User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2016/October

Good Faith
Your comment on the HRC talk page, suggesting that I am only there for politically motivated opinions is in bad faith and violets Wiki's Assume Good Faith policy. NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact; your editing history quite clearly demonstrates that you are both a) very new to the encyclopedia and thus likely unfamiliar with our policies, and b) interested specifically in a particular set of political points of view. That is why I suggested you review our policies so that you will become more familiar with how to edit in a manner that complies with them. Our biographies are not battlegrounds for partisan political attacks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The exact same thing could be said of you. I would suggest, that instead of questioning my motives, you argue with me based on the facts presented. Suggesting policies to me is perfectly fine, but I see no purpose in questioning my political ideology.  My edits of the Donald Trump Wiki page are to improve the page, not to shed light on Trump, just as my edits to the HRC page are to improve it. NationalInterest16 (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The same thing can't be said of me, actually; I've written and edited articles on everything from Magic: The Gathering sets to IMSA GTP racing cars. HAND. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

dude I answered it over on talk page if you have opinion go there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Current_events#Reverts.2Fedits.2Freverts--2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Warning on my talk page
Who exactly am I supposed to be "attacking"? 68.232.71.82 (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes on the demographics page.
if it's good enough for the Historical racial and ethnic demographics of the United States, it's good enough for the main page. BelAirRuse (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

JBH situation
Shouldn't User talk:JBH be moved back to its original location (and reintegrated with the material now on that user's talk page) rather than deleted? Won't deleting it remove history of his earlier warning, before he blanked the page and moved it? Or maybe I misunderstand things. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably true. I just figured it would be easier to delete it and let it be, considering there's not really much likelihood of the user in question using their talk page much in the future *cough*indeffed*cough* so no need to waste admin time on splicing the pages, heh. There is nothing significant on his talk page and there isn't likely to be much more than a block notice in the future. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What? How dare you block SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURES ARTS AND SCIENCES?!? They have banded together Lion Force Voltron-style to form a single, superpowerful MrCitizenX, and surely they are too powerful to be overcome! --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So Wikileaks isn't a dependable source according to who?
Just about every major news outlet regularly uses Wikileaks as reliable source. Why are you saying it isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.41.4.43 (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They are using it as a primary source, and with very few exceptions, those are prohibited from use in Wikipedia biographies because of the possibility of bias, misuse, taking things out of context, etc. So we rely on secondary reliable sources such as academic and journalistic publications, to analyze and discuss these sources, producing material we can then base articles upon. If the only place you can find a particular statement is WikiLeaks, it's not significant enough to belong in their biography, because that means secondary reliable sources have not found it worthy of reporting or discussing. Again, I suggest you read our foundational policies on writing biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikileaks "unreliable source?"
Wikileaks has a decade long 100% accuracy for vetting and publishing of information - a better track record than every single "reliable" media outlet you can mention, why then is Wikileaks considered an "unreliable source" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezay (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikileaks is a primary source - that is, they republish what are, according to them, verbatim primary source documents. According to our policy on the use of primary sources in biographies, they must be used, if at all, with extreme caution, and we must not make interpretive or synthesized claims about what is in those documents. We rely on reliable secondary sources to interpret those documents. The use of direct links to hacked personal documents is questionable, at best. If you believe strongly that these links should be included, you should discuss the matter on the relevant article talk page and gain consensus for those proposed edits. Again, I suggest you take time to review all of the relevant policies about how we write encyclopedia articles — particularly articles about or relating to living people. Wikipedia is not a platform to advance political smear campaigns for one side or the other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been editing any biographies? I've been editing a page dedicated to the content of a leak from wikileaks? the policies regarding non-biographical pages show that these edits are fine, I even discussed them in advance with editors who mentioned as you have, that as long as it isn't a biography, these edits are fine... I'm not sure who's biography "Podesta Email Leak" is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezay (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezay (talk • contribs) 03:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, no, you have edited biographies. A large number of them, in fact. Moreover, whomever has told you that "as long as it isn't a biography, these edits are fine" is misinformed or lying. Please read the first line of the the biographies of living persons policy, to wit, Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. The policy applies to any material written about any living person anywhere on the encyclopedia.
 * WP:IAR is not a license to do whatever you want on the encyclopedia; it is a reminder that the project is not about bureaucracy, so that if you do something which breaks a rule but improves the encyclopedia and nobody objects to it, you're covered. Explicitly "invoking" IAR is generally a sign that there is no consensus that what you are doing actually improves the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)