Arbery video provenance
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Just a heads up: appreciate you adding that McMichael himself requested the video be released—but you neglected to update the first paragraph of the "Video of the shooting" section, which would seem either contradictory or superfluous given the new information. I'm not versed enough on this topic to feel confident that I'd update it correctly.
(I also corrected information about the video of children on bicycles, as some of what you wrote was not supported by the cited source.)
Steve Sailer
Hi there, NorthbySouthBaranof! Please take a look at the section titled "Pseudoscientific" on the talk page for the Steve Sailer article. Let's discuss the issue there before restoring a potentially NPOV term to a biography of a living person. Thank you. Babajobu (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Given that the material is well-sourced (even better sourced now) and has been in the article for an extended period of time without objection, no. If you wish to develop a new consensus that the material is inappropriate, you're welcome to attempt to create that consensus - but you may not simply remove the material by unilateral fiat simply because you disagree with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Boogaloo movement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
St Louis Portland place
Hey what up, The gate at Portland place was closed and locked as it always is, I drive by there on Kingshighway weekly, the video shows the gate after it was opened. Your wording makes it sound as if the gate was open before the protestors showed up. If you’d like to make a note of what the video shows that’s fine, but but it’s misleading to word it the way you currently are. All Wikipedia pages are open for any editor to edit, please don’t assert I’m less entitled than anyone else to. I take back that last part and see you that you just misunderstood my reasoning. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think you should add something about the gate being open in the video in response to the the accusations that the protestors broke the gate. Please don’t add the wording back where you were because it’s misleading. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Your personal experiences and opinions aren't a reliable source. What you think may have happened isn't relevant. What reliable sources say is relevant, is. Sources say video shows the gate was open, not broken. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- CNN says the gate was unlocked, per a reporter on the scene. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- I will yield that the gate was unlocked, but it was closed, you kept adding it was opened, this seems to me moving the goalpost. My argument stands independent of my personal anecdote above, that was just me trying to help you understand, that as a local I may have some insight to help you avoid misinterpreting or synthesizing sources; I’m afraid as currently worded it is misleading . Let me be clear The gate is opened in the video. I AM NOT CONTESTING THIS. I am concerned that the placement of the phrase “took a shortcut through an open gate” which implies the gate was open at the beginning of the affair, which none of the sources address. Can we talk about this issue directly instead of straw man arguments about what I think of the video? Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Your current wording is fine by me, again just didn’t want it to say open when it was closed. Please, WP:Assume good faith and don’t assume you know the reasoning behind another editors action, especially on highly political topics. Also, are you aware of the Wikipedia’s three-revert rule? You appear to have violated it, but as your intentions are good, I see no sense in reporting it or anything, just wanted you aware. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Bundy standoff edits
Hi, NorthBySouthBaranof. I have reverted your revert as the original violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. The biased original cherry-picks part of the Constitutional authority while misleading readers by omitting the other half of the Constitution's governance concerning federal ownership of property. It's not opinion. It's a direct quote straight from the Constitution itself. Furthermore, my edit fully preserves all references to Supreme Court's rulings. And frankly, NorthBySouthBaranof, I summarily reject your insinuation that direct quotes from the Constitution for the United States of American are "fringe dissenting opinions." Please refrain from defaming our nation's laws in such a deprecating manner. The Constitution is, by internal proclamation, "the supreme Law of the Land." Both the remainder of your opinions of the Supreme Court Opinions are, by your own wording, "opinions." Direct quotes from the Constitution are not opinions, ergo, no such original research as you errantly claim took place. I do not advocate either the position of the rancher or the authorities. I do, however, firmly advocate for full inclusion of the relevant Constitutional clauses. SUGGESTION: Why don't you include your "same point..." as you shared above. Do, however, leave the quote and reference to the Constitution in place, as it's directly applicable. If it weren't, SCOTUS wouldn't have seen fit to include it in their opinion. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't a law journal. It's an encyclopedia. It's critical to include mention of the basis behind the rancher's actions. Without it, this isn't an article. It's an indictment.Clepsydrae (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- The quote is and always shall be germane: "being at once relevant and appropriate : FITTING." I'm sorry your opinion runs counter to "the supreme Law of the Land," NorthBySouthBaranof, but the law will forever remain law and your opinion will forever remain opinion. It find it shameful you and others work so hard against Wikipedia's goal of providing objective, relevant content. Cherry-picking serves no one.Clepsydrae (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)