User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2017/June

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, even though the tweet was poorly worded it means nothing. You are saying that my sources are not a reliable, colleges and university never use Wikipedia as a reliable resource. Sounds like that you are biased and want to erase what this man said, however whether he said he said it poorly or not, he is a public figure, and it's still history and it was said. If it is too controversial for your perhaps you need not to be here. Nance said it therefore it should be mentioned. Every time there is a negative mark on a liberal entity, people are quickly try to erase by justifying as not free speech, poorly said, unreliable resources, fake news, a right wing or left wing conspiracy, etc... What if CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, ABC, CBS mentioned the tweet? Would you call them reliable? They are not reliable either, they are all biased based on their political views. I have seen many controversy removed with some explanation that is fruitless as the one you described the removal of my paragraph. If you have a problem with being unbiased and to resolve at our level perhaps we need to escalate this higher. I am trying to work with you here and add the stipulation so we all can agree with.

We should not alter history to inflate one side. You said "Great to hear! When will Wikipedia start "requiring" to treat things with "neutrality." As far as I can see/read it's mostly a biased agenda." Does it make it right for everyone follow the shepherd that leads his sheep to a cliff? We all are biased but as mature adults we need to set aside our biased ideologies and come together as people and compromise. I am going to add a stipulation and if you want to add more to it go ahead-- we should find middle ground and we should not dismiss one person's comment because it makes Nance or his political party look bad. It was said and he is a public figure so he has to live with it like everyone one else. Once he comes back and says "What I meant was..." then we can add his explanation.

AttentiontoDetails (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a free speech platform and we have standards about what sources we accept and do not accept - particularly for defamatory claims about living people, and the claim that anyone encouraged a terrorist attack is most surely defamatory. Moreover, Wikipedia operates on a consensus basis, and there is no consensus that anything about the tweet should be included in Nance's biography. I encourage you, as a new user, to review our content policies such as WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, all of which are implicated in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(Unexplained major revert including poorly-sourced defamatory material; removed per BLP.)
Define how it is poorly resource and defamatory? As I explained earlier Nance did in fact say it therefore it should be mentioned? Why can't you compromise with me? If you wish not to compromise with me perhaps we can have the adults (Arbitrators) take care of it. I thought I was talking to an adult with an open mind, but you decided to call my material poorly sourced and defamatory. I disagree. I said I was going to compromise with you and you could have added a stipulation, but since the conversation here is already it's your way or the highway I cannot see other recourse but to bring it up to the Arbitrator. I would like to give a change to better explain how it is defamatory and poorly sourced before I will take it to Arbitration. I was hopping that 2 adults can solve this issue without escalating higher.AttentiontoDetails (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I can see if he was not the one whom wrote the supposedly defamatory tweet I would agree with you. His tweet was genuine and Twitter verified there is nothing defamatory for something that he said personally. It is defamatory only when someone else fabricates the tweet. AttentiontoDetails (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to escalate this to ANI or to ArbCom, but I warn you that you will not find the outcome you seek; quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. Wikipedia strives to treat living people with fairness, sensitivity and an avoidance of sensationalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean to tell me that even though he personally, consciously, and freely wrote "This is my nominee for the first ISIS suicide bombing of a Trump property". Wikipedia don't want to be unfair for what he said? Wow,I didn't know that Wikipedia is politically correct to a certain group of people and political views. I would like to know how is defamatory to Nance for what he wrote. No one else went to his Twitter account which is verified and published by Nance himself. It makes no sense that it is defamatory to oneself for writing something that could be defamatory to others. I can't wrap my mind around this. Help me understand I am just a stupid libertarian that doesn't understand how it makes defamatory. AttentiontoDetails (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay no problem. Go ahead and give me the silent treatment. I honestly was trying to understand what you meant, but your vague comment will result more confusion than anything else.AttentiontoDetails (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, he wrote that tweet. The problem, for you, is that when you place that tweet in the context of the other tweets he was posting, it is clear that he was discussing the prospect for Trump-named buildings in other countries to become high-profile terrorist targets — not, as you appear to be asserting, asking a terrorist group to bomb a specific building. Your choice to take that tweet out of its context is not shared by reliable sources, and hence will not be shared by Wikipedia. Your interpretation of that tweet, in other words, is not verifiable in mainstream reliable sources, as all content on Wikipedia must be, by foundational policy. Moreover, as it is highly defamatory to accuse a living person of supporting terrorism, Wikipedia policy dictates that we will be extremely cautious about republishing such accusations — they must be supported by high-quality reliable sources. Once again, your accusation and claim fails on the merits. The long story short is that no, Wikipedia is not going to say what you want to say about Malcolm Nance. It just won't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy Edit
You may have noticed I revised your edit on the UDC article again. I believe that your addition of more information was detrimental to the sentence structure of the memoirs paragraph. At the moment the sentence you added to is used to explain the expression and defense of the Lost Cause narrative. The topic of the sentence and the sources cited convey this. The UDC did (some would say does) justify and defend slavery, but I do not believe that this sentence should be the locale to include information on slavery. Perhaps elsewhere in the article?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Gamergate controversy
Draft:Gamergate controversy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gamergate controversy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Gamergate controversy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)