User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2013/June

Obama talk page "racism"
In reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=557790048&oldid=557789929

This isn't racism and it's not being used as a forum. As WP:FORUM says

"In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance."

Regardless of my opinion on the matter, suggesting we use 'mulatto' is discussing changes to the article, wouldn't you agree? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. It would be like going to a Italian person's page and suggesting we use wop, or a Jewish person's page and suggesting we use kike. The term "mulatto," as is the case with "Negro", is obsolete, deprecated and borderline-offensive in modern-day usage and it has no business being externally applied to a person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never heard it considered offensive, just obsolete. I guess if it's offensive in this day and age I won't readd it back in. However if you're still open, what about an addition to it that says a mention of his mixed-ethnicity should be at the beginning of the article? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Factually and according to reliable sources, Barack Obama is an African American by any measure - that's pretty much the end of it. We already discuss his parentage in the "Early life" section. If someone wants to bring up and discuss proposed changes to an article based on reliable sources, they should feel free - but a drive-by "HE'S A MULATTO!" from an IP doesn't represent a constructive attempt at editorial interaction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

@RocketLauncher2: Good stuff in general, but totally wrong in. The IP suggested that "Barak Obama" (actually Barack Obama) needs to say that Obama is "MULATTO" (in caps!). That is simple trolling, and such comments have no place on Wikipedia (except at WP:ANI if more opinions are wanted). Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Despot Badžović
I can not see the article on the main page, within DYK section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not there yet, but it will be... it's queued up. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, I think I screwed up... this is my first time trying to build a prep list, and I think I misread the instructions - not supposed to drop the template until it actually hits the page. My bad! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Venture Spirit
Hello NorthBySouthBaranof. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Venture Spirit, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising (can be cleaned without a fundamental rewrite). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Concession
Hello NorthBySouthBaranof, I understand your argument and I concedeSocratesrazo (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)socratesrazo

Protected areas of Namibia
There appears to be a technical glitch as this article has not appeared in DYK que nor in the talk pages of its authors except User:Dr. Blofeld. Kindly check.-- Nvvchar . 12:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I can see why. see here, no credits listed in the DYK make templating. The reason was because it had five editors and it won't allow for five different credits. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why too and was about to ask.☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 12:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Zavaleta
True, but as IMDB was there I was not happy to delete as a truly 'unreferenced' biography. This does not stop you taking it to normal PROD, or AFD. Regards, GiantSnowman 10:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
WhiteWriterspeaks 09:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=558402334 your edit] to Wayne Taylor Racing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Intrepid RM-1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Drag and David Hobbs


 * 2013 IRS scandal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Secret Service


 * Eagle MkIII (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Miami Grand Prix

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kuiu Wilderness and Tebenkof Bay Wilderness
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Petroleum fiscal regime
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Rape during the liberation of France
I'm sorry to revert you, but I already have added a discussion section on talk, as I indicated in my edit summary. The reliability of the sources is beside the point, as the entire section was only added by a POV-pushing editor who is currently blocked from problematic editing on this very page. The wording "Historians' Views" is problematic, as neither of the sources cited is a "historian", technically speaking, much less does their view mark any kind of consensus among historians. Please also note that this has NOTHING to do with my personal point of view -- the two scholars cited might very well be right, and I am inclined to believe them in fact, but the way they are being used in this article is contrary to Wikipedia policy. PLEASE do not re-add the section to the article before discussing on the talk page, as I already have provided my reasons there, and your edit summaries do not begin to address them. Eh doesn&#39;t afraid of anyone (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They are historians. Reliable sources refer to them as historians. You're right that we should not present their views as the historical view, but that does not justify omitting their views entirely. You need to discuss proposed changes rather than deleting the entire section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know I should post this on the article talk page, but I didn't notice your reply here. I never expressed the opinion that we should be omitting their views. I merely stated that we should not be citing them when we have not actually read them. Since you were the one who inserted the actual bibliographical reference to Lilly, you are surely aware that the section as I removed it cited his "views" but actually only referenced a tertiary source. In the context of Syngmung's edits over the last week or so, this means that the user who wrote the text clearly had not read the source he was citing, and so I had every right to assume that the views I was omitting by temporarily removing them from the article (pending discussion on the talk page) were not actually his views but those of a Wikipedian who was distorting his words. Again, in context, even though a reference was given to Kaplan's own work, there was no reason to assume the same was not true of her. Since you have clearly read both sources (unlike Syngmung), the problem has now been effectively dealt with, but please assume good faith and check the background of my edits before accusing me of trying to omit the views of certain scholars from the article/possibly-soon-to-be-user-subpage-or-section-of-a-larger-article. Eh doesn&#39;t afraid of anyone (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Intrepid RM-1
Gatoclass 08:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Intrepid
Hi. We're going to need a page number for current ref #12 from Zimmerman's book about Dan Gurney's Eagle. Can you supply? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me add my congratulations to Michael Barera's barnstar. Good job, NBSB!  --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your help trying to resolve issue
Probably the best resolution splitting page into two newspapers, even though I do not recognize the other party as a legit newspaper due to him not actually publishing anything on a regular basis! My guess is the only reason this page is important to DMMILLAR is he needs it for a link from his personal "Entrepreneurial" page to create the illusion of another piece of a "mythical" empire he's creating! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffc529 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dragging through the mud
Mentioning the employer of that admitted whistleblower DOES besmirch the company -- I know it does because I work for the company and I feel besmirched to have MY COMPANY mentioned in connection with the whistleblower. Obviously you tree hugging liberals (as you proudly admit to being called) who don't work for that company would not understand. Just don't go around with your pansy-wansy name dragging buddy. Don't piss on my roof and tell me its raining. I know what dragging through the mud feels like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't like a fact does not make that fact, which has been widely reported and is known worldwide, unencyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Repeating a fact that is irrelevant to the story does not make it relevant! That's just the fallacy of giving relevancy through repetition. Just wait until someone at your company does something --- You'll find out. If you ever get a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly irrelevant to the story to document how he got the information. But go ahead, try removing it, I won't revert you anymore. You'll just be reverted by everyone else who edits the article for the exact same reason. And I have a job, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Rape during the liberation of France
Hi, You appear to be engaged in an edit dispute with another editor on the above page. This is not productive for Wikipedia and it should not continue. Thank you. (Please note: I have posted an identical message at the other editor's talk page.) Taroaldo    ✉   03:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a related discussion on ANI involving that edit war (and more), with a proposed topic ban for another participant: ANI. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for hosting!
Hey, I'm theonesean, Teahouse maitre d' for this week. Just wanted to welcome you to the Teahouse, say hi, and tell you about our expectations for hosts. Thanks for being awesome, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions/comments/concerns, or just to say hi! Thanks, TheOneSean &#91; U &#124; T &#124; C &#93; 13:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eagle MkIII
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I Nominate You for some kind of Recognition?
For this work here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_Snowden#Not_a_.22whistleblower.22

I have a general sense that there are awards, etc.. barnstars, geegaws, doodads and whatnot. How does this happen, and what do I need to do? PS, love the "tree hugging liberal pansy" comment. Can I give you the Tree Hugging Liberal Pansy Award? Jonny Quick (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Luchins
We tripped over one another while I was back-checking the refs for the Pollard material. I'll stop editing for a time, to let others hack away at our work. I agree with your change of headings. I've made sure everything from the top through the Pollard section has the right source for the right facts, with the exception of two grafs I hadn't had time to get to. I'll resume my work tomorropw or later this week.

Thanks for lending a hand in what I fear may be an escalating kerfuffle between partisans and WP:NPOV wiki-editors. David in DC (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike Gatto
Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, thank you for starting a clean up of the article. I've restored the POV tag because I think it's still relevant, especially since a lot of the content was copied directly from smartvoters.org, which claims the content was in turn supplied by the subject's office. methinks the article will require a more sweeping rewrite. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ....unless the Wikipedia article preceded the smartvoters version, and the subject's office liked it enough to forward the Wiki version to smartvoters, which has the standard copyright warning on its site. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

, we moved your Teahouse host profile
Hello NorthBySouthBaranof! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Eagle MkIII
I can provide some assistance and an outside opinion for helping to improve the article to GA. I don't have a lot of knowledge on the MkIII specifically, but I'm sure I can dig up some additional information online. I also have some photos of the Daytona-winning MkIII that I can upload, even though they are not of the best quality.

I will however say that my ability to work on it and get back to you will vary based on my own personal work offline, but I will try to be quick to respond. The359 ( Talk ) 06:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's no hurry. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. I'll be glad for anything you can contribute. Thanks! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a bit of an update, I've uploaded a handful of pictures I took at the Rolex 24 the past couple of years of the Eagle MkIII, as well as the Intrepid RM-1. They are in the Commons categories for each vehicle.  I'll still have to look through the MkIII article when I get time, but the only thing I notice so far is that the racing history section seems a bit brief, considering it is arguably the most important aspect of the car.  The359  ( Talk ) 04:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that section is definitely first on the to-do list. I have all the results and sources I need, just have to get around to writing it up. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

My rudeness !
NorthBy, how rude of me ... I was just archiving my talk page, and came across comments from you that I don't recall seeing before ... I don't know how or why that happened, but I'm sorry for not responding to User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch94. Thanks for your kind thoughts ... yes, this can be a very strange place, and some folks take what is intended as constructive critique quite personally ... one has to grow a thick skin! I'm glad you found my feedback helpful, and hope you continue to do good things 'round here. Best regards, and apologies again for appearing to ignore you! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Domenic Johansson custody case for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Domenic Johansson custody case 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 Articles for deletion/Domenic Johansson custody case until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You were another person I saw that heavily contributed to the page in one format or another, so I wanted to give you a head's up that I completed an AfD nom for an IP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amanda Platell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"speculation"
This source is very typical: "American intelligence experts worry that Russian officials have copied the memories of the four laptops that Snowden brought with him." "Worry" or "expressed concern" most accurately reflects the majority of the sources. Where are the sources that say "speculated"? In other words, I am asking you to heed thw Wikipedia policy calling for Verifiability, which specifically says ""content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."--Brian Dell (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They have presented no public evidence to support their claims. That makes them, at best, speculative. Anonymous unsupported claims about a living person are to be treated with the utmost skepticism. The biographies of living persons policy demands no less. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In YOUR editorial judgment. You don't own Wikipedia, however, which means we defer to the editorial judgment of reliable sources.  The New York Times etc have ALREADY treated the claims "with the utmost skepticism" if that it is in order and deemed the material notable enough to publish.  You are misinterpreting the WP:BLP policy if you think it means eliminating reliably sourced, neutrally presented material.  The bottom line is that the "speculation" wording is not reliably sourced and accordingly should be removed (as per WP:BLP).--Brian Dell (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership Newsletter
Hi ! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:
 * We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
 * Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
 * WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
 * Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)