User talk:North8000

Archive 1

Archive N

What is this page? Why is this on wikipedia? This is not an encyclopedia page! Why does none of this make sense? I thought Wikipedia had strict standards about pages? Can I just start making pages about anything now? I don't think that's a good idea. This page should not be on Wikipedia.

What's here

For folks who like to know about North8000, I have left everything up here from day one. Three exceptions are:

• exchanges arising from my technical blunders which I archived because they tend to be lengthy and boring.
• anything that was not really written to me (broadcast and pasted in spam items) which are simply deleted.
• anything related to one particular user I archived separately, for reasons which are apparent in the archive

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A nod your way

You ask: "what article is perfect and complete on day 1"? At issue primarily is not the quality of your article but the fundamental nature of it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating a document that lists BSA's policies, your interpretations of what you think those policies mean, and your experience about how those policies are generally enforced. That's a great Scouting webpage, blogpost, or other thing.

But the Wikipedia trick is, as you know, there's a huge gulf between "what I personally believe" and "what a NPOV, Verifiable Encyclopedia article should say". Your article is mostly "The BSA's Policy statements, the BSA's explanatory statements and listed points of view, and one person's comments on the matter". In essence, you cut out the controversy, creating a page that is, in essence, belongs on BSA's server far more than it belongs on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's model is _not_ the only out there. I think the "next" wikipedia will somehow involve collaborative _opinion_ pieces in addition to just NPOV encyclopedia articles.

You say: "And while there are statements like "Gender restrictions for youth membership in Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting programs are fully enforced" that are currently unsupported, I would think that such a statement is uncontested."

It is uncontested, that's why I picked that one, rather than a controversial one, of which their are many examples also. But I picked it because that's just a great example of something that isn't an encyclopedia-- they were generally enforced when I was a scout, I've never heard of that policy not being enforce, therefore it must be fully enforced, right?

The conclusion probably is a correct one, but an encyclopedia article has a higher standard. Are there any statistics backing up which policies are more fully enforced than others? Has an independent, reliable, secondary source ever said that?

If that was the only one, it wouldn't be a big deal-- but there's lots of that in the article.

As far as gay, here is the truth of it: there are no statistics on how many gays leave BSA due to the membership policy. Neither of us truly know whether most openly gay BSA members are welcomed at the troop level, how many are considered at some point for expulsion but ultimately retained, how many are informally discouraged to leave, or how many are expelled but never speak out about it.

My guess is that many are welcomed by liberal-area troops under an informal "don't make a big deal about it and we won't either" agreement. My guess is that if the decision is made by conservative troops, councils, or BSA national, then unless you've repented of your gay ways, you wind up leaving BSA one way or another-- maybe a private talking to, maybe a formal expulsion. BSA National wants to gloss over the bad PR that comes with discriminating against kids, but they want to still be able to. That's my guess.

Your guess seems to be: Troops, liberal and conservative, are welcoming to gays so long as they don't make a big fuss over it. BSA National almost always lets gay scouts stay, unless the scout has been running a big campaign out of it and is actively trying to corrupt others. (I'm guessing about your guess)

But our guess don't make it into the article-- neither mine nor yours.

Here is all we know:

• The BSA's policy for more than a decade officially prohibited all homosexuals from registering.
• Over the course of many many years, the BSA did, in fact, expel homosexual scouts.
• The BSA's website currently makes the following statements: (all those quotes).

--Alecmconroy (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the policies article

North, the deletion of your article was pretty well a forgone conclusion from the beginning. However, I hope you see this as a learning experience and now work constructively to improve Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. The consensus is clear that that article fits wikipedia guidelines and is the article we should have. I think you need to learn more about how wikipedia works. It is not easy and it is certainly more difficult than when I started several years ago. The folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting are here to help. You only have to ask. Best wishes. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us keep the discussion here, so it is in one place. Your talk page is on my watch list, so I see your edits here. I have therefore moved the following from my talk page and replied here: --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I think that the "controversies" article should exist, albeit with much rework so that it covers it's stated subject. I also think that coverage of noteworthy (= in controversial areas)BSA policies needs to exist somewhere, and not primarily or solely in a "criticism of" type article. Since most documented enforcement activities are documented because there was a controversy) (e.g. a court case) I guess that the latter could have a home in the "controversies" article. However I don't think that the folks behind the "controversies" article would allow such coverage to exist, identified as such. Using the Colbert line, I think they would say that the facts have a BSA bias.

the court cases are well covered in the "controversies" article and in their own articles. As to "facts", wikipedia is not about facts. We just report what others say. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely, think that the "controversies" article is a real mess, albeit with lots of good material in it. IMHO even the coverage of court cases is very spotty and confusing and blended with / obfuscated by other material. Somebody took down the FAR template and so practically nobody would even know it's under FAR or how to comment.

I'm trying to figure out what you meant by saying that Wikipedia doesn't cover facts, just what others say. Of course I understand that it covers sourced material, but I would think that the end result is that it covers factual material. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know the motivation of the folks that beat this out of existence. Whether they purely want Wikipedia standards enforced, whether they sincerely think that such an article would inherently be badly biased, whether they knowingly want to confine coverage to articles with an anti-BSA bias or... My first guess is that they are mostly people who sincerely arrived at a very negative mis-impression of BSA in these areas, and sincerely, feel that it is "right" to make sure that the only type of coverage that occurs of this topic is of the type in a "criticism of" type article.

You say "they are mostly people who sincerely arrived at a very negative mis-impression of BSA in these areas". I think you are quite wrong. Many deletion votes came from active BSA leaders and other wikipedians like myself who are are active in the Scouting Wikiproject. That project seeks to give the best coverage of Scouting in the wikipedia way. We did not see your article as helping that goal, as it was an unhelpful fork of an article that is a FA yet one that is difficult to maintain. BTW, when I looked yesterday, the FA review of the "controversies" article, which was requested by the then coordinator of the Scouting Project, not by a critic of it, had attracted no comment. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. As an aside, you'll note was what I said is "I really don't know" and that that was just my first guess. My guess was from trying to interpret what I was reading, mostly from folks other than yourself, with some being from overseas. And I was thinking that gay issues are so non-existent in everyday scouting that even 90% of the folks in Scouting don't understand the gay/BSA situation, and that so it would be absolutely hopeless for someone from overseas to understand the situation, and so easy to gain a misunderstanding, which seemed evident in their choice of words, like they were doing battle with evil. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm from Australia, but I have followed the 3Gs (God, Gays and Girls) for 20 years or so. The internet is amazing. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. We'll see where this goes. North8000 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was brought into this and it appears that it was a total waste of time. I'm not sure, but I think that I will drop out of any further effort in Wikipedia in this area. Thanks again for the note. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you will not drop out, but develop to be a valuable member of the Scouting Project. Good luck, anyway. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. If I found a place to contribute that didn't involve a huge amount of unpleasant arm wrestling, I think I'd still be happy to do it. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

BSA policies, would love to chat more

North... thanks for your work on the policies. Sorry it got deleted. I'd love to continue chatting with you. My email address is matt@interstateq.com (it is already so publicly available I really don't care about it being listed here, lol). Hit me up sometime. Matt (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, thanks for the message. And doubly so from someone where we saw things a bit differently. Bit burned out on this at the moment but would be more than happy to talk.

North8000 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for your balanced comment at WT:NOR. It's always helpful to have editors keeping straightforward good sense in the conversation, so that contentious discussions don't degenerate into two extreme positions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My Pleasure. North8000 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re your note

Thank you for your message. I'll respond fully on my talk page in a short while (just leaving work). EyeSerene^talk 14:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Detailed response at my talk page. Best, EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Article userfied at User:North8000/Sandbox. I've removed the categories and templates because they're for mainspace use only, and tagged the article so other editors know it's a work in progress (though you can remove that tag if you want to). The picture license is fine for userspace so I haven't touched that (non-free images can only be used in mainspace, but that doesn't apply here). All the best with the article's further development. EyeSerene^talk 23:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Also deleted User:North8000/TD BU per your request. EyeSerene^talk 23:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More friendly comments for you (unlike much of the above )

I have left some more comments for you over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) (very recently). I also reveiwed the horribly acrimonious AfD linked above (not that you were necessarily the worst offender there, but ho hum...). It might also be useful for you to look at WP:HEY. Inclusion is more about sourcing—correction all about sourcing, especially if the subject is still alive. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 22:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC) ("above" = post in archives N)

WT:NOR

Hi. Were you directing your WT:NOR comment towards me or to someone else? One reason I ask is because of the indentation of your comment which might mean that you are responding to someone else's comment above mine. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I just indented on "autopilot" without thinking. I meant it as a general inquiry for anybody to answer. Sorry North8000 (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYN - working to get past the circular arguments of some of the pro-status-quo folks

Hi North 8000, I just had some ideas about how we might be able to get past this 'log-jam that seems to be at the WP:NOR talk page. Please take a gander at my talk page at: User_talk:Scottperry#WT:NOR if you want, and let me know what you think there.
Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi North8000, Thanks for your input over at my talk page. I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of fixing a few minor typos in your entry over there. If you get a chance, could you please make sure I did this correctly? Scott P. (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:NOR - examples of abuse of policies

Hi. It might help get attention for your ideas if you provided links to some diffs that are examples of "...current widespread abuse of them by deletionists and POV pushers." Just a suggestion.

If you come up with any and you would like my opinion here before you present them, I'd be willing to do that. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bob,

Thanks for the message. Of course what you say is exactly what needs to be done. It is complex but it needs to be done. First, with with WP:NOR's topic being a subset(special case) of WP:Ver, one needs to address both at once on these. The NEW Wikipedia has enabled social misfits to rule over the productive people who actually create / contribute. There is one who has basically become a Wikipedia stalker of me (who is reading this) and so it will light quite a conflagaration if/when I start showing the examples that I know most thoroughly & best. I'm not out to do battle with that person, I'm out to fix the oversights in the policies that are enabling such misbehavior.

So, for now, if I move much further down on the list where my stalker was not involved, I might point you to Boy Scouts of America Membership Controversies. That article is a 5 year unstable POV mess where the POV pushers have abused WP policies to keep factual material out and basically keep it at being a POV witchhunt. I gave up on it and left, you can see my summary at the end of the discussion section. While I couched my summary as it's violation of WP policies, it is those very policies which have enabled those violations. This is an example of the second group (POV pushers) rather than the first group (social misfits / deletionists)

A second one (which is a blatant unstable multi-year imess but a slightly different story) is "British Isles" where the article is merely a boxing ring for opponents to do battle....they're not really even fighting about content, the article is merely a place to throw punches. And WP policies and mechanisms have been misused as methods of warfare rather that developing article content. On that one I was just an observer and an occasional (unsuccessful) attempted peacemaker.

Unfortunately my two examples above are slightly off the track of the biggest problem. But in both cases the WP policies have been gamed to create outcomes contrary to their goal & intent.

Thanks again

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't quite what I was suggesting when I mentioned "links to some diffs". I'll try to show you what I meant by "links to some diffs".

Off hand I can't recall an example of abuse but I do remember coming across some old editing which is a somewhat humorous example of an editor deleting something because the editor didn't understand the NOR policy. Here's the diff. The editor deleted material that came from a published source because it was original research. The discussion can be found here. Note at the end of the discussion, an editor is defending the material against removal by saying that the published article is not original research because it contains sources. So there is an editor deleting material, an editor defending the material against deletion, and both editors don't understand the NOR policy. (Fortunately there is another editor there, actually an administrator, who understands the NOR policy.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC discussion involving WP:SYNTH

There is a discussion about the article North American Union concerning the rule on unpublished synthesis, which has been on rfc for nearly a week with no results. Given your discussion of that rule I was hoping you could offer an outside opinion on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Links

Hope it's okay, I linked the usernames on your two user pages. Keep up the good work on Scout articles! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't understand what you mean by linking user pages, but thanks North8000 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand now. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

James G. Howes will be DYK lead

James G. Howes is scheduled to be the lead DYK article, with photo, at 8pm Eastern US time, 1am 22 Jun UTC. Let's give it lots of views! Way to go User:JGHowes!! See current version of Template:Did_you_know/Queue and Template:Did you know/Queue/3 for more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Snowrocky

What type of dog is Snowrocky and where was this taken? Just curious and since it's PD we can move it to Commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rlevse. 3/4 Malamute, 1/4 Siberian Husky, and it was taken behind my house. (have a large wooded lot). Adopted, "Rocky" was the name he came with. Prior to that malamutes have been in our family for a long time. I have other images pulling a sled and out in the woods and frozen lakes in Northern Minnesota and Northern Ontario on winter camping trips. I put it up when I was experimenting trying to learn Wikipedia images and then decided to throw it on my user page. I haven't learned what PD and Commons are yet, but feel free to do whatever you wish with it. If you feel like it, let me know what happened with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So I will put the loc as Minnesota. PD is "public domain" which means you let anyone do what they want for free. CC variations and GFDL preserve some rights but are still "free" licenses meaning anyone can use them for free. Basically they mean you get credit for the photo. Commons is a wiki for media, mostly photos, that lets all WMF wiki projects use the photo without uploading to each separate wiki. Use the name as it is on commons and the photo will "show through" to the wiki you want to use the photo. See File:WikiProject Scouting fleur-de-lis dark.svg which below the image has a link and note about its home wiki being Commons. See File:Scouting 'round the World 1977 edition.jpg which is not on Commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!North8000 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Scouting barnstar

The Scouting Barnstar

-For superior work in area of Scouting articles, especially the BSA controversies and high adventure articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I try. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page of any Scouting article, look at the Scouting Project tag. In the upper right-hand corner is a link to the Scouting Portal. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy North8000's Day!

User:North8000 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as North8000's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear North8000! Peace, Rlevse 00:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I am honored! I'll continue to the best that I can. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic Trails Award

New article and DYK if you care to help improve. I wanted to get it up on July 4th! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Pollard (Scouting)

New article and DYK if you care to help improve. Up on July 6th, anniversary of the court ruling! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

2A mediation

I would welcome your help mediating a solution to the impasse at the 2A page. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be honored and will do it. I'm mostly out of commission today so it would be late tonight or tomorrow before you see anything. Should we have this same exchange on the 2A talk page? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Effective mediation of disagreements is an art form. I have failed to find a path towards resolution of this dispute so, obviously, I am not the best person to ask as to how exactly to do this. You might check with the mediation cabal for their ideas. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea.North8000 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding on your little têtê à têtê. I understand fully how the word "cabal" operates in this context, but not the word "mediation". Mediation means two parties working with a third to resolve an issue. Given that I have declined (for obvious reasons) to be involved in this charade, its hard to see how it can still be called "mediation". --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, not sure what you meant by charade, but in the areas where I was involved in the 2A discussion, you should note that me and Salty were opponents.North8000 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that you turned down mediation. North8000 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the reasons you have declined mediation are not obvious. There is a chance that intermediatation might help find some middle ground that could be mutually agreeable. We can't know unless we try. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• BE IN NO DOUBT! I have turned down the Mediation Cabal mediation offer. Some reasons I have given (either directly or by interpreting my comments)

• The Mediation cabal is not an official mediation path
• The very word Cabal in the title makes me suspicious of its motives
• The mediator that came forward has zero edit history
• The issue I have outstanding at the WP:NPOV has not yet had a proper hearing.

So there. --Hauskalainen (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that I could not see where you turned down mediation in the 2A talk page. Where was it? But either way, you've now made it clear here. BTW I have no relation to the mediation cabal. Finally, I have not edited the article, but have edited about a dozen times on the talk page. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone prefers otherwise, I'll copy this discussion to the 2A talk page and continue it there. I think that it is relevant to the 2A discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I decided not to, and to put this idea on hold for the time being. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edward L. Rowan

New article on a Scouter, psychiatrist, and author. Very interesting. Pls help improve. Up for DYK too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Giving you a heads up that I have undone your removal of the POV tag from the article. Discuss issues on the talk page and remove the tag only when clear consensus has been established. From a cursory glance, it appears the lead is written in a decidedly "pro gun" POV. Perhaps you could rewrite the lead more neutrally, and discuss the Supreme court cases in a separate section later in the article. N419BH 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was just one of many who removed it. IMHO Supreme Court determinations are the "gorilla in the living" room on the subject and noting what they have defined is suitable for the lead. If not them, then what is more suitable? The "dispute" is one person who doesn't want them covered. Some variant of the Colbert quote comes to mind: "Reality has a pro-2A rights bias" :-) Again, thanks for the note. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Supreme Court cases should most certainly be covered, but not in the lead, and without adding individual analysis. The lead should simply give a brief overview of the topic. Something along the lines of what it is (Second Amendment), what it does (the right to keep and bear arms), and a statement to the fact that the amendment is controversial. I'll take a look at it and probably rewrite the lead myself. The issue you might run into with the Supreme Court cases is it is quite easy to editorialize the rulings without intending to. I recommend using lots of sources and quoting them as much as possible. Otherwise the material may be challenged as "unsourced speculation" and removed. Good luck! N419BH 18:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I really meant / intended is that meaning should be briefly explained. That said, one thing leads to another. The only definitive meanings are where the Supreme Court has ruled. So then the only safe thing to say is what they said, and that THEY said it. I'm trying to build a section from which to summarize that. Trying to source it from rock solid objective summaries of just the rulings. The one I found by the Cornell School of Law seems to be that. Hoping to find 1 or 2 more that are that good/objective/reliable. BTW, you're not going to be able to figure out what's really going at the the 2A site unless you take a really close thorough look. Sort of the opposite of what it appears at first glance. Thanks again for the note. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote something there. Happy to do it, as I think it's clearly the right thing. North8000 (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Buttons

Someone is really good at pushing your buttons, isn't he? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that that is his objective but it certainly is exasperating to be wasting all of this time responding to statements that even he knows are nonsense. My first few weeks I tried to have sincere discussions with him on the hope that such was his intent, which turned out to not be the case. It's an odd mix because he is an intelligent person. I sure that some of it is to try to POV the article, I think that much of it is written just to leave an impression for someone who only has time to give it a superficial look, such as by a decider from a noticeboard etc. Claiming to be following the rules while actually breaking them etc. How do you have an intelligent conversation with someone who is doing that? (rhetorical question) But when I let it show it's always a deliberate choice to try to move towards eventually resolving the situation.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

90% of all statistics are bullshit

North... Some friendly advice... I have noticed that whenever you have a concern about a Policy or Guideline, you inevitably use the statistic "90% of Wikipedia" in raising your concern. Please, stop doing this. Spouting meaningless statistics and percentages actually harms your arguments and makes you look like a crank. Just say "a lot of articles" or "too many articles" or something more generalized. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I use in in the obvious context of being a rough personal guess, and I think that it is clearly taken that way and so I would not agree with your negative characterization of it and and "missive" tone. But I think that it is nevertheless good advice and thank you for it and will keep it in mind.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

libertarianism

hi, thx for your input! i tried earlier to word it better, but was met with resistance.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#the_lede_will_change_on_august_23rd

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#Is_this_page_about_the_philosophy_Libertarian.2C_or_the_political_use_of_the_term_Libertaire.3F

Darkstar1st (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to do it. I haven't gotten in that deep yet, but a few things were clear pretty quickly. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, a friendly comment; ignore if you wish. Check the 'Quotes and Excerpts' section in Herbert Read. (for 'libertarian socialism'.) Also, your argument that l.s., by "plain English", is a form of Socialism, is faulty. By that argument, dry ice is a form of ice. Come to my talk page if you are interested in discussing language! N6n (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do that North8000 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW dry ice is a type of ice, and, given a choice, more likely to go into an "ice' article than a "dry" article. :-) North8000 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, 'dry ice' is 'ice' only by a looong stretch of the definition of 'ice'. (which is valid, however.) My point was that language does not say it conclusively that "in two words, if the first is sort of an adjective, (i) it is an adjective, and (ii) not vice-versa (i.e., second is not an adjective of the first)".

Also, check the reply to your post on my talk page. (Check the link in it, the author there uses "libertarian anarchists", but it is clear that he/she is talking about libertarianism.) N6n (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to say it here: Thanks! North8000 (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Winter and spring holiday in place of Christmas and Easter

First, you added something to a list sourced from a book, and I'm pretty sure from your comments it isn't sourced from a book. Secondly, it's simply your own opinion at the moment - so please find a source for it being a typical example that belongs in that section. Thanks. Note that you have said 'in place', so something like Birmingham's 'Winterval' doesn't count, as it didn't replace Christmas. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here; my first involvement was restoring the deletion. But I think tagging it is fine; it will be easy to source. It is so pervasive that it will be easy to source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. But I've taken this to WP:RSN here. You need a source saying it's pervasive (and it needs to mention Easter as well). Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Pervasive" is the term I used in talk; it's not in the article. I think that we have this conversation going on in 3 1/2 places. Should we consolidate it somewhere? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

At RSN. You are adding sources that don't even use the word winter, sources that aren't discussing the use of language, etc. Do you actually have a reliable source that says is an example "of language commonly criticized as "politically correct" - because that's what you need. We, as editors, can't decide what is common, typical, noteworthy, etc. If you don't have such a source, please remove your new sources, and certainly remove any that don't actually talk about language and the use of "Winter holiday" or "Winter program" in place of Christmas or Christmas program. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that we're taling in too many different places, not that I don't enjoy having a conversation here. But to keep it simple, I'll respond at RSN. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

(this is just copy of what I wrote at RSN) I was just pointing out that this statement has the same sourcing (good or bad) that the others (which nobody is questioning) do, plus much more. Doug, I've spent too much time on this one line already, even on the principle of it. I'll change the wording to further reduce the "issue",and then let me know on my talk page where you prefer to go with this or just do what you want to do with it. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism become a Disambiguation page

I'm beginning to think that your suggestion that the Libertarianism page become a Disambiguation page is our best hope for resolving the on-going conflict in that page. Especially given that that some editors (we all know who) have consistently refused to agree to any compromise, whatsoever. If the Wikipaedian powers-that-be get fed-up with the endless bickering in that page and decide to force a solution upon us, I would support your proposal for resolving this ridiculous situation :-) BlueRobe (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that it would be a good compromise. Now if some others would also compromise as you are..... Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The objections to Rand are beyond ridiculous. It simply isn't worth spending an entire day arguing against blatantly bad faith editors just to get a couple of meaningless sentences. I'm running with your idea - I'm going to create a Libertarianism page of my own. BlueRobe (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that I understand North8000 (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

An alternative Libertarianism article, with a slightly different label for the article that would appear on the disambiguation page. ANYTHING is better than the dire shambles that Libertarianism is in, and I really can't be bothered spending countless hours/day/weeks trying to reason with people who have absolutely no intention of being the least bit reasonable. BlueRobe (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe -- Please see WP:POVFORK. You should not create a separate article so that you can ignore the consensus at Libertarianism. You should work with other editors at Libertarianism, and try to improve that article, and fix any problems you find with it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC).

Stalker. BlueRobe (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, I don't think that your idea would fly and thus would not be a way to fix the mess. I have hope for the main article, (and hope that you stay involved) especially since I don't see any underlying differences driving the battle. Looks more like a Hatfields and McCoys situation. As an alternative, despite the ill-chosen and oxymoron name, the "Right Libertarian" article is about the commonly practiced forms, and you could improve that article. And Jrtayloriv there is certainly no "consensus" at that mess of an article and related 5 years of warfare. There was a recent RFC covering 1% of the "issues", and even on that both "sides" are ignoring and misinterpreting what the closer said. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I truly admire your determination to work through the issues to achieve a productive and positive outcome. I have long since given up hope in finding good faith on their part. After weeks of watching their tactics, it is clear to me that, far from working towards improving Wikipaedia Libertarianism article with consensus achieved through compromise, they are determined to block any and every improvement we have suggested. They haven't given an inch of compromise on a single issue! They have no interest in improving the Wikipaedia article. For them, this is an exercise in blatant sabotage. The only real question is whether they are motivated by petty spite or they're simply trying to censor information about Libertarianism away from curious readers because of some political agenda.

We both know that the current Libertarianism page is a disgusting misleading shambles that is rife with misinformation (it's official grading has dropped so low that it no longer appears). And it's just getting worse - their latest endeavour is to include content about the Workers Solidarity Movement, based on the evidence that some clueless insignificant knob used the term "Libertarian" in a book to describe a movement that is obviously an Anarchist movement. BlueRobe (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

Please stop making accusations of Wikilawyering. That's not what's going on and such accusations do not help, they are only disruptive. Yworo (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC):

After 5 years of warfare, that article is a mess, and the warfare continues. It can't get any worse or more "disrupted" than it already is. And many of the main participants are seeking to denigrate or have dismissed everything that their "opponents" say on the TALK page simply for lack of sourcing on the TALK page; without even disputing or discussing what was said. On the flip side, I don't see any underlying disputes behind the warfare, it's more of a Hatfields and McCoys situation, which makes the situation much more promising than some of the other "eternal warfare" articles. Otherwise I would have given up and left the article long ago. And so I think that if they would start discussing instead of warfare via wiki-lawyering there would be progress. All of my "wiki-lawyering" comments are in statements along the lines of "why don't you discuss instead of wiki-lawyering" and I consider such to be a constructive effort.North8000 (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not warfare. It's the simple requiring of following Wikipedia sourcing requirements. Yworo (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To take one narrow example, I consider people denigrating and dismissing what people say on a TALK page solely based on non- fulfillment of a non-existent requirement for citations for talk pages to be both warfare and misfired Wiki-lawyering. So we may need to agree to disagree on that one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article talk page, you will see there have been virtual reams of discussion that went nowhere. If sources were ever produced, they turned out to not be reliable or to have been originally interpreted. In many cases, sources were never produced. That's what is meant by "soapboxing", editors expressing their opinions without any real sourcing to back them up. It leads to hours of wasted time, and the correct solution is to bring the sources to the discussion along with the opinions, so there is some basis for determining whether time is being well spent. This requiring of sources on the talk page happens on all contentious articles where soapboxing is a problem. It is not unreasonable and it is consensus driven; therefore there doesn't have to be a rule for it. Most editors know that only sourced material matters, and not their own opinions, and have no problem with this requirement unless they are actually POV warriors. Please think about how your reaction to this consensus requirement makes you appear. Yworo (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the whole middle ground where things really happen. Sourcing is intertwined with discussions, not used as a way to denigrate other people's points without even discussing them. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, you need to take an emotional step back. It's only your opinion that requiring sources is being used to denigrate people. It's not, it being used to denigrate unsourced opinions, which is quite different. Only to the extent that the people overidentify with their own opinions will this cause them to feel offended. In such a case, they may be too emotionally involved with the subject to be objective about improving the article. Yworo (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I corrected a typo which may have clouded what I said on this. What I said/ meant was "used as a way to denigrate other people's POINTS without even discussing them.denigrating peoples, I was not discussing denigrating PEOPLE. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That didn't really change much. Yworo's point still stands. The problem is not with the people who are asking for reliable sources, but with the people who are incapable of presenting sources or Wikipedia policy to support their suggested changes. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I made my point above, including my assessment of what has been happening. Both of you keep 1/2 changing the topic away from what I brought up. If you think that it might help to discuss this further, then I would like to discuss this further. If you are writing this to score hits in the overall war at that article, I am not in that war, and don't want to do that. If that is the case, then I would like to end this as agreeing to disagree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, you've been spamming WP:Warnings on the User pages of everyone who disagrees with you on Talk:Libertarianism. You're nowhere near as bad as some of the other regulars in that talk page, but you are clearly trigger-happy when it comes to citing WP:policy and using Wiki-litigation as a means to force those who challenge your views to back-down. BlueRobe (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your opinion, BlueRobe. Yworo (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

in your face mr soapboxer!

at last the mighty and holy North8000 has come crashing to earth after singeing the wax on his wingsuit. to date, you have been one of the most polite, intelligent, and agreeable editor to support bringing the article into line with wp weight/primary topic rules. after many verbose pleasantries, and several valid points, we can now all see it was only a smokescreen, and your true intent was to soapbox. it appears these attacks are the last bastion of hope used by your accusers when no intelligent argument can be made to the reason you presented, i am starting a sockpuppet investigation, as you most certainly have exposed yourself as the one person plaguing wp to disrupt the article since 2006. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, I am completely baffled by this, I don't know where you are coming from or what your complaint is, and you are one of the writers that I most often agree with. Can you explain? North8000 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

apologies, i was trying to be as obscure as the charges leveled, the absurdity of you being accused sent me into a fit of incoherent babble, as it seemed the only rational response. is so frustrating making valid points only to have the debate ended and instead of proved wrong, you were simply accused. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Darkstar1st was being sarcastic. He's actually mocking those who have offered resistance to your proposal on the Libertarianism page. BigK HeX (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was a little slow on the uptake. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

i am enjoying someone else getting the accusations for awhile. i felt like i had little or no support for most of the last 6 months here, even bluerobe reverted an edit of mine agreeing with the editor who eventually got him banned. why we cant have a separate page for each of the 3 terms in the dictionary is where i get off, it's been fun, but it is clear to me there are far more who wish to suppress the meaning of the term as is understood and practiced by the most people today, than there are of us, or are of just me. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR has started a very methodical process to arrive at common tenets (the overviewdraft2 subpage) As long as the effort doesn't die of it's own weight, I have high hopes that methodical = true answer. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably better if we continue here...

...rather than in the middle of an RFC ;-)

I understand what you're saying with respect to expert voices, but I'm very much of the view that articles can (and generally should) be written by non-experts. The danger with experts, unless they're also expert encyclopaedists, is that their own biases get inserted into the article (obviously, that's a danger with non-experts, too, but it's easier to work round if we (non-experts) follow sources).

If we follow tertiary sources to see what the article should be covering, then secondary sources to backup what the article is covering, then we should be fine. Once we start discussing the subject among ourselves there's a danger that we deviate from that.

Part of the reason I've been reluctant to edit the article is that I'm damn certain I'm biased ;-) Left to my own devices the article probably would become a piece of propaganda for left-libertarianism (well, I'd like to think that it wouldn't, but I'm realistic...) Recently I've been working on this article in my sandbox. Without wanting to blow my own trumpet, I'm the ideal editor to write about this - because I know nothing about the subject. (Obviously, most editors would be "the ideal editor" with this topic...) Where subject-matter experts would be invaluable is in reviewing - if I ever felt that the article was good enough to become a good article or featured article I'd want someone with a good knowledge of African cinema to review it. So... I'm not dismissing experts (or well-informed amateurs) but I am sceptical of their ability to write as neutrally as we'd want.

For that reason I don't think we should be deciding what the key tenets are: even if it could be achieved by considering the tenets held by each major form, it would still be our own WP:SYNTH. It's far better to look at tertiary sources for guidance and secondary sources that provide an overview.

Does that make sense? I sometimes think I contradict myself at times, and I'm aware that I'm simultaneously saying experts are good and bad, and I'm not necessarily saying either, just to confuse things... it's more how I think we should handle editing, rather than a comment on experts. TFOWR 16:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're so modest. I tend to think in the reverse of the sequence which you describe. A discussion amongst objective, knowlegeble people (which integrates hundreds of RS's that they have absorbed) to get things pointed into an accurate and agreeable direction, and then create the content based on RS's and cited by RS's. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong - we certainly should start with discussion. It's the nature of the discussion I think we disagree about: I think it should be solely an editorial discussion, rather than one based on our own views. Our own views are helpful, in as much as they probably drive our consumption of relevant sources (I found it fairly easy to source my RFC comment precisely because it was a topic I was already interested in and had studied in some depth - mostly due to this woman ;-) But ultimately I think there's too much risk involved in having political discussions on that talk page. TFOWR 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is an expert person (here that is NOT me, but hopefully you) who is capable of being objective, and has (in the current venue) accepted the responsibility to be objective, then I would call that "information" rather than a "view". Again, just for the early stage discussions, then citations etc. are needed for the next step.

That article is locked in eternal warfare. (I'm a newbie there ...like 2 months) As with all of the eternal warfare articles in Wikipedia, the rules are not enough to solve it, and in fact, the rules get mis-used as methods of warfare. They aren't even nibbling on the work that needs to get done. Ostensibly the battle for at least the last few months is inclusion vs. exclusion of the off-beat forms of Libertarianism. I side with the "inclusion" folks, but have a lot more respect for the dialog from the "exclusion" folks because the "inclusion" folks don't really have discussions on the topics, they just work to whack the "exclusion" folks and what they have to say via various wiki-legal warfare methods. Anyway, nothing much is happening there except for that war. I did start what has turned out to be a substantial section (organizations and movements) figuring that getting something in these on actual practice of Libertarianism might eventually provide some perspective beyond being just a list of what a lot of individual philosophers/writers made up. Especially when it (hopefully) gets sorted out by wp:due/undue standards. I also tried to start some "common tenets" coverage in the "overview" section, (hence my question to you) but others took the wording off on a political-looking tangent, and others see to want to keep any talk of "common tenets" out of the article. (I have no clue why) I'm pretty sure I'll be leaving the article soon. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I was involved with an article that, on the face of it, should have been completely non-controversial, but got bogged down for far too long. I think, looking back, what was needed was for the wider community to have listened to the editors there when we asked for help. Too often a small group of editors get caught up in conflict, and no one steps in to help them. The conflict grows, and becomes unresolveable. I've been following this article for a while, because it popped up on ANI a fair few times, and it caught my eye because it's a subject I'm interested in. I didn't get involved because I didn't feel I was the best admin to get involved (and I still don't) but I think, now, that some admin involvement is probably better than none (that's not entirely fair - I realise some admins have commented and acted, but what's needed is someone who's prepared to hang about and devote some time to it). I'm happy to stay around, though I'd be extremely reluctant to "be an admin" - it'd have to be as a talkpage participant, someone who could point to ways to achieve consensus, etc. And I'd still like more admin eyes on the article: I don't think I'm the best person to be doing it, and I'm bogged down in WP:POV issues elsewhere.

Part of the reason I'm pushing tertiary sources is because it makes it far harder for WP:UNDUE issues to creep in. It keeps us all honest ;-)

Hopefully if things get less heated we'll make progress, editors will stick around, and maybe even return to the article. TFOWR 17:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I think many fear superficial or short-term involvement because, being so hard for outsiders to take the time to see what's really going on, they figure the results may be just a roll of the dice. Maybe we could work together a bit. I think that I've said exactly where I stand,and I think that it averages out to somewhere near the middle ground. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not fun

The belligerence is not fun. I presume you know I'm not talking about your behavior. Any suggestions? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My first guess is that BigK is sincerely having an issue with it. One could argue that a quote is a quote, and that any injections should be to add minimal useful/important hard facts rather than trying to interpret/clarify what we think they meant. In either case it might be in good faith which for me would make it still fun. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I just wish he/seh would say what they are thinking instead of just dealing in rules. North8000 (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

here is one i found the other day, WP:youtwoareswimmingupstreamandmakingnoprogresssitoutforawhileandwatchthemargugeamounstthemselvesforawhile Darkstar1st (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I say think bigger. Instead of worrying about a phrase inserted into quote, the article needs a whole new lead. The current one is a confusing mess like the rest of the article. North8000 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

Thanks for fixing my typo. While it's not a big deal in itself, I see it as an indication that the editors of this article are working together effectively, despite the politically charged and divisive nature of the subject. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool! And thanks for the note! As a side comment, I think that things get a lot simpler if one aspires to just make an accurate and informative article, and check all other agendas at the door. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I can only agree with that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my awkward sentence. I was running out of steam at that point. There's still plenty of work to be done, but we can only do so much at a time. --Meredith (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool, and so cool of you to drop me a note on that. At that article many folks tend to view things through a lens focused on pro and anti-TPM. It needs more folks like yourself (as evidenced by the above post) focused instead on article quality and informativeness. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Move of comment

I moved your post to the current section. Hopefully this is what you intended, it looks like the number of sections caused some confusion. If incorrect please fix it and my apologies, if correct could you drop a note there to confirm. Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still confused, so I'll figure that you understand it better than I do. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

SS Edmund Fitzgerald

As you probably noticed, I've been adding the various dives to the article over the last several days. I actually planned to rename one of the subsections exactly as you renamed it. However, I did change the subsection that you renamed to a section so that all the dives are in one section and the discussion of the theories are in another section.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! As I noted in the talk page, what a large amount of excellent work you have been doing at that article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I have quite a few credible books on the Fitzgerald. I plan to add more citations and fact clarifications to the article--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement

Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Hamtechperson 00:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there North8000,

Please go to this page [1] and make your opening statement. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hamtechperson 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I understand that the above was to answer a general question posed by one of the involved persons. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"composed of both conservatives and libertarians"

I agree that "conservative/libertarian" is a bit awkward, but "composed of both conservatives and libertarians" is a bit like "composed of both Americans and New Yorkers". :-) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's nice/ fun talking with you! But IMHO that is not accurate. Neither is a subset of the other, as is the case with your analogy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're curious, take a peek a Libertarian conservatism. Either way, I'm glad we can disagree without the sort of hard feelings that seem to be endemic to the Tea Party article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As an avid Libertarian for 25-30 years who has many spirited debates with my conservative friends on many issues, I can tell you that the two are very different in many areas. They are direct opposites on many many issues. We've also spent thousands of words on this in work on the Libertarian articles, but, to be honest, I don't think that anybody there would assert that one is a subset of the other. If you're interested, we're working on the common tenets of the various sects of Libertarians (and related sourcing) in a worksheet at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2 Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I think it would simply be premature for me to respond yet on the mediation page, but I do want to make two comments directly to you, rather than the mediation group as a whole.

1) Yes, you hit on the key issue, which is how we determine whether we can call it grassroots. However, we are not investigative journalists getting at the ultimate truth of the matter, we're just junior beat reporters turning PR handouts into filler articles by rote. In other words, what matters is what we're permitted to say, given the rules we follow and the sources available to us. What we believe is unimportant.

2) You seem to be suggesting that pro-Tea people all scream "grassroots!" while anti-people people all scream "astroturf", but while the belief that the movement is grassroots is overrepresented within the movement, it's not as simple as that. Many of our reliable sources that speak of grassroots are merely neutral journalists who are following the practice of identifying people by their chosen label (just like "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion"), and many of the ones that complain the loudest about astroturfing are old-school partiers who feel that their movement has been stolen out from under them by the GOP and entrenched corporate interests (read: Koch).

Just want to give you something to think about. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are all good and interesting points. Thanks!

On your #1 I would still stick with what I said......in essence get a consensus,(I'm hoping for 100%, not 51%) and then source the consensus. For the reasons given.

On your #2 My main point in that particular sources statement is that there is a flurry of sources saying opposite things on this issue, most of them being non-objective, or quotes of non-objective sources. Including many "RS's".

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Proposal

Hey North. I'm prepared to vote Aye on your proposal. I'd like to suggest that you slightly tweak it as presented on the mediation page from "a populist, political , largely grassroots movement in the United States" → to → "a populist, largely grassroots political movement in the United States". That would allow us to keep "political movement" linked as it is now and has been since I can remember. It would also flow better overall, and I think would remove what is one more reason for people to perhaps hold off voting for it. What you think? -Digiphi (Talk) 04:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds good, I'll change it. As an aside, I just tried to come up with something to help the process move along. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Time of year to Give Thanks

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		To North8000, for always being a fine, collegial fellow and working to build consensus on a very contentious article. It's a pleasure to work with you. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll do my best to continue to earn it! North8000 (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

mediation

Hi North8000, the mediator over on the cabal thing seems to have left the building so I've posted Nillagoon's suggestion for the edit over on the Tea Party movement talk page. Might as well get a wider consensus anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll go check it out. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

mediation

Hi North, I've commented on the cabal referendum. [2]. I saw your comments about waiting a bit and I see your point, but things seem to be coming along on the article talk page now, and keeping things going over on the cabal page seems disruptive at this point. Also, as we are coming to agreements on the other terms in the lead, like populist and astroturf, etc., I think it's really moot now. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So...are you going to do it [3][4]?? =D Digiphi (Talk) 15:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I just did it, just before I saw your message. I still plan to recover / move that one other sentence from the old lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice. We'll see how it goes. Way to grow a pair, while we shuffle our feet. -Digiphi (Talk) 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Leadership is trying to help take people to where they pretty much already want to go, which in WP is consensus. We'll see if I guessed right. North8000 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, was there some objection to linking grassroots the way we do astroturfing? If not, I'll even them out including the quotation marks. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I lost track. I didn't write any of what I put in, I just did my best to coalesce the main version of the big final conversation on the article talk page. I was against even including "astroturfing", but bit the bullet. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the post about the TPM over in U.K./Europe? Interesting if it's becoming a world-wide movement. Would need cites, but it could make an interesting new section.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that that idea of a new direction towards smaller and less intrusive government is building all over the place but often has no place (organization etc.) to to go. Major parties really don't fully buy into it, and Libertarian make the mistake of trying to be a party, plus occasionally have some wider planks in the back room that confuse people. I think that the Tea Party has provided that, so expansion doesn't surprise me. It will be interesting to see where it goes. It has quite a mine field to navigate to stay on course. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit will have me chuckling for the rest of the evening! Would it be inappropriate for me to express my Support !vote to change the wording to "raised the water level of the harbor"? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! We gotta have some fun while we're doing this.  :-) I'm guessing that it temporarily raised the level of the harbor by .000000001". I hope that they warned the shoreline residents before they did it. Have a great Sunday. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It was rumored it generated a Tsunami warning. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation high-level mission statement

Hi, you wrote in the WP:V talk page:

IMHO, the high level mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation requires truth, in those cases where objective truth exists ("truth" being better described as CORRECT (vs. wrong) INFORMATION where such objectively exists)... 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link?  Thanks, RB  66.217.118.38 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Kind of buried at the moment, but will do. Thanks for asking. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

minutiae

The bit about the Boston tea party is giving me a nosebleed. Just a cursory read of the latest argument being advanced is off-putting. There are kids in Europe who know American history better than Americans. Best to wait a bit until that is all sorted out by others down the line. I was thinking of starting a new article about the financial points in the TPm. Want to help with that? I've got some great reliable sources collected already.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The main TP article has a severe shortage of enclyclopedic content and a severe shortage of sections that written in an enclyclopedic manner. Something like this, with cites and overview type content from quality sources in the TPM article itself would be a little step out of it's junk article hole. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be enough for a main article on the fiscal positions. We could add in a paragraph to the TPm article. Now that they've voted in this new congress, the pressure is on these newly elected to get things done starting in January when the new term begins. I think the Republicans are going to disappoint them on some levels. I read an article about some of the Tea Party Patriots members who are on unemployment, and Scott Brown just voted to end the 99 week unemployment extensions. He wasn't really a 'tea party candidate,' type, but the Boston Tea Party Patriots supported him. Saw that in the New York Times. I'll go find it.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

See here. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Colorful signatures

North, I'd like to recommend this help page. Dylan Flaherty 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! You are observant. Sincerely, North8000 19:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. It might be useful for you to check out my Sig definition for a good example of how to get the links working, too. Dylan Flaherty 19:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Boulder Junction, Wisconsin-citation

There was no citation so I removed the edits. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that still leaves the second question. Right now the revised lead sentence essentially says that the community of Boulder Junction is located in the town of boulder junction. North8000 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay Towns are not incorporated in Wisconsin-see Political subdivisions of Wisconsin. You are unincorporated communities in Wisconsin. One of the editors was starting unincorporated communities in Wisconsin that have Zipcodes and the unincorporated community of Boulder Junction is one of them and it is located in the town of Boulder Junction. I therefore put the sentence in and moved the paragraph into a different section for easier editing. Please feel free to do editing but the sentence about the unincorporated community of Boluder Junction should stay in. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Sincerely, North8000 18:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"A necessary condition for inclusion in Wikipedia..."

This comment is in regard to [Replace "threshold" in WP:V]?  The two objections to this proposal have not clarified their viewpoint after I noted that their objections were confounded.  Is it reasonable to discount the objections, look at the three voices of support, and conclude that a tentative consensus exists?  Thanks, RB  66.217.117.66 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC) From my first reads, I believe that one main point of your writings is that there are issues and something should be changed,and I would agree with you on that. Beyond that I don't see a specific proposal for changes. Maybe I missed something. Sincerely, North8000 03:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The proposal was by SamuelTheGhost[diff].  The specific proposal is the title of this section.  The proposal replaces the word "threshold".  Here is what you said in reply to the proposal:

I think that that would be a good change. They are both correct, but yours is written in a way that would reduce "mis-launches" from this sentence. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I reported that the two posts in opposition were confounded, and the date of that post was 20:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC).
I concurred with the proposal on 22:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC).
RB  66.217.118.90 (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, and think that it should go forward. There was probably not enough discussion about that specific proposal to consider the question to be fully discussed and settled, but I think that there was enough to where it wouldn't be out of line to try making the change. And if there are objections, then it becomes BRD. Sincerely, North8000 13:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_of_Scope_at_Talk:Libertarianism Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. North8000 14:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I started the article Calvin Rustrum

I started the article Calvin Rustrum. Hard to believe that it wasn't already an article. North8000 14:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the article SS Edmund Fitzgerald for Good Article review/status

I nominated the article SS Edmund Fitzgerald for Good Article review/status. North8000 14:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A reviewer is requested. North8000 11:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have placed the review on hold so that you could address the indicated issues. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll go to work. North8000 03:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of good work on the article. I have left a short list entitled "Comments after second read on 12/26" for you to consider. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your work on the review. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article again and left a few more comments under the "third read" heading. I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but we really should have page-specific references for the direct quotes. I have pulled the direct quotes from the article and listed them for you. I hope we can wrap this up promptly, and I will do what I can to expedite this. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. We wanted a thorough review; thanks for doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I started the article Voyageurs

Previously existed only as a section in the Coureur des bois and per discussion there it was agreed that it was misplaced there and should be a separate article. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Work area for 12/29 comments on Edmund Fitzgerald article

Thank you for fixing my error. I don't know much about spacing rules so I hope you can fix those problems in the article too? I am currently working on the notes. I can match the page numbers to the quotes but may need guidance on correct formatting.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy to do any of that. Kind of buried in RL for the next 1/2 day. Still working on the fix. I'll finish the section fix this afternoon. In the meantime, the main thing is to put all notes in the 12/29 workspace on the main article talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the move/fix is done now. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference syntax

I fixed the reference. It looks like we have more work ahead of us to make FA.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. But I think it will be fun. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrapping it up

I think all the issues are resolved for the SS Edmund Fitzgerald GA review. I have been working on the reference formatting for the FA review.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we did it! It's great working with you. North8000 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to leave questions about GA housekeeping on my talk page, and I will be pleased to help any way that I can. Racepacket (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Next step for SS Edmund Fitzgerald

I kept plugging away at the citations and I think I am at least 3/4 done. I deleted and/or replaced a few citations that I thought would get contested. We recently had a couple of dead links that I replaced. I haven't checked out the rules for Title Case that Imzadi mentioned. Do you feel like checking that out? I still like your idea of trying for FA on November 10. What kind of time frame did you have for the review?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Be happy to work on the title case stuff.

I have it figured out. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect to your other question, I also have to learn a couple more things about the sequence:

I thought that an article of the day had to be a FA, but there was something at FA that seemed to imply otherwise (a rule that you couldn't nominated the article of the day for FA). With the time line in mind, this might be worth looking into.

Looks like it must be a FA.

Also, have to figure out if it would be a good idea to submit it to peer review first. Actually, I'm sure it would be a good idea except for the time line.

Hate to look for shortcuts, but this article has been gone through pretty thoroughly already, and it sounds like all three of these in "series" might be a tight squeeze to get into 11 months: 1. Peer review. 2. FA review 3. Waiting to become article of the day. (GOTTA be November 10th!! even if 2012? ) I hope to learn and have a more intelligent answer within a few days. If anybody else reading this has any thoughts....

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Polar bear

Has been fixed, may I label it a GA? LittleJerry (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello LittleJerry. I fixed the last item myself (took out the image which appears to have an unsolvable permission problem) and was planning to wait until today to see if I got reverted in which case the article would still have the issue. I didn't want to say that explicitly because I wanted my edit to stand on its own merits, not stand due to me being the reviewer. I'll pass it today. Thanks for nominating / pointing out such an excellent article and for your fixes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is done.North8000 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My WP presence will be less and less reliable for a week

Down in central Mexico (and very busy there) until January 22. My WP presence will be less and less reliable for a week. North8000 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Social democracy and libertarianism

The chief argument of social democratic libertarians is this:

• State intervention in the form of control is the chief problem with the existence of the state
• Profit is a form of rent and/or a Marxist analysis of exploitation; either resulting in private profits being a form of coercive intervention
• Therefore, expansion of the state ambit is acceptable for redistributive purposes
• And an expanded social democratic compromise results in less immediate state intervention into the vast category of recipients of state benefits
• As state benefits are no longer micromanaged (an intervention gone)

It is internally coherent from its premises. But it is a rare formulation. Primarily comes forward in social justice movements, and can be seen in the radical social democratic demand for a social wage. I've got no idea what these US Left-libertarians are going on about though.

Does this help explain how people who think that way perceive their own ideology? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and explanation. There are so many thing things involved in the complex discussion and that I don't know what to say without setting down to hours to write it. Instead, if you permit me a few thoughts to come to mind. From what you describe above, that group is not Libertarian, they just put the word in their name. Rather than press that point (which I may be wrong on)I just think that a quick not that in effect says "not everybody who puts the word "libertarian" into what they call themselves is necessarily a libertarian. I think that this would make this less confusing to the readers.

There was a huge war there, and folks on BOTH sides were warriors. I think that it has passed now, but some folks are still transitioning out of seeing everything through that lens and context. Aside from that issue,I don't think that there is any substantial dispute or difference of opinion at the article.

Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for pulling Talk:Libertarianism back to the discussion. I'm sad that my contribution ends up being 4 paragraphs and four discursive footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi North. I'm not going to place the L1 edit summary warning here, but I will point out that I was disturbed by the inappropriate edit summary you recently used about a bot when editing Calvin Rustrum, especially where your complaint appears to be unjustified. --Kudpung (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It hit several pet peeves at once.....I stand by the substance of what I said, but should have used calmer and nicer words. Even if talking about a robot. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal comments

Please avoid making negative personal comments about your fellow editors, such as unproven allegations of "gaming the system" or bias. Such remarks are uncivil.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

poppycock, will, the source clearly said the exact opposite of your edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Will, that is a comment about actions, not individuals, so I don't think that "personal comments" is correct. Also, an entire WP guideline is written about and titled gaming, so I don't think that the terminology is uncivil. I really do believe those things about your actions at the moment. Nevertheless, if you took anything I said personally, then that was opposite what I intended and I apologize. If you knew me, you would know that I can have spirited, blunt, fast moving, direct "opponent" debates with people that are good friends and who I am privileged to know. ...I completely separate the two. Not knowing me, I could see how such might get misinterpreted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Commenting about an action I make is a comment about me. If an edit is incorrect then say, "there's an error in this material" rather than saying, "Editor A is biased and is gaming the system".   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, what you say may be often true in real life, but Wikipedia makes a big distinction between talking about actions and talking about people, the former being commonplace and accepted. But again, if you took anything I said personally, then that was opposite what I intended and I apologize. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, which I accept. In the future, remember that "assume good faith" is a policy. The guideline, WP:GAMING, says: Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately. Accusing someone of gaming the system is accusing them of acting in bad faith. It's a serious charge which should be accompanied by solid evidence and, if true, should result in remedies. It's not an accusation to make lightly.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Will, without talking about any particular situation, I think that one of the reasons that AGF is a guideline rather than a policy is that it can't be and isn't applied categorically, particularly with my next point in mind, where minor breaches of gaming/npov become evident. Gaming can be something as minor and common (and certainly not a serious charge) as using the wp system to promote a POV at the expense of accuracy. Not that any of that particularly applies here. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Voyageur (fur trade)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Voyageur (fur trade), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Voyageurs. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It was an article which I started just a couple of weeks ago by expanding a redirect page. To date I have been the only editor. Now I moved it to wikify the title.North8000 (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC). And yes, I thoroughly recorded and described the situation at both the new name/article and at the redirect page. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Voyageur

I'm not quite sure what you were trying to do there, but it looks like you tried to make a cut and paste move. Please don't do that again—it just makes a mess. Please use the move button, though I should point out that article titles shouldn't have a disambiguator unless the title is actually ambiguous with at least one other topic that has a Wikipedia article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If the title that you moved it to is available (Voyageur) then that is preferable. But I believe that it was a pretty substantial disambiguation page which now appears to be gone. (?) North8000 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I got the wrong title. Voyageurs was where the deleted history was. I've fixed it and merged the two histories back together. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello HJ Mitchell

OK, just to sort this out:

As of 6 weeks ago:

• There was a Voyageur disambiguation page (but no entry for Voyageurs on it, and a Link to Coureurs de bois, mistakenly identified as a synonym
• There was a Voyageurs redirect page which went to the above disambiguation page
• There was a Voyageurs section in the Coureur des bois article, where everybody agreed it didn't belong.

As of Month Ago I "started" the Voyageurs article by "upgrading" the Voyageurs redirect page into an article. I also added "Voyageurs" as an item in the disambig page. I assumed that it would eventually need a brand new name "Voyageur (fur trade)" but wanted to go slow on that. Because: 1. wp:mos says not to use plural, and says to use disambig in the title if necessary. 2. I floated the idea for weeks on the talk page (no response either way) 3. Such was previously suggested by others is the disambig talk page. I actually like "Voyageurs" better, but only contemplated and did the move for the above reasons.

As of two days ago

I started the "Voyageur (fur trade)" article by moving the Voyageurs article material to it, and turned the Voyageurs article into a redirect to it.

As of now

The two rounds of work that you did put it back to where it was 3 days ago. Should I just leave it as Voyageurs? That would be fine with me. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

AGF

I believe you see that I have been precisely correct the whole time in the recent Libertarianism threads. As such, I'd appreciate no future lectures on WP:AGF. It was never needed in the first place, as I'm well-aware of the guidelines, but moreover, I think it's been made pretty clear that your interpretation of the Born2cycle situation was a bit off anyways. On a side note, note from WP:AGF that one should "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively...." [see here]. In any case, you've been contributing a lot to the advancement of the Libertarianism article, so keep up the good work. BigK HeX (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello BigK. Whether I was right or wrong, I honestly saw you as the only one still viewing this as primarily a war situation, and my ONLY goal was to convince you that that period is at least temporarily gone. Let's call what I was doing a matter of promoting my perception of the situation, (including from various one on one communications with folks on both "sides") My email is north9000 (9000, not 8000) at gmail should you ever want the simpler discussion of touching base one on one. (noticed that you do not have email enabled) All of that aside, here's the actual big picture: thank you for the nice words, my compliments on your expert WP contributions in even the most complex areas, and it's a pleasure and privilege to know you and work with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just felt a little attacked (in a very small way), and that the AGF bit may have distracted a little from the various issues at hand. In any case, it's good to see that things seem to be on their way towards adding citations and ideas for improved material due to your efforts. Your dedication is enviable. BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello again

Sorry for leaving you guys hanging, somewhat, on the TPM issue a hundred years ago. RL kind of collapsed on me and I've only just been dug out. No, I wasn't in jail. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and welcome back! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ontario Greenbelt

Hi there, I noticed you were a member of WP:ONTARIO. I was wondering if I could ask you to weigh in on a discussion to move Greenbelt (Golden Horseshoe) to Ontario Greenbelt. The discussion is stagnant, and I'd like to gather some consensus. Thanks. --Natural R_X 18:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy to. I'll have to get up to speed on it first. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Raul654/Raul's_laws#Laws_by_others

I've added a comment of yours here. Peter jackson (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm flattered! North8000 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Teamwork Barnstar

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you for your great teamwork on our goal of FA for the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm flattered, I'll try to live up to it. You have an even bigger one coming for a zillion things you are doing.

I'm still running at 10% on WP due to a RL blow, but am getting back in the saddle. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Glad to help, and thank you for the barnstar. Finetooth (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I nominated SS Edmund Fitzgerald article for Featured Article consideration]]

I nominated the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article for Featured Article consideration at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald/archive2 North8000 (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Please have a look at the comment in the FA submission section of the article's talk page. Since you nominated it last time it's your baby :) Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 03:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Good idea and I responded there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I resubmitted the article [[SS Edmund Fitzgerald for Featured Article (FAC) review. The review page is here: [[5]]

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Kitten

Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thanks! Means a LOT to me considering history and what I attempt to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks upon editors

I caught your insinuation about a Wikipedia editor gaming or "using" poorly written Wikipedia policies to push a POV. I am disappointed. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. It is a very low key description and critique of what you have been doing at the article, certain areas of which are an identical topic as the one raised at AN, and I feel one that is accurate and useful to bring up in order to eventually make progress there. And this is said after about 6 months of observation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of "making progress", could you please provide the diff of one example of this gaming policy to push a POV? You say "what you have been doing" as if there should be many such instances, so producing one example should not be a burden. It would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your last edit at TPM article. You chose the phrase that sounds most extreme to put in, even if you know it to not generally be true/representative (and thus is uninformative) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear with my request. I'll put it bluntly: You accused me of using poorly written Wikipedia policies to push a POV. I asked you for an example (and your opinion of the policy or policies so exploited). You are incorrect, and I hope that with a bit of discussion (accompanied by the proof that you cannot cite even one such example), you will come to that realization.

The edit to which you refer is a simple revert of a deletion. I read the cited source, noted that the text correctly conveyed what the source said, and reverted the deletion. It's not my "pov", and I wasn't the person that introduced that text in the first place. So I reiterate my request: Just one example, please. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If I knew it was a revert, then I would not have said "chose", and now retract that word. The rest still stands. You put in a statement that says the it is a position of the Tea Party movement "When necessary, they favor total war and unconditional surrender over limited wars for limited goals", which IMHO has all of the above-described problems. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted a deletion of sourced content, correct. I do not understand what you mean by "all of the above-described problems". Problems you have with what the cited source says? Can you please specifically indicate which Wikipedia policy is being gamed, and how, in your given example? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you cannot show that your chosen example illustrates the gaming of poorly written Wikipedia policies to push a POV, perhaps you could cite another example that does? Just one. You see, you've made quite a serious charge — one that I feel is unfounded and highly inaccurate — and I'm still hoping we can resolve this between the two of us, without requesting comment from other editors. If I have done something untoward (it was certainly unintentional), how am I supposed to take corrective action or address it by way of explanation, if you won't specify what it is? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The example I gave does that, and I explained how it does that. What you are IMHO doing is common practice in Wikipedia and not considered "serious"...it violates the spirit/intent/goal of the policies (particularly wp:npov) but, by definition, does not violate the letter of them. The only thing that I would consider a serious offense, and then only if it wasn't an honest error, is mislabeling my comments as a personal attack. If you are interested in a sincere and friendly exchange to sort this out further, then I would be happy to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You asserted that I have been "using the rules to POV the article (a common tactic that works due to poorly written rules)". Aside from your above opinion on the seriousness of my editing, your personal attack against me is indeed serious — and that is what I am addressing. Just so we are on the same page.

I asked you for an example to support your attack. You cited my revert of this deletion of sourced content, and if I understand your latest response above, you say my revert "violates the spirit/intent/goal of the policies (particularly wp:npov)". It does not; and despite my repeated request that you explain the violation, you have not. Your attempt to soften your attack by now saying, instead of the violation of gaming the policies to push a POV, I'm merely violating the "spirit" of the policies, is still a personal attack and equally incorrect and unsubstantiated. If you wish to stand by your unsubstantiated attack, that is certainly your prerogative; I will take this matter elsewhere for wider review. If it were an isolated incident, which it is not ("...to try to game the system to see how many negative sounding linkages ... one can torture into the article to pursue the personal agendas of editors. For those who can't follow this higher calling there are only the policies and guidelines," etc.), or if a retraction or apology were forthcoming, which doesn't appear likely, it would be easy to let this episode pass. Unfortunately, it appears to me to be an ongoing problem that should be firmly addressed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My characterization has been consistent all along. The only serious violation that you are committing is incorrectly labeling the things I has said as "personal attacks." which is itself a personal attack. I think that you are quite confused about what constitutes acceptable behavior. You are committing unacceptable behavior to attack acceptable comments that you do not care for. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for at least acknowledging that I "do not care for" your personal attacks. It is unfortunate that you, in light of that, still let them stand. So we disagree on what is acceptable, and what is not, with regard to your comments about other editors. Fair enough. It is for that reason that I shall request input from a wider audience. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Even the above illustrates what you have been doing at the article. In a discussion about POV issues, you switched the conversation away from the topic at hand (npov) to talking about ONE of the other requirements for content (sourcing)

Everything above involves talking past me, repetitively mis-characterizing what I said and never addressing what I said. Even this last post includes this mis-characterization (as false implied premises) three times, The writing is of the type that attempts to mislead other readers rather than communicate with me. There does not appear to be any real conversation going on here. If you ever want to have a sincere conversation I am ready, but please no more of the above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything above involves talking with you about your personal attacks upon editors. In my first post, I merely indicated that I was displeased that you would make such an attack, and left it at that. You responded that your attack was not an attack, and further stated that it was accurate. This surprised me, so I've spent the rest of this discussion attempting to arrive at a resolution: either have you substantiate it so that I can see what would prompt you to make such an attack, or have you realize that your attack is unsubstantiated (and if you are a gentleman about it, even retract it). You have done neither. You've been here long enough to know that accusing an editor of "using the rules to POV the article (a common tactic that works due to poorly written rules)" is very inappropriate. And now you are attempting to turn it back on me by saying *I* am commiting a serious violation by "incorrectly labeling the things I has said as "personal attacks." which is itself a personal attack." Absurd. I see what you are doing, and I'm sure others will too.

I came here for a "sincere conversation", but instead you have given me the above. If communication with you on this relatively simple matter is any indication, then I certainly do not look forward to collaborating with you on controversial Wikipedia articles that we may have in common. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My last post still applies. This includes the offer remaining open. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not have to endure more of the above, so I respectfully decline your offer. Instead, I have requested input from other editors here. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The result is here. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved your comment

In Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Support, threaded discussion is supposed to go in the "discussion" section (because it usually results in the "support" and "oppose" sections being filled with unwieldy amounts of text), and you were being counted twice. I grouped your two comments together. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not following exactly, but it sounds cool. Thanks for doing it and thanks for telling me. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

SS Edmund Fitzgerald and footnote templates

Hey. I was wondering if you had specific issues with the {{harv}}/{{sfn}} family of templates? I ask because I noticed the article makes use exclusively of manually built cross-referencing which can nowadays be made much more easily with these templates. I'm originally not a fan of them myself, but since I do a lot of reference copyediting (something which, unfortunately, tends to be overlooked at FAC), I've been trying my hand at them recently and if you're interested, I wouldn't mind applying them (and probably the ref=harv parameter that autogenerate crossreferences with the footnote templates) to simplify the article and tighten the look of the source code. Circéus (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. We have zero drama at the article and the only thing we care about is having it best it can be and getting FA and the article of the day on November 10, the day she sank. I'm not familiar with those templates. If it's an improvement, I'm all for it, with a couple of thoughts:

• We might be in final days of FAC....maybe we shouldn't make big changes during that time?

• WPWatchdog has done our main work in that area. They are easygoing and would say "yes" if asked, but my one concern is that this doesn't make it so abstract that they would have a hard time working with them. Could you discuss with WPWatchdog regarding if they would still be able to work with them?

Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Will ask them. As it is, unless I make a huge mistake, most probably nobody will be able to tell there was any change, since everything will be behind the scenes (except for the fact the default for {{sfn}} is a parentheses-less form), and as I said earlier, the FAC crew, for all their effort, rarely give the referencing style more than a cursory look. Circéus (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. If WPWatchdog is cool with it, (as I see they are) so am I. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, North8000. You have new messages at Philg88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A cookie for you

Here is a hard earned cookie for your exceptional teamwork on the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. It feels like we should go out for a beer.

--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's great working with you. Maybe that beer is possible. Next stop, November 10th! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ships barnstar

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For all of your hard work in getting SS Edmund Fitzgerald promoted to Featured Article. Brad (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It has been quite an adventure. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Government

I started the proposed policy Wikipedia:Government yesterday, motivated by deadlocks like e.g. now on the Verifiability page. If you are interested, you can help to develop it further. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and I'm flattered by the invitation. I read it quick and will read it again and noodle on it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Policy question

Are there guidelines / suggestions on how people who started to edit using their real names and then became subjects of articles should contribute to articles / discussions on matters on which their contributions in the outside world were significant parts of their professional activities? I do not feel that this should give their opinions extra weight -- perhaps avoiding the citation of one's own work should hold even more strongly in this situation. I even wonder if there is a COI. I post the question here, because you noticed and mentioned that I am both editor and subject. I did not want to inject this into the verifiability discussion. I have to leave further comment on the Determinants article, the verifiability of leads, and the need for articles about mathematics to be open to general editorship (after all, I am NOT a mathematician) for now. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Michael. Thanks for the message and it nice to hear from you. I think that if one reads them closely (vs just throwing around the acronym as many people do) the wp:coi guidelines provide an excellent definition and excellent and realistic guidance on this. But to provide a short answer to your question,no, there is no coi inherent to that situation. Beyond that, it is a matter of behavior. And, since in the Wikipedia context, I would rate you as a (currently) overly-cautious editor, I think that there is zero chance of you violating the behavioral part of wp:coi.

My suggestion (for reasons completely unrelated to this discussion) is that MOST people should not use their real life names as their Wikipedia usernames, or even make any connection in Wikipedia between the two. Of course there are exceptions, it's a personal choice. Since you just got started, you might want to decide if you want to make that switch to another identity. But if you do, read wp:sock closely and do not violate it. I emphasize this because unlike in real world, that is considered a serious offense here.

But beyond that, my suggestion is that "you worry too much about this stuff"; just jump in and start discussing at the article's talk page and then start editing there. (I'll watch the article for a while, and would be happy to insert a comment to break the ice) As I described in more detail at wp:ver, I think that you misread the situation at the article; I think that others there were waiting for you to offer ideas,discussion and edits. An easy mistake to make because when you entered Wikipeda you jumped down the rabbit hole, and now have to learn how things operate in this rough-and-tumble but fun parallel universe! Enjoy! And certainly let me know if I can be of any help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Editing is time consuming. I am 82. I need to prioritize my expenditure of time very carefully. When I started to edit WK articles, I thought I had material to contribute, because I remember topics that should be included and how to obtain relevant verifiable information that might be lost otherwise. I now have established dialogue with a major archive that supports oral history projects that are well indexed online. In consequence, I have no further need to contribute to WK on this score.

I think the verifiability issue of far greater general importance to the protection of society from dangerous pro-active information pollution by WK than the specifics of the determinant article. I have noted the May 2011 Update of the Foundation [6]. This states "it's been getting increasingly difficult for people to edit the Wikimedia projects", and refers to the "steady decline in the participation and retention of new editors" and to the need to "promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture".

I seek a verifiable citation to the opening paragraph of the lede of an article. I am intrigued by the extent and variety of arguments resisting this, that has introduced irrelevancies, misrepresentations and expressions of bizarre policies and ignorance. Overall, this could betoken a situation in which established editors protect the power of established editors to prevail with whatever they want on WK.

An open, collaborative, invitational ethos would be supportive of the right to seek verification.

You have been courteous and diplomatic in steering me away from the verifiability page. It would be discourteous for me to go back to the verifiability page without first asking if you would object to my seeking administrative ruling on whether it would be appropriate for a verification to be provided when an Editor requests one. Or at least a ruling on the circumstances in which such a request is reasonable and should be responded to.

Michael P. Barnett (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Michael, thanks for the message. You are so cautious and polite that there is nothing that you could conceivably do that I would consider discourteous. And answering your question, I would not consider that to be discourteous. I do re-assert my advice which is essentially that you being so so polite and so so cautious (combined with not yet fully understanding the mysterious ways of Wikipedia) is causing you to fundamentally mis-read the situation. Again, I'm always ready and eager to help or talk if you care to. Thanks again for the message. Sincerely, North8000 13:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to WT:V

Just out of interest, could I ask which case you were referring to just now at WT:V? --JN466 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is friendly and low key and I would like to keep it that way. I will email you that answer on the condition that it be only for illustrative purposes of my point and for the courtesy of answering your question. I don't want to "win" anything from extra intervention, I would rather move forward into a good working relationship with the other person, hopefully convincing them to be less seemingly pov driven (via expert wikilawyering) rather than "win" this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's cool of you. I will have a look at the discussion if you send me the link, but I won't intervene. --JN466 02:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Titanic sources

Hi! As you are actually doing a lot of work on the 'Titanic' article, I wondered if you are interested in additional sources. I've two comprehensive papers as PDF (Unfortunately, only scanned, hence no text search possible) which are (although not fully flawless) highly valuable. If you are interested, just send me an email containing your email address (on my user's page --> Toolbox --> E-mail this user). Regards, --DFoerster (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Hacket C. and Bedford, J.G. (1996). THE SINKING OF THE S.S. TITANIC – INVESTIGATED BY MODERN TECHNIQUES. The Northern Ireland Branch of the Institute of Marine Engineers and the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 26 March 1996 and the Joint Meeting of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, 10 December 1996.

(2) W. Garzke et al. [Marine Forensic Panel (SD 7)]: Titanic, The Anatomy of a Disaster. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1997

Thanks for the message. That would definitely be great. I'll send you a email. As background, me and WPWatchdog have worked a huge amount together at the SS Fitzgerald article, which jusst got FA. ....sort of a ying and yang, we're each good at and do different things. Someone asked us to help at Titantic, and, I asked on the talk page and now we sort of moved over to the Titantic article. But we'd much rather join the party than be the party.

PS: After the next few hours, I'll be off the grid (no internet access) for a week. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! I think the Encyclopedia Titanica rates as a quality source as long as the citation does not refer to the message board? Do you agree? Or should we address this question on the article's talk page?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It will probably be another day before I'm fully back. I don't yet know enough to have an opinion on your question......I'll take a closer look, but wanted to get back to you in the meantime.

I looked at that web site. Looks like an immense amount of good information. So then on to the next two questions. #1 Is it a reliable source of information, and #2 Does it meet wp:"rs" criteria. On #1, I think that it is as good as anything. That means (consciously or subconsciously) checking what we get from there against plausibility, its "trappings", and what was learned from other sources) when using it. On #2, I'm not sure, but I think that the answer is yes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I received those two pdf's from DFoerster. Last I checked you don't have email enabled, but if you ever want them drop me an email at north9000 at gmail dot com

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Good news - Imzadi1979 agreed to help clean up the Titanic citations.[7].--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I left a note at Imzadi's talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change first sentence of wp:ver

There is a proposal to change the first sentence of wp:ver at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal for a change in the first sentence. Your input is requested. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reply to your comment there, but first, I just want to say thank you for the very kind words you said about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

They were well deserved. You made a proposal which I would call a masterstroke. And you being on the opposite side of me in the the debate would not slow me down for a second in saying this. The big picture is that it's all good people there with the best in mind for Wikipedia; just different perspectives on what will work best. Thanks for the note. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Boyce McDaniel

Please review my proposed changes in the GA2 page. Please also consider whether they pose a copyright problem. If they are suitable, either you or I can add them to article space. Thanks! Racepacket (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added them to the article. Can you take another look? Would it be possible to complete the GA review? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Right now I think on lots of them there are no notes on the review page regarding which items were implemented. So my only way to know which are done would be to keep re-reading the article, which takes longer. It would help speed it along (if yo wish) if you could note on the review page which items are completed. Also remember that these are just suggestions, if you think any are unnecessary or not a good idea, just let me know. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything is done including adding the table with a heading. Please wrap up by 14:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC). Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I understand the unusual time note. This has to be done right irrespective of anything, but fortunately I've have already been going through it again, have no additional items, and passed it. Nice article, interesting article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I fixed your template and GA listing so it is fine now. Thank you for your thorough review. Racepacket (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

M. J. Hurt, Today!

Hey, North. Since you seem to be the only person even aware Wikiproject Roots Music right now, I thought I'd come to you. I'm working on getting an article on Mississippi John Hurt's 1966 album Today! up to a good standard, and I'd like your feedback. See if there's anything pressing I need to chance before I put it up. Thanks. BootleggerWill (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice that you are developing that and to see signs of life. Nice article! My one suggestion would address some confusion I had when I read it, probably due to my brain running at half speed before my morning coffee. The "history" section is more about the artist than the album, and I was subconsciously thinking it was an article about him. Then when I got to the track listing I though "which album is this for?" You might want to add a few words to the section headings or possibly sub-sections to the history section to clarify this. Let me know if I can be of help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

Please could you stop the "multiple personality" thing [8] [9] because it is disruptive and disallowed by Wikipedia policy as far as I can tell. Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 15:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is disallowed, please tell me where and I'll stop. Otherwise, I think it is (occasionally) very useful, and do not agree that it is disruptive. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, I linked to WP:GHBH in my original comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 16:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That one is clearly not applicable. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I will second TreasuryTag's request, this kind of activity is not helpful. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You made a comment here, and then two minutes later you logged in under your other account and expressed agreement with that comment here. WP:ILLEGIT specifically lists "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" as an illegitmate use of multiple accounts. Singularity42 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually TheParasite was disagreeing with me, liking the status quo which I was disparaging. I will clarify. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

North8000, thank you for retiring your doppelgänger. You might want to update your userpage tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll change the wording to past tense. But I think I should still keep the disclosure up. Even with zero violations of policy and every "i" dotted and "t" crossed it has gone on too long, and I'd hate to see what would happen if it wasn't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that makes good sense. Thanks for the consideration, it is much appreciated. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing to self

Please keep in mind WP:SELFCITE. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Always, should it ever arise. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Tea Party movement"

Thanks for making sure to restore my edits after you rolled back the page to remove Hofman stern's unhelpful edits. Just thought I'd make sure to acknowledge your conscientiousness :-)

Antediluvian67 (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the note, and thanks for contributing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: The article needs a big fix-up (someday) and will need more eyes, if you care to watch it.

Request to redact

Please consider redacting your use of "a social misfit" in this comment. It comes across like a personal attack. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It was speaking about a hypothetical person who might mass nominate those 1,000,000 articles for deletion! It is not about a person, and there is no person involved! If you feel that that wasn't clear, I would be happy to clarify. Or, I would also be willing to redact stating it as solely because you asked me. Sincerely, 18:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, I have no power to make you do anything. I was merely pointing out that to the reader, it appeared that you were insulting the person who was the impetus of the WP:BEFORE discussion, and that you may want to consider removing it for that reason, since personal attacks and insults are frowned upon. If you don't wish to make the redaction, that is your prerogative, but I would advise that you take care with your wordings to avoid hurting people. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of my offers were to do it on a "happy to do it" voluntary basis.

I did not realize that it could be taken that way, thanks for pointing that out; I will clarify right away. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. I actually took the term completely out. Simpler/easier than clarifying. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

River of Grass ?

North8000 - I see on the talk page for Marjory Stoneman Douglas that you say "River of Grass" as though it might be the name of a book. Please don't refer to the book "Everglades" as "River of Grass". See: Douglas Mystery. GroveGuy (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is this about? 18 months ago I left a talk page comment, complimenting the article editors, and briefly referred to the book as "River of Grass." and said that I got smitten by the book decades ago. Now, 18 months later you write me a note telling me that the name of the book is "Everglades" (which is wrong) and admonishing me not to abbreviate it, and giving me a link to a web page which says that there is a conspiracy to rename the book to hide the name "Everglades" Including this gem:

"It's a conspiracy. Some mysterious organization must be behind this. What are they doing ? They are leaving out the word "Everglades". They must be trying to diminish the idea of the Everglades itself. How diabolical. Why are they doing this ? I can't see power or glory involved; it can only be money. That points to the wicked sugar barons, the land developers, and their craven minions, the politicians. "

Huh? Incidentally, the correct full title is The Everglades: River of Grass; I am looking at the book as I write this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts has been created

While I understand that you said you don't wish to join, I thought it would be polite to inform you that Wikipedia:Wikiproject Abandoned Drafts has been created. If you wish to work with us in the future, i'd be glad to hear it. Silverseren^C 05:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I think that it's a great idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all good, baby

Libertarian war! byelf2007 (talk) 17 July 2011

VERY happy that you're there, even if we occasionally disagree.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Brain Stem Death

Just a word of thanks for your tactful but authoritative intervention.

Errr ... Shouldn't that note read "A brain stem standard for death ,adoptedin the UK, and which has gained some ground in the US"

The best summary I've found of the issue that the article tackles is from Canada: A review of the literature on the determination of brain death Have a look, it covers the bases. VEBott (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I did mean UK; let me explain. I'm no expert on the topic, so I'm just talking about what is in the article. And, based on what is in there, it is not clear whether or not that is the official standard within the UK. When one looks closely, they see that there was no cite/sourcing in the article for that / such a statement. And so my statement was more cautions /minimal, saying that it has gained some ground in the UK. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, brain stem death is indeed the official standard in the UK and has been since it was formally adopted in 1995. I will ensure that this is clear in future rewrites, with appropriate reference. It's an ongoing task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VEBott (talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool! And, on behalf of readers, thanks to both of you for your work and vigilance on this. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

AGF

Please stop making assertions on the FARC page that I am acting in bad faith. Four times you've said I have an "axe to grind". You've accused me of "tag-bombing" uncited material. If you have an issue with me, please address it to me. On article and article-related talk pages let's please stick to discussing the content and leave the negative personal comments for user talk pages or dispute resolution.   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

neither of you have an edit on farc discussion recently, difs plz. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, my comments were summarizing my impression of your activities at the article. This was not arrived at hastily, it was drawn from a large amount of observation and analysis of a large amount of material. I feel that it provides useful context there. This is a "forest for the trees" observation/opinion, something that is not visible from any individual tree. My efforts are always focused only on the article, rather than seeking any heavy duty review/action regarding the individual, plus, even if I am right, what you are IMHO doing is common and does not rise to that level of an issue. I view everyone, including those where I have those IMHO-issues with to be a potential future friend. Whether it be for the article or with that in mind, I don't think that being disingenuous (vs direct and honest) would serve either purpose. But that also means I see no need to repeat it or take it any further. So maybe we can just go onward and upward there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you'd care to explain what "axe" I have to grind in this matter, as I've requested repeatedly, that'd be helpful. Meantime, please stop making unproven accusations about my motives. I am not the subject of the FARC - the article is. If you make further comments of that type I will redact them as personal attacks.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first sentence conflicts with your last sentence. From my end I never had anything planned beyond that context comment/opinion, and have no need or plans to to say it again. Maybe that settles it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In my last sentence I was referring to your personal comments at FARC. My first sentence is in regard to this thread here. If you're unwilling to document your accusations I'd appreciate it if you'd redact them yourself.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you force me to. (But first, correcting, there were comments about behavior.) You have made a concerted effort to spin every possible thing there as badly as possible. Including very negative (bordering on insulting) adjectives regarding what are two highly respected and accurate sources on the topic (the book and the organization) And you have "history" with the main person that was active on this earlier in the process, and IMHO were clearly battling with them. Finally, late in the process, when the other issues looked mostly resolved, you went through and, in one blitz, tagged 11 non-controversial items. IMHO this (at the forest for the trees level) this clearly looks like someone on a mission to get it's FA status removed rather than someone who is approaching it objectively. Again, I wasn't going to get into this but you insisted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not addressed every issue with the article, as many of them are irrelevant. I haven't questioned the quality of the prose, for example. The only issue where I've made a consistent negative comments is about the quality of the field guide. But I don't have an axe-to-grind about that book - I just don't think that it should be used as the basis of an FA. Rather than acknowledge that concern and arguing against it, you've made your comments persona, and accused me of having an undescribed motive. You don't say which "main person" I have a history with in this regard. I've been working on the article since 2010. Of the editors who've participated in the FARC, the only one who contributed to the article earlier than me is Gadget850, and I have no particular history with him that I recall. Please tell me to whom you are referring. As for the tags, the uncited material has been a problem that needed to be solved to meet current FA standards. I asked you before when the appropriate time would have been to add the tags, and you never answered. Adding citation tags is not disruptive - the purpose is to point to text which needs improvement. Again, there has been no reason for you to be making so many personal remarks in a FARC. It's unbecoming an experienced editor. I've redacted your most recent personal remarks.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but am not carrying this any further. North8000 (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is the editor with whom you said I have a history?   Will Beback  talk  02:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The person you were battling with early in the FARC and at the rs noticeboard. You have been incessantly trying to ramp this up. Again, I am not going any farther. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Darkstar1st? If so then you'll find he followed me to that FARC, not the other way around. You seem to be making your judgments based on incorrect data.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not Darkstar, not Gadget, but you already knew that. North8000 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, "Dreadstar" - I get them mixed up. Regardless, that user followed me there, not the other way around.[10] It's absurd to accuse me of pursuing the FARC in order to go after that editor.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That bears no resemblance to what I said. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

please

Then please clarify how my involvement with the FARC was due to having an "axe to grind" regarding Dreadstar.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

submit

You keep inventing things that I never said, wanting me to discuss the things I never said, and ignoring what I did say. I have no time for such games, and "games" is putting it nicely. Signing off. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

difs

I asked you why you said four three times that I am participating in the FARC because of an "axe to grind". I asked you what grounds you had for making that accusation and you eventually replied that I "have "history" with the main person that was active on this earlier in the process". It appears that the person in question is Dreadstar. Yet it's clear that my involvement in the FARC precedes his. It would be more accurate to say that he has an axe to grind with me than the other way around. These faulty, unsupported personal attacks are very disruptive - just look at the FARC page. I see there was a complaint about similar activity posted to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive104#Unfounded accusations of gaming Wiki-policies to push POV in articles just a few months ago. Please avoid making these kinds of accusations again.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You conveniently neglected to mention the unanimous finding which that the complaint was unfounded, at which time the person who made the report got into a battle with one of the people at the board. North8000 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, your accusations are incompatible with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He conviently neglected to prevaricate, you mean. Of the 4 participants in that discussion, you and myself included, two of us requested that you address your personal attack — a request with which you eventually complied (thank you for the redaction) — while the 4th participant recused himself from the conversation after being forcefully admonished to either substantiate the "bullshit" he was spouting or desist. It saddens me that you didn't take away from that discussion the lesson that frequent commenting-on-editors will eventually bend people a bit too far -- regardless of how much justification is used to rationalize said commenting (e.g.; I meant your "actions/activities", not "you"! Don't take my insulting comment about you personally, because it's "common" and no big deal, lots of people are as bad as you! No, I can't give you a specific example (tree), because I've developed these opinions I'm now spouting over a long period of observation! Don't be upset over my insulting comments about you; let's just drop it and now we can be friends!). Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What you just said bears no resemblance to what happened there. At least in Wikipedia the record is preserved of what actually happened. North8000 (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

wow am i lost, i was thinking farc like the freedom fighter group advocating native american rights and you link a boyscout merit badge. i would love to weigh in on the topic but have no idea whats going on here. even though i disagree with you both on occasion, i would miss either of you. either drop it, or let me get in a few words. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

the universe collapse under the weight of your obstinacy Darkstar1st (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, why are you interrupting the postings here? If you want to see the diffs go look at the FARC revision history. North8000, the editor with whom I'm holding this discussion, knows perfectly well when and where he made the posts in question.   Will Beback  talk  00:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

i have, and neither of you are in them. normally i would butt out, but farc is one of my favorite topics, like a jeff spicoli robinhood. it would have taken less keystrokes to post the text... Darkstar1st (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

is there some reason you dont want me to see your post? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, just to cut through the baloney you are spreading above, the exact statement was:

"I don't know what to say. I've been just trying to help a little here. IMHO an analysis of this whole thing shows it to be a one person axe-to-grind situation. The source in question is solid, (went to RS noticeboard) and, to be doubly sure/belt-and-suspenders, with substantial other sourcing recently added, the article is less dependent on it. The patches (and the details of the front and back of the patches) are the SUBJECT of the text by the images of them/ which they illustrate. Nobody has pointed out anything that is out of date. And even half of the uncontested detailed info which the person recently did an 11-tag tag-bombing on has now been sourced in that short amount of time."

THAT's IT! (And then later I took out the "axe-to-grind" as an olive branch.) EVERYTHING else has come from you pressing and pressing me into more and more conversations, and the twisting, misquoting the answers, and making an intense effort to escalate this. It it time to DISENGAGE on this thread!! North8000 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Manning dual citizenship

Hello there - I appreciate your comment on the other board and hope that a direct message isn't inappropriate. A discussion on this issue is now ongoing at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning and I believe this has now reached a point where Wikipedia rules come into play and, while I've been doing some reading, I don't really have any expertise in this area. I would therefore be extremely grateful for any advice you have to offer.

The current state of play on the talk page is that it is held that, because Bradley Manning has not stated that he identifies as British or directly asked for help from the British Government (or, to be strictly accurate, that he has not affirmed his British citizenship since his arrest), it cannot be mentioned in his infobox. Bradley Manning's status as a dual citizen is mentioned in at least six reputable sources:

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-reassert-worries-about-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-mannings-treatment/2011/04/05/AFXo4GlC_story.html

New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/brits_pressure_us_on_bradley_m.html

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/bradley-manning-british-government-concern

The Guardian [again]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/13/bradley-manning-mother-william-hague

The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8377603/Bradley-Mannings-treatment-ridiculous-says-Hillary-Clintons-spokesman.html

Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367746/WikiLeaks-soldier-Bradley-Mannings-freedom-speech-row-Julian-Assange-UK.html

Some of these - for instance the Washington Post and the first Guardian article - carefully weigh up Bradley's lawyer's statements on the matter and come to the conclusion that Bradley is indeed a citizen of the United Kingdom. That Bradley Manning became a UK citizen automatically at birth is clearly the case in law but I understand that Wikipedia is primarily interested in reputable secondary references to this information.

I feel that, given the weight of supporting references, some of which actually take Bradley's non-affirmation into account in reaching their conclusion, to suggest that that non-affirmation is a reason for not listing his British citizenship alongside his American citizenship is incorrect. I also notice that where a personal statement is seen as necessary in Biographies of Living Persons (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates), this applies to religious and sexual identity or matters likely to damage the reputation of the subject, so I am not sure the rule is applicable in this case.

Am I wrong?

(And thanks for reading thus far!)

My best,

Naomi

Auerfeld (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Naomi,

Not sure what to think about the info box. IMHO about 90% of everything points to his nationality as being simply American. The reasons why I consider the 10% to be only 10% is that even if the British government said he can have or has British citizenship, (and apparently there are wp:RS'd statements to that effect) the next question is that could a person be forced to have an additional citizenship without accepting it? Also, keeping in mind that this is a statement / opinion of just one national government. And then finally, could this possible 2nd citizenship refute calling his nationality simply American? I think "nationality" includes more things than just citizenship(s). So, outside of Wikipedia, I personally would call him an American. And inside Wikipedia, I would just include an explanation of the situation in the text without trying to boil it down to a one word judgment.

When I said "not sure about the info box", I said that because IMHO the info box, including the very brief statements that it makes, should include only stuff which is not seriously contested. Including "British" as a nationality IMHO would not meet this test. Possibly calling him simply "American" also does not meet this test. If the latter were true, then a remedy might be to leave it out of the info box and just explain it in more depth in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi North8000

Thanks very much for your comments. I note what you say about nationality conveying a difference sense to citizenship - this is not the way I see things, but if others do, I take that on board. Perhaps the solution here is to indicate somehow that what is being referred to as nationality in the infobox is not the same as citizenship - either to link the reference to the discussion in the main body text or, alternatively to leave it out altogether as you suggest. I think that, as long as it does not appear that Wikipedia is making a judgement that Bradley is not a UK citizen, then the basic demands of accuracy are fulfilled.

I'll also post this to the article talk page - thanks again.

Naomi

Auerfeld (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

deinstitutionalisation

my article has been updated made impartial - can you please withdraw your request to delete and give more feedback if you think it needs changing further.

The above post is by user Ninnep North8000 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ninnep,

Thanks for the note. First you should understand that the comments there are not a critique of your work. They also not intended to say that your writing is badly biased. Actually it is responsibly written, albeit by someone who is an advocate for a cause. And I also laud you for your advocacy. And, in hindsight, some of the comments may be a bit terse/rough. But the crux of those comments are that a Wikipedia article needs to cover a topic rather than advocate something. I see that you are a new editor. Wikipedia, for editors, is somewhat an "alternate universe" that one must learn. For a brand new editor to go right to creating an article sets a pretty rough road for themselves, being forced to learn / deal with all of those things at once. I'd be happy to help if there are any questions.

A second issue is the structure of the title. Deinstitutionalizaiton is something that is done with people, not with facilities as the title states. I think that some type of rename is needed.

The subject(s) involved on this seem like they would make a good article or articles, if those articles do not exist already. And it seems like you would be a good person to build it. My first thought is that you need some time to wikify this, whether it be by delaying a deletion review for a month or two, or by userfying the article so that you can work on it off-line without all of this pressure and then bring it back out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

New Drive

I am currently planning a new WikiProject Abandoned Drafts drive for all of winter. Project members may join right now. If you would want to participate, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Drives/Planning/Winter Special. The drive will start in 12 years ago. ~~~~Ebe123~~ talkContribs 16:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite and update. I mentioned originally that my involvement in the project will be just a little....taking ones that I think I could do well at. I'll keep watching for those.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

re: primary sources template

I just wanted to thank you for being patient on this matter :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have a strong opinion there, just trying to help gel a solution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

WP:TPG#YES

• Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.

Next time you have a comment about me or another editor please place it on the user talk page rather than an article talk page. I've moved the remark you made about me to my talk page. Let's keep the article talk page focused on discussing the article.   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is about your behavior at the article. It belongs at the article. And, per your usual manipulations, you have put in a false accusation in as a implied premise of the above post. I'm pretty disgusted with the situation you have created there with your battling. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As indicated there, I have decided to leave the article. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation terminology compromise

After much discussion Jakew and I have ironed out a compromise which we believe will satisfy the competing demands and interpretations of policy which have been offered in the discussion on terminology. We would welcome your input on this compromise. Vietminh (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy to. Could you point me to it? I looked around recent talk history and didn't see it. I think it was on a notice board as well? North8000 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked harder and found it and wrote my thoughts there. Thanks for valuing my input. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

FGM comment by you

In my own quest to comment I happened to re-read the earlier discussion which you took part in and found the following written by you:

“Wp:npov dictates neutral wording. It does not say that non-neutral nouns can be substituted if they are more common. "Cutting" is straight-forward descriptive and neutral. "Mutilation" expresses an opinion. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)”

I‘m not sure if you aware or not, but NPOV does have a policy specifically for dealing with cases where a name is the most common but could be considered un-neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming), the text in question reads:

• “In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed.”

Vietminh (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it's great that you reached a compromise, and it looks like the main folks involved there are cool with it, and, if so, I encourage y'all to go with that compromise. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, guess you didn`t check back. You were the only person in support of the compromise besides me and Jakew. Vietminh (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I haven't been watching the article Each time I've gone there was responding to a request. I put another comment there. It looks like we may disagree on the underlying question, but agree that the compromise is a good idea. So, ironically, I think that thinking differently than you on the former supports you on the latter!  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ya I saw you just commented, did someone also request you for a comment before the compromise? Vietminh (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that it was from a noticeboard.

I'd be happy to leave the article if you prefer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not my place to say that one way or another, thanks for your comments they are much appreciated. Vietminh (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. I think I'll be phasing myself out there. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have removed this comment you left on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protolira valvatoides because you left it after the discussion was closed. The article was kept anyways because it was nominated by a user who has a gross misunderstanding of the deletion policy. I am dealing with this user issue separately. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It was a sort of edit conflict situation, it was open when I started writing the comment. All's well that ends well. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For continuing to try to bring some reason to chaos. Enjoy your vacation, all the best! --Nuujinn (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Just got back, and haven't gotten my head screwed on yet, but wanted to say thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"an alternate universe."

Hi. Did you mistakenly put a typo "an alternate universe" after my signature?[11] Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Never intended to do anything like that, so it sounds like I screwed up. Sorry. I'll go fix it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My guess is that it was meant for your edit summary but glitched. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cerejota (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't delete any comments. Splashing dead horse pictures all over the talk page and trying to unilaterally close multiple discussions, including brand new ones is a much better candidate to be called vandalism. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an agreed upon consensus on the correct place to have this discussion. I am not acting unilaterally, I am enforcing that consensus. I hope you can productively raise your issues without reverting other's work. You might not like the consensus, but it doesn't cease to exist because you chose to. Please use the correct venue (the "first sentence" sub-talk page), as per consensus.--Cerejota (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There was NO consensus to exclude these discussions from the main talk page. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is, and you supported it: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Straw_poll.2C_should_this_process_discussion_remain_here_or_be_moved_to_WT:V.2FFirst_sentence.3F You can change your mind, but not unilaterally.--Cerejota (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just went through it. I count TWO people who said move it, plus a third (me) who said have the main discussion there but explicitly NOT exclude it from the main talk page. So I am not changing my mind. Where is this alleged consensus that you are speaking for this huge and extreme action? Please self-revert. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Stawpolls are not the sole way to gauge consensus. The wide-spread participation of many editors on those discussions, demonstrates the broadness of the consensus. Only you stand alone against it as it stands, beating a dead horse to obtain horsemeat.--Cerejota (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying the criteria for being counted as against what you are doing is only by reverting you? North8000 (talk)

A request

I ask that you consider taking time away from posting on WT:V or the subpage. Your posts there, particularly the multiple polls, became disruptive several weeks ago, and the page has basically ground to a halt because of it. I took six weeks off from editing either the policy or the talk page—from around June 20 until August 7—just to make sure other people's voices were heard equally, so I hope you'll consider doing the same. If your proposals are truly supported, they won't be affected by your absence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the main talk page needs a breather from this whole topic. And I'm ready for quiet work on it in an obscure place for a while. If you want that to not be the subpage, that's fine with me but I just said there that I went along with the subpage idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The main talk page needs a long, long breather. But I think you need a breather too from this topic, partly for your own sake, but also to see whether it has legs without you. At things stand, you're doing two things simultaneously (and in something of a contradiction): keeping it going, and strengthening opposition to it because of the overkill. If you would let it be, you would see whether it has legs of its own. Anyway, just a request. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready to slip into low key "homework" on this, even without a request. Me suggesting that we adopt the first sentence just proposed/suggested by Jimbo Wales was a sort of special departure from that, I saw that as acting more as a facilitator. I noticed that somebody tried to hide the fact that it was HIS suggestion by changing the section title. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

But not before reverting and continuing to disrupt. You are posting an inherently POV poll; RfCs are supposed to be neutrally worded. I give up on you because it is pointless. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it is POV to say who wrote the proposed wording. That was the original title of the section, it's the title that people commented under, and it provides the information of who wrote it. Since when in Wikipedia does saying the source of something get called "POV'ing" it? And don't forget there is a second dimension to this. I put up HIS suggestion, and people are removing the fact that it was HIS suggestion simultaneously with villianizing me for putting (it) up a suggestion on the first sentence. I call that dirty pool. But, as I said, I put it it up as a facilitator, and don't plan to further advocate it. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Cliff Hangers

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cliff Hangers, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gh87 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did the merge. The article was a 95% copy of it's section in the target/parent article so it was easy. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Diego State University shooting

• I think you should reconsider, based on the newly added sources. Marokwitz (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I have not been watching the article and I agree with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I went there and said that. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work with Blueboar, seems appropriate somehow even though I dropped one on you recently. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to let Blueboar know that we're sharing one.  :-). You certainly also have one coming but I have to figure out how to do it right. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Political Views Discrimination

I have added to the talk page of discrimination why I believe your section should be removed I will give you three days to respond before I will attempt to remove it again.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Actually, it's not my section, I just reverted the removal of it. North8000 (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Layman

Since you participated in this recent AFD you might be interested in this follow up discussion.TMCk (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. That outcome surprises me, but I was just weighing in as an uninvolved person, so that result is fine with me even though it's not what I recommended. Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

It is a long rationale, but you've spent time on this. Good on ya! Have a Friday night beer. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sending one your way too. When this is over, some bigger ones will be due and I've already got yours named. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Two sentences of proposal

What do you think of my comments in the section The part of the proposal at the end of the first paragraph? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's good. Maybe not perfect (IMHO "a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion would be logically perfect) or realistic to be able to to have a bold out-of-the-blue edit stick on the first sentence, but a good addition. Kudos to you. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Re "Maybe not perfect (IMHO "a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion would be logically perfect) or realistic to be able to to have a bold out-of-the-blue edit stick on the first sentence, but a good addition." - I didn't understand these comments since the mentioned items were not part of the edit. This edit concerns adding to the current policy just the two sentences, which were taken from the main proposal. It is not meant to replace the current proposal.

Please note that the more parts that the main proposal has, the more difficult it it will be for the proposal to gain a consensus. By getting this part into policy in advance, it will reduce the parts of the main proposal. And if this less-controversial or non-controversial part is not accepted, that information may be useful. If it is accepted, then at least part of the main proposal will have been successful and improved the policy page. Do you think it would be a good idea to put these two sentences into policy before the main proposal is put to a consensus poll? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bob. That wording is wording which I made up; I was just saying what I would consider to be ideal on that phrase. Everything that you said is good points & thoughts. I'm kind of focused on the main proposal and its rationale. I think that the fact that it has emerged from an extensive process and that it is a compromise are important things for making it fly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"not truth"

Thanks for being understanding... My main complaint is your use of "not truth" without the word "verifiability" attached. The intent of the proposal is to return us to the original intent of a very specific phrase: "Verifiability, not truth"... not the phrase "not truth" which means something completely different. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Still not sure what I think, (I was thinking that those two words most accurately describe the topic of debate) but I decided when in doubt to quickly take it completely out as you suggested while there was still an option to cleanly take it out of that prominent place. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, please give your input

Anyone reading this, please give your input at an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I will be off Wikipedia until October 21st

Starting in a few hours I will be off Wikipedia until October 21st. Wilderness trip where even cell phone doesn't reach. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi North8000. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I'd be happy to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I nominated the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article to be the Featured Article of the Day for November 10th

I nominated the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article to be the Featured Article of the Day for November 10th, the anniversary of her sinking. Of course I'm biased. :-) Interested persons should please comment at WP:TFA/R#November 10. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey North8000! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I will do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Hope to see you soon :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We've started a discussion here on access issues for some of the features - I'd love to hear your thoughts :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, dude! :). Oh - and the next Office Hours session will be held on Thursday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. Give me a poke if you can't make it but want me to send you the logs when they're released - we'll be holding sessions timed for East Coast editors and Australasian/Asian editors next week. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey; once again, office hours for the article feedback tool! These will be held at 22:00 UTC this evening; logs from the last session can be found here. Hope to see you there :). Do drop me a note if you're not familiar with IRC and would like the cliff's notes, or if you can't attend but would like the logs/have some questions for me to pass on to the devs :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Okeyes,

Thanks for the heads up. Answering your one question, I only vaguely know what IRC is about and have no idea how to use it or how it works. I have a pretty hard time adding involvement on anything that is on a schedule. Wikipedia works for me because I can work on it whenever I get random moments. Thanks again.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Political Discrimination.

I have added more information on the discrimination page about political discrimination. I still think we need to cover liberals but you can probably think of quite a few more political ideologies which have been oppressed. I added information about Anti-Zionism/Anti-Israeli actions in the United States as well as Anti-Communism and Anti-Freemasonry in the United States and during the Holocaust in Europe. Please help me make this a worthwhile section.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help in any way that I can. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Ashland article

Since you voted on the first AfD for Occupy Ashland, just a note that it's up for a second deletion nomination here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you help?

My name is Austin Gaines and I am a freshman at Clemson University, making a page about a lake in my state. I have seen that you have made my edits to the Lake Superior page, and was wondering if you could give me some suggestions as to what I could add to my page.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel555 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I posted the following on their talk page. I saw them at both Lake Superior and my talk page. I answered at Lake Superior and at my talk page. BTW, the practice is to put new posts on the bottom of talk pages. I moved your Lake Superior one to the bottom and will move the one on my talk page to the bottom. Otherwise nobody will see them. So, stay tuned and I'll have an answer on my talk page (at the bottom) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The best place to start is to find some sources (ideally secondary sources) that cover it and start putting in important material based on those sources. Size, depth, geology, history, flora and fauna, and current uses are a few good ones for most lakes. Let me know if I can help further. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: SS Edmund Fitzgerald

This is a note to let the main editors of SS Edmund Fitzgerald know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975

The SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a 729-foot (222 m) Great Lakes freighter that made headlines after sinking in Lake Superior in a massive storm on November 10, 1975 with near hurricane-force winds and 35-foot (11 m) waves. The Fitzgerald suddenly sank approximately 17 miles (27 km) from the entrance to Whitefish Bay, at a depth of 530 feet (160 m). Her crew of 29 perished without sending any distress signals, and no bodies were recovered; she is the largest boat to have sunk in the Great Lakes. The Fitzgerald carried taconite from mines near Duluth, Minnesota, to iron works in Detroit, Toledo and other ports. Her size, record-breaking performance, and "dee jay captain" endeared the Fitzgerald to boat watchers. Many theories, books, studies and expeditions have examined the cause of the sinking. Her sinking is one of the most well-known disasters in the history of Great Lakes shipping and is the subject of Gordon Lightfoot's 1976 hit song, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. A year ago it wasn't GA yet and WPWatchdog and I decided to shoot for GA, FA and then getting up as today's feature article 11/10/11, anniversary of the sinking. With the immense help of WPWatchdog and many others along the way we did it. Cool! North8000 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As a FAC editor who may have frustrated you, congrats. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And you never frustrated us. At each stage we wanted nothing less than a thorough, tough review to make the article better. And your expertise, which is immense, doubly so in the areas of sourcing and referencing, was very much appreciated. Thank you for that and your efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for carrying it over the goal line. You were a great partner!--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, WPwatchdog, we did it! What an immense amount of excellent work you did on this, and what a pleasure you have been to work with on this! Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the report at ERRORS was a bit of a kerfuffle, but when dealing with the TFA ERRORS page, the best approach is usually the one taken by Nikkimaria :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Not sure what you meant because I did not see any post by Nikkimaria there. When I saw it it struck me that that extra info should pretty simply clear it up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria didn't post there-- she just removed the sentence from the TFA blurb, so that ended that-- it didn't seem to be going anywhere, and the objection to a reliable reference to a dee jay struck me as pedantry. Some FAC reviewers (myself included) hate reading ship articles that are numbers, numbers, and more numbers that never tell the story of the ship-- I thought the "dee jay captain" provided nice relief from all the stats we typically see in ship articles, but if the folks who populate the ERROR page disagree, it's best not to get into a tussle, which is why I think Nikkimaria's action was wise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. On the topic, the person who thought it was wrong missed something pretty obvious....the source was saying what people were calling the captain, not an attempt by the article or even the source to characterize what the captain was doing. But it's no biggee whether or not that is in the blurb. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Hello North8000, regarding your comment here, the image did not have a specific fair use rationale for that particular article. I have added rationale to the image. Per the NFCC criteria 10c, a fair use rationale is needed for every instance where the unfree image is used. Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that that was a single image, so when I clicked on "it" and saw the fair use rationale already there I thought mistakenly "it" was for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Is that project still on-going to get the article to FA in time for the centennial? If so, let me know when things are falling into place so I can do some citation cleanup and comments. Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder and nudge. Both WPWatchdog and I did some work on it. From my end then I started working on reading and absorbing two large technical reports on it and then I kind of slipped into low gear, though I monitor it and the most heavy-duty of the sub-articles. (the time line one, which is really a more detailed account of the collision and sinking) and do some things. I think WPWatchdog (to a dramatic extent we make sort of a good yang and yang team....we did very different things at the Edmund Fitzgerald article) is willing to work on it, but due to those dynamics, if I don't get off my butt on this......... There is also additional complexity of there being a lot more material available than the Fitz article (stories from 1,511 survivors vs. zero from the Fritz, movies, etc.) and many sub articles so there are decisions as to what goes in the top level article and to what depth. But I think that that is all manageable. Me, I'm motivated to get it to be a very high quality, interesting, accurate and informative article.....to go beyond that to wiki-perfection will need other folks on the team. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that we have the team and intensity that we had at the Fitz article. Me, I'm motivated to get it to be a very high quality, interesting, accurate and informative article.....to go beyond that to wiki-perfection will need other folks on the team. I think that WPWatchdog, who did an immense amount of work on the Fitz article is willing to help but not quite as revved as on the Fitz article. I floated the idea at the talk page but so far no others have responded. So I plan to work more on the article (more than I have been), and I'm not sure where that leaves your thoughts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that subject might be too popular for the article to become stable enough for FA. Every time someone makes a movie that shows space aliens landing somewhere in 1912, there will be a clamoring for the article to reflect this "fact." And then there is the constant drizzle of more mundane what "really" happened type stuff. Even keeping it stable while the FA process runs its course might be problematic. Am I being too pessimistic? Rumiton (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that THAT aspect would be doable with a core of editors who are focused / committed to that and who who stick around. 2-4 people would do it. I think that the bigger challenge is getting a team to do all of the needed work. I think that me and Imzadi1979 would do similar things that we did at the Fitz article. What we're missing is person/persons to do the immense amount of researching, sourcing and detailed work as WPwatchdog did at the Fitz article. My impression is that they may be willing to do some here but not to do a repeat of that Herculean job they did on the Fitz article. Long story short, I think we'd need 1-2 additional people willing to really jump in deep on this. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment on talk:Verifiability

You asked whether a post I made was a comment or a support 'vote'. It is not numbered, is tabbed, does not start with or contain the word 'support' and clearly relates to the preceding comment. Am I missing something? I cannot see any particular technique other than those I used to indicate a comment rather than a 'vote'. PRL42 (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The way to do that would be to change the indent on your first comment from ":" to "#:", the indent on the person who responded to you from "::" to "#::", and the indent on your second comment from ":::" to "#:::". This shows them to be all underneath the previous comment as you intended. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your thoughtful post on the NPOV talk page. I need some time to think about all of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm flattered. I've been working on it; it still needs to have its writing tightened up (repetitions etc) and to have the the proposals made more specific, but with your question it seemed like a good time to put it in there anyway. North8000 (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia

I actually partially agree with you in certain aspects. Homophobia is a term that I don't think should be used for many reasons. A)uneducated people don't realize that phobia can mean discrimination. B) it is limited to homosexual people often times ignoring bisexual, asexual, pansexual, polysexual people. C)it should be more consistent with words like racism and sexism. For these reasons I more appropriately use the term Sexualism. Technically sexualism would apply to heterosexual people as well.

On another one of your comments. Reverse discrimination of homophobia would not be againist those who oppose homosexuality and the normalization of it. It would be those who do to heterosexuals the discriminatory measures that they do to homosexuals. Ex. Beating up a heterosexual couple or not allowing them in your store because they are heterosexual. This is known as heterophobia and is also covered under the term Sexualism. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you on all counts, except reverse discrimination can take forms outside of what you describe. For example,I remember a news story.... of all of the dozens of insulting rant notes pinned to a bulletin board at a Wisconsin University, only the one where the rant was anti-gay got the poster charged with anything for doing so, and with a felony to boot. But on your last paragraph, I never used it in that fashion. I just made that comment to the effect that in the USA, legal anti-discrimination measures inevitably are reverse discrimination measures. What this also means is the the US tends to flip from discrimination directly to reverse discrimination, skipping the middle ground. I gave this as "back-story" info, but causing concerns about this actually happening or resentment to it having happened is counterproductive to the original cause, and this is a common phenomena. As indicated I'm bowing out at the article due to my self-imposed wiki-sanity policy, but wishing you and others there the best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You are misusing the word reverse discrimination no offense. Reverse discrimination is discrimination towards a majority group not towards a group which opposes a minority. Reverse discrimination would include anything that discriminates againist Whites, males, heterosexuals, cisgender people etc. It has nothing do with whether or not say a heterosexual who dosn't agree with homosexuality. In order for it to be reverse discrimination for example a heterosexual would need to be attacked exclusively FOR being or being percieved as being heterosexual whether they believe homosexuality is okay or not. Now don't get me wrong reverse discrimination towards heterosexuals does exist. About 1/50 hate crimes recorded by the FBI in the United States are towards heterosexuals. But you must use the word properly. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, but it is a minor point. Certainly there are many definitions/usages for reverse discrimination. And certainly you would acknowledge that many people would call preferential treatment (e.g. affirmative action, "hate crime" legislation) for one minority attribute reverse discrimination. ? North8000 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually affirmative action discriminates againist everyone not just the majority. It limits the amount of people of a certain race or gender and in some cases other things to being allowed in a certain organization. I actually for the most part don't agree with affrimative action however unless there is clear evidence that certain groups are not being represented. On hate crime legislation this actually dosn't discriminate againist anyone. Hate Crime stops crimes based on say religion. Not just hate crimes againist vulnerable groups such as Jews. For example if a Jew attacked and killed a Protestant while yelling epitaphs that are clearly anti-protestant. Or say a gay man beat a heterosexual while yelling the word breeder these would be prosecuted as hate crimes. And just so you know a heterosexual attacking a homosexual dosn't equal a hate crime unless there is clear evidence that the victims sexual orientation played a part in the process of the person being picked to be assaulted. On your other note look up the word reverse discrimination. It is'nt discrimination to say that a KKK member can't attend a festival for Jews, Arabs or People of Color. It is to not allow a White person with no evidence of racial hostility to do the same thing. On another note there has been instances where heterosexual people have been restricted from entering into gay bars. That is clearly reverse discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The story I spoke of was where someone got charged with a felony (hate crime) for putting a general anti-gay rant on paper to a bulletin board in a dorm hallway. As I remember it was University of Wisconsin in Madison a few/several years ago.North8000 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly argue that event was many things. Unfortunately discrimination is not one of them. He was prosecuted for what he said. Even the first amendment dosn't protect this. The first amendment gives people the right to say anything however it does not protect them from the reprecussions of what they say.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but I had brought it up in the context of an anti-discriminaiton measure becoming many would consider to be reverse discrimination. Charged with a felony for pinning a note to a bulletin board, whereas the consequences would be less or non-existent if his note wasn't against a specially protected class.North8000 (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Again you are confusing reverse discrimination which is discrimination against a majority group in this case heterosexuals with anti-discrimination which are completely different things. In order for this to be reverse discrimination they would have had to target the heterosexual because that he/she was heterosexual. Not because of their opinions on homosexuals. Anti-discrimination is NOT always discrimination unless it specifically attacks the majority group.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are giving a particular definition of "reverse discrimination"; my whole point is that others have different definitions. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your definition is not proper however I could personally define biology as being "the state of walking on the moon." But that dosn't mean that it is right. In order to make such claims on the part of reverse discrimination you need sources and you need to show these sources are properly using the word.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are basically saying that preferential treatment of one class is never legitimately called reverse discrimination. I can't believe that you actually think that, but if you do, we simply disagree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that thats what you got out of the argument. That is not what I said. Giving preferential treatment to one class at the expense of the majority class and ONLY at the expense of the majority class can be considered reverse discrimination. Giving preferential treatment that does make people who are against the class angry does not however. There is a difference between being a heterosexual and being a sexualist. Being discriminative towards a heterosexual is possible and considered reverse discrimination. Being against sexualists is not. That is anti-discrimination.

My assertion is that the law in that example is an example of reverse discrimination, and that many would consider it to be reverse discrimination. I think that you disagree with both of those statements, so I think that we simply disagree in that area. Anything further on this particular item would probably be going in circles, but it's always truly a pleasure to talk to you, even when we disagree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

3RR at machine vision article

By my count, we are both at (or at least close) to three reversions in the last 24 hours at machine vision. Let's be sure not to break WP:3RR. And on that article's talk and in edit summaries, please try to focus on content rather than your interpretation of my behavior (WP:TPG). If you want to comlplain about that, do it at a notice board or on here. But I would save the keystrokes, if I were you. Novaseminary (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll avoid the main topics here unless you care to do otherwise. Long story short, I don't think that there is any real content dispute at the article, nor anything that I would contemplate any near-term action on unless that note that made no sense came back without discussion/consensus, or anything wild-new happened there. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. This just highlights why calling me names, rather than addressing the substance of my concern, is unconstructive. All I wanted was to add a timeframe rather than rely on the temporal description of ”newer” tied to something else that also lackec a timeframe. I was hoping you would just add something from the source noting when the technology arose. You refused and made accusations against me. So I added a timeframe as best I could. It was never meant to be a battle. Novaseminary (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The source does not have that info (level of detail). "Newer" (in comparison to the framegrabber method) is the best (most specific) possible summary that does not inject unsourced info. The change that you just made is not erroneous, but it leaves an erroneous impression (about 7 years off) about when the direct connection technology became available. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Welding and machine vision - COI?

North, Is the machine vision company you claim to work for (or at least you have claimed to work in that industry for over 13 years now, maybe not at a company) invovled in weld inspection, monitoring, testing, or analysis? If so, would you care to disclose your conflict and how you plan to avoid violating WP:COI? Editing on a general article about the industry you work for is one thing (though I have my concerns with that, even), creating related essay-like articles, especially this section, sets off more alarms. Novaseminary (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

After hundreds and hundreds of interaction and observations over almost two years there is no longer "assuming" of any type, there is knowing Please cease your obsessive battling and following me around (to put it nicely) behavior. In this case it is a complete mis-reading of wp:coi in an attempt to mis-use it. Expertise is not a coi. On the latter, see the afd summary on this article which exposes the ridiculousness & fishing and bating nature of what you just wrote. Please cease and desist. North8000 (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Weld_monitoring,_testing_and_analysis. North, I suggest you simply ignore him and finish writing the article, so other people can see the real extent of the topic and decide if it's worth keeping or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You might want to revise your ”cease and desist” language. WP:NLT. I just am concerned that you are pushing products or processes that your company sells. But you haven't denied it or explained your role in the industry. And expertise is great until it leads to text that fails WP:NOTMANUAL #7. Novaseminary (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely deny it, and please stop this harassment. And, as you already know and deliberately "mis-understood", telling you to cease and desist this behavior is just that; quit the baseless grasping at straws with the WP:NLT linking. And if you see any company-specific product or process promotion in either article specifically bring it up as such at the articles(s). North8000 (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

SIP

Just to reiterate, it would be a significant gift to the field if WP had an umbrella article on this fascinating topic. :-) It's the kind of concept/phenomenon where there's value in seeing different applications: could even prompt scientists and engineers to apply it to their own area, eventually. Tony (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and you are probably right,. But despite all of the technical sounding stuff in there, right now the article really doesn't cover specifically what it is. Missing defining the core concepts, and is even missing a definition of specifically what SIP is. (e.g. to say what is covered by the scope of that term, if such a def exists) And this is from a very technical and EE person who has read the article at least 15 times. If I could ever get my hands on those technical papers I think I could improve it and clarify the situation. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try after I'm out of work jail (14 Dec ... I'm wrecked at the moment). But I was talking more of an article that included selected parts of the welding SIP thing as subsection(s). You mentioned US Navy developments in a quite different area, plus possibly other analogous developments. They probably go under different technical names on google. One could start with a stubby article that at least provides short sections on several of these sig. image applications. I don't know the field well enough to contribute on such a fundamental level, though. What I'm saying is that the welding SIP article could be selectively merged into a new, broad-scope one. Tony (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to say. I don't disagree, and would be happy to help, but the questions in my previous post still exist. North8000 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm flattered. As discussed, I'm interested in / work articles on libertarianism, which often conflicts with the stereotype of conservatism, but an expanding non-stereotypical tent can include the areas of those conflicts. I signed up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)