User talk:North8000

Archive 1

Archive N

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 person-to-person (broadcast and pasted in spam items, most bot 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)

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)

I did a lot of searching. It appears pretty clear that the SIP term was invented by that individual / company and refers to their specific product. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 10 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)

Apologies

Achowat showed me that these user pages are not actual Wikipedia articles. Apologies for the confusion. 75.42.222.149 (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. It just looked like a lot of semi-random comments in a lot of places in short period of time and I got concerned about the possibility of harm being done. Let me know if I can be of help or answer any questions in any other areas.North8000 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you do something so the top of these user page thingies say they aren't Wikipedia articles? It was very confusing.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.222.149 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You can tell by the page title. Whenever the title starts with "User" it's a user page. The two main prefixes are "User:" and "User talk:" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Couple more notes: You might want to get yourself a user name. And put (exactly) 4 tildes (~~~~) after your post to sign it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Brain stem death article

Brain stem death. North8000 - You showed kind interest and willingness to help the technically inept when I was last concerned with this entry several months ago. I have now revisited it and feel that I have, perhaps, a duty (as one involved from the first) to try to get it into uncontentious historically and scientifically accurate form. The November revision offers a Wiki-approved format to work on but my editing will inevitably upset the referencing and links. Would you be prepared to put them right once we've got the para contents in order?DWEvansMD (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure specifically what you are asking or proposing, but I'd be happy to help. Let me know the specifics. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the way with a revision which will, I hope, be seen as simplifying this unfortunately confused topic. I have cut out some of the references and that requires complete re-listing, of course. As I haven't mastered the system used on this site to cite them and link to them, it's for that I'll particularly need help. DWEvansMD (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. Your saying "I have cut out some of the references and that requires complete re-listing, of course." sounds like a misunderstanding of how they work. Happy to help there as well. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now posted my revision in a form which will, I hope, meet Wiki standards of factual statement including mention of criticism without partiality. Since it is the concept of "brain stem death" - as diagnosed clinically - as human death which is the matter of general interest and the likely reason for enquiry, and that is a peculiarly British concept, I have cut out the confusing references to brain death concepts and protocols - in the genesis of which the diagnosis of the vitally important brain stem death element was, of course, necessarily involved. The unscientific Minnesota study - of 25 "moribund" patients, only 9 of whom had EEGs - had much improper influence on the reductionist thought processes of some neurologists some 40 years ago but should not be quoted these days. I have also cut out the US President's Bioethics Council's refusal to accept "the UK standard" in the hope of avoiding confusion with "brain death" (in its various forms the worldwide standard for death diagnosis on neurological grounds). Maybe you'll think the title should be more restrictive, as someone suggested a while back, but "Brain stem death in the UK" wouldn't be quite right as the UK lead has been followed by others, particularly its erstwhile colonies. I would therefore prefer to leave the title as is. I have resisted adding a very recent reference to Shah, Truog & Miller's very frank admission (in the current J Med Ethics) that all "brain death" and other invented redefinitions of death (for transplant purposes) are but legal fictions but it could be added as a minor edit at a later date if thought appropriate. It's interesting that two of the authors are from the NIH and Truog from Harvard (where the "brain death" notion was first mooted in 1968). May I leave you to deal with the references which are now in the simple style preferred by most journals on submission? Many thanks, David DWEvansMD (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to. My initial work will be with using the Wikipedia tools for them, not in rewriting the reference format. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I did it. There were a few loose ends ( three unusued references, three cites to reference numbers that do not exist) which I noted on the talk page. I'm assuming that the latter refer to the former but were just misnumbered, but did not want to edit based on that. Let me know if I can be of further help. North8000 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much - and apologies for missing the renumbering of the last three references. I have now corrected that on the site, taking the opportunity to remove a redundant sentence about apnoea testing generally. I wonder if you think the rather complicated anatomical drawing of the brain stem (etc) should be restored. A simpler, more diagrammatic, picture showing how small the brain stem is would, I think, be more helpful to the lay enquirer but the one we took from the US President's White Paper was thought to be copyright sensitive. Again many thanks for your help - so much appreciated - DavidDWEvansMD (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I incorporated those last ones.

Not sure about the merits of particular diagrams, but using any image or diagram that has copyright questions is very difficult in Wikipedia, so I would avoid that. Mind you this is done not to protect the creators of the works, but to force the creators to release them for unlimited use (including commercial) by others. This is done by refusal to recognize any conditional permission, so it does no good to get permission from the creator of the work. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you like an opinion on the article, it is immensely better. One critique is that it still needs the UK context added to statements in several places. There are several statements made where something that is true only for the UK is stated as if it were universal. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that North8000. Opinion much appreciated. I will "let it settle" for a while and then have another look to see if I can clarify the specific UK application. Maybe, if I can get that aspect right, we can look forward to the removal of those unsightly and unsettling headers .....DWEvansMD (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the "Wikify" tag can go now and I'll try removing it.North8000 (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hope the "undue bias" tag can go too ere long. The "globalize" tag may be more of a problem as the "brain stem death IS death" idea is, as we've noted, essentially and peculiarly, British and Commonwealth. I am seeking expert advice about its wider usage, particularly for legal purposes. DWEvansMD (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If the significant use of the term were limited to the British Commonwealth, and you said something to that effect, or at least state that context for the info, I think that you're OK. 16:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to put questions in superscript on IMHO problematic sentences in order to tag them for fixing by you. For example, you have a paragraph where you just say "the Conference" and I would add a question to make it say: the Conference^{What conference?}. These would help towards removing those other two tags. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. That would be very helpful. "The Conference" referred to is the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and their Faculties in the UK, references 3 and 4, so perhaps just adding the reference number would suffice. I'm awaiting formal confirmation that "brain stem death" is recognized as death only in the UK and its former colonies/Commonwealth. When I have it, a short addition to the first section should be enough to make it clear that what follows is specific in that sense - and it would probably be a good idea to restore the US President's Bioethics Council's White Paper reference as evidence that "brain stem death" is not accepted as death in the USA (where whole brain death is required, as in most of the world). That would, of course, require re-numbering of the subsequent references (+1). Would that be a big problem? Thanks for your active criticism and real help. It will be good to get this article right soon if we can. DWEvansMD (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Here goes. The material should be explained in the article without reliance on material linked by footnotes. Answering your last question, it's not a problem; under the system that it is now in it gets handled automatically. So, here goes!North8000 (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made some changes in light of your helpful comments North8000 and look forward to hearing what you think of my efforts to deal with them. I thought of putting in a specific statement, in the preamble, to the effect that the article is essentially about the UK concept and practice but deleted it as redundant when I saw how that is emphasized throughout the piece. It's the equation of "brain stem death" - as diagnosed by the official Code - that matters, isn't it? The legal position is, even now, unclear in the UK since it's a matter of case law here and there has never been an established precedent in the context of organ procurement. I still await the advice of my lawyer friends about its status elsewhere in the world - particularly Commonwealth countries - and may be able to "firm up" the legal side of the matter at a later date. Meanwhile I think it best to simply let it be known that it's "established practice" (in the UK) without risking criticism of misunderstanding the true legal position, whatever that may be. Perhaps the final mention of the UK Code of Practice needs yet another reference in the closing paragraph, though I guess readers will be tired of going back to that at that stage. Happy New Year - and thanks again - DWEvansMD (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. With all of the changes in the article, culminated by your recent changes in response to my notes, I think that the POV tag can go and I'll try taking it off. Regarding the last top level tag, "globalization" would be an issue if the concept is significant elsewhere but not covered in the article. You don't have to "prove a negative" in order for that tag to go, but some due diligence and exploration owuld be good for that purpose and also a good idea for for making a good article. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have now had the expert legal advice I was awaiting and find that, contrary to what we have been told for many years, the concept of brain stem death as a sufficient basis for declaring death for legal (usually transplant) purposes is not accepted throughout the Commonwealth countries, most of which hold to the concept of whole brain death (however they diagnose it). I have therefore tweaked the preamble minimally in the hope of making it clear that the reductionist concept is peculiar to the UK and a couple of its erstwhile colonies. Do you think that will suffice for removal of the remaining tag or do you think I should add a sentence saying that what follows refers specifically to the UK use of the concept and its diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis and certification of death itself (particularly for orgnan procurement purposes)? That seems a bit cumbersome to me, especially as we keep reminding readers of the special UK use all the way through but I will value your opinion. As regards the proper use (for prognostic purposes) of the syndrome's diagnosis in general - by whatever criteria clinicians may use according to their judgment and local or national hospital standards - I don't think we can or should say anything as there's no evidence of that use to go on. Happy New Year! DWEvansMD (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A happy new year to you too! In order to try to provide the best possible answer, I have two questions for you:

1. Is it also a standard for death in India and Trinidad & Tobago as noted in the article?
2. Setting aside the "Legal standard for death" topic, is brain stem death significantly a technical / medical topic elsewhere? To let you know where I'm going with this, if it were to be a significant technical / medical topic elsewhere in the world (evene if nto a legal standard for death) and the article only covered brain stem death with respect to places where it is a legal standard, then it would have a globalization or scope-narrowness problem, because it completely excluded coverage of those other significant areas. Conversely, if it is really only significantly a topic in the places where it is a legal standard, then coverage of those constitutes full coverage of the topic and then IMHO it wouldn't have a globalization/scope problem.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Yes - it is a legal standard for death in India and Trinidad & Tobago. 2. Setting aside the de facto and basic science aspects - particularly the ongoing debate about the ability of the various tests to diagnose true and total death of the brain stem (however defined) - the only real significance of formally diagnosed "brain stem death", as diagnosed by the procedure laid down in the UK Code of Practice, is its use as a legal standard for death certification. Comment and clarification much appreciated. DWEvansMD (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that you answered my main open question. I just want to double check my understanding. So, "Brain stem death" is a term that is really only used with respect to being a legal definition of death. And so it is not a general scientific or medical topic outside of those countries that we just discussed? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That is my understanding North8000. DWEvansMD (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I think that it's probably time to take the globalization tag off. I'll expound on this more at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you North8000 - and congratulations on the splendid links - for I expect it was you who dealt with them. They should prove very helpful to the typical lay enquirer. DWEvansMD (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! I can't take credit for any links but hopefully helped a little. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried North8000. When I went to Wiki this afternoon - before the UK protest shutdown - and keyed in "Brain stem death" I got a page saying there is no such site. The same thing happened on two repeat attempts - and when I tried to 'Log In' I got a page saying there is no contributor named DavidWEvansMD (same response to repeated attempts). What is going on? Have I and the site been removed by "the Thought Police" perhaps?! If so, I suppose there is nothing I can do about it and must accept the way things are. But perhaps I could e-mail you, as a friend, for information. Would you allow me to have your e-mail address for discrete use please? Mine is dwevansmd@ntlworld.com 81.107.34.21 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Very strange .....! All seems to be well again now, some 10 minutes later. The site comes up promptly, and via Google, and I logged in as normal to add this. Some entirely innocent glitch, maybe. Apologies for worrying you too - if I did. But I'd still like to have your e-mail address, in case of future difficulty, if you wouldn't mind. DWEvansMD (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It was probably just temporarily broken. Sure! on the email address. I sent you an email with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just revisited this topic and lo and behold, Dr Evans has reverted it into a polemic in which he himself is the most referenced author, a presentation quite out of keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Admittedly some effort has been made to disguise the distortion. However, any approach which seeks to treat this topic as a British legal matter rather than as an international medical issue remains gravely misleading.

The article must give due emphasis to the fact that most countries, including the US, do not impose any mandatory confirmatory tests of whole brain function, but only demand evidence that the brain-stem is dead.

Due emphasis means not only stating that this is so but also explaining why, and placing the evolution of the British criteria in their full historical context - both influenced by and influencing work done elsewhere.

So let's hope we can agree a way of bringing this article back up to the standards of international relevance Wikipedia requires and which the subject so clearly warrants. VEBott (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have sourced material, please add it. And if there are specific statements that you think are wrong, polemical, etc., bring them up on the article talk page. But if you are saying the article is too narrow, I would think that the main focus should be adding sourced material on whatever areas you feel are missing or uncovered. You are saying a lot of things about Dr. Evans's work on the article which are inaccurate, insulting and uncivil, and missed wp:agf by about 2 miles. Like baselessly inventing bad faith. Let's skip the drama and insults and instead build the article. I'll answer this in more detail at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you help please North8000? I have been trying to update Reference 11, which is way out of date, but cannot seem to get into the list to edit it. It should read : Coimbra CG. Are 'brain dead' (or 'brain stem dead') patients neurologically recoverable? In Finis Vitae - 'brain death' is not true death. Eds. De Mattei R, Byrne PA. Life Guardian Foundation, Oregon, Ohio, 2009, pp. 313-378. DWEvansMD (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy to. I did it. Let me know if it looks OK. (BTW, that material is in the text where the reference is cited.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That's fine. 81.107.34.21 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI V

WRT "I saw the initial immediate reversion as kneejerk and wanted to at least get the possibility considered as a possible quick solution"

I totally, TOTALLY understand. Absolutely do.

Trouble is... everyone thinks "It was one revert of a revert" - and when 10 people do, it's a problem :-)

Take care,  Chzz  ►  17:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This seemed like a special case due to those factors, but you are of course right. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

Hi there, I understand that at the time Ireland was part of the UK, but it is still a bit misleading. A person who might not know much about this topic they could easily assume that Ireland is still in the UK. Today it is very common for people to refer to Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. The following is only a suggestion; "The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line. It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard, which is located in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK"

I know that it wasn't built in Northern Ireland but the shipyard is still active and it is in Northern Ireland Velvet1346 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there some version that is accurate both then and now that nobody is going to be angry with? North8000 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

WikiThanks

Thank you for getting my back. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure, it was well deserved. North8000 (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You screwed up the move to Weld quality assurance

By removing the redirect at Weld quality assurance, your single edit to the page prevented it from being a WP:MOR. Now you have to ask an admin to do it at WP:RM. Please do so, and read WP:MOVE. Novaseminary (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No need, now. I tagged the redirect for speedy deletion to make way for the move as noted as a possibility at WP:RM. Novaseminary (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool/thanks. I didn't know that that would prevent a move. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to do the move? North8000 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'll let you update the link at Welding since you reverted me when I tried to change the link there to point to the redirect which is now the article title. Novaseminary (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqib Khan

I invite you to revisit he article Aqib Khan. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed mine to "keep" Much improved, including sources establishing wp:notability. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

IEEE 1394 NPOV

I don't understand why you removed {{POV}} from IEEE 1394. The logo is not the issue. Please have a look at discussion pages before removing the heavier banners. Specifically read Talk:IEEE_1394#POV_issues_with_.22Comparison_with_USB.22_section. --Kvng (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the issue was the proprietary and non-representative logo. So, as my edit summary said: I "Remove(d) logo and POV tag as possible resolution. Just trying to help; feel free to revert if you do not agree." What you are pointing me to now is a February 2011 section (which had more recent(August) posts) many many sections back. I did not realize that there was any reason to look that far back (I had looked back all the way until I saw a Feb 2011 date, a post which was newer than the one that you pointed me to.) Further, the top level tag was put on in August 2011 but what you are basically telling me is that the comment on why the tag was there was NOT in the August 2011 sections, but only as an addition to the Feb 2011 section. Either way this falls under, as I said, "...as possible resolution. Just trying to help; feel free to revert if you do not agree.". North8000 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored {{POV}} due to issues identified in discussion but removed the logo as per the other discussion. --Kvng (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If the issues are still there, that's the right thing to do. I would suggest indicating the reasons in the current talk page area. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

FA RFC

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

Cool! North8000 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Recent edit at The Seekers article

Hi North8000 It's a well known fact that The Seekers had their farwell concert July 7 1968 at a BBC-TV studio in London.I can't understand why you are misleading people and writing that it was on the 9 July.I tried to correct it but you wrote the 9th again.Please contact Graham Simpson at Musicoast and he will confirm it.He wrote the book about Judith Durhams life and is in close contact with The Seekers. (by user: Proculled)

To explain. It is a common form of vandalism for folks to change numbers etc. in articles, we usually call that "subtle vandalism" Your change, being while not logged in, and with no edit summary raised a concern that that might be the case. So I reverted your change and wrote the following edit summary: "Don't know if this was subtle vandalism or a correction. Please talk to us if it was the latter. Thanks" So we were looking for you to just touch base on the article talk page (or make your edit with an explanation/edit summary) to indicate that it was a sincere edit and put your edit back in. I'll put your edit back in. Also, it looks like you are new to Wikipedia, and are knowledgeable on and have sources on the The Seekers. That article could really use somebody like you there. Please stick around and edit the article and let me know if I can help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi North.Thanks for changeing the date.Things here should be correct.Yes I'm new here on Wikipedia and find it a bit "hard"to understand how things work here.I have some knowledge about The Seekers and have done some work on the Norwegian page about The Seekers.Did some work on the english page as well but others changed it so I thought why bother.But I will see, maybe I will have a go on The Seekers page.They aere still loved by millions around the world and I know many come here to find info about them.Take care,Proculled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proculled (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do. I'll keep on eye on it and help in any way that I can, or let me know if I can help. You know The Seekers far better than I do, but I know Wikipedia stuff. BTW, the routine is after you post on a talk page, put 4 tilde's ("~~~~") after your post and it will automatically sign your user name and date etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on Libertarianism

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Libertarianism". Thank you. --Fsol (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I responded there. As indicated, my main concern is process...you basically trying to force that into the lead against consensus. That article has a brutal past, and over the last year we have gotten the process to be much more civilized/stable/civil and I'm willing to put myself into the breech / take heat to help maintain that, even if it involves somewhat going against my own preferences. (I'm a proprietarian libertarian, but I don't think that proprietarian is even agreed on by libertarians, much less a central tenet.) Secondarily, I think that the consensus had a good basis. Property rights are note even agreed upon by libertarians, much less it being a central tenet of libertarianism. I think that the best solution is to put your material elsewhere in the article and I'd support that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Religion and Science

Hello User:North8000. I hope this message finds you doing well. I noticed that you were interested in lectures that discuss the reconciliation of science and religion, as you mentioned here. You may find this helpful. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! In regards to your original comment there, I made these edits to balance out the information already present. What do you think? I look forward to your response. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 04:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Hi North. I hope you're ok with my close here here. Best. Wifione ^Message 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Good close, a bit different than my recommendation, good close. I didn't have a stake in it, I was just trying to help by reviewing some of those. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. See you around. Wifione ^Message 12:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I'm genuinely sorry if it sounded like I was scolding you. That wasn't my intention in the slightest. My pointedness was simply to draw attention that our discussions need to progress, to funnel toward some kind of a defensible resolution rather than endlessly repeating itself. This is an article about a controversial topic so its talk pages attract people who like to troll and others who like to soapbox about ID (both/all sides far too eager to do this), but that's not the purpose of the page. The purpose is to nail down content for the mainspace, and in any content dispute it's the entry level requirement, the bare minimum, that sourced content be the focus to settle it. If it's sourced, it qualifies for discussion. If it isn't sourced, remove it from the article until it is.

That's all I intended from my comment. When "we need to do this's" are neatly spelled out, and each one of these "this's" are obviously non-issues either because they *are* already addressed in the article or that the reasons they *aren't* addressed were just explained mere hours before, I'll say as much because there is no value in any of us wasting time in these wild goose chases over imaginary "problems". Yeah, so I may have sounded sharp toned against you and I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention. My answers were maybe too focused on my own take of how the discussions there go awry, but they were never meant to be against you. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and, of course, accepted. I didn't take it as directed at me specifically; my offer to leave the article was more an indication that I was only there to try to help. But to explain my notes there, one strength that I think I have is to see the structure of material/statements and the mechanics on how it affects the overall course of events. When I look at that article I see something that is more promising (more easily remedied) that the usual eternal POV war that most wp:articles on controversial topics are doomed to due to some weaknesses in wp policies / guidelines. In this article that is a fundamental lack of clarity in the area of the main question that I posed. Also that the answer to that question might not be in-dispute. And so getting the answer agreed-upon might be both a realistic possibility and a good foundation for resolving some long-running issues. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Racepacket

By consensus of the Arbitration Committee, the request for arbitration enforcement in which you participated has been moved here. The hearing will take place at the new location,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. My comments are limited to some narrower areas but might be useful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

appreciate the keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion plus need help

Thanks for the keep on List of infrared articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, if u want it would be awesome if u comment on List of plasma (physics) articles, and List of laser articles for they are both at stake which took me a while to create friend to the end at worlds end The end hopefully a to be continued for these articles.Halo laser plasma (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't log out of my brothers account I forgot because I asked him to comment on my articles about to be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy to. A good template for something I've been thinking Wikipedia is missing....navigation type list articles. Where categories don't do the job, and the material isn't suitable for a disambig article. IMHO the perfect one would have a nav sentence or phrase by each, but this is good too. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello North8000

I was wondering about this movement of my direct comment to S Marshall. Accidental in the tidying up? — Ched :  ?  19:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It was on purpose, trying to keep just people's responses in that section rather than discussions of their responses. Also in line with the initial thought. I had 3-4 of my own where I did the same. I figured that without that it would all turn into a giant blur. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would put it back as it makes my comment appear out of place. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was gone for a few hours. I'll do it if you still want but it looks like it worked out, (?) S Marshall having responded to your comment with it in the discussion section. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care .. I don't want to argue with anyone. — Ched :  ?  22:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination revert

Hi, this isn't relevant because there's no sign that it's notable enough to be included in this entry. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Hairhorn (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking further into it, there are even more problems. See my latest edit summary in the entry for more. Hairhorn (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well to me that looks like discrimination on the discrimination page. The cite gave the title, date and location of the article. Chicago Tribune, Feb 5th.. Did you check? So you have said both copy vio and that the article doesn't exist (so its copied from a non-existent article?) and that the editor may have been the subject of the Tribune article, with no basis for any of the three accusations. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact there is a basis, based on the name they give on their user page. But I am doing my best not to out the user any more than they have already outed themselves. Hairhorn (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They explicitly give their name, where they live etc. on their user page. Upon a re-read of the article, I noticed that it has done a pretty good job of staying at the higher/more general level. Something this specialized might start messing that good pattern up, so it's fine (and, in hindsight, even preferable) with me that the material stays out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Frustration with deletion

Oakland has 5th highest violent crime rate in the US.[12]. It has paid out more to victims of police misconduct than any other city in CA by far.[13] Its police force may be taken over by the federal government.[14]

In short, Oakland is a highly notable city. Important things are happening in the city government there. It's frustrating to hear that local leaders aren't "notable enough" when they're the civil authorities responsible for truly life and death decisions.

Why are the people of Oakland devalued in this way that their leaders 'don't count'?

I would write more on the biography if I thought it would help, but I'm not sure what more I could add that would change any minds. People for whatever reason want the article deleted despite a lot of Reliable Sources on the individual.

it's hard to write for a project that doesn't seem to value my time. thank you for being an exception. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm assuming that that you're talking about the Patricia Kernighan article. (?) I think that folks there are being sincere in trying to do the correct thing, but some are making an error. One of introducing a second criteria beyond meeting wp:GNG. If you wanted to bolster it further, my advice would be to find an(other) article or 2 which has some detailed coverage of her specifically and incorporate that as a reference. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Secular Liberalism

Hey north,

I'm fixing up the article for POV to save it from deletion. Looks notable from the refs. A412 (Talk * C) 05:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool/nice work taking that on. I've since reinforced that my opinion was and is "keep". The subject is notable, has references, it just needs a lot of work. The latter is technically not relevant to the decision, but a fast start there can't hurt. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

At wp:V

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

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

Talk page of an deleted article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Rocha

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

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

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

Unsolicited advice

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

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

Some more fun

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

Philmont geographic features and Rayado Program merge

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

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

:)

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

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

Wikipedia:Verifiability at WP:DR/N

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

Libertarianism

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

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

Verifiability mediation

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

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

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

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

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

Added 2 books

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

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

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

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

Folk music

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

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

Lake Michigan–Huron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have moved it, here it is:

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

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

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

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

Upbound and downbound

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

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

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

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

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

March 2012

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

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

Response to your possible poll wording

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

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

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

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

With regards to the Libertarianism page IP troll

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

Byelf2007 (talk) 25 March 2012

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

WP:V mediation compromise drafts

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

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

WP:V mediation step five

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

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

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

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witness Insecurity

I invite you to look at article improvements[15] to see if you might up your support from just "weak". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Your participation on ID page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not trying to insult.

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

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

Help editing

Hey North 8000,

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

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

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

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

Presidency of Barack Obama

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

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

Extended content

Notable non-Cabinet positions In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama's dozens of czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009. In September 2009, Obama's green czar Van Jones resigned after conservatives pointed out that he was a self described "communist" and had blamed George W. Bush for the September 11 attacks. In September 2009, it was reported that Kevin Jennings, Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, had written about his past frequent illegal drug use in his 2007 autobiography. Economic policy In 2011, after Boeing had hired 1,000 new employees to work at its nearly completed new factory in South Carolina, the Obama administration ordered Boeing to shut down the factory, because the factory was non-union. Obama fired the CEO of General Motors, and had the government take 60.8% ownership of the company. During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Obama violated the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by illegally treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors. The Obama administration gave $535 million to Solyndra, claiming that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign, and that the company had also spent a large sum of money on lobbying. Obama nominated Timothy Geithner, a repeat tax cheater, to head the government agency that enforces the tax laws. While Senator, Obama had voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which included corporate welfare for AIG. As President, Obama signed a stimulus bill that protected AIG bonuses. Prior to signing this bill, Obama had said, "when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." However, after reading "line by line" and signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses, and said, "Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay... How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" and also said that he would "pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses." On September 12, 2008, Obama promised, "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." However, less than three months into his Presidency, he broke that promise when he raised the cigarette tax. Studies show that poor people are more likely to smoke than rich people. Obama had armed federal agents raid the Gibson guitar factory, order the employees to leave, and seize guitars and other property from the factory - and all of this happened without any charges being filed. In December 2010, Obama signed a two year extension of George W. Bush's "tax cuts for the rich." Obama said that he wanted to simplify the tax code. However, in the real world, Obama's proposals would actually add thousands of pages to the tax code. In January 2012, it was reported that 36 Obama aides owed a combined total of $833,000 in back taxes. Obama sued Citibank to force it to give mortgages to people who could not afford to pay them back. The Obama administration pressured Ford to stop airing a TV ad that criticized Obama's bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler. On September 22, 2008, Obama said, "I am not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it's there... We will fire government managers who aren't getting results, we will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money and we will use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government... The only way we can do all this without leaving our children with an even larger debt is if Washington starts taking responsibility for every dime that it spends." However, Citizens Against Government Waste gave Obama a 2007 rating of only 10%, and a lifetime rating of only 18%. The national debt increased more during Obama's first three years and two months than it did during all eight years of George W. Bush's presidency. In February 2012, Obama shut down an Amish farm for selling unpasteurized milk across state lines, even though the customers were happy with what they were buying. After Obama approved $2.1 billion in loan guarantees for Solar Trust of America so it could build solar power plants, the company filed for bankruptcy. In 2010, Obama gave $16.3 million to First Solar, a company that manufactures solar panels, so the company could sell solar panels to itself. Ethics Although Obama had promised to have "the most sweeping ethics reform in history," and had often criticized the role of money in politics, the truth is that after he was elected, he gave administration jobs to more than half of his 47 biggest fundraisers. Lobbying reform While running for President, Obama promised that he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration. In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings "reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ 'battalions' of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them." Transparency In April 2009, antiwar activists who helped elect Obama accused him of using the same "off the books" funding as his predecessor George W. Bush when Obama reqeusted an additional $83.4 billion from Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - a provision which Obama had voted against when he was a Senator. In May 2010, it was reported that the Obama administration had selected KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, just hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. Although Obama had promised to wait five days before signing all non-emergency bills, he broke that promise at least 10 times during his first three months in office. In December 2010, Transparency International reported that corruption was increasing faster in the U.S. than anywhere else except Cuba, Dominica, and Burkina Faso. In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here. Fox News host Glenn Beck gave Walpin an on-air state certified senility test, which Walpin passed with a perfect score, meaning that he was not senile. In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas criticized the Obama administration for its lack of transparency. In May 2009, the Obama administration dismissed charges that had been filed by the Bush administration against members of the New Black Panther Party who had been videotaped intimidating voters and brandishing a police-style baton at a Philadelphia polling station during the November 2008 election. In August 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights demanded that the Justice Department explain why it dismissed the charges. In July 2010, J. Christian Adams, a former lawyer for the Justice Department, testified before the Commission on Civil Rights that the case was dropped because the Justice Department did not want to protect the civil rights of white people. During the 2008 campaign, Obama broke his promise to accept public financing and the spending limits that came with it. In January 2012, Obama violated the Constitution by making four recess appoints when Congress was not in recess. Recess appointments themselves are constitutional, but only if they are made when Congress is actually in recess. Although Obama had promised that the website recovery.gov would list all stimulus spending in detail, a 400 page report issued by the Government Accountability Office stated that only 25% of the projects listed on the website provided clear and complete information regarding their cost, schedule, purpose, location and status. Foreign policy In June 2011, U.S Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that had Obama violated the Constitution when he launched military operations in Libya without Congressional approval. In 2010, Obama supported releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi (who had been convicted of murdering 270 people) from prison. In September 2010, it was reported that Obama planned to offer Saudi Arabia the biggest arms deal in the history of the U.S. In November 2011, Obama announced that he would send 2,500 Marines to Australia. Obama sent U.S. troops to Uganda, Congo, South Sudan and the Central African Republic. Antiwar groups criticized Obama for planning to create a very pro-war cabinet. Sam Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy stated, "It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix." As a Senator, Obama voted in favor of funding the Iraq War. In March 2012, when Obama was talking to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Obama made a microphone gaffe when he stated, "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space... This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." In December 2011, Obama agreed to sell nearly $30 billion of military fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. Guantánamo Bay detention camp Under President Obama, abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay became even worse than it had been under President Bush. Overseas Contingency Operation Obama had Anwar al-Awlaki, a key al-Qaeda leader, killed. However, because Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, and he was killed without judicial process, Obama was accused of violating the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Congessman Ron Paul (R-TX) said that Obama's actions might be an impeachable offense. Prior to the killing, Dennis Blair, the country's director of national intelligence, had stated to the House Intelligence Committee that "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives." Gun control In Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama administration ordered gun storeowners to illegally sell thousands of guns to criminals. Obama stated, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms." However, the National Rifle Association gave Obama a rating of 'F' based on his voting record. Environment After the BP oil spill, Obama rejected offers of cleanup help from Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, the Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations. Social policy In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it's legal. However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal. Furthermore, in July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California. Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California. Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas in Nevada, a state where medical marijuana is legal. In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal. In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California. Obama expanded the federal government's faith based programs which had been started by President George W. Bush. While Obama was a state Senator in Illinois, he used tax dollars to build 504 units of slum housing, which had mice and backed up sewage. Federal inspectors graded the condition of the housing so bad that the buildings faced demolition. The Obama administration spent $1.6 million to restore graffiti that glorified communist murderers Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Obama approved putting 7 million pounds of "pink slime" into school lunches - a substance that McDonald's and other fast food restaurants have banned. Concerned Women for America accused Obama of hypocrisy after he criticized Rush Limbaugh for using crude and vulgar language to describe Sandra Fluke, but did not criticize Bill Maher (who had donated one million to an Obama PAC) for using the same kind of crude and vulgar language to describe Sarah Palin. Health care reform In March 2007, Obama said of his health care plan, "I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process..." In September 2010, some insurance companies announced that in response to Obama's health care plan, they would end the issuance of new child-only policies. In October 2010, Obama gave McDonald's and 29 other organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of his health care plan. Over time, more than 700 organizations were granted waivers, and the Department of Health and Human Services website published a list of these waiver recipients which can be read here. In November 2010, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East announced that it would drop health insurance for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants. Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefit and pension funds for 1199SEIU stated, "... new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26... meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that being forced to read Obama's 2,700 page health care reform law would would violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In March 2012, the Congressional Budget Office said that over the next decade, Obama's health care reform would cost twice as much as what Obama had promised. In March 2011, the New York Times reported that many health insurers had stopped issuing child-only policies in response to Obama's health care reform. Despite having taught constitutional law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, in April 2012 Obama falsely claimed that the U.S. Supreme Court had never overturned any laws that had been passed by Congress. Education reform While living in Chicago and Washington D.C., Obama expressed his true opinion of America's public education system by sending his own children to private schools. Regarding school vouchers, in February 2008, Obama said, "If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let's see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids." However, in March 2009, Obama signed legislation which brought an end to a successful voucher program for nearly 2,000 students in Washington D.C. Although the Washington D.C. public school district spends nearly $13,500 per student, and the vouchers for private schools were only $7,500 per student, a federal study of the voucher program concluded that the voucher program was a significant success at providing students with a better education than that of the city's public schools. Wall Street reform Although Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, in 2011 it was reported that he had raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years. In addition, as a Senator he voted in favor of the $700 billion Wall St. bailout. Also, in October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall St. lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry. In March 2012, Obama announced a new set of bailouts for speculators who had caused the housing bubble. In early 2012, Obama held a fundraiser where Wall St. investment bankers and hedge fund managers each paid $35,800 to attend. Civil liberties In December 2011, ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero criticized Obama for signing a bill that gave the U.S. government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without any charges being filed or any trial taking place. In May 2011, Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act. In January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Obama administration for having put a GPS tracking device on someone's car without having a warrant.

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

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

• I have closed the discussion you started here[16] as unhelpful. You really should not be using an article talk page to make a broadside attack on the editors there. As you probably know as an experienced editor it is up to anyone proposing lots of changes to gather consensus, not up to everyone else to justify every single objection to a mass edit. There are two more issues you may not be aware of that apply to this article in particular. First, the Obama articles were placed on article probably several years ago in connection with a massive amount of problematic behavior. Accusations of bad faith were one of the problems, and people are especially concerned about that here. Second, the edits you are defending are made by a sockpuppet of a banned user, who has been returning every few weeks with a new account to make them again. He's also the editor who visited your page above, and mine recently. He's playing us, in a good natured way. I like the guy and find him quite personable, and wish there were a way he could fit in here. But as things went there's no way his edits will be considered at all, much less incorporated into the article. If you look at the history you'll see that an admin has even deleted them from the article history. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 2012

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] Your recent editing history at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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

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

The typo in my friendly message above should read "article probation", not "article probably". Here's a link: WP:GS/BO. It hasn't been invoked much lately, but if the editing environment on Obama articles devolves as we head into the American general election soon it could come back. And the editor I was referring to had an account, Grundle2000, that he operated a while before getting banned from the project. He keeps a laundry list of derogatory factoids about Obama that's better written every time he posts that wall of text here. I mentioned that I find the guy charming and funny, but others are a lot less charitable. In any event rants, trolling, things that devolve into personal attacks and bickering, etc.., are routinely deleted from Obama-related talk pages although I've come to favor closing / archiving. You appear to be a level-headed good faith editor of some standing, but it's hard to see your post on the talk page as anything but a rant against other editors, and that sort of thing along with trolling, vandalism, and participation from sockpuppets is routinely deleted from the page. I personally prefer closing or archiving discussions that are unproductive or have devolved but others delete things as you can see. I appreciate your friendly response and I'm not going to get involved in any reporting or dispute if I can help it, but if things devolve into a flameout that's likely to result in a block on your account (and perhaps some others too). You have a clean record there[17] so best to keep it that way. I think you may have violated WP:3RR by repeatedly inserting an inflammatory talk page heading after others deleted it, in which case the only effective way to avoid a block is to announce clearly that you don't intend any further reverts and just walk away, at least from this exact dispute at this exact moment. They're right on the process, btw. Whereas WP:TALK discourages if not prohibits people from altering each other's talk messages, headings are for organizational/navigation and not expressive purposes and are specificlly excluded from that. Whether it's okay to simply delete an entire talk page comment judged to be grossly inappropriate, off topic, unhelpful, is a matter of some disagreement but it happens all the time in practice. Best not to fight to keep a comment you really shouldn't have made in the first place. I'm not going to go in the entire history, but accusing editors of working for the Obama campaign, being Obama fans, and writing a "hagiography" (that word in particular) is the exact style of one of the more prolific and troublesome sockpuppet editors so it hits a nerve. Unless you have a particular wish to push that point, I can't see anything good coming out of it. Please forgive my wall of text, I just hope you don't become the first casualty of a new Wikipedia Obama war. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Hi

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

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

Boy Scouts Of America

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

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

PLC

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

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

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

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts

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

Notice of Mediation Request

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

FYI

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

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

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

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

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

Wtshymanski

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

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

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

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

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

Welcome back!

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

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

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

Starved Rock

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

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

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

Badge of shame

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

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

I think you might be interested in this.

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

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

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

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure

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

Presidency of Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear North8000: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

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

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)