User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof

Steven Crowder

Hello. Sorry about this: [1]. For some reason, I didn't see her name mentioned in the Bloomberg article. Happy editing! Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Do journalists rule the Wikipedia?

What does it take to get something done here? This is like herding cats.

Please advise oh Anonymous Journalist Are.u.sure (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a journalist, but you should probably listen to the people telling you that a publication espousing right-wing conspiracy theories and overtly declaring that it advocates for police officers may not be the best source for claims about someone killed by a police officer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

About your edit on Gretchen Whitmer

I would like to ask for you to revert your recent edit on Gretchen Whitmer. Stating that it is a failed impeachment resolution for the title isn't a good Wikipedia sub title. It is clearly stated that the impeachment resolution was a failed attempt, however, the title should still say "Impeachment Resolution". Gives it a more formal look. I am not allowed to revert edits for about 18 more hours, so I would kindly ask you to revert it. Thanks, Elijahandskip (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course I won't - if we're going to have a section about it (which I oppose, but I'm not going to simply revert until there's a consensus), that section heading needs to clearly state that it was a failure. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm just removing it entirely. There's no consensus for including the material and frankly, quite the opposite - you're the only one arguing for it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting me on talk pages

I took the liberty of restoring the comment on Talk:The_Epoch_Times#Article_about_this_article to continue to the discussion. I also did the same on Talk:CNN controversies.

I reviewed Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments. Your recent reversion of the talk pages do not qualify under any of these. Moreover, the posts to these and other Adler editorials are not spam. I went through the T.D. Adler posts with several search engines and picked out the ones which were most applicable rather than just a broad opinion. The ones I posted were all that I found. Not all of the Adler editorials were posted on Breitbart, although most were. As you note, Breitbart is deprecated: see Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#What_deprecation_is_and_isn't. This does not forbid its use on talk page discussions. As for spamming potential, please click on "page information" for the talk pages, and then scroll to the bottom of the page. There is a link which will show a graph for views. You will see from this that there are very few views to talk pages. So these posts are not spam because there's very little audience and I posted them thoughtfully rather than as a bot. I am certainly not suggesting these editorials for inclusion on the article pages. Had the editorial referred only to the topic rather than the Wikipedia article itself, I would not have posted it.

In short I am looking for a commitment from you not to revert my talk page comments when they refer to an Adler editorial.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope, they're from a deprecated source (or a random personal blog), written by a banned user, and of no use whatsoever to Wikipedians of good faith. If you continue to post them, I'm pretty sure you'll be sanctioned. Proxying for a banned user is prohibited. Pinging Doug Weller and/or GorillaWarfare to explain this further. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

They are not from a random personal blog. I kept running into them when looking for geographically related article media mentions. It is hard to avoid them because Google News indexes them. How can I be "proxying for a banned user" when I've had no coordination or communication with the user or any of his friends? And is pinging people you think will agree with you canvassing? I was warned about that well over a year ago, so I looked it up and that actually is forbidden.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)