User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2017/December

Lucian Wintrich
Hey guys - thanks for working on that sentence. This is just a short message to mention that I took all of the reversions and edits in good faith, and there's no hard feelings. I think that the combined effort is resulting in a much better and more neutral outcome than I alone could have managed and really appreciate the collaborative process. Many thanks all. Happy editing and have a great day. Edaham (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of comments
Please explain why you removed my comment from Talk:Zoë Quinn without even an edit summary. This is not acceptable behavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I must have accidentally tapped the rollback button while scrolling my watchlist from my phone and didn't notice it - it was not at all intentional and I apologize for the error. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks. It happens to us all sometimes, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It does, but I'm a little frustrated at myself that I didn't notice it immediately and fix it. Mind wandered elsewhere and didn't come back to Wikipedia until just now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Michael Flynn
As you restored challenged edits without obtaining talk page consensus, your reverts to Michael Flynn violated "consensus required" page restriction:
 * 1) – also a BLP violation
 * 2)
 * 3)

Please self-revert the edits you have not already self-reverted. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, your edits are the ones challenged - the material had been stable for weeks beforehand. The fact of his conviction (put in a blunter manner, that he is a "felon") has been in the first line of the article at least since this edit on Dec. 1. If you believe it shouldn't be there, you're welcome to open a discussion on the article talk page. But I simply returned the article to status quo ante.
 * There are no BLP violations in any of the edits I made - that Flynn pled guilty to the crime is a matter of public record and reliably-sourced reporting. He stands convicted of that crime, guilty by his own admission in open federal court.
 * I suggest that if you object to the edits in question, you open a discussion on the article talk page and explain why you believe it is inappropriate to categorize someone convicted of making false statements in that category. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have opened a thread on the talk page to discuss why you believe it's a BLP violation to report reliably-sourced facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

, it cannot possibly be a BLP violation to categorize someone who voluntarily pled guilty to a felony charge of lying to the FBI as "People convicted of making false statements". If you disagree, you must bring forward a very convincing argument, but I am having a very hard time visualizing what that argument might be. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This boils down to the definition of "convicted". Please comment the content issue on the article talk page. If you want to comment NorthBySouthBaranof's DS violation, you should probably do it here. Politrukki (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

For your helpful discourse
Years ago, it would have violated WP:Clue to be so truthful about how the inner workings of wikipedia actually function. It was always best to just obfuscate the issues to curious non-admins while ostensibly answering questions about the process by citing various WP:PG. Has the transparency I'm describing changed over the past few years? One of the reasons I divested myself from this once-noble project was due to the blatant abuses that powerful & influential 'crats & their fanboys were able to enact on the group of genuinely disinterested, wholly aboveboard admins. It thwarted the entire concept of consensus. Surely you know what I'm referring to? (if you've ever watched what happens when highly contested political articles go to arbcom, you might notice the pattern employed by the winning side) This in particular is worth a read from back in the golden days of WP. LaceyUF (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)