User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2020/October

question about rollback
, was this edit tagged "Rollback" indeed a rollback? And if so, could you kindly explain to this novice the rationale for WP:ROLLBACKUSE here? I see 5 situations permitting the use of rollback privileges, but don't understand which one was applicable here. As you're doubtless aware, I had made a good-faith edit along with ample explanation thereof on the article talk page prior to your rollback. Thanks in advance! Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy
Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, please restore my edits where I did basic improvements to the page. I did reply to your objections at the page. My goal is to get an accurate factual article that reflects both sides. Facts that will stand the test of time is more likely to be the court decisions and legal processes. If you want to research further, I think there are outdated info in the article about cases that by now have been completed but not mentioned. I also think the article can be made shorter to make it more readable. It includes lots of details that describes the processes rather than the outcomes. All of the best. --Ferdilouw (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo
Your latest edits at Andy Ngo violated 1RR. Self revert to this version here or I will report it at AE, along with the other user who violated the 1RR DS. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't - I made one revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and file a report at AE - the fact that my two sequential edits within a couple minutes were inadvertently split by a single edit by Davide King is not a meaningful violation. Otherwise I'll just self-revert both of my edits, and then revert all your edits back to status quo ante. You being hypersensitive over good-faith attempts to work with your new version doesn't suggest you are interested in working constructively with other editors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not file an AE, I brought the error to your attention and asked you to fix it. Your "fix" was to take it back further and, instead of reverting to your last edit compliant with 1RR, you decided to revert all of my previous edits, which is in fact a third revert. I showed good faith and you demonstrated you clearly didn't deserve it, so that's fine. Next time I will go directly to AE.
 * And second, you just restored information to the lead that 1) lacks a consensus 2) contains highly salacious and potentially damaging insinuations and 3) includes patently false information. It links Ngo's departure from Quilette to this alleged "incident," yet the paper came out and said the two had nothing to do with each other.
 * Did you actually read the talk page comments and objections to the material before you restored this version, or did you just do a quick look at "yes" votes with no reasoning and conclude that an error-filled, thinly sourced paragraph should be restored? This is sloppy and careless, and you need to remove the material. At AOC, you objected to the removal of a category by accusing me of disparagement in a recent AE report, and yet here you override legitimate objections to the factual accuracy of material. This is the opposite of "working constructively." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

NBSB, you violated the 1RR policy at Andy Ngo. You added, PacMecEng reverted, you added something similar again. Please self revert. Springee (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, he removed and objected to a specific source. I inserted another source. That's in no way a "revert." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, once PacMecEng removed your edit, adding a similar edit again is a violation of the 1RR rule. Please respect your fellow editors and follow 1RR. Springee (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "consensus required" restriction on Andy Ngo, and adding similar material with a different source is not a revert. I actually have zero reverts on the article at this time. But go ahead and file at AE if you want to waste everyone's time. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are working on a section of the lead that has been greatly disputed. I will grant that your first edit is mostly just adding a new site but not entirely.  You did change the text.  I would call any change to that section a revert to be cautious.  Also, given that there is an active RfC on that material you shouldn't be messing with it.  Heck, it shouldn't be in the article since it was not part of the long standing lead.  Springee (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)