User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2017/July

Vandalising CNN controversies pages
Please, stop You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at CNN controversies. --DraKyry (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Your recent edit may not have included the best example in light of:. CIreland (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to merit any mention in the main biography, though - which I presume was a consensus editorial decision at some point, that I entirely agree with. If we don't discuss, in Trump's biography, wrong things that he has tweeted because it's too trivial to mention, it's probably too trivial to mention in the brief biography of a far less prominent person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

So
This is how Guy "doesn't care" anymore.--Jorm (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

68.234.100.139
I see you reverted one of this IP's edits. FYI, I just opened this ANI thread concerning this user.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw the ANI thread and decided to pitch in. I'll comment on ANI shortly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of my edit referencing Sarsour tweet on Sharia law
NorthBySouthBaranof -- nothing in Wikipedia's own article on CNSNews.com suggests it is an unreliable source, explicitly partisan, or -- as you put it in your silly lefty cliche -- a "right-wing house organ." Does your opinion on CNSNews put the matter to rest somehow? CSNNews was started by Brent Bozell, but so what? Have you read the Wikipedia on him? His articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Post, and National Review. He is a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular on television news shows. There is ZERO proof that his news is less reliable than the New York Times. Your bias here is manifest. Focus on the substance of the edit (Sarsour's tweet) and find a way to get it in! This is one of Sarsour's MOST controversial statements, which she does not deny... Sadly, you forget the whole point of Wikipedia is to inform -- what could be more informative than the subject's own words. Additionally, as I stated to your buddy Sangdebutt, eliding this tweet makes Ali's statements which follow much less coherent. Finally, this article is otherwise chock full of unreliable sources "with no journalistic credentials." It's laughable. Christian B Martin (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Undoing edits
Dude, learn to solve disputes in other ways than deleting edits of IPs. 188.24.185.95 (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Susan Denham
I believe your comment towards me was a little extreme. It appeared to read me the riot act which I believe was excessive. I included a reference connected to the person which I believe to be true based upon the source I quoted. The age of the source is irrelevant. It is also not necessary for the article to specifically quote the word "controversial". If you read the article, the nature of the case highlights that there is controversy attached to Susan Denham's husband. This means that what I inserted is true. The edit was not simply to 'grind an ax' as you so plainly put it. In the Wikipedia community, I believe it is important that all users treat each other fairly and offer constructive feedback. If anything here is inappropriate, your comment alleging that I had an 'ax to grind' is inappropriate. Heylin (talk)
 * Denham's husband is apparently not notable; as evidenced by the fact that he doesn't have a Wikipedia biography. Given that fact, it's entirely inappropriate to attempt to use the biography of someone related to him to insert claims or insinuations about him. That's a WP:COATRACK; either we have an article about him and have sufficient space to explain what you claim is the "controversy," or if there are insufficient reliable sources to support writing an article, we simply don't discuss it. It is not relevant to Susan Denham's biography that her husband was sued by someone 20 years ago. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If Ms. Denham's husband is not notable, then I suggest his occupation and link to his professional profile be removed. This distracts from Susan Denham's biography and is not relevant. It is enough to name him, a non-notable person, as her husband. Any details added in addition to his name would contradict what you are saying above. Heylin (talk)
 * Noting someone's profession is pretty normal identification. The reference doesn't appear to be a reliable source so I would have no objection to its removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As we both agree, I have removed the reference. I have left everything else as is. Have a good day. Heylin (talk)

Shaun King
Hi,

A while back to removed an update to Shaun King's page regarding a lack of validity in one of my sources, Christian Post, claiming that blogs are not acceptable sources, yet you have DailyKos cited numerous times as a reliable sources in the edits. Can you please allow my citation of Christian Post and Breitbart, or if not, please remove all DailyKos citations as they are less trustworthy than both of my stated sources. I look forward to your changes.

Thanks!
 * Hi there. DailyKos is only cited where the posts are by Shaun King himself; this is an explicit exemption in policy. See WP:BLPSELFPUB: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. The only citations to DailyKos comply with those requirements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Lisa Murkowski
Breitbart is no less reputable than the New York Times (also referenced in the article) which itself has been recently plagued with numerous scandals of inaccurate and fake news. Furthermore, the quote within the article is sourced. Your only issue appears to be with the political affiliations of Breitbart. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE for help understanding what we consider Neutral Point of View and maintaining the Balance of views presented in an article.
 * Well, no, that's simply not true. Breitbart is not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia because of its longstanding history of fabrications, lies and misrepresentations which are amply documented. If you have a question about this, please open a thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)