NorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs) |
→edit warring: new section |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
::Here it's been hashed out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Kyle/Archive_1#Carjacking_and_Superdome_controversies]. They all trace to Schmidle/New Yorker and SOFREP which don't support the claims. Your late to the party and those items don't exist in his bio article either precisely because it's settled. It's one thing to be critical of a pic that that glosses over real events. it's rather incredulous to compare it to events that never happened. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 09:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
::Here it's been hashed out [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Kyle/Archive_1#Carjacking_and_Superdome_controversies]. They all trace to Schmidle/New Yorker and SOFREP which don't support the claims. Your late to the party and those items don't exist in his bio article either precisely because it's settled. It's one thing to be critical of a pic that that glosses over real events. it's rather incredulous to compare it to events that never happened. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 09:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::I don't see anything "hashed out" there that applies to a movie review. There is no BLP issue with reporting statements about a dead person which have been widely reported in reliable sources. The fact that you disagree with those conclusions is immaterial, and does not permit you to remove a reliable source which makes opinionated statements about an artistic work based on that artistic work's conflicts with reality, as discussed in a wide array of reliable sources. What you believe to be "incredulous" is of no consequence. The ''LA Weekly'' review stands on its own, and we'll allow our readers to draw their own conclusions as they wish. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#top|talk]]) 11:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
:::I don't see anything "hashed out" there that applies to a movie review. There is no BLP issue with reporting statements about a dead person which have been widely reported in reliable sources. The fact that you disagree with those conclusions is immaterial, and does not permit you to remove a reliable source which makes opinionated statements about an artistic work based on that artistic work's conflicts with reality, as discussed in a wide array of reliable sources. What you believe to be "incredulous" is of no consequence. The ''LA Weekly'' review stands on its own, and we'll allow our readers to draw their own conclusions as they wish. [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof]] ([[User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#top|talk]]) 11:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
== edit warring == |
|||
{{3rr|American Sniper (film)}}--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:07, 21 March 2015
Cutting the Gordian Knot
So... are you ok with the article being posted on wikipedia? (Being vague as possible in case your not, so there's no indicators as to what it is)Bosstopher (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I made on-the-record statements to a significant media outlet and I have no problem with them being linked or republished anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Explain please
What do you mean by this comment? Dreadstar ☥ 22:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious, isn't it? A significant media outlet publishes an article critical of Wikipedia's response to Gamergate; several users who appear sympathetic to Gamergate engage in an edit-war to remove any mention of that article from the article talk page; and you leap on punitive action against another user who simply noted that some of those same users had previously demanded that an anonymous attack blog be inserted into the article. Such a comment is not a personal comment, it is a comment on editorial activities.
You appear to have adopted the same attitude as ArbCom did when they topic-banned me; to wit, sweep everyone under the rug and hope the problem goes away.I'm disappointed and dismayed that you have taken such a position. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)- No, it's not obvious to me; I'm enforcing Wikipedia policy. I haven't read anything published by MB, I don't really care what he has to say outside WP. He's commented on other editors on the article talkpage, which is not the right place to do it per WP:DR and WP:NPA, whether it's purportedly 'editorial activities' or not - it doesn't belong on the article talk page. Additionally, such commentary as you suggest, even if not directed at Wikipedia editors violates WP:NOTFORUM and is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm not sweeping anything under the rug and consider that accusation to be a personal attack. Dreadstar ☥ 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I consider the Arbitration Committee's topic ban to be a personal attack and a pathetic capitulation to Internet trolls besides. So we're even. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Unlike ArbCom, however, I'm willing to step back, acknowledge a mistake and apologize for making it personal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the apology, I appreciate it. And I also understand the heat this subject generates, believe me, my first concern is for the welfare of those harassed in real life...but I have to do it here within WP policies and guidelines. Dreadstar ☥ 23:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- And I will acknowledge a mistake and realize I've encouraged you to violate your topic ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#NorthBySouthBaranof_topic-banned. IT stops now. Other than that, the only mistake is by MB in violating policy. Dreadstar ☥ 22:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- What stops now? The discussion that ArbCom's actions are capitulation to trolls and the discussion of how bad of a decision it was is continuing to receive bad press? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, it's not obvious to me; I'm enforcing Wikipedia policy. I haven't read anything published by MB, I don't really care what he has to say outside WP. He's commented on other editors on the article talkpage, which is not the right place to do it per WP:DR and WP:NPA, whether it's purportedly 'editorial activities' or not - it doesn't belong on the article talk page. Additionally, such commentary as you suggest, even if not directed at Wikipedia editors violates WP:NOTFORUM and is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm not sweeping anything under the rug and consider that accusation to be a personal attack. Dreadstar ☥ 22:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your recent helpful contribution to the RSN discussion. I am writing to remind you you did not "vote." The OP is counting heads. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration Request Notification
A discussion concerning your behavior at Lena Dunham is under way at Arbitration Enforcement —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- That I think you're absolutely correct should be clear to everyone. I'll be happy to support you there, if you think it will do more good than ill. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I came here to note support for your position via Jimbo's talk page. Not that it is worth much, but nevertheless. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's worth plenty, actually. Thank you for seeing the forest for the trees. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I came here to note support for your position via Jimbo's talk page. Not that it is worth much, but nevertheless. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Everyone loves arbitration
Arbitration: the gift that keeps on giving
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Gamergate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, Rhoark (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
On American Sniper
The link recounts two stories that were proven false: (i.e. Kyle never made the claims and can be sourced to single person that never talked to Kyle). The critic repeats these claims. The talk page has discussed this issue extensively and consensus is that it's a BLP violation. Please undo your BLP violation. --DHeyward (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- You need to be less cryptic and more specific. If you are referring to the three claimed falsehoods, those you apparently refer to are well-documented in reliable sources, such as The Washington Post, which repeats them all. If they are published in The Washington Post, it can hardly be said to be a BLP violation.
What was less sure, however, were some of the anecdotes he told after he left the SEALs in 2009 and returned to Texas
, in an article entitled The ‘unverifiable’ legacy of Chris Kyle, the deadliest sniper in American history. If this has been "proven false," please discuss on the talk page and provide sources to that effect. Otherwise, it appears to be fair comment on the director's artistic depiction of the legacy of an imperfect human being. The critic is arguing that, as with many biographical films, the director chose to blur the lines between truth and fiction, and that this choice was compounded by the omission of what a significant number of sources depict as Kyle's penchant for self-mythologizing — in the critic's view, the film depicts Kyle more as an idealized hero than as a human with human flaws, and that this choice lessens the picture in their opinion. You may disagree with this critic's viewpoint, but that doesn't really give you the right to remove it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)- Here it's been hashed out [1]. They all trace to Schmidle/New Yorker and SOFREP which don't support the claims. Your late to the party and those items don't exist in his bio article either precisely because it's settled. It's one thing to be critical of a pic that that glosses over real events. it's rather incredulous to compare it to events that never happened. --DHeyward (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see anything "hashed out" there that applies to a movie review. There is no BLP issue with reporting statements about a dead person which have been widely reported in reliable sources. The fact that you disagree with those conclusions is immaterial, and does not permit you to remove a reliable source which makes opinionated statements about an artistic work based on that artistic work's conflicts with reality, as discussed in a wide array of reliable sources. What you believe to be "incredulous" is of no consequence. The LA Weekly review stands on its own, and we'll allow our readers to draw their own conclusions as they wish. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here it's been hashed out [1]. They all trace to Schmidle/New Yorker and SOFREP which don't support the claims. Your late to the party and those items don't exist in his bio article either precisely because it's settled. It's one thing to be critical of a pic that that glosses over real events. it's rather incredulous to compare it to events that never happened. --DHeyward (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
edit warring
Your recent editing history at American Sniper (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--MONGO 09:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)