User talk:North8000

Archive 1

Archive N

What's here

For folks who like to know about North8000, I have left EVERYTHING starting when I first started actively editing.

• exchanges arising from my technical blunders which I delete when they are over 1 year old. This is 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

The rest is in Archive 1 for 2009 & 2010, and on this page for 2011 and newer.

North8000 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2012 (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)

We did it, and also made the front page of Wikipedia as article of the day. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2012 (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)

We did it, made FA, and also made the front page of Wikipedia as article of the day. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2012 (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)

We did it, made FA, and also made the front page of Wikipedia as article of the day. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2012 (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)

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)

Well, I think that after a couple years of effort it is much improved and friendly. And we found a few rosetta stones along the way which helped. North8000 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2012 (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)

A subsequently-banned user, but we were were on reasonably good terms the whole way through. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2012 (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)

It ended well as the new Voyageurs article. North8000 (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2012 (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)

It ended well as the new Voyageurs article. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (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: [[1]]

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 [2]. 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.[3].--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 [4] [5] 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)

It was a bogus argumentative complaint from a user (TreasuryTag) now banned for such things, but I was about to retire that account anyway. North8000 (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2012 (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.

The article is still a mess. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

This is a candidate for the most inexplicable post on my talk page. North8000 (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2012 (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)

OK, I really meant admirable idea. Had some concerns about its viability which have come to be the case. North8000 (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2012 (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.[6] 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)

This user was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2012 (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)

This user was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (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?[7] 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)

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)

Hello North, I have dabbled on Wiki off and on for years, but still somewhat of a newbie editor. So I'm not quite what I think about what was done to the recent Talk discussion that was closed/hatted by other editors. I understand that my veering into general discussion was a violation of Wiki guidelines, but I wasn't sure it required such a drastic response. While I'm mostly inclined to drop the matter, I wondered what you thought of how that situation was handled. Regards, --Pekoebrew (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That article is still a POV mess. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2012 (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)

Much work later, the article ended up well. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 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)

Well, I think that after a couple years of effort it is much improved and friendly. And we found a few rosetta stones along the way which helped. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 14 October 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)

The article continues to have a substantial structural FLAW which leads to POV problems. But I was convinced that the net benefit of a fix is lower than I perceived and decided to not pursue it further. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 14 October 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.[8]. It has paid out more to victims of police misconduct than any other city in CA by far.[9] Its police force may be taken over by the federal government.[10]

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)

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

Verifiability mediation

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

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

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

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

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

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

Added 2 books

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

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

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

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

Folk music

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

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

Lake Michigan–Huron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have moved it, here it is:

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

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

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

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

Upbound and downbound

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

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

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

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

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

March 2012

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

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

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

Response to your possible poll wording

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

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

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

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

With regards to the Libertarianism page IP troll

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

Byelf2007 (talk) 25 March 2012

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

WP:V mediation compromise drafts

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

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

WP:V mediation step five

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

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

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

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witness Insecurity

I invite you to look at article improvements[11] 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[12] 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[13] so best to keep it that way. I think you may have violated WP:3RR by repeatedly inserting an inflammatory talk page heading after others deleted it, in which case the only effective way to avoid a block is to announce clearly that you don't intend any further reverts and just walk away, at least from this exact dispute at this exact moment. They're right on the process, btw. Whereas WP:TALK discourages if not prohibits people from altering each other's talk messages, headings are for organizational/navigation and not expressive purposes and are specificlly excluded from that. Whether it's okay to simply delete an entire talk page comment judged to be grossly inappropriate, off topic, unhelpful, is a matter of some disagreement but it happens all the time in practice. Best not to fight to keep a comment you really shouldn't have made in the first place. I'm not going to go in the entire history, but accusing editors of working for the Obama campaign, being Obama fans, and writing a "hagiography" (that word in particular) is the exact style of one of the more prolific and troublesome sockpuppet editors so it hits a nerve. Unless you have a particular wish to push that point, I can't see anything good coming out of it. Please forgive my wall of text, I just hope you don't become the first casualty of a new Wikipedia Obama war. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Hi

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

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

Boy Scouts Of America

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

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

PLC

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

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

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

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts

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

Notice of Mediation Request

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

FYI

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

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

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

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

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

Wtshymanski

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

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

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

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

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

Welcome back!

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

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

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

Starved Rock

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

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

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

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

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

Badge of shame

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

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

I think you might be interested in this.

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

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

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

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure

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

Presidency of Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

Your incivility and personal attacks against other editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verifiability mediation - to protect, or not to protect

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

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

Fadil Husayn Salih Hintif article

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

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

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

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

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

Just a thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note of appreciation

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

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

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

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

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

4 proposals

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

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

Friendly caution

I'll try not to be rude or officious about it, but please don't join edit wars on POV material as you do here.[14] This content isn't remotely neutral or appropriate for the article, and has no consensus, as you surely must know. Plus the IP editor you're following is up to 5RR and a likely sock. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Homophobia argument.

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

Gun policy

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

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

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

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

About Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Guðmundsdóttir

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

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

Boy Scouts Sexual Abuse

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

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

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

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

Hong Kong

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

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

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

Boy Scouts of America edit warring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homophobia article

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

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

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

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

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

Smart meter

Thanks for your feedback and implementation of my request edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bright Line Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

Binarism

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

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

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

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

Smart Grid

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Huron outline.gif listed for deletion

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

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

File:Michigan outline.gif listed for deletion

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

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

Zero Dark Thirty

Hi North8000,

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

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

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

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

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

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

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

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

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

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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

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

User kwamikagami

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

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

Sticking my neck out

Hi North8000! I've just stuck a fresh viewpoint in over at Great Lakes, wrt [[15]]. Just wanted to throw in a personal note to someone involved in (I think arbitrating??) the previous unpleasantness - though tbh, that whole thing was just too depressing and partisan to get too involved in deciphering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion is scattered into at least 7 different places

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

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

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

I saw your comment

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

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

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

Volume Seventeen

Hi North,

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

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

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

Merger discussion at Talk:Great Lakes

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

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

Edit warring

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

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

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

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

Article probation on Paul Ryan

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

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

Please work with me

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

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

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

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

Michigan-Huron

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honeywell images

Hi North. This is King4057 - I changed my username. FYI - I added a bunch of Honeywell's images to Honeywell pages as non-controversial edits and I added a few that don't mention Honeywell and aren't distinguishable as Honeywell products as non-COI edits. The remainder are in request edits.[16][17][18]

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

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

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

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here. Progress so far Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner. Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes. Proposed changes Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN. Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum. Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum. Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee. Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise. Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired? 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What is SYNTHESIS?

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

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

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

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

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

October 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homosexual agenda. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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

You most certainly are edit warring:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you know who he is and this isn't the first time.[19] You're on the same WikiProject, remember? Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)+

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

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

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

Reinserting copyright link - edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Futanari

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

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

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

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

Using multiple accounts / IPs

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

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

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

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

File permission problem with File:DorothyMolterWelcome.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable canoeist

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

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

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

An FYI for you

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

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

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

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

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

Healthcare DRN

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

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

Americana again

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

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

AfD

Would you mind taking another look at your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait (stuntman)? You wrote that you had not reviewed or analyzed the references. Cavarrone and I seem to agree that this guy does not pass WP:GNG, be he does think the guy passes WP:ENT. I do not get it. The guy has not had a major role in any notable film. I admit that my interest my be somewhat vanity, but I do think I am correct. With the exception of this article's odd AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Tait, I have been on the right side of the vote each time I've voted in my various spurts of AfD voting! I even reconsidered at the request of the article's creator [20]. I did all of the WP:BEGIN stuff, especially D. If you really think it is a timing issue, I could withdraw the nomination, wait and renominate in the future, but I do not get what that would benefit. Regardless of how good or bad the particular article is, I think it is up to us to figure out whether the guy does or not, like I did at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Shandler. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

BTW, I did post at the ANI [21]. It was my idea to put the article up at AfD. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

WP:COI+

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

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

Request

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC:_Intractable_conflicts_of_interest

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

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

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

Canoe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study the catalogs of a couple of canoe manufacturers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADDIT:

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

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

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

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

Hello Kanoniem/Dirk Barends, (same account)

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

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

> # of catalog listings does not equate to use.

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

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

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

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

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

Stones Bitter

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

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

Libertarian party (UK)

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

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

Inappropriate use of an article talk page

For almost a year you have dominated the Homophobia article talk page with 259 edits consisting of accusations, distractions and fringe etymological theories, while gaining no traction for your exceptional views, except with the occasional pop-in SPA editor. Notably, you have made four edits to the actual article in that time. Four. You have been asked repeatedly to please edit the article with your choice of reliable sources to address biases that you perceive, but you choose rather to continue to complain and annoy other editors with endless browbeating discussion, essentially turning the talk page into a forum. A pattern that I have observed is that you wait quietly at the sidelines until a troll or an SPA posts a rant about the article, and then you join in, dredging up the same tired, invalid arguments that demonstrably go against consensus. I believe that Wikipedia's policies, practices, and community consensus require that these behaviors have to stop, immediately and permanently.

Please consider this a good faith warning to stop this disruptive talk page editing behavior. If you continue in the vein, or if you start up again in the future, you will be the subject of ANI or RFC/U discussion and may be subject to an editing block, topic ban or other sanctions. - MrX 19:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)