User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2014/October

Arbcom clarification request:Sexology
The request for clarification you initiated or were involved with has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi
I've been on Wikipedia a long time, and I've never seen such lunacy from another editor as I've just seen from that guy on Bianchi's talk page. If he continues, I'll report him for deleting your comment (at least twice) and restoring vandalism to a BLP. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Edits to the "Gamergate controversy" article
I think it would be best at this point if you either refrained from further edits to the Gamergate page or toned down on your frequency. You have made 61 of the last 500 edits to the article and are the second most frequent editor within that period. At this point I believe it would be best if less invested contributors took over. If you have any concerns about NPOV or SPAs, your argument will be strengthened by relegating such observations to the appropriate resolution channels and engaging the community in these issues. In this spirit, I will also refrain from making any further edits to the article and limit myself to suggestions on the talk page.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * there is no value in people who are "less invested" in Wikipedia's policies and representing the reliable sources having more editing of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If every SPA devoted to introducing nonsense about living people into this article similarly agreed to not edit, I might consider this. But Titanium Dragon won't even agree to *not mention Zoe Quinn for a month*, so invested are they in depicting her negatively. So no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 5 October 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 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 discussion is about the topic Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakebyte42 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Your video game journalism revert
Why did you revert the allegations of several other people other than Nathan Grayson saying they're not relevent people? These other people were also accused for harming journalistig integrity. --Artman40 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your sentence makes literally no sense, and this discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Please take your issues there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes sense but the fact that other 4 people who have received accusations were not mentioned in mainstream media for some reason is still notable. --Artman40 (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it makes no sense, because "accused for harming journalistic integrity" is not a comprehensible phrase. What is "harming journalistic integrity," which reliable source made the accusations and is there any substantiation for any of the claims? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Do me a solid
I'm staying out of that hell hole. 5 edit conflicts in 2 minutes. Could you please replace the "ingrained" source with one of the suitable ones you mentioned? Always a pleasure Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 05:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would do so happily, but the article's full-prot for another... week, I think? Yeah, it's a debacle. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

AN3
Titanium Dragon etc— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Sandals is rehashing the content dispute on AN now.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos article
Hi, I was looking at the article on the person in question and it seems like someone simply copied the section from the Gamergate article with minor changes, and some of the sources I find questionable eg Techcrunch, Reason, and the claims that he experienced harassment. Can you take a look at it? TY --137.111.13.200 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gamergate controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

GamerGate sanctions
In case you were unaware.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Note on the removal of article tagging (Tropes vs. Women in video games)
Hello, I recently noticed that you removed the tag I put on the article Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (Wikipedia Article). I am kinda new to flagging articles that need improvement on Wikipedia, and I was wondering if I made a mistake in how I flagged it. What I wanted to accomplish was to have the article slightly cleaned up because some of the information in it, to me at least, appears to be opinionated and does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view. Is there a way I could have done this better?

&#91;&#91;THEO!&#124;User:Tjraptis20&#93;&#93; (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When you tag an article, particularly one as contentious as that one, you need to open a discussion on the talk page expressing your specific issues with the article. Merely dropping a tag in the article and walking away is "drive-by tagging" and not considered good form or helpful, especially when it is a well-established article with significant edits such as that one.
 * That is, the tag doesn't tell us anything other than your very general opinion that there is a very general issue. For issues to be fairly discussed and addressed by a consensus decision, they need to be explained and discussed. Hope this helps. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thank you for letting me know what I did wrong. I did some research and did find that it is in fact a very controversial article which in fact has been vandalized multiple times. I am not quite sure why I did not open up a discussion, but if I visit that article again and do decide for good that it appears to not be written from a neutral point of view, I will leave that tag and open up discussion.
 * Sorry for any inconvenience that I caused


 * &#91;&#91;THEO!&#124;User:Tjraptis20&#93;&#93; (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)