User talk:CNMall41
| This is CNMall41's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
BeauSuzanne[edit]
Do you think BeauSuzanne might be a sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335? They both have a track record of moving BLPs from draft to the main namespace. What's your take on this? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is some overlap, including editing the same pages that is not conclusive. The last SPI showed no CU evidence so you would likely need to gather as much behavioral evidence as possible if you file. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to take some time and look deeper. At this point, they either need to be shown as a sock or left alone. It can be bordering on harassment imo to follow an editor who is not definitively UPE or a sock. Will let you know what I find. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Saqib:, I left more information on the SPI page. I think it is highly probable based on what I see but knowing previous socks they are likely to be good about masking so a CU may not be helpful. I also looked at some of the AfD's and believe those are justified although I am going to hold off on voting at the moment as many may be G5 eligible. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- If monitoring a problematic user is deemed harassment, should I cease monitoring them and allow them to continue damaging WP? Isn't this concerning enough for the community that they're repeatedly violating WP:BLP and have remained under the radar until now? They've gone to great length to create WP:PKRS just to game the system and make things easier for themselves and their socks. It seems like it's time to initiate a new discussion on WP:RSN to determine which Pakistani sources are acceptable for BLPs and which are not. Are you interested in participating? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I was NOT accusing you of anything nefarious. What I was saying is that in instances such as this we need to either dig or let it be. As you see, user has already complained about it. So, it is part of having clean hands. As far as the sources, I was not aware that PKRS existed. Will take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Libraa2019 (talk · contribs) has been on WP since 2019, editing in the same area as BeauSuzanne . However, they've never taken part in AfD discussions or engaged in talk page discussion. But today, they suddenly participated by voting to keep. This behavior raises suspicions. Do you smell something fishy too? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do. There is definitely cross-editing with the Nauman335 farm. As anticipated, there is no CU evidence as they likely are avoiding scrutiny in that area. Would advise to get a behavioral assessment from admins at the SPI case as I feel they are in the least MEAT or possibly all part of the same farm editing from different IPs. Sometimes we focus so much on CU confirmation that we gloss over the behavioral evidence. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but gathering behavioral evidence is incredibly tedious. Dealing with such serial sock puppeteers is really exhausting and it feels like we're just scratching the surface. BTW do you think I might have gone too far in nominating BLPs created by BeauSuzanne ? @Hydrangeans objected to several noms and while I value her opinion, I'm concerned that the closing admin might base their decision on non-consensus. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do understand how tedious it is. I do it because I know it disrupts their flow of getting paid to edit while at the same time keeping some promotional content off Wikipedia. I have not looked at all of the ones you nominated as I am down the rabbit hole of another SOCK farm at the moment. I did read one comment from them however and it seems their issue is the belief that you overstepped by nominating them. If they feel you are out of line, they need to bring that up at ANI, not the AfD. That's the not the place to RGWs. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)--CNMall41 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- On a different note, it would be unfair to label DAWN and Pakistan Today, as an unreliable source. While they may occasionally publish sponsored or paid articles, they remain the most trusted print news source we have. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Every one of those is unreliable. The publications themselves are not unreliable, but the specific references are. They are classic examples of NEWSORGINDIA. Note the bylines and classic WP:CHURNALISM-style regurgitation. We should NEVER accept one of these are reliable to show notability. As an example, compare this one from PT to the one currently on the page. The one I cite here is bylined and shows it would fall under editorial oversight (whether or not it was reviewed by an editor could be a different story but nonetheless would not be considered NEWSORGINDIA).--CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- You make a valid point but as far I can tell, dawn.com (even web) has its own editorial team and they typically don't publish churnalism stories. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, now you know. It can be hard to tell sometimes so you just need to dig a little bit. Again, it can be tedious but you can find it. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Here is another of the same churnalism. Everything in these revolves around a press release or likely paid media. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm solely defending Dawn (newspaper) and dawn.com, not other sources. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe I am not explaining it correctly. Dawn is considered a reliable source. We can agree on that. However, this particular reference within DAWN should be discounted as it is clear churnalism. It is based on a press release or announcement and there is no independent though or coverage given to it. The links I showed you are showing that this SAME story based on a press release or paid article was reprinted in many other publications, indicating CHURNALISM. We do not base notability on reprinted press releases or stories made up solely based on announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I just left a comment about a similar issue in the US press as it relates to TechCrunch.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Got you. I think I need to re-read WP:CHURNALISM. But I agree with you that these references, including Dawn, aren't sufficient to establish WP:N. However, it's very challenging to convey this even to experienced editors incl admins, as they often just want to see some form of coverage on AfDs to establish WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- For me, it is an just a difference between verifiability and notability. If someone wants to argue churnalism as valid to verify something, I normally don't fuss, especially if it is something such as verifying it exists. However, notability needs independence which is not present in churnalism. Hope that makes sense. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Got you. I think I need to re-read WP:CHURNALISM. But I agree with you that these references, including Dawn, aren't sufficient to establish WP:N. However, it's very challenging to convey this even to experienced editors incl admins, as they often just want to see some form of coverage on AfDs to establish WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm solely defending Dawn (newspaper) and dawn.com, not other sources. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- You make a valid point but as far I can tell, dawn.com (even web) has its own editorial team and they typically don't publish churnalism stories. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Every one of those is unreliable. The publications themselves are not unreliable, but the specific references are. They are classic examples of NEWSORGINDIA. Note the bylines and classic WP:CHURNALISM-style regurgitation. We should NEVER accept one of these are reliable to show notability. As an example, compare this one from PT to the one currently on the page. The one I cite here is bylined and shows it would fall under editorial oversight (whether or not it was reviewed by an editor could be a different story but nonetheless would not be considered NEWSORGINDIA).--CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- On a different note, it would be unfair to label DAWN and Pakistan Today, as an unreliable source. While they may occasionally publish sponsored or paid articles, they remain the most trusted print news source we have. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do understand how tedious it is. I do it because I know it disrupts their flow of getting paid to edit while at the same time keeping some promotional content off Wikipedia. I have not looked at all of the ones you nominated as I am down the rabbit hole of another SOCK farm at the moment. I did read one comment from them however and it seems their issue is the belief that you overstepped by nominating them. If they feel you are out of line, they need to bring that up at ANI, not the AfD. That's the not the place to RGWs. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)--CNMall41 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but gathering behavioral evidence is incredibly tedious. Dealing with such serial sock puppeteers is really exhausting and it feels like we're just scratching the surface. BTW do you think I might have gone too far in nominating BLPs created by BeauSuzanne ? @Hydrangeans objected to several noms and while I value her opinion, I'm concerned that the closing admin might base their decision on non-consensus. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do. There is definitely cross-editing with the Nauman335 farm. As anticipated, there is no CU evidence as they likely are avoiding scrutiny in that area. Would advise to get a behavioral assessment from admins at the SPI case as I feel they are in the least MEAT or possibly all part of the same farm editing from different IPs. Sometimes we focus so much on CU confirmation that we gloss over the behavioral evidence. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Libraa2019 (talk · contribs) has been on WP since 2019, editing in the same area as BeauSuzanne . However, they've never taken part in AfD discussions or engaged in talk page discussion. But today, they suddenly participated by voting to keep. This behavior raises suspicions. Do you smell something fishy too? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I was NOT accusing you of anything nefarious. What I was saying is that in instances such as this we need to either dig or let it be. As you see, user has already complained about it. So, it is part of having clean hands. As far as the sources, I was not aware that PKRS existed. Will take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- If monitoring a problematic user is deemed harassment, should I cease monitoring them and allow them to continue damaging WP? Isn't this concerning enough for the community that they're repeatedly violating WP:BLP and have remained under the radar until now? They've gone to great length to create WP:PKRS just to game the system and make things easier for themselves and their socks. It seems like it's time to initiate a new discussion on WP:RSN to determine which Pakistani sources are acceptable for BLPs and which are not. Are you interested in participating? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Saqib:, I left more information on the SPI page. I think it is highly probable based on what I see but knowing previous socks they are likely to be good about masking so a CU may not be helpful. I also looked at some of the AfD's and believe those are justified although I am going to hold off on voting at the moment as many may be G5 eligible. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Anbe vaa[edit]
Hey idiot, Why the hell are u restoring my edits?? anbe vaa show has ended with 1102 episodes and i m trying to move it past serial list, and u have been restoring it current serials list.. are u in coma?? have u not seen the ashow has ended.. if u have dont have work get the hell out of here.. B103N48 (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
RUFSTR Racing Submission[edit]
Hi CNMall41,
You recently declined the creation of my article for RUFSTR Racing. As I'm a fan of offshore powerboat racing and Wikipedia has a lot of room to grow in coverage of the sport, and along the lines of WikiProject:Motorsport, I plan on building out articles for some of the most notable teams within the key racing organizations. Before I keep creating more I'd like to learn how I can improve what I submitted to better meet the guidelines so I can get the process down correctly and avoid issues with future articles. I did cite what I felt was a good amount of unique and independent sources, namely some of the biggest publications in the powerboating world, along with information directly from the Offshore Powerboat Association's rulebook and results. Can you please let me know how I can improve my submission? Thank you and have a nice evening!
Best,
Nwitherby Nwitherby (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I took a look at the draft again and unfortunately do not see how this meets WP:GNG. The references are all trade publications and one is for the association. As such, I do not see how this can be improved since it wouldn't meet notability guidelines in my opinion. I am glad you are interested in the topic and would encourage you to work on other pages that currently exist and are notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]
Hi CNMall41. Thank you for your work on Uneeda Biscuit. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)