User talk:Newslinger

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

On your election question, as case study: Phillip Morris editing IQOS content. DS were not used, nor very applicable: after being told to, PMI stopped editing the article directly, and instead requested edits. See User talk:Sarah at PMI for some of the discussion, addressed to one of the PMI editors. Note that the PMI employees have done a professional training course on editing Wikipedia. HLHJ (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ, and thanks for the example. My election question ("When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?") was open-ended, and I wanted to give the candidates an opportunity to describe their thought process. Some of the aspects I was hoping for the answers to address include:

• Distinguishing between Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions and community-authorised sanctions.
• Distinguishing between disclosed and undisclosed paid editing
• Identifying instances in which there is some intersection between the two, e.g. biographies of living persons, electronic cigarettes, and blockchain and cryptocurrencies

The question was hypothetical, and not an actual proposal. I appreciated Worm That Turned's answer, which illustrated their thinking process in detail. — Newslinger talk 21:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes good sense. I'd probably have given you a very perplexed and rather inductive answer, nowhere near as good as WTT's, but then I am an utter ignoramus here and would not dream of running. When I first read about DS I was startled to find that tree shaping was on the list. I mean, religion, war, politics, science, and... training trees into unusual shapes. Also infoboxes and capitalization. I'm not sure what this says about us. HLHJ (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

​The charitable answer is that Wikipedia editors are passionate about a variety of topics (including esoteric ones), and that we're dedicated to making articles the best they can be. — Newslinger talk 06:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Just as well really. I think of myself as having fairly broad interests, so I'm astonished by the proportion of "Random article" clicks which lead me to a topic I really do not find in the least interesting. I'm delighted that many editors genuinely enjoy useful tasks which I find unpleasant; to the extent that we enjoy complementary tasks, I needn't feel guilty about concentrating on things I enjoy. After all, they often converge on things which I am good at. If this means that others argue about issues I don't care deeply about, that seems like a logical consequence. Humans must vary for a reason. HLHJ (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the top flight attention to the Away (luggage) article update need. Pleasure following your work. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:79CB:BDA6:E5C8:DD6 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for tagging the article, which drew my attention. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about editing. — Newslinger talk 00:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Away (luggage), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

VGChartz

This is a continuation of the VGChartz RfC that I started just over two months ago. Since the WP:RSPS page can have separate entries for different parts of the same site that have completely different reliability thresholds (such as with Fox, Newsweek, and The Points Guy), I was thinking of starting a follow-up RfC that deprecates VGChartz's sales data, but where other parts of the site would keep their regular "generally unreliable" status. Seeing as how even this particular type of segmenting is unprecedented for source deprecation, what are your thoughts? ToThAc (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi ToThAc, the only practical difference between the deprecated and generally unreliable classifications is that deprecated sources can be submitted for technical restrictions (e.g. auto-reverts and edit filters) with no fuss, as the RfC already authorizes them. So, there are two points I'd like to make:

1. These technical restrictions need to match a URL pattern. Is the VGChartz sales data limited to http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly, or does it spill over to other portions of the site? Deprecating just a portion of a domain is only viable if the targeted parts of the site are clearly identified in the URL (e.g. all of the targeted content is in a particular subdirectory or subdomain).
2. In light of the unanimous consensus in the November RfC, you might be able to propose technical restrictions for VGChartz as a whole and not just the sales data. While deprecation authorizes technical restrictions, it's not a prerequisite for them. There are many domains on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList that aren't deprecated, but were added because they were frequently cited inappropriately. In the interest of keeping things simple, you could try submitting the entire domain to these lists without bothering with another RfC for deprecation. Just link the November RfC and provide some examples of where VGChartz is/was inappropriately linked.

Hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 22:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 18:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Happy holidays, Atsme! I checked out your other photos, and the landscapes are stunning. You captured some really nice shots that make me want to travel. — Newslinger talk 00:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Bulk expansion of RS/P for more geographies

Hi Newslinger. I saw your RfA (!voted support of course - best of luck) and noticed your work on RS/P.

There has been a discussion at NPP, particularly with Rosguill and Barkeep49, on expanding sources in wider geographies that New Page Patrollers can use. One point raised is that the RS/P list is not great for wider geographies (e.g. India which should have The Hindu, and Ireland which should have The Irish Times, as RS/Ps).

My question to you is whether you could help/advise on doing a "batch RS/P" (e.g. longer list at once), of unambiguous tier 1 newspapers (and other sources) for wider geographies? It would not solve Rosguill/Barkeep49's problem (as more than RS/P are probably needed), but it could certainly help a lot? Britishfinance (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance, Newslinger offered some great thoughts when Rosguill brought this to the Village Pump. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Britishfinance and Barkeep49: This was the subject of some discussion in Boston last month, including @Airplaneman: among others. I kindof floated a similar idea to help expand the coverage of the list without totally tossing out the current inclusion standards.

In a nutshell, many source don't make the list simply because they're stellar, and no one feels the need to really ask the question about sources everyone pretty much agrees on. So the idea was to start an RSN discussion to see what 110% pristine unquestionable sources everyone could agree on, and then have a mini little RfC to reference at the RSP entry. GMG^talk 15:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Barkeep49 – that was an excellent response by Newslinger at the pump (and that this is not an affirmative action type proposal, which makes it a more durable long-term solution). Also fully agree with GreenMeansGo. I do AIV work from time to time, and a high proportion involves Indic-articles (ultimately, a great endorsement of en-WP that they are so active on it), but it is hard to discern the Daily Mail versus The Times of India. As I said at the NPP discussion above, this is not just an NPP problem, it is a wider en-WP problem, so the solution of materially upgrading RS/P at a first stop, will benefit us all. How do we get this started? (noting that Newslinger is going to be v. busy for the next 7-days on their RfA). Britishfinance (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Presumably we would start by opening an unstructured discussion at RSN to gauge 1) whether a "batch review" is something people support in principle, and 2) what sources everyone can agree on that are so uncontroversial they don't require individual discussion. If this coalesces into a list of widely agreed upon sources, then we use that as the basis for an RfC. We've then got two discussion to link to at RSP, and so each source would meet the inclusion criteria for the list. GMG^talk 17:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at WP:RSN#Uncontroversial sources everyone can pretty much agree on. GMG^talk 17:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

These are great ideas! I'll respond at the noticeboard discussion. — Newslinger talk 00:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC Help

Could you help here with an RfC, as you did help me? X1\ (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi X1\, since there is already high participation in WP:RSN § PragerU - an unreliable source?, you could convert the existing discussion into an RfC by adding the {{rfc}} tag along with a brief and neutral statement directly under the section heading (above the rest of the discussion). However, I don't think there's any rush to start an RfC on PragerU for one special reason.

Most modern sources publish the majority of their content on their own websites. PragerU is different because they are first and foremost a YouTube (RSP entry) channel, and their website (with an Alexa rank of 86,842) gets a relatively small slice of their traffic. YouTube is already considered generally unreliable because it's a self-published source, so most of PragerU is already covered by YouTube's classification. Because YouTube doesn't identify the video's channel in their video URLs, deprecating PragerU would only affect its website (which gets just a little bit of traffic), and not its YouTube channel (which gets most of their traffic).

The decision on whether to start an RfC is ultimately up to you, but keep in mind that there are currently 8 active RfCs on the noticeboard. I'm not seeing any issues at the moment, but if the volume of the RfC eventually becomes a problem, the noticeboard might adopt some limitations on RfCs in the future. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your adroit comments. X1\ (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem! — Newslinger talk 11:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy days!

😄 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats!

Your RfA looks like it's half way through being closed, so congrats on such a staunch RfA - I hope you enjoy it as a good Christmas present! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I have given you a wooden pole with floppy bits on the end

	Your mop
	Congratulations on passing RfA. I hereby bestow upon you the required equipment. Please use it carefully. Well done. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! Welcome to the corps. Remember: nominators get 10% of your salary! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Puddleglum ^2.0 16:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• I must say that I absolutely love the heading Dweller! Anyhow, Newslinger: congratulations are in order on the successful passing of your RfA! If you ever have any questions, myself, other admins, and the 'crats are all around to help. Don't hesitate to reach out . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to add: feel free to raid my scripts (and their history) - or anyone else's for that matter - for ideas. Plenty of useful admin scripts are around. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Congrats on the mop! — Bilorv (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Congratulations on your RFA, Happy blocking! :). –Davey2010^Talk 21:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

	New Admin Torch
	From Dreamy Jazz to Newslinger: Congratulations for your successful request for adminship. Please guard this eternal flame and forward it to the next successful candidate. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to participate in my RfA! I really appreciate all of your comments, including your constructive criticism. Many of you have said that you prefer to see me do more article writing, and I'd also like to dedicate more time in this area. To start, I've joined WikiProject Journalism. From now on, when I do research for discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard, I'll add information on publications and journalists to the respective articles when there's a suitable opportunity to do so. I eventually hope to bring an article up to featured article standards, although the topic will probably be related to free and open-source software instead of journalism.

If you have any questions for me, or if you ever want to discuss any of my actions, this talk page is always open. I hope you enjoy the rest of your holiday season! — Newslinger talk 01:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Congrats and best wishes! I'm sorry I didn't participate, I meant to and the time just got away from me! You're going to be great! --valereee (talk) 03:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, did I have anything to do with this? I am just now hearing that you've run, and (unsurprisingly) succeeded. What a delightful bit of news! Congratulations to you and to all of WP. Hoorah! petrarchan47คุก 04:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

ミラP 16:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations

I’m not you but i can definitely feel the euphoria on your behalf. Congratulations once more 🎉🎉🎉 Celestina007 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Congrats ~

	~ Happy Holidays ~
	~ Nice way to start the year ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはNewslingerたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Congratulations on your RfA and apologies for having missed it. I'm not sure why, but this image seems appropriate.

Doug Weller talk 17:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Signpost Barnstar
		From the acting Editor-in-Chief of The Signpost: for your excellent Special report in the December 2019 issue. Hope we'll be seeing more from you there. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bri! I look forward to contributing again when the opportunity arises. — Newslinger talk 19:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Belated holiday greetings

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:Christmas Train Lanterns With Capiz.jpg

Belated holiday greetings. Merry Christmas and happy new year.
↠Pine (✉) 05:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

/* Google Bookmarks */

fyi Newslinger, I am NOT affiliated with Online Bookmark IncSearch in any way. I am simply an experienced user of the product. --Lbecque (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replying – that's good to know. I've responded on Talk:Google Bookmarks. — Newslinger talk 19:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

AWB

While it's not a huge deal, and yes I am being a little nitpicky, but if you're going to add a half-dozen people to the AWB Check Page you might as well just make one edit. Primefac (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

​No problem, I didn't realize it was standard to bundle all of the additions into one edit. I'll do that from now on. — Newslinger talk 22:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call it standard, since I'm one of the few admins that actually seems to patrol the AWB requests, just a thought to save you an edit (or five). You do you; I usually view changes "since last visit" anyway. Primefac (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Newslinger!

Happy New Year!

Newslinger,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-Nahal^(T) 23:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXX Lunar Calendar

Newslinger,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

User I Meeet

Hello - I'm reaching out to you since I saw you take action on Keyur Varsani's talk page. User "I meeet" made edits which were not encyclopedic and reverted. Therefore, I put a level 1 warning on his talk page, he deleted his talk page, then went on to clear my user page: edit 1. I placed another warning on his page to not do such edits as that is frowned upon, and he went on to add derogatory remarks in Gujarati on my user page: edit 2. Can you assist me in taking action against this type of behavior? Thank you! Apollo1203 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Apollo1203, that clarifies what the messages on User talk:Keyur Varsani were referring to. Since I meeet has stopped editing for now, I think the last warning you posted on User talk:I meeet should be enough. If I meeet continues to vandalize pages in the future, please submit a report to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV) and an administrator will handle it. — Newslinger talk 02:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Apollo1203 (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)