User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2019/January

Removal of Deletion Notice
I was under the impression that since this notice was originally removed by Sangdeboeuf who appears to be an established user, then reverted to the version of the article last edited by Sangdeboeuf without explaination, that the objection was simply that of Coolabahapple. Is it perhaps correct that there are other objectors, that there is a time-frame necessary to considerations, or that there is any other source regarding due process and accountability in this regard? Perhaps I am being naive, but I would like to feel that I could have some idea about what is occuring and why. Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's just general good procedural principle that while any deletion discussion is ongoing, the notice shouldn't be removed - otherwise folks won't necessarily know there even is a discussion. The article will clearly be kept and maybe even speedy kept, so don't take this negatively. As soon as someone walks by to close the discussion, the notice will be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of posts on JzG talk page
Hello, Is there any reason you keep deleting my posts on JsG's talk page? I invite any constructive criticism, or knowledge from experience, however this seems to be incredibly unproductive. Rdoaner (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Gregg Jarrett
Hello,

You have reverted my edits twice despite no contest from the other user about the edit. "this edit is not acceptable for several reasons, one of which is that it presents highly-disputed claims as facts."

My edit does not purport claims as fact. If you read my edits, you would see that the first section of my edit says:

"which argues that the "deep state" within the Obama Administration's Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation sought to undermine the presidential campaign and presidency of Donald Trump and protect 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton."

The book is arguing that this claim is legitimate. The book is arguing that this is the most possible case.

"details how individuals in the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation possibly collaborated illicitly to protect Clinton while undermining Donald Trump.

Again, the next edit of mine is not propagating fact. "Possibly" is not synonymous for "actually."

Lastly, if you read the Rolling Stone article, you would realize it fails WP:NOTRELIABLE & WP:BIASED. It only has 5 sources; 3 to Amazon; 1 to NYT List; 1 about Google Trends. There is not a single source that backs up claims written about the book by author. That article is a collection of Trump/Russia investigation books and the author's take on it. The source is based on the author's opinion. And if you look at the section where the author only talks about The Russia Hoax, there is not a single citation that backs up any claims about the book. This is why it fails WP:NOTRELIABLE & WP:BIASED.

So, I will like to hear your side of things as to why my edit is "not acceptable." I look forward toward your response.

--Aviartm (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to discuss the details on the article talk page, which is the appropriate place: Talk:Gregg Jarrett. Suffice to say that the Rolling Stone article is clearly a reliable source; it is, of course, as a book review, an opinionated source, but its conclusions are not presented as fact but as attributed opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At the same time, I feel that there is no need of discussion. The primary edits that I added is the main point of the book, not an opinionated stance. This is nothing to contest. Nothing is being declared as truth, only being reported of its contents. The only thing I think you are contesting is semantics and how it is written. --Aviartm (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)