User talk:Waggie/Archives/2018/December

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Ravikiran’s wikipedia link
Hi - I noticed that you added the “Sexual Allegations” section at the bottom of the page. I would like to point out to you that none of these allegations have been proven or investigated into. There have been no legal processes that have been followed, and despite the formation of an Internal Complaints Committee, not a single complaint has been received regarding Ravikiran. In short, these are anonymous accusations with an intent to malign. Also, he is one of the seven musicians dropped by the Music Academy. I know that you have merely copied and pasted what the previous editor had put in. The famous celebrity Neil Degrasse Tyson’s (also named in MeToo) page is prorected against vandalism if you notice. I request you to delete the section on allegations and reinstate it when it is actually investigated and proven! Nayaki75 (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, the section heading specifically states that they are allegations. It's been covered in multiple news sources. Therefore, these allegations are notable. There is no cause to remove them, regardless of the intent behind them. This page is also protected against vandalism, as you also may notice. Also, if I can be frank with you, it appears as though you might have some connection with Ravikiran. If so, you will need to declare that connection if you are to continue editing that article. The Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use require that COI editing be disclosed. Waggie (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

N.Ravikiran Article
The enitre section below needs to be removed as it is a campaign which is pointing towards personal vendetta and vandalism.Allegations do not hold good in a court of law especially when they are criminal in nature.It is defamatory content that has been published in the media without any evidence whatsoever by unknown sources.There is an impending lawsuit against those media publications that came up with a story with no evidence.The media is not a law enforcement body or authority.Kindly request the admin the remove it completely.The content cited as sources are blatantly biased and unsubstantiated.Newsdeskasia (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is clearly not a court of law, and you'll need to provide proof that the media sources are "blatantly biased and unsubstantiated." Waggie (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

N Ravikiran Wikipedia


As per your instruction, I took material from Chitravina N Ravikiran page about his compositions and added it to N Ravikiran. Though it is a separate matter that the two pages have distinctive content. I do not understand you summarily removing the entire list of compositions and other details which are of research value. A lot of the material that I copied from there have been sourced to major publications. So I am unable to comprehend your contention that they are not sourced! I assume that we both are on the same page regarding the purpose of the content in Wiki, educative for researchers and students. So why summarily remove something without checking each sentence clearly? I recommend that you put those back and then if there are specific sentences that need to be sourced, feel free to address only those on merit. Waggie (talk)

The links I have included are also media articles just like the others that explain both sides of the story. Not sure why only certain links are being included over and over again. I am a connoisseur of Carnatic music and I seriously see this as being highly one sided and defamatory in nature. Nayaki75 (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , what links are you referring to? Sources are already included that include detailed and comprehensive denials by Ravikiran. Waggie (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * , These links represent the side of the accused as well, and are being omitted for some reason although I added them. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/261018/will-present-my-side-at-an-appropriate-time-ravikiran.html and https://inmathi.com/2018/10/15/14350/ Moreover, the musician took a public stance to suspend his concerts even before the academy took a stance to ban musicians of all seven artistes. These are the points that I added. Nayaki75 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , there are already clear denials sourced to The Hindu and First Post. There's no reason to add more, as there's no more useful content to summarize available in the sources without placing undue weight on the whole affair. Are you really asking to draw even more attention in the article to the whole affair? The first article you cite offers no more useful information, and the second is simply an article written by him (a primary source) that isn't reliable in the context of a Wikipedia article. Frankly, I'm surprised by your statements. I moved the section to the bottom and cleaned it up. Both of these things to balance the undue weight being put upon the situation. Wikipedia isn't a platform for someone to defend themselves against accusations (true or not), we simply summarize what reliable and independent sources say about a topic. If and when he is exonerated, and it's reported by reliable sources, that will also be placed in the article. If you wish more discussion on the topic, take it to the article talk page. Waggie (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)