User talk:Newslinger

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

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

SBM is used to support a statement regarding the

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

Our discussion of the topic can be found here.

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

00:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:RSN again. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found you since you are currently an official participant of

Hi

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

]

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

Responded at

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

]

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

ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 15:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

not censored and there is no valid reason to hide this information from the article. — Newslinger talk 23:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

discretionary sanctions apply to each of these three topic areas. Most editors who are active in these topic areas receive an alert about once per year, per topic area. — Newslinger talk 02:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

discretionary sanctions procedures carefully, please take the time to do so, since they apply to all of your edits in these topic areas. — Newslinger talk 14:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Edited 16:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

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

]

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

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

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

Thanks! Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the Arbitration Committee, –

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

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

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

reliable sources that support that change. — Newslinger talk 01:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Thank you Teacherswhorock (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

☖ 18:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

You're welcome to add yourself to one of the

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

]

Hi

notability guideline explains the requirements that need to be met for a topic to have an article on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The article prominently describes MintPress News's coverage of the

ISIL. The article also describes MintPress News's stance on Israel in the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict, and a glance at the website (e.g. in its highlights page) shows that a large portion of its stories focuses on the Arab–Israeli conflict.

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

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

]

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

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

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

The MintPress News article has been identified as part of the Syrian Civil War topic area

Arbitration Committee

.

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

Talk page banners, including discretionary sanctions notices such as {{

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

]

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

Hi

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

]

All I said was that 1) We should expand the scope of reliable sources to non-western sources due to the highly partisan editorial lines taken in NATO countries which is slowly sliding into

WP:GAMING the system. Is expressing this opinion on the talk page somehow forbidden? We cannot use legalese to quash debate.JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

In

WP:RUCD). — Newslinger talk 22:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

No problem, it's always sad to see an editor leave Wikipedia over a misunderstanding, and I do hope

RfC that is being drafted. — Newslinger talk 07:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A glass of Kvass for you!

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not perfect, of course, but articles tend to improve over time as

higher-quality sources, such as reliable academic and book sources, emerge. For topics that have received a lot of media attention, you may want to look out for academic sources that would eventually supersede the news coverage that the articles are initially based on. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

For the

neutral point of view noticeboard and the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects to bring more uninvolved editors to the discussion. — Newslinger talk 11:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The

Hi

Talk:Sitel using the {{Request edit}} template. Another editor will evaluate your request and get back to you. — Newslinger talk 11:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

I have a feeling you might be able to help me, I’m wanting to reference a YouTube video showing Warren Buffet praising

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

I've noticed that you've worked on the article on

Hi

high-quality academic sources in the same manner as the Document.no article used to be. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. — Newslinger talk 08:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

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

Hi

noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 06:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Full disclosure, I am an employee of ECORP, the organization that created /e/OS and cannot make the edits as I have a

Hi

WP:PSCOI) – a helpful page that I recommend reading if you have not yet done so. — Newslinger talk 06:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Thank you for the discretionary sanctions alert. I presume the pertinent restrictions would either be on

So I come across a news story that reports a case of love jihad. Strictly speaking, I'm not posing the question of whether love jihad is a conspiracy theory, I'm providing a source that supports the claim that love jihad exists, but I think the real intent is to discuss this on the subpage. In any case, I've checked

If the subpage goes away, the same thing happens, except that it occurs on

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

Hi

refer to any Wikipedia policy or guideline violation

that took place on a page covered by DS. I tend to use clearer language that refers to the specific policy, guideline, or page restriction that was violated.

The kind of discussion you are describing, in which editors present sources to be evaluated and potentially incorporated into the article, is perfectly acceptable on

Talk:Love jihad/Conspiracy theory

.

Segregating viewpoints into two separate pages creates not one, but two echo chambers. Eventually, any proposals on

Talk:Love jihad before they can be implemented in the article. Having one viewpoint discussed on a less watched page would not actually bolster that viewpoint at all; it would only delay the reconciliation. By merging the subpage into the main talk page, the viewpoint on the subpage would gain representation in the main talk page earlier on. — Newslinger talk 22:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

It's not enough to convince me; there are also all of the other editors at

consensus elsewhere. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Hi

unverifiable by Wikipedia's standards and should be removed on sight. — Newslinger talk 20:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Hi

temporarily undelete the article to allow other editors to examine it during the review. — Newslinger talk 21:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Submitted ✅️ Jksparkle (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

Hi. Can you help me? I submitted an article to Wikipedia last September called, List of state political scandals in the United States. Six months later, an automated filter box appeared saying it had detected Deprecated sources but none were flagged. I checked the article and found I had used none of the listed 47 Depricated sources listed there. I asked for help at the

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

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

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

• 21:19, 14 November 2018
  G5) (thank
  )

Arjunsoumithran (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Elinruby (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Newslinger! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to

alert/first}} because the account had never received an alert. After the initial alert, I was free to use any message to convey any additional contentious topics, and I chose to use a simple sentence in Special:Diff/1195295672. A custom message has the drawback of not being marked with the "contentious topics alert" tag, so I try to offset that by noting the topic areas in the edit summary. — Newslinger talk 09:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This week you blocked

Hi

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

]

I was sure you was a checkuser so I wrote here per

WP:CONTACTCU. Guess I will have to open a new SPI again. – sbaio 08:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

I filed a SPI for Eimukas22 a while before. Judging from behavioral evidence, I think that it could be plausible that Soccsksargen1 is not Eimukas22 because their edits do not come from the mobile site like Eimukas and edit mostly South/Central American GDP stuff instead of Lithuania/(more broadly) Europe stuff. The IP range, though, is as

talk) 16:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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