User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2019/February

Sharia law
The sources cited in the article always say "sharia law" rather than "sharia" - for the sake of sticking to the sources, I kindly ask that you restore the word "law" a few times in the article. Thanks so much - I'm trying very hard to reflect Sarsour accurately, as are you, so let's accurately represent her choice/the sources' choice of words.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * You're wrong, they don't "always say sharia law." Of the three cited sources for the phrase false reports that she supported the militant Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and advocated imposing sharia in the United States, only one uses "sharia law" and that only in shorthand reference. Instead, it's otherwise referred to either as just plain "sharia", "Islamic law" or "Islamic religious law." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologise for my mistake; what I meant to say is that the Ayaan Hirsi Ayi source definitely days "sharia law." Would you change the page to reflect that? Source 10 also says "sharia law" and discusses Sarsour's religious views, so can you edit the header to say "sharia law." Sarsour uses that exact term, and this article should reflect that.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

CIS
Hi, I’d like to give you a heads up that you’ve been slowly edit warring the CIS page. You’ve made 3 reversions in the past 24 hours. There is a brand new RFC and we can amend the page based on the final results of that RFC. Thanks! ModerateMike729 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. You have also made 3 reversions in the past 24 hours. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise, thanks. I've ceased reverting. ModerateMike729 (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A goat for you!
The Donald Trump article includes the following statement: "His falsehoods have also become a distinctive part of his political identity.[282]" The citation is to an opinion column in the New Yorker. How can a blatant statement of opinion like this be allowed in Wikipedia, when it violates the "neutral point of view", and no doubt other policies, while at the same time calling a person a socialist, who calls herself a socialist, is not allowed? Just asking.

JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC) 

Sarsour
I left a message on the talk page.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Oversighted edit
Hi. An IPv6 left a comment here which was oversighted or revdel'd. If it concerned me in any way, would you please e-mail me? Thanks.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)