User talk:Northmeister: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	FILE22901: February 2006-March 2006;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:27, 12 April 2006

Welcome!

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

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

"The prime problem of our nation is to get the right type of good citizenship, and, to get it, we must have progress, and our public men must be genuinely progressive." - T.R. [1]

"I've got to be FREE...Come sail away with me!" Styx............."Put me in cold! I'm Ready to play TODAY!" John Fogerty.

Internet2 -part one-

Sorry, wasn't trying to be hostile on Talk:Internet2. My main concern is whether Alex Jones' opinions qualify as reliable sources. For example, the article for Alex Jones notes that "[h]is journalism is often sensationalistic and lacking proper documentation," which would (IMO) disqualify it from being a reliable source. --mtz206 03:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your hesitation on him concerning that statement. But in my opinion that statement is biased and I would like a source to indicate who actually said that for example. But that is besides the point. I've seen a lot of Jone's stuff, and although I do not agree with many of his conclusions as they are indeed sometimes 'sensationalistic' he does document very well. But, I concur with the majority on this. I think if Jone's has an opinion, which is well researched (and can be shown as such) and relevant for some sort of article, then it is reliable. If his stuff is included without much warrant and it can't be proven he did his research then your in all your rights to not consider it reliable. I hope that helps at least in how I view it. Thanks for voting though, it helped to determine what the situation was without all the back and forth posting. Thanks and I will stand behind the majorities decision there. --Northmeister 03:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln picture controversy - Cathytreks response

A WITCH HUNT AND MY SUBSIQUENT HANGING,OVER A BELOVED PRESIDENT, IS OVER.

I have had several views of an old photograph that would clear it up, but some others use my screen name cathitreks or cathy treks or cathytreks , they are NOT me yet why does everybody have it out for me here for trying to show the truth as I believe it to be!?

I only sought the acceptance of my proofs ..........and have miserably failed. I am leaving your cleec (sp)...now sadly for me, yet maybe happily for many here after the latest attacks and smears for me, for what I genuinely believe in., and now some comments about my credentials that do not dignify a reply,

Fine...im leaving the Lincoln page you decide upon, and the narrow mindedness forever, here in what seems to be a ROSE COLOURED Lincoln Candyland only!...But folks, let us never leave the man in our hearts!

A PERSONAL HERO TO.... ME THAT I LOVE!

            ABRAHAM LINCOLN!

I'm sadly leaving this place filled with much misunderstanding from many of the wiki "comunity" and withdraw from all of you, those who dont understand my sincere motives over a issue that seems hopeless to show or debate even amounst most of you, im sorry.,... I'm really very sorry, goodbye everybody..... I only sought truth.

I am heartsick over some of your attacks upon a sincere belief regardng the evidence I tried to present, my cousin in N.Z. did post under my name with my blessings as she believed too and tried to help show we were right, sorry you dont agree.

I really wonder what Lincoln would say over it all if he could?....

Somehow I believe he'd be sorry for we who sought the truth as some of the few here did, unlike the sheep who followed the wolves

shalom

....."a couple of misunderstood jewish girl's from both the old and new worlds bow from the stage here forever on this debate."

So...see ya round the galaxy! (Cathytreks 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Do not take anything personally. Create a page on the photo itself and the controversy surrounding it. Provide views for all sides and cite yourself well. That is your best option. The photo -valid or not- does not belong on the Lincoln page. That would be highly insensitive to American hearts and to the memory of the dead. Good luck and best wishes. --Northmeister 17:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom rulings interpretation by 172 and response

You seem to be a relatively new user. You do not appear to be aware that LaRouche editors are under a set of restrictions that are uniquely applied to them. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others. Pointing to evidence that a LaRouche supporter is engaging in veiled promotion of LaRouche by digging up alternative sources is necessary if the Arbcom rulings are to be enforced, although in other cases this would be considered against the norm of "assuming good faith." 172 | Talk 00:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us assume your acting in good faith. Ok. But the link you are making is not legitimate. If I felt that the material HK had added was not factual or relevant to the article then I would stand behind your decisons even if I disagree with the Arbcom decisions having read them already. I am new, but am not new to this witchunt going on, which I strongly protest - any editor should be given the benefit of the doubt, it is when they blatantly promote propaganda or link to an uncredible source, their edits become a problem. You are using Arbcom in the wrong spirit. That said, it is important to stay cool and consider the contribution. That meeting did take place, its relevant to the article, and cited to a good source. That's what counts. --Northmeister 00:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

any editor should be given the benefit of the doubt I'm just the messenger. I do not have the authority to impose or lift arbcom sanctions. If you want to make that case, making it to me won't help. You can make that case and appeal the Arbcom rulings. The arbcom has accepted appeals and lifted sanctions in the past. 172 | Talk 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but lets stay on topic. Let's work together in good faith here. --Northmeister 00:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC controversy "Sheen has an engineering degree?"

Source? --Mmx1 06:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that somewhere, but after checking can't find any evidence of this. My bad, I retracted that portion of my comments. Thanks for noticing. As I state on my user page, I welcome discussion; and I am not perfect - I am human afterall. On another side of this issue, do you really believe that questioning 9-11 has no place at Wikipedia when so many have brought up legitimate questions? I can't say where I personally stand as of yet, but I have heard the questions raised and they are cause for concern, especially with the Pentagon and in lieu of the lies told to the American people to get us into Iraq (a war I was staunchly for until I heard the truth about WMD etc.), I am now with Murtha on that. --Northmeister 06:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I don't delve into the main pages like 9/11 conspiracy theory pages at all. That page is fine, and I'd rather have a central presentation of the arguments, than endless vanity pages (which is really what they are) pushing the people behind it. As an exclusionist, my aim is to stomp out people making a mountain out of a molehill. E.g. the recent spamming by Rick Siegel. Presuming that you're an American, you have to realize that celebrities are the last people you really need on your side. They help with publicity to some extent, but all they do is parrot what other people say. --Mmx1 15:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Makes perfect sense actually. I understand your objections better in light of the above. Your right about celebrities, though in American society, they seem to gather more coverage than more credible sources of information. I think I will change my vote to merge, in light of your statement above to 9/11 Conspiracy Theory. Thanks. --Northmeister 15:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you message. We are all free to have our oppinion, thanks for sharing yours. I personaly view it as impossible to cover the whole issue on that article, without having it dominating the page. Further, i belive it is not even the correct place to merge it, if one is to merge it to beggin with. You see, i argue that the article is about Charlie Sheen sort of getting "out of the closet" (he has been studied this since 2001), and that is an enteirly other issue than describing conspiracy theories. Sort of United States presidential election, 2000 and President of the United States, one is a idea, the other is a notable event based on the idea. Hence, Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews is a notable event based on 9/11 conspiracy theory, and it does as little sense merging them as it makes sense merging United States presidential election, 2000 and President of the United States.

Im actualy quite dissapointed on Wikipeidans giving this many "delete" votes, specialy giving the notability of the event. I mean, you got the 9/11 truth movement singing "haleluja!", "Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story" gives 138 000 google hits [2], 60 800 as a exact string [3] and its being deleted as non-notable? We have almost 44 000 people voting that they agree with him [4], and its deleted as non-notable? The criteria for including a book is it having 5000 readers, this interview have had 3 CNN and one FOX News coverage, and its deleted as non-notable? Remeber, this is a Event, not a theory.

Thats my point of view. Thanks for listning and peace! --Striver 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a page is needed to include all persons of prominence or in academia that raise questions about 9-11. My vote is for Merge and Keep; as the material is relevant somewhere and prominent here in the USA. --Northmeister 02:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internet2 -part two- compliments

I would have voted if i was informed. I support every single word you have writen on that talk page, altough i wouldnt be able to be as cool as you was. Peace. --Striver 14:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the compliment and the vote. Do you have email? --Northmeister 02:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom ruling misuse and harassment of user HK

You wrote:

Together they continue to harass this user (Will Beback - Slimvirgin - 172) and use Arbcom in wrongful way to continue to ban and block his edits.

The three ArbCom cases that HK has been involved in each place restrictions on his editing here, due to proven transgressions. In what way, specifically, are we using those restrictions wrongfully? -Will Beback 19:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I have noted my objections on numerous occasions. The most recent regarding American System stuff. I consider harassing this user with constant threat to him and constant renewal of his ban arbitrarily and without due process as wrong - regardless of Arbcom. Arbcom gives no person the right, administrator or not, to act as Board of Censors or in a dictatorial way towards others. I would stand with you, in spirit, if HK added material directly from LaRouche in light of the Arbcom ruling (which I feel no legitimate court of law would concur based on the evidence provided there in favor of HK, Rangerdude and others), but you and others, whether knowingly or not have used the decision inappropriately and should be called to task for it. I have no agenda here but truth and fairness. HK was wronged just recently and you should do the right thing and reverse the wrong. Slimvirgin and I have worked together in part, and she shows that when we stand back, we can work together. You have shown this on occasion. I get a little wordy at times and heated over insinuation going my way; but still wish to work with you two to keep wikipedia free from propaganda from all sides - if that is your intention in what you do. It seems to me that by showing a act of grace and mercy regarding HK here, and giving him the benefit of the doubt (my God he uses AOL), would go a long way in establishing credibility with your reasoning. In the end all controversial websites should be put to a strict scrutiny (not just LaRouche singled out), that if their material is to be used, it must be relevant one, researched itself two, and backed up with other credible sources three. If this had been the decision of Arbcom, then it would be justified and keep out propaganda. That is my proposal to you and Slimvirgin. The above statement should be your criteria for judging on the Arbcom rulings regarding HK's or anyone's edits and you both should join with me in putting forth a new ruling (requesting one) for clearity to indicate the above. --Northmeister 19:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you, here or elsewhere, describing any specific way in which we've used the ArbCom cases incorrectly. HK is prohibited from edit-warring over the insertion of LaRouche theories. After three ArbCom cases he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. While the use of AOL prevents pinning down a precise IP, the preponderance of evidence is sufficient to identify sock puppets. We do not need a new ruling, the previous three ArbCom rulings contain ample enformcement mechanisms. -Will Beback 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think the community does. My above definition (noted in bold in two parts) would be sufficient to keep propaganda out of wikipedia (your stated intention I believe) while preserving wikipedia as a place free to edit as it is suppose to be. No single person or party affiliation is singled out in my definition, but specific actions. That is the right thing to do. Under my definition, if any editor puts forward LaRouche related material from his websites, then any other editor may challenge such inclusion if it is not researched (per the source) and does not contain another source backing up the assertions or edit made; reason: LaRouche related websites are controversial. This would allow yourself or anyone to keep Wikipedia clean from any group using blatant propaganda or spreading 'theories' that are not sourced. Sources count as you have so noted to me (quite rightly) on the American System page (though excessively). Requiring outside backup from credible sources would allow credible material from any site so long as it is researched itself, relevant, and is backed up by outside sources that can be looked up for verifiability. I propose my wording (worked out with you, Slimvirgin, Everyking, and others interested) be submitted to Arbcom for amending their decision to target a SET OF ACTIONS, and not particular persons; that all past grievances be forgiven on anyone's part...and all future actions be based on the new definition. --Northmeister 02:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition bit is interesting, and perhaps if HK or you are involved in a future ArbCom case you can bring it up. In the meantime, there are three outstanding sets of restrictions on HK. You've made general complaints about the implentation of those restrictions, but you haven't indicated anything specific that was done incorrectly. -Will Beback 02:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us start with due process procedure and innocence of HK until proof of his sock-puppet activity presented to him. He was banned or blocked on assumptions made and accusations lodged without his being offered a chance to refute any claims. There has not been any evidence I have seen presented indicating his guilt by Arbcom standards. Let us start there as it is most important for all of us. --Northmeister 05:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HK started with the presumption of innocence. Then, on multiple occasions, he was found to use sock puppets. Now his presumption of innocence is no longer there. He has made many responses in his various cases, so there hasn't been any lack of input from HK on the matter. Please reread all the previous ArbCom cases involving HK before commenting on the evidence about his activities. -Will Beback 20:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your advice. I stand by my assertions of fairness and justice. Thanks. --Northmeister 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr of Will Beback - question answered

Hi Northmeister, thanks for your message. There's nothing really to reconsider, the edit history was very clear. He undid your edits only twice (though technically with multiple edits). Functionally the information he removed was only removed in whole twice. He would have had to remove that same bloc of information twice more to be in violation of 3RR. As for the spy stuff, it's indeed true -- the Mersereau family operated a tavern (the "Blazing Star"), a stagecoach line [5] and a ferry from Staten Island to the mainland and in those capacities were able to collect a lot of information. There's also an infamous incident with some skiffs [6]. A colorful piece of my family's history I'm quite proud of. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, well-taken thanks. - Thanks for the extra info, you indeed should be proud. --Northmeister 22:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumière's "My comments on new "paragraph" for NOR"

Northmeister's new "paragraph" states:

"However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes POV expression of editors': personal views, political opinions, and personal analysis or interpretation of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold against the consensus of editors working on that given article. Further, original research includes any unpublished synthesis of published material that does not directly relate to the topic at hand and is meant to support an argument that consensus of editors working on any given article does not support. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, synthesis of related sources, or arguments published by Wikipedia must hold to a consensus of editors and be verifiable through published sources both online and in print. See this example for more details."

Here are my comments and questions:

Where this paragraph would be used?
POV expressions if they are written in Neutral style are acceptable. NPOV does not mean No Point of View. It means Neutral Point of View.
I will replace the "personal" by "unpublished". Even if it is not personal, if it is unpublished, it is OR.
There is no mention of synthesis before "where such a synthesis". Which synthesis is "such a synthesis"?
The policy must explain as clearly as possible using criteria that are as objective as possible what kind of material must be excluded. Every individual editor should be able to interpret this policy to determine if some material can be included or not, without ~~the need for~~ having to always refer to a consensus because consensus is part of the definition of a criterion. The interpretation of the policy in practice should not systematically require a consensus. It is only in case of doubt or dispute that a consensus is used to interpret the policy.

Thank you for your interest in this issue. I am looking forward to find out more about your insights. -Lumière 03:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My answers to to five questions on new "paragraph" for NOR

To 1. It would replace the one there now for clarity purposes.
To 2. I think neutral point of view in and of itself excludes POV expressions; which by their nature are simply not Encylopedic. Our purpose should be to serve the greater community by providing facts backed up by published (online or in print) sources that are related to any given subject, that would give the reader of such article a basic compass for the articles topic.

We have to check our respective terminology. Consider the following example: "USA today reports that 85 percent of the USA population like to eat pizza.[Ref]". In my terminology, this is a POV expression that is perfectly NPOV. -Lumière 07:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the above example is not POV by the author; it simply expresses the POV of USA today per a poll I would assume. Therefore it is acceptable if on topic. --Northmeister 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is only that we attach a different meaning to "POV expression", not that we have different opinions on the basic principle. For me, "POV expression" is much too neutral as an expression to use it to mean something biased. -Lumière 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 3. Replacing personal with unpublished is ok with me if it has consensus support. Though I would like to know why you object to that word being used? I agree with the final comment here about OR.

Because the key point of NOR is that the material must be published, and this has nothing to do with the material being personal or not. For example, if I have a personal view and succeed to publish it in a reputable journal, I can include it and provide this reputable source as a reference. -Lumière 07:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The prime purpose should of NOR should mainly be to exclude personal opinion that is not referenced and backed up with credible information. Ensuring that that the material is from a published source assures that at least the publishers (if credible themselves) have made sure the material is sourced well enough. Therefore, the change you suggest is OK with me. --Northmeister 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 4. "It also excludes POV expression of editors': personal views, political opinions, and personal analysis or interpretation of published material" - Synthesis of personal views, political opinions, personal analysis or interpretation of published materials is what this relates to, with the following expression important as a qualifier "appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold against the consensus of editors working on that given article". This would allow the community of editors on a given article to determine by consensus opinion if an individual edit is synthesizing material not directly related to the article and not any single editor to be judge and jury of material edits - it is a safeguard agaisnt abuse.

Wouldn't it be clearer if you added "and a synthesis thereof" just before "where such a synthesis"? -Lumière 07:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe your right here. I would add that to clarify the issue. Good point. --Northmeister 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To 5.I feel with the changes I propose with my paragraph, there is clear indication that any editor may be BOLD and edit accordingly, but if another editor charges OR then it would take a consensus to determine this situation - the consensus would hold weight over individual charges again to prevent abuse by a limited number of editors or single editors who for whatever reason have decided to make such a charge against another. If that charge is true, the community would respond as such and back up the charge and the edit can't stand; but if it is untrue then consensus is likely to emerge to keep the edit. Until consensus emerges one can't revert for NOR unless other editors concur in majority and only holds as long as this situation lasts. Of course there must me NPOV and sources to back up any edit made.

Yes, your definition says that it is only when OR is charged that we must check for consensus, but the problem is that it also says that the consensus must always be checked when OR is charged. The proponent of the material cannot conceed that it is OR before there is a consensus because your definition says "and is meant to support an argument that consensus...". I am sure that it was not you wanted to say and it is against common sense, but this is what your wording formally says. Moreover, the correct way a careful editor should use the policy is to ask himself the question "Is it OR?" for all his edits. To answer this question, in accordance with the definition, he will always need to check consensus. This is why, formally speaking, the consensus part should not be a part of the definition of OR. -Lumière 07:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as it stands now, especially with the wording of Slimvirgin entered against any formal discussion and consensus for it, any editor may charge OR and then revert another editors possible hours or days of work - let alone allow a revenge revert to take place coming from another article dispute by charging "OR". This being the case, it is necessary to establish a formal process by which editors may judge whether OR is really taking place or not - so as to know when to revert for those reasons - and to allow an editor to be BOLD in editing while also knowing that if he follows the policy of NOR he will have some backup against an abusive editor who simply is starting an editing war for whatever reason. The weight of burden would shift to the one making the accusation to get a consensus from those who also are working on that edit or to put up a RFC or straw poll to garner opinion on the subject and not on the person making the edit in the first place. This prevents abuse and puts proper safeguards to preserve editing freedom while also preserving the integrity of Wikipedia against 'obvious' violations of NOR. Wouldn't you agree? I would agree with your statement about an editor asking that question "Is it OR?"; but he need not always check consensus for this because the charging editor has that burden of proof. The original editor may defend his edit in an open Talk forum, allowing a consensus to emerge as to whether the charge is accurate or baloney. If accurate then the edit may be legitimately reverted under NOR policy; if not then consensus would maintain the edit as is. There is room for improvement to my paragraph. If you know of anyone else who has questions on this, make them aware of our disucussion - so we can work to improve the paragraph together. Thanks. --Northmeister 14:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is already in the policy that in case of dispute on the interpretation of a criterion in the policy, we must get a consensus to support one interpretation or another. The interpretation that has obtained consensus should be used. There is no need and it actually weaken the criterion to define it in terms of consensus. The problem is what do we do before the consensus is obtained? This is really the problem that you worry about. Indeed, if someone can remove material before a consensus on OR is obtained, then the burden of trying to obtain a consensus for NOT OR is all on editor that added the material. I do agree that no sourced material should be removed on the basis that is OR before a consensus on a violation of NOR is obtained. However, it should be something in addition to the definition of OR. Using consensus in the definition of OR will not help at all to address this problem. On the contrary, it will make it worst. It should not be in the definition of OR. Note that this is very delicate issue. For example, in the case of Verifiability, the opposite principle is used. An editor is allowed to remove material that has no citation to support it without having to get consensus, and I think this is fine. I do agree that the opposite principle should be used for material that is supported by sources, but where the problem lies in whether or not the sources are sufficient. In other words, once an editor has provided the sources and evidence of their reputability if requested, then the burden of evidence should shift from this editor to the opposing parties. -Lumière 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That is why a consensus statement is so important regarding your last sentence, in my opinion. There burden does shift to the one making the charge once sources are provide, to indicate to the community of editors on a given article - why the sources are insufficient or why OR is taking place through synthesis of unrelated facts to the article. --Northmeister 15:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I answered your questions. I am willing to discuss this further. I think we agree and others at the page that the present paragraph as it exists is not right for a number of reasons. We as a community should then work together to put my paragraph in or to work on another that indicates the correct path. --Northmeister 04:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOR 3RR issue brought by Slimvirgin

Hi NM, you've violated 3RR at NOR. Please take the opportunity to revert yourself. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did so to protect policy. Look, if your position emerges with consensus then I will support that. My changes to your edit, which I ask you to consider (see above), clarify issues I have with your wording. That said reverting in the manner I did was to uphold wikipedia policy. Work with me here, because I generally support your changes with my additions to add balance and clarify issues. Even if we disagree, we should certainly work cordially and discuss this stuff at talk there before ANY changes are made. The policy officially states this. Am I to be scolded now for upholding what the pages says? I did not revert to my edit, but to a previous version before a unitateral edit without consensus. Therefore my reversion was justified and not a violation of 3RR. --Northmeister 05:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Note: I did revert the edit as asked while asking Slimvirgin to do the justified thing and uphold the integrity of policy by reverting my "self-revert" to the original until consensus is reached. As it stands now, this has not been done by her. --Northmeister 14:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless. You've been blocked for 24 hours, as per a policy of which you are clearly well aware - WP:3RR. Proto||type 16:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a three-hour block, unaware of User:Proto's block. But in any case ... I'm quite prepared to make that longer rather than shorter, unless you show some sense that simply reverting is no way forward. So I'll be back to check on this later. Cool off, and ask yourself what repeated reverts get you. (Not a difficult one.) Charles Matthews 16:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Yeah, it gets me nowhere. Could you restore the deletion of my response on the page protection page that an editor deleted out, it is unfair...I can't do it because I am blocked. I do understand though, read my comments below about what is going on. Thanks. --Northmeister 16:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was restoring it while you were making that request. It wasn't deleted by another editor; it was deleted by a software bug that strikes from time to time, and that causes two or three previous edits to be undone when somebody edits a page. AnnH ♫ 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Could you now respond by assuming good faith and understanding my point? My reversion were to uphold the policy of reaching consensus. I am all for a straw poll to reach this or collaboration to reach agreement, whichever you prefer. If the straw poll or collaborative effort works in Slimvirgins favor to keep the her unilateral edit as is, then I will accept placing it back in. I attempted to clarify the issue, by addressing concerns with my edit and to also attempt a civil discussion rather than personal insults that were being lodged against myself, Lumeire, HK, and others. --Northmeister 17:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think he was hoping to get the page protected in his version, and was prepared to accept a 24-hour block for that end. He applied for page protection after his fourth revert, and then just kept reverting, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, hoping that the moment the page was protected would be just after one of his reverts. AnnH ♫ 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith with me. If you read the talk page, all I wish is to have policy enforced here and to have consensus reached before changes. I changed Slimvirgins wording to prevent the sort of abuse that is now going on here, unilateral without consensus blocking of me on what? That I reverted to the 'original policy' before the April 10th changes to policy that were made without consensus, contrary to actual policy stated at the top of the page? My attempt was to force discussion, because the editors involved had resorted to name calling. See my protest below. Why are you assuming the worst? Why the tone above? --Northmeister 16:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Northmeister (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

HIGHLY PROTEST THAT MEL below who has personal disputes with me is now engaged in taking the Block protest out, without allowing other editors to comment and see my dispute. DO NOT ENGAGE IN BULLYING TACTIC. Again, Mel below has been involved in personal disputes with myself and favoring Slimvirgin in the past; when Slimvirgin engaged in a Revenge revert of Twrigley who ruled in my favor per the Mediation process. See my talk discussions for examples of this. HONEST Administrators please stop these sorts of abuses and consider the facts here in light of what just happened. --Northmeister 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was upholding a policy page changed without consensus and I reverted to the original and asked on talk to have a discussion to reach consensus on this. My reverts are not meant to vandalise or to prove my point, but to uphold the original according to wikipedia policy. I already attempted to request protection of the original version until consensus is reached. Further, I protest this because there is an active edit war going on with personal assaults being lodged by the other party's rather than proper discussion. All I wish is for policy to be upheld regarding reaching a consensus before making a change to a policy page. See the talk of this NOR page for what I have said. I request an honest administrator to unblock me, protect the original version of the page, insist on discussion there without pesonal attacks, and that consensus be reached by straw poll or collaboration before changes are made. - I would not revert here unless I felt I was upholding the policy stated there at the top of the page to have a Consensus before changes that change the policy itself or make definitions that are not clear. --Northmeister 16:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I added comments to my request for page protection and a user deleted those comments, I request an administrator restore them and admonished this user for deleting another users comments. What is going on here, that civil discourse is rejected in favor of bullying? --Northmeister 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... too much insisting there, for me. And I don't think it works, to say you are 'upholding' one policy, by so obviously driving a coach and horses through the three-revert policy. I came into this in the middle of things. Now, you get a chance once more to convince me you aren't going to revert as if it is going out of style. Charles Matthews 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give you my word. I will not revert. I have made my protest, and it seems policy is overlooked here when it comes to someone making changes against policy without consensus to a policy page. But my word to you is as good as gold. If I violate that, feel free to block me longer still. I do not violate my word. I was simply trying to enforce a policy against an abusive administrator and her allies who are attempting to change definitions without collaboration and consensus of policy pages: I still ask that you help out by protecting the original version before the April 10th change - So a consensus through straw poll or collaboration can be reached. Then whatever that consensus is, I will support, and as I said I would not revert since I gave my word. This is up to you though. Thanks you for your consideration so far. Its a breath of fresh air for me to say the least. The best, - --Northmeister 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the block will expire in a couple of hours now. I'll leave it to run out (I'm cooking a meal right now ...). Charles Matthews 17:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. Meal, yeah...I've got to get lunch. Good eats! :) --Northmeister 17:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post by User who has had personal disputes with me in the past

There are no grounds for unblocking; you knowingly violated 3RR in your attempt to get the page protected in the version you've been fighting for. Please don't replace the {{unblock}} template. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a disintered party, you have had disputes with me in the past and have sided with Slimvirgin against a very honest user Twrigley who was revenge-reverted by her because he had mediated a case between herself and I; and found in my favor. That user has left Wikipedia because of this abuse. DO NOT REMOVE my request unilaterally please. --Northmeister 17:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now the page is protected?

NULL AND VOID PAGE - ORIGINAL PAGE BEFORE APRIL 10TH is official - to wit: The wikipedia policy page NOR which is not suppose to be edited in a manner to change policy without community consensus, which Slimvirgins edits on April 10th did, is now protected under her version. The original version can be accessed by all, and is the OFFICIAL VERSION, until discussion, collaboration, and or a Straw Poll determines consensus. Hence, no editor is bound to adhere to the changes as the changes were made in violation of policy - regardless of what some editors keep writing about this - it is as clear as the State of Texas is big! :) That said, disucussion will commence as soon as I have food in my stomach, and I insist any editor abused by the 'new' langauge inform Arbcom or the Mediation cabal of such abuse and of the violation made per policy changes without consensus. The original Version is different quite so from the one now protected which is the Anti-original version and should as I stated be considered null and void for all intent and purposes of Wikipedia - as the proper procedure was not followed to change the wording which changes policy! Happy day all. --Northmeister 17:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

I've unprotected NOR and re-instated your 24h 3RR block. So you can have a longer rest William M. Connolley 18:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. Let those who may be concerned see what just happened here - even though another administrator and I have discussed why I was blocked, why I feel it is unjust, and that I certainly understand his reasoning and therefore by my word have agreed not to revert. Then the above occurs. This is again an official protest made for the record. I appreciate the rest, however. --Northmeister 19:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]