User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2019/July

Disambiguation link notification for July 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catholic Church and homosexuality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russell Shaw ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Andy_Ngo Milkshaking
Hey, I'm reading your comment There is zero discussion of any claim, which may or may not exist, that Ngo was targeted by one of these purported nonexistent milkshakes. It might just be me but I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Could you help me understand what you mean by that? Galestar (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited claimed that Ngo was targeted by one of the purported "concrete milkshakes." It is, thus, irrelevant to Ngo's biography (and a violation of WP:SYNTH) to insert an unrelated discussion of an apparent hoax into Ngo's biography. We don't have a source that says "Ngo was hit by a milkshake that contained concrete," so for us to create that implication (as the previous wording did) is forbidden. We already have a place to discuss the general claim (widely debunked) that any of the milkshakes contained concrete; that's the milkshaking article, which does so appropriately. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification! Galestar (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

AOC
Hi, with all due respect, I respectfully disagree that the language introduced by Wukai is more neutral. You can't spend what you don't have, right? I hope you consider self-reverting. I just feel that AOC's article should be balanced. If it reads like a praise piece, everyone might stop taking her seriously. Perhaps I should just leave it alone for now. Someone else removed the information I added to the lead about her being a potential presidential candidate in the future, and I'm not sure why. I thought that was notable, properly sourced, etc. Oh well, in any case, thank you for your contributions! GrammarDamner (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:GrammarDamner, the language you used is clearly not neutral, because it presents the conservative columnist's claim as a fact - your version says, in Wikipedia voice, that AOC doesn't understand that "New York does not have $3 billion in cash". That's not a factual statement - that's a partisan claim by an opinion writer. So we have to present it as what it is: the columnist's opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, perhaps you're right. And whether or not AOC misunderstood something, she's definitely morally right. Thank you for your contributions to the project! GrammarDamner (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Ngo source
Hello, NorthBySouthBaranof,

I just wanted to say that the Oregon Live article is a valid reliable source for this article. Oregon Live is the online version of The Oregonian which is the major state-wide newspaper. If you read the article, it concludes that there was no concrete in the milkshakes thrown at Ngo but that one policeman thought they did, hence the inaccurate Tweet sent out by the Portand police. It actually explains the false information that was sent out on Twitter and why it was sent out. I think the editor who added it was misusing the article to argue that that the concrete rumors were true, which was incorrect, but I don't think you have a valid reason for removing it as a source for discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that the source is valid, but when it's attached to "everyone who I don't like is a fascist," it's not a good-faith discussion but rather trolling. Anyone not blocked for trolling and personal attacks is welcome to bring up the source for discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Emily Gorcenski
Hey I just wanted to drop you a note to say that on further reflection, this version is actually probably okay. I think I had some lingering objections to the version I reverted that clouded my judgement to your edit. Your edit was actually a NPOV way forward and away from the "called out" wording. I should not have been so quick to revert, and I apologize. Galestar (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)