User talk:Inlinetext
ANI notice Feb 11
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DocTox (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Reverted your edit on AFD
[1] with clearly senseless edit summary. If you have no evidence how any of the editors have been canvassed then don't tag. It would be considered personal attack. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- See diff. You pinged both these editors about this topic. Since, other editors have complained about both your alleged "meat-puppetry" on similiar articles diff, it is a relevant behavioral factor affecting the final outcome at that AFD discussion depicting past vote-stacking.Inlinetext (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- They edited the article without ever being pinged. Your diff is very new compared to [2][3] and the other "editors" you are trying to use for shielding your disruption got blocked for it. So you will be if you don't stop these senseless accusations right here. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- What on earth are you talking about ? Which editors got blocked ? You deliberately pinged 2 editors with a known position. You failed to ping User:Noopur28. You had previously done a malafide redirect of this article to "Maratha Empire" diff. IPs were also used for these redirects User:2402:3A80:8F4:14C4:D9CB:3254:7DF2:D687 with identical rationale to yours.You are a returning editor who was blocked for the same kind of sock-puppetry as were also the other two. If anybody should be careful it should be you. Don't threaten me.Inlinetext (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Overcite
Please read WP:OVERCITE and don't edit war. It isn't one you will win. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for showing me that. But is it a policy or a guideline or only an essay? I am confused because it says at very beginnig Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.. Since you already expressed all India newspapers are piece of sh** for reporting Crime in India, why not have the RfC like for recent Daily Mail to settle the matter ? Till then don't trash excellent Indian news portals and papers. Inlinetext (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is a widely accepted and quoted page. Nowhere I have said that all India newspapers are as you describe. You are just showing yet more of your pugnacious bias. You need to stop before you get into trouble: it rather looks like you are already teetering on the brink. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
ANI report
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sitush (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- It seems to be a misuse of ANI by you and so it was closed promptly.Inlinetext (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- No. It was a misused of AfD by the person who asked for it to go there. And I've just reverted your POV at the rape article - that source is useless, as per the point raised at the AfD some days ago. We have enough Dalit activists here without someone else joining in. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- This was a poor idea, too. Do you really expect the closer to check geolocations? - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, the The Journal of Social Inclusion (JoSI) is a peer-reviewed academic journal that will contribute to current knowledge and understanding of the social processes that marginalise individuals, families and communities. The journal will be published bi-annually under the guidance of an International Editorial Advisory Board. The Journal of Social Inclusion (JoSI) is an initiative of the School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith University.. The author is at an eminent Indian University. I am reverting you so that the AFD can proceedly smoothly and important scholarly sources are not suppressed from the closing admin. The first IP geolocates to adjoining state of Punjab and the second is from Jaipur State Capital of Rajasthan. It seems to be important that apparently outraged local voices should not be excluded irrespective of whether they are Dalits or activists.Inlinetext (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was merely applying what was said at the AfD. If you want to get consensus for use then take it to WP:RSN. The so-called scholarly article was written almost contemporaneously with the events it described. That is rarely a sign of scholarship. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- What was said at the AfD about this source was that anybody can open an account at the journal and post there. Obvously not true. Since it is a bi-annual publication, perhaps there was a deadline.Inlinetext (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
You really are heading into deep shit, edit warring with numerous people on various pages. Even if you're right, you're doing it in the wrong way. You should challenge whoever it was that pointed out some apparently dodgy practices involving that journal. As you were bold enough to add the thing and were reverted, it is incumbent on you to discuss. See WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just saw this. Will do so at the AfD.Inlinetext (talk)
March 2017
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —JJBers 00:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Please stop
@Inlinetext: I understand that you may be mad, but don't go ahead and attack me multiple times, on my talk page, and on the talk page of Delta Meghwal rape case. This may be reported to WP:ANI sooner or later. Thank you. —JJBers 02:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Weighing in
Perhaps you would consider weighing in on my talk page to help clear up some confusion, certainly on my part. El_C 20:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Parker Conrad and BLP
Remember what BLPCRIME says:
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured."
So keeping that in mind, the questions are: 1. How public is this individual? 2. Isn't mentioning the investigation in the opening sentence constitute undue weight? 3. What is the issue with the COI tag in the article? Specifically, what issues have you identified? (Remember, being a paid editor is permitted, you need to explain what issues due to that are effecting the article.) El_C 01:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop following where ever I go, and making edits. That's clear wikihounding. —JJBers 04:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- This is about Delta Meghwal rape case? El_C 04:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, it is about this when I asked this user to explain why s/he repeatedly defends User:Simfish's blatantly promo and NPOV paid edits by reverting.Inlinetext (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's neither of those, it's when Inlinetext commented on my pending changes reviewer request, and how she suddenly edited churches in Norwalk, Connecticut (an article which I was a large dispute in) shortly after I joined in the AFD on the article. —JJBers 05:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's an open process and the community can be alerted about granting permissions which can be misused for reasons of WP:BIAS and WP:CENSORSHIP especially since Wikipedia is under a great deal of media scrutiny nowadays and edits like this are unacceptable .Inlinetext (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- What? I have no clue what your point was. That was about a experienced user that acted uncivilly in one reply, and I pointed it out to him. —JJBers 05:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- That was today(?!). Please take this as an
official warningabout personal attacks, JJBers. The next one may result in you being blocked from editing. El_C 05:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- That was today(?!). Please take this as an
- Oh. I see why you think this is a problem, it's actually a quote from the user (In green text), and this diff here. —JJBers 05:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ah! Okay, good. Because that looked bad. Thanks for clarifying. El_C 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- fwiw, I interpret mad in the context used as "angry". That's not a personal attack as I see it DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Using a standard English dictionary like the Cambridge one link, u would see that in British English "mad" equates to (1) mentally ill or unable to behave a reasonable way (2) extremely silly or stupid (3) Angry (in that order) whereas in American English it goes (1) Angry or annoyed (2) Excited and not well controlled (3) enthusiastic (4) Mentally ill or unable to behave in a reasonable way. It is thus very clear that the other user has a lot to learn about civility and culturally-sensitive communication instead of treating my well-founded objection as a ground to drag me to ANI.Inlinetext (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- fwiw, I interpret mad in the context used as "angry". That's not a personal attack as I see it DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ah! Okay, good. Because that looked bad. Thanks for clarifying. El_C 05:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's neither of those, it's when Inlinetext commented on my pending changes reviewer request, and how she suddenly edited churches in Norwalk, Connecticut (an article which I was a large dispute in) shortly after I joined in the AFD on the article. —JJBers 05:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- No, it is about this when I asked this user to explain why s/he repeatedly defends User:Simfish's blatantly promo and NPOV paid edits by reverting.Inlinetext (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. How would somebody color blind guess that ? This school student is far too loose with his/her 'prissy' interjections and treats Wikipedia as a social network. For example s/he said this about me "@Inlinetext: I understand that you may be mad," a few sections back on my talk page. An adult non-'US English speaker' would likely deem that an insult.Inlinetext (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, that's a personal attack right there. —JJBers 14:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- Comment. How would somebody color blind guess that ? This school student is far too loose with his/her 'prissy' interjections and treats Wikipedia as a social network. For example s/he said this about me "@Inlinetext: I understand that you may be mad," a few sections back on my talk page. An adult non-'US English speaker' would likely deem that an insult.Inlinetext (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
ANI Notice, 5 March 2017
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —JJBers 15:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
I didn't use your name in this COIN thread, but it does mention some of your statements. You are of course welcome to contribute to the discussion. Brianhe (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the courtesy :-) I have no problem editing under this name. Inlinetext (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC).
Note about COI stuff
Hi Inlinetext. You may or may not know that I worked a lot on COI issues at COIN until about 6 months ago, when I made a mistake and violating OUTING and got a TBAN for that (my contribs at COIN). I just recently got that lifted.
Looking at the COIN history, your participation there began a few days ago (your contribs there).
I would like you to understand, that a lot of us have been working on addressing COI issues for a long time, and that this work is somewhat controversial. There are some hardcore/strident anti-COI people, the big bulk of the community doesn't much like COI/PAID editing but doesn't like drama either, and there are some hardcore "content not contributor" people who don't mind COI/PAID editing but harshly oppose any discussion of editors based on who they are. The community has been moving slowly toward doing more to address COI/PAID editing. This is a good trend. But that trend can change.
I hope you can hear this but in my view your postings about the Vipul matter in particular, and about COI matters generally, are way too strident, and you are making claims that go well beyond the evidence.
You are free to do as you like, of course, but please hear me that:
- a) in my view, these kind of strident claims harm the overall effort to manage paid/COI editing; they create noise and drama that turns people off
- b) in my view, these kind of strident claims create a distraction from dealing with the Vipul matter.
- c) If you continue making claims that go beyond the evidence, you yourself can become subject to sanctions.
Would you please tone it down, and keep it toned down? As I said, you are free to do as you like, but it would be better for you and everyone else if you did. Thx Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been ages since I posted to COIN. I'll be cooler in future, if at all.
- It's not that the evidence is not there, it's that it can't be presented publicly over here under the present system. For instance I would not have linked to his employers the way you can. Perhaps I'm old skool.
- The immediate problem: How do you propose that paid/conflicted edit disclosures are communicated effectively/conspicuously so that readers/consumers are likely to notice and understand them ? I don't think that article talk page disclosure is adequate, and neither is pasting a COI template "on article" since it is hidden in mobile view.Inlinetext (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with everything Jytdog just said. Most recent example: the accusation that someone is associated with Majestic SEO because of a coincidentally similar username, was not helpful. I can attest from my examination of the evidence that there is an active center of recruits from Pacific Northwest high schools who are in all likelihood somewhere between simply gullible and unaware of the scope and nature of the enterprise, or aware that it is nefarious but unaware of the impact in participation will have on their future reputations. Pardon the mixed zoological metaphors, but we will have enough fur flying in this case without fishing for red herrings. - Bri.public (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just wanted to butt-in here and say thank you ALL of you for the attention and considerations that you have created with this COI situation. Jytdog especially for speaking out since this whole thing looked fishy and the outing issues are a little twisted in this case. If Jytdog had not taken up this group for COI, I believe that they would have continued unstopped. I'm not afraid to be bold but sometimes getting involved in a problem like this is just so far off of what regular wiki-gnomes and editors do, that I think many editors like myself tend to back away from trying to really fix something like this. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Another piece of free advice. Please use words like "apparently..." or "indistinguishable from..." more freely. When you say "X did Y" then the burden of proof is on you, and people's feathers get (more) ruffled. - Bri (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I just wanted to butt-in here and say thank you ALL of you for the attention and considerations that you have created with this COI situation. Jytdog especially for speaking out since this whole thing looked fishy and the outing issues are a little twisted in this case. If Jytdog had not taken up this group for COI, I believe that they would have continued unstopped. I'm not afraid to be bold but sometimes getting involved in a problem like this is just so far off of what regular wiki-gnomes and editors do, that I think many editors like myself tend to back away from trying to really fix something like this. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
Thanks for proposing Wikignoming on the Providence (religious movement) page! Didn't know that it was a technique that exist. Avataron talk 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC) |
Hi there, re: this, I think you're confused about what original research is or isn't. Summarizing a film's plot doesn't qualify as original research, because the film itself is a primary source and can be used for non-controversial content like plot. Interpretations of the plot, if unsourced, or if based on one's own opinion, would be original research, as original research refers to content for which there is presumably no reference. Your edit has been reverted. Please see WP:FILMPLOT for more info. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, whereas WP:PLOT is policy and policy says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. IMHO, a film cannot be an independent source about itself. MOS:PLOT also speaks of a mix of primary and secondary sources; to be used be dealt under WP:RS. What was deleted was apparently an editor's interpretation of their personal viewing. Inlinetext (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Concern about undisclosed paid editing
Hi there, responding to your comment about undisclosed paid editing for Jubilee (DJ). I received no monetary compensation for this article. There are also ample sources that cover all of the information included in this article, so if there is a particular source that is in dispute, I'm happy to swap it out for a better one. While I am a fan of this artist's work, I am not at all associated with her marketing or promotions and do not believe this article violates conflict of interest. Thanks, luvtoucans
- ".. compensation" means an exchange of money, goods, or services.". Since there is a local policy known as WP:OUTING, I can only allude to my concern about 2 citations which I have retained in the article. Please feel free to improve the article with better sources, preferably mainstream ones, since this is about a living person and we have to be extra careful. Inlinetext (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)