Photo manipulation
Ok - my question is why haven't the other networks been downgraded for the same reasons Fox News was downgraded? The same issues that caused the downgrading of Fox News have occurred in all other news sources, if not worse when considering the return of Pulitzers, and also includes photo manipulation such as what happened to AP, a news wire service, and the NYTimes among others. The talking heads (pundits) on all networks are no different from Fox talking heads in that they are all expressing their political opinions, but only Fox was downgraded. I agreed with the Fox close because I was under the impression that it would work the same way across the board, as did others, but that has not happened. Worse yet, the issues surrounding CNN, MSNBC, etc. whose political opinions/journalistic opinions align on an opposite parallel with that of Fox News have not been downgraded. I'm of the mind that downgrading one source's political news/opinions as unreliable while not doing the same for the political news/opinions of other sources compromises WP:NPOV, and some rather strong arguments were presented in that regard. In retrospect, the aforementioned gives the appearance that the grading process is negatively affected by Ideological bias on Wikipedia, and I am concerned that it has compromised the consensus building process and our ability to maintain a NPOV in our articles. It is truly sad to think that RS/Perennial is being used as a tool that favors one POV over another which, hopefully, was not the original intention but it does handicap our ability to provide all substantial views. I'm certainly open to your suggestions for correcting this problem as well as the best way to move forward. Atsme Talk 📧 12:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Atsme, photos are usually not accepted as citations on Wikipedia because interpreting a photo is often considered original research. In response to your main question, the simple answer is that the CNN RfC and MSNBC RfC in August did not close with consensus to reclassify these sources. The extended answer is that – from these discussions – the Wikipedia community does not consider Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC to be equivalent in reliability for some types of content. Sources of each reliability classification are not necessarily evenly distributed across the left–right political spectrum, so the differing classifications for Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC do not by themselves indicate a problem with Wikipedia's consensus model. Additionally, Wikipedia's editor base includes not only Americans, but also plenty of editors from other Anglophone countries, which means that the consensus on the reliability of various American cable news networks among English Wikipedia editors is likely to differ from the consensus among general-population Americans. — Newslinger talk 05:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- RS/N should not have their own subset of rules & guidelines; rather the purpose of that noticeboard is to explain and/or confirm the applicability of WP:RS as currently written. Our rating system is seriously flawed and actually conflicts with WP:RS. Just curious...do you trust movie reviews by reviewers who never even saw the movie? Is that not what we're doing in our RfCs regarding some of the participants? I'm of the mind that if the ideological bias on Wikipedia were reversed, Fox News would probably not have been so boldly downgraded - the results would more likely be the same as CNN's and MSNBC's, but that is just speculation based on my professional experience as a former media professional. My concerns now are retrospective in that Fox News was not treated fairly in light of the ratings given for CNN & MSNBC in the Perennial table. Fox News has both a and section for its opinion shows (politics and science), whereas CNN and MSNBC do not, and not unlike Fox, they have more than their share of screw-ups. Of course, we know that bias does not make a source unreliable, but uncorrected mistakes do carry weight, and we also know that partisan opinions (all talking heads on all news cable networks) must use inline attribution, if not intext attribution; the same applies to fringe science and the opinions of talking heads who are not experts. Fox News was downgraded to boldly include those 2 separate sectons which, in retrospect, strongly indicates WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, because the same isn't applied to the opposition networks. Considering Fox News is the most watched, most trusted cable news network, and one of few to get the story right about Trump and Russian collusion, (including their talking heads), I find it rather bizarre that the gross failures and misinformation that was provided by the other networks over the course of 4+/- years regarding that subject are considered non-issues when evaluating those sources for reliability, and that is a problem. We are now hearing crickets about that fiasco from most left leaning sources whereas FOX is one of the few RS that is providing their viewers with important information and updates. I can't help but wonder if WP's downgrading of Fox News, and the resulting media attention it drew, Streisand effect, may explain why Tucker Carlson became the most-watched cable news show ever, according to a September 30, 2020 article in Poynter, wherein it states Tucker Carlson’s show not only had the highest-rated quarter, it had the best viewership numbers in the history of cable news. Good job, WP. Atsme Talk 📧 15:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Atsme, everything on Wikipedia is based on consensus. Policies and guidelines are written by consensus, discussions are decided by consensus, and article content is determined by consensus. Gauging consensus involves starting a discussion to find a result, rather than presupposing a result and then shaping a discussion to support it. When consensus does not align with an editor's position, the editor can change consensus by convincing other editors with differing views to adopt that position. If the others don't find the arguments convincing, the only remaining option is to accept the current consensus and (assuming that the editor's position has not changed) prepare more convincing arguments to be presented in future discussions.
I found your "most trusted cable news network" claim interesting, so I did a little bit of research. A late 2019 Pew Research survey found that, among 30 major US news outlets, Fox News was the fifth-most trusted outlet (43%) among all US adults (behind four other cable news networks), but also the most distrusted outlet (40%). Breaking these numbers down by political affiliation, Fox News was the most trusted (65%) and 15th-most distrusted (19%) outlet among Republicans and Republican leaners, while it was the 15th-most trusted (23%) and most distrusted (61%) outlet among Democrats and Democratic leaners. As I mentioned before, the English Wikipedia community includes many non-US editors, so a survey of Wikipedia editors would most likely look different. However, the Pew Research survey provides a more realistic look at how Fox News is received among general-population Americans. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I do understand and respect consensus, and I also see areas where Bryce Peak's article is applicable with a slight modification to make it applicable to news media. Surveys are good fodder for consideration, but so are ratings. Media is going to spin survey percentages with reasoning that will satisfy their demographics, and that's just good business. On the other hand, we are an encyclopedia and must look beyond media spin and bias to satisfy our 3 core content policies. Consensus can change and it will. The NYTimes, even with its spin, provides a realistic approach to ratings, and their headline speaks volumes about Fox News: Boycotted. Criticized. But Fox News Leads the Pack in Prime Time. Common sense tells us there's a reason for it, and we can either dismiss or spin the reasons, but when we do, are we considering the definition of "mainstream" and/or "conventional"? Does consensus benefit the project or the ideological bias on Wikipedia? Short answer, it depends on two things: the numbers and the closer(s). Our 3 closers summarized their close as follows:
In other words: for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable.
That close is not what we see in the table at WP:RS/Perennial for Fox, whereas CNN and MSNBC which had the same results regarding science & political, (op-ed) are presented differently in the table, and that is what concerns me and what I believe must be changed. Atsme Talk 📧 18:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC) And then there's this huge screw-up by CNN re:Sandmann that was...uhm, overlooked when evaluating reliability? It's another reason I strictly follow our PAGs! 20:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)- Atsme, why did you add "relative to Professor Bryce Peake's" to my comment in Special:Diff/981342163 and then respond with "...I also see areas where Bryce Peak's article is applicable..."? I'm not familiar with Peake.
Now that I have a better idea of what you are looking for (changes to entries in the perennial sources list), I can recommend the following venues for further discussion:
- If your arguments focus on analyzing the content in previous noticeboard discussions, the best venue for your proposal is WT:RSP.
- If your arguments focus on new arguments not presented in previous noticeboard discussions, the best venue for your proposal is the noticeboard itself.
- I'm reluctant to participate in discussions about American politics that are not limited in scope – American politics is not one of my core interests, and you'll obtain more comprehensive feedback from other editors who are more engaged in this topic area. — Newslinger talk 00:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, I got distracted, opened another tab to find the link to Peak's article that I was referring to, came back to this page, posted the first part of my thought "relative to..." (obviously in the wrong place because it should have followed my linked consensus to Peak's article, not yours,) and it all went to hell in a hand basket from there. I did something similar not too long ago for the same reason, got distracted, opened another tab to get links, etc. Back on point and I'll make it brief - the Perennial table should only include the closers' summary exactly as they worded it less "In other words":
Period the end. All the other embelleshments should be removed. It should be handled like the The Australian, CNN, and others like it. Why was it changed from this to something that is not the exact summary of the closers? Atsme Talk 📧 01:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)In other words:for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable.- No problem. The Fox News entries were the result of the long discussion in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 4 § Fox News. If you would like the CNN and MSNBC entries to be revised, you can start a new discussion at WT:RSP. From what I can see, the CNN entry did not change after the CNN RfC, and the MSNBC RfC resulted in the MSNBC entry being created in Special:Diff/973344732. It would be best to have this discussion on WT:RSP, which is watched by more interested editors than my talk page is. — Newslinger talk 01:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, you linked to a discussion that took place after the panel's close of a formal RfC at a different venue. The closers' summary statement was unambiguous as I indicated above. For consistency, the Fox News section in the Perennial table should appear as all other generally reliable sources that have a no consensus limitation for politics and science. We do not change or modify a panel's formal closing statement in favor of a non-formal discussion with no formal closing that was reached at a different venue, and that is exactly what happened. I consider it a violation of policy and now that you've reverted my edit after I attempted to correct the violation, I will take this to AN for resolution. Atsme Talk 📧 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- WT:RSP is the correct venue for determining the content of WP:RSP. Sometimes, consensus does not align with an editor's preferences. For example, my proposals in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 4 § Workshop did not receive the strongest support. Feel free to escalate this to WP:AN. — Newslinger talk 03:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, you linked to a discussion that took place after the panel's close of a formal RfC at a different venue. The closers' summary statement was unambiguous as I indicated above. For consistency, the Fox News section in the Perennial table should appear as all other generally reliable sources that have a no consensus limitation for politics and science. We do not change or modify a panel's formal closing statement in favor of a non-formal discussion with no formal closing that was reached at a different venue, and that is exactly what happened. I consider it a violation of policy and now that you've reverted my edit after I attempted to correct the violation, I will take this to AN for resolution. Atsme Talk 📧 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. The Fox News entries were the result of the long discussion in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 4 § Fox News. If you would like the CNN and MSNBC entries to be revised, you can start a new discussion at WT:RSP. From what I can see, the CNN entry did not change after the CNN RfC, and the MSNBC RfC resulted in the MSNBC entry being created in Special:Diff/973344732. It would be best to have this discussion on WT:RSP, which is watched by more interested editors than my talk page is. — Newslinger talk 01:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, I got distracted, opened another tab to find the link to Peak's article that I was referring to, came back to this page, posted the first part of my thought "relative to..." (obviously in the wrong place because it should have followed my linked consensus to Peak's article, not yours,) and it all went to hell in a hand basket from there. I did something similar not too long ago for the same reason, got distracted, opened another tab to get links, etc. Back on point and I'll make it brief - the Perennial table should only include the closers' summary exactly as they worded it less "In other words":
- Atsme, why did you add "relative to Professor Bryce Peake's" to my comment in Special:Diff/981342163 and then respond with "...I also see areas where Bryce Peak's article is applicable..."? I'm not familiar with Peake.
- I do understand and respect consensus, and I also see areas where Bryce Peak's article is applicable with a slight modification to make it applicable to news media. Surveys are good fodder for consideration, but so are ratings. Media is going to spin survey percentages with reasoning that will satisfy their demographics, and that's just good business. On the other hand, we are an encyclopedia and must look beyond media spin and bias to satisfy our 3 core content policies. Consensus can change and it will. The NYTimes, even with its spin, provides a realistic approach to ratings, and their headline speaks volumes about Fox News: Boycotted. Criticized. But Fox News Leads the Pack in Prime Time. Common sense tells us there's a reason for it, and we can either dismiss or spin the reasons, but when we do, are we considering the definition of "mainstream" and/or "conventional"? Does consensus benefit the project or the ideological bias on Wikipedia? Short answer, it depends on two things: the numbers and the closer(s). Our 3 closers summarized their close as follows:
- Atsme, everything on Wikipedia is based on consensus. Policies and guidelines are written by consensus, discussions are decided by consensus, and article content is determined by consensus. Gauging consensus involves starting a discussion to find a result, rather than presupposing a result and then shaping a discussion to support it. When consensus does not align with an editor's position, the editor can change consensus by convincing other editors with differing views to adopt that position. If the others don't find the arguments convincing, the only remaining option is to accept the current consensus and (assuming that the editor's position has not changed) prepare more convincing arguments to be presented in future discussions.
- RS/N should not have their own subset of rules & guidelines; rather the purpose of that noticeboard is to explain and/or confirm the applicability of WP:RS as currently written. Our rating system is seriously flawed and actually conflicts with WP:RS. Just curious...do you trust movie reviews by reviewers who never even saw the movie? Is that not what we're doing in our RfCs regarding some of the participants? I'm of the mind that if the ideological bias on Wikipedia were reversed, Fox News would probably not have been so boldly downgraded - the results would more likely be the same as CNN's and MSNBC's, but that is just speculation based on my professional experience as a former media professional. My concerns now are retrospective in that Fox News was not treated fairly in light of the ratings given for CNN & MSNBC in the Perennial table. Fox News has both a and section for its opinion shows (politics and science), whereas CNN and MSNBC do not, and not unlike Fox, they have more than their share of screw-ups. Of course, we know that bias does not make a source unreliable, but uncorrected mistakes do carry weight, and we also know that partisan opinions (all talking heads on all news cable networks) must use inline attribution, if not intext attribution; the same applies to fringe science and the opinions of talking heads who are not experts. Fox News was downgraded to boldly include those 2 separate sectons which, in retrospect, strongly indicates WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, because the same isn't applied to the opposition networks. Considering Fox News is the most watched, most trusted cable news network, and one of few to get the story right about Trump and Russian collusion, (including their talking heads), I find it rather bizarre that the gross failures and misinformation that was provided by the other networks over the course of 4+/- years regarding that subject are considered non-issues when evaluating those sources for reliability, and that is a problem. We are now hearing crickets about that fiasco from most left leaning sources whereas FOX is one of the few RS that is providing their viewers with important information and updates. I can't help but wonder if WP's downgrading of Fox News, and the resulting media attention it drew, Streisand effect, may explain why Tucker Carlson became the most-watched cable news show ever, according to a September 30, 2020 article in Poynter, wherein it states Tucker Carlson’s show not only had the highest-rated quarter, it had the best viewership numbers in the history of cable news. Good job, WP. Atsme Talk 📧 15:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
2FA woes
Hey, Newslinger. I wonder if I might get a little help. I didn't realize when I switched phones that the authentication app wouldn't transfer. I can't figure out how to use my scratch codes; I logged in, and when it asked for verification, entered one of the scratch codes, and it says verification failed. Am I supposed to do something else? Thanks for any help. 2605:A000:C7C3:D00:9495:C433:E269:954B (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there, did you enter the scratch code in all caps? I've tried a few scratch codes, and it looks like they are case-sensitive. Spaces don't matter, though. — Newslinger talk 10:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Got it, thank you! 2605:A000:C7C3:D00:31FB:A59D:BEBF:8DD1 (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem! I've added this information into H:2FA § Logging in with 2FA to make things clearer. Thanks for letting me know about this. — Newslinger talk 11:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Got it, thank you! 2605:A000:C7C3:D00:31FB:A59D:BEBF:8DD1 (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Effectively George Soros finance through Open Society Planned Parenhood, that's why for is a true fact that he's fighting for the abortion even like a murder business. This fact is only important for the pro-life people, but it's not a theory.ç Tuliopakardovas (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)tuliopakardovas.
- Tuliopakardovas, What? Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 16:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Tuliopakardovas, the content that you had removed from the List of conspiracy theories article in Special:Diff/981926197 is supported by multiple reliable sources, and should remain in the article. — Newslinger talk 13:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey
Sorry for stepping on your toes there with the block conflict. We appear to have reached the same conclusion from different angles though, so that's a good thing. Cheers. – bradv🍁 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. My block was just an interim block until the investigation was complete, because the user was personally attacking other editors. Your CheckUser block is the one that counts. Thanks for taking care of this. — Newslinger talk 02:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Recently active admins list - request
Hi, having seen you were recently active I thought I'd try and ask directly about a number of issues at Great Barrington Declaration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which also spills out into Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Great_Barrington_Declaration, a related question here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Byline_Times, and originated here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Great_Barrington_Declaration.
A number of recent editors are brand new SPAs (two with names referencing the article's contents) with surprisingly high Wikipedia literacy. I may have reverted too many times already I think, but the article is now a mess and I suspect some administrator action is required. Can you please take a look? GPinkerton (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi GPinkerton, the Great Barrington Declaration is covered under the COVID-19 general sanctions. Editors participating in this topic area should ideally be notified with the
{{subst:Gs/alert|topic=covid}}
template. If you would like to dispute specific portions of text within the Great Barrington Declaration article, I recommend using requests for comment on the article talk page, which will attract more editors to this recent topic. The declaration is also within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which may have some interested editors; consider asking them on the project talk page. I will keep an eye on the article as it develops. — Newslinger talk 04:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)- Thanks; it was particularly these recent edits that I have qualms with, given that they quite change the meaning and are all uncited, especially the extraordinary claim that "
The World Health Organization has also urged governments to resist using lockdown in this manner, but such urgings have to date fallen on mostly fesf ears
". Given the high volume of pageviews, I still think some level of temporary protection might be useful. Notifying WP:MED is a good idea, thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)- At this time, I don't think page protection or page-level restrictions would be particularly helpful on the Great Barrington Declaration article, since most editors appear to be engaging on the talk page. However, if you notice any editors who are blatantly violating policies and guidelines in the COVID-19 topic area, even after receiving repeated warnings, the correct venue for filing a report is the administrators' noticeboard (WP:AN). Please see WP:GS § Community sanctions for the full process. — Newslinger talk 04:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks; it was particularly these recent edits that I have qualms with, given that they quite change the meaning and are all uncited, especially the extraordinary claim that "
Block
Please block User555554354678 (talk · contribs), persistent vandalism on Earthbound. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked. Thanks for reporting this. — Newslinger talk 05:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Why my page is deleted?
I recently submitted a page and it was pushed to speedy deletion after I added references from official pages of different companies. Prior to that I was asked from a Wikipedia representative to add more references. Can you please help me in understanding where did I go wrong? My page title - Draft:Ajay Kumar Journalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajay Kumar Journalist (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Ajay Kumar Journalist, the page Draft:Ajay Kumar Journalist was deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11 (unambiguous promotion or advertising). The draft was excessively promotional and read like a cover letter for a résumé, with language like "strived hard to build", "maintained absolute supremacy", and "has effectively coordinated" throughout the article. At the bottom of the page, you wrote that the draft was "My Profile Page for Wikipedia". However, as reviewer Theroadislong mentioned, Wikipedia is not intended to be a host of personal profiles or résumés. Wikipedia discourages editors from writing about themselves, since it is very difficult to do so neutrally. If you would like to create a profile for yourself, please consider an alternative outlet, instead. — Newslinger talk 17:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Locked out of talk page for Great Barrington Declaration
I know I lost my temper with G. Pinkerton and violated Wikipedia's rules when responding to his condescending and personal insults.
I have to admit that, as a woman in science/tech, I found his comments so incredibly reminiscent of the worst sort of condescending sexism I have experienced that I saw red and lost my temper, which I shouldn't have done.
I will be more careful in the future.
However, I hope you have been even-handed in your response and have locked him out as well. As you can see from the chain of comments, while I take responsibility for my own actions, and don't mean to hide behind 'he started it', it would be very inappropriate to give him a pass while locking me out.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modailkoshy (talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Modailkoshy (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)modailkoshy
- Hi Modailkoshy, the message in User talk:Modailkoshy § Controversial topic area alert is just an informational notice, and not a warning or a sanction. As far as I can see, you're not locked out from Talk:Great Barrington Declaration at all, and you are still free to participate in discussions on that page. — Newslinger talk 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's a good thing I saw this by chance, or else I would not have done, not having been notified, and I would not have been able to dismiss this for the aggrieved slander it is. GPinkerton (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ideally, it would be best to focus on discussing content, and not escalate a content dispute into a conduct dispute. If there is too much disruption on the talk page to focus on content, then I recommend filing a report on the administrators' noticeboard in line with the process described in WP:GS § Community sanctions. — Newslinger talk 19:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's a good thing I saw this by chance, or else I would not have done, not having been notified, and I would not have been able to dismiss this for the aggrieved slander it is. GPinkerton (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Brian K Horton - MickMacNee connection
JacktheJiller has just made a long post pretty much confirming that they are indeed MickMackNee. They also made a deeply nasty comment about Guy Macon, just shows that they are a vile individual. One of the users mentions another MMN alternate account, "Sidereal" on Wikipediocracy from late 2014, prior to the creation of MMAR. Are there other accounts that bridge the time between the banning of Neetandtidy early 2012 and late 2014? It always suprises me how tiny and pathetic the Wikipedia "criticism" communities are, a rogues' gallery of aggrieved banned ex-editors, perhaps at most comprising a dozen active members, most of which have a long history with wikipedia spanning a decade or more. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- This Glindr post also confirms that Genderdesk is indeed the operator of the Ond_Tvilling account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Hemiauchenia, thanks for the links. The phrase "good name" (used in the Reddit post) is not an accurate description of the reputation of the user who "has consistently and egregiously violated Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism by engaging in a variety of disruptive, hostile, and uncollaborative conduct" and "has been repeatedly sanctioned for disruptive conduct by numerous administrators" including "three indefinite blocks, as well as sixteen other blocks longer than 24 hours in duration", according to this 2011 arbitration case, which concluded in the user being indefinitely blocked by the committee.
There are many off-wiki sites, including social networking sites, blogs, and forums, that comment on matters related to Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipediocracy has received participation from Wikipedia editors in good standing, including some Arbitration Committee members, so I wouldn't dismiss it so thoroughly. Having said that, I don't think it's worth it to focus on bad-faith comments that are made on social media (such as that Reddit post), unless it would make a significant difference to some on-wiki matter. At this point, all of the accounts associated with this long-term abuser have already been indefinitely blocked and globally locked, so the best path forward would be to revert, block, and ignore any new sockpuppets that emerge. — Newslinger talk 04:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Hemiauchenia, thanks for the links. The phrase "good name" (used in the Reddit post) is not an accurate description of the reputation of the user who "has consistently and egregiously violated Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism by engaging in a variety of disruptive, hostile, and uncollaborative conduct" and "has been repeatedly sanctioned for disruptive conduct by numerous administrators" including "three indefinite blocks, as well as sixteen other blocks longer than 24 hours in duration", according to this 2011 arbitration case, which concluded in the user being indefinitely blocked by the committee.
- This Glindr post also confirms that Genderdesk is indeed the operator of the Ond_Tvilling account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Sock farm
I blocked and tagged a few socks -- ChitranshYasharth896 (talk · contribs) but I don't know if this is the original master, I've just blocked and/or tagged those that were active over the past couple of weeks, there's some overlap of articles/content with socks that you've blocked, so thought I'd let you know in case you can assign this to the right master. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi SpacemanSpiff, and thanks for bringing this up. Although these accounts have made some edits on high-profile political and religious topics, I don't think there are enough behavioral similarities to other sockpuppets that I had previously blocked to conclude that they are related. Your tagging looks perfect to me. — Newslinger talk 04:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Daily Beast
Hi NS. I disagree with the upgrading of Daily Beast from yellow to green (which, yes, I just noticed, a year later). The Dec 2019 thread (#3 currently on the list) wasn't formally closed, and strikes me that it could have been closed as either consensus or no consensus. I don't remember if that discussion was widely advertised (do you recall?). The subsequent 2020 thread (#4 on the list) seems to cast even more doubt on whether there is consensus that DB should be green. What is the custom/procedure for revisiting this? One of those 4-option RFCs? Should I wait until after December? Is there a "queue" for these RFCs, or do I just post one at any time? Do you think the RFC would be a waste of time, i.e., everyone will say generally reliable? Sorry for all the questions, and thanks! Lev!vich 17:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Levivich, after reviewing all four discussions on The Daily Beast (RSP entry), I agree that there is no consensus on its reliability, primarily because discussion #4 expresses more caution than discussion #3. I've changed the classification back to "no consensus..." in Special:Diff/984621426. In the future, I think discussions like this one would be more suitable for WT:RSP, since that talk page gets more attention than my user talk page. Thanks for bringing this up. — Newslinger talk 03:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The change was reversed in Special:Diff/985069025, and the discussion continues at WT:RSP § The Daily Beast changed to "no consensus". — Newslinger talk 03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Could you please recover my user page?
Hi, Could you please recover my user page? I don't quite sure why my user page had been deleted. However, I have a project which was required me to edit on Wikipedia and it is quite important for me. Thank you. S4504955 (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi S4504955, from my end, it doesn't look like you have ever had a user page. Do you have any other Wikipedia accounts? I did delete your user talk page (User talk:S4504955), but only because it was created by another editor who – for some reason – created empty user talk pages for 150 different editors. There was nothing on the user talk page when I deleted it. — Newslinger talk 09:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- S4504955, I've restored User talk:S4504955 for you. As you can see from the page history, it was completely empty. — Newslinger talk 09:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
Sir, I am grateful for your appreciation. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem, and thanks for joining WikiProject Reliability. By the way, Wikipedia is casual enough that there is no need to call others "Sir". No editor would mind being addressed by their username, although how you address an editor is completely up to you. — Newslinger talk 14:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Book name: Understanding and Revealing Hidden Link, Author: Dr. S. Sundaravadivelu, Year : 2019
- ISBN:9781645465980, Sir, What else should i check? I want to be cautious about my future editing and references. . Kindly help. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) RAJIV Check the publisher. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)RAJIVVASUDEV What Roxy is saying is that the book is published by Notion Press, an Indian self-publishing outfit. It is a self-published source, and is therefore not likely to be accepted as a reliable source (except as a primary source supporting an assertion about the views of its author). Self-published sources by subject matter experts are sometimes permissible, for example if a history professor publishes their own teaching material on their own website, but this author is a college lecturer on electronic engineering - he is not going to be accepted as an expert on anything other than electronic engineering. Best GirthSummit (blether) 13:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Girth Summit and @Roxy for your immediate response. How would I know that publisher is reliable or not. Is there any tool? Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- RAJIVVASUDEV, I clicked on the link in the Google books page you linked. GirthSummit (blether) 13:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit, Sir, who is not qualifying the author because he is an electronic engineer or the publisher because it is an Indian publisher? I am asking all this to avoid future edits. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I just searched for the publisher. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- RAJIVVASUDEV, it's got nothing to do with the publisher being Indian - it's because they are a self-publishing company. They don't commission the work, they don't have a review system, they don't even care what the text says (provided, I would hope, that it's not libellous or a copyright violation) - you just sent them your text and they print it. With a self-publishing firm, one could write a book about the moon, saying that it is made of delicious cheese, and suspended above the flat Earth by a rubber band - they would happily publish it, provided one was willing to pay them to do so. GirthSummit (blether) 14:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit and @Roxy How can a user who uses references from a book know whether the publisher is a self-publishing company or a reliable one? Is there any basis, system, or list? Please make me understand. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- RAJIVVASUDEV, usually, companies are quite open about what they do. Googling them and looking at their website is a good start - enter Notion Press into Google and see what you get. GirthSummit (blether) 15:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit Thank you so much for your time and help. But sorry to say i am not satisfied by ignoring ISBN credibility and relying on googling and self-assessment, which may be subjective and vary with reviewers and case to case. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi RAJIVVASUDEV, please don't use my sig when you reply to me, it's confusing. 'ISBN credibility' isn't a thing - all published books get an ISBN, it says nothing about the credibility or reliability of a source. WP:SPS is quite clear, and that publisher unambiguously describes itself as a self-published source; there isn't any doubt in my mind that the book is unreliable, and if you can't see that I don't know what to say to you. You could start a thread at WP:RSN, but I think you would be wasting both your own time, and that of other people. GirthSummit (blether) 17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ Girth Summit, Sir, I am very much thankful for your advice, but it was never about this particular book; the request was for a tool to check the reliability to avoid further errors. Especially a book. Best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- RAJIVVASUDEV, I'm going to put some advice on your talk page, since Newslinger will be receiving notifications every time we put a note here, and I expect they're getting sick of that (sorry Newslinger!) GirthSummit (blether) 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. It is important for WikiProject Reliability, but I am sorry too. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- RAJIVVASUDEV, I'm going to put some advice on your talk page, since Newslinger will be receiving notifications every time we put a note here, and I expect they're getting sick of that (sorry Newslinger!) GirthSummit (blether) 11:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ Girth Summit, Sir, I am very much thankful for your advice, but it was never about this particular book; the request was for a tool to check the reliability to avoid further errors. Especially a book. Best regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi RAJIVVASUDEV, please don't use my sig when you reply to me, it's confusing. 'ISBN credibility' isn't a thing - all published books get an ISBN, it says nothing about the credibility or reliability of a source. WP:SPS is quite clear, and that publisher unambiguously describes itself as a self-published source; there isn't any doubt in my mind that the book is unreliable, and if you can't see that I don't know what to say to you. You could start a thread at WP:RSN, but I think you would be wasting both your own time, and that of other people. GirthSummit (blether) 17:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit and @Roxy How can a user who uses references from a book know whether the publisher is a self-publishing company or a reliable one? Is there any basis, system, or list? Please make me understand. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit, Sir, who is not qualifying the author because he is an electronic engineer or the publisher because it is an Indian publisher? I am asking all this to avoid future edits. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- RAJIVVASUDEV, I clicked on the link in the Google books page you linked. GirthSummit (blether) 13:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Girth Summit and @Roxy for your immediate response. How would I know that publisher is reliable or not. Is there any tool? Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the discussion has continued at User talk:RAJIVVASUDEV § Reliability of books. Thank you, Girth Summit, for writing such a detailed explanation of how the reliability of books are assessed on Wikipedia. RAJIVVASUDEV, I have one piece of advice to add: if you are not sure whether a source is reliable, the best place to ask would be the reliable sources noticeboard, which gets attention from many editors. You can also notify related WikiProjects of discussions on the noticeboard; for example, this particular book would be of interest to WikiProject India.
I agree with Girth Summit that books published by Notion Press are generally unreliable because they are self-published sources. The country of the publisher has nothing to do with its reliability; self-publishing companies such as the American Lulu.com (RSP entry) are also considered generally unreliable. The only exception is when the author is a subject-matter expert, which is defined in the WP:SPS policy as a person "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications".
After doing a search, I found a person named S. Sundaravadivelu who teaches electronics/engineering topics at the Sri Sivasubramaniya Nadar College of Engineering, but I am not sure whether he meets the subject-matter expert requirement in the relevant field (vastu shastra). In particular, S. Sundaravadivelu's publications regarding vastu shastra include health claims, which would be considered unreliable under the reliability guideline for medicine, since he is not a medical expert. — Newslinger talk 02:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sir, well noted all, and thanks again for your kind advice. @Girth Summit put a hard effort to made be understood the things. But finally, he did. I am sorry to bother you all more than required. Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem, RAJIVVASUDEV. It's not a bother at all. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Request for Advice
I am facing a situation where I would appreciate your advice. I am considering an RFC to get community opinion on calling living persons names without secondary sources, which I started a discussion in under WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Great_Barrington_Declaration. The arguments I am getting (e.g. an editor's free opinion is protected) are not convincing to me as it violates many policies. The current advice that I am getting from an admin is to talk with the person, but I don't believe that this is in compliance with the WP:BLP which is very firm about adding information about living persons without sources specially if it potentially libelous.
If the problem is between me and just one person, I would have started a discussion on their talk page or went to the dispute resolution noticeboard. But from the discussion I had, it seems that there is wide support for allowing editors to express their opinions about living persons without sources including one administrator. If this is true, then I believe many of the policies and guidelines will need to be changed to reflect that, because otherwise I won't be able to edit due to my inability to understand the policies and guidelines. Should I create an RFC? or what do you suggest as the best course of action in this case? Thank you in advance. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Knowledge Contributor0, I do not consider the edit in Special:Diff/984620411 to be a policy violation. According to Wiktionary, one of the definitions of pet is "One who is excessively loyal to a superior", and from the context, this appears to be the definition used in that comment. I do not recommend creating an RfC on this matter, since it would most likely be a continuation of the feedback in the BLP noticeboard discussion. In my opinion, your time would be better spent focusing on article content, since the pet comment is unlikely to result in any administrative action. — Newslinger talk 02:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will follow your advice. One last question, to what extent you think an editor like me can talk about living persons without sources? To clarify more, what is the tipping point where my opinion about a living person stops being protected and requires a reliable source? Thanks again for the help. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. Although the biographies of living persons policy states that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", the policy is applied most strictly to articles and less strictly in discussions, primarily because the core content policies only apply in article space. For example, if an editor either likes or dislikes a living person, they are free to say so in a discussion without needing to cite a source or adhere to neutrality. The applicability of WP:BLP in discussions is defined in WP:BLPTALK, which is vague enough to allow for community interpretation. The policy recommends using a link to substantiate claims about living people, but does not require it. I think the line is crossed when an editor accuses a living person of a serious crime without adequate evidence, or posts content that violates the second criterion for redaction, which includes "slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". — Newslinger talk 03:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a pretty useful insight. As you said, the article is vague and allows for community interpretation. Do you think I should start a discussion in the talk page of WP:BLP about making the the boundary clear between the talk page and the article page? Or should I start the discussion by using the help link on WP:BLP which would make the discussion on my own talk page? Sorry if I am asking too many questions, but knowing the policy will speed up discussions with other editors, and making it clearer may save other people the hassle too. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, a discussion on WT:BLP could be useful. Your questions are perfectly fine, don't worry about that. — Newslinger talk 04:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, a discussion on WT:BLP could be useful. Your questions are perfectly fine, don't worry about that. — Newslinger talk 04:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a pretty useful insight. As you said, the article is vague and allows for community interpretation. Do you think I should start a discussion in the talk page of WP:BLP about making the the boundary clear between the talk page and the article page? Or should I start the discussion by using the help link on WP:BLP which would make the discussion on my own talk page? Sorry if I am asking too many questions, but knowing the policy will speed up discussions with other editors, and making it clearer may save other people the hassle too. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. Although the biographies of living persons policy states that "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", the policy is applied most strictly to articles and less strictly in discussions, primarily because the core content policies only apply in article space. For example, if an editor either likes or dislikes a living person, they are free to say so in a discussion without needing to cite a source or adhere to neutrality. The applicability of WP:BLP in discussions is defined in WP:BLPTALK, which is vague enough to allow for community interpretation. The policy recommends using a link to substantiate claims about living people, but does not require it. I think the line is crossed when an editor accuses a living person of a serious crime without adequate evidence, or posts content that violates the second criterion for redaction, which includes "slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". — Newslinger talk 03:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will follow your advice. One last question, to what extent you think an editor like me can talk about living persons without sources? To clarify more, what is the tipping point where my opinion about a living person stops being protected and requires a reliable source? Thanks again for the help. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Template:Coi-stern
Hi. I was really disappointed to see that this template had been redirected to a plain old COI message. I'd used it a lot as I do a lot of G11 deletions, and sometimes find that I need to impress the message on individuals. I don't agree that it was weakly worded or superfluous.Deb (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Deb, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 9 § Template:Coi-stern took place over two years ago, and I had forgotten all about it. The content of the former {{Coi-stern}} template is still available at Special:Permalink/751873448, and you are free to create a new template from the old one. I'm still not a big fan of {{Coi-stern}}, since it does not mention Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, and does not seem to be more "stern" than {{Uw-coi}}. However, I don't see any harm in having an alternative template available. — Newslinger talk 11:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I must have been using it for some time without noticing that I was duplicating my earlier messages. Deb (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I've created a new one, adding the details of how to disclose a COI. I hope you won't object to me trying it out for a while. Deb (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem at all. When there are over a dozen welcome templates, I don't think there should be any issue with having more than one COI warning template. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I've created a new one, adding the details of how to disclose a COI. I hope you won't object to me trying it out for a while. Deb (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I must have been using it for some time without noticing that I was duplicating my earlier messages. Deb (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Chaos Music
Hello, Newslinger. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Chaos Music".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 14:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Oct 2020
Hi Newslinger, This is regarding Love Jihad First of all, apologies for marking the edit as minor edit, it must had been some kind of mistake. Following, it would be great if you could please explain the reason reverting the edit. The protest seems to erupted due to Love Jihad allegation as per the family. Moreover, the new sources did not describe it as a Conspiracy Theory. Thank you very much. Jenos450 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jenos450, deleting a citation of a reliable source does not invalidate the claims from within that source. In Special:Diff/986013855, you deleted the citation of The Independent (RSP entry) while removing the words "conspiracy theory" from the article text. This constitutes unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory, because high-quality academic sources – the most reliable sources available – consistently describe "Love Jihad" as a conspiracy theory or fabrication, and your edit removed a reliable source to obscure the invalidity of the conspiracy theory. — Newslinger talk 04:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)