User talk:North8000

Archive 1

At wp:V

Re *your* latest post: Ah! good summary. But see wp:ATT where merging of wp:nor and wp:v was attempted; epic fail, unfortun*later*ly. NewbyG ( talk) 11:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes And then a subsequent effort ran out of gas. A huge undertaking, probably too huge to ever happen. Probably the more realistic possibility is to take the duplicated items out of NOR. The remaining 10% would be the particular points made about OR per the real world meaning of that term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page of an deleted article

Hello North. The article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morphological_computation_(robotics) was deleted. Because of my fault (ignorance, basically), and as was pointed by User:Train2104, the talk page is lost (I thought that it will remain after deletion, sorry). Is there any way to recover the Talk page of that article, so we can put the whole history/criticism in here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morphological_computation_(robotics)? I tell you this becuase some people have already commented (they where mentioned in the article) about the "authoritarism" of the deletion. Having the full discussion could help to illustrate them the reasons for the deletion (for example I cited all the policies that were violated). I also noticed that you reviewed the whole article again, thanks. Finally, is there a way to get a copy of the wikitext of the article? If that is possible and not too much problems, I would like to get one. Just because I foresee how these comments I am reciving may evolve.

Thank you very much and sorry for my mistake. Kakila (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Something seems confused here. As far as I can see, it was Sandstein who closed the AFD and deleted the article (and its talk page), not you. And to delete an article or to retrieve the contents of a deleted article takes access to administrator tools, which I don't have and assume that Sandstein has. Being both the person who handled it and somebody with access to the tools to fufill your request, I think that it would be best to contact them. Let me know if I can help. North8000 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say I deleted the article. what I meant is that when I marked it for deletion, I did not copy the discussion about the article and therefore it got lost when the article was deleted (not by me). I will contact Sandstein. Thank you very much. Kakila (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I hope the whole situation works out well for you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Quorum of Motion Picture Producers

I invite you back to the AFD discussion and offer that you take a look and the sources so-far added to the article. As improvement is easily do-able, and has actually begun, perhaps you might be inclined to change your "Weak keep" to something a bit stronger? Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy to take another look. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Took a look. Changed my recommendation to "keep". My original note was "WP:notability not established in the article, but ability to meet wp:notability looks likely". Now sources have been added. Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking in. Appreciations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Rocha

An article lacking sources is always a concern, but does not always call for deletion if the issue is addresable. Perhaps you might revisit the discussion, as numerous sources meeting WP:GNG for this topic have been offered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. You showed that they do exist. (but still barely in the article) I put one of the better-looking ones into the article & changed my recommendation to "keep". Thanks for the heads-up. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I may be able to myself expand the article tomorrow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Hi, mate. I took too long to realise I'm being trolled; thanks for speaking up but it may be better to leave it alone for the moment.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As you may have noticed, when it comes to differences of opinion I'm pretty low key, but when it comes to threats to having a proper process in place for that debate, I'm quite the opposite. The idea of saying that someone might have to be investigated for investing their time to speak for the view that was the vast majority view from the huge RFC certainly was the latter. It seems that as a result the individual posted a much more civil "prequel". But I'll take your advice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Some more fun

Hi! One or more of the drafts you posted at WT:VER have been transferred to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Workshop, and you can see or edit there, if you are interested. Cheers NewbyG ( talk) 16:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Philmont geographic features and Rayado Program merge

Discussion for merging Baldy, Mt Phillips, the Tooth, and Urraca into the Location and geography section as well as Rayado Program into the Rayado Program subsection of Philmont Scout Ranch is now on the PSR talk page here and here. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, I've been gone for a few days. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check it out. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

:)

I don't know whether you actually meant this in humor, but the way it's come out is side splitting :):) Wifione ^Message 06:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been gone for several days, sorry for the slow response. Your are certainly right about how it looks. But I was an unintended comedian. I was trying to be graceful. Their post was unintelligible, but it seemed like there might have been a good point behind it. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability at WP:DR/N

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "At WP:Verifiability". Thank you. -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Could you explain what you find objectionable about my edits to Libertarianism? Lmatt (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We should do this at the article talk page rather than splitting. But I don't find it objectionable, just a bad substitution for the first sentence in the lead. Probably would be good as content in the article. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that after a couple years of effort it is much improved and friendly. And we found a few rosetta stones along the way which helped. North8000 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation

Hi North8000, and thanks for agreeing to the mediation - it's great to have you on board. Seeing your post at the mediation page got me wondering about about the mediation agenda, and whether there could be a way of doing things that is more efficient. Do you have any ideas to get the mediation going even quicker, by any chance? I'm sure that if we pooled our ideas together we could do something really awesome. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the most efficient method (but one which may fail) is what's happening right now on the wp:ver talk page right now. Looks like a reasonable chance that that the whole thing could be tentatively settled by tomorrow, and finalized if the tentative stuff sticks for a couple weeks. If that fails, the I think it more important that your process moves it decisively forward than it is for it to be fast. Towards that end my ideas would be:

• Identify and confine it to the contested areas. If you start blending in other general improvement ideas for wp:ver the process would mire down/die under its own weight.
• Get the participants to identify their goals/priorities with respect to the items of dispute. I.E. items that they feel most strongly about.
• I can do more on this one, but need to develop a set of questions that deals with the mechanics/logical underpinnings of the wording and it's effects, folks feelings in those areas, and how it gets invoked. Most folks are dealing with just the intended meanings and intended uses, but that isn't enough.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BoDu (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll respond there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Added 2 books

You added two conference proceedings by the article creator User:Dshavit. Have you verified that waht the proceedings contain is relevant to the article and that it is suitable further reading? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

They were used as references in the German version of the article. I don't know German to know the sentences that cited them which is why I put them in as further reading rather than as references. IRWolfie, I am just trying help figure out what the outcome should be there. You seem to be making efforts towards a particular outcome, including, it seems, seeking to parry / find issues with anything that would tend to support an outcome contrary to that. When, after a long period of saying I wasn't sure (including through the entire 1st RFD) and I finally decided to weigh in, I clearly noted that one group of links as (only) lots of people are selling product with that technology and that such indicated a likelihood of sources. You "missed" what I said and critiqued those commercial links as not being wp:rs's, something that I clearly never claimed that they were; I never even claimed that they were sources, just what that they showed what I described above. We have an article that is a technology that is clearly in widespread use, is manufactured by many companies, and has a multitude of sources available as evidenced in the German version of the article. (Your core arguments are the very same arguments that I initially made, so, of course, I understand them.) IMHO we would certainly be doing the wrong thing by deciding to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it may have seemed that I am aggressive but it is not my intent. I don't think I've seen reliable sources to establish the topic as notable. I don't think we should keep an article on the suggestion that reliable sources may exist but that we can't locate them. I was establishing (for the closing admin) that the links are not reliable sources on the off chance that they may be interpreted as such. We can't use them in the article and I don't think a specific technology is in widespread use; it seems the methods widely differ from what I've seen to get LEDs between glass. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we're both just trying to do our best to help out there. I would have to spend a few hours on the topic of the article to figure out what to do and be certain of it; I've spent only about a 1/2 hour and am trying to do my best with what I learned in that time. To me it looks like a "sky is blue" situation that the topic is notable and that substantial wp:notable sources exists. You are basically saying that such has not been shown via sources used as cites in the article, and that that particular combination of words/ technologies may not be wp::notable. Those points are not at odds with each other. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Folk music

Sorry about my edit: I was careless while looking at the diff and thought that the anon deleted the item. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the note! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lake Michigan–Huron

That seemed redundant to me. I'm wondering, how would s.t. be a single body of water other than hydrologically? — kwami (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I was reading too much into it i.e. with respect to the other issues with the article rather than looking closely at the exact wording. Good point and I'll revert myself on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement about it being a single "lake", because "lake" has no objective definition. I think "body of water" is unambiguous, but maybe someone will show that it's not. — kwami (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability

I am sure that I have visited this talk page before, Hi there user:North8000, however I cannot locate any other comments here that I might have made (recently, wasn't it)? It may be time to do some archiving on this talk page?

I admire your editing, user, you have a strong heart, and a propensity to stand up for the weak and defenceless and those under attack. Those are desirable traits, if I intuit correctly, I hope I am not speaking out of turn.

Now, let me say, I must, I feel under attack from you from your last post at the talk page. I shall have to explain, I can see. Your accusation, that is how I see it, is uncalled for, and inaccurate. You ought to learn and think before you post, sorry.

Those diffs, they replace the statements that were there. No-one has "bombed"the page, it ain't a war!! I don't war!! It is a perfectly adequate means of archiving the statements, I ought not have to go into it, you could check the links, archiving you see.

I will put this as I must; please don't talk down to me; please don't be tempted to repeat rubbish, (that's what you are doing) that originated with other users; please consider my feelings, if you're that way inclined, I know you are, and believe me I consider your feelings, and post in good faith.

Just take a few days to think about it, see where you went wrong this time. There is no hurry, I have withdrawn from proceedings there, I ain't a good drafter of proposals to draft proposals to propose as a draft Rfc, but I wish you, sincerely, the best.

In the meantime, I suggest you self-revert that post; it makes you look stupid, and hurts me. Anyway, why address me when I have withdrawn from the page? You are off-topic, and off-beam, as I admit I am sometimes, and that has lead you into misjudging me. The human condition, it is.

If you are unable to comprehend the convoluted way I have to go about communicating under theses circumstances (I was not born with a brain-to-USB interface) bear with me, we shall then have to discuss it at either convenient user talk:page. I don't like to chat as such, I am sure we can have fruitful interactions though, really, but this matter is a dead onion, or a no-way street. Do your Rfc thing, that I may comment on, when it goes live to the public as it is intended to do. I have no good momentos of that page: I was insulted, and I also insulted some user, to my current shame.

It is not up to you to control the page, you spoke needlessly and out of turn, it is the prerogative of the Mediator, user:Mr. Stradivarius to chastise me, if that were required, so you are not really on top of the ground rules. Believe me, I have as much dedication to seeing the right thing done, in the long run, and to all users, not just those on one side or other of a lame edit conflict.

I have said enough, we will work together well in the future, you see. Please stop mis-judging me, in fact please stop judging me at all, we are volunteers here, and there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I recommend, if you are still disconcerted here, that you seek sensible advice from the Mediator, user:Mr. Stradivarius, at user talk:Mr. Stradivarius. That is how it ought to go, if you have questions that don't need to be raised at the talk page itself, as in this instance for instance; you will see that I have sought such advice from Mr Strad, a most knowledgable User. Or, if you wish to bumble and stumble through a conversation with myself, if anything would be served by that, then reply here, I will watch, or come to user talk:newbyguesses, we do it there, whatever suits . Best wishes, think hard, take no offence, none is intended. Same, sincerely, Peace. NewbyG ( talk) 07:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Newbyguess, I have no quarrel with you, I don't even know your position on the issues there. My complaint is that is the same that others have had, that you are making a mess out of the talk pages with your unusual (to put it nicely) practices. In this particular case you inserted put a bunch of links (with no statements with them and not even your signatures, and the link text was just "link" )into postings which were by other people. But I don't consider it essential that my comment to you be on that page. Per your request I'll move it off of that page to here. I'll do it quickly so that it doesn't start a new thread there. North8000 (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it, here it is:

Newbyguesses, could you start putting coherent thoughts onto talk pages instead of what you have been doing, such as what you just did....bombing this page with diff links with no statements with them. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you check those diffs? Unless I got it wrong, they are the exact diffs to replace the words that were previously posted there. So, they ARE signed, they are by user:Newbyguesses, not conflicting with any other user's comments, and there should be no problem with that. If user:Mr. Stradivarius has any problems, he will surely post to User Talk:Newbyguesses, not your problem. (That section could even be archived, none of those posts are relevant to steps 3, 4, 5 etc.) I won't be posting at all any more to the Mediation, very likely. When you say "coherent" do you perhaps mean ??

Anyway, thanks, but do your own thinking, don't just go along with the mob, and have a go at me when I have stayed cool and out of the picture, and don't want criticism when I did one little post, huh. No, we are fine now, sincerely, it is all good and I wish you the best, and we will meet again , there's 3,000,000+ articles to edit! Have you not noticed that I am not being "disruptive", I was blocked, then unblocked! I have been editing for 5 years, so this trouble I had is distasteful to me, but of course you are in no way involved in that, my thanks, sincerely. My position on any issue(s) at WP:V is undecided, "leaning towards don't care", not a member of any special-interest group, "got better things to do", that is, things more in line with my abilities and interests. Not gonna be taking sides, don't think. My thanks NewbyG ( talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Upbound and downbound

The upbound page was recently deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See my talk page for reasons given to delete the downbound page. I created both articles but I have to agree that they really belong in a dictionary.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll go by your thoughts and recommendation on that. I was originally thinking that maybe it should end up as something like a "nautical directions" article and thought thought that it should get sorted out at AFD if it goes further. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Including let me know if you want me to undo my unprodding. North8000 (talk)

I'm OK with your change. I just recalled that I already added the terms to the Glossary of nautical terms. Do you think that is sufficient?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think so. The links from articles could just go to the overall Glossary of nautical terms page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Homophobia, you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Placing an opinion on a talk page at the article about a wp:npov problem at the article is not by any stretch of the imagination "disruptive editing". Your extensive refactoring and deletion of talk page comments however is clearly improper and a clear violation of guidelines. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Another example of using false accusations as a tactic to try to get one's way. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to your possible poll wording

Ref: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability

First of all, it is not an easy question to comprehend.  Figures of speech, of which I believe that VNT is an example, are defined as being ambiguous, having both a literal and a diverging meaning.  So I guess you are saying that no matter how someone interprets any of the various meanings, the effects should be contained on WP:V.  But it still seems to miss a viewpoint that it is WP:V policy that truth is not required for inclusion on Wikipedia.  So if your proposal is in policy, how do you respond to someone that says, "It doesn't matter to me that you have evidence that the urban legend isn't true, it is verifiable."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, excellent thoughts and question. I'll start with the short answer. What you just described covers an immense range of situations and complexities. WP:ver should just "mind its own business".......say that verifiability is one of the requirements for inclusion. .....period, end of story. without saying anything that can be interpreted as weighing in on all of those other topics. Let all of the OTHER mechanisms of Wikipedia (policies, guidelines, editor discussions, RFC's etc.) deal with those other topics.

This is an interesting conversation, and I'd be happy to carry it on further in any direction that you care to. To answer your particular question, I'd need more particulars. But let's say that it's something that 99% would say is a false urban legend. And that a wp:RS stated it as being fact. Then my answer would be: OK, you've shown us that wp:ver does not EXCLUDE your material. Now we can start the discussion of whether and how the material should be in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the Libertarianism page IP troll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#122.60.93.162_Personal_insults.2Fnon-relevant.2Fmaking_assertions_without_any_effort_to_justify

Byelf2007 (talk) 25 March 2012

Thanks for the heads up. Their lack of specifics certainly does limit the usefulness and weight of what they are saying. And saying it very bluntly without such is an impolite tone. And the one comment to Fifelfoo crossed the line regarding wp:civility. And feel that banning them from Wikipedia regarding this is a few levels too far. That's pretty much the extent of my thoughts/knowledge. Not sure if you would want me to weigh in there or not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation compromise drafts

Hello North8000, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step five

Hello North8000, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you have the excellent judgment to agree with me :-) I want to draw your attention to that deadline, lest you be locked out of the next steps. Cheers, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(Actually, I'm just hitching a ride for half of that big $$$$$.) Thanks, I needed that nudge. Now I think I have it done. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witness Insecurity

I invite you to look at article improvements[1] to see if you might up your support from just "weak". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I did that and upgraded my "Weak keep" to "keep". Nice work. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All it took was a little research and a few edits. Thanks for checking back. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Your participation on ID page

North8000, first, I want to apologize: I try to be level-headed, but got rather frustrated dealing with what I saw as unjustified editing. If I may be frank, I felt that you were pushing WP:OR by claiming that Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) is on firmer grounds than it is, due to its origins in the separate topic, the teleological argument. This is why I and others continually asked for sources; we want to ensure no OR gets published. Regardless of all that, I wanted to say that I don't want you to leave. To explain well my position, I'll probably have to give you some background first. And so...

I am, among other things, an anarchist. I don't accept power hierarchies and I think there is adequate justification for faith in order without institutionalized power (e.g. open source software, open hardware, open source ecology, etc.). So, when I say, "I don't want you to leave", I mean that no one has the power to remove you from the editing process in any capacity. I'd much prefer that you become a strong editor and continue to improve WP, and I could make some suggestions about how to better argue for changes if you'd like, but I was frustrated with the manner in which you proceeded and felt it necessary to stop aggravating myself by encouraging further discussion. My agitation is my problem and I can fix it by remaining silent; you needn't leave to appease me (or anyone).

All that said, I really do assume good faith and believe you were honestly trying to improve the article. I bear no ill-will toward you and wish you all the best, whether or not you choose to leave the discussion page. Thank you, and have a great day! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that! I think that you misread me. My argument was strictly on the mechanics of material and organization of articles and terminology. Quite simply, the ID article has non-DI ID material in it, therefore the scope of the article and the term is broader than DI. That sentence sums up the entire core of my argument!....and my argument requires and deals with only the bare-bone mechanics of what is in the article. Som maybe folks are mistakenly thinking that I'm trying to deal in broader topics and then it gets confusing from there.

So, to me it looks this simple: Imagine an article titled "Widgets" Paragraph #2 discusses red widgets. Paragraph #3 is about green widgets. The disambig line for the article says "this article is about Red Widgets. And the lead has a sentence that says "All Widgets are Red". I am arguing to modify or remove those two statements because they do not match what is in the article. Folks are saying "where's your source for that?" And I'm thinking source for WHAT? I'm just noting that those statements conflict with what is in the article!

I think that you were giving me credit for dealing with high falutin' stuff whereas I was only dealing only in rudimentary mechanics and as a result we may have been speaking two different languages. Either way, thank you very much for the post, I sorry for any grief that I caused, and thank you for your efforts at building Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I understand your position, but I feel you don't understand my response. There are two distinct subjects: the Intelligent design made popular by the DI under the name Intelligent design, which is a form of creationism (IDC); and the teleological argument, which is the common name for any argument for the existence of God based upon apparent design (argument from design, intelligent design, etc.). There is already an article on the teleological argument, so first off, we're dealing with the first subject, IDC. That's the scope of the article. Secondly, we needn't limit information within the article to IDC because there are related subjects and these relations, where sourced, ought to be present in the article as well. As prime example, IDC is a contemporary adaptation of the teleological argument, so that subject (the teleological argument) is to be summarized in the IDC article and the relationship explained. In this case, we have a History section which explains that IDC is a teleological argument, but one specifically couched in scientific terms and supported by creationists.

Your "Widgets" example seems to indicate a confusion about the subjects' relationship, so allow me to pose a more accurate scenario. Let's say that we have an article called "Red widgets," its hatnote(s) explains that the article is about red widgets, and the lead states that "all red widgets are red." We can still discuss green widgets, or widgets generally, if either subject has a prominent relationship to red widgets. For example, it may be the case that red widgets is a contemporary adaptation of widgets, and we might explain some general facts about widgets within the "Red widgets" article, to showcase the similarities and differences between the two.

This is essentially how the ID article is organized, and I think the primary cause of confusion is with the WP:UCN policy and the common names of these subjects. In your widget analogy, the prominent names for each subject is the only name given, and there is no ambiguity. However, the prominent name for IDC is "Intelligent design", whereas the prominent name for arguments from design, including the colloquial usage of the phrase intelligent design, is "Teleological argument." This would be like the "Red widgets" article having the prominent name of "Red widgets," though the "Widgets" article (under its prominent name, "Widgets") is sometimes referred to as an argument from red widgets. Then, you can see how this colloquial usage of "red widgets," though a distinct subject from the prominently named "Red widgets," can still be in the article about "Red widgets" even if it refers to "Widgets" generally.

I'm trying to make this as clear as possible (hence the novella :P), but please let me know if I need to expound on anything. Or, if you'd prefer I drop this entirely, I can do that as well. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that I understand where you're coming from. If I may attempt to recap a few core (to-this-discussion) points:

1. The teleological argument article already exists
2. "the prominent name for arguments from design, including the colloquial usage of the phrase intelligent design, is "Teleological argument."
3. Lets decide to put all ID that is not DI into the TA article, and all ID that is DI related into the ID article.
4. Because #2 is true, it's OK to put all ID that is not DI into the TA article.
5. Because #2 is true, it's OK to say that ID is only the thing created by DI.

So I think that your main arguments are dependent on #2 being accurate. I am no expert on this, but to me it appears that #2 is inaccurate and implausible. First the material and sources in the articles seem to indicate that the common name for all non-DI ID IS ID. Second I find it hard imagine a person with non-DI ID beliefs characterizing their beliefs as "I believe in the teleological argument" rather than "I believe in intelligent design"

So it looks like your argument relies on #2 being correct, and mine relies on #2 being incorrect. So I guess it all boils down to: Is #2 correct or incorrect?

Thank you for this enjoyable discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you! That is exactly it! Now, WP:TITLE is the important policy that justifies #2. Make sure to read WP:PRECISION, which says to "[b]e precise, but only as precise as necessary." It further states, "[i]f the subject of an article is the primary (or only) topic to which a term refers, then that term can be the title of that article without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." "Intelligent design," being the primary topic and most prominent name for IDC, therefore gets to keep the name; the same applies to "Teleological argument." The naming convention also suggests a method of natural disambiguation: "If [the title] exists, choose a different, alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title". So, arguments from design, including those that use the phrase intelligent design, can be naturally disambiguated to another (more) commonly used title: "Teleological argument."

So, what we've done is separated the two subjects by their most prominent titles and placed a hatnote on one to make the distinct subjects clear. This is why we felt understanding the naming policy was important. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, (just) to avoid confusion, I must take issue with your second sentence, IMO #2 is a real-world outside-of-Wikipedia question, and so IMHO your note that guidelines support #2 is not correct. Aside from that note you did not address what we both agreed is the pivotal question. (#2) Also, although it is not germane at the moment, adding one thing that I neglected to mention is that your argument is one that it is OK to do what you advocate, not an argument that it is preferable to do so. That said, I re-read those guidelines that you linked and also read what you wrote several times and analyzed it. IMHO the result is that your additional arguments are also dependent on #2 being the case / accurate. If #2 is not the case, and the reverse is true (that "ID" is the common name for non-DI ID) then DI ID is not the primary topic, it is merely the currently-most-common instance of the actual primary topic which is ID overall. So I think it still boils down to: If #2 is accurate, your argument "wins", if #2 is not accurate, my argument "wins". I believe that I have presented some evidence that #2 is inaccurate (to avoid repetition, I'll just point to it as in the paragraph just after the numerical listings.) I don't believe that you have presented any evidence that #2 is the case / accurate. Thanks again for this interesting and enjoyable discussion. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000. I think we've at least come to a better understanding and I'm happy we were able to hash these things out. It really has been a pleasure.

I'm not sure that it would matter if the prominent name for the teleological argument was intelligent design though. As I said before, policy wants us to be no more specific than we have to, and we can naturally disambiguate "non-DI ID," even were it called ID prominently by specific WP:RSs, to the teleological argument, due to the prominence of this title and the lack of an alternative title for ID. In this case, we just happen to have two separate, prominent names. Thanks again, and take care! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to insult.

Hey if i offended you about your knowledge that was not my intention. It was a good discussion. Happy editing! Zyon788 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post No sweat, no problem. I originally neglected to read the source that you linked and so originally I confused the issue by responding on the topic in general but not to that linked item. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Help editing

Hey North 8000,

I was wondering if there was a way to set the scope of a page, in particular the power electronics page. Thanks, P-Tronics (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the main thing that nails it down (or is supposed to nail it down) is the article title. BTW, article titles can be changed. When there is potential ambiguity, then a disambiguation statement at the beginning (or in a disambiguation page) also has influence. Another thing would be a sourced definition of "power electronics" early in the article, such as in the lead. When here is a question on what definition to implement via. these mechanisms, or how to implement what is in the mechanisms, that is usually handled via. a discussion on the article's talk page.

My first thought at this is semiconductors who's task includes handling power (I.E. not just signal or information) Precursor items that do a similar job could be mentioned as such.

If there is a particular question, I'd be happier to get more deeply involved on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

Regarding this edit that you made to Presidency of Barack Obama: It is good that you put that content back into the article. Unfortunately, for the past three years, there has been an ongoing movement by some editors to remove reliably sourced content from the article, if such content is about things that Obama did that make him look bad. So, for example, while the article is allowed to mention Obama's various, wonderful sounding promises in the areas of "Transparency," "Wall St. Reform," and other subjects, it is not allowed to mention that he broke many of these promises. The fact that this censorship violates wikipedia's NPOV policy is of no concern to the many editors who have repeatedly removed this content over the past three years.

I am placing here, in a collapse template, the content in question:

781fcg (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article clearly has a POV problem. Rather than try to tackle that whole thing, my comment was that instead of mass removals of materials and references, that those should be reviewed individually. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have closed the discussion you started here[2] as unhelpful. You really should not be using an article talk page to make a broadside attack on the editors there. As you probably know as an experienced editor it is up to anyone proposing lots of changes to gather consensus, not up to everyone else to justify every single objection to a mass edit. There are two more issues you may not be aware of that apply to this article in particular. First, the Obama articles were placed on article probably several years ago in connection with a massive amount of problematic behavior. Accusations of bad faith were one of the problems, and people are especially concerned about that here. Second, the edits you are defending are made by a sockpuppet of a banned user, who has been returning every few weeks with a new account to make them again. He's also the editor who visited your page above, and mine recently. He's playing us, in a good natured way. I like the guy and find him quite personable, and wish there were a way he could fit in here. But as things went there's no way his edits will be considered at all, much less incorporated into the article. If you look at the history you'll see that an admin has even deleted them from the article history. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Actually, in the last few days alone "controversy" type additions by 2 editors were deleted. And I was commenting on actions of editors, and even that was on what's happening there in general, not on any specific one. I didn't understand your sentence "the Obama articles were placed on article probably several years ago" possibly there was a typo in it? Subject to those few thoughts, thanks for the info on the background there and situaiotn there. I do find the article to have a severe POV problem, but right now I don't intend to spend time there. To keep my sanity, I limit myself to being active on only 1 or 2 controversial articles at a time, and this one would put me over my self-imposed limit. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

THIS is a violation of talk page guidelines. It is an attack on fellow Wikipedians, and as such it must be refactored or deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a comment on the article. It is NOT an attack on any people. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone else disagrees with you. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What I see is a couple of people looking for a way to stifle criticism of article CONTENT. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

What you're seeing, apparently, is bad faith in any editor that disagrees with you (which is every editor so far). Sorry, but you just can't leave stuff like that on article talk pages and expect it to last very long. If you have specific changes you want to propose to the article, feel free to do so. But so far you've done nothing but disparage editors, articles and wikipedia in general. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You must be looking at material by somebody else. Mine criticized CONTENT of THAT ONE ARTICLE. And later, I indicated the refactoring BEHAVIOR is improper. And suggested improvements. If you assert something beyond that, please be specific. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] Your recent editing history at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That is nonsense. You are improperly refactoring and deleting at the talk page, and you even deleted the notice of such as "vandalism". Also quite silly to use a "please use talk page" template for something that is occurring at the talk page. Please undo what you did or I intend to report. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The typo in my friendly message above should read "article probation", not "article probably". Here's a link: WP:GS/BO. It hasn't been invoked much lately, but if the editing environment on Obama articles devolves as we head into the American general election soon it could come back. And the editor I was referring to had an account, Grundle2000, that he operated a while before getting banned from the project. He keeps a laundry list of derogatory factoids about Obama that's better written every time he posts that wall of text here. I mentioned that I find the guy charming and funny, but others are a lot less charitable. In any event rants, trolling, things that devolve into personal attacks and bickering, etc.., are routinely deleted from Obama-related talk pages although I've come to favor closing / archiving. You appear to be a level-headed good faith editor of some standing, but it's hard to see your post on the talk page as anything but a rant against other editors, and that sort of thing along with trolling, vandalism, and participation from sockpuppets is routinely deleted from the page. I personally prefer closing or archiving discussions that are unproductive or have devolved but others delete things as you can see. I appreciate your friendly response and I'm not going to get involved in any reporting or dispute if I can help it, but if things devolve into a flameout that's likely to result in a block on your account (and perhaps some others too). You have a clean record there[3] so best to keep it that way. I think you may have violated WP:3RR by repeatedly inserting an inflammatory talk page heading after others deleted it, in which case the only effective way to avoid a block is to announce clearly that you don't intend any further reverts and just walk away, at least from this exact dispute at this exact moment. They're right on the process, btw. Whereas WP:TALK discourages if not prohibits people from altering each other's talk messages, headings are for organizational/navigation and not expressive purposes and are specificlly excluded from that. Whether it's okay to simply delete an entire talk page comment judged to be grossly inappropriate, off topic, unhelpful, is a matter of some disagreement but it happens all the time in practice. Best not to fight to keep a comment you really shouldn't have made in the first place. I'm not going to go in the entire history, but accusing editors of working for the Obama campaign, being Obama fans, and writing a "hagiography" (that word in particular) is the exact style of one of the more prolific and troublesome sockpuppet editors so it hits a nerve. Unless you have a particular wish to push that point, I can't see anything good coming out of it. Please forgive my wall of text, I just hope you don't become the first casualty of a new Wikipedia Obama war. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post and info. I don't agree with your characterization of my edits there, and there was clearly no 3RR violation. But I think I'll appreciate and take your advice, not report Muboshgu and let this cool down a bit. I came here originally because this article was at a notice board, I think that it was because that a group of editors was by actions saying that wp:npov can be overidden by consensus. And that is sort of how it looks at that article. One point which may be important to you, I did NOT use the word "hagiography". I did say that the article looks like it was written by the re-elect Obama campaign committee, but I didn't say "working for the Obama campaign, being Obama fans,". The latter may be just how you interpreted my comment, but your "hagiography" note seems to clearly indicate you may be mixing up and taking what somebody else wrote as mine. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right on a few counts there. To continue my war metaphor, jumping into a place like that you can get caught in the crossfire. Sure we do disagree on some things, but as long as editors can get along and stay productive that's what it's all about. Thanks for keeping it courteous. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi

How you been? Want help archiving your talk page? PumpkinSky talk 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and nice to have you back. So far I sort of keep my whole history here (except for two specialty archives) here. But not set in stone, it's just what I've been doing so far. Open to opinions. North8000 (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Boy Scouts Of America

Hi North8000 I'd like to discuss the Membership controversies section of the BSA Page. The section seems to be incomplete, and there are recent developments that should be reflected within the page. I don't know the best way to approach this, and any advice would be appreciated. Cheers! Jay Rush (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. Happy to talk about it; any topic, any venue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

PLC

I've blanked this, even on talk - it was a copyvio of http://www.engineersgarage.com/articles/plc-programmable-logic-controller?page=4

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Good catch. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts

Hello North. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Final drafts proposal. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Mediation Request

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inijones (talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski (FYI only, no action required) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wtshymanski

With reference to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski, I note that you have added some content. I also note that you have stated on the talk page that you support what people have said but feel that "... signing on to all of them them seemed a bit heavy for me". Unfortunately, that is the way that the RfCs operate (cumbersome but there you are). When the request is examined, consideration is taken of which editors agree with what observations (doubtless here: more is better!). Regards, 109.152.145.86 (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. In order for me to weigh in heavy duty on an individual's general conduct (as those do) I require myself to have extensive experience with /review of the individual to be absolutely sure of myself. Doubly so with me not knowing the ramifications of a finding in that forum. This is an usually cautions standard but the one that I live by. I'll see what I can do there which is consistent with this. North8000 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI it was my impression that User:Andy_Dingley is more knowledgeable than I on this situation. North8000 (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair enough attitude to adopt. 109.152.145.86 (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 May 2012. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Good result. It was immensely inappropriate and an attempted mis-use of that process as well as forum shopping. North8000 (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I learned a lot while I was gone overseas and am happy to be back. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What Tryptofish said. ;) Glad you got back safely! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Starved Rock

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		This is just excellent. IvoShandor (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Was the dig site the rock itself? IvoShandor (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! On your question, yes it was, on the top of the rock. Taken from up in a tree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice. I assume you worked on the dig, is that fair? Are you an anthropologist or archaeologist? This photo is of great value, in my opinion, to the article and the Wikipedia project as a whole. It's exactly the kind of content it was born to collate. Thanks again. IvoShandor (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll answer by email if you have it enabled. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Badge of shame

Dickish move putting that POV badge of shame on Presidency of Barack Obama, particularly as there has been no talk page discussion about it. Basically it's your WP:IDL moment. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That characterization applies more to the comment that you just made. I gave a sound basis for restoring the tag in the edit summary. And yes, the HAS been talk page discussion about it. And as I noted, the situation is so bad there that people have been even deleting (and edit warring to do so) raising of concerns on the talk page. As I noted, I originally came there from a notice board where someone indicated that people at the article were saying that voting of the regulars there trumped wp:npov. This is the worst article I've ever seen in that respect. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you might be interested in this.

Hi there! I think you might be interested in this. YAU8724 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I advise you to ignore this editor. I'm 99% certain it's Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) evading his ban again. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And I'm 100% certain that it's Grundle2600. And I suggest that you do read the link. YAU8724 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure

Hello North8000! You are cordially invited to a discussion at the verifiability mediation in which we will be deciding once and for all what combination of drafts and general questions we should have in the RfC. We would love to hear your input, so why not hop over and let us know your views when you next have the chance. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

Your edit comment "Thought it has it, this does not even require consensus...extensive coverage in sources, removing it is a wp:npov violation." is EXACTLY what I said days ago in the Rfc. I would also add that any removal of the content going forward would constitute Edit Warring. Good luck! I am getting disgusted with the comments on the page so I am taking it off my watchlist. --Morning277 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That article is about the worst I've ever seen regarding POV. There's even been warring to remove talk page contents that note the POV problem! North8000 (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I know. The problem is that everyone is waiting on a "consensus" that will NEVER be reached. --Morning277 (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a part of the double standard that has been used to keep the article in the bad shape that it's in. North8000 (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your incivility and personal attacks against other editors

• And now you are trying to further engangle it by reinserting the tangled bundel and following that with other edits. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please cease with the tendentiousness, North ... I'm not in the mood to put up with it. If you are just having a bad day, we can overlook the sniping and unwarranted impugning of a fellow editor's motives, but I'm just one step away from raising your actions on an appropriate noticeboard. Let's not go there. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Xeno, your "mood" is not relevant, nor is 9000's private life/day. the MASSIVE bold edit you made was undone, which means you are in the "d" phase, which has not produced consensus yet, but i encourage you to continue, perhaps make each edit separately, instead of several at once, lest your wheat be thrown out with the chaff. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything I've said is relevant, and I've made no such "MASSIVE bold edits", DS1st. If you have something productive to offer, please don't hesitate to do so. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, as you know, what you just wrote here is a complete misrepresentation of what is happening there. I have been commenting on your behavior there. And, as context, I've have gotten to know your approach quite well, after a significant amount of observation and interaction over an extended period of time. Based on who has done what there, what you are threatening would be a near-certian boomerang. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"I have been commenting on your behavior there." --North8000

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." --No Personal Attacks

North8000, as you are fully aware, what I wrote above is spot on, and my request to you is reasonable. Impugning an editor's motives is against policy; I'll reiterate my request that you not do so again. I have made several edits consisting of, and with the sole intent of, article improvement. If those same edits made in sequence in some way also hinder your ability to revert-war, I don't see that as a great concern, nor do I see it as avoidable. May I suggest that you instead edit specific sections that you find problematic, or in need of improvement, rather than implement wholesale reverts that inevitibly wipe away the productive efforts of several editors? Having interacted with you extensively over quite some time, I find my patience for the game-playing and tendentiousness has about reached its limits, and noticeboards seem the only recourse. If you plan to persist, based on your misplaced hopes that you can instigate a "boomerang" effect, I think you will be sorely disappointed - and I recommend against it. Why can't we work collaboratively instead? Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The other stuff is more of the same misrepresentations and I'll resist commenting on it. And instead I'll respond only to your "Why can't we work collaboratively instead?". If you really mean that, then thank you very much for asking that, and the answer is yes, I'd very much like to do that and get into that mode. North8000 (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - to protect, or not to protect

Hello again North8000. Do you think the upcoming verifiability RfC should use a system of protection and transclusion, as was found in the recent pending changes RfC, or should we just keep the entire RfC unprotected? There are good arguments both for and against, and at the moment we are at a stalemate. Could you give your opinion on the matter? The discussion thread is here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif article

This article on Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif was very heavily vandalized. I encourage you to return in a few days.

When you left your comment you wrote: 'Two of the "references" are a Wikipedia article."

FWIW I think you are mistaken about that. Geo Swan (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post and info. I recheck what I said, and also check back in a few days. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I rechecked, and you're right, although the mistake was easy to make, because the first link in the references was to a Wikipedia article. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll revise my comment. North8000 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

Hi, North8000. Re this, I'm genuinely sorry if I've said anything on that page or elsewhere that you found objectionable. In making the proposal I posted yesterday, my hope (as I stated explicitly) was to break the cycle of post-and-response that has been plaguing that page and causing friction and bad feeling. Insomnesia promptly shot that to hell by providing a completely unnecessary opinion in an inappropriate place, and you compounded it by responding. We all could use a break from what's been going on, and the only way I know of to make that happen is simply not to respond. By definition, someone always gets the last word, and I think it is a mark of levelheadedness and maturity to let the other guy (whoever he or she may be) have the (dubious) honors.

One related point. Whether you appreciate it or not, I am going to what I consider extraordinary lengths to assume good faith on your part and to take your concerns seriously. It's clear to me that more than one editor who shares my view about the state of the article is viewing the situation more adversarially than I am and would prefer to pursue formal dispute resolution right away. My position is that we ought to back off and give you some breathing room first, and offer you a chance to make your case without four or five editors piling on to cry "bullshit" every time you add something to the talk page. If you'd like to take advantage of such an opportunity, I think that would be great, and I promise I'd consider whatever you proposed as rationally and fairly as I could. If not, well, you've been around here long enough to know how formal dispute resolution goes: whatever the end result, the process is never pleasant. Do you want that? I do not. Rivertorch (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rivertorch. Thanks for the post. I think that a thorough response would take a few thousand words, and would be a useful discussion if you cared to. Until / if then the short answer.....I was already at a place that 90% matches your idea, the only difference being that I might just mostly give up and go away. In my thoughts there have been three possible routes during the last few weeks.

1. The way it really should happen. For the purposes of the talk page discussion acknowledge that the other opinion (that "phobia" means phobia) significantly exists, as everybody there knows. The material to this effect is somewhat already in the article, and could easily be expanded, sourced, even the majority of the dictionaries (those that they have selectively ignored) buttress this. (Incidentally, far more sourcing than the zero given for their assertion (that their view is the only view) that they have built 80% of this article on.) And an immense amount of people have said this on the talk page, continuously since day one of the article's existence. And then decide to fix the article accordingly, bringing the wording in line with wp:npov. It's clear that the group there does not want to have this discussion and are using all of the usual tactics to avoid the discussion and denigrate my effort.
2. Find and put in sourced material explicitly establishing that that other viewpoint specifically exists. At which point it would become clear that 80% of the article, as worded, is a clear NPOV violation, making it more likely that it would get fixed by me or somebody else.
3. Give up on this particular effort, and work on the big picture fix instead. Nearly every Wikipedia article on a controversial subject ("controversial" meaning when there is a real world tussle going on regarding that subject) is in really bad shape with no near-term hope of recovery. The cause/enabler of this problem is policies and guidelines that #1 are easily mis-used or #2 have significant gaps in them. And so the big picture solution is to get those fixed, and to put my efforts there. wp:Strategic issues with core policies has some of my thoughts / plans on that.

I gave up on #1, and so will do #2 or #3 (more likely #3) both of which involve dis-engagement at this point. Again, thank you very much for your post.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If I may say something. I think that we should just add fear to the definition. I think that most editors do agree that fear of homosexuals is definately homophobia. What I don't agree with and other editors seem not to agree with is that you say that discrimination, opposition or stereotypes isn't. So as a meeting halfway resolution I suggest we just add that homophobia includes fear to the lede.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realize it already said that (stupid me). But please North8000 try and understand this issue is a controversial one but it isn't the same as say the controversy on evolution or the controversy on whether the president should have to have been born in the United States. This is an issue that affects people. Real people. And whether it is 1% 5% or 10% of the population that is alot of people. I agree that homophobia is the wrong term but what is more important is not the definition but the way it is used. How many people have lost their jobs, friends, families and even their very lives. Here is what I can tell you. I go to a meeting every wednesday. In the last 3 weeks we lost 4 people from our meeting. 3 committed suicide and 1 was murdered. They all died for their gender identity and I've almost lost my life because of it as well. Now tell me, if sexual orientation or gender identity were a choice why would someone choose a culture that put them in so much danger? Why would so many people seek out false treatments to become straight or cisgender? And most importantly why would they kill themselves over it? Thanks for listening. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. What a horrendous and gut-wrenching situation. I mentor a lot of people, several of that orientation in and out of the closet and with the related challenges. The fact that, in Wikipedia, I often, for article quality / neutrality purposes, lock horns with people of my same real-world POV and take the side of people who have an opposite real-world POV to mine probably confused you. I DON'T believe that it is a choice. Stifled research (which neither side likes the results of) indicates that it is generally not a choice. And I am for societal acceptance and normalization of homosexuality. I'm not for the nasty tactics being used, nor for the reverse discrimination that usually comes along with / is coming with governmental action on things, but I am for societal normalization and acceptance. BTW, villainizing folks who feel otherwise and their views (e.g. falsely calling any opposition to what they consider to be bad behavior a "phobia" term or equating opposition to a behavior to "hatred" of the individual) only stokes and prolongs the conflict and works against the cause of folks who use those terms as bludgeons. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to say anything more here, and I particularly didn't want to carry the substance of the dispute over to your talk page, but since you think it would be a "useful discussion" I'm reluctant to close the door on that. Tell you what: based on the "short answer" you laid out above plus some of the comments you made at Talk:Homophobia and your reply here to Rainbowofpeace, let me tell you my thoughts on the matter and then, if you still think further discussion would be useful, I'm willing to give it a go (up to a point—much of my on-wiki time is likely to be otherwise occupied with something you and I agree on in the near future). In all fairness, I should say up front that, given what appears to be a fundamental difference in understanding between you and me on several key points relating to language and Wikipedia policy, I'm a little dubious it will get us anywhere.

Most of us Wikipedians are anonymous, so our real-world points of view on can only be inferred from the patterns of our edits or by taking one another at our word when we choose to reveal our convictions. While it's interesting to think about, it doesn't really matter because our real-world points of view shouldn't matter here. I think all of us who try to follow policy have at times found ourselves in the position of defending content we dislike or opposing content we do like. While I found that awkward when I was newbie, I really don't anymore; over time, as I gained more experience with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and the way they're applied, recognizing original research or non-neutral wording gradually become more or less second nature to me, and I grew to dislike seeing it wherever it cropped up and in whatever context. I don't know what your experience has been, but I think it's odd that your reading of policy is so very different from mine. Make no mistake: if I thought the article violated a core policy in any significant way, I wouldn't hesitate to say so. I don't see a violation there.

You say that "'phobia' means phobia". Of course it does, but the article in question isn't phobia—it's homophobia, its title a compound word whose principal meaning has little or nothing to do with the word "phobia". The English language is replete with words that don't mean literally what their combined elements might lead one to believe they mean. Consider "butterfly", which isn't a fly and has no easily discerned connection to butter, or "pineapple", which has only the must superficial resemblance to either the pine (cone) or the apple. More to the point, consider the directly analogous "xenophobia" (literally "fear of strangers"), a word in common usage for decades that somehow manages not to arouse outrage despite its generally being used to mean an irrational dislike of foreigners. More than 50 years ago, E.B. White wrote that "the language is perpetually in flux: It is a living stream, shifting, changing, receiving new strength from a thousand tributaries, losing old forms in the backwaters of time." In recent years the language has been changing faster than ever: new terms are coined, neologisms become mainstream, and meanings take and lose precedence or fall entirely by the wayside. That many such changes accompany shifts in cultural norms is inevitable, and it's hardly surprising that some people are bewildered or angered by them: they see linguistic changes as coming to symbolize changes to the status quo to which they object. The word "gay" is an excellent example of this, but that battle was lost long ago, so they've moved on to other words, such as "homophobia". That there are people who think that word is misused isn't in question. However, in order to mention their point of view in the article, it would be necessary to demonstrate that there is something noteworthy about it (e.g., that controversy over the word has received significant coverage in the popular media, that it has been discussed in academic journals, that notable figures have written about it, and so on); otherwise, we are indeed looking at a WP:NPOV violation in the form of undue weight.

It seems extraordinarily clear to me (1) that the word "homophobia" is widely used to indicate a negative attitude (i.e., a dislike or antagonism or something similar) towards homosexuality or gay people and (2) that other usages of the word are rare. My view of this is supported by everything from simple Google searches to searches of scholarly materials to six of the seven most common general reference dictionaries (I don't own a copy of the seventh, and it is unavailable online), three of which don't mention fear at all in their entry for the word. (The three that do mention fear also refer to hatred, antipathy, aversion, and discrimination.) Of course, dictionaries do tend to retain older meanings long after they've passed out of common usage. Not every concept contained in dictionaries is worthy of mention in a Wikipedia article.

You wrote that "there is a battle to try to brand any disdain for, opposition to, or opposition to [sic] the societal normalization of homosexuality as a 'phobia'". I have two responses to that. First, it's not being branded a phobia; it's being branded homophobia, which is something quite different. Second, who is engaged in this battle? Where is it taking place? If there is indeed a battle, there must be evidence of it.

You also wrote: "the core of my case is simply that that particular definition is controversial in many places". If it's controversial in many places, this will have been written about; notable controversies always are. I don't doubt that many people don't like the definition, but that doesn't constitute a controversy.

Shifting gears a bit, you wrote: "The core of my argument is that there is an unsourced assertion repeated many times in the article that the view that 'all opposition to homosexuality is homophobia' is the ONLY view". Actually, the article doesn't make that assertion even once. It quite properly doesn't mention other views because no one has added (or proposed adding) any verifiable content to the contrary.

You've accused me and others of misstating your objection or sidestepping your point, but in repeatedly looking over what you've said on the talk page again I keep coming to the same conclusion, the gist of it being that you allege variously that the article isn't neutral because it's asserting something it shouldn't or failing to assert something it should. As I explained in the previous paragraph, I don't think it's doing the former. As for the latter, I think you're wrong there too, but I'm still perfectly willing to entertain the thought that you're right—all that's missing is evidence. (Sorry this was so long. I've been multi-tasking while writing it, which tends to widen my focus. Collapse, move, archive or delete at your pleasure—I won't be offended.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your post. I'm in a hurry at the moment, and will respond later. But for that purpose, I would like to ask a question. A core assertion of mine is that another viewpoint significantly exists, that it is not correct to define ALL opposition to homosexuality as "homophobia". Would you agree that such a viewpoint significantly exists? This is at the core of the structural/wikipedian side of my argument. If you say "No" then a response would be kind of pointless until if and when I show that it significantly exists because the rest of my wikipedian/structural argument depends on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm sure such a viewpoint exists but have seen no evidence to suggest it is significant. So I guess my answer is no. But as I also said, I don't see an assertion of any such thing in the article. Rivertorch (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since "the other viewpoint significantly exists" is the foundation of my argument; I was hoping that you might be willing to stipulate that as a "sky is blue" item; if not then my argument can not proceed usefully further until/unless I took the time to clearly establish that (with sources etc.). But to answer your last point, covering every type of opposition in the homophobia article is a statement that all of that is homophobia. Thanks for your post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A note of appreciation

As the WP:V thing prepares to move on to whatever chaos happens next, I just wanted to drop you an appreciative note. As I think back to when I first took an interest in the issue, you and I were on opposite sides of the debate, and even now, we often disagree. But I've got to say that I really enjoy working with you, and I feel that we have, for the most part, really worked well together. Cheers! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. Of course, the same goes in the reverse direction. It has always been a pleasure working with you, even when we disagree. My most enjoyable conversations (even more than talking with people who agree with me) and the ones that I can learn the most from are are conversations on a high plane with people who disagree with me. And you operate on that high plane. Plus you are also fun to work with. Don't forget to share that huge wiki-financial prize our draft gets picked.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My prediction: that big paycheck is not coming our way, alas! Easy come, easy go! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I already ordered the Ferrari banking on the big money from "C" winning, based on it being the compromise. Now I guess I'll have to go to Las Vegas to get the money to pay for it. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, so much for that financial plan. :-) North8000 (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

4 proposals

In order to stop edit warring on the Mitt Romney dog incident page, I restored a version of the article from of few days ago, and issued 4 proposals based on changes editors were trying to implement. Feel free to comment. Talk:Mitt_Romney_dog_incident#Four_Proposed_Changes 71.125.74.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I tried putting in a "middle ground" one. North8000 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Friendly caution

I'll try not to be rude or officious about it, but please don't join edit wars on POV material as you do here.[4] This content isn't remotely neutral or appropriate for the article, and has no consensus, as you surely must know. Plus the IP editor you're following is up to 5RR and a likely sock. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the person putting it in, but the material is notable, factual, germane, a subject of extensive coverage and sourced. I can't imagine any reason for including it. 23:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Those would include WP:CONSENSUS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and not misrepresenting the sources, among others. It's a transparently political point scored by opponents in an election year, not a meaningful event in the history of the presidency, and written in a politicized (though poorly proofread) tone to boot. FYI, the editor has just been blocked for hitting 7 reverts in a day. There's a discussion is currently at WP:AN, because that's where it started. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is not the first time North8000 has joined in an edit war by an obvious sock puppet or anon IP and tried to insert obvious POV material. I believe this is developing into a pattern and might be best suited to bring to ANI for a proposed topic ban. Dave Dial (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DD2K quit the crap. The material is notable, factual, germane, a subject of extensive coverage and sourced. Wikidemon, of the three policies/guidelines, the first was in error (there is no requirement for consensus to add material, in fact wp:npov often dictates otherwise. The second two go to the same place, wp:npov which in fact is the policy basis for inclusion of the material; the criteria for both of those is prevalence of coverage in sources. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia argument.

Ok listen, No one is arguing that the word homophobia dosn't apply to fear of homosexuals. It does however include more than that. We already cover your definition within the definition already provided. Why do you continue to argue against this. Everyone has tried to be patient with you but it is becoming more and more difficult. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia clearly states that homophobia is fear of homosexuality ALONG with antipathy. It would be one thing if no reference to homophobia being a fear of homosexuality was mentioned but that isn't what you are arguing for. You are not arguing for the qualification of part of the definition but the disqualification of another part. We can prove through sources that the definition of discrimination, prejudice, antipathy and hatred are homophobia. Once a source can be provided it can't be taken down. You can sometimes source a conflicting view in which case both must be referenced but you cant remove a sourced statement. I think you could get alot more done on another project. Because the fact of the matter is that the definitions are sourced. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Because I know that you write sincerely, it was informative in an unintended way. I thought people were deliberately "mishearing" my point, but seeing (above) that you completely misheard it, it could be that I've failed to communicate it.....it does take a structural / logical analysis of how the article is written to see it. Briefly it is this: Yes, all along I acknowledge that there are two definitions, the "all opposition is phobia" definition, and the "actual phobia" definition. (And, as a secondary point, the former is controversial.) My complaint is that 90% of the article is written as if only the first definition exists. And that it provides no sourcing for that "only one definition" premise, which is understandable, since that "only one definition" premise is clearly false.

Not sure what's next. For my own sanity I planned to just make a few occasional comments, usually when someone else has brought the problem up. But then the bogus tactics and maneuvers start and I spend a lot of time and grief in conversations responding to those.

Thanks again for the post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

That Barnstar was a surprise, but then again, maybe it wasn't. We have some disagreement, but deep down I think we have a lot of common goals. You're a more diplomatic editor than I am, and I respect your approach. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was due. From your overall pattern I can see that you put the mission of building a good encyclopedia above all else. I'd much rather run into someone who disagrees with me with that purpose in mind than many of the other things I run into in wikipedia. And, where there are differences of opinion regarding content, I'd much rather run into someone who is refreshingly blunt and on-topic than the more common tactics of conducting disagreements (mis-using policies, deliberately "mis-hearing" what people said etc., ad hominem tactics etc.)

Not that this needs saying with you (it's more to express my own thoughts) but don't let this change anything, including/especially don't start agreeing with me unless I convinced you.  :-) North8000 (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect, because of you're apparent interest in the matter, that like me you see great value in Scouting. As an Australian I've also seen the very positive impact on Scouting in my country of including females at all levels and at all ages, of reducing the emphasis on a prescribed god (spirituality is still important), and not worrying about whether members are gay. I'm over 60, and saw many people of my age and younger pretty frightened of what the changes would lead to, and who now (the vast majority of them anyway) recognise the huge value in the more open, unified organisation. We all still believe in the core values of enhancing the lives of young people through adventurous, outdoor activities. I suspect you believe in that too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the same way that you do, maybe further. I'm for the societal normalization of homosexuality, but am adamantly against the denigrating/polarizing tactics / approaches used by the activists, and also want to avoid reverse-discrimination. (In the US, when we swing on an issue like this we tend to skip the middle ground and go right to reverse-discrimination.) As an atheist with over 5 decades in an organization (BSA) which supposedly bans us, (and which has a similar situation on the homosexuality front) I think that I have a different understanding than you regarding the actual more complex situation here with BSA. But we both want the same end. North8000 (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Gun policy

I tried creating: Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space. It is still alive but others are trying to kill it. I noticed that you had a similar issue with it on in an article talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

One idea, possibly call it an essay for now? North8000 (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The definition they used for calling it that was a one editor OWN article. I creating this one from policies, guidelines, and samples from other areas that I thought backed up NPOV. I will edit it to reflect that some may consider that though. It may remain pseudo-essay until consensus is reached to remove that label. It may seem OR as well because of the examples. I just grabbed a few at random and didn't read any yet. The examples could be sorted into good examples and bad ones. We could even work on the bad ones, move them to the good ones, move older good ones out, and then add more bad ones. It is a similar format as other WP pages, using cites to just a few policies for now. We can add more such as POV, OR, RS, STICK, BLP, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be viewed as an essay now. Someone just informed me of Wp:Strategic issues with core policies#WP:NPOV and I linked it to the delete discussion. I have always said that anyone can edit it so you may wish to add your wisdom to it as well. I have added many changes since you may have seen it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Guðmundsdóttir

Hi North8000. This was a non-admin close by me where there was arguably no consensus to close. You !voted to delete. Your thoughts about this? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Between when I weighed in and now the article went from zero references to 8 references. I didn't review them thoroughly but the wp:notability situation looks much better now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Boy Scouts Sexual Abuse

I have to partially disagree with your undue weight claim . That section until my edits barely mentioned the scope of the subject of sexual abuse within the organization. I understand there is a main article, but that sub section had 0 specific examples such as the the highly publicized Dykes case. The section was written to sort of mention the possibility of sexual abuse, and then in great detail talks about the purported efforts to address such. No summarized mention was even made, of factual documented incidents. So sir I will see your due and undue weight which I think is relevant as the previous version definitely gave undue weight towards not mentioned the breadth of the sexual abuse and I will raise you a NPOV and may I advise to take in consideration any possible conflict of interest. Lets discuss on the talk page and let me remand WP:3RR as you have already reverted twice. Lets discuss.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to war the material in prior to the discussion. But the "lets discuss" sounds good to me. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but 1 revert is not warring sir, you are the one making the majority of reverts, please stop accusing me of warring thank you! And I would advise looking in the mirror before you "Lob" around accusations of edits warring. Also as mentioned previously I have concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:COI--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Another instance of bogus accusations as a tactic to try to achieve a goal. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong

If refs can be found, this can be saved from FAR, but in its state, it won't. Does Wim work on Scout articles anymore?PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think my brain is in low gear. Not sure who Wim is. After my one FA / article of the day experience (SS Edmund Fitzgerald) I decided that my focus is accurate, informative articles rather than worrying about FA. For me FA looks like requiring an immense amount of perfection in details that are secondary to accuracy and informativeness and sometimes trivial. But I'm always always ready to help improve an article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Wimvandorst PumpkinSky talk 01:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America edit warring

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] Your recent editing history at Boy Scouts of America shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You are at 3RR and ignoring discussion. If you hit 4RR, I will report you, so please talk to us instead. We can compromise. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ignore this warning. You were not at 3RR. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Consider this a false warning. 18:54, 6 August 2012‎, 10:40, 7 August 2012‎, 23:02, 7 August 2012. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's more than 24 hours. So you would be at 2RR. ViriiK (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of you to offer advice on how to WP:GAME the system to successfully edit war without getting blocked, but your advice happens to be wrong. As I said, he's at 3RR. To violate the bright line rule, he'd have to pass it by hitting 4RR.

I could report him even now and he might or might not get blocked for edit-warring, which he's blatantly guilty of, but I chose to warn. I've also limited myself to 2RR, which means I'm not even touching the line, much less passing it.

Either way, it's really bad advice to tell him to ignore a valid edit war notice such as this one. But don't worry; others have joined North in edit-warring to keep out all mention of BSA abuse, because any article about conservatives must be controlled by conservatives, just like Jesus demands. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

They are telling you that you claim is in error and bogus. How you get "offering advice to game" out of that illustrates the abusive tactics that you are attempting. North8000 (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24-45-42-125's note is botched and bogus at several levels. First , my series of edits WAS to have the material that they are trying to war in go to talk. Second, they have been trying to war it in prior to talk. Next, 3RR concerns 4 edits in one day, not 3 edits over 3 days. And that's just the beginning of the misrepresentations in the above post. Finally, equating taking that highly problematic insertion to talk first is "edit-warring to keep out all mention of BSA abuse, because any article about conservatives must be controlled by conservatives, just like Jesus demands." (written to me, an atheist) is so baseless and out of line that (to put it mildly) I can see that there is no real conversation going on. North8000 (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a conversation, it's an announcement. You can disregard the announcement, but there are consequences to that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an announcement that you (Still) do not intent to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It should lead to an indefinite block, but probably won't. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an announcement that North8000 was edit-warring and was about to get reported. It served its purpose; he stopped edit-warring, allowing other conservatives to continue the war in his place.

You keep threatening me, but you do nothing. Really, you should find some lame excuse to report me already, or just drop the threats. They're getting old. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Still-24-45-42-125, your behavior is atrocious. There are about 10 examples of it in this section alone. And I can see that my interactions with you are just the tip of the iceberg in that respect. North8000 (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's time for an RFC/U. Although it serves no direct purpose, it seems required before requesting restrictions at WP:AN or WP:RfAr. We've established that he doesn't understand simple English or Wikipedia policies and guidelines, even after they're explained to him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just by random at other articles, noticeboards, block notices I've seen a lot of bad stuff, i.e. more than I've ever seen that way for a single editor. And, of course the interaction here and a couple of articles where I've seen it closer up. But I've not looked deeper & beyond that, it sounds like you have additional info/perspective in that area. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Homophobia article

I'm really sorry you felt that you wern't being treated fairly on the homophobia article. I do understand your point and believe it is a valid point although I don't agree with it. If you wish to completely leave the homophobia topic I will understand. If you want to discuss it here where you will not be judged by everybody that is fine too. And by the way thanks for calling me civilized. I do try to see your points and I believe I understand them. I don't think you are a homophobe. In my personal opinion you are misguided but not a homophobe. You probably think I'm misguided too. Thats okay. I just want you to know that I appreciate you and your contributions. I just think its time to let it die on the main page for a while Sincerly your friend-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Believe it or not in the real world I think that we think mostly alike on this. I'm for the societal normalizaion of homosexuality. I'm not for the nasty tactics used by some folks who feel that way, including branding anybody who feels otherwise as having a phobia. And tactics work in reverse by breeding resentment. But in a Wikipedia sense, such opinions are not relevant. Two definitions of the word exist, and one of them is sky-is-blue obviously controversial. The problem with the article is that, as a part of a POV quest, it pretends that the more controversial "all opposition is phobia" definition is the ONLY definition. That would be just a difference of opinion but the more severe problem there is the nasty tactics used by a certain cadre there against people who do not agree with their quest. I think that they have set the record for the amount of bogus tactics and bogus accusations used against a fellow editor. And when I see people using such tactics against people in Wikipedia to further their purposes, I really see red.

And no I do not think that you are misguided. I think that the real world you and your thoughts and efforts are right on track and admirable. And in Wikipedia you are a kind and thoughtful editor. About the worst complaint I could muster is taking real life advocacy a bit too much into Wikipedia and having a bit of a hard time understanding my someone abstract analysis of the structure of the article, which is necessary to present the issues in Wiki-terms. But the first in very minor, and the second is somewhere between normal and being a failure of mine to explain better. Your friend.North8000 (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe we will work together on other articles in the social sciences field. Right now on the Islamophobia page there is a huge controversy about whether it is a form of racism. Maybe we could work together there.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. That one looks like a minefield. I just treat people as individuals without prejudice, and expect others to do the same. The week after 9/11 when nobody was thinking straight and a mid-eastern run gas station near my house received threats, I drove there to to tell the owner I'd help including standing guard or anything. And earlier this this summer I spent 2 hours at an Islam booth at an event learning. Conversely, inventing and promoting words like hompophobia & Islamophobia to vilify people who sincerely feel otherwise (through lack of information or whatever) fuels the flames and only delays the solution. And people IMHO using Wikipedia to try to establish or entrench such relabellings is also wrong on Wikipedia grounds. So, I'd like to work with you somewhere but might be best if I sit that particular one out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Smart meter

Thanks for your feedback and implementation of my request edit.

If you're up for it, I made a similar request edit on the smart grid article. I hope I'm not nagging, but I only bring it up because it's a tough gig for COIN editors to jump into unfamiliar topics - much easier for editors that are naturally interested in the subject area. User:King4057 06:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Happy to take a look at it. North8000 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm answering here rather than there because my review has only been superficial at this point and my thoughts not supportive of inclusion. First is not really your issue directly, but with OpenHDR at the core of your insertion....... there is no real explanation of OpenHDR that I could find in Wikipedia. The OpenHDR article is about the most worthless 2000 words I have even seen in an article it never really explains what it's subject is or it's place in the scheme of things. I spent a few minutes exploring the references and still didn't find anything, and noted that none seem to be the required in depth coverage by third party sources required for the existence of an article. With regards to the main insertion, at Smart meters the existence of projects alone to me seemed encyclopedic given the current state of affairs (opposition etc.) with smart meters. IMHO it's less so at the smart grid article where the mere existence of projects is not as newsworthy and seems to me to more promotional and less encyclopedic than your proposal at the Smart meter article. And, I'm only putting this at my talk page because it's just based on a fast (not thorough) review by myself. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'll leave it up to impartial editors. Below are some articles on OpenADR (hopefully we will improve that Wikipedia article as well eventually). It also occurs to me that we may want to call them implementation examples, rather than OpenADR implementation examples.

• Competition heating up for OpenADR market GigaOm
• New OpenADR Spec Will Boost Auto-Demand Response New Pike Research
• OpenADR: What will it deliver? GreenTechMedia
• Alstrom Buys UISOL, But Will OpenADR stay as open? GigaOm

User:King4057 14:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! North8000 (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A random unrelated question I thought of asking you, because you are a contributor to the biofuel article and seem reasonably cautious. One of the ideas that a lot of editors at Wikimania seemed to support was that they want to see more corporations donate images, like the ones Honeywell has donated you can see in my workspace. These images took months to obtain, get permission, etc. and now I just need to give them some better captions.

The issue I have is that in submitting them for specific articles, I feel like it becomes this coy game. If I asked to add the image of a refinery to the Green diesel article, should it mention in the caption that it's a Honeywell refinery? The autopilot image is generic enough not to mention Honeywell on an autopilot article, though it naturally would on Honeywell Aerospace. On the other hand, something like the PrimusApex is more unique. Images of Honeywell products for example have been added to the article on Turbochargers (and labeled as such in the caption) by volunteers, but doing the same as a COI...

I wonder what you might think is the best approach for contributing the images? New ground for me as a COI editor. User:King4057 22:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a quick shoot from the hip; I'd be happy to discuss more or in greater depth. Wikipedia sort of conflates two different meanings for "COI"

1. IMHO the gold standard one at the beginning of wp:coi which is "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
2. Is when there is a strong interest (usually dealing only with commercial or similar) which presents a high risk of #1 occurring.

In short, #2 is the case with you and you have to keep #1 from happening while you edit. Following the rules (as you admirably are) is a good defense for Wikipedia if #1 is occurring, but my advice (and what you should do) is once you enter Wikipedia, leave some stuff behind so that #1 does not occur. That doesn't mean that there can't be some mutual benefit for Honeywell for your Wikipedian efforts. And so my general advice is to let that be your guide.

On the more specific front, I deal heavily in both Wikipedia and the real world in industrial automation and heavily technical fields. IMHO saying the name of a company in the caption of an image of a piece of equipment or a facility is useful information for the reader. And, of course, the image should have some value to the reader. The less useful the company name is to the reader, the less I'd say it should be used. And the less useful the image is to the article the less I'd tend to use it.

Again, this was a quick shoot from the hip; I'd be happy to discuss more or in greater depth. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is good feedback, thanks. I can reasonably use the guide "when it's informative to the reader" and provide that consultation to clients. I'll do those as COI with a request edit, while the others are non-COI donated images. BTW, you're welcome to comment on the Smart grid request edit. I was rather hoping you would either voice an objection more firmly or update that you felt it was ok. User:King4057 07:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Happy to do that. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be great if you did that. Some of the request edits I'm submitting for Honeywell now I first wrote 6 months ago, before I became 10x a better Wikipedian. At the time I had a regular job and this was a side-project. Boy how quickly things have changed. User:King4057 16:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I was happy to see someone bold enough to suggest making edits to the COI guideline page. I had written off the time I spent in that discussion. I consider myself to have a COI with the subject of COI. User:King4057 05:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Great to hear from you and nice work that you are doing and how you are handling it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, North8000. I don't know if you saw my note to you on the TPM Talk Page this morning about 2RR concerns here. I had no intention of reporting you to WP:AN/EW and still don't, but Collect subsequently made a report at ANI, which I read and commented on, and in the process of the course of the discussion I laid out what happened from my perspective which named you, Ian.thomson, Collect, and CartoonDiablo, and your roles in the matter from my perspective, which include 2RR problems for you and CartoonDiablo. You can find the thread here, I just wanted to make sure I gave you notice and a chance to respond since blocks may be forthcoming (hopefully not). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Good news - doesn't look like anyone is going to be getting blocked. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate 1RR, I only reverted once. The one note that raised this question made the error of considering an edit to material added 1 3/4 years ago (November 2010) to be a "revert" of that addition. By that standard, ANY removal from any article would mistakenly be called a "revert" which is not correct. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Any removal of content from any article is a revert; when the the content was originally added is irrelevant. Exceptions for BLP problems, copyvios and vandalism are in place, but they too are reverts and caution should be exercised when employing these exceptions on articles and topics with a 1RR restriction. Tiderolls 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that every instance of removal of any material, even the oldest item in Wikipedia is a "revert" for the purposes of 1RR ? ! That's unimaginable. Frankly, I think that I was being used to obscure the report there which involves someone who did two reverts within hours both on the same hours-old edit by trying to say that my first edit, the first one on 2-year old material was a "revert". How would anybody even know that it came about by some method in ancient history which the current edit would be considered a "revert" of vs. going in some way where it wouldn't? That isn't a report on me but if someone is trying to raise the question about me this would certainly need a broader discussion on this which is only a side-topic on the current one there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the present case. My purpose was to help you avoid a similar problem in your future editing. If you remove content you have reverted an edit. Tiderolls 03:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, with that intent in mind, thanks for the post. North8000 (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I just thought about it. Under that interpretation, just editing 4 different parts of any article in one day would constitute a 3RR violation. That makes no sense. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And 0RR would mean that existing material could never be edited! North8000 (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘From his post at AN/I it appears that Arthur Rubin has yet a different definition of these terms. I shall have to go read the policy again. Tiderolls 17:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think he was talking more about in practice, and I think it makes sense. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The position I was commenting from, and sorely uncommunicating, was that an article or topic that carries a 0RR or 1RR is going to be contentious by definition. Any edit(s) to such an article or topic would be under such scrutiny that I would think one should err on the side of caution. Partly to avoid sanctions and, more importantly, to achieve consensus and article stability. Please believe that it was not my intention to cast your actions in a bad light. My sole aim is the improvement of the encyclopedia. Thanks for your patience. Tiderolls 23:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bright Line Essay

BTW - I wrote this and posted it here. I thought I would bring it up, because the essay may eventually be a good link for the Financial COI section of WP:COI. I put emphasis on "may" because the Bright Line is not something I would consider to have consensus (but then nothing about COI does). However, I think we can present it as - like the rest of the COI guideline - good "advice." Or perhaps it just makes things even more complicated, by offering even more contradicting advice.

It's a bit risky pushing it on Jimbo's Talk page, because he has strong opinions on it. User:King4057 03:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I read it. You've done a lot of good work there! If you'd like any advice, it's missing the 1 or 2 sentences that says what it is. Without that it's particularly confusing because the "bright line" term seems to conflict with what it actually is. In Wikipedia "Bright line" typically means a particularly clear-cut rule for particularly-clear cut situations. But the essay seems to be some excellent ideas / guidance on editing in a financial COI situation. But either way, nice work! North8000 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I am being selfish here, because I gingerly follow the "in spirit" doctrine and I need something to link to when I introduce myself to new editors, so they know they don't need to watchlist the article and raise their shields.

My other projects have a similar theme. I created an AfC-like system with Noununiquenames for the {{request edit}} queue to make the bright line more practical, even for major re-writes. I've worked with BigNate37 on a template for extant organizations that beams the financial COI advice of WP:COI directly to the article Talk pages on the articles that need it most. An early work-in-progress is a [Template:Request_edit/COIinstructions set of instructions] for reviewers and submitters of request edits that could one day improve our consistency.

Wikipedia tells companies to use Talk pages, but doesn't make it easy, obvious or effective to do so. I think with a bit of hard-work and elbow grease, we can make it a more attractive strategy for companies and improve the situation as a result. User:King4057 14:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Binarism

Hey North, I was hoping you could help me with a new project I'm working on. I've created a Binarism article. I think both me and you know that unlike other LGBT groups the Genderqueer and Intersex people don't have nearly as much publicity and therefore don't have a chance to be dirty activists. And since you are for the 100% public normalization of homosexuality I was hoping that you could help me on this article which I desperately need help on.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I don't have expertise there (I just read it and still don't understand it) but it sounds like it would be fun and interesting. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well if you read the gender binary article and the genderqueer article it should make much more sense.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A step ahead of you, I did that since then, plus some things I found with a Google search. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Smart Grid

There's plenty of other areas for me to contribute where I have greater expertise and no COI, but if you're interested, I would be happy to duplicate the article to a draft space, where we could clean it up a bit over the long weekend and you could re-incorporate at your discretion.

It's a long story and I'm happy to explain as a separate discussion, but in my genuine COI work, I have found the Bright Line is absolutely crucial to me doing good for Wikipedia. User:King4057 22:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by what you mean by "Bright line". I'm cool with the idea but it's pretty complicated / big job trying to understand what the differences are between A whole article and an edited version of it. Maybe you could use strikeouts for removals and colored text for additions. ? North8000 (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there's a much easier process. I've started it over here. I can provide detailed edit notes in the history and you can watchlist the draft. So something like "removed external links in the body" is a no-brainer, but an edit note like "rebuilding controversy section" gives you an idea on where to look. You can look at the diff, or just look at the article "lets see what he did with it" kind of thing. I do this often in cases where I have a real COI, where I submit a request edit and show them the detailed edit notes.

No bother if you don't want to though - I don't mean to be such a burden. Obviously it is much easier for editors to just edit away, but I wouldn't be comfortable doing so in this case. User:King4057 04:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Good idea. I'll watch it and may have a few thoughts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Huron outline.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Huron outline.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Answered there. But the reason for the notice was that it was not used in an article. And my response on that was: There is a dispute at the article and it was temporarily taken out ( which might happen again) by someone who claims that Lake Huron is not a lake. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Michigan outline.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Michigan outline.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Answered there. But the reason for the notice was that it was not used in an article. And my response on that was: There is a dispute at the article and it was temporarily taken out ( which might happen again) by someone who claims that Lake Michigan is not a lake. North8000 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Zero Dark Thirty

Hi North8000,

I saw your comment on this article talk page which looked pretty reasonable.

Another editor seems to have ownship issues with this article. Could you please look at the editing and comment further on the talk page. Thank you, --74.97.18.207 (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Be happy to. But I don't think that it's an ownership issue; based on a lot of observation IMO it's someone who's editing is driven by political partisanship/goals. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, North8000. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just hopped in and out of that article but will leave a few comments there. North8000 (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User kwamikagami

I've spotted by chance that you seem to have problems with said user regarding edits and reverts thereof -- your entire first paragraph applies almost verbatim to an edit of mine he reverted @ the article about the Croatian language. Just thought I'd let you know that you're not the only one whose edits he twists to his liking. Cheers,
esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I took a look there; the situations are remarkably similar. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sticking my neck out

Hi North8000! I've just stuck a fresh viewpoint in over at Great Lakes, wrt [[5]]. Just wanted to throw in a personal note to someone involved in (I think arbitrating??) the previous unpleasantness - though tbh, that whole thing was just too depressing and partisan to get too involved in deciphering.

I'd appreciate some balanced thoughts from someone - and you seem like the ideal candidate! Essentially, my thoughts here seem to be that while kwamikagami seems to have a bit of an ongoing reputation and has been extremely inconsiderate/outright rude in reverting/flaming/etc on a variety of topics including this one, I think this might have blinded all the participants to the actual topic in hand. I'm concerned that little actual citing and sourcing has been happening in the whole discussion, and it's all got very personal. Can we start fresh? DanHobley (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post and your efforts. This has taken on various dimensions in various places and so it's hard to get into it it thoroughly without writing a book in a whole new place. But if I may noet a few core items:

• I have zero emotion on this.
• The core issue is the naming of the lakes, including how to refer to them in article. I don't think that anybody is against saying that in certain respects they behave as one lake.
• I have attempted much milder fixes on on and off over many months and Kwamikagami reverted even the tiniest of partial fixes. So, my original approach was just to tweak rather than redirect that article.
• More recently I have tried via more structured routes, i.e. to fix mis-use of reference, tag mysterious references for specifics, and tage unsourced material. Kwamikagami deleted each an every on of those changes and tags in an en masse and dismissive manner.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense now. Thanks for clueing me in. I guess we'll just see what happens... DanHobley (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is scattered into at least 7 different places

I'm building this here and will post it elsewhere. The discussion on this is scattered into about 7 different places. In (roughly) descending order of amount of material they are:

1. WP:ANI#User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes
2. Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron
3. Talk:Great Lakes
4. User_talk:kwamikagami
5. User_talk:North8000
6. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology
7. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography

So each of these locations is MISSING least 3/4 of the important material and discussions North8000 (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw your comment

I believe your suspicions may be correct that Kerfuffler is using multiple accounts at the same time to edit. They showed up in this dispute discussion after 13 days, with no prior participation. I think this should be investigated, but I don't know how to do it. Thanks. :) --76.189.97.59 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I only complimented them on their amazing progression. An expert wiki-warrior by their 9th lifetime edit.  :-) North8000 (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. :-) --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Volume Seventeen

Hi North,

Thank you for contributing to the Volume Seventeen AfD. The article has been deleted. You mentioned that you were planning on starting a bundled AfD for Volume-related articles. Is that still your intention?

Neelix (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The answer is yes. It would take me a few days to get it done. If you would prefer to do it, let me know....that would also be fine. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger discussion at Talk:Great Lakes

Please see my comment at the renaming discussion at Talk:Great Lakes. I am hoping this would be a satisfactory compromise for all involved. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good. I commented there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Contrary to your edit comment, I did take it to talk. In fact, I was there before I made any changes but you edit-warrred and never even said a word on the talk page. This is not good behavior. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

One edit is not "edit warring". I have not reviewed the history on this particular one, but have seen that overall you are the champion of such on articles related to the November election. North8000 (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Who are you trying to convince? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just telling it like it is based on substantial observation. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Article probation on Paul Ryan

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Paul Ryan, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --v/r - TP 00:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Please work with me

If you would like to convert them to references that is fine but I'm going to ask that you revert yourself and work from the version in history because a.) it is against policy to link inline and b. ) because I'm looking at purging out promotion and your edit does not help me. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I was just thinking that it would be lot easier (= a lot faster) to do if we could work from content that is IN the article. Please let me know what you think of that; I will self-revert in the meantime. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was trying to pursue a promotional matter (not finished). Using this version to review for linking is fine; leaving them in may be what taught this user a bad example. I do understand your thoughts and not trying to create more work for editors. No problems.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. BTW if you have a feel for which ones are prominent, I sure could use such expertise for review / modification of the short list of these at the "Notable venues" section at Folk music article. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Michigan-Huron

In the spirit of letting the geo people handle this, could you revert your edit here? That wasn't Ken reverting you by mistake, but Alan specifically correcting you, as here. — kwami (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the heck happenned. I only intended to edit one sentence (tweak the last sentence in the lead)! I'll see if I can still revert that edit. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to revert myself but couldn't due to the large number of edits that occurred since. Sorry! I'll try to revert them individually. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It may have been an old version; while you had the window open, someone else edited, so you reverted their changes. (Just a guess.) That's not supposed to be able to happen—your save is supposed to be blocked due to the edit conflict—but it happens to me occasionally. No idea why.

Don't know if you saw my response on ANI. I'm happy to strike out any comments besmirching your intelligence. Just show me where, so I don't miss any. I apologize for those. While you refused to show you understood the hydrodynamics (evidently you thought I would take it as an admission I was right?), I honestly thought it was because you didn't understand, that you couldn't explain it, and that you were another of those dimwits who believe that if they don't understand st, it can't be true. Actually, I was just trying to determine if you understood why sources would call it a lake/body of water, so I could ID that, or rule it out, as the problem. Feel free to use my talk page if you want; I stopped you because the argument was going in circles for pages, and I thought you simply didn't understand, so there wasn't any point to continuing. Now that I see wasn't the case, it would just be a matter of the verbiage; you've explained your POV multiple times and I still don't get it, so I'm not sure continuing would be useful, unless you can think of a new approach. Anyway, start a new section if you do, so the old one will archive faster, and my intemperate remarks (struck out or not) will be removed sooner from public view. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. This whole thing has been too giant to try to distill here. Long story short, my thoughts towards you have always been friendly, a fellow human being that has done a lot for Wikpedia, even when I feel that it is my duty to butt heads with you or (in my mind, rightly or wrongly) try to prevent you from doing harm. In this case, while I'm quite fluent in the scientific & technical areas, what I've been applying here is not that, but my curse/blessing of seeing the logical or illogical statements contained in wording and context. Maybe that has been putting us on different wavelengths or talking different languages. For example, I may be viewing a phrase as a "statement of name" and you may be viewing it as an introduction of a scientific concept. Either way, lets just be genuine friends and consider the article (even if we butt heads over it) to be secondary. With lots of folks involved, all of the current trends and all of the near term possible outcomes are fine. And as long as you don't intend to undo what they did when they're gone, I think that this is near-settled permanently. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Honeywell images

Hi North. This is King4057 - I changed my username. FYI - I added a bunch of Honeywell's images to Honeywell pages as non-controversial edits and I added a few that don't mention Honeywell and aren't distinguishable as Honeywell products as non-COI edits. The remainder are in request edits.[6][7][8]

I seem to have lost track of taking a quick cleanup shot at the Smart Grid article. I'll do a fresh copy-paste of the article tonight and see what I can throw together. Corporate Minion 03:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi North. It won't win an award any time soon, but I did a rough cleanup of the Smart Grid article here. You can see detailed edit notes here and some comments on the Talk page. My main effort was cutting about 13,000 bytes that was redundant, off-topic, promotional, etc. and providing a more sensible structure. Corporate Minion 05:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool! I'll be on wiki only a few minutes today and then off-wiki for 9 days so I'm afraid that's about the best I can offer a the moment. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What is SYNTHESIS?

I have just noticed on the SYN board I have independantly made almost an identical statement to yourself regarding the use of synthesis, i.e. that most Wiki articles contain an element of it. I'm not sure if that places me in agreement or not regarding if we should be more, or less rigorous regarding SYN, or just better at identifing false positives and false negatives. The main problem I have is that some users seem to believe this policy is well defined and clear. Until we have better guidelines I really think it is open to the most blatent abuse. So do we need better guidance and more examples on what is and isn't acceptable practice? --188.220.205.42 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry not signed with my name for some reason, let's try again! --Andromedean (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I was off the grid for 9 days and will be spotty for the next few days, so if you don't mind a short answer for now...... My answer is the same as for several other policies and guidelines where normal practices require / involve violating a strict interpretation of them. They work fine when editors are co-operating and are failures when editors are not. IMHO the main answer is similar to the others where there is such a conflict between reality and (literal) policy. Go to some pages where they ARE working, analyze what is happening there through a lens of a rigorous reading and application of policies and core guidelines, find the conflicts and then rewrite the policies so that there is no longer a conflict between the letter of them and reality. And a second prong would be to require a good faith questioning of the material (not just raising of a wiki-lawyering point) when bringing a policy to bear on it. This would be just procedural; once it is raised, they would not need debate the question that they raised.

In the case of synthesis, this would mean to learn/understand the normal amount of "synthesis" / summarization that is the norm at successful articles and rewrite the policy to define that as OK and the limit of OK.

BTW I've been noodling on this and other similar topics at wp:Strategic issues with core policies

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homosexual agenda. 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. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Quit the crap. I am not edit warring. Somebody put in clearly false material with zero basis in the edit summary and I took it out twice. You are writing to the wrong person. Write them and tell them to take their beyond-controversial proposed edit to talk. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You most certainly are edit warring:

• 18:37, 7 October 2012‎ North8000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,416 bytes) (-880)‎ . . (Undid revision 516503680 by Wikiwind (talk) Wording corrected an error and no rationale has been given for going to the erroneous wording (that them is used only by conservative Christians))
• 7 October 2012‎ North8000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,416 bytes) (-880)‎ . . (Undid revision 516520995 by [[Special:Contributions/2A01 No explanation why putting in a clearly false POV statement (that the term is used only by conservative Christians) is "restoring proper NPOV" .

Where did you discuss your changes on the talk page? Also, the page history gives the appearance that you are tag teaming with Belchfire. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC

Where is the beyond-controversial item that somebody is trying to war in discussed? North8000 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The "tag teaming" is more crap. Unless I am mistaken I have edited the article only twice in it's history! North8000 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you used the talk page to discuss your edits, or do you just revert to any version Belchfire reverts to, especially since he just returned from vacation? Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know who who Belchfire is much less their vacation schedule. Again, unless I am mistaken, I've only edited this article twice in it's history. In which case you are in severe baseless breach of wp:npa. North8000 (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you know who he is and this isn't the first time.[9] You're on the same WikiProject, remember? Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)+

That's a completely different article. You're not even making any sense. North8000 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the same tag teaming behavior on two different articles from two different editors who belong to the same WikiProject. It makes a lot of sense. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What WikiProject are you talking about? I'm a member of a zillion of them. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Reinserting copyright link - edit war

Hi North8000, I'm concerned that you're reinserted these video links, despite me removing them for the stated copyright concern policy. I have no wish to edit war with you, so as I've made you aware, I shall leave it here thanks. Widefox; talk 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Widefox. If you said that there was something indicating a copyvio concern, I missed it. (?????) If there is something indicating a concern with them, please indicate what it is and we should take them out, and I'd agree. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed these links stating the WP:LINKVIO issue here #1. You added these links back in here. Despite here #2 , here #3 here #4 , (above) #5 , (now) #6 times, you haven't talked about WP:LINKVIO? did you read WP:LINKVIO? What makes you think it does not apply? what was your reasoning to add them? Not sure if you're taking copyright infringement seriously enough, do you? Widefox; talk 01:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following. All of those edits just name the external links policy. None say any reason for concern regarding the links / linked material in question. Is there one? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

are you willing to talk about your edit or not? in the absence of you justifying it...can I conclude you haven't read that LINKVIO? and you have not provided any justification for your edit per your burden. As you refuse to justify your edit against the policy, despite me warning you that you are making a clear copyright infringement of linking to material uploaded without owner's consent, I have tagged as such in the article ready for being dealt with. Widefox; talk 02:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course I am willing to talk about it. And if you would just give me a straight answer to the question that I asked, we could probably settle this in two minutes. Do you have reason to believe that the two linked off-wiki uses are without the owner's consent? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I'm still waiting for the reason you put them back in - you haven't yet provided any reasoning! (BTW your reasoning does not depend on my viewpoint.) The exact problem is marked for all to see, along with this dialogue. Please take copyright infringement more seriously next time. Widefox; talk 08:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I put them back in because they benefit the article and because you have not given any reasons for taking them out. And no, you have not indicated any specific problem, your supposed statement of the "exact problem" is just a reference to an entire policy and implies that it is being violated, with no statement about the supposed violation. And while refusing to discuss / instead of discussing the SPECIFICS of the situation you instead fling vage baseless accusations such as "don't care about copyvio", and baselessly accusing the other editors there and I of being socks of each other. Reinforcing what I said below, please cease this baseless accusatory behavior immediately or I will report you. And you STILL won't even give me a straight answer to my question which is: Do you have reason to believe that the two linked off-wiki uses are without the owner's consent? North8000 (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Futanari

Could you read this over and tell me whether or not you think this is real or an artistic thing in the Template talk: Gender and sexual identities. I need a second opinion. Is is a gender identity or a fictional phenomenon-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the article Futanari. I trust your opinion so thanks.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. I'll have only a few minutes on wiki during the next 16 hours so please pardon any delay or brevity. North8000 (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a look; I also did a quick web search. 98% of the article treats it as a form of art, not a gender identity. And ditto/100% for the first 20 hits on the web. But then there is the first sentence of the article (capitalization added by me): "Futanari (....literally "dual form") is THE Japanese word for androgyny or hermaphroditism." The two sources given for this sentence were not easily checkable. If the sentence is true, then the whole article has jumped the tracks by only coverign the form of art aspect. I suspect / my guess is that the "THE" should really be an "A", and that this word primarily refers to the art form, and is not the main Japanese word for androgyny or hermaphroditism. Either way, the lead is supposed to summarize what is in the article, and so the sentence with the "THE" in it does not match the article. Let me know if you'd like me to do anything else (comment there etc.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Using multiple accounts / IPs

Hello North8000, I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you using multiple accounts / (IP editing as well). The style of edits is very similar on The Serendipity Singers and it is acting like a tag team. I find this disruptive and others have warned you above this is against policy, so just wanted to know, OK? Widefox; talk 08:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I do mind you asking, and your (wrong) presumed answer and mischaracterization of the situation is even worse. This is getting so bad that I am on the borderline of reporting you. But I'll answer it anyway. The answer is no, absolutely not. I have no need, desire or inclination to edit as an IP. And BTW, what do mean that the "style of edits is very similar". I just took a look and EVERYTHING about their style edits, approach and even areas of involvement is totally different. What is your basis for that false assessment? North8000 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my question offended you, it was meant to understand, nothing more. Now that is cleared up, I have asked the other editors. Not sure if you have noticed those? Widefox; talk 07:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't noticed, but I haven't really looked at who is doing what. My awareness there is limited to a burst of "organizing" type activity (sectionalizing etc.) in response to the multiple new tags put on, and restoring the external links section which you deleted. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DorothyMolterWelcome.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DorothyMolterWelcome.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It was uploaded after I obtained explicit written permission. I indicated such with the upload, including the name of the person who gave permission and that that did so. Then I immediately get this notice that it slated for deletion in seven days. Nice thank-you and help for someone going through all of this work and proper handling for the sake of Wikipedia. What a crappy system or crappy worst-case interpretation of it by you. North8000 (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

All settled. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable canoeist

Hello North8000, I just did a edit where I moved content in "notable canoeists" to canoe#history and/or canoeing. You reverted that with the comment "Lets wait until this material is placed elsewhere" ... but that's exactly what I did. I placed it elsewhere. Namely in canoe#history and canoeing. With the exception of the last two who do not appear to qualify as notable. --Cornellier (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Answered there. But to recap here, I agree with your plan. But I looked then and just looked again and don't see that they got moved. Can you double check and / or point me to it? Thanx. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that you put the "keepers" from the non-traditional half of that section into the other article, so I undid my restoration of that half, and renamed what remains accordingly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

An FYI for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/North8000

Figured you'd want to know, since he certainly isn't willing to have that common courtesy. Second time he's tried to have me checkusered, too. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's what I just wrote there: This is beyond ridiculous, it is a baseless personal attack. Per the above, the complaint is entirely baseless. I was tempted to invite the investigation as step one of taking them to wp:ani for this personal attack, but I decided not to. Further, I was never even notified of this until Thargor Orlando did so. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

He recently got dragged to arbcom for tendentious behavior at one of the psychology articles (which I assume is why he disappeared for two weeks) and has apparently learned nothing from it. I figure this will sort itself out eventually. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It got quickly closed. Basically, not even a shred of a basis to pursue. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Healthcare DRN

DRN discussion is up. CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you showed an interest in Americana (music) maybe you can take a look at Americana where the same editor is upsetting what I think is the right balance. I've posted on project pages but no sign of interest, as you say the topic is probably rather minor but at least people should be able to look it up and find out something meaningful. ProfDEH (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Americana again

Since you showed an interest in Americana (music) maybe you can take a look at Americana where the same editor is upsetting what I think is the right balance. I've posted on project pages but no sign of interest, as you say the topic is probably rather minor but at least people should be able to look it up and find out something meaningful. ProfDEH (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been gone a couple of days but will do. North8000 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD

Would you mind taking another look at your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait (stuntman)? You wrote that you had not reviewed or analyzed the references. Cavarrone and I seem to agree that this guy does not pass WP:GNG, be he does think the guy passes WP:ENT. I do not get it. The guy has not had a major role in any notable film. I admit that my interest my be somewhat vanity, but I do think I am correct. With the exception of this article's odd AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait, I have been on the right side of the vote each time I've voted in my various spurts of AfD voting! I even reconsidered at the request of the article's creator [10]. I did all of the WP:BEGIN stuff, especially D. If you really think it is a timing issue, I could withdraw the nomination, wait and renominate in the future, but I do not get what that would benefit. Regardless of how good or bad the particular article is, I think it is up to us to figure out whether the guy does or not, like I did at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Shandler. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd happy to do that. I'll write more after I do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Took a look. Please consider this to be conversational, not a finding. Also I think that you had some posts at the wp:ani on this. You might want to read my main comment there for a certain perspective that I might have, particularly regarding a concern that it may have been aggressively edited with deletion as a goal/bias and might still be in that state. So my comments relate more to the situations (e.g. recommending the "cooling off and recovery" period).

So the question becomes, what if I knew none of that and just reviewed the article based on IT'S CURRENT FORM. (I'm semi-active at wp:afd). I tend to just use wp:gng when saying "keep" and tend to skip past the ones where it's on the fence for wp:gng and a core claim is a SNG. On that, in its current state I'd probably be somewhere between "Weak keep" and "Keep". Basis would be the coverage in reference #3 & #7, (based on today's numbering) with some plusses thrown in for in-depth coverage at one more which may not be a wp:rs plus briefer coverage or mentions in a lot of other prominent sources. Regarding RW notability (which can be an indicator of wp:notability) he seems to have had a lot of small parts in significant productions. I normally wouldn't look at WP:ENT, but now I just did. Under that I guess the "prolific" would offer a second potential way in in addition to wp:gng. But my actual strong feeling is what I posted there. This article needs a rest and recovery period while the heat, dust and damage from the war settles and any possible rebound of material and references. But my further research does lead me to strike one item from my comment. (see there) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought 3 & 7 were blogs and not Reliable Sources, but I could be wrong. If this article survives the AfD, I doubt there will be a rebound. I have searched for other Reliable Sources and I do not think they exist today, but maybe they will in the future. FWIW, I do not think you have given a reason for a "keep" vote, but more of a comment on the timing. Would you vote delete in six months if nothing changes at the article, and more importantly, no new sources are out there for the referencing whether they are in the article or not? If so, I could see waiting, otherwise I do not understand why we would wait. If new references appear in the future, we could recreate the article based on those sources even if we delete it now and then I would vote "keep." Hoppingalong (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I did post at the ANI [11]. It was my idea to put the article up at AfD. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, for my "continuation" concern, I originally couldn't find the links given for who was canvassed and thus could not resolve that question in my mind at the time. Subsequently I found them and found that it was a person with a history at the article of just trying to do the right thing there (you) and so struck that. Regarding your other question, I would be happy to agree that if this article were given a rest and recovery period that I would abstain from weighing in at any future AFD. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want you to abstain, I want you to agree with me! (laughing) Hoppingalong (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If its any consolation, my answer is based on my own lack of knowledge of the subject and of the available references at this time. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI+

Hi North, I don't want to distract you from the important work of streamlining WP:COI, but I would love your close read of a draft of proposed voluntary ethical principles and practices for COI editors, especially corporate/for-profit editors. It's at WP:COI+. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi, North8000. I wonder, would you please consider striking the third sentence you wrote here? Rivertorch (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an individual who made 4 completely false and baseless accusations off topic of the conversation. I thought calling such uncivilized was mild. But I could edit to soften / narrow it to just the behavior of the moment. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC:_Intractable_conflicts_of_interest

I went ahead and proposed insertion as an RfC. I haven't widely advertised it yet, so if you'd take an early look I'd appreciate it. Gigs (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Happy to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I put a new draft up. I hope this addresses most of the concerns. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Canoe

Suggest more careful reading and editing of edits, before undoing them all too hastily? Examples:

• Most canoes nowadays are made of Polyethylene, not fiberglass anymore
• Fiberglass is not fairly cheap, but often costs more than Royalex or Polyethylene
• Kevlar and Fiberglass do not have to lack rigidity in well made lay-ups (in fact the advantage of Kevlar is that one can make a light AND rigid enough canoe with this material.)
• Aluminum is not _very_ strong by weight (compared to Royalex). But it does _not_ degrade by from from [sic] long term exposure to sunlight

Dirk Barends (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Would be happy to engage in a dialog but as you listed it above it is too confusing. First you did about 20 significant changes in one edit, IMO the majority of which (but not all) are problematic. It's asking too much for someone to identify and change all 15 individually. Hence my suggestion to split them up a bit. On your points above:

1. Do not agree the "most canoes nowadays are made of polyethylene" and it is unsourced. And, either way, I don't see any edit that says the above.
2. Agree with that change, it was one of the 25%.
3. For layup construction, it's a matter of thickness. Most are lighter weight which equates to thinness which equates to non-rigid.
4. On the sunlight, you replaced a clearly wrong typo with a half-wrong statement. Not sure which is better.

Let's just unbundle them and handle. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

> Do not agree the "most canoes nowadays are made of polyethylene" and it is unsourced.

Study the catalogs of a couple of canoe manufacturers?

(inserted later) About 700 days of canoeing (500 on wilderness trips) in a wide range of canoes, and have seen about 10,000 canoes that were in use. Read about 60 canoeing books and about 400 canoeing magazines. # of catalog listings does not equate to use. Either way, any such claims if contested should be well sourced. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

> And, either way, I don't see any edit that says the above.

[...] "Fiberglass is the most common material used in manufacturing canoes."

(inserted later) Agree we should take out North8000 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

> It's asking too much for someone to identify and change all 15 individually.

Here we clearly disagree, also because my edits were clearly visible and overseeable (in my browser at least). And, as far as I know, Wikipedia does not prefer unnecessary editing detail after detail?

(inserted later) That would take a book to answer. But more narrowly, "R" in wp:BRD should be considered reasonable when a large amount of arguable edits are bundled; after which splitting them up a bit is a reasonable expectation. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

ADDIT:

> For layup construction, it's a matter of thickness. Most are lighter weight which equates to thinness which equates to non-rigid.

Most of the fiberglass and kevlar canoes that I have paddled are more rigid than canoes made from PE or Royalex. (AFAIK only the Royalex Dagger Interlude was comparable in rigidity with a FRP hull.)

(inserted later) Agree on fiberglass and PE, not on Kevlar & Royalex. Including based on a chance to slap a whole bunch of them at the Old Town factory last year. It's not that Kevlar is inherently less rigid. It's that it is so strong that it can be used to make thinner boats, and that (due to it's high strength and high cost) it is usually used to make light (thinner, less rigid) boats. (Of course that is referring to the areas which aren't ribbed.) The same in reverse for Royalex...the common use is simply thicker = more rigid. But either way, contested claims need to be well sourced. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Kanoniem (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kanoniem/Dirk Barends, (same account)

Answers in line above. My thought is to just split them up a bit more, and only put back in contested claims if they are well sourced, and to just keep editing. It will work out, and I'm sure you'll do a lot of good.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

> # of catalog listings does not equate to use.

The statement was not about "use" but about "made". Most canoes _made_ nowadays are from PE. Therefore I think the statement "Fiberglass is the most common material used in manufacturing canoes" is not true anymore. Both claims would possibly be difficult for decent sourcing: asking Old Town would be a way to find out, but doesn't count?

Kanoniem (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kanoniem. I think we already agreed that the "Fiberglass is the most common material" should go. But IMHO saying that most are PE is certainly wrong. Could you be thinking that the other common types are PE ? (I.E. ABS, Royalex, layups etc). Either way, we can let good sourcing settle it. And if not, maybe we should just leave out "most are" statements. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I do know that in Europe most canoes made/sold by Old Town and others are PE, but the situation in North-America may be somewat different, because lighter weight is more valued because of the portaging? But leaving that kind of statements out is fine with me, because we do not know it for sure, and it is not vital information here. Kanoniem (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess it depends on where one goes / is at etc. I see thousands of outfitter's canoes in Ely MN, a tiny town that launches about 250,000 people per year on wilderness canoe trips. There's I'd guess 55% are aluminum, (due to ownership cost, 95% of the shores are solid rock) 30% are Kevlar, (for light weight on portages, rental for those is double the aluminum price) and 15% are all other types combined. Just a personal guess from looking at all of them. Serious river canoe rental places seem big on fiberglass. And the more casual rental places seem real heavy on PE. But I think that your last sentence says what we should do. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Stones Bitter

Thanks for a very sound and well conducted review. Farrtj (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a good article that deserves Good Article. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian party (UK)

I'm feeling slightly guily about renominating this but as discussed, it still only has 1 article and that hasn't changed. I don't think the policy is clear but I won't renominate it again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (4th nomination) Regards JRPG (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm 99% off the web for 6 days The most important thing is to do what you think is best for Wikipedia, while continuing to learn and re-evaluate as things progress. Even if I don't agree. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pursuing what you feel is best for Wikipedia. That is primary; the fact that we disagreed is secondary. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 19:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, false accusations against me at an ANI. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for deleting your reply, i don't know how i managed that. Please reply to the questions though. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Which question? I really don't see one in your last post. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am sending this message to all the people I judge to be principal actors in the incident being discussed at this AN/I subpage. The discussion there has already become a bloated re-run of the dispute between you all at the original article talk page. You have made your points there and at AN/I and no further good can be gained by continuing to rehash old arguments. As an outsider, I have to say the only impression this continued argument gives is of all parties being unable to resist trying to get in the last word. Not every post by the "other side" needs your response. Your dignity and the cause you are arguing for, suffers with every further response. Please leave the AN/I field free now for other editors to respond. Please note I am leaving the exact same note on a number of people's talk page - not everybody has been equally active so please excuse me if you feel my tone here feels undeservedly critical. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I'm not just one of the principal actors, I'm the (falsely) accused person. But if you post this on the pages on the 4 listed attackers (so far you've missed Dominus.....) I'm cool with giving it a try. But this isn't to preclude the discussed much more thorough next phase if needed. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You are one of the principal actors in the AN/I discussion which was in danger of getting derailed. I haven't notified Dominus because although very involved in the original article, he has said very little at AN/I. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I went with it until Jenova decided to blow it. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The bad news is that the system is mis-usable such that it would have taken 10 hours to create an present a total dissection which then would have boomeranged it on them As a pragmatic move, I saved myself the 10 hours and them the boomerang by proposing that I'd be happy to avoid the article for a year as long as it is 100% voluntary. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Nolan Chart

Seems that category:libertarianism is very broad and Nolan Chart should go into the "most specific" categories. (In accordance with WP:CAT.) The terminology & theory categories are sub cats of libertarianism. Correct? If the nose of the Nolan camel gets under the broadest category tent, then the rest of the libertarian related articles get in as well. --S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the link that you gave. You're right; I didn't know that being in a more specific category is supposed to preclude categorization in the more general category. Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's quite alright. Every time I learn something new about (and in) WP, I think about the Zits cartoon which shows Jeremy in his room surrounded by stacks and stacks of paper as a computer printer is whirling away. His father comes in and asks "What in the world are you doing?!" Jeremy calmly replies, "I'm printing out the Wikipedia -- why do you ask?"--S. Rich (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that that will require TWO packs of paper.  :-) North8000 (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

And then some!

WP:Size
--S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved, for now

I'm glad to see that the ANI business is now over for you, and 28bytes essentially made your offer official. I'm confident that you will hold up your end of the deal (and I strongly urge you to do so, construing it as broadly as possible). You may (or may not) be interested in User talk:Tryptofish#Replying here instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Having given my word, even if was hard to do, I would be good to my word. But this one will be easy to do. It was just pain that I was enduring on behalf of Wikipedia, not a quest, so it will be easy to stay away. As I said, the offer was happily given. I read the thread that you linked to. Thanks for that thorough discussion. I think that you misunderstood my view in two described instances, both instances described, but that is common. If you want the secret decoder ring on these things for North8000 its that I see and deal in structure, which can be abstract. Including the logical underpinnings of wording. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No decoder ring needed! I realize that. I figure if you feel I have a few things wrong, and the other person thinks I have a few things wrong, then I'm probably calling it down the middle (or maybe just wrong all over the place). I suspect that your seeing things in structure, when other editors see them in, well, social context, is what sometimes leads to the disagreements. Anyway, I look forward to working together on happier things. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The bad news is that the system is mis-usable such that it would have taken 10 hours to create an present a total dissection which then would have boomeranged it on them As a pragmatic move, I saved myself the 10 hours and them the boomerang by proposing that I'd be happy to avoid the article for a year as long as it is 100% voluntary. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You have a fan

I just came across this on Wikipediaocracy by chance and thought you might want to know. Corporate 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow! Thanks for the heads up! North8000 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I don't generally participate over there. From my understanding it's basically a trolling site and participation is somewhat frowned upon. But I was just poking around after noticing this post with some trolling from TheKohser. I guess most any active editor has a peanut gallery over there ;-) Corporate 17:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

They did some real analysis of what happened there. Which takes some doing given that it was about a 1/2 million words on about 10 different pages. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

<3 --Lubna Rizvi 10:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ON Magazine

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ON Magazine

You may wish to revisit due to recent significant quality improvement at the article page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Thanks for the heads-up. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's much improved (in particular, suitable references added) I reversed my recommendation. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on the DUVE Berlin talk

Can you help me out? I don't know why it's a problem to crosslink pages that are absolutely related, and DUVE Berlin was the first page I ever created on wiki, I have no experience on this. How exacly do you suppose I should put this information up on wiki, other than the way I did? The articles i added are purely informational and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soneryd (talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, when I discussed crosslinking, I was not saying that cross-linking itself is a problem, it was just one of many hints of a possible bigger problem. A brand new editor who suddenly creates several related promotional articles within 1-2 days, on topics where there is no indication of wp:notability and with Wikipedia expertise far exceeding their edit history as that account raises concerns which I don't wish to explicitly delineate here, but roughly of being a commercial/promotional or wp:coi effort to use Wikipedia to promote artists/gallery not meeting Wikipedia's notability requirement. In short, on those articles where you can find substantial coverage of the subject in independent sources, I would be happy to help you, regardless of the situaiotn. Also, if you would like to discuss that more directly / help me understand the situation more quickly and care to tell me / discuss individually about it, please feel free to email me using the Wikipedia email tool provided. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Refining NAD

Hi. I had an old drafted response, from a few months ago, that I put in a sandbox here. It might be useful, for either links or other aspects, in your good work at WT:NAD. I got quite burnt out on trying to mediate the disagreements, waybackwhen, and am very happy to see you working on clarifying the issues. :) No rush at all, especially given how long it's been going; slow and steady wins the race. –Quiddity (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and post. I did a lot of analysis of the example articles, (and ones similar to them) which are articles that are actually focused on and defined by a term rather a single subject behind the term, but where the existence of the article is accepted and a good idea. And then put the result into words. The core question of my work is not whether or not to do etymology, it is identifying what is already "working" in Wikipedia (on what appear to be "exceptions"; topics that appear to violate the policy but clearly have been rightly been accepted as being articles. ) and then understanding what is happening at / in common with those and putting it into words in a succinct way. I put quote marks around "appear" because, the policy already allows for exceptions, but few have noticed that when they mis-quote the policy, mostly because that part is too brief, not explained, and only in the lead. Actually what came out is that they are not even an exception to the core tenet of wp:nad. I think that I've really found something useful. North8000 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merck (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) 11:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I upgraded to direct link to article. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

libertarian dab

Shame on me for not checking and realizing that my links went to dab. Only a Kiplinger edit conflict gave me notice (away). If you see such edits/problems, feel free to contact me (or any other editor) and give a heads up! (In fact, there is a dab bot which does exactly that.) In any event, thanks for your contributions. --S. Rich (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought of writing you but then decided not to. You are getting them linked, which is good. And there is no "correction" to suggest because most but not all "Libertarian" and "libertarian" links should go to Libertarianism. And I'm happy to follow them and see where they should go to and upgrade them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I shall continue to push my side of the WP:POLE. A search for "libertarian" came up with 7,885 entries. Except for the election result pages, I've gone through 7,000 of them to look at and see where I could link. This little endeavor is getting tiresome, so it may be awhile before I go back and de-dab what I've done. Happy editing! --S. Rich (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool! North8000 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook

Thanks for helping out. If you don't mind, drop by in that section on the rifle, where I cited you: "Picture of rifle used in the Weapons section of the article". Apparently, it's really important to some people to have pictures of weapons. Besides sharing your concerns, I think it's pretty tasteless, but I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy to. North8000 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ty muchly. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit at wp:ver

(the title and my 22:41 post where what I put at Teapot's talk page; they copied them to here) North8000 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good effort, and I'm with you in spirit, but there is no chance it would survive there as you wrote it, my revert was just a friendlier version of the inevitable. Why not try to work out something in talk the could stick? North8000 (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider your revert warring my edit like this to be friendly at all. How about you don't revert my edits and don't second guess what other editors do or do not do???Teapeat (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your accusation that North was "revert warring" is not credible, Teapeat. The article history shows that he reverted only once, whereupon you immediately reverted his revert. How about taking it to the Talk Page next time instead of "revert warring" yourself? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Teapot, you have everything in what you just said mis-perceived and mixed up. But thanks for your effort, even if your first try was a misfire. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Should I be smelling fish?

Feel free to trout me for bringing up the wikilawyer-is-offensive thing again. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, just a friendly difference of opinions on that one particular item. Thanks for the post! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Jaco Van Dormael

Thank you for your review :) --Earthh (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It was so well done that it was easy to review. My pleasure, and nice work! North8000 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Colegio de la Preciosa...

Hi, I have responded to your comments on the review page, thanks for taking the chance to review it, it is much appreciated. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 20:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll go look. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Racism article

You may want to check to see if that recent edit you "dialed way back" was even supported by the source. The user has a history of making hateful edits. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It was pretty out there. Others can change it further if they wish. North8000 (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

De-composing

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Elizabeth Maconchy. Uncle G (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Chiming in, after reading your December 2011 ANI thread as well. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Death Is Birth

Can I just say thank you for giving the extended play a GA review. I worked hard and it was my first, I would have been more responsive on the comments page for it if I had known it was being reviewed. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post and happy to do it. The two items I brought up were really just suggestions in areas where it was already good enough to pass. And in this case it turned out to be pretty easy to find and add an image, which I did.

Congratulations!

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin51's footnote problem

Thanks for the help. I put a reply on my talk page. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. You do an immense amount of valuable work getting undercovered northern historical topics covered. Not sure that I'd 100% agree with your response, but that is a sidebar area. Long story short, good practice would be to put more cites than you do. But policy does not require it; any challenged ones would require it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas for how to resolve this edit warring complaint?

Hello North8000. I notice you were a participant in the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Health care articles. Scjessey has just refiled a complaint at WP:AN3 about this issue. Admins may get a chance to close it yet again with no action. Any attempts to nudge the parties seem to have no effect. It is tiresome to have to keep telling people they have no edit warring case because Talk has not reached any conclusion.

Do you have any ideas for how to push the parties toward agreement? Could it be just a small matter of compromise wording? If someone opened a WP:Request for comment do you have any suggestions for how to word it? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, what we need is someone who is completely uninvolved to look at this and come to a conclusion to push things along - maybe that person can be you. I'll keep my personal opinions as to what probably needs to happen to myself, but the crux of the issues can be seen starting here. This article got merged elsewhere, but the data is the same across the remaining two articles and are what's causing the issue. Hopefully by reading the exchanges and reviewing the information, you can get a better grasp as to why this has been ongoing for six months now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a few comments there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I might also comment or edit a bit at the articles in narrow policy-related areas. But I don't plan on the big job of getting deep in on the work that needs to be done there,. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

as the juggernaut rolls along...

I know you're trying to stay out of this as much as possible (I wish I had done so and stuck to minor edits in retrospect), but given the discussion at the talk page, do you think an RFC/U might be a good thing? If he actually follows through to ArbCom, he's gonna get killed there, and I'd like to avoid that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that all of the forum shopping for the main discussion is going to go nowhere given that (as far as I can tell/ after a quick overview)) CD has refused to engage in any substantive discussion. At first glance even the previous stuff seems to be lobbing volleys and ad hominem's and avoiding specifically engaging you when you get specific. The other person involved with them (Scjessey) appears to be a bit of POV zealous in talk page discussions, and was ganging up a bit against you, but also appears to be more Wikipedian when it comes down to actual article content. So even though they may be strongly POV in talk page contents, they might be amenable to proceeding in a policy-guided way and with policy-guided analysis on the talk page. My advice is to just focus on moving forward carefully at the one article, in a fully explained and discussed way, and one that is particularly policy-guided in the contentious areas, and inviting all to participate. And provide brief responses to CD's diversionary tactics but not engage deeply there. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My rough take

Hi North. Building on our prior discussion, I just whipped up my POV on PR editing here which I thought you may be interested in.

From my point of view, Wikipedia is always asking me to "just put my COI aside" and go ahead and edit, which would work if companies gave me a paycheck up-front and let me write what I want. Instead it's a long, arduous and difficult job often fighting with a dozen people who want their Wikipedia article to represent corporate messaging. It's incredibly difficult and draining work and I only have editorial control to the extent that I outright refuse to do something.

Initially the Bright Line was my salvation because instead of refusing to make the edits clients wanted, all I could do is ask. The problem is that Wikipedians often said "yes" when I knew their answer should have been "no" which would have empowered me to take that answer back to the client and create an acceptable version.

Now I have shifted my strategy to creating sterner contracts, being tougher with clients and insisting on GA-quality work. Though I could see a program sanctioned by WMF & the community where companies pay a flat fee for an article they have no control over, as long as the corporate bureaucracy is involved, we need this layer of scrutiny and both Wikipedia and PRs need to learn how this relationship works and such.

My take, of course I'm still figuring out things myself. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Your situation is complex and somewhat unique so I'm not sure what to say on the big picture. I think that my answers (which you sort of 1/2 know already) for your particular case would be different than yours. I hope that this new ground goes well for you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on it (getting there). Where someone is paid to be here, it would be reasonable to expect GA-quality work and that's the target I'm aiming for in my future works. I see there are 88 GA articles in Wikiproject Companies and I would love to see a day where a substantial portion of them were written by me. I have six volunteer articles in the GA queue and about as many COI works that I'm just working on that want to bring it to GA.

I don't see my position as being very different from any PR agency or company though, except that so many companies looking for someone to do it for hire do not respect Wikipedia. It is a very shady market and I want to turn that around. We can solve a big problem for everyone with the right kind of market for Wikipedia consultancies and the right relationship between PRs and Wikipedia.

But it's nice to see not everyone is spitting on my shoes and wishing for failure :-) CorporateM (Talk) 21:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Different topic

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

Ian Gillan

Hi there. I just want you to know that Ian Gillan article is very far from becoming a WP:GA. Cheers. Plant's Strider (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I was in the middle of reviewing it. My general thought (prior to thorough analysis) was that it was ready. Then you nuked the discography section and put that into a (so far) zero-references new separate article which may or may not survive. Based on that I temporarily struck my notes of passage on stability and completeness-of-coverage criteria. Now I'm in a wait-and-see mode. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The person who nominated it and did a lot of work on it just said that it should be non-passed on stability issues. So I think that you, me and them all agree, albeit for different reasons. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Single payer / reply

I've been less than complimentary about your Wikipedia activities in the past (I am not a diplomatic person by any stretch of the imagination), so I appreciate you looking at my contributions with an open mind. I am in complete agreement about the single payer-related articles. They do not need our help specifically, but they are in dire need of more editors to help establish a consensus (for whichever view). Right now, it just looks like Thargor vs Cartoon ad infinitum, which cannot possibly be healthy. That matter aside, I will try to follow your good example and judge more on actions than talk page rhetoric. Thank you for your comment and good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! But what about you and me both staying involved a bit to help get a good process going? North8000 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I will certainly see the DRN process through to its conclusion, but I am not really interested in actively editing in this particular topic. I'm more interested in seeing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey before it vacates my local cinema. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I could learn some life-priorities from that.North8000 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indications appear to be that CD's behavior and forum shopping will likely close that DRN discussion down. We'll see. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not "forum shopping". It is a content dispute that is deadlocked because there are not enough editors/opinions to build a solid consensus for anything. DRN is the perfect place to resolve that dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is forum shopping at its core, but if you want to rescue the DRN discussion, I'd suggest appealing to the admin who plans to close it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No administrator has commented on the DRN discussion yet, so I am not sure what you mean. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Right here. I have also left a message at the admin's talk page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

At best the DRN question was mis-worded. I don't see how it could be a route to anywhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This explains why I wasn't seeing anything. I thought I was losing my mind when you were all talking about something I didn't know anything about! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Setup bot to archive your talk page

Hi North,

Your talk page is listed right now as the 67th longest page in the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Database_reports/Long_pages.

Do you want me to set up a bot to archive your Talk page automatically into month-year format archives?

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the email, (#67, I'm honored......:-)) but no thanks. I'm in transition on that right now. I'll get it trimmed. Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can set the bot to archive it into incremental archives too (1, 2, 3, ..., and so on) if you prefer that format. We can specify the timespan to 90 days too so that you have enough time to reply. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful kick in the butt, but I'm handling it. I pared it ....losing my place as #67!  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The report is very confusing, I think that you may have fallen prey and read it backwards. I think that I'm actually about #1450, not #67. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Importance of in-line citations

• Dolphin, you made a complete mis-statement of my conversation there with you. Too obvious to be accidental. It's starting to look like you want to wage arguments more than you want to get cites added

Hi North8000. I make no secret of the fact that I found your contributions at User talk:Benjamin Trovato to be unhelpful. Let me explain.

In August 2011 I had a constructive and polite dialogue with Benjamin about the absence of in-line citations from one of his new articles. In December 2012 I set out to have a similar constructive and polite dialogue on the same subject. You jumped in and responded before Benjamin did so and, to my surprise, you attempted to contradict what I had written. You did not contradict me on my Talk page which I think would have been the appropriate course of action. Instead, you contradicted me on Benjamin’s Talk page where Benjamin was sure to see it. Presumably you wanted Benjamin to see that two experienced Users disagreed on the subject, and that you were willing to tackle me on his behalf.

Throughout the thread I have supported my comments and my arguments by posting quotations, complete with quotation marks or italics or bolding. I also posted blue links to relevant Wikipedia policy documents. You did none of these things. You wrote vaguely about policies but without actually quoting any policy. Apart from one mention of WP:Ver, you didn’t name the policy you were alluding to, or provide a blue link. (eg You wrote authoritatively using the words sourced and sourcable but without specifying which policy actually uses these words.) On one occasion I asked you to post a diff but you didn’t do so. This is a very useful strategy because it means you can’t be pinned down to anything because you never actually write anything definitive, and you never have to explain what you mean. However, I find this strategy very frustrating and I think it lacks openness and honesty, especially when you are writing to one User in the course of a debate on another User’s Talk page.

On several occasions I emphasised the fact that you and I were actually in agreement on all things that mattered on the subject. Despite that, you continued to write about how my interpretation was incorrect or my implications were in error. I tried to find common ground; you tried to find differences. You even took time to write starting with your complete misfire on what Ad hominem means. Of what relevance is the meaning of Ad hominem to the subject of the thread? Who were you trying to impress? (When I invited you to raise the matter on my Talk page you showed no interest.)

Your contributions on the thread appear to have had the effect of reassuring Benjamin that he can safely ignore my advice. Benjamin wrote to you saying Thanks for the help – see his diff. You replied saying, among other things, good practice would be to put more cites than you do. But policy does not require it; (Then you did a 180 degree turn and wrote any challenged ones would require it. Do you see what I mean when I say you never actually write anything definitive?)

If it was your goal to reassure Benjamin that he can ignore WP:Verifiability and my requests then I think you have succeeded. However, if your goal is to see Benjamin persuaded of the value of adding his own in-line citations and avoiding the devaluing effect of banners saying “This article needs in-line citations”, I have made the following request to you and Ymblanter on Ymblanter’s Talk page – diff:

If Ymblanter or North8000 are willing to assist by trying to persuade Benjamin, that would be greatly appreciated by me.

Dolphin (t) 05:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

On the core topic of influencing Benjamin to use more in-line citations, we are in full agreement. However, when you mis-state or misapply wp:ver, including mis-stating or misapplying wp:ver to infer that someone is violating it when they aren't, I am going to say so. (you have repeated this error in your post above) in your post above I'm quite familiar with wp:ver....by numbers of posts, for the last 3 years I have been the #1 most-active editor/contributor worldwide in discussions / development work at that policy page, and I also have the ability/curse of seeing and understanding the structure of statements contained therein. And my statements are from a structuralist/logician angle and have been consistent. Also, I have collaborated with Benjamin before (e.g. discussing the books that he buys so as to write articles well from sources) and know that he writes from sources. I also know that he does an immense amount of doing sourced (but not cited) quality work in areas (e.g. northern historical) where few are really doing that.

So, the answer to your question is YES. So I will continue to work WITH you on getting him to cite more and even ramp up my efforts in that area. And if we could just stick to doing that without wis-stating policy, or mis-implying violations or flaunting of policy, your message will become much clearer and our discussions will be 100% co-operative. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we agree? I think that step 1 would be towards routinely adding more cites when doing new work. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that getting Benjamin to add in-line citations to existing articles is beginning to appear impossible. Our strategy should be to encourage him to incorporate in-line citations in new articles he creates. Both you and Ymblanter and offered very gentle and implied encouragement to Benjamin about the value of in-line citations. He appears happy to ignore such encouragement. I think the time has come for you to make it entirely clear what you are talking about - that is, WP:Verifiability is a policy that all articles are expected to conform to; it isn't offered as one of a number of acceptable alternatives.

I am willing to acknowledge that you are Wikipedia's leading contributor to WP:V. That is a good thing. You have written many times that I mis-state WP:V, or mis-apply it, or incorrectly imply something about it. You have made no attempt to explain what you mean. For example, you wrote to me (on Benjamin's Talk page) authoritatively emphasising the words sourced and sourcable. The word sourced appears 8 times in WP:V, always in the context unsourced or poorly sourced, not as a criterion for verifiability. The word sourcable does not appear anywhere in WP:V. So when you wrote about information being sourced or sourcable you weren't quoting from WP:V. I'm sure you know what you mean when you write these words but I don't. That is not a good thing, especially from one who contributes so much to the topic.

If you want me to stop mis-stating WP:V you need to explain what it is that I am writing that constitutes mis-statement. I am always willing to be persuaded by logical argument. Dolphin (t) 11:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. It will take me a bit. But in the meantime I must point out a couple of things. I think that "leading contributor" is being too kind; I'd call myself one of the 4 most involved, who just happens to have more edits than the others. Also I just realized that I made the mistake of using a term "sourced" which has two different meanings ("came from a source" and "cited") and thus further contributed to the confusion. Sorry. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to reading whatever you can provide.

A day ago Benjamin submitted this essay - diff. I have responded. It would be good if you and Ymblanter (and anyone else watching) responded too. Dolphin (t) 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Overall, I am with you on your effort to get Benjamin to cite more. So let's call our wp:ver discussion a sidebar. Briefly, in this area, here's what wp:ver in essence says:

• All material added is to be verifyable. It must be citeable should the question arise
• All material that is likely to be challenged should be cited. This expresses a principle, but is usually not practically operative until/unless the material gets challenged. But it does mean that statement that look like a real "reach" or which make an arguable claim should get cited.
• All material that is challenged must be cited in order to remain.

So, creating articles as Benjamin does does not violate any of the above, and doing so does not flaunt wp:ver. BUT what he is doing is unusual in Wikipedia and likely to lead to various problems. For example:

• An article with so few references could never pass the criteria for being a Wikipedia Good Article or Featured Article. I do a lot of Good Article reviews, and I would have to fail such articles on that basis.
• If the material starts getting challenged and tagged, it is likely to get deleted if cites are not then provided. And it's usually much harder to do it afterwards.
• Particularly when writing articles from sources (as I have seen Benjamin to do) it's really easy to add this cites right when you are writing the article, and harder to go searching form them later. So why not do it when writing the article.
• While this is lower risk with the types of subjects that he is writing on, if the article's subject gets challenged on wp:notability grounds, there is a higher risk of the article getting deleted because lack of sources means lack of sources of the type required for wp:notabiity.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I agree with all of it.

Benjamin has described excessive footnotes as “clutter” – diff. I suspect he is most familiar with a style of academic writing in which a Bibliography or list of references is used, but in-line citations are not. He probably finds the neat, tidy appearance of his articles satisfying and is not attracted to the unfamiliar appearance of articles with in-line citations throughout the text. I think our strategy should be to persuade him that:

• on Wikipedia, footnotes don’t degrade the appearance of an article
• creating footnotes and inserting them in a document is not difficult; instead it is as satisfying an activity as writing the prose that composes the article
• inserting footnotes raises the quality of the article and takes it closer to Good article or Featured article status, with all the satisfaction that accompanies those milestones.

I think people who are asked to incorporate in-line citations into the text they add, and their new articles, fall broadly into two categories. Firstly, there are those who are unfamiliar with the concept of in-line citations but who investigate the concept and promptly do as requested and begin incorporating in-line citations. Secondly, there are those who are familiar with the concept but who choose to argue their case that they don’t need to incorporate in-line citations. Benjamin belongs to the second category. Despite me and others drawing his attention to WP:V and WP:RS he has never acknowledged their legitimate role on Wikipedia, nor that he has read them. He has never quoted anything from these two policy documents, nor has he attempted to identify any shortcoming in either. I invited him to argue his case at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability if he believes he has a better quality-control model than the one presently described at WP:V – I don’t imagine he will ever take up my invitation. In this diff he shows that he believes the problem is Dolphin, not anything written in WP:V:

Dolphin appears to be a puritan who thinks that There Must Be Footnotes regardless of particular cases. I am taking the cavalier view that footnotes should be added only when they are necessary.

Benjamin has put forward a significant number of excuses as to why he shouldn’t be expected to incorporate in-line citations. All are based on his intuition. None of them has been related to anything written in WP:V or similar policy documents. Benjamin is pretending that WP:V does not exist or that he hasn’t read it. I’m convinced he is much more familiar with these things than he shows. He feigns ignorance of WP:V, probably because he finds it easier to do so rather than grapple with the inconvenient truths in the policy documents. It would be good if more Users, other than me, reinforced the notion that WP:V has a legitimate role on Wikipedia and all contributors should respect it.

Don't forget Benjamin's recent essay at diff. It would be good if you could read it and provide Benjamin with a response. Sincerely. Dolphin (t) 07:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a third possibility which is that this effort got off on the wrong foot causing the situation to get polarized. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that could be a realistic explanation. See how it all started - diff. Cheers! Dolphin (t) 12:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd call that a mixed-bag in this context. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would you call it a mixed bag? Dolphin (t) 12:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you really want to go there? Happy to do so if you think that it would be useful to discuss. But I'm ready to just go to work to see if I can convince Benjamin to put in more cites. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We have agreed that our first priority is to persuade Benjamin that in-line citations can open up a whole new world for him, beginning with GA status for his best articles. I suggest you do that first.

There is a likelihood that, in the future, I will feel motivated to write to another User to draw his attention to Wikipedia's desire that articles are independently verifiable. If you think my messages to Benjamin in August 2011 and/or December 2012 were a "mixed bag", and that being a mixed bag is not a good thing, I am keen to find out what you mean; or at least what approach you recommend in such circumstances. Dolphin (t) 12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Mixed bag" of course includes the nice stuff that you said. And on the other side, the only argument that you made for what you were asking was essentially saying that they were violating policy. With the latter being incorrect, your only reason given was an erroneous one. But either way, using "you are breaking a rule" as the only reasoning for something that someone is bringing up is far more likely to polarize a situation than it is to convince the person. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A very good submission - diff. It deserves to be successful! Dolphin (t) 04:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll see what happens next. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Assault weapon

On Assault weapon you say That it is a TERM (not a type of firearm) and one with no consistent meaning.

You are 100% right. However, in Wikipedia we do not start an article by explicitly stating that the title has no meaning. Instead we set up the context. The further back the bolded term comes, the more distant the article is from any general meaning of the term. I wish I could point you to other examples, but wanted to give you a quick note. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying is certainly the norm, however this is a case of an article about a term where there are massively different meanings which a whole lot of people think are are single meaning. I think a very special and unusual case. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact it seems to be more and more about the controversy surrounding the term. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As a term with no consistent meaning and which is used to deceive more than it it is used to inform, I think that it is rightly so. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think my version does not express just this fact? Did you even read it! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You took out the key sentences which informed to that effect. Either way, it's hard to keep up with attempted second by second massive rewrites of a section with is a painstakenly developed consensus version. Not that it can't be further improved, but that's not the way to go about it. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You are objecting to me doing the edit in a multiple numbered steps. This is done explicitly for the reason that other like you could check what was removed, or if anything objectionable was added.

While you are at it, would you please explain why you reverted this edit. (No real need to answer. I suggest you cool off and come back tomorrow.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not "cool off" but lets slow down a bit and deal with it in talk. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North8000. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 02:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guerillero | My Talk 02:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

synth

Hey. Thanks for giving your opinion on the synth discussion. Sorry if I came off rude. I was thrown off by the edits of another editor in the discussion whom I've had acrimonious encounters with outside of this discussion, and have since been kind of tense and on edge about it. But that's no excuse if I was rude. I apologize. Charles35 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I didn't see any of your discussions with me to be rude or problematic in any way. When I ended with "I was just giving my opinion" I wasn't hinting otherwise, that was just a preface to / context for the sentence which followed. But it's nice to strive for a higher-than-average standard in that area which your post here indicates that you do. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability of products

Hi North. I saw that you were active on the Talk page of the Notability policy. I noticed that the notability criteria for Products has been scratched and I was wondering if you knew anything about it. I'm talking to a three-year-old social media monitoring startup with about 20+ sources (TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Huffington Post, Mashable, Inc., etc.). The sources are all on their product (not the company) so I think it falls under

"Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right"

However, there is no specific guidance on what a product needs to be notable... CorporateM (Talk) 21:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The main policy regarding this is wp:notability. And the core of it is that in essence the product needs substantive coverage in multiple secondary wp:reliable sources. That's the gist of it. Would be happy to do my best to discuss it more in any direction that you wish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think they'll be fine. The product definitely has enough sources (~20), but I know the community has its bias' against companies/products that are fairly new. CorporateM (Talk) 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD Caryacarya

Thanks North8000 I appreciate your constructive style of working. Yes I understand what you say. Now I've just added two academic sources. One is that declare that Caryacarya is the "sacred text" of the religious movement Ananda Marga (this maybe you have just seen) (to satisfy point 3 of WP NC). The other is an academic source quoting the historical relevance of the author (to satisfy point 5 of WP NC). I hope this is sufficient now. Thank you very much for your help.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I had already seen that when I wrote you; actually it's why I wrote you. But now I understand your approach .....it is to establish meeting criteria in the books sng. Long story short, that is a riskier/weaker approach. But if that is your approach, you should point out what you are saying....meeting the particular SNG points. IF you have a couple of independent sources which have done in-depth coverage of the topic (no particular claims are needed in there, just in-depth coverage) you have the stronger/less risky route available which is meeting gwp:notability/wp:GNG. In that case make sure that they are used as references in the article and then point them out and say that the are independent sources providing in-depth coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, offline citations are also counted. In an AFD last year I started gathering offline sources, though I didn't need those finally. If you can find some old 1995 Times of India full coverage on that book or 1992 Statesman article or any notable book (not another book of Ananda Maga please) where author has discussed on this book in details, please scan those copies (only particular pages) and then ummm.. send to someone (uninvolved editor?) who may see and verify those sources.. if you try to do so, make sure to collect at least 4 independent RS (newspaper articles, journal study, scholar papers etc) where the subject is the primary/an important topic of dicussion--Tito Dutta (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah wrong page, I thought to post this in Cornelius383's talk page.. anyway... Tito Dutta (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you probably don't even need that that extra process. Just use them in the article as references, put as much detail on the reference and cite as is possible, and point such out at the AFD. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, it seems, I am hungover. Yes, that should work too unless someone shrugs, better play safe/perfect when you are already at corner of the ring --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Speed is also important unless you ask for more time, explaining why. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Most probably article creator can vote too, or is there any rule? Do you know about it? related discussion! --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly! North8000 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

But the more effective thing would be to find a couple of references with in-depth coverage of the topic, put them in, and note that at the AFD page. If they did that, the article will stay. If thei don't do that, the article will probably get deleted. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi North8000. As I said to Tito I never vote on articles that I wrote. But in this particular case I did. Honestly I think that now we have in the article all the secondary sources to avoid deletion. I don't understand why to delete it. What do you think?--Cornelius383 (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I just changed my recommendation to "wait another week" My comment there is: "I've had conversations with the main author at my talk page and theirs. They do not yet understand that the system here is likely to judge based on wp:GNG and so we are not seeing any identification of any wp:GNG-suitable sources that may exist. This needs another week for them to understand and identify those if they exist."

Answering your question, you still haven't done what I recommended. My gut feel is that IF those sources exist, and IF you do that, your article will stay. And if not, not. Again, my recommendation is to find a couple of independent sources with in-depth coverage of the topic, put them in, and point them out/identify them AS BEING SUCH at the AFD page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Assault weapon

Images don't need citations, but that caption definitely needs a citation. Either way it should definitely be discussed on the talk page. Perhaps we could start a discussion there? Prodego ^talk 22:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I started a section on the talk page for us to discuss, and get more input. Prodego ^talk 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with your statement here about the caption. Your last statement didn't indicate that and was an edit summary for the deletion of the image. It will be easy to source and I'll do that. Happy to discuss anyway. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Nobody (film) a good article?

I am amazed that you gave Mr. Nobody (film) a "good article" rating. I see that you had some discussion with Earthh, the person who mostly wrote the article, and he/she apparently allayed any doubts you had about it being neutral by saying, "I wrote it, I assure you it's neutral". But I'm afraid that's not enough, and you shouldn't so easily have given him/her a pass.

I suppose you saw my attempts in the Talk page to make the article more neutral. I consider that they failed. Earthh, for whatever reason, is intent on presenting the movie in an almost exclusively positive light. The reality is that the movie was a financial and critical failure. It had some success in Belgium, then flopped in France, and was shown pretty much nowhere else, which is why hardly anyone in America reviewed it.

The most egregious sentence in the article, that I was not able to get him/her to remove, remains: "Mr. Nobody has appeared on many critics top ten lists of 2010 and is frequently considered to be one of the greatest films of the year." "Many"? "Frequently"? In what universe? It's a laughable sentence, the reference does not support it, and it is unfortunately representative of the bias of the article.

I was not and still am not prepared to have an edit war or any kind of war with Earthh about the article, but I am very surprised that you called this a good article. It's not. It's someone's labor of love showing a failed movie in the best possible light, and it embarrasses me that Wikipedia has such an article and even gives it accolades! Kai Carver (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The content of the article should accurately reflect what is covered in reliable sources. The lead should summarize the content. Regarding the commercial results of the movie, the article included the theatrical results, and Earthh indicated that they had no sources to be able to put in it's overall results, including those from non-theatrical sales. Regarding your comment if you have a source that gives the characterization that you are describing ("commercial failure") you should have put that in and should put that in. Me insisting that characterization be put in without sourcing would actually be a VIOLATION of both policy and GA criteria.

The same goes for review and assessments by critics. The sourced critics material in there is generally positive. If you feel that there is other sourced negative critic material you should have and should put it in there. If you feel that the sentence is an overreach, you should change it.

Finally, I note that you have had zero edits on the article for its entire history except for placing a general POV tag on the article last August. And I don't see any proposed changes or anything beyond a general complaint on the talk page. Your response where Earthh said that they couldn't find any more sourced info on the commercial results was to basically throw up your hands, implied that they are a poor listener and left. IMHO the thing to do at that point would be to find and insert sourced material which you say is missing instead of asking the other editor to violate policy and insert an unsourced statement that the film was a commercial failure. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "accurately reflect what is covered in reliable sources": the reference for the wildly over-the-top sentence that I mention above, [12], does not support it. The closest I can find there is "made several of the hidden gems of 2010 lists published across the internet" -- hardly "many critics top ten lists of 2010" or "frequently considered to be one of the greatest films of the year", wouldn't you say? So it doesn't accurately reflect its own reference, let alone reality.

What's amusing is that that very same reference does say "the $47million film grossed a mere $2million at the box office worldwide", so it's not exactly hard to find evidence the film is a commercial failure and Box Office Mojo worldwide gross confirms this: [13].

It's odd because you raised concerns, and then accepted Earthh's answers, though they did not address your concerns. The reason I haven't tried to change the article is that Earthh, who clearly "owns" the article, appeared very resistant to my suggestions, and seems to me to be arguing in bad faith. See also my discussion on Earthh's Talk page [14]. Now you say and maintain it's a good article... OK. I don't feel prepared to argue much more if the author of the article and a neutral person who is a Senior Editor both agree that the article is good. Kai Carver (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that it meets the Wikipedia Good Article criteria. That doesn't mean it can't be made better. If the "the $47million film grossed a mere $2million at the box office worldwide" sounds like it would be useful for inclusion if the source is reliable. You should put it in, with the source. I have a feeling that you could just put it in and there would be no objections. But if you feel like you need support to do that ping me and I'll support you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for your reply. What do you suggest I do about the above-mentioned false statement, unsupported by the reference? "Mr. Nobody has appeared on many critics top ten lists of 2010 and is frequently considered to be one of the greatest films of the year." Doesn't its wrongness shock you? I would just delete it, but I really don't want to get into an argument. I'm really at a loss about how to improve the article, because it seems to me very, very biased, and I don't relish working in a non cooperative way. Here's another example "Jennie Punter of The Globe and Mail praised the film" -- no, she didn't, or rather, she gave it it two out of four stars and a mixed review (so of course there is praise as well as criticism): "Time travel takes too many routes in Mr. Nobody". Since this is one of the only reviews from a major source used to support the claim that the film was well-received by critics, if I change that, I have to change the whole slant of the (already over-long) Critical Reception section. Anyway, I'll try to make a few improvements, and see what happens. If I get around to it... The problem is that the article is like the movie: no one cares about it, except for a small number of enthusiastic supporters. I just hate seeing false things in Wikipedia. Kai Carver (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

And here's another false statement about the film, with a bogus reference, in the director's page: "It has received high praise from film critics and was named by many one of the best films of that year." Check the reference, it says nothing of the sort. Doesn't that shock you? I think you also gave this article a GA stamp. It seems to me there is a pattern here of misrepresentation, by someone who appears to be a big fan, but not sufficiently neutral and ready to bend the truth to make the film appear better then it is. Kai Carver (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: sigh... Kai Carver (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Answering your first question, my recommendation is that you should do (and should have been doing) the following (in this sequence) for each topic thread:

1. Put in sourced material
2. Make sure that summarization in the body of the article matches the sources material. If not, change it. If your change is disputed, discuss the specific change on the talk page.
3. Make sure that the lead summarizes what is in the article. If not, change it. If your change is disputed, discuss the specific change on the talk page.

On your overall post, I am going to be short and very direct here in order to hopefully give some useful feedback. I looked at the history of the article and see that you have done ZERO of the above. You have done ZERO edits (other than to tag it). You have made ZERO specific proposals for changes on the talk page. On the talk page the only thing that you have done is make general criticisms. And the other active person there merely said that they feel that it summarized the sourced content that they were able to find. To me that sounds like an open door to go find sourced material and put it in. Even on this talk page you have a quote from a source which reflects on the very topic that you are discussing, but the only place you have even brought it up is on my talk page. You didn't put it into the article, you didn't propose putting it in the article, you didn't even discuss it at the article talk page. As much as anybody else, YOU are an editor of this article. That is how Wikipedia works. You seem to think that your scope is limited to just making general criticisms and that it is somebody else's job to propose or make specific changes to implement your general opinion. That "somebody" is YOU, and you have not done it at all. Again, I was short and very direct here in order to hopefully give some useful feedback. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, which is indeed useful, and which I will try to apply in the future. In return, let me respectfully suggest you check that the references match the article before calling an article a good article. --Kai Carver (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that I could check every reference, but I don't think that you have pointed anywhere where the material in the article conflicts with a used-reference. You have pointed out where material that you found but did not put in would have have made a significant reflection (e.g. on commercial success/failure) on the topic, but even on that there we no statements otherwise in the article. Probably the statement most open to question would be summation of the reviews....in essence that they were generally but not all good. This sits on the border between summation and synthesis but seems to me a good summation of material currently in the article.....of course you and other editors should feel free to take it out or modify it as you see fit. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did point out such cases. Again:

* "Mr. Nobody has appeared on many critics top ten lists of 2010 and is frequently considered to be one of the greatest films of the year." article section: [15] ref: [16]

* "It has received high praise from film critics and was named by many one of the best films of that year." article section: [17] ref: [18]

The above two sentences are not supported by their references. Aren't those cases where "the material in the article conflicts with a used-reference"? Sorry to keep discussing this, but I am genuinely baffled that we don't agree on this. --Kai Carver (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The first pair of of links is a section in this article, and a source. There is certainly not a conflict between the material and the references. One could argue either way on whether the reference supports the material or whether the material is or isn't a good and acceptable summary of sourced material for that section. If your opinion is not, then go tag / change / discuss it.....you are really in the wrong place for a debate on that. The second pair of links is to a section is a different article (not this one) and a source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Precious

scouting adventure
Thank you for quality articles, on scouting and on ships, such as SS Edmund Fitzgerald, for teamwork, for bringing "some reason to chaos", for: "view every opponent ... as a current or potential friend", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (3 July 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It means a lot! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

CD RFC/U

After this morning's actions I didn't think waiting made any more sense. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:V

Your recent revert of my revert is simply edit warring and can very much be seen as actual tag teaming. While you support the prose as I reverted back to you reverted based on issues that are not relevant to such a revert. I also wish to urge you to refrain from accusing any editor of tag teaming without just cause. I feel I now have such just cause to accuse you of such. However (and I think I have come to know you well enough to know this will not impress you) I also have a great deal of respect for you as an editor and feel this need not be escalated to AN/I unless you feel so inclined.

I am curious though. What exactly is it that makes you feel that there was any tag teaming?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

First a couple of notes from the happenings there:

• I referred to it as accidental tag teaming.
• My edit summary recaps the important points, it said: "Undid revision. I am changing it away from the version that I DO prefer and to the version that I do NOT prefer so that the last stable version is in there while we talk. This should be decided in talk." And I did exactly what the two admins subsequently did, and for the same reasons which they gave. So I edited AGAINST my own preference on that topic in order to support going about a proper process for making a disputed change in a a core core policy. There is no way that that is tag teaming or edit warring.

Answering your last question, I did a full reach of AGF and said accidental tag teaming. I was referring to simply the mechanics of what was happening there (prior to the intervention by myself and the two admins.) And that was that the disputed changed version was sitting there just due to the fact that 2 vs. 1 ran the "1" up against the 3RR bright line, not due to any decision in talk. So I was ONLY reflecting on the math of what was happening and did not mean to imply that some type of offense was occurring. Such an implication would not be out of line, but it was not my intent. I tried to make that very clear.....it would have been better if I had tripled up on that effort. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just one comment to your post. Edits are considered part of consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully we're cool. Thanks for all that you do for Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Foundation for Economic Education Good Article Nomination

The Foundation for Economic Education article citations with page numbers now all have exact page numbers. --Abel (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! What an immense amount of good work! I'll give it a look in accordance with the discussed plan. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theory

FYI: Per your previous involvement in the discussion, I thought you might be interested in commenting in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Proposal to replace current content. (I must say I'm looking forward to being finished with this one!) Location (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I had forgotten that I commented there. I'd be happy to take a look. North8000 (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Linsey Alexander

It was nice having an old friend out there. I started the article and then took a break to cross-country ski in 3 feet of new snow and came back to a tag for speedy deletion. I'll be away for a couple days so I hope no one gets hasty. Thank you for the defense of the Linsey Alexander article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Tagging it for deletion minutes after it was created and where in minutes I found multiple wp:notability-suitable sources was a bit much. I think that it's clearly wp:notable and now has the sources so it should be on firm ground now. But I'll be watching it. Enjoy the snow. Paradise Below Zero! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ian Gillan

Just a quick note, now the dust has settled a bit, the editor who disrupted this, and derailed the GA review, Plant's Strider (talk · contribs), has been blocked for edit warring, so I'm going to give this another go for GA this week. There are some things I want to improve first, such as being a lot more familiar with the various sourcing tags on articles since I originally put this up, so I'd like to do them first. I'd rather not have to wait five months again for another GA review, so would you be up for tackling it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Just ping me when you nominate it. Actually, even better, if you feel like it, also ping me just before you nominate it. If there are any significant issues (in particular, have things really settled down? / stability) it would be better to acknowledge/ deal with them then. Neither of us wants another non-pass. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Having compared what's there now to what I did in August, most of the content is pretty intact. The main things are the formatting for sources (an activity I find as exciting as watching grass grow, hence why I haven't done it yet), and the lead basically wants to be nuked and done again. The trouble seems to have been with new editors springing up and starting to write stuff without realising that if it's at GA or FA, you'll hack people off if you're not careful. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how far you are going regarding source formatting....GA does not require it per se. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done what I wanted to do, and the article is now up for GA again. See Talk:Ian Gillan. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Government waste

Just created an entry for government waste. For the longest time I assumed that, given the notability of the topic, the entry had already been created long ago. Better late than never I suppose. It's just a rough outline so there's considerable room for improvement. There's plenty of material on the subject so any assistance scouring sources and propagating pleasant prose would be appreciated. No worries if you have other priorities. Cheers. --Xerographica (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and invite! I'm spread a little thin right now but will have a look. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So many topics so little time. I moved other people's money to a subpage... User:Xerographica/Other people's money. Figure it's going to be deleted...but perhaps, if we have time, we can improve it enough where it wouldn't be deleted. --Xerographica (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Single-payer behavior

The only terrible behavior has been of you and Thargor edit-warring against the consensus and inserting an obvious POV. If I recall you two did "report" my behavior to which the result was nil. The fact is you know very well what you and Thargor are doing and yet continue to do so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No I have not yet done so / reported you. I have put one sentence into the RFC/U which recently commenced on you, but that is not what I am referring to potentially doing. Please quit the crap, which you are repeating here. As I clearly indicated, I don't even have a preference much less a POV on the question which you are warring on. Every stage of my work there was explicitly just on trying to get a working process in place there. My note to you on your talk page remains the case. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment pre-Heller

Hi North. Help me out. Because I'm confused here. And if I can understand where you're coming from, perhaps we can avoid the long process of requesting a comment and/or mediation:

1)Do you know of any United States case ever in all of US history prior to 2000 that ever found the individual theory to be valid?

2) Are you aware of all the many Federal Court cases from 1942-2000 interpreting Miller that found the collective theory to be the only valid interpretation beginning with Cases v. United States (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf)  ?

Frankly I'm confused. If your answer to the first question is "no" and your answer to the second question is "yes", then what are we arguing over? And if you disagree, please be precise as to exactly what you disagree about (and provide a source please for your interpretation of pre-Heller history that cites cases as I've done).GreekParadise (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting right to the point, (vaguely speaking for brevity) there were no real rulings on the core question until the 21st century. I believe that you are trying to say that lack of a "individual right" finding is a basis to put something in imply that that the precedent is considered to be findings of the opposite. IMHO from every standpoint (logical, history and wiki-policies) that is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) -- http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/530f2d103.html -- which sets forward a long list of cases with this view. For a more recent case, check out Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”). You may feel that the entire body of Federal case law from 1942-2000 on the Second Amendment was wrongly decided -- if so, you're not alone in that view...you're joined by five current members of the Supreme Court! -- but read the CRS article I provided. Like it or not, that was the clear and undisputed law in every Federal court that decided a Second Amendment case after Miller and before Emerson. Do you deny these are "real rulings on the core question"? I concede there is no Supreme Court ruling between Miller and Heller, but I never said there was. I'm not "trying to say" anything but to cite the facts. What are you "trying to say"? That these cited facts aren't true? Or are unimportant? Or that telling people what the law was pre-Heller is biased? With due respect, I honestly don't understand your objection. Are you saying the NYT Chief Supreme Court reporter filed a false report? If so, you should demand the NYT post a correction. (Ironic, as there is a correction already in it.) But on what grounds is it false? And on what grounds is the CRS and LOC false? You haven't cited a single source. And I've now found dozens for the simple proposition that prior to Heller, the collective view was the law in every Federal court that considered the case from 1942-2000. If you don't like the phrasing, fine. Let's work together to find phrasing you do like. Or, if we can't reach an agreement, I am willing to go to request for comment or mediation. I'd also like to see what Celestra comes up with it. Celestra does believe the Congressional Research Service is a reliable source. Do you disagree?

GreekParadise (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I find that three are immense logical flaws and false implied premises in what you are inferring above and your efforts to support what you are trying to insert. This will be a substantial conversation. If you prefer a separate discussion here that would be fine with me but otherwise perhaps we should move this to the article talk page? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I was hoping we could work it out here, but we can talk there. Have you read the Congressional Research Service report which found the collective view was the view of the federal courts from 1942-2000? Please let me know if you have read it and if you disagree with this characterization. And if so, on what basis. P.S. The article by Liptak was no more an op-ed than footnote 4 upon which the lede relies on for its holding on Heller and McDonald. If you don't accept it, we have to delete the second paragraph of the lede.GreekParadise (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Either venue is fine....that was just a suggestion. I skimmed CRS report...it is quality stuff. IMHO it indicates that the core question was undecided in the courts as of when it was written.....so what you are wanting to put in directly conflicts with that. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your kind words on the Libertarianism Talk page. I'm sorry to have leapt to that conclusion, but it honestly appeared that our past conflicts were getting in the way of collaboration. I think we both want the same thing on that article (less anarchism, more "right-libertarianism"), so I hope we can work together to accomplish this. Again, thank you, and I wish you all the best! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. When people who disagree with me stand their ground but don't resort to bad tactics I not only do not consider that to be a conflict, I respect them for that and enjoy the conversations. That is how I viewed our previous interaction, so I had not the slightest minus regarding you going into this. There was one moment which was (merely) frustrating which was on my talk page, right when you and I dissected the debate to it's logical essence you politely bailed. But that was just a "after all of that work, just when we were so close" frustration. Thanks for the post.

There is a lot of history at the Libertarianism article. 2 1/2 years ago that article situation was really in flames, like the nearly worst that I think I've seen in any article. My roles starting then has been a sort of a middle of the road facilitator. First we got it cooled down and eventually we discovered a few Rosetta stones that helped sort it out....that we were talking two different languages. It turns out that the word [Libertarian] has two different common meanings in the US vs. Europe. Not just that different strands are practiced on opposite sides of the pond, but two fundamentally different meanings. The common meaning in the US is simply (setting a priority on) "less government, more freedom." END OF DEFINITION. I won't explain the meaning in Europe, I think you know it better than I. I think that the primary reason for this is that in the US the word "liberal" has been transformed/corrupted to mean "bigger government". And so a new word was needed for (classical)liberalism, and that word is libertarianism. And so another difference is that the common meaning in Europe is defined by lengthier philosophical definitions (e.g. whether they are for or against private ownership of resources, the moot question of whether they would take the US all the way to anarchism). Trying to view / define common US libertarianism in the context of such fleshed-out political philosophies taxonomies is imagining things. I think that you are tending to make that error. BTW the common meaning of anarchism/anarchist in the USA is people who throw firebombs in riots or motorcycle gangs who take over towns. So there another educational job we have in the article.

The article has been pretty reasonably peaceful despite the fact that nearly everybody there would prefer to take it to one extreme or the other. That is the situation that you are stepping into. Welcome aboard! North8000 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! You are correct about the changing meaning of the term liberal, but to expound on that, the differences between common US and European political terminology stem from the USA's history as a nation born of Liberal philosophy: whereas European conservatives wished to conserve the absolute, monarchical system of rule, US conservatives wanted to conserve the Liberal values of our nascent nation (social freedom, laissez-faire capitalism, and a secular and democratic nation). During the early USA's adherence to laissez-faire capitalism (or nearly so), liberal came to mean those who wanted the government to put an end to what many saw as the resulting labor abuses (e.g. child labor, long hours, unsafe work conditions); this relationship between capitalists and the government is sometimes referred to as state capitalism. As these two political ideologies evolved, the conservatives became more accepting of the stronger, centralized government for which the liberals pushed, though for quite different reasons (e.g. national defense, foreign interventionism, the legislation of traditional/religious values), eventually earning the label neoconservative. Those who wanted less government manipulation (and therefore more freedom) began identifying as libertarians because both the liberals and conservatives (aka neoliberals) sought a more powerful state, even though all three are Liberals--I'm using a capital L here to distinguish adherents of the political philosophy from the lay meaning. In Europe, of course, conservative meant conserving the absolute rule of the monarchy, liberal referred to an advocate of democracy and free trade, and libertarian was a synonym for anarchist (which also carried an anti-capitalist connotation, hence its common classification as a leftist philosophy). This is also why libertarianism and anarchism are organized into left and right categories: left-anarchism refers to the traditional, socialist anarchism; right-anarchism refers to egoist anarchism (the former is kind of like a stateless feudalism in my opinion) or the relatively recent anarcho-capitalism; left-libertarianism refers to the socialist anarchism; and right-libertarianism refers to a capitalist ideology that seeks less government, with considerable debate over whether this entails anarchism or minarchism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Carpal tunnel and you

Hey North. I'm glad my solution worked on Ian Gillan. Having just looked and seen how you performed the fix though, I figured you must be unfamiliar with the native search and replace tool we now have. On the editing toolbar there is an easily missed icon (it's all alone at the far right side, away from all the others) that looks like this . With it you could have replaced all of the {{sfn|Gillan's with {{sfn|Gillan|Cohen in one click. (In the old days I would have done it by dropping the whole article's edit content into a word processing program to do the same thing). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know that it was in the Wikipedia interface. Thanks! I knew that I could do it globally using other tools but decided on the one-by-one route to be cautious, and to de-bundle in case there was an issue with some. Plus it's good early AM wake-up therapeutic work. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

CartoonDiablo

You feel exactly the same way about CartoonDiablo's behavior as I feel about Thargor Orlando's. I could have written exactly the same paragraph as you did, swapping the user names. Perhaps there is something we can learn from that? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I try to be objective. If you are talking about their behavior during the last 1-2 months then I would have to question your statement and ask you where it comes from. During that period IMHO I think that it is pretty clear that TO has clearly been behaving well and CD clearly badly. If you are talking about something prior to that then I would have to plead ignorance. I was not "present" then and did not look back into history.

BTW I've just gotta tell you something that stuck in my mind from when I was looking around trying to learn/understand you, which included reading your statement of politics on your user page.....maybe a bigger "learn something from that" moment. Based on what you wrote, we have about 95% the same politics, yet your comments indicate an assumption that that we have opposite politics. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but those 5% probably mean everything! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the 5% is that I am undecided/torn about more government involvement in health care, and I'm a friendly-to-religion atheist. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in having government run the health care system. Health care professionals run health care. What I want to see is government financing health care through taxation fully. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not saying its good or bad (it's probably a mixture of the two) , but taxing/paying does inevitably mean controlling it to a significant extent. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RfD:Other people's money

Hello, North8000. You recently participated in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money. You may be interested in a discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Other people's money. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

File:CarrieNewcomer.jpg

Can you add the OTRS ticket, please? --evrik ^(talk) 17:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It is exactly as I wrote when I put it up, (and rock solidly-so) and I don't have one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Hello, I'm Jenova20. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:HiLo48 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Even if assumed here and here were not aimed at me, they still constitute a personal attack and you should know better. Keep it up with you want to end up at ANI again, or cut out the petty digs and work on the encyclopedia. If i see another unprovoked attack aimed anywhere near me then we'll have a thread on ANI. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC) ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you missed that boat twice over on that one. First, who said anything about you? (or anybody in particular). I just said 1 or 2 folks on that page, an immense page with an immense number of people on it. Second, even if if I had referred to anybody, it was a discussion about bad and destructive behavior which would not be a personal attack. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:Civil. There is no exception to making uncivil accusations against users just because another users civility is in question on the same page. Your accusations were uncalled for and unhelpful. Please refrain from doing it again. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Your post has so many false statements and false implied false premises in it that it is too flawed to make sense out of much less answer. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well whatever, that is the same argument as always from you. Either way, if i see another instance i'll be taking it to ANI. This discussion is over for me now. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe more common for what you write, but in general not common. Other than that, same answer as my previous one. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

NRA Edit warring

I agree the content on sandy hook should guards should be in, per the talk consensus. I'll leave a message on Athenes talk asking her to come to talk. We're going to get blocked at this pace and I'd rather we not be. Thx much.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I plan to stay miles from going that far. But it certainly is relevant if commentary is going to be included. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Assault weapon

You reverted my edit here. I've restored it. The article uses a bunch of named references, but included the full cite template anyways. This is unnecessary when named references exist and it creates a lot of wikimarkup hurting readability. Ryan Vesey 00:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. That's cool. North8000 (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Instructions

I have completed a redo of the current nomination page with the revised instructions here. What do you think?--Dom497 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WOW, nice work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Weak suggestions

What you think of making it a linked page instead of templates so that it is accessible for people to edit and evolve/improve it?

Stronger Suggestions

• The links to it are way too small, bordering on hidden. Also be sure to link from the main GA page to, not just the GAN page
• Has some typos. I'd fix them but it takes me too long to figure out how to find and get into that template. Spelling on eligable, ineligable, "deleted" s/b "delete"
• Under "partial review" probably should be "if nobody responds" not just if the nominator doesn't respond
• Eventually the distinction between waiting for fixes while "under review" and using "on hold" to wait for fixes should be clarified.
• When you say "Also, if the article is part of any WikiProjects, make sure you change the rating of the article through the WikiProject's template that is found on the talk page." you need to tell them what to put in there.

Nice work!!!!!

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I will address you comments when I get a chance.--Dom497 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement, POV pushing, and TE

Hi, here to ask you about some allegations/accusations you made on Talk:Tea Party movement - would you please provide diffs of the objectionable behavior? You may do so here or on my talk page, thanks much! KillerChihuahua 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

With the one individual it was an assessment drawn from scores or hundreds of edits over several years, with the latest being warring to remove the 2007 Ron Paul Tea Party from the Tea Part movement article. With the other individual it was less frequent but much ruder, again drawing for scores of edits over the years. Also warring to remove the same thing. Right now its just to try to spotlight and recognize the problem to get that corrected at that one article. If I'm going to spend many hours digging out 150 diffs it would probably to obtain some action against those two persons, which I am not currently seeking. As I pointed out when someone noted that one of them violated the editing restriction at the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not asking for 150, but it would have been nice to see at least one. If you can't be bothered to do even that, then I advise you to cease making such accusations. KillerChihuahua 20:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The conclusions were drawn collectively from the hundreds of observations. Are you saying one example of it happening (which I thought was obvious from the post), or one example that singly proves that the behavior is occurring? The latter does not exist.....it took me years of observation of hundreds of actions before I considered it to be established certainly enough to make the statements.North8000 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how clear I can make this. If you cannot make a case to someone else, you need to hush up about it. Otherwise you're just slinging around unsubstantiated allegations, which might rebound on you and will cause no sanctions against him. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 20:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My intention was that noting the behavior at the article might be enough to reduce the problem there. I'm willing to leave it at that. But if you are going to say or imply that me having noted the behavior is wrong unless I now start building the cases, then I'll start working on building them. Let me know. And, while we're talking about my well-founded statements which I made only after years of careful observation there, there are other accusations that those two made on that page which fall a few levels short of that.... which not only had no basis, but ran contrary to what was on that very page. Will you go to work on those too as I point them out? North8000 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No diff = no "looking into", no actions. So either stop with the vague allegations, or post a diff. End of story, full stop. KillerChihuahua 22:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been many days since I have discussed the behavior of any individuals. I can return that that if you wish, but otherwise have been willing to leave it at what I said several days ago. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please be more circumspect in your comments

Hello, I'm KillerChihuahua. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Tea Party movement that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stop attacking other editors as you did here, you are promoting a hostile atmosphere. KillerChihuahua 22:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I pointed out an extreme violation of wp:civil and wp:agf and attacking of another editor. I think that you are very involved on this in a way that is not objective. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of "involved" is not the Wikipedia definition, then. This was a warning. Whatever you think you did, you violated CIVIL and NPA on an article under probation, and are in danger of sanctions. Heed me or ignore me, but I advise heeding me. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 23:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I addressed the specifics at the article and asked what I think is a very valid and pertinent question. I think that the you/me interaction could use a third party set of eyes if this goes any further. Which need not be. I just want that if there are going to be any comments on individuals, that they reflect an objective analysis what has been happening at that talk page, including the actions of others. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 02:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your AN/I comments

I am not going to address the content of your comment, but I would suggest that you go through them and fix the username of the editor whose name you repeatedly misspelled. Her name is Killer Chihuahua, not Killer Chinchilla. If you are going to attack another editor, you might as well get her name right. Horologium (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Since when is carefully questioning the objectivity of someone who is impugning me "attacking"? But I thanked them for the correction in the uname and fixed it. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

An RFAR has been filed

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 05:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Due Process

I won't let your right to speak on gun control/tea party/etc. issues be infringed. You will not be topic-banned! As you remember, we disagreed vehemently on the VN/T issue. I believe I even probably called for you to be topic-banned, during the heat of the "battle". Silencing one's opponents is a great way to win an argument; but what happens when things aren't so "black-and-white"? If you ever need help with the anti-rights party, do not hesitate to ping me! Doc talk 09:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No one has any "rights" on Wikipedia to infringe. This is not a democracy. I believe North8000 is aware that we are not here to "speak on gun control/tea party/etc." or any other subject. We are here to summarize reliable sources and write an accurate encyclopedia. The above troubles me greatly because it appears to be a very distinctive battelground mentality and I recommend North not involve themselves in such actions or support. Take a breath, step back and cool down. I doubt arbcom will take the case and clearly admin has moved the discussion just for taking up too much room, and that was closed, so there is little to worry about from what I see.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't trouble you that greatly. As Jimbo has said many times: "We are not transcription monkeys". North8000 has his opinions, and I support his right to express them as much as I support those who strive to strip him of his opinions. The "right-wing" is vilified far too much by the liberal media. Do you actually contest that the media is controlled by the "left"? Carry on. Doc talk 09:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Frankly there is no way of telling if you are doing this as a way to make North look as bad as possible. For that reason I would note that at this point North has absolutely nothing to do with this post. We have no rights to express any opinion here. You may say whatever politicaly motivated statements you wish on a usertalkpage but this isnot acceptable on an article talkpage. North is an experianced editor and i truly believe he understands that we are not here to take a stand on any issue regardless of our own opinions. I very much doubt I am giving him too much credit here.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you do some research on journalism in general you will discover that 1) the notion of a "liberal media" is a myth; it doesn't exist 2) journalists are more conservative than other professionals and tend to be centrist 3) most media outlets are business-oriented and lean right. The nonexistent "liberal media" is a favored bugaboo of the populist right, and they use it to sell books and attract radio listeners. That it doesn't exist doesn't seem to matter. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in making North8000 look "bad" or "good". I am allowed to show my support for that issue, and support for his right to express his position on issues. "Don't Tread On Me" - and I won't tread on you. Doc talk 10:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We have no rights on Wikipedia. Don't threaten me please.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an American expression - it was not a threat towards you in any way whatsoever. Yeesh... Doc talk 10:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a clear threat Doc regardless of it being an expression. "Don't...and I wont...on you." It is clear you have an agenda, the question is, are you not here at all to build an encyclopedia? It looks that way to me at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

See Gadsden flag (and more specifically Gadsden_flag#Tea_Party_Movement_symbol) I don't think it was used as a threat (but it could be perceived as one). Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the expression Viriditas...but it is not ""Don't Tread On Me" - and I won't tread on you." It is simply "Don't tread on me" period. It was indeed used as a threat and was taken as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And as yet, a simple apology has yet to be extended so the threat stands.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct on the Gasden flag! It's been American expression for quite some time. As for me, I've been here for over five years, Amadscientist. I've added plenty of content, references, etc. Reverted a ton of vandals. Weighed in on issues more important than this. You can look at me as hard as you want to: but you're wasting your time. How do you really think I was "threatening" you? Nope. Same team, bro. ;P Doc talk 10:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You used a partisan expression to make a threat against another editor as a means of intimidation. I do not take these issues lightly. Yes, you have been here long enough to know better. I know you will not apologize because that would defeat the purpose of intimidation and the chill effect you desire. Simply put, you crossed a line and are now on notice. Do not extend your own additon of what you intend to do after using that expression and you wont be guilty of threatening others. I would accept your premise if you were capable of an apology. Since one is not forthcoming I see this as a threat to do further "battle" with me in the future against our civility guidelines and policy. Be aware you can be blocked for such actions after making such threats.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like... a threat. It's not my first day here, buddy. See below. Cheers... Doc talk 11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you intended it as a threat. In its original usage the phrase is intended as a warning (this is explained in the linked article); one should not step on the metaphorical snake lest one get bitten. A warning is somewhat different than the threat the snake represents: the snake does not attack unless it is provoked, and its bite is deadly. Be warned, but do not feel threatened! I actually understand this on a personal level, because I was around a lot of rattlesnakes as a child. I never felt threatened, but I knew not to step on them. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I grew up in rattlesnake country. I am aware of the actual warning the rattlers gives. It was meant as a threat against me and it was taken as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps in hindsight I shouldn't have added the "and I won't tread on you", as I can see it being interpreted as a threat. But I never meant it that way at all: I was just attempting to expand on the concept in general. My apologies if any other meanings were inferred. I did not intend to threaten anyone. Doc talk 10:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Doc. I accept your apology and thank you for extending it.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, rattlesnake does not taste like chicken...no matter what anyone says.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

All is well :> Doc talk 11:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, nice to have y'all visiting! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dragonofthewest

Not sure if that's one of the IPs, a sock, or something else, but I'm hesitant to report it until we see something from it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Well, a SPA's 100% of whose lifetime edits are to edit war on that one page. North8000 (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School.

Hello North. Please review WP:IDHT and WP:CON. Your points on Austrian School talk have been answered many times by various editors. Time to move on. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've barely been involved in the general debate and that is not what this is about. I first asked that question a half hour ago and it was about something you first said an hour ago. And you've not answered it. I'm particularly interested on where exactly the "without explicit agreement" came from. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But never mind. The point/goal was to say to just stick to discussing the merits of the topic at hand. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not supposed to post here (I came to this page for a different reason), but SPECIFICO, seriously, just asserting the same "I'm already correct so there" thing over and over is not going to work. This is getting very old. Please stop this nonsense, or at least keep it to talk pages. Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Quick question

"published stuff that I wrote in other technical fields gets cited by others in Wikipedia, and people ask me to read and decode technical stuff for them"

Awesome. What are these? Where do I find it? I'm curious because you've been such an active, articulate, and fair editor for so long on pages I'm also interested in. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

(for the benefit of other readers, I wrote those comments in tandem with a statement that I remained a dummy on a topic after reading its article, saying it needed to be more explanatory) Thank you so much for those compliments. Those are the things that I absolutely strive for. I have come to realize that trying bring POV'd articles to the center marks you as an opponent of people who don't want things brought to neutral. And they conduct war by calling their "opponent" all kinds of bad things.

Unfortunately answering your question here would out myself. Perhaps we could establish a trusted rapport by email and I could then tell you. Thanks for asking! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control Article Bias

If we need to take this to arbitration, we can. I don't want to edit war on the article ..... the bias at the moment is extreme, the pov pushing is glaring, and the format is deficient. If Stopyourbull wants to work it out on the talk I'm all for that but if this is just going to be obstructionist, I'd rather get some admins who are entirely outside of this field and help us write a good descriptive article on the topic vs some of what is there. Thoughts?-Justanonymous (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to guide content. I think we should edit and discuss towards normal quality article standards in line with Wikipedia policies. That one article is so out of line from those that those will go a long way. If any individual starts really being bad then that would be the time to go to admins on any behavio5r issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed-- He's reverting the deletion of weasel words and non-facts though. Edit warring will surely bring the admins but I don't want to get banned. I'll see what I can do. Thx for the help.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

I'm sure you watch KillerChihuahua's page, but just to make sure you don't miss my warning there[19] I'll repeat myself: don't post on KC's page again or you'll be blocked for harassment. I'm surprised a polite request from a person you know is unwell wasn't enough for you. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC).

It was very friendly & complimentary, & I indicated confidence and trust of them in a potential review of an article situation, and they didn't / haven't mentioned it again so I thought it was OK with them. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Para-skiing classification articles

Thanks for your reviews of these articles, which were nominated last October. Sorry it took me a week to respond, but my watchlist has been flooded by bot edits. I believe that all points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been helping trying to reduce the backlog at wp:gan. Including tackling 5 of these at once. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The one item I raised is repeated across the articles. I figure we can use LW3 as an example to sort it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Where are we up to with this? Amy chance of wrapping it up? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been both sick and traveling. Plus I'm doing seven of these at once, two of them recently nominated ones at your request. But I think we can be all wrapped up within 2-3 days. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

All but one are passed and finished. I closed out LW3 as being the "coordinating point". The 1 (LW6/8) is awaiting response/discussion. Bewteen who nominated and who is handling I was trying to figure who is who regarding editors....looks like two folks are the main editors and have done a large amount of good work in an interesting area that people would otherwise not know. Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sig

FYI: I think you forgot to sign this edit. Cheers! Location (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I had typed one too many tildes. I fixed. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hi North. You were mentioned at the ANI thread Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 08:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment Collective-Rights History

Please review prior to editing or commenting further on the Second Amendment. I have posted it on the Talk Page as well, but I'm reaching out to you and all other editors personally because I sincerely believe when you review the evidence and when you search for contrary evidence, you will see I am correct about this history.

The law WAS collective only prior to Heller. If I show you 3 cases and several commentaries by irrefutably accurate sources and you cannot show me a single case from 1939 to 2000 to refute it, you have to accept that history is history.

Here are some quotes from:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nra-money-helped-reshape-gun-law/2013/03/13/73d71e22-829a-11e2-b99e-6baf4ebe42df_story.html

In 1977 at a Denver hotel, Don Kates paced a conference room lecturing a small group of young scholars about the Second Amendment and tossing out ideas for law review articles. Back then, it was a pretty weird activity in pursuit of a wacky notion: that the Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm.

“This idea for a very long time was just laughed at,” said Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University, a chair endowed by the National Rifle Association. “A lot of people thought it was preposterous and just propaganda from gun nuts.” ...

The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Before the Heller decision, the Supreme Court and lower courts had interpreted the language as “preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias,” according to a Congressional Research Service analysis.

“It was a settled question, and the overwhelming consensus, bordering on unanimity, was that the Second Amendment granted a collective right” enjoyed by the states, not individuals, Bogus said. Under this interpretation, the Constitution provides no right for an individual to possess a firearm.

Lund [Remember he's the NRA-endowed Second-Amendment professor!] agreed that there was a consensus but said it was “based on ignorance.”

OK, you don't trust the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the National Rifle Association-endowed professor of constitutional law and the Second Amendment? How about trusting the courts themselves? Just read these three:

- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

- United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) (“[i]t is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right.”)

- Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”)

All of them cited Miller. All of them were the law of the land. There's not a single case in all of American history in any court state or federal that found an individual right to bear arms absent service in a militia and struck down a gun law as unconstitutional prior to 2000. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any case that says so.

Furthermore, there is not a single President prior to 2000 that stated he believed the Supreme Court conferred an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment absent service in a militia. Even Reagan didn't believe it. I will pay $100 to anyone who can find any President that stated this position prior to 2000.

Truth is truth. If you don't like truth, you should not be editing wikipedia. Many editors here, I know you believe otherwise. But whoever told you a lie was true was mistaken. Read my sources. Then look for reliable sources on your own. When you can't find any (and if you do, I'll give you $100), I would respectfully request that all of you withdraw your objections. If you don't, then you are clear POV-pushers and should not be editing wikipedia.

Otherwise, if the only way to remove unreliable sources in wikipedia is to put up a request for comment and/or mediation, let's do it. I'll bet my reliable sources against all of your absence of sources any day. There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong. People are trying to revise history and some people fall prey to it. Maybe you read something on the Internet from some ignorant blogger and believed it to be true. I respectfully request you look at the sources and come to the only accurate conclusion.

My history is backed up by EVERY judicial decision and EVERY President prior to 2000 and the Library of Congress, and the Congressional Research Service, and the NRA-endowed Professor of the Second Amendment, not to mention the NYT and the WP. And the contrary position is backed up by some sincere mistaken beliefs AND NOT A SINGLE SOURCE.

An honest and ethical wikipedia editor cannot look truth in the face and declare it untrue without a single reliable source to back it up. I will post this on the talk page of every editor who has edited or commented recently because I sincerely want all of you to review the sources before further editing or commenting.

Further sources:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf (Congressional Research Service)

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php (Library of Congress)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html (New York Times)

GreekParadise (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with much of the above, including implied premises, and assertions that claims follow from the quality sources. As you noted you pasted this into a lot of talk pages. In order to not scatter the discussion all over the place, I suggest we have it at the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

But you have refused for THREE MONTHS to provide ONE RELIABLE SOURCE to support your point of view. And you have also refused for THREE MONTHS to deal with the obvious, numerous reliable sources I continuously provide. Since you refuse to read or address my sources and you continue to push a point of view YOU KNOW TO BE OBJECTIVELY UNTRUE, I must sadly conclude that you are purposely acting in bad faith and will act accordingly. If you are not acting in bad faith, why don't you review my sources and/or post a single contrary one? How can I continue to negotiate with someone who refuses to accept reliable sources as true? There's no point in it. On the other hand, if you will review my sources, critique them, and/or provide sources of your own, we can continue the discussion. If you refuse to do so, we have no choice but to go to dispute resolution.GreekParadise (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand, and are misstating the situation. The core question is that you want to put into the article that the courts had decided the "individual right vs. collective right only" question prior to Heller, with that decision being "collective right only". While as an aside, that is wrong, the core point is that it is a creative construction that you are trying to war in. The warring without consensus issue aside, that is a classic direct violation of wp:verifiability as well as of wp;nor / wp:synthesis. So what are you saying I am supposed to provide a source for? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you believe that (all courts decided collective only between Miller and Emerson is wrong)? Do you think a) all my nine sources (including the cases themselves!) are false; (b) I have not accurately quoted my sources; or (c) something else? I'm going to do a Request for Comment and/or a dispute resolution and mediation on this point, and I at least would like to know your reasoning on why you think I'm wrong.GreekParadise (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You are grasping at what I identified as an aside, (an assessment of the status) and are avoiding the main point. Nevertheless, answering on the sources, you have mis-represented the good neutral sources included, and then cherry picked some opinion pieces from amongst the 10's of thousands available that match your opinion. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! CarrieVS (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey dude

I notice and support your comments here and elsewhere regarding the Presidency of Barack Obama article. In particular, your remark about the article possibly being written by the Barack Obama re-election committee is spot on, and you'll find that it generally applies to the Barack Obama Wikibio and all related articles. Genuine criticism has finally started to creep into these articles since Obama won re-election and can't run again, and since Obama has clearly moved closer and closer to George W. Bush on national security issues, such as keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open, indefinite detention of unlawful combatants without trial, drone strikes etc. ... mainly because such criticism is coming from the left. Criticism from the right is per se illegitimate. And yet, compare the Obama articles with the George W. Bush and Tony Blair Wikibios, for example. To a very large extent, I've given up on all those articles; they're the worst POV examples I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The common strategy is for the WP:OWNers to claim that the inconvenient content in question is irrelevant, not notable, unsourced (or poorly sourced, or sourced only in "hit pieces" in some "unreliable," "reactionary" publication like the National Review or the Wall Street Journal), or a WP:WEIGHT violation (which I perceive as their ace in the hole, used when all other objections have been defeated). The common resolution they seek is to move the inconvenient content to some other article, "anywhere but here," so that "our" article can remain pristine. Does this sound familiar? To a somewhat lesser extent, I've encountered the same problem with Ugg boots related articles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that it will take some evolution in policies to fix these. Until then I just occasionally say a few things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW your expertise on Region 7 has me intrigued. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm originally from Arizona (my name is a dead giveaway), so Philmont was my High Adventure experience as a Scout, but my older brother ended up going to college (and eventually getting hired and buying a house and getting married) here in the Chicago area, and I eventually followed in his footsteps and lived in his basement when I went to college myself. During the summer breaks from his college classes, he was a staff member at Northern Wisconsin for several summers. I was too young to be involved very much before it closed, but they tore down the base and restored the whole area to its natural state. My brother and I have been camping there several times since then, and all of the old portaging trails and campsites are still there. What I know about the base and its history, I learned from him. It's still got the best beach for swimming in the area, but nobody uses it. And since the Scouts have been gone for 30 years, there's plenty of wood for campfires! Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. And nice addition to the article. As a youth / near-youth I was there twice, once under each name (starting with Region 7). Old fashioned Voyager training (leader training a week before the unit's trip) there was the toughest week in my life (in a nice way) . Is the base public land now? It was much later (as an adult) that I finally made it to Philmont. What a place! North8000 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The base has always been public land belonging to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. But it was leased by the CCC, then by the Scouts, and rumor has it that the rent was $1.00 a year. DNR isn't interested in making money from the land, they're only interested in appropriate uses for the land. Scouting execs who were pushing for a transfer of all Midwest High Adventure resources to Minnesota ensured that all but one of the buildings were demolished. It made a return of High Adventure Scouting to that area almost impossible, but the storage shed is still there. And yes, both Philmont and Northern Wisconsin are incredible. They have a charm and a magnificence that the city dweller may never see. Sunset at White Sand Lake after a day of canoeing, swimming and some truly delectable barbecuing is just about as close to Heaven as I'll ever get on earth. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Phoenix and Winslow

Phoenix and Winslow is using unacceptable behavior to support his case on the Ugg boots trademark disputes article. He has altered two other related articles to support his argument for this one and has canvassed an editor to support him in the RFC. He knows he can't canvass as he was reprimanded for doing it in an RFC last year. Can you ask P&W to reign in this behavior or is this something that needs to be done elsewhere? Your advice would be appreciated, Cheers. Wayne (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really the place for behavioral discussions, but the fact that you both have respected my thoughts might mean that I can be of some help. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thx for your help. It may be too late though as Phoenix and Winslow has just made some false accusations against myself and User:Mandurahmike. Wayne (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well mate, you've falsely accused MONGO. You produce so many distortions and so much spin that it takes forever to unravel them all. Fortunately, at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations you've run into a brick wall called WP:BLP, your favorite source was unanimously declared unreliable at WP:RSN, admins stubbed the article to get rid of your mountain of BLP violations, and none of the nutball followers of Lyndon Larouche have shown up to help you yet. So you have no friends there, and your love affair with WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories cannot be indulged at Wikipedia's expense. In the Ugg boots articles, however, your fellow Australians frequently come to your aid and WP:BLP concerns are easily avoided. You can safely vent your obvious frustrations from the Franklin article, and indulge in the usual Wikilawyering practice of raising objection after objection; after they've all been exhaustively defeated, rely on WP:WEIGHT and WP:ROC (which are are almost entirely Wikipedia editors' opinions) and your numerous Australian friends to "send that inconvenient but well-sourced content anywhere but here; we have a biased narrative we're trying to post to the world in Wikipedia's voice." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the specific topic in dispute at the moment (inclusion of counterfeiting cases) I don't think that there is a clear-cut answer. I would think that that would be the type of thing that folks would not be overly concerned about either way. IMHO the gorilla in the living room is that you two have a lot of rough history with each other and are on pretty rough terms with each other. And that seems to be overshadowing any differences in opinion regarding content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I request permission to transclude (copy) a portion of your post from the "GA criteria final checklist" section to the "Survey" section. I don't want anyone denying that we have consensus at some future date because your opinion is being ignored. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the meaning changing if taken out of context, but a quote of what I said that indicates and/or keeps the context would be fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Don't worry, I'll be extra careful about preserving your meaning. Please inspect after I transclude it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean quote it rather than Wikipedia transclusion tools. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your review of Paralympic classification articles. Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And nice work on the articles! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User:LauraHale did all the work. I just shepherded them through the review process. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Naval History

Hi, 'North8000', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Will do. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Simon Wiesenthal

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Simon Wiesenthal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Will have a look and comment. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gun control

Hi, please see Gun control and Talk:Gun control. I decided to go ahead and be WP:BOLD. I restructured and rewrote the article according to some suggestions in the discussion. I snipped a LOT of excess arguing and POV violations, moved the authoritarianism section into history of gun control, and condensed some info into the Arguments section. The arguments section still needs some trimming/balancing. Feedback is appreciated. ROG5728 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Will do. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charlize Theron

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Charlize Theron. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are some cookies for you

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi North8000, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun control

Hi North8000,

I asked a reasonable question on the Gun Control talk page about why the article contains questions about gun control from random non-experts. Not getting an answer, I then removed the quotations, which are a violation of WP:UNDUE. You then reverted my edit with the following edit summary: "Undo mass deletion. Please get consensus in talk." My edit was not a mass deletion, it was the removal of quotations from random non-experts. Please answer my reasonable question on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. — goethean 15:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy to discuss, but stop with the bogus "edit war" accusation. I did one revert of your deletion of a large amount of long-standing material (two if you count reverting your blanking of the entire section) You have also mis-represented the time line. You had already deleted the material two times prior to the linked question, (three times if you include your prior blanking of the entire section)so none of your deletions were after waiting and and "not getting an answer" to the linked question. And the first time you asked a similar one was only three hours before that and someone quickly answered it. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Long-standing material? I don't know about that, but there has been lots of edit warring at the article as recently as March 2013.[20] It looks to me like a coalition of opponents of gun control won that series of edit wars and now we have an article which is clearly POV and which contradicts another article on the exact same subject. This type of thing has in the past been called a POV fork; I trust that I don't need to link to the corresponding Wikipedia policy. — goethean 16:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Saying that if the content of one section of a broad article conflicts with a more specialized article that the broad article is a wp:POV fork? North8000 (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The above machinations aside, I think that it would be good to talk about whether or not to have that material in there (I'm on the fence, with a bit of a lean towards "yes" and I started that conversation there. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's the second time that you've used the word "machinations" in reference to my reasonable questions. According to Merriam-Webster, the word means (1) "to plan or plot especially to do harm",[21] or (2) "a scheming or crafty action or artful design intended to accomplish some usually evil end".[22] A more sensitive person than I might take offense. — goethean 22:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I intended it in a much more benign usage that I've seen (along the lines of "maneuvers") and did not realize that there were also such rough definitions. My apologies, I did not intend it that way. I struck and changed it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is fun

I only just noticed the funny spelling of automatically in your statement on the TPM discussion subpage. You wrote: "If a local TP'er farted in public, and some papers hostile to the TPM decided to maximize coverage of the fart, that does not aromatically make the fart germane to or suitable for or useful for the top level TPM article."[my emphasis]. This is quite frankly a hilarious mistake, of the kind that we all sometimes make. I laughed out loud, and I am just sharing it with hoping you'll laugh with me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

-)  :-) I guess I inadvertently wrote a good one there! Maybe I shouldn't fix it!  :-) Thanks! North8000 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I love it when the brain's neural network structure interferes like that, one word just brings the next one to mind. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sesame Street media GAN

Hey North, wanted to let you know that I responded to the question you posed. Let me know what you think of what I said. Oh, and thanks so much for the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy to do it. I've been trying to help reduce the backlog, and I noticed that yours was one of those that has been waiting the longest. I'll go over the the review page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate it. And I've made some additional comments over there since. I'm a fairly active GA reviewer myself. I also try and review the ones in the oldest unreviewed articles list myself, because I suspect that it's more helpful to do so. I've come to the conclusion, though, that there's a reason those articles don't get reviewed. They tend to be challenging articles to review, whether because of their length, their obscure topic, or complexity. As a result, reviewers may tend to avoid them. Perhaps the Media article languished in GAC for so long because of its schizophrenic nature, and because the subject is unfamiliar. I like a challenge, though, and I commend you for the same. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I've made some comments there. There are a few types of articles / article situations that I avoid reviewing, but I don't hesitate a bit on (and almost relish) complex situations and complex or obscure topics, including ones that I don't know. Although I probably shouldn't, I've avoided a few because they looked certain to fail (i.e. probably couldn't be fixed within a reviewing period). Also ones where the verifiability looked weak but where the sources were all off line......where the review is going to become a research project. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Indian poets

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Indian poets. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I commented there. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

PC

"Introduced grammar problem, and also took out "certain" qualifier which IMHO is important". Could you be more specific what is the grammatical problem introduced exactly? I find the present "certain other religions" grammatically confusing and out of place. What is "certain other religions contexts"? And what is the "certain" here? Seems WP:VAGUE compared to my revision. --hydrox (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a close look and realized that I was in error in my comment about your edit introducing a grammatical error. But I think that "certain" is essential to the definition on those three items, as PC makes distinctions in treatment within each of those three groups. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the pedantry, but "makes distinctions in treatment within each of those three groups"? What do you mean exactly? The current opening of the article is grammatically incorrect, as it confuses the proper grammatical case in the middle of the list. To wit, it currently stands incorrectly: Political correctness is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in [...] certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies [...] contexts. If you insist on using "certain" here, the items must be in the genitive: Political correctness is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in [...] certain other religions', beliefs' or ideologies' [...] contexts.

Yet, I still fail to see why you insist on using "certain" here. I see it as a non-essential weasel word, whose purpose remains unclear and that could be just easily dropped. What are these "certain religions' contexts"? Per our opening, political correctness also tries to avoid offense in "occupational, racial and cultural contexts". But why are those not "certain occupational contexts" then? Can you see the problem? --hydrox (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I noted that my grammar comment was wrong, and so I'm not really arguing grammar. It sounds like I could learn a few things from you in that department. But IMO the "certain" qualifier in there is essential. Whether one considers the orthodoxy to be real or putative, the common meaning or practice certainly does not require going to great lengths to avoid offense to all religions, beliefs and ideologies, only certain ones, and indeed goes quite the opposite on others. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well.. In my book at least political correctness entails sensitivity towards all religions, but I am no expert in the subject. I have now made a revision that I hope to be a compromise. --hydrox (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your version looked good. Then someone really scrambled it. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Taking_stock. Cheers.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Time to archive?

Your talkpage is difficult to navigate because of the number of threads. Might be worth considering archiving some of the older threads in order to assist fellow users coming to talk with you. If you need assistance, please let me know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Have to chime in here. I left a message on your talk page yesterday, and at first thought that Wikipedia was experiencing technical problems, but turns out it was because my browser has difficulty handling as lengthy pages as this talk page. Kind regards, hydrox (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Either way, it's a good reminder that it's time for me to shrink this page and I'm doing so. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I reduced it by about 30 items. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This page loads still very, very slowly... Do you really need to display inactive conversations older than a few months? --hydrox (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've not seen it to load slowly, but I'll reduce it more. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Salmaan Taseer

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Salmaan Taseer. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

~~~ has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Thanks for taking the time to review this one--it'd been in the queue for quite a while! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Very easy to review because it was so well done. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

PC article

The editor posted on my talk page as well as Talk:Political correctness. He doesn't seem to get it. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

An unusual mix. Does not seem to understand Wikipedia or the common meaning of PC. The wording of politeness combined with some tendencies towards arrogance. And an intelligent person. Longer time but sporadic editor. My first guess.....potentially promising editor (if they don't have their ears shut) who is problematic at the moment. Maybe we can help. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control

Hi North. I kind of give up on the Gun Control thing, without prejudice. It's just become kind of a free-for-all with editors talking past one another. I actually would welcome it if there were some simple RS that makes the argument and ties totalitarian regimes' gun control to the broader subject. If it's a valid point, we shouldn't need the controversial sources or questionable uses of them. Meanwhile, it really is like Hitler's mayo. Yes he enjoyed mayonnaise, but that undisputed fact is not a significant fact about either our general body of knowledge about mayonnaise usage nor about Hitler's actions. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Specifico. Thanks for the post. My thoughts are to not "tie" or characterize but just to cover. I know that my discussion on the "mayo" difference was a bit abstract but I believe that there is something sound there. In short, that gun control is really an action rather than an object. So it's like Prohibition, Hazing, War and Exploration rather than mayonnaise. In each case, significant occurrences of the action are inherently examples of the actual subject and I believe germane; no "making" of a connection is needed to make them germane. This applies to mere coverages of the examples....I can see your point with respect to any wording with implies a connection (e.g. with authoritarianism). My post on AzureCitizen's talk page kind of says my real thoughts which are that some changes are needed. When I see specific quotes included (e.g. the holocaust survivors) I go on yellow alert regarding cherry picking, but I would think that that the two quotes were in direct opposition to each other on the topic at hand would tend to assuage or mitigate that concern. What do you think? Thanks again for the post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the WP mayonnaise article it is partly about the substance but largely about its use and deployment just like gun control. Anyway I know you to be thoughtful but the noise level over at Gun control is just not going to allow the issue to be sorted out just now. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles that are on on somewhat fluid topics/fluid realities and where there is a real world contest/clash involved are all painful unstable messes in Wikipedia (unless one side totally "wins" at the article.) And policies/guidelines are misused (against the goal of a quality article) as often as they are used. And anybody who tries to bring one of those to the center is going to get called a lot of bad things and become a target. For those reasons I try to ration myself to being active on/ making a real effort to just one of those at a time. I think that this article is right on the borderline of being one of those sad cases which would put me over my quota. Maybe we could both go there with the thought/agreement that POV's should count zero and article quality is all that matters. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georges Yatridès

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georges Yatridès. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I did so. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article reviews

Hi North. Thanks for reviewing the PRSA article! Do you think I could convince you to take a second look at my work at YouSendIt? Someone passed it as GA, but I didn't think it actually met the criteria yet. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Whew! You are pretty tough on yourself by wanting people to be tough on you! I'd be happy to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I am too tough on myself as I was thinking of quite a few other areas that could have been improved. Of course, the community is tough on me and it does improve my work when the standards are raised, but it might be annoying for me to go around asking so many editors to provide feedback on an acceptable article.

I have a couple other items I could use your help on, if you're interested, but I don't know what topics you take an interest in. CorporateM (Talk) 13:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy to. I'm interested in about 90% of everything in the world. And most of the "10%" is the pervasively-covered types of sports.North8000 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to remember then that I can bug you about any topic ;-)

For Publishers Clearing House, I felt it was important we clean our own house before suggesting content, primarily by requesting deletion of an article on one of their PR staff, which I can only presume was COI written and looks like a notability problem. A really obvious deletion IMO and not COI at all except as a matter of cleaning up our act.

The Monster Cable Products article contains a lot of controversies that do exist and are important, but have substantial undue and bias issues. The article gives the appearance of being written for the explicit purpose of making the company look bad. We will have to go through these one-at-a-time and balance them with the other aspects of the company, its products and history, but I've requested deletion of the False Advertising section, which I think might be so undue that it does not belong in the article at all, since its only sources are short blurbs and press releases. CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Political correctness article (3 May 2013)

(Copied by Mhazard9 from their talk page to here) North8000 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mhazard9, again, please take controversial changes to talk rather than warring them in. I will be forced to report you if you do not stop. Also, your edit summaries do not say what you are doing. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear North8000,

Please, be specific and give examples of what you call controversial edits; otherwise, I do not know whereof you speak. Are you speaking for yourself? Are you speaking for Dougweller, your sponsor in this editorial war? Are you for real, dude? It is very telling that, again, like your sponsor, you resort to THREATS, such as “I will be forced to report you if you do not stop”, meaning what? Is someone physically and psychologically compelling you to report me for NOT OBEYING YOU in correcting poor, opinionated writing?

Again, BE SPECIFIC and GIVE EXAMPLES of so-called controversial edits. There is no edit war, I have not read any substantive contribution by you, North8000, other than opinions in an edit summary; in the wrong place, at that.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way, please! You have spent days harassing me with FAKE edit-war nonsense in the edit summaries, rather than in the talk page . . . so, you are incredible. Again, SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of my incorrect and inaccurate, untrue and false edits would help your credibility as an editor PARTICIPATING in the substantive editorial development of the Political Correctness article. Currently, the Introduction communicates the content of the article; likewise the image.

Show some self-respect, laddie, do not lend your voice to another man's quarrel, unless you choose to bleed for him, because he had others do his work for him. Since I was blocked for twenty-four hours, YOU, North8000, have harassed me, with reverts of substantiated work, since your sponsor won A battle; the EDIT HISTORY confirms my veracity in this matter.

My edit summaries are brief, because they are . . . summaries. Read the comparisons, that is to say, do your own work. I cannot do your reading for you.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You have copied my post and your above comment to many different places; others have pared that back but it is still in at least 2 different places. I'll respond here.

"Controversial edits" are the ones that were reverted with statements indicating that there are contested and an indication to "please take it to talk"

Regarding edit summaries, you have made a immense amount of controversial and contested edits and reverts with no specifics or even hints at what you are doing in your edit summaries. Your edit summaries are roughly variants of "Compositional details; narrative coherence." repeated. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Response:

Dear North8000:

From one Wikipedia Editor to another, I again request, be specific and give examples of my so-called controversial edits to the Political Correctness article; that is: (1) the specific section, or subsection, containing the substantively controversial edit; (2) the specific paragraph, paragraph-line, and the specific sentence. Then, shall we three, you North8000, your sponsor the Administrator Dougweller, and I, the villainous editor Mhazard9, can THEN begin to work out this matter of the controversial edits that so offend thine sensibilities, nostrils, and eyes.

Again, I remind you, editor-to-editor, to not lend your voice to another man's quarrel; you are being used as a punching bag, by an editor who cannot defend his points, because he is on the wrong side of the matter. You betrayed, exposed, and confirmed Dougweller's page-owner hustle when you said to him:

That first sentence could use some improvements, but this environment prevents the mutual work to do that.North8000 (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet, the Administrator Dougweller deleted this legitimate communication from the PERTINENT page, the Political Correctness Talk Page, where it belongs, because it is about the subject of PC . . . but, "Hey!" you fellows can do anything you want . . . except CHOOSE contribute substantive to the article, CHOOSE to play by the rules you preach to me.

On the level (and by the square), tell me, North800, is this ungrammatical, poorly written, and opinionated first sentence (replaced by the Admin. Douweller) a faithful, true, and accurate representation of the CONTENT of the article Political Correctness?:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent.

Again, how, is this version CONTROVERSIAL? Where (line and sentence) does it not faithfully, truthfully, and accurately communicate the content of the article it is introducing?:

Political correctness, politically correct, and the abbreviation PC are terms that denote ideas, language, and speech, policies and behavior that purportedly are meant to minimize and eliminate the social offense inherent to stereotypes, in occupational and institutional contexts, by means of excessively formal awareness, tolerance, and respect for the differences in gender and sexual orientation, race and culture, age and disability, religion and ideology of people who are not of the societal mainstream.

This is what I, Mhazard9, am asking you, the editor North8000, to do, when I ask you: Be specific and give examples, just as you did at university in order to earn the grades to earn the degree. Given that you CLAIM, in the edit summaries, that my substantive edits of the text are CONTESTED (somebody said it ain't so), YOU the editor who said so, must demonstrate it so, i.e. the burden of proof is upon the editor contesting the text. Knee-jerk deletion and weasel-word Edit Summary are an obvious form of CENSORSHIP, especially when it occurs more than once, without you proving Dougweller's opinion with EVIDENCE. If you think I am lying, then, otherwise, why is Dougweller involved in a conversation between North8000 and Mhazard9, if he ain't your sponsor in a blunt Edit War over content?

Yet, you have refused to do so, and have simply ordered me to obey your sponsor, Dougweller, and ask permission to participate, BEFORE I can contribute. Gosh, how obvious. That is the reason I have repeatedly recommended that you, North8000, not lend your voice to Dougweller's quarrel with me over the SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT of the Political Correctness article. In communicating to him the FACT that the leading sentence of the Introduction must be re-written to reflect the content it introduces CONFIRMS everything I have said to each of you.

So, be specific, and give examples of incorrect work. Moreover, I prefer to communicate with you at the Political Correctness Talk Page.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

My revision

Hi, North8000. Just a note to let you know that my current revision that you reverted was the one shot I took to alleviate the problem. It cited two dictionary definitions that showed both sides of the equation, corrected the faulty style and grammar of the original entry, and covered all of the salient points. If that is not satisfactory, I do not know will be. I would be more than willing to work with you on it; however, I am currently out of work and do not have the time to devote to the article. Good luck working it out! There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very very very much for your effort!!! and there is good stuff in there. I think that a dialog might finally be starting at the article. North8000 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School

I thought of commenting directly on the talk page about the section title IAW BRD, and then I thought about a comment here. And then I decided not to bother you. But then I noticed you had volunteered as a moderator on the topic. (Perhaps angels don't fear to tread when they are wearing snow shoes. I, on the other hand, have rushed in occasionally!) Issue? Section heading. Before reverting the "contributors" I looked at Keynesian economics (the antithesis of AS). It uses "theory". The "theory" section heading was there 50 edits ago (but I did not look to see if there'd been changes in the last 30 days.) WikiProject Economics does not have a style guide that covers the topic. Nor do any of the FAs or GAs have similar sections, so the issue does not have examples to use as guideposts. So I leave it at that -- would you care to change it back? It's your call. – S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello S.Rich,

Thanks for the post. Starting from the "end", I feel the "tenets" is better, and so from a standpoint if intellectual honesty I don't plan to change, but I won't be upset if someone else changes it. My reasoning is as follows:

• Technically, about half of everything that everyone says or claims (and the majority of all science) is a theory, but by common usage of the term, the word "theory" is not applied to them. If the President says "this action I took today will help create jobs" that is technically a theory, but common practice is not to brand it as such. And, in common practice, branding it as such is "lowering" it.
• It seems like a good compromise. Dictionary.com defines "Tenet" as "any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., especially one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement." which seems appropriate.

I feel the "tenets" is better, and so from a standpoint if intellectual honesty I don't plan to change, but I was just trying to help and won't be upset if someone else changes it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Alas, the lack of other quality econ articles or a style exemplar to provide guidance leaves this open for different presentations in different articles. Not a big problem, but I wonder what would happen if "theory" was changed to "tenets" in Keynesian economics. – S. Rich (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably makes a little difference in Keynesian because it was self-titled as a theory. Expanding on my previous note, I tend to think that the words here are communicating to readers and should lean towards using their common meanings. For example, in legal circles, an unmarried woman is technically termed a spinster, and the dog breeding circles, a female dog is a bitch. Yet the common meanings / intonations of those words are very different, and so they would tend not to be the nouns used in writing for general readers. But, again, I was just trying to help and would not object if you changed it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again

You're probably up to your neck in the ArbCom proceedings for TPm. So I'm sure you're busy. But there are a couple of things I'd like to talk about if you have a minute.

(A) Clearly you find the current condition of the main TPm article annoying, and I share that concern. Take a good look at my last post on the moderated discussion page. I suggest you create a sandbox page here from your User Talk page, copy and paste the whole article from the "View Source" tab to your sandbox, and fire up the chainsaw. There are entire sections of that article that are packed with what I describe as "Daily Kos cruft," clearly written by people trying to smear the Tea Party rather than write a quality NPOV article for Wikipedia, and they can be reduced to one paragraph with 6-8 reflinks. The gas grille, the twitter tweet, the jokes in bad taste, the racially insensitive signs at rallies, all of it. Pardon my French but it's bullshit. Boil all that down to a summary overview wherever possible, link it on the moderated discussion page, and ask for a vote. Don't take this as a rubber stamp, but I would probably support whatever you do after a quick review.

(B) For the benefit of any lurkers and stalkers, this is not a quid pro quo. I am not offering my support for "A" in return for your support for "B." But I'm surprised by your shift from "Support" to "Neutral" on the Ugg boots TM RfC, and I would ask you to reconsider. Just look at your "Support vote" that I transcluded (copied) for the first RfC and compare it to your latest "Neutral vote." Compare the reasoning you used. Why did you change your mind? Also, look at what Liangshan Yi has been pointing out at the bottom of the page. There is very good reason to suspect that it's an organized campaign to smear Deckers, either on behalf of Australian manufacturers (COI) or as an act of Australian national pride (cultural bias) or perhaps some mixture of both, and that it's been going on for years. NPOV and our commitment to avoid cultural bias compel us to prevent one dispute, in one country, from being elevated above the rest in this way. Granted, it should be the main event in the article; but counterfeiting should be covered as well, since countries like China see counterfeiting as "THE" Ugg boots trademark dispute. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Both the state of the TPM article and what ensued from an attempt to fix it show how badly the Wikipedia system which usually works can be misused. The worst of it was actually BEFORE arbcom, reaching its lowest point at the mob-violence, less civilized-then-Somalia-at-its-lowest point ANI. I strongly advocated Arbcom taking the case to end that ridiculousness. We'll see what happens.

Thanks for the idea and support for it, but I think that it's wp:snow for a version of the TPM fixed up by me would go anywhere.

On the last point, I think that I've been near-neutral on that all along. This first time I think I gave the same two (conflicting reasons) and sort of thought "it's no big deal either way, might as well put them in this article. So as I see it I went from "near neutral" to "neutral", not much of a change. I honestly don't see what is "at stake" or why anybody cares strongly either way. If I could see something that is really at stake, I would probably have a stronger opinion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Georges Yatrides

I confirm that my name 'Yatrides' as User is a single identity on Wikipedia. I do not represent any group or organization neither for a website and depends on no one. All that is written on Wikipedia comes from third party sources (articles of newspapers and magazines, Academic studies, TV information and broadcasts, movies). Georges Yatrides

--Yatrides (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! My suggestion there was more limited than that. As I indicated, I'm ready to help there if folks want. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	In admiration for your thoughtful and sometimes forceful contributions to Wikipedia, from a kindred spirit of the view that civility is at times tenanciousness. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Sometimes I have to resist the temptation to just take the easy way and keep my head low. Moments like this remind me that it's worth trying. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegetarians

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegetarians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

COI Stuff

Hi North. I'm researching the products, trademark and reception/performance topics for Monster and will circle back on those in a bit.

In response to your post on YouSendIt, I wrote a quick, proposed draft for expanding the lead and was wondering if you were willing to throw it in or give me a {{request edit|G}} I think at that point I'm gonna call that article done-and-done. I'll circle back every 6-12 months or so for updates.

If you want to help on other articles, I have an endless queue of edit requests that I'm usually pestering editors about ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help on this (I lean towards editing myself, but either way is fine....which do you prefer if it looks OK?) and others. We'll just try it and see / take it as it comes. If you're working me too hard or if I'm being too rough on you we'll just let each other know.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

With my PR cap on, I feel it's my duty to collaborate in the way preferred by the individual editor, much like traditional PRs track the communication preferences of each journalist. As a volunteer I do a little bit of everything depending on the circumstance.

I have another one over at Viralheat here if you care to take a look. I knowingly added incorrect pricing information the first time, because it was the most updated available in secondary sources at the time, so we're doing a quick round of updates. It's a social media management service known largely for its low cost. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've arbitrarily reworded this clause that you (and several others) found problematic.   — C M B J   23:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegans

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Did so. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Moderated Discussion at Tea Party movement

Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Wikipedia, to resolve a problem.

• so I must ask that Xeonphrenic be banned from this page ... -- Arthur Rubin
• I recommended that at ArbCom, but I'm not sure they'll do anything; unfortunately the Moderated Discussion page and the article's main Talk page are not appropriate places for such a discussion. The gentleman has been engaged in this behavior on several articles related to U.S. politics for several years. It's completely unacceptable. So I recommended, and I'm again recommending, a topic ban on all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed.
• You've indicated several times that you would oppose this resolution. I notice that you were willing to change your mind at Ugg boots trademark disputes and I suggest that you should do so here. You have also repeatedly lamented the sorry, sad condition of the Tea Party movement article. There is one person who is principally responsible for the sorry, sad condition of that article. This is the solution to that problem. Please don't try to prevent this solution.
• I recommend RFC/U as they did with Arzel. Allegedly ANI is also an appropriate forum to begin with, but that has every likelihood of turning into a bloodbath. We need to go to RFC/U first to establish tone, numbers, and the body of evidence. You and Malke could certify the RFC/U, we could discuss it, and then (if consensus suggests it) we could move to ANI and "vote" on a community ban. In an RFC/U followed by ANI, we do not need to rely on ArbCom to make the decision. We're the ones who have had to deal with this behavior on a daily basis, so we're the ones who are in the best position to see the problem and the solution with the greatest clarity. We'd need to bring SilkTork into it to ensure no one challenges its legitimacy.
• This should be done with the caveat that Xeno should have the option of asking for a removal of the topic ban, after a substantial period (six months to a year) of productive work on other articles. I'd like to believe that almost anyone can be rehabilitated, and he does have the potential to be a productive editor. And it is altogether possible that during the course of all these discussions, Xeno may accept that his behavior is unacceptable, and change his behavior without a topic ban at all. I would welcome that resolution if it is possible. Malke also suggested a mentor if he is to be rehabilitated. I am placing similar messages on Arthur and Malke's pages. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple of random thoughts:

• ANI's on vague behavioral topics almost always turn into mob-violence situations where people can deceive/misrepresent (=lie) with immunity.
• I made the "would oppose" statement with respect to the Arbcom case.
• Again I considered my shift at the Ugg article to be microscopic (from near neutral to neutral) but I'm also open to big changes in my opinion, but not changes to word I've given. My word was about the arbcom case.
• I'd rather just lean on them to reduce the behavior. But that's how that last debacle started, snowballed by wrong things. So just "leaning" on someone is considered by many to be not OK, but mis-using the wiki-systems to wage vicious warfare to try to get real harm done to people can be done with immunity. So that presents quite a quandary.
• I'm a softie. If someone is nice about it, (vs. the wiki-savvy viciousness that is all too common) I tend to not get too angry about even the most superchamp POV'ers.
• Maybe a friendly RFC/U?

Overall, I dunno. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me show you what it's like when one productive editor is allowed to proceed without being hassled. This is the article on the Soviet T-34 tank from WWII: [23] [24] Today marks the two month anniversary of my arrival at that article. Look at the difference. It used to be a Featured Article but was de-listed, after a bunch of people who thought they knew what they were doing started adding unsourced, poorly sourced, and biased content. Believe it or not, the T-34 has fanboys who think it was just the most totally awesome thing that ever happened to the word "tank." (It did make an enormous impact but it also had a lot of weaknesses, and the Germans quickly discovered and exploited them.) DMorpheus is an experienced editor. He's been working on the article a long time and he does great work but the fanboys overwhelmed him. When I showed up, he chatted with me a little bit on the article Talk page but other than that, he pretty much let me fire up the chainsaw and let it rip.

I took a little break from the article in the second half of April because I was busy with TPm, Ugg boots, and real life (believe it or not, I do have a real life). Kyteto showed up and "citation bombed" the whole article. So when I came back, I redoubled my efforts, found all the sources he wanted, cited them, made almost all the other citations follow a consistent style (still working on that but almost done), added three tables to show relative tank strengths of German and Soviet forces at various stages of the war, wrote up a new section on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, added a few more bits here and there, and hey ... it's almost ready to be a Featured Article candidate again.

When I'm not being hassled, obstructed, and tripped up at every turn, I can get a lot of work done in a fairly short span of time and it's good work. If they're not going to really help, I do wish certain individuals would just follow the example of DMorpheus and stay the hell out of the way. We can't "lean on them." As you can see, that always blows up in your face. Our only option is to use the tools that have been given to us, and follow the painfully slow, grinding Wiki-systems to their conclusion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right; I just haven't admitted it yet. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: [25] Please participate and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, my only real concern is Xenophrenic retroactively re-writing a post that I had already responded to, making my response appear off target. I would like that remedied. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

North, I've edited that discussion to remedy it; please let me know if you still have concerns. I sometimes forget when conversing with an editor that it is not a private conversation, and I see how my addition of text could cause confusion in a reader of your subsequent response. Please accept my apology.

An unrelated observation: See that little note SilkTork left for you at the top of this section about the "Content discussion, resumed" thread? He even-handedly left that same note on the Talk page of every editor to participate in that thread. There is, however, one notable exception. On every other editor's Talk page, he also inserted an example quote from that editor that he found problematic, to illustrate his point. Every editor except you, that is. I don't want to read anything into SilkTork's messages that isn't there, but I think the lack of sample problematic text in his message to you speaks positively about your role in that discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

File:CarrieNewcomer.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded File:CarrieNewcomer.jpg some time ago, you indicated that you had obtained permission from the copyright holder. Some time later, another user tagged it as {{OTRS pending}}. Upon searching the permissions queue, I could not find a relevant letter of permission for this image. Could you please forward (or re-forward if you have already done so) the letter of permission from the copyright holder to permission-en@wikimedia.org? Please note that if the person claiming to be the copyright holder is someone other than the photographer, we would also ask that the letter include an explanation of how that person became the copyright holder (e.g. the copyright was purchased or the photographer was an employee and the photo is a work product). Thank you. --B (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll go to work on that. Somebody circled back and asked me a question and and answered and though it was all settled. I didn't notice that it got tagged and nobody notified me. I obtained permission from the owner for the described license, but will need to get them to write Wikipedia as I only have the written communications between them and myself. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that the "there's a problem" tag was just put up a few minutes before you posted above. That's why I hadn't seen it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, I've removed the "Summer 1974" date from the image. Obviously, the image was taken in 2009.[26] I suspect that you were using the template from another image. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how I screwed that up. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it made me spot another error which I fixed. North8000 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alger Hiss

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alger Hiss. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Did so. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi North8000! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi, Thanks a lot for taking up and completing the review of Thanjavur. The comments were helpful and i would take them as input for my other articles as well. Ssriram mt (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!. What an excellent job you have done! North8000 (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

• Foundation elections: Trustee candidates speak about Board structure, China, gender, global south, endowment

• News and notes: Spanish Wikipedia leaps past one million articles

• In the media: Qworty incident continues

• WikiProject report: Classical Greece and Rome

• Featured content: Up in the air

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)