Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 27 December 2014 (→note WP:BLP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Can Haz Cheezburger

↢ RemorA ↣ haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Thanks for the resolution for POV Issues within Subpage. It was far more elegant and fair than what I had thought of.

Also, thank you for being one of the reasonable voices in the GG article. I know this wikiluvz is late, but hope you'll still accept it :).

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

Gamergate controversy

The mere presence of my name on the article or its talk page will cause a riot online, even if it's just making a minor correction, so could you fix the fact that there's nothing bolded in the article's lede?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Also I just found an extraneous apostrophe later in the article:

Alyssa Rosenberg of The Washington Post' said that some

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And an extra space before the <ref> tag at the end of that same sentence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"The Colbert Report" also isn't italicized.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ANd now with this edit a mention of "Depression Quest" is not italicized.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte's one article on the page is both citation 12 and 92 for some reason.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate, why?

Why go to all this effort when your edits will certainly be undone once you're topic banned?

I think you're going to be sadly disappointed if you expect me to be topic-banned. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

3RR Formal Warning

Per WP:EW you are notified that you are now at 3RR in under 24 hours on the Breitbart (website) article. It is urgent that you self-revert your last revert, and you are currently past the "bright line" standard for being blocked. Discuss your concerns on the article talk page, and cease edit warring. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, I'm not. I made a substantial edit and you are the one who reverted it. The revert-war began with you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Um -- note that the edit you reverted was by me on 14 December -- so you did indeed "revert." Try again -- and self-revert and oben WP:CONSENSUS asking that you DISCUSS your reverts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit, as the diffs clearly show. I simply worked from it to rewrite and expand our coverage of the issue. The claim was indeed false, as per the sources I added. It's not merely "confusion," it's active misidentification. Your edits, on the other hand, have been mere stale reverts which removed extensive additions of highly-reliable sourcing which notes the array of commentators who criticized Breitbart for the massively-incorrect story. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

When dealing with two people with the same name, the exact same problem hits all news outlets including NYT etc. You seem to wish to promote that this was deliberate misidentification by crazy political hatchet men - which is not supported by reliable sources. Clue: "Colbert Report" is reliable for nothing at all. Collect (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

A "correction" which debunks and renders false the entire premise of the story is not a mere correction, it's an admission that you completely fucked up in every possible way — as even The Daily Caller was willing to admit. Stephen Colbert Salutes Breitbart For F&%ked Up Loretta Lynch Story. And no, The Colbert Report is a perfectly-usable source for citing Stephen Colbert's opinion, which on this issue has received significant secondary recognition. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)As noted - it happens all the time - even to the NYT. That you feel that you must make an example of crazy political hatchet men who "fucked up" in your opinion is not how Misplaced Pages works. And we CANNOT USE THE COLBERT REPORT AS A RELIABLE SOURCE (shouting deliberate). The claim is in regard to specific living persons (writer of the article) thus must be a strong reliable source for fact. Your position would be if someone said "Breitbart is Hitler reincarnated" that you would support that quote in an article. Clear enough? Collect (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is not a living person, it's a media corporation. I'll make sure the article is clear on that point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the term "craven political hatchet men" refers to the author of the original article -- who happens to be alive. Cheers -- WP:BLP applies to all identifiable specific individuals, and the fact that the article is about a website does not remove it from being subject to the policy WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page." Collect (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne (album)

There's questionable and unreliable sources anywhere (including MuuMuse, guitarsweepstakes.com). Can you remove and keep an eye that who may doing the same pattern. 183.171.182.109 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed, that's a pretty bad source and effectively promotional, too. I'll take a look, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown

Shooting of Michael Brown is a NPOV and formerly BLP nightmare. I'm having an issue with the page that is beginning to seem like Gamergate because some editors with a gross misunderstanding of policy are seeking to "establish consensus" before removing even obviously false material from the article. Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Cwobeel inserting false material is just one case, but it is like pulling teeth. Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Tim Nolan removed and then the Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#Tim Nolan RFC is an example of the extreme lengths to get something factually inaccurate and a BLP issue off a page. Over a dozen misrepresentations to outright personal attacks have been inserted and defended by editors for the sake of process because it is "verifiable to a source". Given that you had to remove a bunch of similar BLP issues for Gamergate under slightly difference circumstances, your thoughts on this matter would be appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, one clusterfuck of an off-wiki-POV-warrior-filled article is all I can take. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages IRC for Revisions

Hello, NorthBySouthBaranof. I know that we might have different opinions on things, but I wanted to at least mention something that at the least might be of some help in the future. I do admit that you might already know this, but I am not certain on that, hence this post. Misplaced Pages has multiple Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels available, with one in particular being dedicated toward making an urgent request for a revision deletion, #wikipedia-en-revdel. I hope that this post is of some help to you in the future. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Email

I've replied to your email by email -- just in case you missed that in a spam filter or something. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

note WP:BLP

Per ArbCom decisions, note that any admin may block you or ban you for violations of WP:BLP. I suggest you self-revert your current violation at Breitbart (website) Collect (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that there is no BLP violation in stating that an article which is widely reported as false and untruthful, is in fact, false and untruthful. The article neither states nor implies that this falsehood was intentional, but the result is the same: the author wrote and published a verifiable falsehood. If you believe this is actually a BLP violation, I invite you to raise the issue on BLPN or ANI. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)