User talk:Northmeister

Welcome!

Hello, Northmeister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 22:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

It is not considered good manners to flag pages and sections as dubious without also explaining why on the discussion page. I hope to see your reasons for flagging conspiracism and producerism. Both pages are cited to reputable published sources.--Cberlet 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to list Conspiracism for deletion, go ahead. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I listed it with Producerism for deletion. Both seemed linked and both are odd. --Northmeister 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You risk making yourself a target of the anti-LaRouche jihad

By now you are probably beginning to get the smell of how this thing works. If you mention LaRouche in a favorable light, or even express support for an idea that LaRouche supports (it doesn't matter whether LaRouche originated the idea), you will be harrassed and possibly banned from editing. See non-person. I invite you to take a look at my talk page for more background on this. If you like, you may email me for a list of editors who belong to the clique; a conflict with any one of them may lead to the curtailment of your editing priviledges. Wikipedia is not what it seems. --HK 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." -Will Beback 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

photos

actually there seems to be an excess of photos; they do not add to the content of an economic article; are they meant to serve some other purpose? Thanks Hmains 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

They simply to show the faces of those associated with the American System and I don't believe there are too many here. --Northmeister 04:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

oh; ok; thanks Hmains 17:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HMAINS, I actually took your advice after-all after looking at the page, and if it hasn't been vandalized by Will Beback, then you will see what I did. An further input would help out. Thanks. --Northmeister 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not call legitimate editing "vandalism". That term is defined here: Wikipedia:vandalism. As for pictures, there's no reason to make them large. Regular "thumb" size is sufficient, and allows users to make their own choice of image size while reducing the load on the image servers. -Will Beback 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln

The source I know of, with respect to Lincoln and innovation, is this one. I think it's great that more editors are participating on the American System article. --HK 22:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That is what Wikipedia is suppose to be all about. Getting it right and writing it straight. Thanks. --Northmeister 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We need a source which indicates that innovation is a principle of the American System, or something which connects Lincoln's comment to it. -Will Beback 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is above. The other sources are on the American System talk page, I've already provided to you. Do not post on my talk page unless you have a legitimate concern. You keep asking the same question over and over with constant insult to my intelligence, degree, resources, references well provided, cites through-out that article...you've wiki-stalked, you've been accused of this before, you have also harrassed others before and you are seem concerned with a McCarthy-like crusade to silence evidence to the contrary of what you believe. --Northmeister 06:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Caps in edit summaries

I realize you may be upset with a user, but please try to avoid the all caps in edit summaries, it really does look a little ugly in the RC feed. Thanks! Tawker 03:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologise about that. Didn't realize that. Thanks for letting me know. --Northmeister 03:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Edit warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. You have reverted the Chip Berlet more than three times in the last 24 hours and may be temporarily blocked for it. Please use the talk page rather than reverting. -Will Beback 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You should take the same advice as it was you and your compatriots SlimVirgin et. al. who have reverted material by ColonelS on that page before a discussion was even under way. Don't give me your higher than thou B.S. I've had just about enough of that. --Northmeister 15:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for laughing, but you have repeatedly asserted that I don't have enough educution to edit articles about American History, so I find your inability to spell "thou" to be amusing. Thanks for humor break. -Will Beback 00:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a good speller, I admit that. Alway's been my weakness, as it was JFK's and other persons throughout history from common man to historic personage. Whatever the case, I am glad you can laugh as you obviously don't know much about American History. Your present revert is uncalled for on the American System page and the above is indication of your constant harassment. In any case I've corrected the spelling for your continued amusement. --Northmeister 00:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the correct spelling isn't as funny as "thow" was. Regarding American System - I am still looking for a source for the Centennial Expo being an outcome of the American System. Since you are such an expert on American history you should have one available. Please find one before re-adding that material. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You well know I've provided credible evidence from credible sources on this and your continuance to ask for more is uncalled for. Rjensen, an established economist and third party has indicated approval of my additions and inclusion of the Expo. This is another case of your harassment of me which I continue to ask you to stop. You will not, and harassment is a case for blocking a user from editing. --Northmeister 00:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the credible sources that you provided? I can't find them. -Will Beback 01:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the unreverted page (beforefore your recent rampage which I cannot presently respond to) and you will find your sources. Look at the dates and you will understand history and cause and effect events. Look at Ulysses S. Grant who was President then. Look at 1851 when another Expo took place under a different economic system and the comparisons made. Look again once you understand how history works; at the citations I've made. Then think before you revert. The inclusion is consistent, and supported by other editors. Your the only editor who does not support the inclusion. You often cite that it is supported by LaRouche...so what. LaRouche was also against Alito, so was most of my party (Democratic) but does that make being against Alito a LaRouche idea to be burned out of wikipedia? That seems to be your criteria for the witchunt your on. I am not sure of your affiliations, but if you have any humanity in you and support liberty and freedom, you should objectively look at what your doing and then compare it to what McCarthy did long ago. --Northmeister 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What we need is a source that links the Centennial Expo to the American System of economics. None of the sources do that. To draw conclusions about causes and effects is orignial research. Let's just use a historian who says they are linked. -Will Beback 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is the rule at Wikipedia when disputes over editing occur. Since Rjensen, myself, and HK, let alone other editors who have contributed have said keep the Expo, you should not take it out until discussion is over. Therefore, before my block is up, do justice and put it back in. Second, based on that response from you...we can move to your points. Further, restore the Bush after quote and take out citation needed for obvious sentences. You will be on firmer ground if you work in fairness rather than rashness. You have time to do that. When this is done, we will discuss your question on the Centennial. --Northmeister 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not override verifiability. You keep saying you have provided sources, but when pressed you can't name them. It is perfectly fair and proper to remove unsourced assertions. -Will Beback 01:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a fair request above for legitimate reasons. One editor out of the four (three of whom have added material - one who has only deleted material) does not concur on the inclusion. My request stands on justice grounds. It is your choice to honor that request out of courtesy and your choice not too. It is up to you. If honored, we will discuss the Centennial point of yours. --Northmeister 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I will cheerfully restore the Centennial Expo material when I've seen a source that connects it to the American System. It'd be courteous of you to stop adding unsourced material. -Will Beback

Your above assertion is false, the Centennial Expo is well sourced and supported by consensus. I left the decision to you, you have made your choice. That is fine. --Northmeister 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not well-sourced until a source connects it to the American System. Otherwise we could put in every event between 1824 and 2006 and claim it has some connection to the American System. Please prove me wrong by finding such a source. I will gladly admit I am wrong when you've done that. -Will Beback 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

More than willing to discuss this with you if you honor my request. Until then...let it be. You've made your choice, and I can't respond presently to what you do on that page. So be it. --Northmeister 01:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So you won't provide a source, or even discuss the matter, unless I first put your unsourced material back? That sounds like some weird kind of blackmail. I'm not sure why you "can't respond" to a courteous, albeit repeated, request for a source. Since you've restored the material many times without providing a source, I'm not sure what restoring it again will do. -Will Beback 03:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for violating WP:3RR. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Which committee blocked me and where is the evidence that I reverted against the rule of not applying to vandalistic reversions by others? --Northmeister 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read the 3RR rule and you are right, my bad. I accept your block as I was in the wrong, thanks for your dedication. --Northmeister 00:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

North, man, work with me on the LaRouche mediation. please stop trying to defend yourself and assert your position to everything everyone says in the the mediation space. one position statement, one rebuttal, no crosstalk. ok? Ted 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. But if you see what I responded to, you will see why I responded in the manner I did. The issue of Arbcom came up, it is often used. The issue of PRA came up, and I had to respond to it. I think you grasp the problems I am having. I've tried to compromise with these people and work with them at points, but it is impossible. Thanks for clearity. I have but one question. Am I not to respond to the points made? If not, then I will not, I am unsure? --Northmeister 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

one of the things I'm trying to do is wean everyone away from making responses - that just creates a huge quagmire. you don't need to defend yourself or defend your position or defend your honor. all you have to do is (a) make clear statements about what you think, (b) cite references that supprot what you think (as opposed to those that chop down what other people think), and (c) listen carefully to what other people say. if they say things that offend or insult you, or that you think are just plain wrong... no matter. the personal stuff is not a reflection on you, but on the relationship you have with this person; the incorrect stuff can be dealt with in the process of citation. never try to change people, it will never work; aim to change relationships. Ted 17:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearity. That is good advice. I appreciate your care. --Northmeister 17:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure.  :-) I've gone and made a suggestion on the LaRouche site—read it, and sign at the bottom if you agree. If you do, I think I can convince the other editors to let you put in your edits, but you really have to make an effort to keep in line with the requests I've made. I know you might find them difficult, but you're fighting uphill against an ArbCom ruling; you can always drop me a line if you need help figuring out what's appropriate and what's inappropriate. Ted 18:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have agreed to your suggestion and gave my statement on that page. I really appreciate your dedication and effort here. Your help now and offered help in the future is accepted with much gratitude. Thank You. --Northmeister 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Reform Party of the United States of America edit protection

I requested that the Reform Party article be protected or semi-protected. You can see the request here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection You might also want to add your name to the request as well. - DNewhall

I concur with you. This user is anonymous and continues to add material without discussion. I've added my signature to the request. --Northmeister 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Syllogism

1. Calling a non-vandalising edit vandalism is unacceptable, and doing so in your edit summary doubly so. The same for the (admittedly obscure) "violation of Wikipedia".
2. Accusing User:SlimVirgin of acting out of a desire for revenge rather than honestly is a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
3. You are not helping; my discussion with User:Twrigley has been amicable, and I hope that we can work together to improve the article. By bulling in, making accusations, and reverting the page, you're simply endangering that. I suggest that you calm down, perhaps by reducing your coffee intake. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Making statements without warrant is a violation of Good Faith as well. You must have full knowledge of what SlimVirgin was engaged in before you comment. She refused mediation, Ted was the mediator, she retaliated on an article she had no prior engagement with. That is fact. Point number 3 above is simply not true. You started editing after SlimVirgin reverted an entire page of work (per above) and refuse to work with Twrigley on his unreverted page. You have no prior interest in this article. You came only after SlimVirgin reverted. You can be seen either as a Sockpuppet of SlimVirgin or as a collaborator of herself by your actions. If that is not true, assuming good faith, then why the hostility and false accusations above? Seems like SlimVirgin techniques to me. --Northmeister 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop harassing SlimVirgin about this [1]. Even if she is "retaliating" (and I don't think she is), you are doing the same thing, which is not acceptable. Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sean, I am trying to defend someone who is being 'harassed' because he tried to help a situation through mediation, which you are well aware of because of the page it involved. The points I make above are reasonable with the conclusions I came to. It is bad manners to revert an entire page to make some sort of point or to 'harass' an editor. You write you don't think she is doing this. Sure, why is that? Look at when she did this (after the mediation) and the lack of prior committment to that page and ask yourself objectively what went on. I don't want editors of any stripe harassed. Now, this editor has decided to leave. Do you really want Wikipedia to be like this? I may leave myself if this continues, but not before I make my case with all this evidence to the Wikimedia Board, not Arbitration (because of the decisions made in the past despite evidence overload). You know what has happened here to this editor, as an administrator, I officially request that you block SlimVirgin for violating Good Faith among other actions when she did this or look into the actions. --Northmeister 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to block someone for disputing the content of an article and discussing it.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think this was done in 'good faith' by reverting an entire article of 'days' of work in collaboration with other editors and after the fact of mediation? --Northmeister 04:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my reply. Regards, --Ancheta Wis 10:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read your reply and thank you kindly. --Northmeister 15:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Results of Abuse

As a result of SlimVirgin's reversion of Twrigley's days of work at the syllogism page, he is now leaving. I did my best to defend him against this abuse. I give him my best wishes. I do hope all who read this and the reasons behind it, will be enlightened to what is happening to wikipedia because of the few who made it harder on the rest of us. --Northmeister 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gatekeeper Afd

Hi Northmeister, if you believe that User:Jersey Devil is violating Wikipedia policy somehow through his posting on the deletion debate, I suggest you cite the relevant policy rather than continuing to assert "dishonorable" conduct, "harassment," and "surveilance." Regarding the last of the three, I'm afraid you're in for a tough fight if you don't want your or other's actions on Wikipedia reviewed, as that is kind of the nature of the project . . . I am not meaning to be harsh on you in any way, but from my experience here, I don't see how Jersey's comment is inappropriate. Also, please see WP:3RR. Have a good one. - Jersyko·talk 05:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I stated the policy in my latest comment. Why people feel they have to post such stuff, rather than reasonable debate about the merits of an article is beyond me. If he would of posted without 'voter stacking' and in a civil manner it would of been better and less of a harassment issue and personal attack. It is sad that such individuals (who already commented) seem inclined to simply disrupt a vote to make a point. There are a small number that do this again and again here. It makes wikipedia an unpleasant place to be. See what happened to Ted above. --Northmeister 05:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern. You're absolutely right that some editors on Wikipedia need to remember to tone things down a bit, especially when their emotions seem to take control at times. I hope you are able to continue editing here despite the few bad apples, I think you'll find that there are a lot of really great editors who are dedicated to creating something great here, too. Cheers. - Jersyko·talk 05:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reported your violation of the 3rr. (See bottom of page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR). See "I've been blocked under 3RR! What do I do?" at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule if you dispute it.--Jersey Devil 05:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see this. I have responded to your continuing harassment, now calling me a Larouche person or someone accused as such by 'others'? Do you mean a small group of others? Do you mean falsely accused? What was the point of bringing that up? --Northmeister 06:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

3rr block on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics)

I've blocked you [2] for WP:3RR on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics). JD posted a perfectly short note of what she perceived as vote stacking; I can see no reason for removing it under NPA. Discuss this here if you wish to William M. Connolley 11:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)