User talk:Newslinger

Request to instated rollback permission permanently

Hi admin, you granted me temporary rollback permission on 21 February 2021. The temporary permission has since lapsed, could you help to instated permanently permission. I have been using the temporary rollback mainly for Huggle usage and sometimes via Recent changes patrolling usage as well. Thanks you. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paper9oll, thank you for rolling back over 500 unconstructive edits over the past month. Your rollback permission is now indefinite. Keep up the excellent work! — Newslinger talk 07:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Hi admin, Thanks a lot. Have a nice day and happy editing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. You too! — Newslinger talk 08:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

PCR lapsed

Hello Sir, You granted me temporary PCR right for a trial. The right has no lapsed, I want to let you know if you could check my edits and make this right permanent. Sorry to bother you. Thankyou. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Iflaq, it's not a bother at all. Thank you for reviewing 54 pending changes in the past month. I've performed a spot check of the reviews, and they look fine. Your reviewer permission is now indefinite. Keep up the good work! — Newslinger talk 22:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou very much 😇 Iflaq ^(talk) 04:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for volunteering! — Newslinger talk 04:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Are my edits controversial? I tried to stay as neutral as possible. BlackAmerican (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi BlackAmerican, the messages at User talk:BlackAmerican § Controversial topic area alerts are standard notices issued to editors who demonstrate interest in controversial topic areas. In your case, the Super straight article is covered under special rules (discretionary sanctions on gender and sexuality and post-1992 American politics) mentioned near the top of Talk:Super straight. Many editors involved in controversial topic areas receive a notice about once per year for each topic area. Please be aware of the rules, but beyond that, there is no action needed on your behalf.

If you would like to opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions at {{Ds/aware}} to place an awareness banner on your user talk page. — Newslinger talk 12:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the Ds/awareness template here on your talk page. Maybe the controversial topic alert banner could contain that information? Or even a link to that information? Surveying the list of controversial areas, I see a bunch more I ought to include. -- M.boli (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi M.boli, I do think it's a good idea to include a note about the {{Ds/aware}} opt-out option in the banner. However, since {{Ds/alert}} is under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, significant changes to the banner require the consent of ArbCom.

There is a general understanding that the discretionary sanctions alerting system could use improvement. ArbCom members have indicated in a recent clarification request that they intend to reform parts of the system later this year, with the alerting system being one of the parts that would be overhauled. There is a good chance that ArbCom will accept comments from the community during the reform process, and that would be a good opportunity to suggest this change to the template, assuming that the alerts are here to stay. — Newslinger talk 14:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom has opened a consultation about discretionary sanctions at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021 review/Consultation, and I've mentioned amending the {{Ds/aware}} template there. Feel free to join in the discussion.​ — Newslinger talk 07:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

2Famous2UseMyName

Would you please revoke TPA? This is a pretty clear BLP vio. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and I've also revision-deleted the violating text. Thanks for pointing this out. ​— Newslinger talk 08:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick work! I edit-conflicted with you, trying to remove the post myself. Thank you for taking care of it. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for looking at this issue. — Newslinger talk 08:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Brian Timpone for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brian Timpone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Timpone (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Help plz

Hello Newslinger! I think I've made an error. I uploaded this image:

to the commons for use in the super straight article. I made it in MS Paint and based it off of the flag which is being used for the movement. When I uploaded it, I said it was my work (and it is, I mean, I drew it) but I think (and I'm not sure) that means the wiki commons thinks I held the copyright to the work at some point. It's an emblem composed of simple geometric shapes and, therefore, uncopyrightable, so I think I ought to delete this version and reupload it, specifying that it is a public domain image. Is that even the right thing to do?

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to delete things from the commons, and I don't know how to tell the commons that I'm uploading a public domain image, other than by telling the commons that it's very old (which this isn't). And for all I know, I don't understand something else important. Help a noob out? Joe (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi JoePhin, the easiest way to correct the license is to edit the c:File:SuperStraightFlag.png § Licensing section and replace the {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} template with {{PD-shape}}. — Newslinger talk 14:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Newslinger, that worked perfectly! I didn't even know you could edit commons files, I feel a complete idiot. Cheers. Joe (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Newslinger, I somehow managed to delete a bunch of stuff. What was that I was saying about being an idiot? Anyway, I was just trying to fix it, but you had already fixed it. Sorry for wrecking your page. I I'm such a moron. Joe (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Not problem. I'm glad you were able to change the license of the image. ​— Newslinger talk 10:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@JoePhin: Actually, I think I recommended the wrong template. The image is too complex to be simple geometry, so the correct template is {{PD-simple}}. Sorry for the inconvenience. — Newslinger talk 11:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Newslinger. No inconvenience, far from it, that's helpful too! Joe (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for always being kind and helping me whenever I reach out to you. Ashleyyoursmile! 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Ashleyyoursmile! I appreciate all of the work you do to counter vandalism and spam on Wikipedia, and I'm glad to help when I get a chance. — Newslinger talk 16:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Request Topic Ban repeal.

Hey I got your message and one of the options to post was to do so here. Look clearly I was too head strong when I refused to revert my edit after breaking the 1rr, which I did not know about at the time and had not read, but at the end of the day that is on me. I did not like the tone of the person who filed the report and was annoyed by what I found to be dishonest tactics in on the talk page objecting to my edits. But of course I still should have reverted from the start. As I said before, it won't happen again I understand the 1rr and will follow it to the letter in the future. Thus I hope to have this topic ban repealed. I get why it happened, but I think the ban is unneeded. You guys showed that I was wrong and I am sorry for that. If not repeal at least some tweaking to make it less permanent. Thanks and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Given the above apology, maybe reduce it to a week giving 3Kingdoms time sip WP:TEA and the opportunity to edit other topic areas? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi 3Kingdoms, I am declining your appeal, because the consensus of the uninvolved reviewers of the arbitration enforcement report (Special:Permalink/1015008851 § 3Kingdoms) is that the topic ban is justified, and because – as one of the reviewers noted – you continued edit warring on the Rashida Tlaib article (in Special:Diff/1014773929) while the discussion was in progress.

Please review the policy against edit warring and the guide to dispute resolution, which outline some of the expectations for editing Wikipedia articles in controversial topic areas. The standard time frame for appealing an indefinite topic ban is a minimum of six months. Your best course of action is to edit in less controversial topic areas for at least six months before filing an appeal. Although you may file another appeal by following the instructions at WP:ACDS § Appeals by sanctioned editors at any time, an appeal is highly unlikely to be successful until you demonstrate constructive editing in other topic areas for a significant period of time. — Newslinger talk 06:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Do topic bans apply to Talk pages as well? 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

​Yes, Wikipedia:Banning policy § Topic ban (WP:TBAN) describes the scope of a topic ban and the meaning of the term broadly construed. ​— Newslinger talk 15:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the response. I don't agree but none the less I accept. I hope to show it can be lifted. Thanks have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting the decision. Most topic areas on Wikipedia are less controversial than the Palestine-Israel topic area, so there are plenty of articles that you are able to edit. The bold, revert, discuss cycle is an effective process to resolve most content disputes, and I highly recommend it. Best of luck in the coming months.​ — Newslinger talk 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Matthew Berdyck's sockpuppets!

This guy was the first vandal I ever ran into that talked back, so I remember him well. I took his personal attacks as something of a badge of honor at the time, and I kind of like having them on my talk page. I still occasionally do google searches for his name on wikipedia.org, so I was surprised that I hadn't seen him pop up again, but I guess the talk and help pages aren't indexed. Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you for keeping on top of things, and for ferreting out even his old socks like Rightventracleleft, which I ran into last year. Thanks! Knuthove (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Off-wiki harassment is a serious issue, and I try my best to insulate Wikipedia from these types of bad actors. Thank you for helping keep Wikipedia free of vandalism.

By the way, I usually have better luck finding things with the advanced search feature on Wikipedia than with Google or any other search engine. The user and draft spaces are not indexed by external search engines, and there are certain noticeboards that are also excluded from indexing, but talk pages in other namespaces are generally indexed. ​— Newslinger talk 15:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about searches! I'll use that over google from now on. And thanks again for your work! Knuthove (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

About the source you used in your most recent Signpost article

I’ve added info from the Harvard source to the Ideological bias on Wikipedia article about how Wikipedia was Categorized as “Center-right”. If you want to add more info to what I’ve already added, then please go ahead. I also want to ask you if you still think the center-right description given by Harvard back in 2017 is still accurate for Wikipedia’s US political leanings today, as well as if their assessments of RealClearPolitics and the National Review are still accurate today. X-Editor (talk) 04:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi X-Editor, thanks for this. The statement in the article specifies the year 2017, so I think it should be fine. Without a new study using the same methodology, I don't know whether the descriptor still applies right now. However, it did in 2017, and can be mentioned in the article as a claim in a peer-reviewed academic publication. — Newslinger talk 05:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I’ve already added it to the article. If there is anything more from the study about Wikipedia that you want to add to the article, the feel free to add more. By the way, why do you think Wikipedia got the center-right rating in 2017? X-Editor (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

​The "center-right" valence, in the context of this study, is a measure of the political orientation of the audience on Wikipedia. The paper does not elaborate on the possible reasons for Wikipedia's center-right valence (since it focuses on the American media landscape as a whole rather than Wikipedia specifically), and I am hesitant to speculate without seeing more research on this. However, the ubiquity of Wikipedia explains why the average Wikipedia reader leans closer toward centrism than the far-left or far-right. Sorry for the lack of a better answer. — Newslinger talk 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Thanks for answering. X-Editor (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. If you ever come across more research that covers this topic, please feel free to share it. This is a subject that I'm curious about, too.​ — Newslinger talk 16:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Maybe I will try to research more into the subject in the future. But the issue is that most of the results would probably be full of conservative media screaming that we are far-left, rather than any actual studies or academic results. By the way, where do you personally think Wikipedia’s US political articles stand on the political spectrum? X-Editor (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I generally prefer not to make statements about politics on Wikipedia unless they are substantiated by external sources. The op-ed was a rare opportunity for me to perform a meaningful analysis of data related to this topic, but unfortunately, this kind of data is hard to come by. It's always important to remember that the English Wikipedia is not the American Wikipedia, and that articles on US subjects are written by editors around the world using citations of both domestic and international sources. Because of this, Wikipedia's articles about the US or any other country are not necessarily going to reflect a weighted average of the views of that country's population.​ — Newslinger talk 03:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s okay. Thanks for your insight! X-Editor (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Can Oommen be protected? It has a huge amount of vandalism. æschyIus (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Already done. El_C beat me to it. Thanks for reporting this.​ — Newslinger talk 14:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Opindia update

Dear sir, this is regarding Revision as of 12:59, 14 April 2021 (edit) (undo) (thank) Newslinger (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 1017572218 by LTbharat (talk) Could you please cite a source for this? I can't find any information on Chandan Kumar being OpIndia Hindi's new editor, not even on social media. Claims about living persons require citations to reliable sources

Please refer https://hindi.opindia.com/about/ - which reads as below:

ऑपइंडिया (हिन्दी) के वर्तमान संपादक चंदन कुमार हैं जिनसे [email protected] पर सम्पर्क किया जा सकता है। उनके साथ डिप्टी-एडिटर की भूमिका में अजीत झा हैं जिनका पता [email protected] है।

I have added the page link as well as a reference.

Please also refer to https://twitter.com/UnSubtleDesi/status/1368987791296634887?s=20 which reads - jeet Bharti has today left OpIndia to start his independent venture. Team OpIndia wishes him all the best and hope his new venture becomes a success!

Please approve my edit. thanks in advance.

LTbharat (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi LTbharat, that was exactly what the article needed. I've expanded the citation and added Kumar's name to the infobox in Special:Diff/1017780793. Thanks for following up on this. — Newslinger talk 15:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Newslinger, Thanks a ton. Please keep guiding. - (LTbharat (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC))

No problem! — Newslinger talk 15:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brian Timpone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGBH.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed — Newslinger talk 06:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Plebian-scribe (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I am experimenting with this site and how to edit as I am new here. Im am concerned about what I consider to be an extreme level of political bias concerning some pages to the point where it directly effects the accuracy of certain pages, especially concerning current events. I have been told this, while I have also had cited and sourced post removed from certain pages without explanation at all. Can you please elaborate more on why this is happening to my post? Thanks.