Imaginary???

The article claims that Tek Fog is an imaginary app, and then cites numerous sources saying how it is being used. Is it imaginary or is it real? That needs to be clarified based on sources.

The article also seems very biased; I will remove the claim in the lead about "leftist writers here" which is unsourced and not encyclopedic. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN an IP user had vandalized the page repeatedly since last several hours. I have reverted the article to the version before his edits. Venkat TL (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see that it is now semi-protected; that should help a lot. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I see that it still needs work to become neutral. Used to "spread propaganda"? and "harass critics"? I'm glad to see that there are several of you working on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it’s imaginary, but it seems the wire uses Wikipedia to spread propaganda and manipulate people AshutoshGugnani (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source

The article is highly sourced from the wire (India) which was involved in many fake news in past. Article should be source better or deleted.

~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide legit links for what you are saying: "that TheWire has been involved in fake news" And let me just say, OpIndia is not a credible source Tanyasingh (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely false narrative by Devesh Bhatta. Some fake news is being spread by almost every single news agency in India but The Wire is the most reputable of them. This user Devesh is simply fulfilling an agenda. The Wire is NOT a fake news site. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.226.142.11 (talk • contribs)

Any sources other than The Wire?

Why are you afraid of letting people make edits? The one source you quote has been widely discredited. 103.245.70.5 (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is not other source than The wire. All other reports are sourced from The wire.
Check my comment here Talk:Tek Fog#Contested deletion
  1. The wire - The wire is not credible source, it has been fined by the honourable courts for spreading many fake news and false claims.
  2. Deccan Herald link - it say opposition leader (Rahul Gandhi) claims based on the wire, again claim from opposition is not consider as fact.
  3. The Hindu. - same as above opposition party asking for investigate based on the wire report.
  4. Tribuneindia New - same as above opposition party asking for investigate based on the wire report.
~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be Misleading or Fabricated

This is heavily reliant on one source, one which has been called into question. Calling anything completely "fake news" is preposterous since that concept is heavily rooted in conspiracy theory, however this particular news source may not be credible and it seems like there are few independent sources aside from it. This article may need to be heavily edited for accuracy and bias, and should be reviewed by a moderator. AgentOrangeLeaf (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)AgentOrangeLeaf[reply]

Propaganda

this article is heavily dependent on the source which is thewire.in because many times in the past cooked up some imaginary articles. this picture should be reported for pending verification as well as people should be careful right hosting things from a propaganda Network masquerading as a news Outlet Changisgod (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Discussion

I agree with deletion suggested by Ping @AgentOrangeLeaf, Changisgod and others. Ping @User:MelanieN as admin to take note. Dhawangupta (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this article shall be deleted . as this app is imaginary so does this article is Lelemera (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC) sock.[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... this is not a hoax. Multiple internationally reputed and reliable sources are included as reference to verify the article. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which internationally reputed and reliable sources ?
~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Tek Fog#References Venkat TL (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The wire - The wire is not credible source, it has been fined by the honourable courts for spreading many fake news and false claims.
  2. Deccan Herald link - it say opposition leader (Rahul Gandhi) claims based on the wire, again claim from opposition is not consider as fact.
  3. The Hindu. - same as above opposition party asking for investigate based on the wire report.
  4. Tribuneindia New - same as above opposition party asking for investigate based on the wire report.
~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 10 sources, not 4, in the list Tek Fog#References. What about Le Monde and Quartz (publication)? Have you read Primary, secondary and tertiary sources ? Venkat TL (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --2409:4063:4D94:99C8:0:0:F608:A10F (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There Is no authentic record for to proof this app is even exist --2409:4063:4D94:99C8:0:0:F608:A10F (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion

The Hoax seems to be created to target specific people and group and has no relevant backing for correctness. Also, The article is highly sourced from the wire (India) which was involved in many fake news in past.

~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this is not "obviously invented".

The Wire is a credible source according to Wikipedia's own standards.

If we like, we can add a sections and talk about news portals that are denying tek fog . But this page should not be speedily deleted, i see no reason to do that. --Tanyasingh (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wire is not credible source, it has been fined by the honourable courts for spreading many fake news and false claims.
~~~ Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Devesh.bhatta : Please cite sources for your claim. Tanyasingh (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/Barabankipolice/status/1408109672733634565
https://scroll.in/latest/957945/fir-filed-against-the-wire-editor-for-allegedly-spreading-fake-news-against-adityanath
https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/fir-filed-against-the-wire-editor-siddharth-varadarajan-for-spreading-fake-news-against-up-cm-yogi-adityanath Devesh S N Bhatta (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are only accusations and does not prove anything. UP CM is angry with their journalism. Venkat TL (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is of high importance to stop misinformation spread in India. People need to be made aware of Tek Fog and this page is of public importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.226.142.11 (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary app

As per OpIndia TekFog is an imaginary app. Please quote any source other than thewire.in 103.16.12.45 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus among Wikipedia consensus that OpIndia is not a reliable source. More reliable sources are required. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 08:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for adding Template:POV and Template:One source

Template:POV has been added since the article uses terms such as "spread propaganda", "harass critics" etc. which has been pointed out by User:MelanieN in the talk page section 'Imaginary???'. Template:One source has been added since the article relies largely or entirely on a single source or on different sources which are entirely/largely based on a single source (The Wire). Do keep in mind that WP:DRIVEBYTAG states that "There is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that editors must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page". Rockcodder (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:BESTSOURCES say it's used to spread propaganda, the article will also have to say it. Neutrality can't be used as argument for WP:FALSEBALANCE. hemantha (brief) 11:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10 sources including international publications like Le Monde and Quartz (publication) have been added. So clearly this is not one source case. You are free to add more sources. The terms that you are disputing are reliably source in quote format. If you have a better suggestion, you can propose them below to gain consensus. In addition these sources listed below[1][2][3][4][5] are independent of the Wire report. By no stretch of imagination can this be called a one source case. Venkat TL (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Could Jeopardise National Security': Derek O'Brien Wants Standing Committee To Discuss 'Tek Fog'". The Wire. 6 January 2022. Retrieved 6 January 2022.
  2. ^ "MP Derek O'Brien seeks parliamentary panel meet on 'Tek Fog' app". telegraphindia.com. 10 January 2022. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
  3. ^ "Initiate parliamentary probe into Tek Fog app: Trinamool". The Hindu. 7 January 2022. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  4. ^ "Congress accuses BJP of using 'Tek Fog' app to propagate its agenda on social media, seeks SC's intervention". Tribuneindia News Service. 7 January 2022. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  5. ^ "BJP has set up several factories of hate, Tek Fog app one of them: Rahul Gandhi". Deccan Herald. PTI. 8 January 2022. Retrieved 10 January 2022.
The lead is filled with statements that were either reported by The Wire, found by The Wire or told to The Wire. And all four references in the lead either quote sections from 'The Wire's investigation' or are parts of said 'investigation'. Is this not enough to justify that if not the entire article, then at least the lead relies largely on one source? Rockcodder (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockcodder following your suggestion. I have added a summary of the response section into the lead along with the (unrelated to wire) reference. Venkat TL (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: I have not suggested anything of that sort, thus I have reverted it. I have moved information regarding The Wire's investigation from the lead to a section of its own. This would be an amicable solution, wouldn't it? Rockcodder (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I have reverted your undiscussed controversial edits. Please read and follow MOS:LEAD. Dont remove summary of the article from the lead. Other sections will also be expanded. Venkat TL (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: Our problem of this article being heavily reliant on one source (The Wire) has not been addressed yet. Every reference and statement provided in the article can trace its origin back to 'The Wire's investigation'. Essentially, what has happened is that a series of articles written by one source (The Wire) has been made the basis of other news reports. These news reports then lead to reactions from opposition leaders, which are then made the basis of more news reports, all of which are then made the basis of a Wikipedia article. What more do you need to prove that this article relies largely or entirely on a single source? It would not be appropriate to remove the tags until a report/investigation independent from 'The Wire's investigation' is referenced in the article. By the way, all 5 references provided by you above, which you claim are 'independent of the Wire report', are news reports about reactions from opposition leaders/parties to news reports about Tek Fog. Meaning that even these trace their origins back to The Wire's report, thus reinforcing my point of this entire thing being reliant largely or entirely on a single source. Rockcodder (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every BOFORS allegation can be traced back to leaks by Sven Lindstrom. Every PRISM source can be traced back to Snowden. Does that mean those pages can be tagged single-source? Please read WP:V and WP:RS more closely. hemantha (brief) 07:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemantha: And what about the Template:POV tag? The Wire is not exactly known for its neutral reporting as can be seen from this RSN discussion. A Template:POV tag must be added and it must stay until the article is re-written following a neutral point of view. The article, in its present state, is written as if The Wire's reports were gospel truth. Things must be presented as allegations and not as facts. Rockcodder (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you're repetitively asking same questions; I've addressed NPOV already, above in my first reply to you. Multiple people have addressed the Wire question. Your framing of that discussion is so completely wrong that I have to question whether you read it in complete or just the single post you link to. hemantha (brief) 08:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the discussion and had no problems understanding it. I don't have a problem with the use of reports from The Wire or from other reports quoting The Wire since it's considered a reliable source. My problem is with the way this article presents these points. It is quite clear that the RSN discussion considered The Wire a non-neutral source. Hence its reports must not be presented as facts but as allegations, but this article fails to do that and hence requires a Template:POV tag. Rockcodder (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a warning: don't edit war, you could be blocked. Work out your differences here on the talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity of this article

I am not understanding how Wikipedia allows such an article without many citations. Moreover, the article has lot of contradictions. Beerapparnaik (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What contradictions? — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 08:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fake news

Wikipedia is a credible source of information for me and many other. Information to this platform cannot be sourced from a place like ' the Wire' which is already unpopular for giving out fake news. Also Wikepedia cannot be a way for firms like 'the wire' to get their agendas running. Any information cannot be published without being approved by atleast 10 sources. Only then can it be a fact and not a random agenda driven political accusation. 223.226.84.217 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to challenge credibility of The Wire as a source, you might want to take that to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. One look/search in the archives indicates that been no consensus in deprecating it as a source.
Furthermore, it is not just The Wire reporting this, but also several other sources. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 08:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove/Rename the Further reading section

All the links mentioned in that section are already present as references. If it seems like a good idea to separate the reporting from The Wire, from the other references, then WP:REFGROUP can be used. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article

There is no official source to this even the article is vague Mentions it as an imaginary app AshutoshGugnani (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rework needed

The article repeats the content of the Wire article as facts. They need to be treated as accusations until proven. This article needs a POV tag. — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 talk stalk 08:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does need the POV tag . Also the improper treatment of allegations as facts without any attribution seems problematic and misleading for the readers. As mentioned by @MelanieN and others, this page is sourced in its entirety or in large part for The Wire, affiliated media houses, and other news outlets that have drawn from the Wire report. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding tag as per above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been explained at length before. I didn't reply because nothing new had been brought to this discussion by the newer posters who appear to have missed the discussion above. To recap, 1) if all WP:RS say the same thing, article will also necessarily have to say the same thing 2) All wikipedia articles "repeat" content of WP:RS, can't add WP:NPOV on that argument. hemantha (brief) 10:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, if there are specific problems, then I would be happy to resolve them. This general hand waving seems nonconstructive. This tag cannot be used to deface the article. Since no specific issue was pointed, so I support the removal of the tag. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The specific problems have been stated above prior to your comment. These are expanded as below :
1)The article states allegations levelled by The Wire as facts- However, these should be addressed as allegations, since none of these have been proven, and The Wire in its report accepts that many of its accusations could not be verified by the authors. Thus, suitable language such as "Tek fog is an application allegedly used by", "It was said to have been used to", etc.
2)The article is is sourced in its entirety or in large part for The Wire, affiliated media houses, and other news outlets that have drawn from the Wire report. That means attribution is very important.
3 User:Venkat TL, you were already told on DYK that this claim should be attributed and you agreed to attribute it on DYK. It is confusing as to why you can't attribute it on the main article?
POV tag does not mean that the page is misleading, but that it hasn't been written in an NPOV fashion. Therefore, it needs POV tag till article reaches a NPOV form. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All necessary attributions have been provided. The Wire has been mentioned 29 times in the Tek Fog article. I sincerely hope you are not trolling me here. Again the POV tag cannot be used to deface the article. If a particular line is missing an attribution, point it here and it will be changed if necessary, with consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I donot understand your fixation with individual lines, when the article clearly needs to be largely reworked. However, be that as a may, I am willing to go line by line as per your preferrence. Keep in mind this is likely to be a long conversation.
Line 1 should be "Tek Fog is an application software allegedly used by the information technology cell of the Bharatiya Janata Party as part of their social media campaigning to spread propaganda, according to The Wire."
Reasoning:-This is the version reflected by the sources that you have included yourself, and as stated above by hemanta, Wikipedia must reflect the same content as WP:BESTSOURCES. Apart from The Wire, most if not all other sources you have cited take care to state that the app was used "allegedly"

by the BJP, not as a certainty. These include articles from QZ, The Print, The Hindu, and so on. The very source you have used as a citation in the first line itself states, "Social media operatives apparently affiliated to India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) use a specialized app to hijack Twitter trends, harass critics, and spread propaganda through defunct WhatsApp accounts, according to a new investigation by The Wire". I donot see how an allegation can be stated as fact. The matter is still under scrutiny, and unless it its existence and usage by specific persons is verified by a third party or by the courts, it cannot be treated as fact.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Venkat TL (talk). Self-nominated at 12:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Firstly, several paragraphs in the article lack references or have a citation needed template.
  • Secondly, there is no clear description of exactly what the app even is, only what The Wire says about how it hacks. The article doesn't make it clear if Tek Fog is an app that is downloadable by App Stores and thus usable by an end-user, or a secret app that is not willingly or knowingly installed by users. It also doesn't state when it was first released or at least first known, as well as missing other basic app information.
  • Thirdly, the article doesn't seem to meet either WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. The article is almost entirely about criticisms about the app, which seems undue weight in my opinion. At the very least, apart from the aforementioned issue about a lack of descriptions about the app itself, there should be more inclusions about denials and statements (or lack thereof) by relevant people in the article. The article lede notes that The ruling BJP and the prime minister Narendra Modi were silent.; however, this statement is completely unreferenced and is not mentioned anywhere else in the body. The denials in the article (under the section "Reactions of BJYM, Persistent Systems and ShareChat") are limited to a single paragraph: are these really the only denials given thus far by people or companies involved? If that is all that is available then that would be acceptable, but this needs to be clarified, and in any case I think the article may need some trimming since it focuses too much about the reactions to the app rather than the app itself.
  • Fourthly, the article may need clarifications for non-Indian readers. For example, "BYJM" is mentioned in the article but is not defined anywhere in the text (the lede mentions a "BJP youth wing", but the connection must be made clear).
  • Fifthly, the article needs a copyedit. Mentions of media outlets, such as The Wire, The Hindu, or Washington Post, need to be italicized. The article text also needs revising for grammar and other issues.
  • Finally, multiple concerns have been raised on the article talk page, and as far as I can tell, most have not been addressed.
Right now the article needs a lot of work to be approved for DYK. Since I am largely unfamiliar with Indian politics, I would also appreciate any input from an uninvolved Indian editor or someone else familiar with the topic, but right now, in its current state, I think the article is not ready for DYK. I would also suggest that the article be brought to WP:GOCE or otherwise be copyedited by an uninvolved editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Citation needed tags fixed.
  2. It is a PsyOps software whose access is limited to the operators and their Org. I have included the link in the lead.
  3. What is available has been added. WP:FALSEBALANCE. I will work to add refs, as asked
  4. Fixed
  5. GOCE copyedit requested
  6. All major / relevant concerns raised on talk page have already been resolved. While reviewing the talk page, Be advised that many users with political POV just want this article deleted/bowdlerized etc. Please refer to the AfD discussion to understand.
I will ping the reviewer when I am done with #3 and others. Venkat TL (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your response to #2 needs to be clarified in the article itself, particularly in the lede and ideally in its own section. Rather than mentioning it in a section about The Wire's report, there should be a section about the app itself, perhaps using The Wire as a source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added it in the first line, I will flesh that part more as suggested.Venkat TL (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the edits. I will do the rest of the review once the copyedit has been done. However, I am still unhappy with the tone of the article and would welcome any second opinions regarding how to handle it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nominator now has had five DYK nominations on the main page, so a QPQ will be required for this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and BlueMoonset: I just donated a QPQ to move this forward. --evrik (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Venkat and while they have since returned after that ANI discussion, they are currently topic banned from DYK and so the nomination has to proceed without them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. — Maile (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's time to reject and close this nomination. The article has not been adopted and still has multiple paragraphs without citations. Waiting for another WikiProject to copyedit this will not resolve the issues. Also, this nomination is approaching five months in age, and is no longer "new" material which DYK seeks to recognize. If this article achieves GA status, it can be nominated again. Flibirigit (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, even if a copyedit is done, there is still the citation issues that need to be addressed. Copyediting would not resolve that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Evrik: @Narutolovehinata5: @Maile66: @Flibirigit: For what it's worth, I've copyedited the article, and added a couple of citation needed templates (diff). The condition of the article as I initially found it, in respect of use of Standard English, punctuation and sufficient citations, was not too bad, because it had already been copyedited by JTF2020 (diff). I did notice that a couple of quotations did not quite match the source, so I edited the article to fit. I did not check the rest of the quotations - maybe they need a check, too. I accept that this will not assist this nom at this stage, but I did it anyway. Storye book (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article now has a GOCE construction tag, which is good news. I believe that it should be re-reviewed when they have finished their major copyedit. Storye book (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confirm that the article is now ready for re-review, because it is now fully cited, and has been fully copyedited by GOCE. Storye book (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By golly, I think we have it. I have given this article a thorough read-through, cleaning it up and further improving grammar while reducing the quote volume. There are no citation issues. ALT2 is a direct quote from The Wire, which broke this story, and this is attributed. I have added it to the article. This article has a bit higher quote shares than I typically accept, but because the Wire report is so vital to the article's content, because some of it is primary source material (the O'Brien letter and quotes from other statements), and because of NPOV issues, I am fine with this. The people that contributed to this have walked a tightrope, and it's amazing this article is finally acceptable. It took a herculean effort; I cannot recall a DYK that has sat longer than this one in some time. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely agreed. Also noting that I'd like to see Evrik credited for donating a QPQ and shepherding this very complex nomination to completion. This could easily have been abandoned, and I know firsthand having taken on another page on current Indian politics that was too much of a hot potato to continue at DYK. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A decent critique

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RSSELF, self-published sources are not reliable, especially in this instance where we have no disclosures about affiliations, sponsorships or conflicts of interest. Please do not incorporate it into the article, it fails WP:RS - Naushervan (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have same thoughts as Naushervan. This is a self published blog. Venkat TL (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories