User talk:Newslinger

This is Newslinger's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

Nagarro Paid tag

Hi Newslinger. I have already disclosed my employee status with Nagarro and the change made during the editing has been reversed. Does the page still require the paid tag? Please suggest if there are further steps to be taken. Furthermore, I had requested for partial page protection as the page gets edited frequently with wrong information. Buzztrack (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buzztrack, thank you for disclosing your relationship with Nagarro. I've removed the tag, as it no longer applies. On 6 March, I declined your request for page protection because the edit history of the article appears to be fairly stable, with few reversions. Please feel free to submit another protection request if editors start continuously adding information that is not verifiable to reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 12:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about an unblock

Hello Newslinger, you have me a little confused with this unblock] of a username violation. The username was not changed and the user showed no signs of wanting to discuss. Additionally, they were not talk page blocked, so they would've still been able to edit their talk page to discuss. Could you please explain? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheSandDoctor, to avoid biting editors, I generally don't block editors solely for username violations if they have already received a username warning on their talk page, unless they continue editing without addressing the warning. I blocked BlueEnvy for having a promotional username after deleting User:BlueEnvy under WP:G11, but did not notice that NonsensicalSystem had already posted the {{uw-coi-username}} warning on User talk:BlueEnvy. When I noticed the warning, I unblocked BlueEnvy to be consistent with how I usually handle these username violations.

Feel free to block BlueEnvy again. It's been two months since BlueEnvy's last edit, so I don't think it makes a difference whether they are blocked at this point. — Newslinger talk 20:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Newslinger, thank you for responding & apologies for my late response. Of course we don't want to block new users, but sometimes it's the best way to prevent disruption (in this case, using the site for self promotion). UPOL also says essentially that users are only exempted from being blocked without warning if they are making constructive edits. This user only made a promotional edit to their user page. It is also worth noting that they could have discussed the issue on their talk page without an unblock since talk page access was never revoked. The templates are only intended for edge cases, as is mentioned in the docs of Template:Uw-username. While I appreciate your attempt to assume good faith, and to give the user a chance to discuss, I think that was a bit too lenient of an approach here. So, in this case I will be reinstating a block on the user, as you suggested. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I'll handle cases like this one more strictly in the future. — Newslinger talk 18:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newslinger/common.js

Would you mind adding linkbacks to my script in there? (And I'm sure the others would appreciate them too.) It helps with the Special:WhatLinksHere results. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! My ad blocker was interfering with the script installer, so I had added your script manually. I'll be sure to use linkbacks from now on to help with tracking. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. It looks like WP:ANI § Indian Politics was resolved before I was able to see it. — Newslinger talk 06:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Offensive Security or as a draft, if available?

Hi Newslinger, Over here [1] I requested an undelete or move to draft of the deleted Offensive Security, and haven't seen any action, because that person has been inactive. Last time, asking you to do it was enough to make it happen before you got a chance.[2] Could we do please do that again? Or undelete/move to draft if you beat them to it? Thanks! -- Yae4 (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yae4, thanks for working on this article. I've restored it to Draft:Offensive Security since it doesn't have any cited sources at the moment. — Newslinger talk 11:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there was already a longer draft at Draft:Offensive Security that was deleted under WP:G13 (abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions). I've restored that draft to Draft:Offensive Security, and the article that was originally at Offensive Security is now at Draft:Offensive Security 2. — Newslinger talk 11:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And double thanks for the extra digging!! It's a little odd that the newer draft2 has so much less than the ~10 months older one, but timing... :) -- Yae4 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! — Newslinger talk 12:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Do you agree Kali Linux NetHunter Edition and NetHunter should be combined? If so, any suggestion which should be kept and which become a redirect? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both of the articles look like they're describing the same software, which is referred to on Kali's website as both "Kali Linux NetHunter" and "Kali NetHunter". I think "Kali NetHunter" is the best article title, since it is more concise and it is used in the title of the Packt-published book. Personally, I would merge Kali Linux NetHunter Edition into NetHunter, since the first article is less comprehensive and only cites primary sources. Whether you want to move "NetHunter" to "Kali NetHunter" is up to you. More sources use "Kali NetHunter", but "NetHunter" is more concise and neither title needs to be disambiguated. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: Done for now. Would it make sense to delete Draft:Offensive Security 2 now (I don't think I can)? If you have time to give things a look, I'm open to any other suggestions. Thanks again. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the article! If the edits in Draft:Offensive Security 2 were older than the edits in Offensive Security, I would have been able to perform a history merge. Unfortunately, Draft:Offensive Security 2 is the newer article so there isn't much that can be done. The draft is minimal enough that I've just redirected Draft:Offensive Security 2 to Offensive Security. — Newslinger talk 08:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't know

You're named on Opindia. "harbinger & promoter of vandals". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that when it was released.

Soumyadipta.banerjee, who harassed other Wikipedia users on Twitter over a hit piece on OpIndia that he helped author, is unhappy that his Wikipedia account had been identified and blocked. Soumyadipta.banerjee also confessed to engaging in undisclosed paid editing. He hired Chandan Manna, Jiahimedluke, and Bittu me to write the now-deleted Soumyadipta Banerjee article on himself. (He's not notable.) All of those accounts have also been blocked. All's well that ends well. — Newslinger talk 19:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would think with a pandemic going on around the world, they would have moved on from harassing Wikipedia editors to helping Indian society. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just read a previous version of your user page. I agree 100%. Well-said. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange! Banerjee's logic is also very questionable. He previously hired a paid editing agency to write about himself and other clients in violation of the Terms of Use. Fast forward to 2020, and he assists OpIndia with doxing a Wikipedia editor; I block him for that. In response, he publishes a rant on OpIndia that blames Wikipedia for the fact that he hired paid editors. What kind of distorted reasoning is that? He also criticizes Wikipedia editors who choose not to reveal their identities, because he's unable to dox them. Well, I suppose it's fortunate that Banerjee boasted about his paid editing operation, because he brought attention to some spam that needs to be removed.

Thanks for reading the "Notes on OpIndia". The editor of OpIndia (Nupur J Sharma) declared "war" on Wikipedia, and the notes are like caltrops – if OpIndia ever mentions my username again, they will expose their readers to something that most certainly does not "keep up the narrative".

As for the coronavirus, Sharma was repeatedly tweeting about how the coronavirus isn't a problem, and that everyone needs to disregard it. After Narendra Modi addressed India on 19 March, Sharma flip-flopped and started tweeting about social distancing (with accusations against Muslims and Chinese people mixed in). Strange world. — Newslinger talk 23:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems weird for someone so involved to block an account that has not edited in almost eight years. Meh. PackMecEng (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The off-wiki harassment occurred earlier this month, and it's an especially egregious case. Although the Soumyadipta.banerjee account last edited in 2012, the associated undisclosed paid editing (which is in the process of being mapped out) is much more recent. Before the block, I had never interacted with the account or the individual who operated it. — Newslinger talk 03:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vym_(software) (Free/Libre Open Source) Output Excerpt Copyright Violation or Not?

Vym_(software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Background: A redirect was changed to a new page.(History) The intro/lead for the new page was the same as Section "What is vym?" in the overview at a source.[3] In reviewing the new page, GermanJoe deleted almost all of the introduction/lead and changed it to a brief statement, calling the source not reliable, and vanity press; and calling the copied text a "copyvio". After Talk discussions, Germanjoe changed mind and agreed the source was reliable (valid self-published), and restored it as a source; however, the question of copy/paste was not resolved, and GermanJoe suggested I may get other opinions. [4] So, I'm asking for your opinion. More details: The software is licensed under GPL2.[5] The page the excerpt was taken from says, "This page was exported directly from vym."[6] Recent source files do contain nearly the same wording that was copy/pasted, although not precisely the exact same. The logic, therefore, is: Output Help info from a GPL2 software, from a web page, may be freely copy/pasted (as long as credit/source is included), which was done. I know the cautious thing is to always reword everything, but... I'm pursuing this further because being under a "blocked from editing without further warning" 3rd warning status is an uncomfortable threat, which I believe is not warranted. I also note my previous 2 warnings were, IMO, based on very conservative interpretations of copyright fair use (i.e. my copy/pastes were very small excerpts of much longer articles). Last, if preferred, I could take this to copyright Q's.[7] -- Yae4 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yae4. Unfortunately, according to WP:COMPLIC, the GPLv2 and all other GNU copyleft licenses are not compatible with Wikipedia's CC BY-SA 3.0 license. GPLv2-licensed text is treated like non-free content, which means that we are generally not allowed to copy and paste the text into articles. There are cases where non-free content is allowed on Wikipedia, but they tend to be for attributed quotations and embedded media (images, audio, video, etc.), rather than unquoted text. For the Vym article, it would be ideal to paraphrase content from the documentation when a primary source is needed. Secondary sources are still preferred, if they have the information you need.

Don't worry too much about the warning on your talk page – copyright is very tricky and difficult to get right. If you treat all outside text as proprietary for the purposes of Wikipedia, you won't have an issue in the future, and your own wording would most likely be more encyclopedic than the original text. Feel free to ask the copyright questions noticeboard, since the folks there are probably more experienced in dealing with copyright issues than I am. — Newslinger talk 20:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin intervention

Hi, can you take a look at this user's conducts on the Gorani language page? It's getting ridiculous and I've reached my three-revert rights[8]. Unexplained removal of academically-sourced content and accuses it/me of having 'ethnic motives' --Semsurî (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Semsûrî. Unfortunately, since this looks like a content dispute and not obvious vandalism, I am unable to intervene in favor of any particular version of the article. Have you considered discussing the issue on the talk page (Talk:Gorani language), asking one of the relevant WikiProjects (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iraq, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages) for input, starting a request for comment, or escalating this to the dispute resolution noticeboard?

Also, please be careful not to violate the three-revert rule. On the Gorani language article, I see four reverts from you and four reverts from برسام on 25 March. Because of this, I have to send each of you a warning. In the future, even if another editor is the first to revert an article, please try to discuss the issue with them instead of repeatedly reverting the article back. Once there is consensus on the talk page for a particular version of the article, feel free to implement that version. (Silence implies consensus. If there are no responses on the talk page after a day or two, feel free to restore the article to your preferred version.) — Newslinger talk 06:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Admin eye needed at Joe Biden

Hi Newslinger,

Could you look in on this thread and advise on how to move forward? Serious allegations against Biden are being blocked from the article with claims of poor sourcing and undue weight. Biden's response to them is also being removed. From past experience with allegations against powerful politicians here, I wanted to get advice early on in the process. Thank you, petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petrarchan47, I've responded at Talk:Joe Biden § Tara Reade. Administrators are able to take action on conduct disputes, but we're much more limited when it comes to content disputes like this one. Here, your best bet is to escalate the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Once you assemble reliable sources documenting the allegations, you'll want to argue that the incident is noteworthy enough to be included in the article under WP:BLP § Public figures (WP:BLPPUBLIC). The result of the discussion will depend on the strength of your arguments and the sources they are based on. Good luck. — Newslinger talk 07:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is why we like you. To be be clear, it is not my intention to complain about conduct. I haven't got the time to litigate that type of thing. I simply wanted the exact advice you gave: how to deal with this situation in a very straightforward manner according to the PAGs. I have observed in the past that a little input from an admin regarding PAGs can put a halt to any conduct issues that might be simmering (though this is not a comment on current events). Many thanks, News. Best, petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark at WidgetsUSA

Hi, Newslinger! I looked at this username and didn't think it needed to be blocked for that reason – it seems to be a typical Mark at WidgetsUSA name, where the first six letters are the person's name and the rest that of his company. However, I doubt if it'll be a great loss to the project if it stays that way ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, Justlettersandnumbers. I wasn't aware that Bezkod is a name. With that in mind, it's clear that BekzodiTicket.uz is an acceptable username under WP:ISU, and I've unblocked the account. I will do more research when evaluating these types of usernames in the future. — Newslinger talk 21:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't know it was a name either until I searched for it. We live and learn! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes

I noticed your edits on Natalie Portman and wondered why you're removing the Forbes articles, there are nothing wrong with them as far as I am aware. In fact I was wondering if it was a miss-lead interpretation of contributors. Forbes operates differently in some area's and contributors with Forbes, quite a few of them specialise in a particular field of the news. Others make up the bulk of research work, that shouldn't be negated. [9]. Govvy (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Govvy, in past discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard, most editors considered Forbes.com contributor articles equivalent to self-published sources due to lack of editorial oversight. The Columbia Journalism Review confirmed that the contributor model used by Forbes.com suffers from poor editorial oversight; one contributor said, "In terms of editorial oversight, I wrote 164 articles for Forbes in three years and I received feedback from my editor maybe a total of six times." The Poynter Institute noted that "There is no traditional editing of contributors’ copy, at least not prior to publishing." BuzzFeed News presented a case in which a contributor used Forbes.com and other contributor platforms to promote his clients with sponsored content without disclosure. The Outline documented another case of the same situation.

All in all, the Forbes.com contributor platform does not have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:V and WP:RS. Feel free to escalate this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like to solicit opinions from others, but it's unlikely for the consensus in the last 11 discussions to be overturned. (Forbes staff articles don't have the same issues, and I don't remove them because they're not considered self-published.) — Newslinger talk 12:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, In the past I've actually added a couple of those citations to wikipedia, don't ask me where I put them because I hella don't remember, going to have to remember now to double check if the writer is a contributor or not when it comes to Forbes. Govvy (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the past citations; someone will eventually clean them up as people become more aware of the situation. Currently, most people on the Internet (and quite possibly most editors on Wikipedia) aren't aware of the large differences between Forbes staff writers and Forbes.com contributors. It's disappointing that Forbes chose to dilute its brand this way, but I suppose this is one way for them to survive as revenues in journalism continue to decline. — Newslinger talk 22:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Music

Hi there,

I am trying to write an article for an Argentinian Based music company "Chaos Music". But I am getting the following error. "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism". If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact an administrator on their talk page or by email.

Can you please help me resolve the issue. I Will really appreciate it...--Rashijain1992 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rashijain1992, I've responded at WP:AN § Chaos Music. You can work on your draft at Draft:Chaos Music. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 22:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, Newslinger - I can't seem to locate the RfC or discussion that created or decided Perennial Sources could be a supplement to the RS guideline. Can you point me in the right direction or provide a diff so I can review the process? Thanks in advance...^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atsme, the RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 60 § RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?. There was also an earlier RfC on whether the perennial sources list should be linked from the reliable sources guideline at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 59 § RfC: Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 23:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions?

Any suggestions/advice for how to deal with things like "Go away, anti-science POV warrior."[10] Or this sort of "warning"[11] Also, is it considered appropriate to raise questions on Noticeboards without informing others on the related Talk pages?[12] I note the first, re: Skeptical Science, was raised by the name-caller, and the second, re: Nakamura (article I created), is by the same editor who posted a "warning" on my Talk, both without notification (and I'm called tenditious?). -- Yae4 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yae4, while the comments you linked to are negative in tone, I do not think they are sanctionable on their own. You are free to escalate your report to the incidents noticeboard, but discussions there tend to be counterproductive unless the behavior you report is serious enough. Editors are asked to use the {{Ftn-notice}} when mentioning "specific editors" on the fringe theories noticeboard, although this does not appear to be a strict requirement. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tips at WP:CIV § Dealing with incivility might also be helpful. — Newslinger talk 07:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate/Health/Science Feedback on RSPS list

A late congrats to you and Snoogans...I suppose...

This looks like small version of what cartoonist and web developer John Cook and blogger Dana Nuccitelli et al went through to create the global warming or climate change "consensus" studies.

Re: "Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source"

This determination was based on 3 "surveys" of Wikipedia editors (with 15 participants giving opinions). Mixed support opinions are assumed to count as full support, giving 87% (13 of 15) of editors support the consensus view. LOL

Oh the irony of EmVincent using Wikipedia pillars for A/B/C Feebacks, but also COI editing the Climate Feedback article.

Full support: Snooganssnoogans, Andromedean, Galobtter, Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, MastCell, Ronz, Newslinger, Nblund: 9

Mixed: Obsidi, Daß Wölf, jps (?), ImTheIP: 4

No: PackMecEng, Peter Gulutzan: 2

Just argumentative: Hob Gadling

Note: The 4th discussion didn't really discuss Climate/Health/Science Feedback at all, although it's in the title. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Moved to Draft

Hello Newslinger, recently you've moved article to draft for it being under-sourced but I am failing to see what was missed. Would you be kind enough to expand on which parts of the article are under-sourced so I can go ahead and make the necessary changes? Thank you and have a great day.