User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof: Difference between revisions

hi

it is political and wikipedia is encyclopedia. we do not comment prices and make such comparisons. the sources are written on a blog.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Please make note at WP:BLPN

I do not believe that comments on a talk page when they are referring to the article is a BLP violation. You are free to go to WP:BLPN, but I think that removing talk page comments under 'BLP' is justified, and is a dangerous road. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BLP. The policy applies anywhere on the encyclopedia, including talk pages. Unsupported allegations of criminal activity are absolutely prohibited anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have read it, and nowhere did it mention where you can redact comments on talk pages for the purposes of BLP. The mention of 'including talk pages' is vague. WP:BLPCRIME refers specifically to crime and mentions in the article. One IP editor discussing a common notion of Anita's critics is not a BLP violation. Tutelary (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes it is a BLP violation. Feel free to open a discussion on the BLPN if you wish. I'll be happy to participate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Chip Berlet

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

You recently restored improper content to the Jennifer Rubin (journalist) article without discussion. The material badly misrepresents its sources and violates multiple core policies including NPOV and BLP. I request that you please not restore it again without at least showing up and saying something at Talk. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Rubin (journalist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Richard Cohen and Jennifer Rubin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding template in your userpage

You out yourself as "gay" a while back, so can I add {{User gay male}} in your user page? --George Ho (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 IRS controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jennifer Rubin (journalist). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  - 2/0 (cont.) 22:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC on an article you recently edited is being conducted at Talk:Joni_Ernst#RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? Cwobeel (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sheetal Sheth age

I completely agree that IMDB is not sufficient for disputed info. I don't see any "dispute" about it being correct though, just some editor with apparent COI who does not wish the info to be seen. DMacks (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that they're removing it constitutes a dispute, more or less. If there's not a better source for it, there's not really a reason we should have it anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Matches what's reported at [1]. Filmbug is a generally variable-reliability source (some user-generated content, some content cited to wikipedia). But that particular one states Bio courtesy Warner Independent for "Looking for Comedy In the Muslim World". That cited work is apparently some sort of documentary that stars this person (and is notable enough to have a WP article), but I don't have access to a copy myself. DMacks (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Alison Lundergan Grimes

Your recent editing history at Alison Lundergan Grimes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.CFredkin (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CFredkin (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see that you have been blocked before for edit warring. Right now I have protected the page for a week. Discuss the problem at the talk page. If you resume the war after a week then you will be blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Discretionary Sanctions

Discretionary Sanctions for Mitch McConnell and Alison Grimes have been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Potential wikihounding by NorthBySouthBaranof. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson

Please reconsider or modify your addition. See BLPN for more details, but police reports are primary sources. Even if we were to include "peaceful" you should attribute that. I doubt very much that Alders felt they were being peaceful, whatever that means. From the short portion of the video, it seemed adversarial,at best. But this is why we use secondary reliable sources.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it matters what Albers' state of mind was - the objective facts are pretty clear. Any officer of the law who levels a rifle at unarmed, peaceful protestors, says "I will fucking kill you, get back" and responds with "Go fuck yourself" when asked to identify himself is clearly acting inappropriately. If Albers felt they weren't peaceful - then that's Albers' problem with understanding the nature of the word. There are no allegations that Albers was threatened with violence nor are there any allegations that the protestors he aimed a weapon at were armed. Merely feeling discomfort with people who oppose you is not, under any objective consideration of policing, valid reason to threaten them with deadly force.

The secondary reliable sources here are effectively unanimous. I'm not aware of any reliable source making any claims that what Albers did was appropriate - but if there are some, we should certainly include them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

this is why we use secondary sources to describe the crowd. Or we attribute to the primary source. We should only cite primary sources in very limited circumstances. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Brown article

Hi, I think that two Hoosiers can work together. Of course I was only a Hoosier while at ND for my masters, but love Indiana. Of course I never thought my edits had a chance of sticking, but maybe I can get some traction for a more neutral encyclopedic lede. Do you really think that lede represents the goals of the WP project? Best regards! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC - Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

As an editor who has recently edited Joni Ernst, you are invited to comment on this RFC. Your participation will be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM clarification request regarding use of "TERF"

I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate

Please stop trying to delete information which has appeared in multiple reliable sources; it has already been noted to you repeatedly on Zoe Quinn that it is not a violation of BLP. If you continue to do so I will seek to have you barred from these pages; I appreciate your work on finding sources and don't want to exclude you from the editing process, but if you continue to delete such information I will have to in the interest of allowing the article to move forward. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the fact that it's already been revdel'ed multiple times by several different administrators from both articles, I'm pretty sure that you're the one who is at risk of being banned for violating policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Your recent editing history at GamerGate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tutelary (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To avoid violating NPOV, don't describe people as "social justice warriors." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The next time you revert, I'm reporting you to WP:AN3. Looking at the page history, you're at 8 reverts so far or even more. Please self revert. Tutelary (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You can't state, in Wikipedia's voice, that someone is a "social justice warrior." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tutelary (Result: ). Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Break

I am taking a break from debating the subject of GamerGate.I kindly request that you keep the discussion civil and distance yourself emotionally from the subject. Neutrality is the key to writing articles.I will return to the article later. Kind regards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm sure you are entirely unbiased and detached. OK then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your work insuring that the articles related to GamerGate adhere to Wikipedia policies (especially RS and BLP) in the face of dedicated resistance. Gamaliel (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Content removal

Its wasn't large scale removal it was removal of very bias unfounded information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Anarousedtuna: Please refrain from edit warring and explain on the article talk page what is "unfounded" or "biased" about including the GamerGate article in Wikipedia's feminism portal. The controversy obviously involves issues related to feminism, as discussed in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop and think with your edits you are trying to paint gamer gate as a sexist issue when it is not. Suggestion revert you edit and state what is is really about. -thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the reliable sources and understand why the predominant point of view about GamerGate is that it's riven with misogyny and internet trolling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

ya... no its about journalism people are trying to make it about feminism. You clearly have a very bias dog in the fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 04:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in ensuring the article adheres to core content policies and reflects the mainstream consensus view of the controversy. It's not my fault that some people with honest concerns about journalism hitched their wagon to a misogynistic trolling witch-hunt. I apologize if you're one who's truly concerned about the ethics issue, but your hashtag has been permanently poisoned by the relentlessly-sexist focus on a woman's sex life. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, like this:~~~~. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are then remove the feminism portal it create a hostile/bias resource page. This issue does inculde sexism on both sides but it should not be a focus of the point on the page. Poisoned? I have nothing against equal rights for every one regardless of whom they are but I can not stand to seem an agenda being so blatantly pushed on a page. I also take offense to being called sexist, your the one trying to force an agenda I'm trying to provide a neutral page. Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a good dose of WP:DNFTT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how this is related but I'm done with this. Episodes like this is why wiki's not considered reliable. comment added by Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 05:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:NorthBySouthBaranof_et_al._reported_by_User:MicBenSte_.28Result:_.29. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicBenSte (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You were involved in a request for amendment American politics (Kentucky Senate election)

That request has been archived here.

The arbitration committee has chosen to close this request, noting that per WP:NEWBLPBAN, this article is subject to DS. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I owe you a little apology for the last revert - I intended to review your removal, and somehow managed to revert it instead. Now, you would have noted that it was a mistake had you allowed me 5 more seconds to correct it before edit warring! ;-)

Diego (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, that's why you're supposed to contact the offending editor and try discussing the things out before filing an ANI. (What was that, less than 30 seconds or so? That may be a new record) :-P Diego (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:GamerGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Retartist (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate/Sommers edits

Please see the talk page for why I removed the response articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That depressing feel when

you realize this guy is still alive