User talk:Newslinger

Thank you for your patience as I review and respond to your messages, emails, and notifications. To bring a matter to my immediate attention, please start a new discussion or post a new comment on this page.

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, 6: 30 days

Attention

Do you consider this edit disruptive? [1] I asked the editor a question, tagged them, and they didn't answer but instead 'thanked' me for directing them to the talk page section about the dubious tag they then removed. They did so despite clear, valid reasons for the tag, enough for someone to add it at my request, and with no good reason to remove it, given that strong evidence they were clearly familiar with was in the section (having previously, inappropriately, archived it) showing the tagged content was indeed dubious. I stumbled upon a couple discussions on the talk page of egregious factual errors and am making a good faith effort to rectify them and I'm learning to expect being bullied or derailed at every turn. Do I give up? To my eye, the action, whether intentional or not, is disrupting attempts to fix errors in the article. If this OK, I think I need to avoid such stumbling and leave the egregious factual errors, including the WP:living one I asked you about, in contentious-subject articles. I also welcome feedback on my edits to the page. When I share valid concerns or constructive ideas, they seem to be mostly met with deafening silence or worse. [2] too - no answer was provided to the edit request. (And exact quotes they ask for were already provided for the proposed fix below it that I haven't made into an edit request.) Feels like I'm facing great efforts being made to avoid discussion and resolution, rather than the opposite, which is what should be happening. RememberOrwell (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RememberOrwell, the inclusion of cleanup tags in a article is subject to consensus just like any other article content. In the discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory § WIV did perform genetic manipulation of SARS-related bat coronaviruses, there is currently no consensus to retain the {{dubious}} tag that you added via an edit request implemented in Special:Diff/1266607404. Because of this, the removal of the tag was not disruptive. I recommend resolving this dispute as a content dispute through discussion on the article talk page, and not as a conduct dispute. — Newslinger talk 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The removal of the {{dubious-discuss}} tag can be justified as you have, I see that. Though at the same time the action can be seen as problematic for the reasons I gave.

Anyway, what about the second diff? My edit request to restore the dubious-discuss tag was not answered. TP responded to my proposed replacement text below my edit request, but not to my edit request. Refusing to reply while disabling my edit request and labeling it answered when it isn't, isn't proper, as far as I can tell. How was that (the second diff I linked to) OK? Is reinstating the unanswered request to restore the tag OK? If not, why not? It is, as far as I can tell, but I'm seeing there are a lot of different ways to interpret policies, so i'm asking first. I'm not seeing any counter-argument on the talk page indicating there is currently no consensus to retain the {{dubious}} tag that I added. There's no consensus about what to do about the dubious "no evidence" statement, but I see no challenge to the evidence that makes it dubious. Can you help me understand why you say (what specific makes you say) there is no consensus?

Is it the case that an admin, can enforce some rules and ignore others? RememberOrwell (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RememberOrwell, your edit request was answered by Cannolis on 18:39, 6 December 2024, which is why the answered parameter of the {{Edit extended-protected}} template was changed to y. Edit requests can only be implemented if there is consensus for making the edit at the time the edit request is reviewed; this is the reason one of the default responses to edit requests is:

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.

Editors are not required to respond to every single argument or comment you make to hold an opposing view in a discussion. If there is insufficient support from other editors for implementing an edit request, then the edit request will not be implemented. — Newslinger talk 09:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions implied answers to my questions. I won't bother you further. Same. RememberOrwell (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Newslinger. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Twi

Hi,

If you could also protect Akan language, Bono dialect and Central Tano languages, I'd appreciate it. It's been months, and Bosomba refuses to engage in meaningful discussion. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please see Talk:Akan language § Resolving the content dispute, Talk:Bono dialect § Resolving the content dispute, and Talk:Central Tano languages § Resolving the content dispute. — Newslinger talk 03:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bypass Paywalls Clean for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bypass Paywalls Clean 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/Bypass Paywalls Clean 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 until the discussion has finished.

Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bosomba

Hi,

Are you willing to block Bosomba for continuing the edit-war? Whether it's due to bad-faith editing as I think it must be, or gross incompetence as others have concluded, he's clearly not going to drop this, nor to follow BOLD. — kwami (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. However, since you continued the edit war with your own reversions in Special:Diff/1288223993, Special:Diff/1288224230, and Special:Diff/1288224500, I have blocked you as well. This partial block applies only to the most recently edited articles (Bono dialect, Akan language, and Central Tano languages) and is intended to last for the duration of the dispute resolution process. When dispute resolution is finished for any of the articles, which can be accomplished by:

Completing a dispute resolution noticeboard case,
Having a valid request for comment closed, or
Reaching a consensus agreement for any of the articles through talk page or noticeboard discussion

please apply to be unblocked from editing the resolved articles. — Newslinger talk 17:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things,

Per BOLD, isn't edit-warring when you restore a reverted contentious edit, not when it's reverted?

Second, can't you protect the status-quo ante? The idea is not to freeze in disruptive edits. Regardless of the dispute, we're supposed to provide reliable info to our readers. — kwami (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your questions at User talk:Kwamikagami § May 2025. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As did I -- our policy states that you have a 'duty' not to protect an article in a version that violates our policies, such as RS. You can revert as far back as you like, but you shouldn't protect demonstrable nonsense. Revert back to before either of us edited those articles if you like - even if Bosomba believes what he's saying, at least that way WP wouldn't be stating falsehoods. — kwami (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comment at User talk:Kwamikagami § May 2025. — Newslinger talk 04:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

Perhaps revoke it for this guy? Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for letting me know. — Newslinger talk 09:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That WBC comment especially sucked. On the other hand, me being a 'shuck' might summarise the consensus :) Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the ways that can be interpreted, I'd take "an omen of death" who is sometimes "companionable". — Newslinger talk 00:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible LLM anti trans attack

Talk:Juno Dawson#2017 Attitude article seems to be an IP-hopping editor spamming a lot of “trans-skeptical” messages that sound suspiciously robotic, similar to User:Cajun Otter. I don’t know if you want to look into this or do anything about it. Dronebogus (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dronebogus, I've collapsed the LLM-generated comments at Talk:Juno Dawson § 2017 Attitude article and all of the responses to them. I've also welcomed, warned, and alerted the editor to contentious topics on all of their IP addresses. If the editor continues to post LLM-generated comments, please let me know or file a user conduct report at either the incidents noticebard or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 08:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dronebogus (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killamtrusts

I thought we had some sort of "grandfathering" for really old but still active organizational accounts. I was pondering what to do with Killamtrusts and then noticed you blocked it. The account has been around since 2006, which I suspect might be before the username policy solidified. The edits haven't been promotional, they've been pretty neutral. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anachronist, I decided on a hard block of Killamtrusts (talk · contribs) for both promotion and having an organizational username because I found Special:Diff/1085111991 to be promotional ("They are constantly developing, discovering, mapping and modelling the knowledge and solutions that will change Canada’s future.") and Special:Diff/1060789439 (which deleted negative information about Izaak Walton Killam) to be an edit for which the account has a problematic conflict of interest. Although the account is old, it is still active as of this year and every single one of its edits is related in some way to the Killam Trusts. I think it is reasonable to ask the account to change its name to comply with the username policy, disclose its relationship with the Killam Trusts, comply with the paid editing policy (if applicable), and make a commitment to refrain from making promotional edits before they are unblocked. Do you think this is acceptable, or would you recommend a different course of action at this point? — Newslinger talk 18:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's acceptable to me. I just wanted to understand your reasoning. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Collapse AI bottom

Template:Collapse AI bottom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]