User talk:Newslinger

PySimpleGUI - Page

Hi there, I was wondering why you decline certain submissions? I'm working with the creator of the "PysimpleGUI" page that was created in 2018 and I found this note regarding its rejection.https://en.everybodywiki.com/PySimpleGUI<ref> <ref> 2018-12-25 T12:00:28Z "Declining submission: nn - Submission is about a topic not yet shown to meet general notability guidelines (be more specific if possible) (AFCH 0.9.1)" Can you explain what needs to be done to meet the general notability guidelines? I am not knowledgeable on wiki guidelines so your help would be much appreciated.Thanks so much. 18:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.99.82 (talk)

Hi there, I declined Draft:PySimpleGUI because it did not meet the general notability guideline, which is required to establish that a topic is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. To show notability, the draft needs to cite multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the topic. The only source cited in the draft that would potentially count toward notability is the Opensource.com article, and the source is of borderline independence because the publication is owned by Red Hat. The other cited sources, which include directory listings, a forum post, and a blog post, are either primary sources or self-published sources, none of which count toward notability.

Draft:PySimpleGUI was deleted on 25 June 2019 because it had not been edited in six months. If you would like to continue working on the draft, please let me know and I will restore it for you. — Newslinger talk 23:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me about this, if you could restore the draft for us to edit, that would be much appreciated. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.99.82 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I have restored Draft:PySimpleGUI and you are free to continue improving it. Please feel free to ask me or the friendly folks at the Teahouse if you have any questions about editing. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Appeal against sanction to make edits freely in wikipedia

Hi there. I just noticed your edit in my talk page and apologise for the delayed response. I would like to appeal to be considered to be removed my sanction on edits on topics related to India, Afghanistan, Parkistan,etc. I understand the whole context of responsible editing and wish to request for the removal so that I would be able to edit freely. Thank you. Hari147 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I note that each edit this user has made between the sanction being applied and this appeal has been a TBAN violation. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. It seems like you have been following my edits everywhere in Wikipedia. I did not realize there was a block on me hence i appealed to User:Newslinger after this. I have not made any violations ever since this appeal. I would suggest that you move on and not unnecessarily stalk my posts. --Hari147 (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hari147, I am declining your appeal because it does not adequately address the concerns described in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267 § Hari147 (including the personal attack and the insufficiently explained edits), because the appeal was made too soon after the sanction was placed (20 June), and because some of the edits you have made after 20 June violated the topic ban (Special:Diff/964794670, Special:Diff/966305971, and Special:Diff/966306205). Please see WP:ACDS § Appeals by sanctioned editors for your other appeal options. To maximize the chance of a successful appeal, I recommend waiting at least six months from today, and using that time to make constructive contributions in other topic areas without violating the topic ban again. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Purple Barnstar
		For all the on and off site harrassment you've had to face and thank you for all the work you have done on the RS Noticeboard, I've learned a lot just from observing you, hope you don't mind. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind message, Tayi Arajakate! For the avoidance of doubt, I had to take a wikibreak to deal with a pressing off-wiki situation completely unrelated to anything on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

New slinger? News linger?

Just wanted to ask: how do I pronounce your name (in my head)? I see it often and wonder what it means. Thanks GPinkerton (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi GPinkerton, my username is a combination of the words news and slinger, and it's a fancy name for a newspaper carrier. See this video for an illustration. I hope this helps! — Newslinger talk 00:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It certainly helps. Thanks! (And keep up the good work!) GPinkerton (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, GPinkerton. You as well! — Newslinger talk 00:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Newslinger

Thank you for the warm welcome!

I am not hired or paid by any company to do the edits to Republic TV.

Regarding the revoking of my edit, i have cited a public source for the same and it seems accurate so why the revoke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa.Corden (talk • contribs) 08:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lisa.Corden, thank you for clarifying. Please be sure to read the neutral point of view policy and the policy on promotion, as this particular edit was extremely promotional and very much non-neutral. — Newslinger talk 16:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Promotional sockpuppet user

Hello Newslinger. I wanted bring your attention to this user. User:Cruz Mtz is using a music producer's name and is making edits which are similar to a user you had blocked. Dash9Z (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dash9Z, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've blocked Cruz Mtz for having an unverified username that matches the name of a well-known living person (Cruz Martínez). They may request an unblock after verifying their identity, but only if they stop editing promotionally. However, since the block notice on User talk:Kumbia Kings invited the user to create a new account representing themself as an individual, Cruz Mtz is not considered a sockpuppet. — Newslinger talk 01:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger Thank you. Dash9Z (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Henderson edits

Hello! If willing, can you look at the GregHenderson2006 thread on Coin? The user's contribs indicate they are solely here to promote their family history. Several of us in that thread thought he deserves a WP:NOTHERE block.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, ThatMontrealIP. I see that User:Greghenderson2006 contains a list of nine articles for which Greghenderson2006 has a conflict of interest, and that Greghenderson2006 has started to use COI edit requests for some of their recent edits. Considering that some of Greghenderson2006's articles have survived deletion, I don't think I can issue a block on WP:NOTHERE grounds. If Greghenderson2006 continues to edit in an excessively promotional way, it might be worth proposing specific editing restrictions to mitigate the conflict of interest rather than a full block. — Newslinger talk 04:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Cruz Mtz

Hello Newslinger. Please unblock this user. Identity has been confirmed in OTRS. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sam-2727, thank you for verifying Cruz Mtz's identity through WP:OTRS. I have unblocked this account. — Newslinger talk 03:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Fox close

please do not allow misinformation in the table - it has already begun. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Atsme, I've mocked up a proposal at WT:RSP § Two-entry proposal to steer the discussion forward. Please feel free to comment or suggest another alternative. I think the words "This entry is currently under discussion." should be enough to inform readers that the Fox News entries are not yet finalized. — Newslinger talk 05:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Anonymity...never know who all is participating in those RfCs. I'm really perplexed about whether or not we are doing the right thing regarding the process we're using to judge entire sources. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Citizendium has attempted the approach of disallowing anonymous edits and requiring all editors to disclose their real names. However, it "was unsuccessful in achieving its original goals from fifteen years ago". I do not think it would be a good idea to enforce a real-name policy on Wikipedia. The username policy explains, "Consider carefully before creating an account in your real name or a nickname which might be traced to you, as these increase the potential for harassment, especially if you edit in controversial subject areas." The third pillar states that anyone can edit Wikipedia, and I believe that all editors (including ones that don't disclose their identities) should be able to engage in project-space discussions as long as they follow our behavioral norms. — Newslinger talk 00:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

the alternative venue

Of course, that looked less like a DS appeal than an indictment against other editors couched as an appeal. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

​You're right. By moving it, I'm hoping that the next appeal will be made in the right place. — Newslinger talk 04:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for investigating and blocking sock puppets. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 02:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Marvin 2009! I hope you can find some other topics that you are interested in, and work on improving articles in those areas during the next six months. It is much easier to write articles about less contentious topics, and the community tends to give more appreciation to editors who contribute to different subjects. — Newslinger talk 02:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yes, it was labeled an essay. But, it was created by the author of the edit AFTER her edit and then referenced as if it existed before her edit. I suggest you self-revert. O3000 (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing others' comments (WP:TPO) states "The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." and "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". Your edit at Special:Diff/970058751 modified Atsme's comment and removed a link. To address the timestamp concern, a more agreeable approach would have been to simply ask Atsme to indicate that the comment was edited. — Newslinger talk 00:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, you shouldn't modify a TP edit after it has been responded to, to add support for your argument. I removed her violation as opposed to modifying her original edit. Secondly, it is patently dishonest to add a link to an essay you created after the post to act as if it existed before your post to support a concept that you have been pushing that someone else pointed out doesn't exist in WP policies and guidelines. Think about it. That's not how a dialogue works. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It's okay to make that objection, but there are more amicable ways of doing it that don't involve editing the other editor's comment. For example, you could reply in the discussion that the comment was edited, and include a link to the diff. Aside from the timing issue, I don't see the problem with creating a new essay and linking to it in a discussion. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't modify her comment, she did in violation of TPO and you restored her violation. And of course you cannot create a new essay and add it to a previous TP edit with responses. Think about it. O3000 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I've asked Atsme in Special:Diff/970063294 to note that the comment was edited, and Atsme has done so in Special:Diff/970063336. Next time, would you please consider doing this instead of editing the comment again? — Newslinger talk 01:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, O3000 has been stalking me - this diff demonstrates that he even went to the trouble of counting my edits despite there being 5+/- editors doing the same thing - and it has become more than just aggravating - it is downright creepy from where I sit as an editor whose RL ID is known - especially when it's the same 3 or 4 male editors who have been bullying, baiting or stalking this female editor - perceived or otherwise - call it what you will. It is a violation of our CIVILITY policies. I don't believe in iBans but I don't know what else to do to stop his harrassment. O3000 is an editor who, years ago, complained about my use of the word *sigh*, and I even stopped using it for his sake. When an editor keeps having to bend over backwards to accommodate what now appears to be an editor who is taking advantage of my goodwill, it isn't hard to see that I'm not the one causing the problem. We are not supposed to always agree on a controversial topic - but he has gone overboard, and it's not fair to me because he is sucking the fun right out of the enjoyment I get from editing WP. This is a warning to him stop, and I'm making it in the presence of an admin because I don't know what else to do. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, I did not edit the comment, she did. I reverted a violation. And, it is still a violation. You must add a new comment as a new comment, not modify a four day old edit which had been responded to with over a dozen new edits by inventing an essay and changing history. As MrX stated, there is no such thing as POV Creep. Her original edit was tendentious and this edit was a TPO vio. As for her false accusation above, it is disgusting. Particularly in light of the fact that she recently made other false accusations against me (as pointed out by Bish) and refused to revert them. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

All I did was add brackets to wikilink the words to the essay. You reverted that edit in MY comment section in an open discussion. What license do you have to do that? You need to STOP HOUNDING ME. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That is false. You created a new page and then linked to it as if it already existed to add substantial comment to an edit which had over a dozen responses. Now, you are making false accusations against me for the fourth time in the last couple weeks. If you have an accusation of hounding and stalking against me, make it in the proper forum. O3000 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A revert is a type of edit, and the comment is now guideline-compliant according to WP:TALK#REPLIED. I don't recommend interaction bans, but if both of you feel that a two-way interaction ban is necessary, then it can be implemented as a voluntary restriction. — Newslinger talk 01:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

News.., she just accused me of male bullying without a scintilla of rationale -- another outrageous personal attack making five in a week. No one in my dozen years here has ever suggested any such monstrous bigotry on my part. Does she realize that such false accusations harm women? It thoroughly disgusts me. I will accept a one-way IBan where she cannot respond to me. Obviously I would not accept a two-way IBan as all I have done is follow guidelines despite her continuing personal attacks. As pointed out by @Bishonen: [1][2] O3000 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have the diffs - I provided them then and I can provide them again. And you're doing it right now. Leave me alone! Newslinger He constantly comments on my comments - I sure as hell don't go looking for him like he does me - one way iBan against him. I could have simply added the definition to my discussion but why do that and be accused of bludgeoning? I simply wikilinked to the essay which defines it. Jiminy Cricket! It's commons sense - who doesn't understand POV creep - give me a break. Not one editor said anything about it when it was mentioned elsewhere on WP, and I used in my SignPost op-ed. I didn't make it up. This has gone waaaay beyond ridiculous. I didn't a damn thing that was noncompliant, and everything I've said has backed-up by diffs. Call Bish - she knows I accommodated you the last time but this has gone too far. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

Armadillopteryx^talk 05:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

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.

Armadillopteryx^talk 09:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of my Edit

Hey, there I just saw your edit on "Jai Shri Ram" Page. I would like to make an appeal and I think this would have been a mistake. I did mention "Possible Hindu-Phobic vandalism" on edit summary for a proper explanation of why info was removed from the page. I could write a new summary for explaining my edit in a much more complex form. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parassharma1 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Parassharma1, I did not revert your edit, but I did send you an alert because the topic area (India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan) is controversial, and some of the articles in this topic area may be subject to additional rules. If you try to edit one of the affected articles, you will see a message above the edit window that explains what the rules are. The Jai Shri Ram article currently does not have any of these special rules applied, but some other articles in the topic area do.

Feel free to explain your reasoning on the talk page, but please keep in mind that articles on Wikipedia are based on what is reported in reliable sources. You may find the simplified ruleset helpful. For the Jai Shri Ram article, you are more likely to have success by locating reliable sources and adding content that describes the ancient usage of the phrase, rather than by attempting to remove the current usage. — Newslinger talk 08:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hi, I raised some issues with a certain editor being a possible sockpuppet at ANI [3], you think there's sufficient evidence to go to SPI? Thanks--LucasGeorge (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi LucasGeorge, it would be best if you submit the evidence in a new sockpuppet investigation, and then replace your comment from ANI with a link to the investigation. SPI is the preferred venue for examining editor history when sockpuppetry is suspected. — Newslinger talk 21:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Request.

Hello, first of all, a warm greeting to you from me. You have been suggesting me with prestigious tips to write and provide a neutral and destined approach for the article "Jai Shri Ram" However, another mod named as "MelbourneStar" has been reverting my edits. It was suggested by you that the Introductory paragraph should be neutral. I did just that but he still flagged the edit. I am failing to understand his approach regarding this issue and thus gives out his possible support for communal atrocities. You seem to be like an unbiased and neutral mod who could see through the matter.

My next issue is, factshunt(.in) is a site which is not biased and could be trusted as a reliable source. I did provide this as a source but it still got flagged by him.

Wikipedia is a reliable source and trusted by people but at the end of the day. It is still managed by people, who are human too. I am thankful for the mod work you do for us but it saddens me to say that it would disturb the purity and reliability of the site if someone of its own (mod) has blind approach and motivates communal tendencies.

As per my right as an editor, I believe if my issues are not solved with a neutral approach I am entitled to rule against these issues by requesting a third person response and might even go further with the notice board dispute resolution for his edit. Apologies for the inconvenience caused. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parassharma1 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Parassharma1, I understand that there is currently high interest in the Jai Shri Ram article due to a recent social media campaign. Yes, the article including the lead section needs to stay neutral, but neutrality is not the same thing as removing all negative content. If you compare the Jai Shri Ram article to the Takbir (Allahu Akbar) article, you'll see that the Takbir article contains significantly more negative content than the Jai Shri Ram article. Removing all negative content from the lead section of the Jai Shri Ram article, especially when the content is supported by at least 21 high-quality reliable sources, is not justifiable under the due weight policy.

According to the edit summary of MelbourneStar's edit, your edit was reverted because it added citations to Twitter (RSP entry) and to Fact Hunt. Twitter is a self-published source, which is never allowed for third-party claims regarding living persons. Fact Hunt admitted in March that it was rejected by the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry), which indicates that it is likely a questionable source. If you would like to ask for more opinions on the reliability of Fact Hunt, please start a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 21:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

FAQs on all controversial Hinduism-related pages

Hello there, Newslinger. I am the same IP editor that first pinged you about adding an FAQ template to the article about "Jai Shri Ram", and I noticed that the Dark Lords at OpIndia seems to be planning on targeting other articles (whoopsies! I hope that You-know-who doesn't attack me for insulting him!). So, I thought it would be best if Wikipedia added an FAQ template to each such article listing and countering all possible arguments against Wikipedia's writing style. Here is a draft which I thought may outline what I mean:

Q. Why does this article show the subject in a bad light?

A. Wikipedia and its editors in no way intend to denigrate any culture/ethnicity/nationality/religion/organisation. Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say about the subject, and almost never based on what the subject says about itself. Reliable sources note that this subject is used in a negative way, and so this article notes that as well. This does not imply that the subject itself is inherently bad.

Q. I don't like what this article says! Can I edit it or at least suggest a change?

A. Yes, you may edit the article if it is not protected and you are sure that your change is acceptable. If you are not sure about your change, or if you can't edit the article as it is protected, please suggest the change using an Edit Request. Please remember that your edit must satisfy the following:

1. It must be supported by reliable sources
2. It must not involve removing negative information about the subject unless that information is not supported by a reliable source

Q. (Especially relevant to Jai Shri Ram) This article says that the subject is used for bad things, but I don't believe that it is used in such a way! Who is right?

A. Please remember that just because you have never seen this subject being used for bad things doesn't mean that it is never used for bad things. For example, you may have only seen cases where the subject was involved in only positive things, but at the same time, other people use the same subject for bad things. The article doesn't say "Subject is always used for bad things". On the contrary, it says "Subject is used by a certain group for bad things".

Please let me know what you think. 45.251.33.234 (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for crafting this well-written FAQ. I'm going to add it to Talk:Jai Shri Ram with some additional links to the relevant policies and guidelines. The only caveat is that the FAQ template does not show up on the Wikipedia mobile website, which means that most editors who use a smartphone to access Wikipedia will not be able to see it. However, it is still an improvement over providing no message at all, and I appreciate your help reducing tension in this topic area. — Newslinger talk 05:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, Newslinger. Would it be possible for you to add similar FAQs on any such page that would trigger OpIndia? Or is it not necessary at the moment? 45.251.33.234 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. From what I understand, the two articles that have been repeatedly targeted by OpIndia are the 2020 Delhi riots and Jai Shri Ram articles. The article on the 2020 Delhi riots may benefit from having an FAQ, although I would expect the content to be different, since riots are generally considered "bad", and the controversy is mostly regarding where the blame should be assigned. I'm going to ask the editors at Talk:2020 Delhi riots whether they believe an FAQ would be helpful there. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay then, though I think it may be better if you looked for some other controversial articles as well that still haven't been targeted and considered whether they are significant enough to warrant an FAQ. 45.251.33.234 (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)