User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2018/December

1RR
You've made a revert here, and your two recent reverts violate 1RR at Linda Sarsour. w umbolo  ^^^  19:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit here wholly misrepresents and falsifies the statement of a reliable source as it relates to a BLP, which is a violation of policy and may be reverted immediately by anyone. The cited source does not say that Sarsour "said she" received threats, it states the existence of the threats as an unambiguous fact, and as per WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.
 * There are two possibilities: 1) you inadvertently misread or failed to read the reliable sources, made a mistake and should accept that someone else fixed your screwup or 2) you willfully and intentionally misrepresented a reliable source in order to portray a living person in a false light. If you would like to accept responsibility for this falsification of reliable sources and invite scrutiny on your own actions, go right ahead and report me somewhere. Otherwise, you could accept that you made a mistake, violated policy and slink away from the scene. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do: (emphasises/emphases mine)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/womens-march-catapults-a-muslim-american-leader-onto-national-stage/2017/02/07/56bb6156-ea31-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html
 * Of late, Sarsour said, two of her sisters have taken turns monitoring her social-media feeds throughout the day and deleting threatening and offensive posts that appear, she said.
 * Sarsour has received threats in the past and had a personal security detail assigned from the New York Police Department last year after someone published her home address online, she said.
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/07/muslim-activist-linda-sarsours-reference-to-jihad-draws-conservative-wrath/
 * Sarsour is accustomed to hostile messages and even death threats on social media, particularly since the Women’s March. Those threats escalated this spring when the City University of New York School of Public Health selected her to give a commencement address.
 * which is cited to New York Times: She says she regrets that she has not been able to shield her three children, all teenagers, from the vitriol and threats she has received online.
 * There are two instances of statements of fact:
 * Despite a barrage of hateful messages and violent threats targeting her on social media since, Sarsour has continued a punishing schedule of activism as she has sought to bring her heightened profile, and a new sense of what is possible, to a range of resistance movements that are developing in the first weeks of President Trump’s administration.
 * Others threatened her and even called for her deportation.
 * The second one is vague, while the first one seems enough to me personally, but less than NPOV because it's one sentence against several. But that's no justification for you saying The cited source does not say that Sarsour "said she" received threats, and accusing me of misreading the sources. So yes it will be 3) I read the sources properly, and felt that attribution is necessary. Thanks for giving me a couple of choices, so I will also give you three choices. 1) Revert your edit and admit you were wrong in saying I misrepresented sources, and I will accept that, forget this, and think much higher of you. 2) Revert your edit and admit nothing, and I will accept that. 3) Don't revert your edit, and I will report you. w umbolo   ^^^  21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Despite a barrage of hateful messages and violent threats targeting her on social media since, Sarsour has continued a punishing schedule of activism as she has sought to bring her heightened profile, and a new sense of what is possible, to a range of resistance movements that are developing in the first weeks of President Trump’s administration. That's a clear statement of fact. So is this — On Tuesday, the New York Police Department's Hate Crimes Task Force announced it's investigating a threat made on social media against prominent Brooklyn activist Linda Sarsour. It is factual and verifiable that Sarsour has received online threats, including death threats. We are not going to weaken these clearly-verifiable facts. Please move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

All you lying Democrat journalists should be shot.
Democrats ate the enemy of the people, and journalists are professional liars. You are a worthless, subhuman vermin who needs to be stomped into the pavement.
 * Factual error: I'm not a journalist. You apparently didn't even bother to read my userpage, which helpfully has an infobox that says who I work for. Low energy! Sad!NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I will happily eat the enemy of the people, so long as the enemy of the people is crunchy and tastes good with ketchup. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello ,

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
 * Reviewer of the Year
 * Thanks are also extended for their work to (15,059 reviews),  (12,760reviews),  (9,001reviews),  (8,440reviews),  (8,092reviews),   (5,306reviews),  (4,153 reviews),  (4,016reviews),  and  (3,615reviews)., , , and  have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only sevenmonths, while , with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top100 reviewers.

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
 * Less good news, and an appeal for some help

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
 * Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minutevideo was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Training video

Stephen Miller
I raised concerns about Miller - let's discuss them on the talk page of the Miller article.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Stephen Miller
Hello, NxS Baranoff. I don't agree with IntelligentName's reversion of your edit to the above article. I think your edit would stand if the language were slightly softened. Your sources were WP:RS, and this is an important subject. I encourage you to replace your paragraph in the article, with appropriate care.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment
Greetings. I think the issue you raised here is certainly worth examining in the proper forum. I could think of a few contributions by the user in question that ArbCom might have questions about. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have taken the article (and associated co-founders, women's march) off my watchlist - I have been spending too much time on what is a present-day political bio - a topic I usually stay clear of. Icewhiz (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Preserving material and reverting
You broke 1RR at Linda Sarsour yet again. The content was arguably about "random" partisan hackery but that is not an excuse for removing the entirety of content which is NOT exempt from the classical WP:3RR, as citing an unreliable newspaper is not an automatic BLP violation and alternatives to deleting content can be considered. You may believe the content in question was violating BLP, but your edit summary wasn't exactly saying that (not all WP:WEIGHT-related disputes require BLP removal). I'm not going to demand anything here because I don't feel like correcting the content myself at the moment, but other editors might not be of that opinion. w umbolo  ^^^  17:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You may wish to re-examine the second edit; all I did was remove the section header and add a dispute tag. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is definitely a partial revert of this edit. w umbolo   ^^^  17:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)