User talk:Newslinger

God Jul och Gott Nytt År!

Gråbergs Gråa Sång is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

User talk:Qfinity Labs

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the report.​ — Newslinger talk 08:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Learning from the JazzClam case

WP:AE#JazzClam has long been closed, and what the community decided originally is now implemented, but I'm still trying to learn from this. Why did you request administrative action there, instead of simply blocking JazzClam for edit #1? That that was a violation for which they could get blocked has been explained unmistakably on their talk page, IMHO. ◅ Sebastian 11:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi SebastianHelm, I prefer to propose potentially controversial sanctions on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard instead of applying them on my own. The JazzClam case was complicated, because JazzClam was topic-banned twice: once from "AP2" by community consensus in {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing and once from "editing post-1932 American politics articles" as a discretionary sanction in User talk:JazzClam § Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban. Since these topic bans had slightly different scopes, I wanted to resolve this discrepancy going forward. I also wasn't sure whether edits #2–4 were topic ban violations that needed to be responded to. The AE discussion clarified the scope of the topic ban, and also let me know for future cases that I should avoid using the word "articles" in the ban description unless I want to restrict the ban to article space. — Newslinger talk 03:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. I understand that you wanted this to be clean, rather than simple. And yes, the use of “page” instead of “article” is a lesson I took away from that, too, although it took me time to change that habit[1]. ◅ Sebastian 13:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy 20th anniversary!

	Celebration~!
	Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Email notification

You've got mail! DavidCBryant 12:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Abusing the Wikipedia email function to send hate mail laced with personal attacks, as you did here, is an inappropriate violation of the civility policy. I have responded at User talk:DavidCBryant § Your hate mail. — Newslinger talk 04:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) DavidCBryant 18:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, have fun with your indefinite block for being not here to build an encyclopedia. You might try Metapedia or Conservapedia. Best of luck. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

"Lude Media" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Lude Media. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Lude Media until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

General sanctions for RSN?

I'm curious how you would feel about community authorised general sanctions for discussions concerning reliable sources. This would be something that would in effect just to allow admins to issue limited bans to users who create multiple RfCs and the like. I have to imagine that would be a pretty bad idea all things considered, but I am not sure exactly. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MJL, that is an interesting suggestion. When an editor is unfamiliar with the conventions of the noticeboard, I think the best approach is to kindly inform them of these conventions, since the editor is most likely participating in good faith. There are instances in which an editor intentionally starts discussions on the noticeboard to cause disruption, but in my experience, these cases are very rare and are adequately handled by our current processes (i.e. a user talk page warning, followed by a report on WP:ANI if the editor is unresponsive). Regular noticeboard participants already express their objections when they see a discussion that does not seem to be a good fit for the venue. General sanctions would tighten enforcement for violations of behavioral policies/guidelines, but in my opinion, these violations do not occur more frequently on RSN than they do on other noticeboards. — Newslinger talk 11:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

SCOTUSblog RfC

Would you be happy to close the RfC here? It's not hit the 30-day limit yet, but it's gone past the seven-day minimum. I'm involved, so cannot do so myself.

Sdrqaz (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done and added to WP:RSP § SCOTUSblog. Thanks for the notice. ​— Newslinger talk 08:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for closing it! Sdrqaz (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

unblock request

Moved to User talk:Dm51c § unblock request

 – — Newslinger talk 09:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Jihad Watch RfC closure

Hi Newslinger. I considered sending this by email, but was afraid that it would be considered to be stealth canvassing, so I've decided to send it here instead. Would you be able to provide any feedback on my closure of the Jihad Watch RfC? It's since been amended following criticism, but I'd appreciate your expertise as an administrator who's quite active on the RSN side of Wikipedia. A discussion regarding its closure can be found on my talk page, but I want to make it clear that I do not want you to intervene there.

Sdrqaz (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sdrqaz, I am probably not the best person to ask for feedback here, since I participated in the Jihad Watch RfC. However, I don't see anything wrong with your closure, which correctly summarized the content of the discussion, including the prominent parts of the discussion that were unrelated to the RfC statement. It is common for RfC closers to receive objections or complaints from editors who are dissatisfied with the closing summary, and it is up to the closer to decide how to process these objections. You amended the closing summary to use "there being some criticism of the proposer", and based on some of the hostile comments in the RfC, I think this is accurate. — Newslinger talk 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invaluable advice, Newslinger. I fear that asking another administrator's opinion on this matter will open myself to accusations of WP:ADMINSHOPPING, so I'll probably leave it. An editor has advised me that they will object to my future deprecation RfC closures as involved. In that light, would you feel it advisable for me to desist from closing discussions of a similar nature? Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

When closing any RfC, the RfC closer acknowledges the possibility that the closing statement may be challenged via WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, regardless of whether other editors have indicated that they will or will not make a challenge beforehand. I don't see any problem with you closing RfCs on the reliable sources noticeboard that you have not participated in. As long as you are prepared to respond to any challenges (as you have done in User talk:Sdrqaz § Jihad Watch RFC closure), I don't see any reason for you to desist from performing these closures. — Newslinger talk 10:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the much-needed perspective and insight, Newslinger. I'll do so accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A user page

Thanks again for your recent help with promotional pages. What's a good way to handle a case such as Nea studio? It looks like WP:UPNOT, especially given the lack of contributions on other topics, but WP:U5 seems rather unfriendly as a first approach. Any advice would be welcome. Certes (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Certes, the page User:Nea studio also qualified for speedy deletion under criteria G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and G12 (copyright violation of https://www.neastudio.com/about), so I have deleted it. Even if G11 and G12 were not being considered, the user page would have still qualified for U5 because Special:Contributions/Nea studio shows that user has only used their account to inappropriately advertise their company on Wikipedia. I've blocked Nea studio as a promotion-only account with a promotional username. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I recommend the username noticeboard as the best venue to report promotional user pages when they are attached to promotional usernames. — Newslinger talk 11:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd considered UAA for this and similar cases, but was deterred by the big notice at the top only warning me to use it only for the most blatant cases after negotiation with the editor had failed. If its rules are less strict in practice then I'll go there in future. Certes (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem. For vandalism- or promotion-only accounts, username violations are generally treated as serious violations. Discussions are usually reserved for editors who make constructive contributions on topics not connected to their usernames.​ — Newslinger talk 12:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Gündüz Alp

Wondering if you'd be willing to protect this article again. It's annoying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've applied semi-protection for 3 months. If this persists, the next round of protection will be 6 months long.​ — Newslinger talk 13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanctions on post-1992 US Politics

You claim I have made disruptive edits on an article related on an article about post-1992 US politics. Can you link me the edit which I made? My edit history only shows one edit on a page about post-1992 US politics, which has not been reverted or challenged in any way. I haven't made any other edits in the topic area. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alfred the Lesser, the notice at User talk:Alfred the Lesser § Controversial topic area alert is a standard notice issued to editors who demonstrate interest in a controversial topic area. As stated in the second sentence of the notice, the message does not imply that your edits are disruptive. In your case, the Antifa (United States) article is covered under special rules (active arbitration remedies) detailed near the top of Talk:Antifa (United States). Many editors editing controversial topic areas receive a notice about once per year for each topic area. Please be aware of these rules, but beyond that, there is no action needed on your behalf. — Newslinger talk 16:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I misread have taken interest in. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A heads-up about OpIndia

OpIndia is back at trying to dox/harass editors! I can't link their article but if you go to their site, look up "Wikipedia" in the search bar and go to the article from 8 Feb, you'll see that they said "While earlier we could track the IP addresses of editors, that itself seems to have been masked now.", and has written about two editors.

So if I understand them correctly, apparently they were able to track logged in editors in the past which should not be possible for outsiders.

Do expect more traffic at PM Modi's talk page. So far I've seen only two users there who may have been motivated by OpIndia but one was rather polite. 45.251.33.0 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC) please don't use any notification templates for me, I'm on a dynamic IP range so I'll periodically check this page

Thank you for the warning. I have no idea what Sharma means by "While earlier we could track the IP addresses of editors, that itself seems to have been masked now", since IP addresses of logged-in editors are confidential, as stated in the Wikimedia privacy policy.

@Jonmaxras, Snooganssnoogans, and Vanamonde93: Since you were mentioned in the OpIndia (RSP entry) piece, you may experience a slight uptick in harassment in the coming days. — Newslinger talk 14:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It probably just means "while earlier edits were made anonymously with IP addresses displayed, recent edits are from logged-in editors whose IP addresses are (and always were) masked", which is a consequence of semi-protecting some of the pages. Certes (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That would make sense. Thanks for explaining. ​— Newslinger talk 14:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that seems like fun. Thanks for the heads up, Newslinger...Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol I love a bit of drama. Thanks for letting me know! Jonmaxras (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked user abusing talk page

Hello admin, you might want to revoke talk page access of blocked user STYLISH ASH. They are abusing their talk page. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I've also deleted the page under speedy deletion criterion G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Thanks for reporting this. ​— Newslinger talk 07:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:32, 9 February 2021 Over-proOver-protec

Over-protection

Someone set a "indefinite" extended protection on this page: Vietnam, it's unnecessary, can you set a timer for it (I think 1 month is ok) or reset to auto-confirmed, please. 59.153.238.189 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, based on the editing history of the Vietnam article, there has been an extraordinary amount of disruption on the article for over a decade. Extended-confirmed protection is one of the more effective ways to protect the article from vandalism by registered accounts, and vandalism on the article resumed after a prior 1-month period of extended-confirmed protection expired. While the article is protected, you are welcome to submit edit requests on the talk page, Talk:Vietnam.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you think it would be a good idea to set an expiration for the extended-confirmed protection, or use some alternative such as semi-protection combined with pending changes protection? — Newslinger talk 10:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection is useless. The sock puppets are autoconfirmed. I usually lift indef ECP after a while, but giving a specific end date just gives the socks a date to put on their calendar, as we've seen. If they don't know when the protection will be lifted, they may move on to other things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds very reasonable.​ — Newslinger talk 06:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

unblocking ValueChampion account

Re: the block on user account "ValueChampion".

Hi! I was unable to discuss this through my ValueChampion account or appeal it since I was soft blocked. I understand the reasons why my account was blocked, so I'd like to change the username. However, I'm unable to make any movement on my side, so if you could please help me out there, I'd really appreciate it as I want to continue my contributions with that account. I'm happy to discuss further and will ensure I continue my Wiki journey with more awareness of the rules. Natalia sanku (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Natalia sanku, since the ValueChampion account was only soft-blocked, you are able to continue editing with your current account (Natalia sanku). If you would like to rename the ValueChampion account and continue using that one instead, please follow the instructions at User talk:ValueChampion § February 2021 (the part that mentions the {{unblock-un}} template) while logged in to your ValueChampion account. In your unblock request, please select a new username that meets Wikipedia's username policy. If you choose to use the renamed account, I recommend that you stop using your current account (Natalia sanku) or at least review the policy against sockpuppetry, since there are many restrictions related to having multiple Wikipedia accounts. — Newslinger talk 15:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Remove from blacklist

Dear Sir

Kindly remove domain bismatrimony.com from blacklist . It was my mistake, i did not read the guidelines properly of wikipedia, hereafter I will not make the mistake again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setm4edit (talk • contribs) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)