Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, NorthBySouthBaranof. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't think the National Monuments in Colorado need to be divided by federal agency. Users who don't work for the government could care less.

BTW, we both qualify for Template:User 47%.  Buaidh  19:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree that those who don't work for the government don't care - the rules are often different. For example, hunting is permitted on most BLM national monuments, whereas National Park Service-managed national monuments fall under the Organic Act and forbid hunting. I'm not married to the solution I happened upon, but I think it's important to help Wikipedia users understand that different sites have different managers.

How about a parenthetical after each unit - "Chimney Rock (USFS)", for example? It would avoid the box-stack proliferation (which I recognize is a problem) while still identifying the management. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works fine.  Buaidh  20:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. And yeah, heh, I'm just another mooching taker... NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I won't do it again. I'm very sorry. Sorry again. --A train that derailed (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for your helpful contributions to the new page, Liberator (gun). Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was "warned" by this user as well for stating a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.127.167 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't vandalism. I was simply stating a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nexlink38 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the IP that I reverted?

In either case, could I ask you to slow down your edits a bit, I agree with many (most) of them, but it makes it difficult to review what is going on with such massive unilateral change. Particularly for the "criticism" changes you made where you removed Klecks response, I think those should go through some consensus building on the talk page.

Frankly, "criticism" sections are frowned upon generally, but I think it makes sense in this article, but forcing the responses to specific criticisms to be far away from where that criticism was discussed seems counter productive.

That said, Klecks responses should be tweaked to be a bit less pointed and argumentative. (Part of the problem is that kleck himself made those edits, so we need to adjust for wiki-tone)

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the first thing you do when you meet another editor is to accuse them of being a sockpuppet? That's a little... odd. WP:AGF, maybe?

I saw this page go by in my RC feed, was about to revert the same thing you did - but I decided that the IP editor made a huge number of good points w/r/t the text. The previous version literally read as if everything that Kleck said was true and that all of his critics are proven wrong. That is not remotely WP:NPOV. His critics have made claims, he has made counter-claims. We cannot decide which is true, or which is "logical." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not accusing you of being a sockpuppet. I was just trying to make sure I understood what was going on. (I was actually going to follow up with suggesting you had an admin revdel the IP edit if it was you in case you had accidentally edited while logged out).

I agree we have to fix some of Klecks POV issues, and that we cannot decide the truth - I was just suggesting that the speed of change was perhaps a bit high, and that some of the bigger changes could use a discussion. WP:BRD applies, but I dont want to revert the whole set, because many/most of the edits are great! Gaijin42 (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mention on the talk page which changes you have a problem with, and we'll go from there. The issue is that if we're going to have separate subsections for "criticism" and "response to criticism," then it doesn't make sense to have Kleck's responses in *both* subsections. The "response" is already the same length as the criticism. That's unnecessarily duplicative. Perhaps it would be best if we ditched the subsections and melded them together - would probably flow better, too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree they should only be one place or another. Im probably ok either way, but I do think if we are removing a response from the criticism section, it should be added into the response section, unless its obviously not worthy. However, doing that may mean the sections need to be much longer, because we would have to identify which particular criticism each response was intended for, which could be very cumbersome. Keeping the argument and counterargument together would avoid that problem, and also maybe provide a coherent neutral view of each issue to the reader. (especially on a controversial topic like this where maybe people would be inclined to only read the section they agree with) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was that the only things I removed entirely from the "response" were either tagged as unsourced/original research or were basically duplicated in the "response" section - but if I made an error and removed something that wasn't, please feel free to put it back because that was unintentional. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if they are duplicative, removing is fine. I didn't read each change close enough compared to the rest of the article to know that or not, I just saw content go away that I thought had some redeeming value. If that value is elsewhere - fine( based on this, you may probably ignore my response on the article talk). I am heading home now, and have a baby to take care of when I get there, so I may not be able to respond or collaborate as quickly for the remainder of the evening. Sorry for asking you to build consensus and then step out :) I would still ask that you give some of the changes time, this isn't a very active article, and the stuff has been here for a while, we have WP:NODEADLINE :)Gaijin42 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings on the AfD nomination. I had sort of borderline issues with it myself, so I figured it might get nominated since everything is relatively recent. Whether it gets deleted or not, would you mind going through the article and helping with a clean? I'm not overly familiar with writing articles on crimes. I've done some and I've written some where I was the only contributor, but I'm not very savvy on how to write it without it sounding like an Ann Rule book. I want to userfy it if it doesn't survive AfD, so if it does end up gaining 110% notability in the future then I'll have a cleaned up copy to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See that is problematic, because now we have unsourced criminal claims, which editor #3 will walk in and then delete. Blogs may be less than ideal, but when a country's press operates under a press club system, we as outsiders have to go the next step down. but anyway, i got some other business, so maybe some other editors will step in. I will repeat this under the article's talk page purely for informational retrievle reasons. -Samsara9 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexmenu.info" is never a reliable source for anything under any circumstances. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof. Thanks for volunteering at Wikipedia. I just saw you approved Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wikipedia:Forward to Libraries that was at WP:AFC. That was really fast. Thank you very much for your help. It is greatly appreciated. Wikipedia is very lucky to have your support. 64.40.54.57 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thank you for writing up an important new Wikipedia tool! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NorthbySouthBaranof, Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the Journal of Interpretation Research. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I almost ended up studying with one of your colleagues at ESF, but IU made me an offer I couldn't refuse, so to speak. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your interest is to be an impartial reverter editors of the Suburban Express article who make changes not discussed, now would be a good time to take action against the bloggy/POV stuff that's rapidly spreading there.KevinCuddeback (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's full-protected right now so nobody can do anything. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..... for sending you to the edit warring board, so please accept my apologies, I should have looked further; I have blocked MDPub13 now, indefinitely. Lectonar (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for taking a second look and taking care of it. You could probably close the EW report I started. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources might be good, but a bunch of refs piled up against the title don't really count as refs. Refs should be cited for content (facts). If it's the period that concerns you, keep in mind that one can easily find an equal number of sources either way; and the ones you added didn't support the name as written (as you know). So I removed them all. Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Harry S. Truman Farm Home (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sequestration

Harry S. Truman National Historic Site (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sequestration

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof,

You recently declined my submission for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Choose_New_Jersey. Could you elaborate on what areas I need to modify to make it more neutral? Thanks! Jmrz89 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll start with the lede:

Choose New Jersey, Inc. is an independently funded and operated 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, created by a collection of New Jersey corporations to position the state as a leader in the global marketplace. The organization’s mission is to encourage and nurture economic growth throughout New Jersey, including a focus on making the state’s most distressed cities engines for growth and opportunity.

So... basically what you're saying is that it's an economic development organization that encourages businesses to locate in New Jersey? Then just say that. Don't take 50 words to say what 10 would.

Choose New Jersey executes a highly targeted and research-based lead generation and marketing campaign directed at CEOs, site selectors and other decision makers...

Again, reads like a press release. Who says it's highly-targeted and research-based? We can't just take your word for it.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is based around the concept of neutral point of view, which means that we don't accept press-release-style writing. Instead, what you should do is refer to specific facts.

A good example in this realm might be Massachusetts Development Finance Agency - while far from a perfect article, instead of talking about "elite" this and "state of the art" that, it discusses concrete numbers of investment, jobs created, and refers to specific examples of projects the agency was involved in.

Also, you will need to source the article with references to reliable external sources such as newspapers, major Web sites, etc., that discuss your organization. You can refer to Wikipedia:Your first article for more about style and writing guidelines.

Hope this helps - if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting my page, I have even talked to the Wikipedia admin in the past, you are saying I am not a notable person but I have been mentioned in the press, appeared on the News, and several other places which is more than enough legitimate proof. The News is as Legitimate as you can get. They are not just local, they interview National Individuals of Notability in many Places.SO I do not understand why you would say that. Not to mention there are quite a few pages in Wikipedia that do not even have that quality of Wikipedia references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiffonmary (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not deleted anything - I am not an admin, and therefore cannot delete anything.

I did decline your Articles for creation submission because you did not cite sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate that an encyclopedic biography can be written about the person.

In addition, I suggest that you read our policy on autobiographies, which strongly recommends against someone writing their own Wikipedia article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kuiu Wilderness and Tebenkof Bay Wilderness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alpine (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) 12:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NorthBySouthBaranof, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been putting off writing out my list of issues with the presentation of Alaskan municipal governments on Wikipedia for a long time. I may be forced to do something about that one of these days. Yakutat in particular has been troublesome. Yakutat is a borough, not a city-borough. It's a "City and Borough" in name only. The law in effect in 1992 mandated that Yakutat had to become a borough first before it could become a city-borough, with a separate process (petition and/or vote) for each step. That law was changed in 1994, which is how Wrangell became a city-borough without first becoming a borough. There are scores of sources which assert that Yakutat is only a borough, including even the Census Bureau website. If you search for it, you'll see that they report a Yakutat CDP in the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, which would be impossible if it really were a city-borough.

Also, consolidation (e.g. Haines, Petersburg, Skagway and Yakutat) and unification (e.g. Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Wrangell) are separate concepts under Alaska law. I guess it's another Wikipedia invention to try and claim otherwise, making it fit within Wikipedia's definition of a "consolidated city-county". Not only that, but the Census data reported in the article contradicts what's found on the state DCRA website in regards to Yakutat's area, and how much of that area is land and how much is water. The Sitka article refers to "largest incorporated area." Actually, the largest incorporated municipality by area in the United States would be the North Slope Borough. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is bizarre. Yeah, Wikipedia has a tendency to try and make stuff fit in neat, easy boxes even when the truth is a lot more complicated. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll self-revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=557790048&oldid=557789929

This isn't racism and it's not being used as a forum. As WP:FORUM says

"In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance."

Regardless of my opinion on the matter, suggesting we use 'mulatto' is discussing changes to the article, wouldn't you agree? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It would be like going to a Italian person's page and suggesting we use wop, or a Jewish person's page and suggesting we use kike. The term "mulatto," as is the case with "Negro", is obsolete, deprecated and borderline-offensive in modern-day usage and it has no business being externally applied to a person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it considered offensive, just obsolete. I guess if it's offensive in this day and age I won't readd it back in. However if you're still open, what about an addition to it that says a mention of his mixed-ethnicity should be at the beginning of the article? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually and according to reliable sources, Barack Obama is an African American by any measure - that's pretty much the end of it. We already discuss his parentage in the "Early life" section. If someone wants to bring up and discuss proposed changes to an article based on reliable sources, they should feel free - but a drive-by "HE'S A MULATTO!" from an IP doesn't represent a constructive attempt at editorial interaction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RocketLauncher2: Good stuff in general, but totally wrong in this case. The IP suggested that "Barak Obama" (actually Barack Obama) needs to say that Obama is "MULATTO" (in caps!). That is simple trolling, and such comments have no place on Wikipedia (except at WP:ANI if more opinions are wanted). Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see the article on the main page, within DYK section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not there yet, but it will be... it's queued up. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think I screwed up... this is my first time trying to build a prep list, and I think I misread the instructions - not supposed to drop the template until it actually hits the page. My bad! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a technical glitch as this article has not appeared in DYK que nor in the talk pages of its authors except User:Dr. Blofeld. Kindly check.--Nvvchar. 12:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why. see here, no credits listed in the DYK make templating. The reason was because it had five editors and it won't allow for five different credits. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why too and was about to ask.☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Venture Spirit, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising (can be cleaned without a fundamental rewrite). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof, I understand your argument and I concedeSocratesrazo (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)socratesrazo[reply]

True, but as IMDB was there I was not happy to delete as a truly 'unreferenced' biography. This does not stop you taking it to normal PROD, or AFD. Regards, GiantSnowman 10:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NorthBySouthBaranof. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Message added 09:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 09:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide some assistance and an outside opinion for helping to improve the article to GA. I don't have a lot of knowledge on the MkIII specifically, but I'm sure I can dig up some additional information online. I also have some photos of the Daytona-winning MkIII that I can upload, even though they are not of the best quality.

I will however say that my ability to work on it and get back to you will vary based on my own personal work offline, but I will try to be quick to respond. The³5₉ (Talk) 06:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's no hurry. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. I'll be glad for anything you can contribute. Thanks! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of an update, I've uploaded a handful of pictures I took at the Rolex 24 the past couple of years of the Eagle MkIII, as well as the Intrepid RM-1. They are in the Commons categories for each vehicle. I'll still have to look through the MkIII article when I get time, but the only thing I notice so far is that the racing history section seems a bit brief, considering it is arguably the most important aspect of the car. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that section is definitely first on the to-do list. I have all the results and sources I need, just have to get around to writing it up. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wayne Taylor Racing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Intrepid RM-1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Drag and David Hobbs

2013 IRS scandal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Secret Service

Eagle MkIII (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Miami Grand Prix

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good job on the Amanda Platell article! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to revert you, but I already have added a discussion section on talk, as I indicated in my edit summary. The reliability of the sources is beside the point, as the entire section was only added by a POV-pushing editor who is currently blocked from problematic editing on this very page. The wording "Historians' Views" is problematic, as neither of the sources cited is a "historian", technically speaking, much less does their view mark any kind of consensus among historians. Please also note that this has NOTHING to do with my personal point of view -- the two scholars cited might very well be right, and I am inclined to believe them in fact, but the way they are being used in this article is contrary to Wikipedia policy. PLEASE do not re-add the section to the article before discussing on the talk page, as I already have provided my reasons there, and your edit summaries do not begin to address them. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are historians. Reliable sources refer to them as historians. You're right that we should not present their views as the historical view, but that does not justify omitting their views entirely. You need to discuss proposed changes rather than deleting the entire section. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know I should post this on the article talk page, but I didn't notice your reply here. I never expressed the opinion that we should be omitting their views. I merely stated that we should not be citing them when we have not actually read them. Since you were the one who inserted the actual bibliographical reference to Lilly, you are surely aware that the section as I removed it cited his "views" but actually only referenced a tertiary source. In the context of Syngmung's edits over the last week or so, this means that the user who wrote the text clearly had not read the source he was citing, and so I had every right to assume that the views I was omitting by temporarily removing them from the article (pending discussion on the talk page) were not actually his views but those of a Wikipedian who was distorting his words. Again, in context, even though a reference was given to Kaplan's own work, there was no reason to assume the same was not true of her. Since you have clearly read both sources (unlike Syngmung), the problem has now been effectively dealt with, but please assume good faith and check the background of my edits before accusing me of trying to omit the views of certain scholars from the article/possibly-soon-to-be-user-subpage-or-section-of-a-larger-article. Eh doesn't afraid of anyone (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You appear to be engaged in an edit dispute with another editor on the above page. This is not productive for Wikipedia and it should not continue. Thank you. (Please note: I have posted an identical message at the other editor's talk page.) Taroaldo ✉ 03:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related discussion on ANI involving that edit war (and more), with a proposed topic ban for another participant: Wikipedia:ANI#User:Syngmung. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass 08:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice work on the Intrepid RM-1 article! I love how here on Wikipedia we can have well-written, well-referenced articles on individual models of racing cars. Thank you for all your hard work on the article. Please accept this barnstar as a small token of my appreciation. Michael Barera (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're going to need a page number for current ref #12 from Zimmerman's book about Dan Gurney's Eagle. Can you supply? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Done. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my congratulations to Michael Barera's barnstar. Good job, NBSB! --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the employer of that admitted whistleblower DOES besmirch the company -- I know it does because I work for the company and I feel besmirched to have MY COMPANY mentioned in connection with the whistleblower. Obviously you tree hugging liberals (as you proudly admit to being called) who don't work for that company would not understand. Just don't go around with your pansy-wansy name dragging buddy. Don't piss on my roof and tell me its raining. I know what dragging through the mud feels like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't like a fact does not make that fact, which has been widely reported and is known worldwide, unencyclopedic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating a fact that is irrelevant to the story does not make it relevant! That's just the fallacy of giving relevancy through repetition. Just wait until someone at your company does something --- You'll find out. If you ever get a job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.207.38 (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly irrelevant to the story to document how he got the information. But go ahead, try removing it, I won't revert you anymore. You'll just be reverted by everyone else who edits the article for the exact same reason. And I have a job, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best resolution splitting page into two newspapers, even though I do not recognize the other party as a legit newspaper due to him not actually publishing anything on a regular basis! My guess is the only reason this page is important to DMMILLAR is he needs it for a link from his personal "Entrepreneurial" page to create the illusion of another piece of a "mythical" empire he's creating! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffc529 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm theonesean, Teahouse maitre d' for this week. Just wanted to welcome you to the Teahouse, say hi, and tell you about our expectations for hosts. Thanks for being awesome, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions/comments/concerns, or just to say hi! Thanks, TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 13:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For this work here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_Snowden#Not_a_.22whistleblower.22

I have a general sense that there are awards, etc.. barnstars, geegaws, doodads and whatnot. How does this happen, and what do I need to do? PS, love the "tree hugging liberal pansy" comment. Can I give you the Tree Hugging Liberal Pansy Award? Jonny Quick (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your outstanding work on Robert MacLean. ukexpat (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We tripped over one another while I was back-checking the refs for the Pollard material. I'll stop editing for a time, to let others hack away at our work. I agree with your change of headings. I've made sure everything from the top through the Pollard section has the right source for the right facts, with the exception of two grafs I hadn't had time to get to. I'll resume my work tomorropw or later this week.

Thanks for lending a hand in what I fear may be an escalating kerfuffle between partisans and WP:NPOV wiki-editors. David in DC (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, thank you for starting a clean up of the article. I've restored the POV tag because I think it's still relevant, especially since a lot of the content was copied directly from smartvoters.org, which claims the content was in turn supplied by the subject's office. methinks the article will require a more sweeping rewrite. Thanks, 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....unless the Wikipedia article preceded the smartvoters version, and the subject's office liked it enough to forward the Wiki version to smartvoters, which has the standard copyright warning on its site. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof! Thank you for being a host at the Teahouse. However, we haven't heard from you lately, so our bot has moved your Host profile from the host landing page to the host breakroom. No worries; you can always just Check in and our bot will move your profile back. Editing any Teahouse-related page will do the same thing for you. If you would prefer not to receive reminders like this, you can unsubscribe here. Thanks for your help at the Teahouse! HostBot (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You got settled pretty fast, congratulations! I see you've made 3 DYKs already! Want some pie? (Hope it's still hot.) Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBy, how rude of me ... I was just archiving my talk page, and came across comments from you that I don't recall seeing before ... I don't know how or why that happened, but I'm sorry for not responding to User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch94#Re:_Intrepid_RM-1. Thanks for your kind thoughts ... yes, this can be a very strange place, and some folks take what is intended as constructive critique quite personally ... one has to grow a thick skin! I'm glad you found my feedback helpful, and hope you continue to do good things 'round here. Best regards, and apologies again for appearing to ignore you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Domenic Johansson custody case is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenic Johansson custody case until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You were another person I saw that heavily contributed to the page in one format or another, so I wanted to give you a head's up that I completed an AfD nom for an IP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amanda Platell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (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) 11:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source is very typical: "American intelligence experts worry that Russian officials have copied the memories of the four laptops that Snowden brought with him." "Worry" or "expressed concern" most accurately reflects the majority of the sources. Where are the sources that say "speculated"? In other words, I am asking you to heed thw Wikipedia policy calling for Verifiability, which specifically says ""content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors."--Brian Dell (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have presented no public evidence to support their claims. That makes them, at best, speculative. Anonymous unsupported claims about a living person are to be treated with the utmost skepticism. The biographies of living persons policy demands no less. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In YOUR editorial judgment. You don't own Wikipedia, however, which means we defer to the editorial judgment of reliable sources. The New York Times etc have ALREADY treated the claims "with the utmost skepticism" if that it is in order and deemed the material notable enough to publish. You are misinterpreting the WP:BLP policy if you think it means eliminating reliably sourced, neutrally presented material. The bottom line is that the "speculation" wording is not reliably sourced and accordingly should be removed (as per WP:BLP).--Brian Dell (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

• We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
• Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
• WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
• Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're organizing an office hours session with the Teahouse to bring in mentors from across the wiki to try out Snuggle and discuss it's potential to support mentorship broadly. The Snuggle team would appreciate it if you would come and participate in the discussion. We'll be having it in #wikimedia-office ^connect on Wed. July 17th @ 1600 UTC. See the agenda for more info. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)}, Technical 13 (talk), TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North American Water and Power Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Antonovich (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) 11:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a little faith.... I said I was going to discuss on talk, and there's a message there now. Peregrine981 (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here's a direct link for your convenience. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Huma Abedin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• theory]], based on a report by the right-wing [[Center for Security Policy]]<ref name="Feffer">[http://books.google.com/books?id=t8PQgoFju7UC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=%22center+for+security+policy%22+

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. Your changes run counter to a long held consensus on that article, to 1) not describe them as terrorists but to 2) clearly state that major, important organizations have described them as terrorists. The responsibility lies on you to show that that consensus has changed. Until it has, please leave the article in the current version and stop edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The category describes them as terrorists and pirates, crimes of which they have not been convicted. Find a proper category. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Jeffrey M. Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mother Jones

Los Padres National Forest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National forest

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you at Hookup Culture, but wanted to make sure you saw this:

I didn't just create those article out of thin air for the purpose of creating more POV articles. I created them to wp:split them off from Adolescent Sexuality in the United States, an article that was WAY wp:toobig. The article, before I created spin offs, was over 180k. It is now at 124K. Obviously there is a long way to go with this article, but it is a start. You will notice that for each one of the new articles created, the section on the parent article was dramatically reduced, summarized, and a link to the daughter article was provided. This wasn't an attempt to right great wrongs, or to push an agenda, or anything else. It was simply an effort to bring the parent article in line with wp:Article size. --Illuminato (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NortBySouthBaranof You are in error in this reversion, the cited disclosure of total budget was for the U.S. Intelligence Community and not the specific CIA black budget .Please correct. The leak by Edward Snowden of the CIA budget (if correct) would be the first disclosur than than early year releases under FOIA.Patroit22 (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)^[1][reply]

Please cite your source for this claim. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cited article 14 by Ackermann in Wired refers to U..S. Intelligence Community budget. Tenet was called DCIA rather than DCI which he was in 1979, There is no mention of an amount for the CIA black budget. Please read and understand correct information before making improper edits. Please restore my correct edit of facts,Patroit22 (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

So you are aware, I moved the talk page (Talk:Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage) and not the article (Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage). Not sure why they weren't both moved together. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBYSouthBaranof-You have made two edits that are in error. The source does not state what you say. I trust these edits are in good faith and not warring but they are not correct. What the DCI did in 1997 was to decline to make public the overall National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) budget total. That budget was reviewed in detail by proper Congressional committees and any Senator or Member of Congress could obtain that information. The NFIP budget was approved and appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Please fix your erroneous edit and discuss on this talk page if you need clarification.Patroit22 (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opps, DCI declined in 1999 .Patroit22 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well I do think its constructive on the show they talk about the just out of prison I think people should know that he really was in prison and what he was in prison for — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysdiver76 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of primary sources such as court documents violates basic Wikipedia policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NorthBySouthBaranof,

I made a bold change in the article, which I explained on the talk page. I see you rolled me back, while I disagree with that, per my statement on the talk page, I won't edit-war your roll back.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

North by SouthBaranof You have made two reversions to the Bradley Manning section of Crescent, Oklahoma. Why is irrelevant to list the name on the conviction, the name used by the military prison to identify this individual and the listing name for the Wikipedia entry.Patroit22 (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Femininity. 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.  Woody (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

NorthBySouthBaranof (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The IP user was removing and rewriting sourced, cited material in a manner that conflicted with the source material, and simply was willing to out-revert anyone else to push a POV. I will agree not to edit Femininity until the RfC (which I initiated) is concluded.

Accept reason:

Alright, I've unblocked you on the condition that you cease editing Femininity until the talk page Rfc has concluded. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice work at Joyce Karlin! — Keithbob • Talk • 19:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NorthBySouthBaranof. You have new messages at Avaya1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

	The Original Barnstar
	... to thank you for your diligence, patience, and common sense at History of California. Keep up the good work! MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]