User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof

Ho

Hi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItAwesome49FX (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, NorthBySouthBaranof. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

1RR

You've made a revert here, and your two recent reverts violate 1RR at Linda Sarsour. wumbolo ^^^ 19:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Your edit here wholly misrepresents and falsifies the statement of a reliable source as it relates to a BLP, which is a violation of policy and may be reverted immediately by anyone. The cited source does not say that Sarsour "said she" received threats, it states the existence of the threats as an unambiguous fact, and as per WP:YESPOV, Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

There are two possibilities: 1) you inadvertently misread or failed to read the reliable sources, made a mistake and should accept that someone else fixed your screwup or 2) you willfully and intentionally misrepresented a reliable source in order to portray a living person in a false light. If you would like to accept responsibility for this falsification of reliable sources and invite scrutiny on your own actions, go right ahead and report me somewhere. Otherwise, you could accept that you made a mistake, violated policy and slink away from the scene. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they do: (emphasises/emphases mine)

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/womens-march-catapults-a-muslim-american-leader-onto-national-stage/2017/02/07/56bb6156-ea31-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html

Of late, Sarsour said, two of her sisters have taken turns monitoring her social-media feeds throughout the day and deleting threatening and offensive posts that appear, she said.

Sarsour has received threats in the past and had a personal security detail assigned from the New York Police Department last year after someone published her home address online, she said.

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/07/muslim-activist-linda-sarsours-reference-to-jihad-draws-conservative-wrath/

Sarsour is accustomed to hostile messages and even death threats on social media, particularly since the Women’s March. Those threats escalated this spring when the City University of New York School of Public Health selected her to give a commencement address.

which is cited to New York Times: She says she regrets that she has not been able to shield her three children, all teenagers, from the vitriol and threats she has received online.

There are two instances of statements of fact:

• Despite a barrage of hateful messages and violent threats targeting her on social media since, Sarsour has continued a punishing schedule of activism as she has sought to bring her heightened profile, and a new sense of what is possible, to a range of resistance movements that are developing in the first weeks of President Trump’s administration. [1]
• Others threatened her and even called for her deportation. [2]

The second one is vague, while the first one seems enough to me personally, but less than NPOV because it's one sentence against several. But that's no justification for you saying The cited source does not say that Sarsour "said she" received threats, and accusing me of misreading the sources. So yes it will be 3) I read the sources properly, and felt that attribution is necessary. Thanks for giving me a couple of choices, so I will also give you three choices. 1) Revert your edit and admit you were wrong in saying I misrepresented sources, and I will accept that, forget this, and think much higher of you. 2) Revert your edit and admit nothing, and I will accept that. 3) Don't revert your edit, and I will report you. wumbolo ^^^ 21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. Despite a barrage of hateful messages and violent threats targeting her on social media since, Sarsour has continued a punishing schedule of activism as she has sought to bring her heightened profile, and a new sense of what is possible, to a range of resistance movements that are developing in the first weeks of President Trump’s administration. That's a clear statement of fact. So is this — On Tuesday, the New York Police Department's Hate Crimes Task Force announced it's investigating a threat made on social media against prominent Brooklyn activist Linda Sarsour. It is factual and verifiable that Sarsour has received online threats, including death threats. We are not going to weaken these clearly-verifiable facts. Please move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Trans man talk page comment

Hello, my comment was not mere general discussion, and is not unsourced. I provided a source to the OED definition of sex to support my comment, which regards the most important & controversial part of the article, which is referring to trans men as 'men'. There are no actual grounds for censoring this comment. --45.48.238.252 (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)