User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2021/September

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Reverting my edit
Hi User:NorthBySouthBaranof. First of all; can you please clarify what OR/Synth means? I'm guessing that OR is "original research" but what does "synth" mean. Also, I don't agree with you reverting my edit. All I want to reference is that the Hamas guy claiming that he has Jewish friends in an attempt to absolve him of any accusations of anti-semitism is the same as the "I'm not racist, I have black friends" argument. In that it's a strawman and it's tokenism. If you would prefer, I can change the link so it directs the user to the "tokenism" page on wikipedia, but to outright revert me entirely is a bit much GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, your personal opinion of what the person is saying is not relevant. It is original research for you to create linkages, inferences, or connections which reliable sources do not. You're welcome to discuss the issue further on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didnt discuss the issue on the talk page, nor was I planning on talking about it on the talk page. And as for my "personal opinion", it's pretty clear to even the most uninitiated person that his defence clearly meets the definition of tokenism (aka I have a black friend therefore I'm not a racist).And moreover, who are you to decide whether or not I can discuss something on a talk page? That seems a bit of a brash thing to say GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you think is pretty clear. What matters on Wikipedia is what you can source. If you can't source it, you can't put it on Wikipedia. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He literally made the "I have a black friend" argument. The source is his own flipping comment. Why do I need to source a source with a source? It's literally tokenism and whattaboutery. There's no denying it GayAtheistTimPoolFan (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism
You asked me to stop vandalizing, but I haven't vandalized anything. I have added clarifying language or removed inflammatory historical revisions.
 * That you disagree with significant conclusions of historians as published in reliable sources is not relevant. You may not remove sourced descriptions and categorizations merely because you don't like them. If you want to argue that they're inappropriate, you're welcome to start discussions on the appropriate article talk pages. But from where I stand, what I see is someone mass-removing something they don't like, and that's not gonna fly here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)