User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof

hi

it is political and wikipedia is encyclopedia. we do not comment prices and make such comparisons. the sources are written on a blog.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

DYK nomination of Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument

Hello! Your submission of Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have offered some help Victuallers (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you a bunch! I am on a wildland fire assignment and will be offline from Wikipedia for a couple weeks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit

Whatever happened to your topic ban request? I can't find it in the ANI archives for some reason. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It just petered out without closure, I think - would be in an archive from May 9? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I just found it searching manually in Archive 839. Odd that it didn't come up when I used the search box. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

medicine:Reviewing the reviews revert

Your comment: "This needs to be discussed - misrepresents what the study claims to have studied, also unclear whether this is a significant study or an outlier" Thanks for spelling out your concerns for me. Two objectives are both in the "methods" and "results" and are about two readers varied results, the other objective is "systematic reviews about the evidence base of medicine" and the conclusion has "no effect or insufficient evidence is surprisingly high" I was really surprised at their high result and think 160 Cochrane reviews is very significant study. full document here: http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~dmoerman/ReviewOfReviews.pdfDougmcdonell (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Bergdahl

These were good edits. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

IEX/Brad Katsuyama

Thanks for your contributions to both articles. I've reviewed the end result and they seem satisfactory. I'll improve on write-up on the other 2 criticisms as that seems to be the most controversial. 198.0.163.1 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Brad Katsuyama's Biographic Page - HFTs Criminal and Civil Investigations:

I am re-adding the references to the ongoing criminal and civil investigations of certain high frequency trading exchanges that were recently deleted as they were claimed to not be relevant. This is absolutely relevant information to this Brad Katsuyama's page as these investigations are the reason this person initiated IEX, which is definitely relevant to their biography, with one of the main reasons this person is known and has a Wikipedia page to begin with and therefore certainly relevant to be place on their biography here. Additionally, this information is completely objective and accurate with no bias whatsoever. These comments portray facts, totally objectively and relevant to the person's biographical work section. I must question the motivation to remove these comments due to the previously mentioned reasons as to why they are relevant and mundane to this person's Wikipedia page; the action of removing them is a clearly biased and transparent action to silence the real world events surrounding significant work of this person and are therefore completely justified to be on his Wikipedia page and are well within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Please do not remove these justified, objective and relevant comments again on the matter of criminal and civil investigations into high frequency trading exchanges brought on by this person's work, if you do so your agenda to silence legitimate, real world criticism of an outcome of this person's major work life will become even more transparent and known. For complete and full disclosure I have absolutely no connection or relationship with Brad Katsuyama, IEX, or any organization or person associated with the content of this post. I am simply trying to provide objective, relevant information that is uncensored and free from bias so Wikipedia users will get the best and most accurate experience with the site. Thank you. Calboarder24 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

These comments will be re-added and will remain on this person's Wikipedia page as relevant, objective, free from bias and well within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies:

Since the publishing of Flash Boys and the opening of IEX, several U.S. authorities have confirmed they are looking into certain practices used by high-frequency traders (HFTs), whose strategies can involve executing thousands of trades in milliseconds using insider knowledge that is not publicly available, giving these HFTs an unfair market advantage. The FBI, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Justice Department and the attorney-general of New York State all have investigations underway.

The USA Today article nowhere mentions Katsuyama, Flash Boys or IEX. Therefore, the insertions are original research and synthesis, which are prohibited on Wikipedia. Please use the article talk page for further discussion of this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to the talk page of Brad Katsuyama's article. I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof's point of view; I do not think that Wikipedia should be used as a platform to forward, or market, any particular person's professional goals and work. Hence, I believe it is consistent with Wikipedia policies that content in Brad Katsuyama's article should remain strictly biographical. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Hyperloop page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useitorloseit (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Donghua Liu

Hi there. Just dropping a courtesy note that I've listed Donghua Liu for AFD here: [1] because it looks like a magnet for BLP problems. Hopefully I'm not treading on anyone's toes. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your cool demeanor and ensuring articles are properly sourced and material fully attributed. It makes a difference. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Lucas (Oklahoma)

Please join in the conversation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Benghazi attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allen West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please make note at WP:BLPN

I do not believe that comments on a talk page when they are referring to the article is a BLP violation. You are free to go to WP:BLPN, but I think that removing talk page comments under 'BLP' is justified, and is a dangerous road. Tutelary (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BLP. The policy applies anywhere on the encyclopedia, including talk pages. Unsupported allegations of criminal activity are absolutely prohibited anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have read it, and nowhere did it mention where you can redact comments on talk pages for the purposes of BLP. The mention of 'including talk pages' is vague. WP:BLPCRIME refers specifically to crime and mentions in the article. One IP editor discussing a common notion of Anita's critics is not a BLP violation. Tutelary (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes it is a BLP violation. Feel free to open a discussion on the BLPN if you wish. I'll be happy to participate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Chip Berlet

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

You recently restored improper content to the Jennifer Rubin (journalist) article without discussion. The material badly misrepresents its sources and violates multiple core policies including NPOV and BLP. I request that you please not restore it again without at least showing up and saying something at Talk. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Rubin (journalist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Richard Cohen and Jennifer Rubin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding template in your userpage

You out yourself as "gay" a while back, so can I add {{User gay male}} in your user page? --George Ho (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 IRS controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jennifer Rubin (journalist). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  - 2/0 (cont.) 22:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC

An RFC on an article you recently edited is being conducted at Talk:Joni_Ernst#RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? Cwobeel (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sheetal Sheth age

I completely agree that IMDB is not sufficient for disputed info. I don't see any "dispute" about it being correct though, just some editor with apparent COI who does not wish the info to be seen. DMacks (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that they're removing it constitutes a dispute, more or less. If there's not a better source for it, there's not really a reason we should have it anyway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Matches what's reported at [2]. Filmbug is a generally variable-reliability source (some user-generated content, some content cited to wikipedia). But that particular one states Bio courtesy Warner Independent for "Looking for Comedy In the Muslim World". That cited work is apparently some sort of documentary that stars this person (and is notable enough to have a WP article), but I don't have access to a copy myself. DMacks (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Alison Lundergan Grimes

Your recent editing history at Alison Lundergan Grimes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.CFredkin (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2014 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CFredkin (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see that you have been blocked before for edit warring. Right now I have protected the page for a week. Discuss the problem at the talk page. If you resume the war after a week then you will be blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Discretionary Sanctions

Discretionary Sanctions for Mitch McConnell and Alison Grimes have been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Potential wikihounding by NorthBySouthBaranof. Thank you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ferguson

Please reconsider or modify your addition. See BLPN for more details, but police reports are primary sources. Even if we were to include "peaceful" you should attribute that. I doubt very much that Alders felt they were being peaceful, whatever that means. From the short portion of the video, it seemed adversarial,at best. But this is why we use secondary reliable sources.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it matters what Albers' state of mind was - the objective facts are pretty clear. Any officer of the law who levels a rifle at unarmed, peaceful protestors, says "I will fucking kill you, get back" and responds with "Go fuck yourself" when asked to identify himself is clearly acting inappropriately. If Albers felt they weren't peaceful - then that's Albers' problem with understanding the nature of the word. There are no allegations that Albers was threatened with violence nor are there any allegations that the protestors he aimed a weapon at were armed. Merely feeling discomfort with people who oppose you is not, under any objective consideration of policing, valid reason to threaten them with deadly force.

The secondary reliable sources here are effectively unanimous. I'm not aware of any reliable source making any claims that what Albers did was appropriate - but if there are some, we should certainly include them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

this is why we use secondary sources to describe the crowd. Or we attribute to the primary source. We should only cite primary sources in very limited circumstances. Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Brown article

Hi, I think that two Hoosiers can work together. Of course I was only a Hoosier while at ND for my masters, but love Indiana. Of course I never thought my edits had a chance of sticking, but maybe I can get some traction for a more neutral encyclopedic lede. Do you really think that lede represents the goals of the WP project? Best regards! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC - Please comment on Talk:Joni Ernst

As an editor who has recently edited Joni Ernst, you are invited to comment on this RFC. Your participation will be appreciated. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

ARBCOM clarification request regarding use of "TERF"

I have initiated a request for clarification from the ARBCOM regarding the use of "TERF" per discussions on Talk:Radical feminism. I am messaging you because you have been involved in past discussions regarding this issue and may wish to participate in the new discussion at the ARBCOM. The discussion can be found here. Thank you and best wishes. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)