User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2014/January

Lindauer
Good eyes! I thought I poured over that article with a fine-tooth comb but missed those categories.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

BLPN
Hello. I just want to ask you on which Wikipedia policy it is written that tabloids are not acceptable sources for biographies of a living person? Tabloid is just a style of newspaper format. Besides it is about the name not the autobiography of the person. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=591391392 your edit] to Income tax in the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. 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].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (as in the case of stocks and bonds), or a combination (for some buildings and equipment). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1/subchapter-O 26 USC 1001, et seq.
 * Rico Democracy Act of 2007]]." These are the steps to follow: THOMAS.gov Committee Reports  110  drop down "Word/Phrase" and pick "Report Number"  type "597" next to Report Number. This will provide the document "House Report 110-597 -  2007",

List of companies with spelling mistakes in their names
The standard rules of English grammar! I should still have an English textbook from GCSE but I've removed the prod.-- Laun  chba  ller  08:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The standard rules of English grammar according to whom? Corporate names must adhere to those rules according to whom? I have nominated the article for deletion through AfD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Luisa Zissman DYK nomination
Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, you placed a DYK no icon on the Luisa Zissman nomination last week due to concerns about the inclusion of Twitter trivia. Do you feel these have been addressed and the nomination is ready for another review? I have also raised some other queries on the nomination though. I hope you can find time to re-visit it. Thanks. SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  12:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Would you please take a look at this article which was mentioned on BLPN? I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Colby Fire
I am aware that this is likely (?) not to reach the size or impact of the Rim Fire (incidentally, an article that I created). Still, flagging an article about an event with global press coverage and still evolving for PROD within minutes of its creation is remarkable. --DarTar (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason it got global press coverage is that it was in Los Angeles - the media's systemic bias laid bare. There was a wildfire that burned 68 homes and killed a person in Redding last fall - of course, you won't find that in the BBC, nor will you find it on Wikipedia. And rightly so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, NBSB! I deprodded the article with the intention of expanding it. But while I was attempting to expand the article, you unilaterally moved it to a generic or catchall title. I object to this move and request that you revert it. It is too soon to evaluate whether this active wildfire will remain minor or will become a significant fire, or whether the possible arson angle will make it notable. While that issue remains in doubt, it should be available for editing as a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not really too soon. Forward progress was stopped yesterday and barring some major shift in weather or fire behavior, there's not going to be much more to say. If that changes, it can always be expanded out into a larger article.
 * There is no arson "angle" - it was not arson but an illegal campfire escape. That's a crime, but it's not arson (intentionally and maliciously starting a fire.) Those allegedly responsible have been charged with recklessly starting a fire. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your move was done without consensus and there have been objections, but you are apparently sticking with it. So I guess I will have to request an administrator to move it back? --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would you un-merge it? There's nothing stopping you from expanding the article in the merged form. If there's enough there to merit a stand-alone article as the Rim Fire does, that will become clear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I have unmerged it as you suggested. I request you to leave the separate article alone until it is over and can be evaluated from a historical perspective, and then to get consensus before re-merging it. OK? --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW you seem to harbor a sort of resentment over non-LA fires which do not have articles here. If you want to tell me the name of the Redding fire you referenced, I'll see if I can create an article about it. Fires that cause deaths are usually worthy of a standalone article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Later: Would that be the Clover fire? --MelanieN (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with "resentment" and everything to do with systemic bias. See Systemic bias. The Colby fire is an incredibly minor fire in the grand scheme of things, and the only reason it has heavy coverage is the location of Los Angeles as a media hub. it's a news story, and there is no evidence of lasting encyclopedicity.. Unless every wildfire that burns a single home is encyclopedic... which, frankly, I don't think is a good idea. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you are now collecting minor 2013 fires into a catchall article. IMO that's appropriate for a fire which is over and can now be evaluated from a historical perspective. I do submit that it's inappropriate to consign an active fire only 24 hours old to that category before it can be evaluated. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: The Colby Fire seems to be out, although there was never a pronouncement that it was 100% contained. (Not with a bang, but a whimper.) It appears that it did not become a fire of lasting significance and so I have merged it into the catchall article 2014 California wildfire season with a redirect. I think we can continue to do this after a fire is out; I do think, however, that an article is appropriate for publicized named fires while they are burning and before their historical significance is clear. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW I seem to remember that you felt the Clover Fire deserved an article. I agree. Check out my draft at User:MelanieN/sandbox and see what you think. --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)