User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2021/March

Removal of confederate monuments
Hello. I noticed you shut down somebody trying to push Lost Cause propaganda on Talk:Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials, and I figured your input could be useful. A week ago, I removed a couple of entries from the article's "Academic Commentary" section, which I believe do not meet wikipedia's standards for varying number of reasons. The removal was reverted on the grounds that a consensus is needed first.

I waited a couple of days and initial responses were agreeing with me so I removed the entries again, but they were reverted again due to lack of consensus. It's been a week now and so far, the only real objection I'm getting is that a consensus is needed, but there is no real discussion going on. One paragraph that I tried to remove multiple times has several issues, being Lost Cause propaganda, from a non-notable primary source, but I can't seem to get the message across. I do not wish to get into any edit wars on this topic, and would appreaciate it if you could give some sort of input on this matter. Thanks in advance. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Your RFA
Hello, I started a thread at WP:ANI regarding the RFA that I now see you have nominated for WP:G3. I am letting you know as a courtesy as you are named in my report; I don't believe there's any wrongdoing on your part. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 03:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Hello, I'm J.Turner99. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Steven Crowder have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please stop edit warring. J.Turner99 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. J.Turner99 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The War Is Over
You have commented on my undoing changes to my pages. Please understand that one of the changes was clearly vandalism. What do you suggest I do to prevent this from happening again. Jordan Peterson is a controversial figure and specious arguments are being made to undo the most reasonable and logical citations. To whom can an appeal on this be made? User:vandeburgt (copied from userpage)
 * First of all, Beyond Order is not your page - Wikipedia articles are open for anyone to edit, and you do not own any page. As explained to you, your edit removed reliable secondary sources such as The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Guardian and replaced them with a primary source. This change is not, in my opinion, beneficial to the encyclopedia. Policy dictates that secondary sources are preferred. If you still wish to propose that those sources be removed, per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, the onus is now on you to open a discussion at Talk:Beyond Order and gain an editorial consensus that your version is an improvement. If such a consensus exists, I will defer to that consensus. But you'll need to create one first. As of now, your bold edits have been reverted, and your next step needs to be discussion, not reversion. And there is no planet on which restoring reliable sources to an article constitutes "vandalism." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ian van de Burgt's response: Thank you for explaining yourself. It's genuinely appreciated. Unfortunately, a reliable but irrelevant source is still "vandalism" in my personal opinion. Did you read the source? There is no mention of Quora, the 42 rules or how they were the genesis of Jordan's first "12 rule" book. Isn't that the point of having that citation there? The Chronicle is a really strange choice, considering it's an essay that associates Jordan with racism ("his sympathy for white supremacy..."), which is one of the tropes that's both unfair and illegitimate, again based on the readings and videos I've seen of what he actually says and does.

Being new here, I will confess that calling some minor changes "my pages" was ill-advised. It was probably a Freudian slip, brought on by the pride I take in my work. But Wikipedia and all its pages are too great for me to take any personal credit. It must have been wishful thinking!

Finally, calling the addition of a clearly irrelevant source "vandalism" still seems reasonable to me, as is your request for me to open a discussion about it on the talk page. Seems weird to have to argue about something so blatant and obvious, but that's just to me. I will leave it to the wisdom of the crowd to weigh in now.

Thanks again for mentoring me into the ways of this wonderful wiki.

vandeburgt

07:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Tim Pool Article Vandalism Clarity
Clearly, 3 users do not a consensus make. However, we still need vetted and verifiable sources. Consider the following: the "Meaww" article was a talking-point for the Tim Pool commentater in order to show that making seemingly nonsensical statements in jest in today's current world-environment often results in it being taken at literal face-value and unduly enrages (outrages?) people with differing viewpoints. The point of sourcing the Meaww article is not to show that it is a credible source, but in order to show that this claim is not completely baseless and that it did originate somewhere on the internet. This is further why video links to the podcast with Tim himself, as well as dubious tags and OR tags have been added such that readers can clearly see for themselves what is factually accurate. Furthermore, it is absolutely disgraceful that you or anyone else would remove the dubious tag regarding The Daily Beast, which is quite literally known for its biases. Further, from the vast majority of all of users on Wikipedia, it has been pointed out that "Meaww" is used as a credible source. You reverting the page against the policies of our site is quite an issue. Further disruptance may result in your account being restricted. I do not care about whatever other previous "edit wars", as we call them, happened in this thread; my sources are firm and concise and any admin. that sees them can clearly see that they are objective fact. Good day.  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   13:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're just wrong on all the facts. Three users can make a consensus, and I count significantly more than three here who have clearly rejected the proposed addition. The Daily Beast is an accepted reliable source per consensus at WP:RSN, and you'll have to attempt to create a new consensus to change that - see WP:RSP. The path you're going down will just get you blocked like the last person. But if you want to keep going down it, have fun with your block I guess. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Due to the extremely authoritarian and hostile nature of your account and actions, you have now been reported to the administration for disruptive behaviors. Wikipedia is a democracy, not a dictatorship and the sooner you learn it, the better. Ta-ta now!  მაLiphradicus    Epicusთე   14:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not, in fact, a democracy. Policy is not subject to a vote. Ta-ta. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Tim Pool
Hello NorthBySouthBaranof. You've been warned for edit warring per the result of this complaint. You are risking a block if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI
This one seemed suspicious to me.[] BTW, I did appreciate the your comment the other day. Springee (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read my talk page
I am a public figure and have addressed aggression towards me by battle editors, prior to becoming involved. You should read my talk page before you start attempting to use the system to dominate me. 2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you wish to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines, along with my good-faith efforts to convince you to comply with them, your editing career will be short and unhappy. glhf. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)