User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2013/May

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, NorthBySouthBaranof. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Epicgenius (talk to me • see my contributions) 20:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Protected Areas of Colorado
I'm don't think the National Monuments in Colorado need to be divided by federal agency. Users who don't work for the government could care less.

BTW, we both qualify for Template:User 47%. Buaidh 19:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree that those who don't work for the government don't care - the rules are often different. For example, hunting is permitted on most BLM national monuments, whereas National Park Service-managed national monuments fall under the Organic Act and forbid hunting. I'm not married to the solution I happened upon, but I think it's important to help Wikipedia users understand that different sites have different managers.
 * How about a parenthetical after each unit - "Chimney Rock (USFS)", for example? It would avoid the box-stack proliferation (which I recognize is a problem) while still identifying the management. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that works fine.  Buaidh  20:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool beans. And yeah, heh, I'm just another mooching taker... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
I won't do it again. I'm very sorry. Sorry again. --A train that derailed (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That wasnt vandalism
That wasn't vandalism. I was simply stating a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexlink38 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

kleck
Are you the IP that I reverted?

In either case, could I ask you to slow down your edits a bit, I agree with many (most) of them, but it makes it difficult to review what is going on with such massive unilateral change. Particularly for the "criticism" changes you made where you removed Klecks response, I think those should go through some consensus building on the talk page.

Frankly, "criticism" sections are frowned upon generally, but I think it makes sense in this article, but forcing the responses to specific criticisms to be far away from where that criticism was discussed seems counter productive.

That said, Klecks responses should be tweaked to be a bit less pointed and argumentative. (Part of the problem is that kleck himself made those edits, so we need to adjust for wiki-tone)

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So the first thing you do when you meet another editor is to accuse them of being a sockpuppet? That's a little... odd. WP:AGF, maybe?
 * I saw this page go by in my RC feed, was about to revert the same thing you did - but I decided that the IP editor made a huge number of good points w/r/t the text. The previous version literally read as if everything that Kleck said was true and that all of his critics are proven wrong. That is not remotely WP:NPOV. His critics have made claims, he has made counter-claims. We cannot decide which is true, or which is "logical." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was not accusing you of being a sockpuppet. I was just trying to make sure I understood what was going on. (I was actually going to follow up with suggesting you had an admin revdel the IP edit if it was you in case you had accidentally edited while logged out).


 * I agree we have to fix some of Klecks POV issues, and that we cannot decide the truth - I was just suggesting that the speed of change was perhaps a bit high, and that some of the bigger changes could use a discussion. WP:BRD applies, but I dont want to revert the whole set, because many/most of the edits are great! Gaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mention on the talk page which changes you have a problem with, and we'll go from there. The issue is that if we're going to have separate subsections for "criticism" and "response to criticism," then it doesn't make sense to have Kleck's responses in *both* subsections. The "response" is already the same length as the criticism. That's unnecessarily duplicative. Perhaps it would be best if we ditched the subsections and melded them together - would probably flow better, too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree they should only be one place or another. Im probably ok either way, but I do think if we are removing a response from the criticism section, it should be added into the response section, unless its obviously not worthy. However, doing that may mean the sections need to be much longer, because we would have to identify which particular criticism each response was intended for, which could be very cumbersome. Keeping the argument and counterargument together would avoid that problem, and also maybe provide a coherent neutral view of each issue to the reader. (especially on a controversial topic like this where maybe people would be inclined to only read the section they agree with) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My intention was that the only things I removed entirely from the "response" were either tagged as unsourced/original research or were basically duplicated in the "response" section - but if I made an error and removed something that wasn't, please feel free to put it back because that was unintentional. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

if they are duplicative, removing is fine. I didn't read each change close enough compared to the rest of the article to know that or not, I just saw content go away that I thought had some redeeming value. If that value is elsewhere - fine( based on this, you may probably ignore my response on the article talk). I am heading home now, and have a baby to take care of when I get there, so I may not be able to respond or collaborate as quickly for the remainder of the evening. Sorry for asking you to build consensus and then step out :) I would still ask that you give some of the changes time, this isn't a very active article, and the stuff has been here for a while, we have WP:NODEADLINE :)Gaijin42 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, no hard feelings
No hard feelings on the AfD nomination. I had sort of borderline issues with it myself, so I figured it might get nominated since everything is relatively recent. Whether it gets deleted or not, would you mind going through the article and helping with a clean? I'm not overly familiar with writing articles on crimes. I've done some and I've written some where I was the only contributor, but I'm not very savvy on how to write it without it sounding like an Ann Rule book. I want to userfy it if it doesn't survive AfD, so if it does end up gaining 110% notability in the future then I'll have a cleaned up copy to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

problematic deletions
See that is problematic, because now we have unsourced criminal claims, which editor #3 will walk in and then delete. Blogs may be less than ideal, but when a country's press operates under a press club system, we as outsiders have to go the next step down. but anyway, i got some other business, so maybe some other editors will step in. I will repeat this under the article's talk page purely for informational retrievle reasons. -Samsara9 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Sexmenu.info" is never a reliable source for anything under any circumstances. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was fast
Hi NorthBySouthBaranof. Thanks for volunteering at Wikipedia. I just saw you approved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:Forward to Libraries that was at WP:AFC. That was really fast. Thank you very much for your help. It is greatly appreciated. Wikipedia is very lucky to have your support. 64.40.54.57 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem - thank you for writing up an important new Wikipedia tool! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thanks. I almost ended up studying with one of your colleagues at ESF, but IU made me an offer I couldn't refuse, so to speak. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express
If your interest is to be an impartial reverter editors of the Suburban Express article who make changes not discussed, now would be a good time to take action against the bloggy/POV stuff that's rapidly spreading there.KevinCuddeback (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's full-protected right now so nobody can do anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I must say sorry....
..... for sending you to the edit warring board, so please accept my apologies, I should have looked further; I have blocked MDPub13 now, indefinitely. Lectonar (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for taking a second look and taking care of it. You could probably close the EW report I started. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My reverts at Harry S. Truman National Historic Site
Your sources might be good, but a bunch of refs piled up against the title don't really count as refs. Refs should be cited for content (facts). If it's the period that concerns you, keep in mind that one can easily find an equal number of sources either way; and the ones you added didn't support the name as written (as you know). So I removed them all. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22
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.


 * Harry S. Truman Farm Home (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Sequestration


 * Harry S. Truman National Historic Site (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Sequestration

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Choose New Jersey
Hi NorthBySouthBaranof,

You recently declined my submission for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Choose_New_Jersey. Could you elaborate on what areas I need to modify to make it more neutral? Thanks! Jmrz89 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll start with the lede:
 * Choose New Jersey, Inc. is an independently funded and operated 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, created by a collection of New Jersey corporations to position the state as a leader in the global marketplace. The organization’s mission is to encourage and nurture economic growth throughout New Jersey, including a focus on making the state’s most distressed cities engines for growth and opportunity.
 * So... basically what you're saying is that it's an economic development organization that encourages businesses to locate in New Jersey? Then just say that. Don't take 50 words to say what 10 would.
 * Choose New Jersey executes a highly targeted and research-based lead generation and marketing campaign directed at CEOs, site selectors and other decision makers...
 * Again, reads like a press release. Who says it's highly-targeted and research-based? We can't just take your word for it.
 * As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is based around the concept of neutral point of view, which means that we don't accept press-release-style writing. Instead, what you should do is refer to specific facts.
 * A good example in this realm might be Massachusetts Development Finance Agency - while far from a perfect article, instead of talking about "elite" this and "state of the art" that, it discusses concrete numbers of investment, jobs created, and refers to specific examples of projects the agency was involved in.
 * Also, you will need to source the article with references to reliable external sources such as newspapers, major Web sites, etc., that discuss your organization. You can refer to Your first article for more about style and writing guidelines.
 * Hope this helps - if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much
Thanks much for your helpful contributions to the new page, Liberator (gun). Much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I was "warned" by this user as well for stating a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.127.167 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Chiffonmary
Why do you keep deleting my page, I have even talked to the Wikipedia admin in the past, you are saying I am not a notable person but I have been mentioned in the press, appeared on the News, and several other places which is more than enough legitimate proof. The News is as Legitimate as you can get. They are not just local, they interview National Individuals of Notability in many Places.SO I do not understand why you would say that. Not to mention there are quite a few pages in Wikipedia that do not even have that quality of Wikipedia references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiffonmary (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not deleted anything - I am not an admin, and therefore cannot delete anything.
 * I did decline your Articles for creation submission because you did not cite sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate that an encyclopedic biography can be written about the person.
 * In addition, I suggest that you read our policy on autobiographies, which strongly recommends against someone writing their own Wikipedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kuiu Wilderness and Tebenkof Bay Wilderness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alpine (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) 12:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yakutat again
I've been putting off writing out my list of issues with the presentation of Alaskan municipal governments on Wikipedia for a long time. I may be forced to do something about that one of these days. Yakutat in particular has been troublesome. Yakutat is a borough, not a city-borough. It's a "City and Borough" in name only. The law in effect in 1992 mandated that Yakutat had to become a borough first before it could become a city-borough, with a separate process (petition and/or vote) for each step. That law was changed in 1994, which is how Wrangell became a city-borough without first becoming a borough. There are scores of sources which assert that Yakutat is only a borough, including even the Census Bureau website. If you search for it, you'll see that they report a Yakutat CDP in the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, which would be impossible if it really were a city-borough.

Also, consolidation (e.g. Haines, Petersburg, Skagway and Yakutat) and unification (e.g. Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Wrangell) are separate concepts under Alaska law. I guess it's another Wikipedia invention to try and claim otherwise, making it fit within Wikipedia's definition of a "consolidated city-county". Not only that, but the Census data reported in the article contradicts what's found on the state DCRA website in regards to Yakutat's area, and how much of that area is land and how much is water. The Sitka article refers to "largest incorporated area." Actually, the largest incorporated municipality by area in the United States would be the North Slope Borough. RadioKAOS –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  21:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. That is bizarre. Yeah, Wikipedia has a tendency to try and make stuff fit in neat, easy boxes even when the truth is a lot more complicated. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll self-revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)