User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archive 1

Some advice
Since the admins didn't warn you, I just wanted to give you some advice. When making a report on the adminboard notice, please don't just lie and say "Declined to discuss on talk page". You have to agree there are some decent discussions on the talk page, so that was a big lie. I did accept the warning from the admins about edit warring, but please, be careful when making reports. ok? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Friendly notice
Please in the future be careful when warning people. The WikiProject Current Events began a discussion a day before the “Discussion” that you said I was violating and warned me for. In the future, please consider reading a talk page for previous discussion that are already on-going before warning for a newer discussion.

Thanks, (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects have no authority over anything, and discussions on a WikiProject page have no power to override discussion on an article talk page. I linked you to the ongoing discussion at the article talk page where not a single user has expressed support for removing that statement; that you refuse to engage in that discussion is evident, and telling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion actually took place on the talk page. Also the Current Event WikiProject has authority on articles tagged as a “current event”.  Also, you are using a thread created hours ago to “override” a thread that is almost 2 days old.  The 2 day old thread shows a clear “no consensus”.  Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects have literally no "authority" to do anything. Being part of a WikiProject implies no special editorial rights or privileges on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting me on talk pages
I took the liberty of restoring the comment on Talk:The_Epoch_Times to continue to the discussion. I also did the same on Talk:CNN controversies.

I reviewed Talk_page_guidelines. Your recent reversion of the talk pages do not qualify under any of these. Moreover, the posts to these and other Adler editorials are not spam. I went through the T.D. Adler posts with several search engines and picked out the ones which were most applicable rather than just a broad opinion. The ones I posted were all that I found. Not all of the Adler editorials were posted on Breitbart, although most were. As you note, Breitbart is deprecated: see Deprecated_sources. This does not forbid its use on talk page discussions. As for spamming potential, please click on "page information" for the talk pages, and then scroll to the bottom of the page. There is a link which will show a graph for views. You will see from this that there are very few views to talk pages. So these posts are not spam because there's very little audience and I posted them thoughtfully rather than as a bot. I am certainly not suggesting these editorials for inclusion on the article pages. Had the editorial referred only to the topic rather than the Wikipedia article itself, I would not have posted it.

In short I am looking for a commitment from you not to revert my talk page comments when they refer to an Adler editorial.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, they're from a deprecated source (or a random personal blog), written by a banned user, and of no use whatsoever to Wikipedians of good faith. If you continue to post them, I'm pretty sure you'll be sanctioned. Proxying for a banned user is prohibited. Pinging and/or  to explain this further. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They are not from a random personal blog. I kept running into them when looking for geographically related article media mentions. It is hard to avoid them because Google News indexes them. How can I be "proxying for a banned user" when I've had no coordination or communication with the user or any of his friends? And is pinging people you think will agree with you canvassing? I was warned about that well over a year ago, so I looked it up and that actually is forbidden.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adler's stuff on Breitbart has no possible use here on Wikipedia. I support the removal of any links pointing to Breitbart. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what do you think "ExtraNewsFeed" is? It's filled with random nonsense, its title is the same political rants you see on Facebook, but they're well written. also half of these stories are satire. let your judgment - and not your newsfeed - determine which half, and it has no identifiable editorial structure or editorial policy. Use your critical thinking skills. And no, pinging two administrators is not "canvassing." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I put in a request at Administrators%27_noticeboard. If you want to weigh in, go ahead.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

About your edit on Gretchen Whitmer
I would like to ask for you to revert your recent edit on Gretchen Whitmer. Stating that it is a failed impeachment resolution for the title isn't a good Wikipedia sub title. It is clearly stated that the impeachment resolution was a failed attempt, however, the title should still say "Impeachment Resolution". Gives it a more formal look. I am not allowed to revert edits for about 18 more hours, so I would kindly ask you to revert it. Thanks, Elijahandskip (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I won't - if we're going to have a section about it (which I oppose, but I'm not going to simply revert until there's a consensus), that section heading needs to clearly state that it was a failure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'm just removing it entirely. There's no consensus for including the material and frankly, quite the opposite - you're the only one arguing for it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate and abusive use of Wikipedia guidelines to censor discussion.
Hi, your use of "reliable sources don't have to cite their own sources" is inappropriate, it seems to be an attempt to poison the well. What I posted was not the argument you claimed it to be. So I will remove your change later today if you don't respond, assuming you are refusing to communicate. If you change it again without contacting me, I will be forced to report you. I said, for something to be evidence of a political label on Wikipedia, it needs to say WHY in the article or source the WHY. The WHY is emphasised not the source. You are implying I think all sources need a source, but obviously reporting starts somewhere. All sources cited do not say WHY PV is "far-right" and zero cite a source that gives a reason either. I did say I think academic sources are better for this, but was not demanding it. A student cannot use any of those sources because zero say why. This article is worse than a 1st grade high-school paper. This is my issue. There is no why. I was inviting people to say why PV are Far-right and give a source that says this. This would make the article acceptable. Mikeymikemikey (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, that's not how it works. Sorry, it just isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is “Rope to hang yourself with”…. Thank you. —El Millo (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

consensus requires multiple people
It's not just you declaring others are wrong.

Till we reach it leave my work be. --Bojackh (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, not the way it works - the lede has been extensively workshopped and has, at the least, an implicit consensus. Your major changes remove unchallenged factual statements and create implications which are, at best, opinionated, and you may not unilaterally force them into the article. Further discussion of this issue belongs on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Parade attack
You say that there is not enough information to include the perpetrators history of black supremacist views and his expressed desires to kill and otherwise harm white people, why is that? Are his own social media posts and his own words not adequate sourcing? What better source could you find then the perpetrators own statements? Frankly you are coming across as behaving in a very political manner, not as somebody who is actually trying to help the public be informed. Micfail (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI this editor has no previous edits NBS. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Waukesha
You are classifying this as a car crash? I’m good faith? Terrible. 2600:387:F:5612:0:0:0:2 (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, IP, my preferred title at this point is "rampage" as I think it accurately states the level of reckless violence involved without directly imputing intent or premeditation (which has yet to be proven in court). But you may wish to review other historical examples of pedestrians being run over by drivers (Santa Monica Farmers Market crash, for example) and redirect your outrage elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Steven Crowder Edits
Good morning NorthBySouthBaranof,

It seems fair to say that we are at odds regarding the Steven Crowder page, and in an attempt to de-escalate a potential edit-war (wherein my contribution will proceed to be undone by you), I'm reaching out. I'm struggling to see how the hyperbolic speech used by a graduate student (quoted in the Bloomberg article) sufficiently meets a standard of 'expert'. I am also struggling to see how Becca Lewis' editorializing quote is in accordance with the values of neutrality and impartiality. I like to think that we might agree: BLP is not the central issue at hand, nor is it a policy I reference, though it is the one you chose to address. I hope to enjoy enjoy your attention to this matter soon.

-KKeeran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkeeran (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned in your edit summary, "Nope, I disagree and so do other admins." While some may be of the view that the material is DUE, I fail to see any admins who support leaving the so-called "well-sourced" and "long-standing" info there while a discussion is taking place. On the other hand, Seraphim (an admin) unambiguously states: "Disputed material stays out while it is under discussion, and only goes back if and when a consensus is established that it is appropriately worded and well-referenced. In contrast to NorthBySouthBaranof's assertion, this is not required for "every word", only for disputed material. But once the dispute is made, the discussion is required, without exception." The Doc makes a similar point. Could you please point me to any contradictory admin opinions that you seem to be referring to in your edit summary? Best, Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)