generally reliable sources that have a no consensus limitation for politics and science. We do not change or modify a panel's formal closing statement in favor of a non-formal discussion with no formal closing that was reached at a different venue, and that is exactly what happened. I consider it a violation of policy and now that you've reverted my edit after I attempted to correct the violation, I will take this to AN for resolution. Atsme Talk 📧 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WT:RSP is the correct venue for determining the content of WP:RSP. Sometimes, consensus does not align with an editor's preferences. For example, my proposals in did not receive the strongest support. Feel free to escalate this to WP:AN. —  Newslinger   talk   03:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

2FA woes
Hey, Newslinger. I wonder if I might get a little help. I didn't realize when I switched phones that the authentication app wouldn't transfer. I can't figure out how to use my scratch codes; I logged in, and when it asked for verification, entered one of the scratch codes, and it says verification failed. Am I supposed to do something else? Thanks for any help. 2605:A000:C7C3:D00:9495:C433:E269:954B (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, did you enter the scratch code in all caps? I've tried a few scratch codes, and it looks like they are case-sensitive. Spaces don't matter, though. —  Newslinger  talk   10:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you! 2605:A000:C7C3:D00:31FB:A59D:BEBF:8DD1 (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! I've added this information into to make things clearer. Thanks for letting me know about this. —  Newslinger   talk   11:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_Theory
Effectively George Soros finance through Open Society Planned Parenhood, that's why for is a true fact that he's fighting for the abortion even like a murder business. This fact is only important for the pro-life people, but it's not a theory.ç Tuliopakardovas (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)tuliopakardovas.
 * , What? Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 16:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the content that you had removed from the List of conspiracy theories article in Special:Diff/981926197 is supported by multiple reliable sources, and should remain in the article. —  Newslinger  talk   13:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey
Sorry for stepping on your toes there with the block conflict. We appear to have reached the same conclusion from different angles though, so that's a good thing. Cheers. – bradv  🍁  02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. My block was just an interim block until the investigation was complete, because the user was personally attacking other editors. Your CheckUser block is the one that counts. Thanks for taking care of this. —  Newslinger  talk   02:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Block
Please block, persistent vandalism on Earthbound. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  05:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Thanks for reporting this. —  Newslinger  talk   05:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Why my page is deleted?
I recently submitted a page and it was pushed to speedy deletion after I added references from official pages of different companies. Prior to that I was asked from a Wikipedia representative to add more references. Can you please help me in understanding where did I go wrong? My page title - Draft:Ajay Kumar Journalist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajay Kumar Journalist (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the page Draft:Ajay Kumar Journalist was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11 (unambiguous promotion or advertising). The draft was excessively promotional and read like a cover letter for a résumé, with language like "strived hard to build", "maintained absolute supremacy", and "has effectively coordinated" throughout the article. At the bottom of the page, you wrote that the draft was "My Profile Page for Wikipedia". However, as reviewer mentioned, Wikipedia is not intended to be a host of personal profiles or résumés. Wikipedia discourages editors from writing about themselves, since it is very difficult to do so neutrally. If you would like to create a profile for yourself, please consider an alternative outlet, instead. —  Newslinger   talk   17:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Locked out of talk page for Great Barrington Declaration
I know I lost my temper with G. Pinkerton and violated Wikipedia's rules when responding to his condescending and personal insults.

I have to admit that, as a woman in science/tech, I found his comments so incredibly reminiscent of the worst sort of condescending sexism I have experienced that I saw red and lost my temper, which I shouldn't have done.

I will be more careful in the future.

However, I hope you have been even-handed in your response and have locked him out as well. As you can see from the chain of comments, while I take responsibility for my own actions, and don't mean to hide behind 'he started it', it would be very inappropriate to give him a pass while locking me out.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modailkoshy (talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Modailkoshy (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy
 * Hi, the message in is just an informational notice, and not a warning or a sanction. As far as I can see, you're not locked out from Talk:Great Barrington Declaration at all, and you are still free to participate in discussions on that page. —  Newslinger   talk   18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing I saw this by chance, or else I would not have done, not having been notified, and I would not have been able to dismiss this for the aggrieved slander it is. GPinkerton (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ideally, it would be best to focus on discussing content, and not escalate a content dispute into a conduct dispute. If there is too much disruption on the talk page to focus on content, then I recommend filing a report on the administrators' noticeboard in line with the process described in . —  Newslinger  talk   19:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sock farm
I blocked and tagged a few socks -- but I don't know if this is the original master, I've just blocked and/or tagged those that were active over the past couple of weeks, there's some overlap of articles/content with socks that you've blocked, so thought I'd let you know in case you can assign this to the right master. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for bringing this up. Although these accounts have made some edits on high-profile political and religious topics, I don't think there are enough behavioral similarities to other sockpuppets that I had previously blocked to conclude that they are related. Your tagging looks perfect to me. —  Newslinger  talk   04:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you please recover my user page?
Hi, Could you please recover my user page? I don't quite sure why my user page had been deleted. However, I have a project which was required me to edit on Wikipedia and it is quite important for me. Thank you. S4504955 (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, from my end, it doesn't look like you have ever had a user page. Do you have any other Wikipedia accounts? I did delete your user talk page (User talk:S4504955), but only because it was created by another editor who – for some reason – created empty user talk pages for 150 different editors. There was nothing on the user talk page when I deleted it. —  Newslinger  talk   09:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've restored User talk:S4504955 for you. As you can see from the page history, it was completely empty. —  Newslinger  talk   09:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Sir, I am grateful for your appreciation. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for joining WikiProject Reliability. By the way, Wikipedia is casual enough that there is no need to call others "Sir". No editor would mind being addressed by their username, although how you address an editor is completely up to you. —  Newslinger  talk   14:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello Sir, Greetings of the day! I need your guidance, how can I verify the book I am citing with is reliable and not self published. Recently I faced this problem when my edits were reverted[]. The book was []


 * Book name: Understanding and Revealing Hidden Link, Author: Dr. S. Sundaravadivelu, Year : 2019
 * ISBN:9781645465980, Sir, What else should i check? I want to be cautious about my future editing and references. . Kindly help. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * RAJIV Check the publisher. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What Roxy is saying is that the book is published by Notion Press, an Indian self-publishing outfit. It is a self-published source, and is therefore not likely to be accepted as a reliable source (except as a primary source supporting an assertion about the views of its author). Self-published sources by subject matter experts are sometimes permissible, for example if a history professor publishes their own teaching material on their own website, but this author is a college lecturer on electronic engineering - he is not going to be accepted as an expert on anything other than electronic engineering. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  13:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Girth Summit and @Roxy for your immediate response. How would I know that publisher is reliable or not. Is there any tool? Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I clicked on the link in the Google books page you linked. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit, Sir, who is not qualifying the author because he is an electronic engineer or the publisher because it is an Indian publisher? I am asking all this to avoid future edits. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just searched for the publisher. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's got nothing to do with the publisher being Indian - it's because they are a self-publishing company. They don't commission the work, they don't have a review system, they don't even care what the text says (provided, I would hope, that it's not libellous or a copyright violation) - you just sent them your text and they print it. With a self-publishing firm, one could write a book about the moon, saying that it is made of delicious cheese, and suspended above the flat Earth by a rubber band - they would happily publish it, provided one was willing to pay them to do so. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit and @Roxy How can a user who uses references from a book know whether the publisher is a self-publishing company or a reliable one? Is there any basis, system, or list? Please make me understand. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , usually, companies are quite open about what they do. Googling them and looking at their website is a good start - enter Notion Press into Google and see what you get. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit Thank you so much for your time and help. But sorry to say i am not satisfied by ignoring ISBN credibility and relying on googling and self-assessment, which may be subjective and vary with reviewers and case to case. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, please don't use my sig when you reply to me, it's confusing. 'ISBN credibility' isn't a thing - all published books get an ISBN, it says nothing about the credibility or reliability of a source. WP:SPS is quite clear, and that publisher unambiguously describes itself as a self-published source; there isn't any doubt in my mind that the book is unreliable, and if you can't see that I don't know what to say to you. You could start a thread at WP:RSN, but I think you would be wasting both your own time, and that of other people. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Girth Summit, Sir, I am very much thankful for your advice, but it was never about this particular book; the request was for a tool to check the reliability to avoid further errors. Especially a book. Best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm going to put some advice on your talk page, since Newslinger will be receiving notifications every time we put a note here, and I expect they're getting sick of that (sorry Newslinger!) Girth Summit  (blether)  11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. It is important for WikiProject Reliability, but I am sorry too. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion has continued at. Thank you,, for writing such a detailed explanation of how the reliability of books are assessed on Wikipedia. , I have one piece of advice to add: if you are not sure whether a source is reliable, the best place to ask would be the reliable sources noticeboard, which gets attention from many editors. You can also notify related WikiProjects of discussions on the noticeboard; for example, this particular book would be of interest to WikiProject India. I agree with Girth Summit that books published by Notion Press are generally unreliable because they are self-published sources. The country of the publisher has nothing to do with its reliability; self-publishing companies such as the American Lulu.com are also considered generally unreliable. The only exception is when the author is a subject-matter expert, which is defined in the WP:SPS policy as a person "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". After doing a search, I found a person named S. Sundaravadivelu who teaches electronics/engineering topics at the Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College of Engineering, but I am not sure whether he meets the subject-matter expert requirement in the relevant field (vastu shastra). In particular, S. Sundaravadivelu's publications regarding vastu shastra include health claims, which would be considered unreliable under the reliability guideline for medicine, since he is not a medical expert. —  Newslinger  talk   02:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sir, well noted all, and thanks again for your kind advice. @ put a hard effort to made be understood the things. But finally, he did. I am sorry to bother you all more than required. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, . It's not a bother at all. —  Newslinger  talk   02:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Daily Beast
Hi NS. I disagree with the upgrading of Daily Beast from yellow to green (which, yes, I just noticed, a year later). The Dec 2019 thread (#3 currently on the list) wasn't formally closed, and strikes me that it could have been closed as either consensus or no consensus. I don't remember if that discussion was widely advertised (do you recall?). The subsequent 2020 thread (#4 on the list) seems to cast even more doubt on whether there is consensus that DB should be green. What is the custom/procedure for revisiting this? One of those 4-option RFCs? Should I wait until after December? Is there a "queue" for these RFCs, or do I just post one at any time? Do you think the RFC would be a waste of time, i.e., everyone will say generally reliable? Sorry for all the questions, and thanks! Lev!vich 17:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, after reviewing all four discussions on The Daily Beast , I agree that there is no consensus on its reliability, primarily because expresses more caution than . I've changed the classification back to "no consensus..." in Special:Diff/984621426. In the future, I think discussions like this one would be more suitable for WT:RSP, since that talk page gets more attention than my user talk page. Thanks for bringing this up. —  Newslinger   talk   03:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The change was reversed in Special:Diff/985069025, and the discussion continues at . —  Newslinger  talk   03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for Advice
I am facing a situation where I would appreciate your advice. I am considering an RFC to get community opinion on calling living persons names without secondary sources, which I started a discussion in under WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. The arguments I am getting (e.g. an editor's free opinion is protected) are not convincing to me as it violates many policies. The current advice that I am getting from an admin is to talk with the person, but I don't believe that this is in compliance with the WP:BLP which is very firm about adding information about living persons without sources specially if it potentially libelous. If the problem is between me and just one person, I would have started a discussion on their talk page or went to the dispute resolution noticeboard. But from the discussion I had, it seems that there is wide support for allowing editors to express their opinions about living persons without sources including one administrator. If this is true, then I believe many of the policies and guidelines will need to be changed to reflect that, because otherwise I won't be able to edit due to my inability to understand the policies and guidelines. Should I create an RFC? or what do you suggest as the best course of action in this case? Thank you in advance. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I do not consider the edit in Special:Diff/984620411 to be a policy violation. According to Wiktionary, one of the definitions of pet is "One who is excessively loyal to a superior", and from the context, this appears to be the definition used in that comment. I do not recommend creating an RfC on this matter, since it would most likely be a continuation of the feedback in the BLP noticeboard discussion. In my opinion, your time would be better spent focusing on article content, since the pet comment is unlikely to result in any administrative action. —  Newslinger  talk   02:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will follow your advice. One last question, to what extent you think an editor like me can talk about living persons without sources? To clarify more, what is the tipping point where my opinion about a living person stops being protected and requires a reliable source? Thanks again for the help. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Although the biographies of living persons policy states that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to Wikipedia page", the policy is applied most strictly to articles and less strictly in discussions, primarily because the core content policies only apply in article space. For example, if an editor either likes or dislikes a living person, they are free to say so in a discussion without needing to cite a source or adhere to neutrality. The applicability of WP:BLP in discussions is defined in WP:BLPTALK, which is vague enough to allow for community interpretation. The policy recommends using a link to substantiate claims about living people, but does not require it. I think the line is crossed when an editor accuses a living person of a serious crime without adequate evidence, or posts content that violates the second criterion for redaction, which includes "slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". —  Newslinger  talk   03:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty useful insight. As you said, the article is vague and allows for community interpretation. Do you think I should start a discussion in the talk page of WP:BLP about making the the boundary clear between the talk page and the article page? Or should I start the discussion by using the help link on WP:BLP which would make the discussion on my own talk page? Sorry if I am asking too many questions, but knowing the policy will speed up discussions with other editors, and making it clearer may save other people the hassle too. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, a discussion on WT:BLP could be useful. Your questions are perfectly fine, don't worry about that. —  Newslinger  talk   04:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Template:Coi-stern
Hi. I was really disappointed to see that this template had been redirected to a plain old COI message. I'd used it a lot as I do a lot of G11 deletions, and sometimes find that I need to impress the message on individuals. I don't agree that it was weakly worded or superfluous.Deb (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, took place over two years ago, and I had forgotten all about it. The content of the former Coi-stern template is still available at Special:Permalink/751873448, and you are free to create a new template from the old one. I'm still not a big fan of Coi-stern, since it does not mention Paid-contribution disclosure, and does not seem to be more "stern" than Uw-coi. However, I don't see any harm in having an alternative template available. —  Newslinger   talk   11:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I must have been using it for some time without noticing that I was duplicating my earlier messages. Deb (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've created a new one, adding the details of how to disclose a COI. I hope you won't object to me trying it out for a while. Deb (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. When there are over a dozen welcome templates, I don't think there should be any issue with having more than one COI warning template. —  Newslinger  talk   12:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Chaos Music


Hello, Newslinger. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chaos Music".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 14:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Oct 2020
Hi Newslinger, This is regarding Love Jihad First of all, apologies for marking the edit as minor edit, it must had been some kind of mistake. Following, it would be great if you could please explain the reason reverting the edit. The protest seems to erupted due to Love Jihad allegation as per the family. Moreover, the new sources did not describe it as a Conspiracy Theory. Thank you very much. Jenos450 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, deleting a citation of a reliable source does not invalidate the claims from within that source. In Special:Diff/986013855, you deleted the citation of The Independent while removing the words "conspiracy theory" from the article text. This constitutes unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory, because high-quality academic sources – the most reliable sources available – consistently describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory or fabrication, and your edit removed a reliable source to obscure the invalidity of the conspiracy theory. —  Newslinger   talk   04:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, thanks for the explanation. "The independent" source was actually added by me too, I apologies for reverting, I think I made a mistake there. Thank you for your time. It was not intentional. Jenos450 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Brian K Horton - MickMacNee connection
JacktheJiller has just made a long post pretty much confirming that they are indeed MickMackNee. They also made a deeply nasty comment about Guy Macon, just shows that they are a vile individual. One of the users mentions another MMN alternate account, "Sidereal" on Wikipediocracy from late 2014, prior to the creation of MMAR. Are there other accounts that bridge the time between the banning of Neetandtidy early 2012 and late 2014? It always suprises me how tiny and pathetic the Wikipedia "criticism" communities are, a rogues' gallery of aggrieved banned ex-editors, perhaps at most comprising a dozen active members, most of which have a long history with wikipedia spanning a decade or more. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This Glindr post also confirms that Genderdesk is indeed the operator of the Ond_Tvilling account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the links. The phrase "good name" (used in the Reddit post) is not an accurate description of the reputation of the user who "has consistently and egregiously violated Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism by engaging in a variety of disruptive, hostile, and uncollaborative conduct" and "has been repeatedly sanctioned for disruptive conduct by numerous administrators" including "three indefinite blocks, as well as sixteen other blocks longer than 24 hours in duration", according to this 2011 arbitration case, which concluded in the user being indefinitely blocked by the committee. There are many off-wiki sites, including social networking sites, blogs, and forums, that comment on matters related to Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipediocracy has received participation from Wikipedia editors in good standing, including some Arbitration Committee members, so I wouldn't dismiss it so thoroughly. Having said that, I don't think it's worth it to focus on bad-faith comments that are made on social media (such as that Reddit post), unless it would make a significant difference to some on-wiki matter. At this point, all of the accounts associated with this long-term abuser have already been indefinitely blocked and globally locked, so the best path forward would be to revert, block, and ignore any new sockpuppets that emerge. —  Newslinger  talk   04:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If half the posts on Wikipediocracy these days seemingly weren't made by Poetlister, a user who has been banned from Wikipedia for over a decade, I might believe you. Wikipediocracy certainly has seen better days. JackTheJiller is now claiming on reddit that he is "paid to ensure there is documented evidence to back up what I post about [on the subreddit]." by "anonymous bank transfer" by people who are "looking for courtroom quality dirt on Wikipedia, as an institution and on individual editors", these sound like the writings of a delusional pathological liar to me, just like the rest of his writings. I thought it was best to let you know just in case you thought this was worth taking seriously. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I wouldn't worry about it. Reddit is just a social media website, and much of what is said on social media is not worth addressing on Wikipedia. —  Newslinger  talk   01:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Taffeta
Sir, I am sorry to bother you again, The matter is recently added sources are removed
 * from the subject article Section: Production  Today most raw silk taffeta is produced in India and Pakistan. There, even in the modern period, handlooms were long widely used, but since the 1990s it has been produced on mechanical looms in the Bangalore area. From the 1970s until the 1990s, the Jiangsu province of China produced fine silk taffetas: these were less flexible than those from Indian mills, however, which continue to dominate production. Other countries in Southeast Asia and the Middle East also produce silk taffeta, but these products are not yet equal in quality or competitiveness to those from India 
 * [] with comments it is 100 years old.
 * I am unsure about the claim userRoxy made.
 * Please advice. And what more precautions I should take while sourcing the unsourced materials, Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused by the edit summary, since The Fairchild Books Dictionary of Textiles appears to have been published in 2013. To handle this content dispute, I recommend making your case on the talk page (Talk:Taffeta). Please post the wording you would like to include into the article and the citations that support it. Also, since the citations are books, it would be helpful if you could include short excerpts from the sources that directly support the proposed wording. Other interested editors can then voice their opinion on the proposed addition. You can restore the wording to the article if there is consensus to do so on the talk page, or if nobody responds after a few days. —  Newslinger  talk   04:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your immediate response. Noted all. Let me do that. Thanks and best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I only put the sources in the interest of the project, not altered a single word in the article. Anyhow have mentioned everything on the Talk:Taffeta, is it enough, or should I ping or copy anyone? Thanks for your guidance. Warm RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, your excerpts can actually be longer than that – several sentences is usually fine. I think it would also be helpful to clarify your goal: to add citations to a claim that is already in the article and flagged with the Citation needed tag. Finally, if the books you cited support some, but not all, of the text in the article, then you may want to consider replacing the Citation needed tag with the Additional citation needed tag, instead of removing the Citation needed tag altogether. Since was the editor you interacted with, you may want to ping them if you haven't already done so – but I think you already did this. You can also ask for input from a related WikiProject. The Taffeta article is part of WikiProject Textile Arts, so feel free to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Textile Arts. If you do ask a WikiProject, please be sure to keep your comment neutral in order to adhere to the guideline against canvassing. —  Newslinger   talk   07:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My objective was to add the required citations; I usually do the same with the articles, you can check my edits. I mentioned in my edit summary, when I put those citations but not precisely the template you suggested. Secondly I already tagged the user. Thanks for everything, regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, by "clarify your goal", I meant that the first sentence ("The matter is about deletion of the sources") in your comment at would have been more clear if it had explicitly stated that you would like to include these sources, e.g. something like "I found some sources, and I would like to use them to support uncited content in this article." I'm not questioning your motives, and I'm sorry if my comment came across that way. In any case, it looks like an editor has responded in the discussion with an analysis of the sources. —  Newslinger   talk   07:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sir, You are right. I did not explain it very well over there; Please don't say sorry to me. I was trying to clear my objective in the project's interest, not for this particular case. I was curious about the reason 100 years, which was not satisfying from any angle. I do not want to drag the issue, and Yes! I read that interpretation that made me convinced partially. I am searching for better sources. Thanks and best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Change to Ad Fontes
Hi, Newslinger. Totally a mistake to mark my edit as minor on Ad Fontes Media. My change did not contain any commentary or personal analysis, so I'm not sure why you marked it as "disruptive editing": I shortened it to correct for the misleading nature of the sentence. Specifically, the sentence uses the whole "Columbia Journal" as the (grammatical) subject, but this is not the case. It was not an editorial board statement, but rather it was an article by 1 author appearing in the journal. This is substantive difference. Anyway, I re-edited the reverted text to keep the specificity. Here the change should be unambiguously better as it is both more specific and more accurate to reflect the subject as an article appearing in the journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aapelle (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the message I placed on your talk page was for a violation of the neutral point of view policy. Specifically, the edit Special:Diff/986816169 changed a use of in-text attribution into an unsupported attribution. Contrary to your intention, the edit actually cast Ad Fontes Media in a worse light than it did before, by giving the reader the impression that Ad Fontes Media was broadly criticized in general. I've replaced the warning on your talk page with a lower-level warning, which is more clear. —  Newslinger  talk   01:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Your message on my talkpage
Thank you for your comments Newslinger, and I understand about the controversial topics, but I am not any other user. I don't understand why I am being equated with them because of a few common edits. Am I going to be blocked? KaveriNadi (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the sockpuppet investigation was inconclusive, so there is nothing to worry about on your part. Sometimes, when an editor's work on Wikipedia is similar to that of another editor, an investigation is held to see if an editor is inappropriately using multiple accounts, which would be against the rules. In this case, the evidence was not strong enough to conclude that you are related to a previously blocked editor. Thanks for joining Wikipedia, and feel free to ask me on this page if you have any questions about editing. —  Newslinger  talk   20:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Glad to know it is sorted. I sure will consult you when I need some help. KaveriNadi (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Recently active admins list - request
Hi, having seen you were recently active I thought I'd try and ask directly about a number of issues at, which also spills out into Requests_for_page_protection, a related question here: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, and originated here: Fringe_theories/Noticeboard.

A number of recent editors are brand new SPAs (two with names referencing the article's contents) with surprisingly high Wikipedia literacy. I may have reverted too many times already I think, but the article is now a mess and I suspect some administrator action is required. Can you please take a look? GPinkerton (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Great Barrington Declaration is covered under the COVID-19 general sanctions. Editors participating in this topic area should ideally be notified with the template. If you would like to dispute specific portions of text within the Great Barrington Declaration article, I recommend using requests for comment on the article talk page, which will attract more editors to this recent topic. The declaration is also within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which may have some interested editors; consider asking them on the project talk page. I will keep an eye on the article as it develops. —  Newslinger   talk   04:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks; it was particularly these recent edits that I have qualms with, given that they quite change the meaning and are all uncited, especially the extraordinary claim that "The World Health Organization has also urged governments to resist using lockdown in this manner, but such urgings have to date fallen on mostly fesf ears". Given the high volume of pageviews, I still think some level of temporary protection might be useful. Notifying WP:MED is a good idea, thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At this time, I don't think page protection or page-level restrictions would be particularly helpful on the Great Barrington Declaration article, since most editors appear to be engaging on the talk page. However, if you notice any editors who are blatantly violating policies and guidelines in the COVID-19 topic area, even after receiving repeated warnings, the correct venue for filing a report is the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN). Please see for the full process. —  Newslinger   talk   04:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Raghuveer07 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary warning issued to me
Hello, Newslinger. I have been arbitrarily warned by Coryphantha and Tayi Arajakate for making changes

i have made some changes and addtion to two pages related to Madhu Kishwar and Uddhav Thackrey. In one page related to Madhu Kishwar, unreliable sources have been used to write something which is sullying the repuation of the individual. I have already written this comment there while making those changes - "Kindly see that there is no source provided to what is writtern after the 1st paragraph. In the fake news paragraph, I welcome your submissions, if u have strong views about it, but i have added one line, becuase it was looking like that person has been accused in general by everyone. However, I have checked those who have accused, it seems that they r strong critic of modi government. Hence, the statement needs to be qualified approporiately, as they sully the image of the person. Heading is not approporitate, it shuld highlight that these r controversies surrounding the individual."

In the second page related to Uddhav Thackrey, I have quote several sources which basically points to controversies surrourding the suject. If required, more sources can be added by me. This is the explanation I had provided. " Certain issues related to the subject have been which have been there in public doman and commented by the subject itself are missing from this artlcle. Relevant sources which are accepted by wikipedia have been added. Please do not remove this without proper jutification. Similar, things are added in the pages of other indivduals as well."

if possible, knidly provide explanation, that why they are warning me for deletion and modification of fews things from one page and addition of certain things which are properly qualified by me to another page. In case there is specific criteria that any article related to one person - Uddhav Thackrey- can be classified as biography and nothing related to controversies that they are involved in can be written about. in that case, i would like to ask you to allow me to change the article about Madhu Kishwar to biography as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer07 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the edit to the Madhu Kishwar article with the summary "Kindly see..." is Special:Diff/987597384. It looks like the paragraph deleted in the edit was cited to the following source:
 * Academic publications, such as ones published by Oxford University Press, are usually considered reliable sources. If you would like to argue for the removal of the cited content, the best place to do that would be the talk page of the article (Talk:Madhu Kishwar). For the Uddhav Thackeray article (content added in Special:Diff/987595269), it is important to note that biographies of living persons on Wikipedia are held to a higher standard than most other articles in terms of the quality of sources required. In particular, it would be best to cite serious accusations (e.g. the claim that Thackeray was responsible for the arrest of Arnab Goswami) to reliable news sources, rather than to opinion pieces like "In Arnab Goswami’s arrest, the emergence of Uddhav 2.0". According to the policy on restoring deleted content on biographies of living persons, the burden of proof on the editors who wish to include the disputed material into the Uddhav Thackeray article. If you have arguments in favor of including the content, please present them on the talk page (Talk:Uddhav Thackeray). As a general rule, I recommend following the bold, revert, discuss cycle to handle content disputes. If your suggested change is disputed, please discuss the matter on the relevant talk page until there is consensus to take some type of action. Repeatedly editing your preferred version into an article against reverts from other editors is known as edit warring, and is against Wikipedia policy. —  Newslinger   talk   08:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Academic publications, such as ones published by Oxford University Press, are usually considered reliable sources. If you would like to argue for the removal of the cited content, the best place to do that would be the talk page of the article (Talk:Madhu Kishwar). For the Uddhav Thackeray article (content added in Special:Diff/987595269), it is important to note that biographies of living persons on Wikipedia are held to a higher standard than most other articles in terms of the quality of sources required. In particular, it would be best to cite serious accusations (e.g. the claim that Thackeray was responsible for the arrest of Arnab Goswami) to reliable news sources, rather than to opinion pieces like "In Arnab Goswami’s arrest, the emergence of Uddhav 2.0". According to the policy on restoring deleted content on biographies of living persons, the burden of proof on the editors who wish to include the disputed material into the Uddhav Thackeray article. If you have arguments in favor of including the content, please present them on the talk page (Talk:Uddhav Thackeray). As a general rule, I recommend following the bold, revert, discuss cycle to handle content disputes. If your suggested change is disputed, please discuss the matter on the relevant talk page until there is consensus to take some type of action. Repeatedly editing your preferred version into an article against reverts from other editors is known as edit warring, and is against Wikipedia policy. —  Newslinger   talk   08:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I thank you for your prompt response. I will follow the disucssion on talk page. However, I would still like for you to address one concern that why one person detail will be added as biography where sources required would be of high quality and another person details will be written as normal article where any kind of source can be added. we should not right any thing controversial about anyone. Raghuveer07 (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you ever see controversial content about a living person in an article that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then you or any other editor can remove it under the WP:BLPREMOVE policy. However, if you seek to either remove content supported by reliable sources or propose other types of changes to the article, then the suggested resolution path is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. This means that you are able to make changes to the article, but if the changes are disputed, then a discussion should occur before all interested editors decide whether the changes should be made. This collaborative process is known as finding consensus, and is the foundation of how Wikipedia operates. Controversial claims can be used in an article, but only if those claims are adequately supported by reliable sources and there is consensus to include them. —  Newslinger  talk   08:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Again thank you for your prompt response. One more thing, is there a time limit specified in which concerned persons should respond to my suggestions on talk page. I am more perturbed by some thing which has already been added which may sully the reputation of individual, it may have been added earlier before without it coming to notice of any other individual. Till the time, the other concerned persons repsond, wikipedia is providing this information to many ppl. some sort of qualification should be added to each page particulary related to individuals, associations or parties which can give wrong impression to other people and may also be of disconcerting to individuals affiliated to them. Raghuveer07 (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer project, there is no hard time limit for someone to respond. However, if there is no response after a few days, the silence counts as a weak form of consensus, and you can proceed with implementing the change. If someone disputes the change afterward, the consensus would need to be assessed again. You may find the policy on resolving content disputes helpful. —  Newslinger  talk   09:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok Again, I thank you for your direction. Again I m bothering u, but if i have to raise this, what is the platform - "Some sort of qualification should be added to each page particulary related to individuals, associations or parties which can give wrong impression to other people and may also be of disconcerting to individuals affiliated to them". I think it is important. Becuase I m seeing many pages where negative things are attributed to a subject, but that is not factual or could be attributed to few ppl opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuveer07 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, whenever you see a controversial claim that is not supported by a reliable source, you can remove that content under the verifiability policy. The reliability of opinions varies depending on the qualifications of the author and on where the opinion is published; please see WP:RSOPINION for details. If you are not sure about the reliability of any source, feel free to start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, and other editors will help you assess it. —  Newslinger  talk   09:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Republic TV
A discussion is going on, on the reliability of Republic TV | Click Here. Feel free to join and comment, as only I and another editor have been active yet. We are in need of more ideas to reach a discussion.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. However, please note that asking specific editors to participate in a discussion can be considered canvassing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. In the future, please consider notifying related WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject India) instead of individual editors. The reliable sources noticeboard is a page that I frequent, so any discussions on the noticeboard are likely to be seen by me. —  Newslinger  talk   09:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I apologize whole heartedly.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you ever see another editor engage in improper canvassing, feel free to remind them of the guideline. I understand that some editors canvass because they've seen other editors do it, so it's good to provide clarification when it happens. —  Newslinger  talk   10:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocking User:Rph.ritwik
Hi Newslinger. You spam blocked the above user 11 October. You might want to look at their reply to your block notice on their user talk page as they managed to get their website link in twice in that reply! Best JW 1961   Talk  12:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the notice. Since pages in the user and user talk namespaces are not indexed by search engines (according to ), I don't think it's necessary to remove any content from User talk:Rph.ritwik. The domain in question has already been added to the spam blacklist in . —  Newslinger  talk   09:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , All good so, have a nice day JW 1961   Talk  11:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

help please
I would like to add the following in List of Lego films and TV series, in The Flash's line, but I have no clue how to do it(tweak as necessary): Also includes the Jessica Cruz minifigure because it comes with Lego DC Super Heroes: Aquaman: Rage of Atlantis in some editions(citation: https://web.archive.org/web/20201027233344/https://www.bestbuy.com/site/lego-dc-super-heroes-aquaman-rage-of-atlantis-the-flash-dvd/6319871.p?skuId=6319871 ) WinnerWolf99 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC) P.S. If you use UTC or a UTC+X:00 clock then happy Halloween!(I don't, but...)WinnerWolf99 (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the Best Buy listing shows a double feature that includes both Rage of Atlantis and The Flash. However, the list already shows that Rage of Atlantis includes the Jessica Cruz minifigure. Does The Flash, by itself, include the Jessica Cruz minifigure? An easier way to edit tables is to use the visual editor. To switch to the visual editor, click the pencil icon on the top-right and then choose "Visual editing". With the visual editor, you can break apart table cells by clicking on them and then choosing "Unmerge". To combine them again, click on multiple cells while holding down the button on your keyboard, and then choose "Merge". Please note that the visual editor is only available on article pages by default.  Happy Halloween! —  Newslinger   talk   03:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm. What do you think? Also, ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WinnerWolf99 (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since List of Lego films and TV series already shows that Lego DC Comics Super Heroes: Aquaman: Rage of Atlantis includes a Jessica Cruz minifigure, I think it should be fine for now. To me, the double feature looks like a product bundle of two films that already exist, rather than an entirely new film. —  Newslinger  talk   04:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a bundle... should I put "comes in a bundle with rage of atlantis in some editions" or something like that then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WinnerWolf99 (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess you can try it. If an other editor disagrees, they will let you know. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with collectibles to give a strong opinion. —  Newslinger  talk   07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess we'll both see what happens. ~` — Preceding unsigned comment added by WinnerWolf99 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have to go inactive for a length of time even I do not know, but every second until then, I will be looking forward to coming back to Wikipedia. (A) Farewell (to arms update)!WinnerWolf99 (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have decided on a name(WinnerWolf99, it just came to me one day). Once I figure out a good password, you'll see my editing again!(and all my IP signatures will be replaced with my new username)WinnerWolf99 (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had missed your last message – sorry about that. It's great that you're creating an account! I look forward to seeing you again as WinnerWolf99. —  Newslinger  talk   03:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as you know, if I don't create my account with my email, will I be able to add my email later? WinnerWolf99 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. If you make an account without an email, you can always go to the preferences page to add it later. You can also change or remove the email on your account at any time. —  Newslinger  talk   09:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok! WinnerWolf99 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I modeled my signature after yours and someone else's whose name I forgot:  WinnerWolf99  talkWhat did I break now? 20:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks really nice, ! I'm glad that you've made an account and customized your signature. If you ever need to ask a question when I'm not around to answer it promptly, you're also welcome to ask the folks at the Teahouse. —  Newslinger  talk   03:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Question re threats of sanction
Hi Newslinger- I saw your posts at User_talk:Gd123lbp, and thought you might be a good person to run my questions by unofficially, short of bringing anything up on a noticeboard. That editor, and to some extent I, have run up against another who, in my view, has been a bit heavy-handed with ownership of articles (specifically on Covid-19, at least), and with making what could be taken as thinly veiled threats of blocking editors. This editor also seems to me to be overzealous in categorizing any public figure who departs from a mainstream view as being a "conspiracy theorist". My views arise out of some talkpage interactions as well as from observations of summary expurgations of article sections accompanied by peremptory edit summaries. I don't have a lot of experience with this kind of contentious activity, and would like to know whether you think I should be considering drawing more official attention to my concerns. Thanks in advance for taking a look: edit history on Sucharit Bhakdi article, Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Eric talk 14:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, please note that the message in , from the template Gs/alert, is an informational notice and not a warning, sanction, or threat. From the links in your comment, the matter appears to be a content dispute that has been escalated to a content-oriented noticeboard. Regarding "thinly veiled threats of blocking editors", the only instance of the word "block" on Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi is from Special:Diff/989349379. If you would like to initiate a conduct dispute, the designated venue for reporting violations of the community sanctions for the COVID-19 topic area is the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN). In my opinion, it would be more productive to resolve this as a content dispute via the currently active noticeboard and talk page discussions. —  Newslinger  talk   14:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your reply and attention. The threat-like language I was referring to consisted of statements such as ...editing out-of-kilter [sic] with Wikipedia's purpose is likely to lead to sanctions, and I'd expect anybody who reverts to anything like what we had before, or who removes the RS that has since appeared, to be sanctioned; these from someone who to me appears to have assumed a rather imperious role as Arbiter of the True Faith. I agree with you re settling as a content dispute, though I find the posting to the fringe noticeboard -- and to some extent the existence of the board itself -- to be unnecessary and possibly inflammatory. In my view, the Bhakdi discussion there should have taken place on the article's talkpage. Thanks again for your input. Eric talk 15:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you would like to request opinions on the talk page from a wider audience, a neutrally worded request for comment is typically the best solution. —  Newslinger  talk   15:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.
It is have been a long overdue, but thank you a lot for guiding me through Wikipedia experience. I used to be immature, and thought Wikipedia as a place to express the "norm" opinion at a subject. However, after talking to many wiki admins in other platforms, and get a edit ban, I have been much more mature. You may remember me of editing 5-Minute Crafts page, and other YouTube channel pages. I think that you won't remember me, but without you, I would not be this good of a person, and a Wikipedian. Thank you. DrifAssault (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and I do remember you! Thank you for the barnstar. I'm glad that you're continuing to write about the topics you enjoy on Wikipedia one year later. If you have any other questions about editing, I'm still happy to help. —  Newslinger  talk   15:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for remembering me :). I think I won't edit that article anymore, as it doesn't really caught my attention now. I think I will edit others instead. DrifAssault (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, everyone's interests change. Since you've written about Minecraft and several YouTube channels, you might be interested in joining WikiProject Video games and WikiProject YouTube. The editors in those projects are knowledgeable about these topic areas and can give you help on specifics if you ever need it. —  Newslinger  talk   16:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think I will draft for a new article for distributed computing project, as it is quite signficant enough to add to Wikipedia. My idea came from chatting with one of Wikipedia frequent editor (ChipWolf) is involved that project as an admin, but (unfortunately) he is in conflict of intrest, so he shouldn't be creating the page. That project is loosely related to Minecraft, and since I just an observer, hopefully I can make that article neutral. Wish me luck! DrifAssault (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Software can be challenging to write about, but as long as you stick to reliable secondary sources, you should be fine. Good luck on the article! —  Newslinger  talk   16:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

 * Thanks, ! I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. —  Newslinger  talk   14:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

 * Thanks,, and I hope you have an amazing holiday season! —  Newslinger  talk   14:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Hi, as you know there is an ongoing discussion – Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I will request you to help me know the conclusion of the following discussion. Or it will take more to reach any conclusion. Actually, this is my first time doing any such discussion on wikipedia. Thank you. -ink&amp;fables    «talk»   06:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, since the discussion is quite new (less than one day old), there's still plenty of time for additional editors to participate. Discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard are automatically archived after about five days with no new comments. Usually, discussions are considered finalized after they are archived. Unless a clear consensus develops beforehand, I usually wait until the discussion is archived before making a decision based on the discussion. I hope this helps. —  Newslinger  talk   06:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a quick reply. I will request you to help me conclude this discussion once it is archived.   -ink&amp;fables     «talk»   15:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. —  Newslinger  talk   09:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, the discussion has been archived; what to do next? It seems that removing the content will be the right option. Thank you in advance.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  13:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources article on the Signpost
Hi,

Thank you for your great article about source deprecation and bias on the Signpost. This is very interesting to me. Are there any key places/projects where similar discussions take place on Wikipedia? MonsieurD (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for reading the op-ed! Currently, most of the centralized discussion on source reliability takes place on the reliable sources noticeboard, while discussion specific to the perennial sources list takes place on its talk page. The project that oversees the perennial sources list is WikiProject Reliability, although editors prefer to hold discussions elsewhere. I have plans for making WikiProject Reliability more active sometime next year, and I will share more details on the relevant pages as soon as these plans are ready. —  Newslinger  talk   13:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ad fontes' Media Bias Chart
Hey, Newslinger! I didn't realize you had such an interest in the Media Bias Chart! I did a volunteer stint for them over the summer as an analyst and got training on their rubric, if you've any interest in discussing. —valereee (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, the Media Bias Chart has strongly influenced the way I examine sources on Wikipedia, and its availability is something that I really appreciate. I remember you mentioning that you volunteered for Ad Fontes Media, and I'm very interested in the details. I have a lot on my plate at the moment, but I'll send you an email as soon as I get the chance. Thanks! —  Newslinger  talk   12:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Whenever! :) —valereee (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Kalaripayattu
Religious fanatics are taking ownership at Kalaripayattu and not allowing any edits deviating from their agenda. The worst part is it is pending-changes protected and they all are confirmed accounts who can make changes without scrutiny. None of them give proper explanation for reverting, and sometimes blatantly reverts multiple edits (edited with proper edit summary) without explanation. Two of them have COI as evident from their usernames (Kalari). Their main business is promoting their POV and highlighting Hinduism part, though Kalaripayattu do have rituals based on Hinduism, the art itself is not a "Hindu art", it just happened to have originated when only Hindu "religion" was prevalent in Kerala. It is a martial art practised by all religious communities, many of the masters are Muslims, the Christians even have a folk dance derived from Kalaripayattu. Some Hindu extremists are "making statements" by projecting Hinduism on an otherwise communally harmonious martial art. BTW, I am also a Hindu, but this is too much.

The first time my edit got reverted (see history here onward), I never thought it was religious agenda, but now it's becoming clearer, as User:Kalariwarrior changed "Indian mythology" to "Hindu mythology" (source says former), and User:Kalari Poothara's recent Hinduism promotion in lead, and as Outlander07 is now trying to re-insert Hinduism claims (not in the source) in lead which I had removed; he had also removed a sourced mention about a Hindu lower-caste community – Thiyya. There are multiple legends on the creator - Parashurama, Shiva, Agasthya; they want Parashurama, not only that, they don't want to attribute it as "legend" (I agree with ). I suspect Outlander07 and Kalariwarrior to be the same person, all three are incompetent in editing. The article requires serious cleanup for sourcing and NPOV. Should I report this activity to WP:ANI, or somewhere else, or what? Please help. 2409:4073:2E9F:1FC3:E8E3:9BC:85ED:C845 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, since this appears to be a content dispute, I recommend starting a request for comment (RfC) in a new section on the article's talk page (Talk:Kalaripayattu) to solicit input from more editors. An RfC should ask a simple, straightforward question. For example, an RfC question could look like this:
 * Should the following sentence (from Special:Diff/987358007) be included in the lead section of this article?
 * If there are multiple parts of the article under dispute, then create a new subsection containing a question for each dispute. Please be sure to read WP:RFCST instructions on how to set up the RfC properly. Feel free to ask me if you have any further questions, especially if you are not familiar with templates. —  Newslinger  talk   13:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are multiple parts of the article under dispute, then create a new subsection containing a question for each dispute. Please be sure to read WP:RFCST instructions on how to set up the RfC properly. Feel free to ask me if you have any further questions, especially if you are not familiar with templates. —  Newslinger  talk   13:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Late to the party
... but I came across your Signpost op-ed. It's really nice work, and strong writing. I wanted to thank you for writing it; I'm sure it was a good deal of work to write something that seems so effortlessly reasonable. There's been a lot of, frankly, unsophisticated or flat-out dumb stuff written about supposed biases on Wikipedia, so it was refreshing to see such a thoughtful take on the subject, and an open and quantitatively supported acknowledgement of the elephant in the room&mdash;namely, that partisan misinformation is highly asymmetrical.

I would agree (or perhaps go further than you in saying) that fundamentally, the problem is that a sizable minority of the population has marinated in, and become more or less addicted to, hyper-partisan misinformation, to the point that they are unwilling or unable to differentiate credible information from misinformation. That's a Wikipedia problem, of course, but a larger societal one as well, and I'm not sure how we can effectively tackle any major issue (Covid-19, race relations, etc.) until the firehose of partisan misinformation is shut off or at least slowed down a bit.

Looking at the Covid-19 pandemic alone&mdash;a subject which is more or less in my face every day, as a health-care provider&mdash;right-wing misinformation has massively and measurably increased the toll in terms of human suffering and literal body count, so it is not exactly a bloodless, academic issue. I agree with you that a functional center-right establishment would help stabilize things, but the financial and political incentives in right-wing media reward extremism to a remarkable degree, as in your example of Newsmax. So it's a vicious cycle where the audience drives the content, which in turn drives the audience...

Anyhow, maybe I've been here too long and gotten too cynical about the place, but it's rare to read a sane, thoughtful, and well-reasoned on-wiki analysis that avoids the usual Wikipedian pitfall of reflexive false equivalence. Thank you for that. MastCell Talk 20:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thank you for reading the op-ed! Also, thank you for being a health-care worker—your role is incredibly essential right now, and I hope you are taking the stress well. I can't actually claim any credit for a lot of the content in the op-ed, since most of the hard work was done by the six researchers who compiled the Berkman Klein Center report and the fairly large team at Ad Fontes Media. We are all very fortunate to have a wealth of data and research available on the American media landscape. Without this information, the op-ed would not have been possible. Personally, I am optimistic on the outlook of journalism: misinformation is a hot topic in journalism research, and I am confident that we, as a society, will find ways to minimize its impact on our lives. —  Newslinger  talk   13:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop gagging here
Stop gaging, by giving block threat. NDTV edit shall be corrected with proper wording, no need for you to give block threat. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * uw-unsourced3, issued in, is a standard level 3 warning template. Considering the number of warnings on your talk page, a level 4 warning would have been more appropriate. —  Newslinger  talk   15:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, stop gagging. Stop being unconstructive, the prev edit may be corrected with proper wording instead of reverting. Refrain from edit warringJoJo Rabbit11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. When your proposed additions are reverted, please discuss on the talk page instead of repeatedly adding them into the article. —  Newslinger  talk   15:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You need to discuss on article talk page before rev any edit, despite the fact the wp:rs has been provided for the same. your reverts are disruptive, refrain from doing so. discusss on talk page before rev.JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , this is an encyclopedia, not Twitter or Wordpress. I am afraid you need to convince all the other involved editors that your content is due and proper, and the WP:BURDEN for that lies on you, not them. And this is not a requirement you can ignore, because I will be shortly issuing a discretionary sanctions alert to you, which means that you are responsible for reading and following all the applicable policies of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to: hoping your holiday time is wonderful and - especially -

that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020. CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding   to your friends' talk pages.

(Sent: 04:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC))

Cite Unseen update
Hello! Thank you for using Cite Unseen. The script recently received a significant update, detailed below. If you have any feedback, requested features, or domains to add/remove, don't hesitate to bring it up on the script's talk page. Thank you! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 23:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can now toggle which icons you do or don't want to see. See the configuration section for details. All icons are enabled by default except for the new Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable icon (described below).
 * New categorizations/icons:
 * Font Awesome 5 solid bullhorn.svg Advocacy: Organizations that are engaged in advocacy (anything from political to civil rights to lobbying). Note that an advocacy group can be reliable; this indicator simply serves to note when a source's primary purpose is to advocate for certain positions or policies, which is important to keep in mind when consuming a source.
 * Hand-33988.svg Editable: Sites that are editable by the public, such as wikis (Wikipedia, Fandom) or some databases (IMDb, Discogs).
 * Book X red.svg Predatory journals: These sites charge publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy.
 * Perennial source categories: Cite Unseen will mark sources as Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable, Achtung-orange.svg marginally reliable, Argentina - NO symbol.svg generally unreliable, Stop hand.svg deprecated, and X-circle.svg blacklisted. This is based on Wikipedia's perennial sources list, which reflects community consensus on frequently discussed sources. Sources that have multiple categorizations are marked as Question Circle.svg varied reliability. Note that Yes Check Circle.svg generally reliable icons are disabled by default to reduce clutter, but you can enable them through your custom config. A special thanks to, whose new Sourceror API provides the perennial sources list in a clean, structured format.
 * With the addition of the new categorizations, the Scale icon unbalanced.svg biased source icon has been removed. This category was very broad, and repetitive to the new advocacy and perennial sources categorizations that are more informative.

You are receiving this message as a user of Cite Unseen. If you no longer wish to receive very occasional updates, you may remove yourself from the mailing list.

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!
<div style="; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: #FC9; border: 1px solid #8888aa; padding: 10px; width: 425px; clear: both;"> <div style="; border-style:solid; border-color:#4682B4; background-color:#900020; color:white; border-width:5px; text-align:left; vertical-align;top; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks"> Sometimes I just forget to say "thank you." All the best! Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello Newslinger: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RV (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Deletion review for II-VI Incorporated
An editor has asked for a deletion review of II-VI Incorporated. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I-Supotco-new (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The Caravan at Press20
Could you read it? Did it say anything interesting? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was able to read the article in the magazine. "The Edit Wars: How Wikipedia earned the ire of the Hindu Right" is a very detailed, eight-page description of OpIndia's interactions with Wikipedia. It interviewed quite a few people, including Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, OpIndia editor Nupur J Sharma, University of Maryland researcher Prashanth Bhat, and multiple Wikipedia editors (including me). The coverage goes beyond OpIndia, with about two pages dedicated to the history of the neutral point of view policy. —  Newslinger  talk   10:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I tried archive.org, that sometimes works, but no luck this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is paywalled. I can share excerpts from the article with you (under fair use) if you would like, although the email feature on your account appears to be disabled. —  Newslinger  talk   11:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Enabled, yes please. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . —  Newslinger  talk   11:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! So, I've a question regarding this. Would you say the article is accurate in its depiction of how Wikipedia works? Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any glaring errors in the article that were written in the author's voice. The article quotes WP:NPOV to state that neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The article also includes quotes from other individuals, and the accuracy of the claims in these quotes varies, although the most inaccurate claims are fact-checked in the article. I think Kauntia did an exemplary job with the research for this report. Do you have access to the article? —  Newslinger  talk   14:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to hear that. I do not have access to the article and the magazine has a number of articles that I want to access which are behind a paywall, so I was thinking of subscribing to them. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 00:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'd say reasonably so, at least in this particular case. Often, things are calmer and with less media-doxing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * D'you have access to this, Newslinger? I was interview too, and would like to read it (I don't know if my quotes made it to the final version, though). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . —  Newslinger  talk   21:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Deaths in 2021
Hi. On January 1, 2020, you were kind enough to visit the Deaths in 2020 page and save it from countless instances of vandalism, which resulted in an inordinate number of repairs being required by regular editors. Could I ask that you add the Deaths in 2021 page to your watchlist, in the hope that you will afford it the page protection it will need going forward? Thanks very much, and a Happy New Year to you. Ref (chew) (do) 14:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone beat me to the protection, but I've added the page to my watchlist. Happy New Year! —  Newslinger  talk   21:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, greetings for 2021, and thanks for replying. It took a few choice bad edits for another admin to pop up with a year's worth of protection, but your vigilance and that of your colleagues is much-appreciated and valued. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of article about II-VI Incorporated
Dear Newslinger,

You recently (on 5 October 2020) moved the article II-VI Incorporated to Draft:II-VI Incorporated and then you deleted it. On the discussion page at User talk:I-Supotco you wrote that the article was a copyright violation. When I created the initial version of that article (probably around June 2019), I made sure that it did not contain any copyright violation. I think that at that time, also the overall article was written in a reasonable way. Afterwards somebody else mad changes where he removed most references and added the text which might be a copyright violation. So instead of deleting the entire article, I think it would be better to restore it to the last acceptable version.

(Previously I used the username User:I-Supotco but I lost the password for that account, so I am now using the new username User:I-Supotco-new.)

I-Supotco-new (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I apologize for deleting the article while missing the fact that the page did not contain the issues it was deleted for prior to the 26 September 2019 revision. That was a procedural error, and a mistake on my part. I'm glad that the deletion review was closed with the correct result. Thank you for creating this article. —  Newslinger  talk   21:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for the response. Could you please also undelete the page II-VI Inc. which should be a redirect to II-VI Incorporated? You deleted that redirect.--I-Supotco-new (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. No problem. —  Newslinger  talk   04:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IP editor
Hello and thanks for all the good work. I see that we've both communicated with the same IP editor recently. This SPI may or may not be relevant. Certes (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for letting me know. I've tagged User talk:93.193.173.8 to identify the IP address as one used by . I don't think I am able to perform a block in this instance, since my interaction with 93.193.173.8 is content-related. However, I've filed a new sockpuppet investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Broter. —  Newslinger  talk   23:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Qfinity Labs
You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the report. —  Newslinger  talk   08:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th anniversary!

 * Thanks, ! It will be exciting to see how Wikipedia advances in the next 20 years. —  Newslinger  talk   04:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)