Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:26, 26 March 2015

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 . 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)

You revert one more time, especially without talk page contributions and you'll be blocked as mentioned below.--MONGO 09:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Er, yeah, hi, I previously started a talk page thread that you have not engaged in — instead, you engaged in a stale revert war. So either engage in the talk page or you're the one who's edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request archived

Hi NorthBySouthBaranof, this is to let you know that an Arbitration amendment request listing you as a party has been archived to the GamerGate case talk page, because there was no consensus for amendment among arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

You don't have any socks or meatpuppets. Hugs and kisses. MONGO 03:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A Simple Question

Sir, why are you chasting me - continually? Marcos12 (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What are you talking about? NBSB made a single edit to your talk space. — Strongjam (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

When you post something on a public noticeboard, you are asking for other opinions and ideas from various users. That you posted a request for comments as to a source and a piece of information on Violet Blue is self-evident. The fact that you apparently disagree with my opinion as to that request is also self-evident. The fact that you have responded to that disagreement not with reasoned discussion but with various personal attacks is also self-evident. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)