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

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]

Talk:Sokoban

I saw your cleanup at the talk page, but can the discussion above the one you collapses also be collapsed? The LLM use is still prominent there. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've collapsed the entire discussion at Talk:Sokoban § Concerns about recent merge and article scope. It does look like two editors were posting LLM-generated comments. — Newslinger talk 09:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]