Open main menu

Contents

BSA policies, would love to chat moreEdit

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

Matt, thanks for the message. And doubly so from someone where we saw things a bit differently. Bit burned out on this at the moment but would be more than happy to talk.
North8000 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

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

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

Re your noteEdit

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

Detailed response at my talk page. Best, EyeSerenetalk 17:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Article userfied at User:North8000/Sandbox. I've removed the categories and templates because they're for mainspace use only, and tagged the article so other editors know it's a work in progress (though you can remove that tag if you want to). The picture license is fine for userspace so I haven't touched that (non-free images can only be used in mainspace, but that doesn't apply here). All the best with the article's further development. EyeSerenetalk 23:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Also deleted User:North8000/TD BU per your request. EyeSerenetalk 23:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
With much-later hindsight, I think that the process (should have a no-consensus closure form the listing rather than unilateral effort to interpret and implement policy) and interpretation was not correct. But my feelings towards you and this process were and are 100% positive and thankful. Your closure was clearly aimed at properly resolving this, and you were more-than-kind in your full explanation and handling of all matters. So, in the big picture, thank you so much! North8000 (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

WT:NOR - examples of abuse of policiesEdit

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

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

Hello Bob,

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

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

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

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

Thanks again

Sincerely,

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

That wasn't quite what I was suggesting when I mentioned "links to some diffs". I'll try to show you what I meant by "links to some diffs".
Off hand I can't recall an example of abuse but I do remember coming across some old editing which is a somewhat humorous example of an editor deleting something because the editor didn't understand the NOR policy. Here's the diff. The editor deleted material that came from a published source because it was original research. The discussion can be found here. Note at the end of the discussion, an editor is defending the material against removal by saying that the published article is not original research because it contains sources. So there is an editor deleting material, an editor defending the material against deletion, and both editors don't understand the NOR policy. (Fortunately there is another editor there, actually an administrator, who understands the NOR policy.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I gave examples rather than diffs. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC discussion involving WP:SYNTHEdit

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

LinksEdit

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

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

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

Scouting barnstarEdit

 
The Scouting Barnstar

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

Thanks! I try. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page of any Scouting article, look at the Scouting Project tag. In the upper right-hand corner is a link to the Scouting Portal.RlevseTalk 10:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy North8000's Day!Edit

User:North8000 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as North8000's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear North8000!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

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

Thank you very much, I am honored! I'll continue to the best that I can.

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


2A mediationEdit

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

Thanks. I'd be honored and will do it. I'm mostly out of commission today so it would be late tonight or tomorrow before you see anything. Should we have this same exchange on the 2A talk page? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Effective mediation of disagreements is an art form. I have failed to find a path towards resolution of this dispute so, obviously, I am not the best person to ask as to how exactly to do this. You might check with the mediation cabal for their ideas. SaltyBoatr get wet 15:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have an idea.North8000 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for intruding on your little têtê à têtê. I understand fully how the word "cabal" operates in this context, but not the word "mediation". Mediation means two parties working with a third to resolve an issue. Given that I have declined (for obvious reasons) to be involved in this charade, its hard to see how it can still be called "mediation". --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hauskalainen, not sure what you meant by charade, but in the areas where I was involved in the 2A discussion, you should note that me and Salty were opponents.North8000 (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere that you turned down mediation. North8000 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No, the reasons you have declined mediation are not obvious. There is a chance that intermediatation might help find some middle ground that could be mutually agreeable. We can't know unless we try. SaltyBoatr get wet 19:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


  • BE IN NO DOUBT! I have turned down the Mediation Cabal mediation offer. Some reasons I have given (either directly or by interpreting my comments)
  • The Mediation cabal is not an official mediation path
  • The very word Cabal in the title makes me suspicious of its motives
  • The mediator that came forward has zero edit history
  • The issue I have outstanding at the WP:NPOV has not yet had a proper hearing.

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

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

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

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

River of Grass ?Edit

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)

Edward L. RowanEdit

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

Second Amendment to the United States ConstitutionEdit

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

Thanks for the heads up. I was just one of many who removed it. IMHO Supreme Court determinations are the "gorilla in the living" room on the subject and noting what they have defined is suitable for the lead. If not them, then what is more suitable? The "dispute" is one person who doesn't want them covered. Some variant of the Colbert quote comes to mind: "Reality has a pro-2A rights bias" :-) Again, thanks for the note. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The Supreme Court cases should most certainly be covered, but not in the lead, and without adding individual analysis. The lead should simply give a brief overview of the topic. Something along the lines of what it is (Second Amendment), what it does (the right to keep and bear arms), and a statement to the fact that the amendment is controversial. I'll take a look at it and probably rewrite the lead myself. The issue you might run into with the Supreme Court cases is it is quite easy to editorialize the rulings without intending to. I recommend using lots of sources and quoting them as much as possible. Otherwise the material may be challenged as "unsourced speculation" and removed. Good luck! N419BH 18:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess what I really meant / intended is that meaning should be briefly explained. That said, one thing leads to another. The only definitive meanings are where the Supreme Court has ruled. So then the only safe thing to say is what they said, and that THEY said it. I'm trying to build a section from which to summarize that. Trying to source it from rock solid objective summaries of just the rulings. The one I found by the Cornell School of Law seems to be that. Hoping to find 1 or 2 more that are that good/objective/reliable. BTW, you're not going to be able to figure out what's really going at the the 2A site unless you take a really close thorough look. Sort of the opposite of what it appears at first glance. Thanks again for the note. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

ButtonsEdit

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

I don't think that that is his objective but it certainly is exasperating to be wasting all of this time responding to statements that even he knows are nonsense. My first few weeks I tried to have sincere discussions with him on the hope that such was his intent, which turned out to not be the case. It's an odd mix because he is an intelligent person. I sure that some of it is to try to POV the article, I think that much of it is written just to leave an impression for someone who only has time to give it a superficial look, such as by a decider from a noticeboard etc. Claiming to be following the rules while actually breaking them etc. How do you have an intelligent conversation with someone who is doing that? (rhetorical question) But when I let it show it's always a deliberate choice to try to move towards eventually resolving the situation.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


libertarianismEdit

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

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

Happy to do it. I haven't gotten in that deep yet, but a few things were clear pretty quickly. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, a friendly comment; ignore if you wish. Check the 'Quotes and Excerpts' section in Herbert Read. (for 'libertarian socialism'.) Also, your argument that l.s., by "plain English", is a form of Socialism, is faulty. By that argument, dry ice is a form of ice. Come to my talk page if you are interested in discussing language! N6n (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I'll do that North8000 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW dry ice is a type of ice, and, given a choice, more likely to go into an "ice' article than a "dry" article. :-) North8000 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, 'dry ice' is 'ice' only by a looong stretch of the definition of 'ice'. (which is valid, however.) My point was that language does not say it conclusively that "in two words, if the first is sort of an adjective, (i) it is an adjective, and (ii) not vice-versa (i.e., second is not an adjective of the first)".
Also, check the reply to your post on my talk page. (Check the link in it, the author there uses "libertarian anarchists", but it is clear that he/she is talking about libertarianism.) N6n (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to say it here: Thanks! North8000 (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism become a Disambiguation pageEdit

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

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

The objections to Rand are beyond ridiculous. It simply isn't worth spending an entire day arguing against blatantly bad faith editors just to get a couple of meaningless sentences. I'm running with your idea - I'm going to create a Libertarianism page of my own. BlueRobe (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure that I understand North8000 (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
An alternative Libertarianism article, with a slightly different label for the article that would appear on the disambiguation page. ANYTHING is better than the dire shambles that Libertarianism is in, and I really can't be bothered spending countless hours/day/weeks trying to reason with people who have absolutely no intention of being the least bit reasonable. BlueRobe (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
BlueRobe -- Please see WP:POVFORK. You should not create a separate article so that you can ignore the consensus at Libertarianism. You should work with other editors at Libertarianism, and try to improve that article, and fix any problems you find with it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC).
Stalker. BlueRobe (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
BlueRobe, I don't think that your idea would fly and thus would not be a way to fix the mess. I have hope for the main article, (and hope that you stay involved) especially since I don't see any underlying differences driving the battle. Looks more like a Hatfields and McCoys situation. As an alternative, despite the ill-chosen and oxymoron name, the "Right Libertarian" article is about the commonly practiced forms, and you could improve that article. And Jrtayloriv there is certainly no "consensus" at that mess of an article and related 5 years of warfare. There was a recent RFC covering 1% of the "issues", and even on that both "sides" are ignoring and misinterpreting what the closer said. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
North8000, I truly admire your determination to work through the issues to achieve a productive and positive outcome. I have long since given up hope in finding good faith on their part. After weeks of watching their tactics, it is clear to me that, far from working towards improving Wikipaedia Libertarianism article with consensus achieved through compromise, they are determined to block any and every improvement we have suggested. They haven't given an inch of compromise on a single issue! They have no interest in improving the Wikipaedia article. For them, this is an exercise in blatant sabotage. The only real question is whether they are motivated by petty spite or they're simply trying to censor information about Libertarianism away from curious readers because of some political agenda.
We both know that the current Libertarianism page is a disgusting misleading shambles that is rife with misinformation (it's official grading has dropped so low that it no longer appears). And it's just getting worse - their latest endeavour is to include content about the Workers Solidarity Movement, based on the evidence that some clueless insignificant knob used the term "Libertarian" in a book to describe a movement that is obviously an Anarchist movement. BlueRobe (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
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) 22:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usageEdit

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

Probably better if we continue here...Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're so modest. I tend to think in the reverse of the sequence which you describe. A discussion amongst objective, knowlegeble people (which integrates hundreds of RS's that they have absorbed) to get things pointed into an accurate and agreeable direction, and then create the content based on RS's and cited by RS's. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong - we certainly should start with discussion. It's the nature of the discussion I think we disagree about: I think it should be solely an editorial discussion, rather than one based on our own views. Our own views are helpful, in as much as they probably drive our consumption of relevant sources (I found it fairly easy to source my RFC comment precisely because it was a topic I was already interested in and had studied in some depth - mostly due to this woman ;-) But ultimately I think there's too much risk involved in having political discussions on that talk page. TFOWR 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is an expert person (here that is NOT me, but hopefully you) who is capable of being objective, and has (in the current venue) accepted the responsibility to be objective, then I would call that "information" rather than a "view". Again, just for the early stage discussions, then citations etc. are needed for the next step.
That article is locked in eternal warfare. (I'm a newbie there ...like 2 months) As with all of the eternal warfare articles in Wikipedia, the rules are not enough to solve it, and in fact, the rules get mis-used as methods of warfare. They aren't even nibbling on the work that needs to get done. Ostensibly the battle for at least the last few months is inclusion vs. exclusion of the off-beat forms of Libertarianism. I side with the "inclusion" folks, but have a lot more respect for the dialog from the "exclusion" folks because the "inclusion" folks don't really have discussions on the topics, they just work to whack the "exclusion" folks and what they have to say via various wiki-legal warfare methods. Anyway, nothing much is happening there except for that war. I did start what has turned out to be a substantial section (organizations and movements) figuring that getting something in these on actual practice of Libertarianism might eventually provide some perspective beyond being just a list of what a lot of individual philosophers/writers made up. Especially when it (hopefully) gets sorted out by wp:due/undue standards. I also tried to start some "common tenets" coverage in the "overview" section, (hence my question to you) but others took the wording off on a political-looking tangent, and others see to want to keep any talk of "common tenets" out of the article. (I have no clue why) I'm pretty sure I'll be leaving the article soon. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I was involved with an article that, on the face of it, should have been completely non-controversial, but got bogged down for far too long. I think, looking back, what was needed was for the wider community to have listened to the editors there when we asked for help. Too often a small group of editors get caught up in conflict, and no one steps in to help them. The conflict grows, and becomes unresolveable. I've been following this article for a while, because it popped up on ANI a fair few times, and it caught my eye because it's a subject I'm interested in. I didn't get involved because I didn't feel I was the best admin to get involved (and I still don't) but I think, now, that some admin involvement is probably better than none (that's not entirely fair - I realise some admins have commented and acted, but what's needed is someone who's prepared to hang about and devote some time to it). I'm happy to stay around, though I'd be extremely reluctant to "be an admin" - it'd have to be as a talkpage participant, someone who could point to ways to achieve consensus, etc. And I'd still like more admin eyes on the article: I don't think I'm the best person to be doing it, and I'm bogged down in WP:POV issues elsewhere.
Part of the reason I'm pushing tertiary sources is because it makes it far harder for WP:UNDUE issues to creep in. It keeps us all honest ;-)
Hopefully if things get less heated we'll make progress, editors will stick around, and maybe even return to the article. TFOWR 17:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Cool! I think many fear superficial or short-term involvement because, being so hard for outsiders to take the time to see what's really going on, they figure the results may be just a roll of the dice. Maybe we could work together a bit. I think that I've said exactly where I stand,and I think that it averages out to somewhere near the middle ground. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think that after a couple years of effort (at Libertarianism) it is much improved and friendly. And we found a few rosetta stones along the way which helped. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not funEdit

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

My first guess is that BigK is sincerely having an issue with it. One could argue that a quote is a quote, and that any injections should be to add minimal useful/important hard facts rather than trying to interpret/clarify what we think they meant. In either case it might be in good faith which for me would make it still fun. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I just wish he/seh would say what they are thinking instead of just dealing in rules. North8000 (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
here is one i found the other day, WP:youtwoareswimmingupstreamandmakingnoprogresssitoutforawhileandwatchthemargugeamounstthemselvesforawhile Darkstar1st (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I say think bigger. Instead of worrying about a phrase inserted into quote, the article needs a whole new lead. The current one is a confusing mess like the rest of the article. North8000 (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that after a couple years (at Libertarianism) of effort it is much improved and friendly. And we found a few rosetta stones along the way which helped. North8000 (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party movementEdit

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

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

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

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

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

SS Edmund FitzgeraldEdit

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

Cool! As I noted in the talk page, what a large amount of excellent work you have been doing at that article! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I have quite a few credible books on the Fitzgerald. I plan to add more citations and fact clarifications to the article--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
You were the cornerstone of our duo getting this to FA and then onto the front page as the article of the day Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Hey there North8000,

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

Hamtechperson 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

"composed of both conservatives and libertarians"Edit

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

It's nice/ fun talking with you! But IMHO that is not accurate. Neither is a subset of the other, as is the case with your analogy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
If you're curious, take a peek a Libertarian conservatism. Either way, I'm glad we can disagree without the sort of hard feelings that seem to be endemic to the Tea Party article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As an avid Libertarian for 25-30 years who has many spirited debates with my conservative friends on many issues, I can tell you that the two are very different in many areas. They are direct opposites on many many issues. We've also spent thousands of words on this in work on the Libertarian articles, but, to be honest, I don't think that anybody there would assert that one is a subset of the other. If you're interested, we're working on the common tenets of the various sects of Libertarians (and related sourcing) in a worksheet at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/OverviewDraft2 Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

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) 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

MediationEdit

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

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

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

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

Those are all good and interesting points. Thanks!
On your #1 I would still stick with what I said......in essence get a consensus,(I'm hoping for 100%, not 51%) and then source the consensus. For the reasons given.
On your #2 My main point in that particular sources statement is that there is a flurry of sources saying opposite things on this issue, most of them being non-objective, or quotes of non-objective sources. Including many "RS's".
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your ProposalEdit

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

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

Time of year to Give ThanksEdit

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

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

mediationEdit

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

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

mediationEdit

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

So...are you going to do it [3][4]?? =D Digiphi (Talk) 15:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I just did it, just before I saw your message. I still plan to recover / move that one other sentence from the old lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Nice. We'll see how it goes. Way to grow a pair, while we shuffle our feet. -Digiphi (Talk) 15:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Leadership is trying to help take people to where they pretty much already want to go, which in WP is consensus. We'll see if I guessed right. North8000 (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
For the record, was there some objection to linking grassroots the way we do astroturfing? If not, I'll even them out including the quotation marks. -Digiphi (Talk) 22:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I lost track. I didn't write any of what I put in, I just did my best to coalesce the main version of the big final conversation on the article talk page. I was against even including "astroturfing", but bit the bullet. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you see the post about the TPM over in U.K./Europe? Interesting if it's becoming a world-wide movement. Would need cites, but it could make an interesting new section.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that that idea of a new direction towards smaller and less intrusive government is building all over the place but often has no place (organization etc.) to to go. Major parties really don't fully buy into it, and Libertarian make the mistake of trying to be a party, plus occasionally have some wider planks in the back room that confuse people. I think that the Tea Party has provided that, so expansion doesn't surprise me. It will be interesting to see where it goes. It has quite a mine field to navigate to stay on course. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Go for it! We gotta have some fun while we're doing this. :-) I'm guessing that it temporarily raised the level of the harbor by .000000001". I hope that they warned the shoreline residents before they did it. Have a great Sunday. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It was rumored it generated a Tsunami warning. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation high-level mission statementEdit

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

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

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

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

minutiaeEdit

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

The main TP article has a severe shortage of enclyclopedic content and a severe shortage of sections that written in an enclyclopedic manner. Something like this, with cites and overview type content from quality sources in the TPM article itself would be a little step out of it's junk article hole. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be enough for a main article on the fiscal positions. We could add in a paragraph to the TPm article. Now that they've voted in this new congress, the pressure is on these newly elected to get things done starting in January when the new term begins. I think the Republicans are going to disappoint them on some levels. I read an article about some of the Tea Party Patriots members who are on unemployment, and Scott Brown just voted to end the 99 week unemployment extensions. He wasn't really a 'tea party candidate,' type, but the Boston Tea Party Patriots supported him. Saw that in the New York Times. I'll go find it.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
See here. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Colorful signaturesEdit

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

Thanks! You are observant. Sincerely, North8000 19:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Glad to help. It might be useful for you to check out my Sig definition for a good example of how to get the links working, too. Dylan Flaherty 19:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Boulder Junction, Wisconsin-citationEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of discussionEdit

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

Thanks. North8000 14:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
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) 23:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I started the article Calvin RustrumEdit

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

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

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

A reviewer is requested. North8000 11:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have placed the review on hold so that you could address the indicated issues. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. We'll go to work. North8000 03:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
There has been a lot of good work on the article. I have left a short list entitled "Comments after second read on 12/26" for you to consider. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for your work on the review. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have read the article again and left a few more comments under the "third read" heading. I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but we really should have page-specific references for the direct quotes. I have pulled the direct quotes from the article and listed them for you. I hope we can wrap this up promptly, and I will do what I can to expedite this. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool. We wanted a thorough review; thanks for doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I started the article VoyageursEdit

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

Work area for 12/29 comments on Edmund Fitzgerald articleEdit

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

Happy to do any of that. Kind of buried in RL for the next 1/2 day. Still working on the fix. I'll finish the section fix this afternoon. In the meantime, the main thing is to put all notes in the 12/29 workspace on the main article talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the move/fix is done now. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference syntaxEdit

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 upEdit

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)

Hello North8000Edit

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)

BarnstarEdit

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


Edit summariesEdit

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 commentsEdit

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)

VoyageurEdit

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)

Next step for SS Edmund FitzgeraldEdit

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 bearEdit

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 libertarianismEdit

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)

AGFEdit

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 againEdit

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 GreenbeltEdit

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 RX 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_othersEdit

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 BarnstarEdit

  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)

I moved your commentEdit

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 templatesEdit

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)

Policy questionEdit

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 [5]. 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:VEdit

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 sourcesEdit

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.[6].--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:verEdit

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 McDanielEdit

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!Edit

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)

Re: "Tea Party movement"Edit

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)


It's all good, babyEdit

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 DeathEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Bradley Manning dual citizenshipEdit

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)

FGM comment by youEdit

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 noticeEdit

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! —KuyaBriBriTalk 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)

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

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: [[7]]
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

KittenEdit

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


A cookie for youEdit

 
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 barnstarEdit

  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:GovernmentEdit

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)


deinstitutionalisationEdit

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 DriveEdit

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 7 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 templateEdit

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)


A barnstar for you!Edit

  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)

Merge discussion for Cliff HangersEdit

  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 shootingEdit

  • 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)


BarnstarEdit

  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)

LaymanEdit

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!Edit

  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 proposalEdit

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"Edit

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)

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

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 10thEdit

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 HoursEdit

Hey North8000/Archive 1! 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.Edit

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 articleEdit

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?Edit

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 (talkcontribs) 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 FitzgeraldEdit

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 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 rationaleEdit

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 TitanicEdit

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:VerifiabilityEdit

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)

ThanksEdit

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)


HomophobiaEdit

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)

SIPEdit

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)

ApologiesEdit

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 articleEdit

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 ConferenceWhat 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)

RMS TitanicEdit

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 YouEdit

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)


inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqib KhanEdit

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 NPOVEdit

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)


BarnstarEdit

  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 articleEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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 LibertarianismEdit

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 ScienceEdit

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, AnupamTalk 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, AnupamTalk 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)

HeyEdit

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)

ApologyEdit

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:RacepacketEdit

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 helpEdit

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)

Discrimination revertEdit

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 deletionEdit

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 LiberalismEdit

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:VEdit

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 articleEdit

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 ProducersEdit

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 RochaEdit

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 adviceEdit

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 funEdit

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 mergeEdit

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)

:)Edit

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/NEdit

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)

LibertarianismEdit

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 mediationEdit

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)

Added 2 booksEdit

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 musicEdit

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–HuronEdit

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:VerifiabilityEdit

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 downboundEdit

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 2012Edit

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 wordingEdit

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 trollEdit

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 draftsEdit

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 fiveEdit

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 InsecurityEdit

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 pageEdit

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.Edit

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 editingEdit

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)

April 2012Edit

[[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[12] 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)

HiEdit

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 AmericaEdit

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)

PLCEdit

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 draftsEdit

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 RequestEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

FYIEdit

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 readyEdit

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)

WtshymanskiEdit

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 requestedEdit

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)

Welcome back!Edit

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 RockEdit

  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 shameEdit

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.Edit

Hi there! I think you might be interested in danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/wikipedias-article-presidency-of-barack-obama-is-a-puff-piece-which-ignores-many-critical-issues/ 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 · edit 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 structureEdit

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 ObamaEdit

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 editorsEdit

  • 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 protectEdit

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 articleEdit

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 thoughtEdit

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 appreciationEdit

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 proposalsEdit

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)


Homophobia argumentEdit

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 youEdit

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 policyEdit

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 GuðmundsdóttirEdit

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)

Hong KongEdit

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 warringEdit

[[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 articleEdit

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 meterEdit

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.
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)

ANIEdit

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 EssayEdit

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)

BinarismEdit

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 GridEdit

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 deletionEdit

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 deletionEdit

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 ThirtyEdit

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)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussionEdit

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 kwamikagamiEdit

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 outEdit

Hi North8000! I've just stuck a fresh viewpoint in over at Great Lakes, wrt [[13]]. 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 placesEdit

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 commentEdit

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 SeventeenEdit

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 LakesEdit

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 warringEdit

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)

Please work with meEdit

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-HuronEdit

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 imagesEdit

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.[14][15][16]

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)

What is SYNTHESIS?Edit

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 2012Edit

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.[17] 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)
Viriditas was given a long term block with good reason. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Reinserting copyright link - edit warEdit

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)

FutanariEdit

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 / IPsEdit

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.jpgEdit

 

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 canoeistEdit

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 youEdit

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 DRNEdit

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 againEdit

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)

AfDEdit

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 [18]. 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 [19]. 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+Edit

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)

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#RfC:_Intractable_conflicts_of_interestEdit

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)

CanoeEdit

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 BitterEdit

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)Edit

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)
Thanks for pursuing what you feel is best for Wikipedia. That is primary; the fact that we disagreed is secondary. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Nolan ChartEdit

Seems that category:libertarianism is very broad and Nolan Chart should go into the "most specific" categories. (In accordance with WP:CAT.) The terminology & theory categories are sub cats of libertarianism. Correct? If the nose of the Nolan camel gets under the broadest category tent, then the rest of the libertarian related articles get in as well. --S. Rich (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the link that you gave. You're right; I didn't know that being in a more specific category is supposed to preclude categorization in the more general category. Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
That's quite alright. Every time I learn something new about (and in) WP, I think about the Zits cartoon which shows Jeremy in his room surrounded by stacks and stacks of paper as a computer printer is whirling away. His father comes in and asks "What in the world are you doing?!" Jeremy calmly replies, "I'm printing out the Wikipedia -- why do you ask?"--S. Rich (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that that will require TWO packs of paper. :-) North8000 (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

And then some!

 
WP:Size
--S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You have a fanEdit

I just came across this on Wikipediaocracy by chance and thought you might want to know. Corporate 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow! Thanks for the heads up! North8000 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I don't generally participate over there. From my understanding it's basically a trolling site and participation is somewhat frowned upon. But I was just poking around after noticing this post with some trolling from TheKohser. I guess most any active editor has a peanut gallery over there ;-) Corporate 17:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
They did some real analysis of what happened there. Which takes some doing given that it was about a 1/2 million words on about 10 different pages. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

<3 --Lubna Rizvi 10:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)




Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ON MagazineEdit

You may wish to revisit due to recent significant quality improvement at the article page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Thanks for the heads-up. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's much improved (in particular, suitable references added) I reversed my recommendation. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on the DUVE Berlin talkEdit

Can you help me out? I don't know why it's a problem to crosslink pages that are absolutely related, and DUVE Berlin was the first page I ever created on wiki, I have no experience on this. How exacly do you suppose I should put this information up on wiki, other than the way I did? The articles i added are purely informational and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soneryd (talkcontribs) 13:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, when I discussed crosslinking, I was not saying that cross-linking itself is a problem, it was just one of many hints of a possible bigger problem. A brand new editor who suddenly creates several related promotional articles within 1-2 days, on topics where there is no indication of wp:notability and with Wikipedia expertise far exceeding their edit history as that account raises concerns which I don't wish to explicitly delineate here, but roughly of being a commercial/promotional or wp:coi effort to use Wikipedia to promote artists/gallery not meeting Wikipedia's notability requirement. In short, on those articles where you can find substantial coverage of the subject in independent sources, I would be happy to help you, regardless of the situation. Also, if you would like to discuss that more directly / help me understand the situation more quickly and care to tell me / discuss individually about it, please feel free to email me using the Wikipedia email tool provided. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Refining NADEdit

Hi. I had an old drafted response, from a few months ago, that I put in a sandbox here. It might be useful, for either links or other aspects, in your good work at WT:NAD. I got quite burnt out on trying to mediate the disagreements, waybackwhen, and am very happy to see you working on clarifying the issues. :) No rush at all, especially given how long it's been going; slow and steady wins the race. –Quiddity (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment and post. I did a lot of analysis of the example articles, (and ones similar to them) which are articles that are actually focused on and defined by a term rather a single subject behind the term, but where the existence of the article is accepted and a good idea. And then put the result into words. The core question of my work is not whether or not to do etymology, it is identifying what is already "working" in Wikipedia (on what appear to be "exceptions"; topics that appear to violate the policy but clearly have been rightly been accepted as being articles. ) and then understanding what is happening at / in common with those and putting it into words in a succinct way. I put quote marks around "appear" because, the policy already allows for exceptions, but few have noticed that when they mis-quote the policy, mostly because that part is too brief, not explained, and only in the lead. Actually what came out is that they are not even an exception to the core tenet of wp:nad. I think that I've really found something useful. North8000 (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I upgraded to direct link to article. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

libertarian dabEdit

Shame on me for not checking and realizing that my links went to dab. Only a Kiplinger edit conflict gave me notice (away). If you see such edits/problems, feel free to contact me (or any other editor) and give a heads up! (In fact, there is a dab bot which does exactly that.) In any event, thanks for your contributions. --S. Rich (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought of writing you but then decided not to. You are getting them linked, which is good. And there is no "correction" to suggest because most but not all "Libertarian" and "libertarian" links should go to Libertarianism. And I'm happy to follow them and see where they should go to and upgrade them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay. I shall continue to push my side of the WP:POLE. A search for "libertarian" came up with 7,885 entries. Except for the election result pages, I've gone through 7,000 of them to look at and see where I could link. This little endeavor is getting tiresome, so it may be awhile before I go back and de-dab what I've done. Happy editing! --S. Rich (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Cool! North8000 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy HookEdit

Thanks for helping out. If you don't mind, drop by in that section on the rifle, where I cited you: "Picture of rifle used in the Weapons section of the article". Apparently, it's really important to some people to have pictures of weapons. Besides sharing your concerns, I think it's pretty tasteless, but I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy to. North8000 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Ty muchly. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edit at wp:verEdit

(the title and my 22:41 post where what I put at Teapot's talk page; they copied them to here) North8000 (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good effort, and I'm with you in spirit, but there is no chance it would survive there as you wrote it, my revert was just a friendlier version of the inevitable. Why not try to work out something in talk the could stick? North8000 (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider your revert warring my edit like this to be friendly at all. How about you don't revert my edits and don't second guess what other editors do or do not do???Teapeat (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Your accusation that North was "revert warring" is not credible, Teapeat. The article history shows that he reverted only once, whereupon you immediately reverted his revert. How about taking it to the Talk Page next time instead of "revert warring" yourself? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Teapot, you have everything in what you just said mis-perceived and mixed up. But thanks for your effort, even if your first try was a misfire. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Should I be smelling fish?Edit

Feel free to trout me for bringing up the wikilawyer-is-offensive thing again. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, just a friendly difference of opinions on that one particular item. Thanks for the post! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Jaco Van DormaelEdit

Thank you for your review :) --Earthh (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It was so well done that it was easy to review. My pleasure, and nice work! North8000 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Colegio de la Preciosa...Edit

Hi, I have responded to your comments on the review page, thanks for taking the chance to review it, it is much appreciated. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 20:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll go look. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Racism articleEdit

You may want to check to see if that recent edit you "dialed way back" was even supported by the source. The user has a history of making hateful edits. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It was pretty out there. Others can change it further if they wish. North8000 (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

De-composingEdit

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Elizabeth Maconchy. Uncle G (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Chiming in, after reading your December 2011 ANI thread as well. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Death Is BirthEdit

Can I just say thank you for giving the extended play a GA review. I worked hard and it was my first, I would have been more responsive on the comments page for it if I had known it was being reviewed. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the post and happy to do it. The two items I brought up were really just suggestions in areas where it was already good enough to pass. And in this case it turned out to be pretty easy to find and add an image, which I did.
Congratulations!
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin51's footnote problemEdit

Thanks for the help. I put a reply on my talk page. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. You do an immense amount of valuable work getting undercovered northern historical topics covered. Not sure that I'd 100% agree with your response, but that is a sidebar area. Long story short, good practice would be to put more cites than you do. But policy does not require it; any challenged ones would require it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas for how to resolve this edit warring complaint?Edit

Hello North8000. I notice you were a participant in the discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Health care articles. Scjessey has just refiled a complaint at WP:AN3 about this issue. Admins may get a chance to close it yet again with no action. Any attempts to nudge the parties seem to have no effect. It is tiresome to have to keep telling people they have no edit warring case because Talk has not reached any conclusion.

Do you have any ideas for how to push the parties toward agreement? Could it be just a small matter of compromise wording? If someone opened a WP:Request for comment do you have any suggestions for how to word it? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, what we need is someone who is completely uninvolved to look at this and come to a conclusion to push things along - maybe that person can be you. I'll keep my personal opinions as to what probably needs to happen to myself, but the crux of the issues can be seen starting here. This article got merged elsewhere, but the data is the same across the remaining two articles and are what's causing the issue. Hopefully by reading the exchanges and reviewing the information, you can get a better grasp as to why this has been ongoing for six months now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to take a look. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I made a few comments there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I might also comment or edit a bit at the articles in narrow policy-related areas. But I don't plan on the big job of getting deep in on the work that needs to be done there,. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

as the juggernaut rolls along...Edit

I know you're trying to stay out of this as much as possible (I wish I had done so and stuck to minor edits in retrospect), but given the discussion at the talk page, do you think an RFC/U might be a good thing? If he actually follows through to ArbCom, he's gonna get killed there, and I'd like to avoid that. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that all of the forum shopping for the main discussion is going to go nowhere given that (as far as I can tell/ after a quick overview)) CD has refused to engage in any substantive discussion. At first glance even the previous stuff seems to be lobbing volleys and ad hominem's and avoiding specifically engaging you when you get specific. The other person involved with them (Scjessey) appears to be a bit of POV zealous in talk page discussions, and was ganging up a bit against you, but also appears to be more Wikipedian when it comes down to actual article content. So even though they may be strongly POV in talk page contents, they might be amenable to proceeding in a policy-guided way and with policy-guided analysis on the talk page. My advice is to just focus on moving forward carefully at the one article, in a fully explained and discussed way, and one that is particularly policy-guided in the contentious areas, and inviting all to participate. And provide brief responses to CD's diversionary tactics but not engage deeply there. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My rough takeEdit

Hi North. Building on our prior discussion, I just whipped up my POV on PR editing here which I thought you may be interested in.

From my point of view, Wikipedia is always asking me to "just put my COI aside" and go ahead and edit, which would work if companies gave me a paycheck up-front and let me write what I want. Instead it's a long, arduous and difficult job often fighting with a dozen people who want their Wikipedia article to represent corporate messaging. It's incredibly difficult and draining work and I only have editorial control to the extent that I outright refuse to do something.

Initially the Bright Line was my salvation because instead of refusing to make the edits clients wanted, all I could do is ask. The problem is that Wikipedians often said "yes" when I knew their answer should have been "no" which would have empowered me to take that answer back to the client and create an acceptable version.

Now I have shifted my strategy to creating sterner contracts, being tougher with clients and insisting on GA-quality work. Though I could see a program sanctioned by WMF & the community where companies pay a flat fee for an article they have no control over, as long as the corporate bureaucracy is involved, we need this layer of scrutiny and both Wikipedia and PRs need to learn how this relationship works and such.

My take, of course I'm still figuring out things myself. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. Your situation is complex and somewhat unique so I'm not sure what to say on the big picture. I think that my answers (which you sort of 1/2 know already) for your particular case would be different than yours. I hope that this new ground goes well for you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on it (getting there). Where someone is paid to be here, it would be reasonable to expect GA-quality work and that's the target I'm aiming for in my future works. I see there are 88 GA articles in Wikiproject Companies and I would love to see a day where a substantial portion of them were written by me. I have six volunteer articles in the GA queue and about as many COI works that I'm just working on that want to bring it to GA.
I don't see my position as being very different from any PR agency or company though, except that so many companies looking for someone to do it for hire do not respect Wikipedia. It is a very shady market and I want to turn that around. We can solve a big problem for everyone with the right kind of market for Wikipedia consultancies and the right relationship between PRs and Wikipedia.
But it's nice to see not everyone is spitting on my shoes and wishing for failure :-) CorporateM (Talk) 21:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ian GillanEdit

Hi there. I just want you to know that Ian Gillan article is very far from becoming a WP:GA. Cheers. Plant's Strider (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I was in the middle of reviewing it. My general thought (prior to thorough analysis) was that it was ready. Then you nuked the discography section and put that into a (so far) zero-references new separate article which may or may not survive. Based on that I temporarily struck my notes of passage on stability and completeness-of-coverage criteria. Now I'm in a wait-and-see mode. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The person who nominated it and did a lot of work on it just said that it should be non-passed on stability issues. So I think that you, me and them all agree, albeit for different reasons. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


Single payer / replyEdit

I've been less than complimentary about your Wikipedia activities in the past (I am not a diplomatic person by any stretch of the imagination), so I appreciate you looking at my contributions with an open mind. I am in complete agreement about the single payer-related articles. They do not need our help specifically, but they are in dire need of more editors to help establish a consensus (for whichever view). Right now, it just looks like Thargor vs Cartoon ad infinitum, which cannot possibly be healthy. That matter aside, I will try to follow your good example and judge more on actions than talk page rhetoric. Thank you for your comment and good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! But what about you and me both staying involved a bit to help get a good process going? North8000 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I will certainly see the DRN process through to its conclusion, but I am not really interested in actively editing in this particular topic. I'm more interested in seeing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey before it vacates my local cinema. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I could learn some life-priorities from that.North8000 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Indications appear to be that CD's behavior and forum shopping will likely close that DRN discussion down. We'll see. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not "forum shopping". It is a content dispute that is deadlocked because there are not enough editors/opinions to build a solid consensus for anything. DRN is the perfect place to resolve that dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is forum shopping at its core, but if you want to rescue the DRN discussion, I'd suggest appealing to the admin who plans to close it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No administrator has commented on the DRN discussion yet, so I am not sure what you mean. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Right here. I have also left a message at the admin's talk page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
At best the DRN question was mis-worded. I don't see how it could be a route to anywhere. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
This explains why I wasn't seeing anything. I thought I was losing my mind when you were all talking about something I didn't know anything about! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Importance of in-line citationsEdit

  • Dolphin, you made a complete mis-statement of my conversation there with you. Too obvious to be accidental. It's starting to look like you want to wage arguments more than you want to get cites added

Hi North8000. I make no secret of the fact that I found your contributions at User talk:Benjamin Trovato to be unhelpful. Let me explain.

In August 2011 I had a constructive and polite dialogue with Benjamin about the absence of in-line citations from one of his new articles. In December 2012 I set out to have a similar constructive and polite dialogue on the same subject. You jumped in and responded before Benjamin did so and, to my surprise, you attempted to contradict what I had written. You did not contradict me on my Talk page which I think would have been the appropriate course of action. Instead, you contradicted me on Benjamin’s Talk page where Benjamin was sure to see it. Presumably you wanted Benjamin to see that two experienced Users disagreed on the subject, and that you were willing to tackle me on his behalf.

Throughout the thread I have supported my comments and my arguments by posting quotations, complete with quotation marks or italics or bolding. I also posted blue links to relevant Wikipedia policy documents. You did none of these things. You wrote vaguely about policies but without actually quoting any policy. Apart from one mention of WP:Ver, you didn’t name the policy you were alluding to, or provide a blue link. (eg You wrote authoritatively using the words sourced and sourcable but without specifying which policy actually uses these words.) On one occasion I asked you to post a diff but you didn’t do so. This is a very useful strategy because it means you can’t be pinned down to anything because you never actually write anything definitive, and you never have to explain what you mean. However, I find this strategy very frustrating and I think it lacks openness and honesty, especially when you are writing to one User in the course of a debate on another User’s Talk page.

On several occasions I emphasised the fact that you and I were actually in agreement on all things that mattered on the subject. Despite that, you continued to write about how my interpretation was incorrect or my implications were in error. I tried to find common ground; you tried to find differences. You even took time to write starting with your complete misfire on what Ad hominem means. Of what relevance is the meaning of Ad hominem to the subject of the thread? Who were you trying to impress? (When I invited you to raise the matter on my Talk page you showed no interest.)

Your contributions on the thread appear to have had the effect of reassuring Benjamin that he can safely ignore my advice. Benjamin wrote to you saying Thanks for the help – see his diff. You replied saying, among other things, good practice would be to put more cites than you do. But policy does not require it; (Then you did a 180 degree turn and wrote any challenged ones would require it. Do you see what I mean when I say you never actually write anything definitive?)

If it was your goal to reassure Benjamin that he can ignore WP:Verifiability and my requests then I think you have succeeded. However, if your goal is to see Benjamin persuaded of the value of adding his own in-line citations and avoiding the devaluing effect of banners saying “This article needs in-line citations”, I have made the following request to you and Ymblanter on Ymblanter’s Talk pagediff:

If Ymblanter or North8000 are willing to assist by trying to persuade Benjamin, that would be greatly appreciated by me.

Dolphin (t) 05:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

On the core topic of influencing Benjamin to use more in-line citations, we are in full agreement. However, when you mis-state or misapply wp:ver, including mis-stating or misapplying wp:ver to infer that someone is violating it when they aren't, I am going to say so. (you have repeated this error in your post above) in your post above I'm quite familiar with wp:ver....by numbers of posts, for the last 3 years I have been the #1 most-active editor/contributor worldwide in discussions / development work at that policy page, and I also have the ability/curse of seeing and understanding the structure of statements contained therein. And my statements are from a structuralist/logician angle and have been consistent. Also, I have collaborated with Benjamin before (e.g. discussing the books that he buys so as to write articles well from sources) and know that he writes from sources. I also know that he does an immense amount of doing sourced (but not cited) quality work in areas (e.g. northern historical) where few are really doing that.
So, the answer to your question is YES. So I will continue to work WITH you on getting him to cite more and even ramp up my efforts in that area. And if we could just stick to doing that without wis-stating policy, or mis-implying violations or flaunting of policy, your message will become much clearer and our discussions will be 100% co-operative. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we agree? I think that step 1 would be towards routinely adding more cites when doing new work. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that getting Benjamin to add in-line citations to existing articles is beginning to appear impossible. Our strategy should be to encourage him to incorporate in-line citations in new articles he creates. Both you and Ymblanter and offered very gentle and implied encouragement to Benjamin about the value of in-line citations. He appears happy to ignore such encouragement. I think the time has come for you to make it entirely clear what you are talking about - that is, WP:Verifiability is a policy that all articles are expected to conform to; it isn't offered as one of a number of acceptable alternatives.
I am willing to acknowledge that you are Wikipedia's leading contributor to WP:V. That is a good thing. You have written many times that I mis-state WP:V, or mis-apply it, or incorrectly imply something about it. You have made no attempt to explain what you mean. For example, you wrote to me (on Benjamin's Talk page) authoritatively emphasising the words sourced and sourcable. The word sourced appears 8 times in WP:V, always in the context unsourced or poorly sourced, not as a criterion for verifiability. The word sourcable does not appear anywhere in WP:V. So when you wrote about information being sourced or sourcable you weren't quoting from WP:V. I'm sure you know what you mean when you write these words but I don't. That is not a good thing, especially from one who contributes so much to the topic.
If you want me to stop mis-stating WP:V you need to explain what it is that I am writing that constitutes mis-statement. I am always willing to be persuaded by logical argument. Dolphin (t) 11:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool. It will take me a bit. But in the meantime I must point out a couple of things. I think that "leading contributor" is being too kind; I'd call myself one of the 4 most involved, who just happens to have more edits than the others. Also I just realized that I made the mistake of using a term "sourced" which has two different meanings ("came from a source" and "cited") and thus further contributed to the confusion. Sorry. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I look forward to reading whatever you can provide.
A day ago Benjamin submitted this essay - diff. I have responded. It would be good if you and Ymblanter (and anyone else watching) responded too. Dolphin (t) 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Overall, I am with you on your effort to get Benjamin to cite more. So let's call our wp:ver discussion a sidebar. Briefly, in this area, here's what wp:ver in essence says:

  • All material added is to be verifyable. It must be citeable should the question arise
  • All material that is likely to be challenged should be cited. This expresses a principle, but is usually not practically operative until/unless the material gets challenged. But it does mean that statement that look like a real "reach" or which make an arguable claim should get cited.
  • All material that is challenged must be cited in order to remain.

So, creating articles as Benjamin does does not violate any of the above, and doing so does not flaunt wp:ver. BUT what he is doing is unusual in Wikipedia and likely to lead to various problems. For example:

  • An article with so few references could never pass the criteria for being a Wikipedia Good Article or Featured Article. I do a lot of Good Article reviews, and I would have to fail such articles on that basis.
  • If the material starts getting challenged and tagged, it is likely to get deleted if cites are not then provided. And it's usually much harder to do it afterwards.
  • Particularly when writing articles from sources (as I have seen Benjamin to do) it's really easy to add this cites right when you are writing the article, and harder to go searching form them later. So why not do it when writing the article.
  • While this is lower risk with the types of subjects that he is writing on, if the article's subject gets challenged on wp:notability grounds, there is a higher risk of the article getting deleted because lack of sources means lack of sources of the type required for wp:notabiity.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I agree with all of it.

Benjamin has described excessive footnotes as “clutter” – diff. I suspect he is most familiar with a style of academic writing in which a Bibliography or list of references is used, but in-line citations are not. He probably finds the neat, tidy appearance of his articles satisfying and is not attracted to the unfamiliar appearance of articles with in-line citations throughout the text. I think our strategy should be to persuade him that:

  • on Wikipedia, footnotes don’t degrade the appearance of an article
  • creating footnotes and inserting them in a document is not difficult; instead it is as satisfying an activity as writing the prose that composes the article
  • inserting footnotes raises the quality of the article and takes it closer to Good article or Featured article status, with all the satisfaction that accompanies those milestones.

I think people who are asked to incorporate in-line citations into the text they add, and their new articles, fall broadly into two categories. Firstly, there are those who are unfamiliar with the concept of in-line citations but who investigate the concept and promptly do as requested and begin incorporating in-line citations. Secondly, there are those who are familiar with the concept but who choose to argue their case that they don’t need to incorporate in-line citations. Benjamin belongs to the second category. Despite me and others drawing his attention to WP:V and WP:RS he has never acknowledged their legitimate role on Wikipedia, nor that he has read them. He has never quoted anything from these two policy documents, nor has he attempted to identify any shortcoming in either. I invited him to argue his case at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability if he believes he has a better quality-control model than the one presently described at WP:V – I don’t imagine he will ever take up my invitation. In this diff he shows that he believes the problem is Dolphin, not anything written in WP:V:

Dolphin appears to be a puritan who thinks that There Must Be Footnotes regardless of particular cases. I am taking the cavalier view that footnotes should be added only when they are necessary.

Benjamin has put forward a significant number of excuses as to why he shouldn’t be expected to incorporate in-line citations. All are based on his intuition. None of them has been related to anything written in WP:V or similar policy documents. Benjamin is pretending that WP:V does not exist or that he hasn’t read it. I’m convinced he is much more familiar with these things than he shows. He feigns ignorance of WP:V, probably because he finds it easier to do so rather than grapple with the inconvenient truths in the policy documents. It would be good if more Users, other than me, reinforced the notion that WP:V has a legitimate role on Wikipedia and all contributors should respect it.

Don't forget Benjamin's recent essay at diff. It would be good if you could read it and provide Benjamin with a response. Sincerely. Dolphin (t) 07:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a third possibility which is that this effort got off on the wrong foot causing the situation to get polarized. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how that could be a realistic explanation. See how it all started - diff. Cheers! Dolphin (t) 12:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd call that a mixed-bag in this context. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Why would you call it a mixed bag? Dolphin (t) 12:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you really want to go there? Happy to do so if you think that it would be useful to discuss. But I'm ready to just go to work to see if I can convince Benjamin to put in more cites. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
We have agreed that our first priority is to persuade Benjamin that in-line citations can open up a whole new world for him, beginning with GA status for his best articles. I suggest you do that first.
There is a likelihood that, in the future, I will feel motivated to write to another User to draw his attention to Wikipedia's desire that articles are independently verifiable. If you think my messages to Benjamin in August 2011 and/or December 2012 were a "mixed bag", and that being a mixed bag is not a good thing, I am keen to find out what you mean; or at least what approach you recommend in such circumstances. Dolphin (t) 12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
"Mixed bag" of course includes the nice stuff that you said. And on the other side, the only argument that you made for what you were asking was essentially saying that they were violating policy. With the latter being incorrect, your only reason given was an erroneous one. But either way, using "you are breaking a rule" as the only reasoning for something that someone is bringing up is far more likely to polarize a situation than it is to convince the person. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
A very good submission - diff. It deserves to be successful! Dolphin (t) 04:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! We'll see what happens next. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Assault weaponEdit

On Assault weapon you say That it is a TERM (not a type of firearm) and one with no consistent meaning.

You are 100% right. However, in Wikipedia we do not start an article by explicitly stating that the title has no meaning. Instead we set up the context. The further back the bolded term comes, the more distant the article is from any general meaning of the term. I wish I could point you to other examples, but wanted to give you a quick note. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying is certainly the norm, however this is a case of an article about a term where there are massively different meanings which a whole lot of people think are are single meaning. I think a very special and unusual case. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
In fact it seems to be more and more about the controversy surrounding the term. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
As a term with no consistent meaning and which is used to deceive more than it it is used to inform, I think that it is rightly so. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think my version does not express just this fact? Did you even read it! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You took out the key sentences which informed to that effect. Either way, it's hard to keep up with attempted second by second massive rewrites of a section with is a painstakenly developed consensus version. Not that it can't be further improved, but that's not the way to go about it. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You are objecting to me doing the edit in a multiple numbered steps. This is done explicitly for the reason that other like you could check what was removed, or if anything objectionable was added.
While you are at it, would you please explain why you reverted this edit. (No real need to answer. I suggest you cool off and come back tomorrow.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Not "cool off" but lets slow down a bit and deal with it in talk. North8000 (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

synthEdit

Hey. Thanks for giving your opinion on the synth discussion. Sorry if I came off rude. I was thrown off by the edits of another editor in the discussion whom I've had acrimonious encounters with outside of this discussion, and have since been kind of tense and on edge about it. But that's no excuse if I was rude. I apologize. Charles35 (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I didn't see any of your discussions with me to be rude or problematic in any way. When I ended with "I was just giving my opinion" I wasn't hinting otherwise, that was just a preface to / context for the sentence which followed. But it's nice to strive for a higher-than-average standard in that area which your post here indicates that you do. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability of productsEdit

Hi North. I saw that you were active on the Talk page of the Notability policy. I noticed that the notability criteria for Products has been scratched and I was wondering if you knew anything about it. I'm talking to a three-year-old social media monitoring startup with about 20+ sources (TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Huffington Post, Mashable, Inc., etc.). The sources are all on their product (not the company) so I think it falls under

"Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right"

However, there is no specific guidance on what a product needs to be notable... CorporateM (Talk) 21:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The main policy regarding this is wp:notability. And the core of it is that in essence the product needs substantive coverage in multiple secondary wp:reliable sources. That's the gist of it. Would be happy to do my best to discuss it more in any direction that you wish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think they'll be fine. The product definitely has enough sources (~20), but I know the community has its bias' against companies/products that are fairly new. CorporateM (Talk) 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD CaryacaryaEdit

Thanks North8000 I appreciate your constructive style of working. Yes I understand what you say. Now I've just added two academic sources. One is that declare that Caryacarya is the "sacred text" of the religious movement Ananda Marga (this maybe you have just seen) (to satisfy point 3 of WP NC). The other is an academic source quoting the historical relevance of the author (to satisfy point 5 of WP NC). I hope this is sufficient now. Thank you very much for your help.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I had already seen that when I wrote you; actually it's why I wrote you. But now I understand your approach .....it is to establish meeting criteria in the books sng. Long story short, that is a riskier/weaker approach. But if that is your approach, you should point out what you are saying....meeting the particular SNG points. IF you have a couple of independent sources which have done in-depth coverage of the topic (no particular claims are needed in there, just in-depth coverage) you have the stronger/less risky route available which is meeting gwp:notability/wp:GNG. In that case make sure that they are used as references in the article and then point them out and say that the are independent sources providing in-depth coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, offline citations are also counted. In an AFD last year I started gathering offline sources, though I didn't need those finally. If you can find some old 1995 Times of India full coverage on that book or 1992 Statesman article or any notable book (not another book of Ananda Maga please) where author has discussed on this book in details, please scan those copies (only particular pages) and then ummm.. send to someone (uninvolved editor?) who may see and verify those sources.. if you try to do so, make sure to collect at least 4 independent RS (newspaper articles, journal study, scholar papers etc) where the subject is the primary/an important topic of dicussion--Tito Dutta (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah wrong page, I thought to post this in Cornelius383's talk page.. anyway... Tito Dutta (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but you probably don't even need that that extra process. Just use them in the article as references, put as much detail on the reference and cite as is possible, and point such out at the AFD. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, it seems, I am hungover. Yes, that should work too unless someone shrugs, better play safe/perfect when you are already at corner of the ring --Tito Dutta (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Speed is also important unless you ask for more time, explaining why. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Most probably article creator can vote too, or is there any rule? Do you know about it? related discussion! --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Certainly! North8000 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
But the more effective thing would be to find a couple of references with in-depth coverage of the topic, put them in, and note that at the AFD page. If they did that, the article will stay. If thei don't do that, the article will probably get deleted. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi North8000. As I said to Tito I never vote on articles that I wrote. But in this particular case I did. Honestly I think that now we have in the article all the secondary sources to avoid deletion. I don't understand why to delete it. What do you think?--Cornelius383 (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I just changed my recommendation to "wait another week" My comment there is: "I've had conversations with the main author at my talk page and theirs. They do not yet understand that the system here is likely to judge based on wp:GNG and so we are not seeing any identification of any wp:GNG-suitable sources that may exist. This needs another week for them to understand and identify those if they exist."
Answering your question, you still haven't done what I recommended. My gut feel is that IF those sources exist, and IF you do that, your article will stay. And if not, not. Again, my recommendation is to find a couple of independent sources with in-depth coverage of the topic, put them in, and point them out/identify them AS BEING SUCH at the AFD page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Assault weaponEdit

Images don't need citations, but that caption definitely needs a citation. Either way it should definitely be discussed on the talk page. Perhaps we could start a discussion there? Prodego talk 22:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I started a section on the talk page for us to discuss, and get more input. Prodego talk 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree with your statement here about the caption. Your last statement didn't indicate that and was an edit summary for the deletion of the image. It will be easy to source and I'll do that. Happy to discuss anyway. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Nobody (film) a good article?Edit

I am amazed that you gave Mr. Nobody (film) a "good article" rating. I see that you had some discussion with Earthh, the person who mostly wrote the article, and he/she apparently allayed any doubts you had about it being neutral by saying, "I wrote it, I assure you it's neutral". But I'm afraid that's not enough, and you shouldn't so easily have given him/her a pass.

I suppose you saw my attempts in the Talk page to make the article more neutral. I consider that they failed. Earthh, for whatever reason, is intent on presenting the movie in an almost exclusively positive light. The reality is that the movie was a financial and critical failure. It had some success in Belgium, then flopped in France, and was shown pretty much nowhere else, which is why hardly anyone in America reviewed it.

The most egregious sentence in the article, that I was not able to get him/her to remove, remains: "Mr. Nobody has appeared on many critics top ten lists of 2010 and is frequently considered to be one of the greatest films of the year." "Many"? "Frequently"? In what universe? It's a laughable sentence, the reference does not support it, and it is unfortunately representative of the bias of the article.

I was not and still am not prepared to have an edit war or any kind of war with Earthh about the article, but I am very surprised that you called this a good article. It's not. It's someone's labor of love showing a failed movie in the best possible light, and it embarrasses me that Wikipedia has such an article and even gives it accolades! Kai Carver (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The content of the article should accurately reflect what is covered in reliable sources. The lead should summarize the content. Regarding the commercial results of the movie, the article included the theatrical results, and Earthh indicated that they had no sources to be able to put in it's overall results, including those from non-theatrical sales. Regarding your comment if you have a source that gives the characterization that you are describing ("commercial failure") you should have put that in and should put that in. Me insisting that characterization be put in without sourcing would actually be a VIOLATION of both policy and GA criteria.
The same goes for review and assessments by critics. The sourced critics material in there is generally positive. If you feel that there is other sourced negative critic material you should have and should put it in there. If you feel that the sentence is an overreach, you should change it.
Finally, I note that you have had zero edits on the article for its entire history except for placing a general POV tag on the article last August. And I don't see any proposed changes or anything beyond a general complaint on the talk page. Your response where Earthh said that they couldn't find any more sourced info on the commercial results was to basically throw up your hands, implied that they are a poor listener and left. IMHO the thing to do at that point would be to find and insert sourced material which you say is missing instead of asking the other editor to violate policy and insert an unsourced statement that the film was a commercial failure. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "accurately reflect what is covered in reliable sources": the reference for the wildly over-the-top sentence that I mention above, [20], does not support it. The closest I can find there is "made several of the hidden gems of 2010 lists published across the internet" -- hardly "many critics top ten lists of 2010" or "frequently considered to be one of the greatest films of the year", wouldn't you say? So it doesn't accurately reflect its own reference, let alone reality.
What's amusing is that that very same reference does say "the $47million film grossed a mere $2million at the box office worldwide", so it's not exactly hard to find evidence the film is a commercial failure and Box Office Mojo worldwide gross confirms this: [21].
It's odd because you raised concerns, and then accepted Earthh's answers, though they did not address your concerns. The reason I haven't tried to change the article is that Earthh, who clearly "owns" the article, appeared very resistant to my suggestions, and seems to me to be arguing in bad faith. See also my discussion on Earthh's Talk page [22]. Now you say and maintain it's a good article... OK. I don't feel prepared to argue much more if the author of the article and a neutral person who is a Senior Editor both agree that the article is good. Kai Carver (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that it meets the Wikipedia Good Article criteria. That doesn't mean it can't be made better. If the "the $47million film grossed a mere $2million at the box office worldwide" sounds like it would be useful for inclusion if the source is reliable. You should put it in, with the source. I have a feeling that you could just put it in and there would be no objections. But if you feel like you need support to do that ping me and I'll support you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks for your reply. What do you suggest I do about the above-mentioned false statement, unsupported by the reference? "Mr. Nobody has appeared on many critics top ten lists of 2010 and is frequently considered to be one of the greatest films of the year." Doesn't its wrongness shock you? I would just delete it, but I really don't want to get into an argument. I'm really at a loss about how to improve the article, because it seems to me very, very biased, and I don't relish working in a non cooperative way. Here's another example "Jennie Punter of The Globe and Mail praised the film" -- no, she didn't, or rather, she gave it it two out of four stars and a mixed review (so of course there is praise as well as criticism): "Time travel takes too many routes in Mr. Nobody". Since this is one of the only reviews from a major source used to support the claim that the film was well-received by critics, if I change that, I have to change the whole slant of the (already over-long) Critical Reception section. Anyway, I'll try to make a few improvements, and see what happens. If I get around to it... The problem is that the article is like the movie: no one cares about it, except for a small number of enthusiastic supporters. I just hate seeing false things in Wikipedia. Kai Carver (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
And here's another false statement about the film, with a bogus reference, in the director's page: "It has received high praise from film critics and was named by many one of the best films of that year." Check the reference, it says nothing of the sort. Doesn't that shock you? I think you also gave this article a GA stamp. It seems to me there is a pattern here of misrepresentation, by someone who appears to be a big fan, but not sufficiently neutral and ready to bend the truth to make the film appear better then it is. Kai Carver (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
PS: sigh... Kai Carver (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Answering your first question, my recommendation is that you should do (and should have been doing) the following (in this sequence) for each topic thread:

  1. Put in sourced material
  2. Make sure that summarization in the body of the article matches the sources material. If not, change it. If your change is disputed, discuss the specific change on the talk page.
  3. Make sure that the lead summarizes what is in the article. If not, change it. If your change is disputed, discuss the specific change on the talk page.

On your overall post, I am going to be short and very direct here in order to hopefully give some useful feedback. I looked at the history of the article and see that you have done ZERO of the above. You have done ZERO edits (other than to tag it). You have made ZERO specific proposals for changes on the talk page. On the talk page the only thing that you have done is make general criticisms. And the other active person there merely said that they feel that it summarized the sourced content that they were able to find. To me that sounds like an open door to go find sourced material and put it in. Even on this talk page you have a quote from a source which reflects on the very topic that you are discussing, but the only place you have even brought it up is on my talk page. You didn't put it into the article, you didn't propose putting it in the article, you didn't even discuss it at the article talk page. As much as anybody else, YOU are an editor of this article. That is how Wikipedia works. You seem to think that your scope is limited to just making general criticisms and that it is somebody else's job to propose or make specific changes to implement your general opinion. That "somebody" is YOU, and you have not done it at all. Again, I was short and very direct here in order to hopefully give some useful feedback. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, which is indeed useful, and which I will try to apply in the future. In return, let me respectfully suggest you check that the references match the article before calling an article a good article. --Kai Carver (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Not that I could check every reference, but I don't think that you have pointed anywhere where the material in the article conflicts with a used-reference. You have pointed out where material that you found but did not put in would have have made a significant reflection (e.g. on commercial success/failure) on the topic, but even on that there we no statements otherwise in the article. Probably the statement most open to question would be summation of the reviews....in essence that they were generally but not all good. This sits on the border between summation and synthesis but seems to me a good summation of material currently in the article.....of course you and other editors should feel free to take it out or modify it as you see fit. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought I did point out such cases. Again:
* "Mr. Nobody has appeared on many critics top ten lists of 2010 and is frequently considered to be one of the greatest films of the year." article section: [23] ref: [24]
* "It has received high praise from film critics and was named by many one of the best films of that year." article section: [25] ref: [26]
The above two sentences are not supported by their references. Aren't those cases where "the material in the article conflicts with a used-reference"? Sorry to keep discussing this, but I am genuinely baffled that we don't agree on this. --Kai Carver (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The first pair of of links is a section in this article, and a source. There is certainly not a conflict between the material and the references. One could argue either way on whether the reference supports the material or whether the material is or isn't a good and acceptable summary of sourced material for that section. If your opinion is not, then go tag / change / discuss it.....you are really in the wrong place for a debate on that. The second pair of links is to a section is a different article (not this one) and a source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

PreciousEdit

scouting adventure
Thank you for quality articles, on scouting and on ships, such as SS Edmund Fitzgerald, for teamwork, for bringing "some reason to chaos", for: "view every opponent ... as a current or potential friend", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (3 July 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It means a lot! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

CD RFC/UEdit

After this morning's actions I didn't think waiting made any more sense. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:VEdit

Your recent revert of my revert is simply edit warring and can very much be seen as actual tag teaming. While you support the prose as I reverted back to you reverted based on issues that are not relevant to such a revert. I also wish to urge you to refrain from accusing any editor of tag teaming without just cause. I feel I now have such just cause to accuse you of such. However (and I think I have come to know you well enough to know this will not impress you) I also have a great deal of respect for you as an editor and feel this need not be escalated to AN/I unless you feel so inclined.

I am curious though. What exactly is it that makes you feel that there was any tag teaming?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

First a couple of notes from the happenings there:
  • I referred to it as accidental tag teaming.
  • My edit summary recaps the important points, it said: "Undid revision. I am changing it away from the version that I DO prefer and to the version that I do NOT prefer so that the last stable version is in there while we talk. This should be decided in talk." And I did exactly what the two admins subsequently did, and for the same reasons which they gave. So I edited AGAINST my own preference on that topic in order to support going about a proper process for making a disputed change in a a core core policy. There is no way that that is tag teaming or edit warring.
Answering your last question, I did a full reach of AGF and said accidental tag teaming. I was referring to simply the mechanics of what was happening there (prior to the intervention by myself and the two admins.) And that was that the disputed changed version was sitting there just due to the fact that 2 vs. 1 ran the "1" up against the 3RR bright line, not due to any decision in talk. So I was ONLY reflecting on the math of what was happening and did not mean to imply that some type of offense was occurring. Such an implication would not be out of line, but it was not my intent. I tried to make that very clear.....it would have been better if I had tripled up on that effort. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Just one comment to your post. Edits are considered part of consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully we're cool. Thanks for all that you do for Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Foundation for Economic Education Good Article NominationEdit

The Foundation for Economic Education article citations with page numbers now all have exact page numbers. --Abel (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! What an immense amount of good work! I'll give it a look in accordance with the discussed plan. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theoryEdit

FYI: Per your previous involvement in the discussion, I thought you might be interested in commenting in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Proposal to replace current content. (I must say I'm looking forward to being finished with this one!) Location (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I had forgotten that I commented there. I'd be happy to take a look. North8000 (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Linsey AlexanderEdit

It was nice having an old friend out there. I started the article and then took a break to cross-country ski in 3 feet of new snow and came back to a tag for speedy deletion. I'll be away for a couple days so I hope no one gets hasty. Thank you for the defense of the Linsey Alexander article.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Tagging it for deletion minutes after it was created and where in minutes I found multiple wp:notability-suitable sources was a bit much. I think that it's clearly wp:notable and now has the sources so it should be on firm ground now. But I'll be watching it. Enjoy the snow. Paradise Below Zero! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ian GillanEdit

Just a quick note, now the dust has settled a bit, the editor who disrupted this, and derailed the GA review, Plant's Strider (talk · contribs), has been blocked for edit warring, so I'm going to give this another go for GA this week. There are some things I want to improve first, such as being a lot more familiar with the various sourcing tags on articles since I originally put this up, so I'd like to do them first. I'd rather not have to wait five months again for another GA review, so would you be up for tackling it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Just ping me when you nominate it. Actually, even better, if you feel like it, also ping me just before you nominate it. If there are any significant issues (in particular, have things really settled down? / stability) it would be better to acknowledge/ deal with them then. Neither of us wants another non-pass. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Having compared what's there now to what I did in August, most of the content is pretty intact. The main things are the formatting for sources (an activity I find as exciting as watching grass grow, hence why I haven't done it yet), and the lead basically wants to be nuked and done again. The trouble seems to have been with new editors springing up and starting to write stuff without realising that if it's at GA or FA, you'll hack people off if you're not careful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how far you are going regarding source formatting....GA does not require it per se. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've done what I wanted to do, and the article is now up for GA again. See Talk:Ian Gillan. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Government wasteEdit

Just created an entry for government waste. For the longest time I assumed that, given the notability of the topic, the entry had already been created long ago. Better late than never I suppose. It's just a rough outline so there's considerable room for improvement. There's plenty of material on the subject so any assistance scouring sources and propagating pleasant prose would be appreciated. No worries if you have other priorities. Cheers. --Xerographica (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and invite! I'm spread a little thin right now but will have a look. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
So many topics so little time. I moved other people's money to a subpage... User:Xerographica/Other people's money. Figure it's going to be deleted...but perhaps, if we have time, we can improve it enough where it wouldn't be deleted. --Xerographica (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Single-payer behaviorEdit

The only terrible behavior has been of you and Thargor edit-warring against the consensus and inserting an obvious POV. If I recall you two did "report" my behavior to which the result was nil. The fact is you know very well what you and Thargor are doing and yet continue to do so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No I have not yet done so / reported you. I have put one sentence into the RFC/U which recently commenced on you, but that is not what I am referring to potentially doing. Please quit the crap, which you are repeating here. As I clearly indicated, I don't even have a preference much less a POV on the question which you are warring on. Every stage of my work there was explicitly just on trying to get a working process in place there. My note to you on your talk page remains the case. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment pre-HellerEdit

Hi North. Help me out. Because I'm confused here. And if I can understand where you're coming from, perhaps we can avoid the long process of requesting a comment and/or mediation:

1)Do you know of any United States case ever in all of US history prior to 2000 that ever found the individual theory to be valid?

2) Are you aware of all the many Federal Court cases from 1942-2000 interpreting Miller that found the collective theory to be the only valid interpretation beginning with Cases v. United States (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34446_20080411.pdf) ?

Frankly I'm confused. If your answer to the first question is "no" and your answer to the second question is "yes", then what are we arguing over? And if you disagree, please be precise as to exactly what you disagree about (and provide a source please for your interpretation of pre-Heller history that cites cases as I've done).GreekParadise (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting right to the point, (vaguely speaking for brevity) there were no real rulings on the core question until the 21st century. I believe that you are trying to say that lack of a "individual right" finding is a basis to put something in imply that that the precedent is considered to be findings of the opposite. IMHO from every standpoint (logical, history and wiki-policies) that is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Please read United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir. 1976) -- http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/530f2d103.html -- which sets forward a long list of cases with this view. For a more recent case, check out Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123 (4th Cir. 1995) (“the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual right.”). You may feel that the entire body of Federal case law from 1942-2000 on the Second Amendment was wrongly decided -- if so, you're not alone in that view...you're joined by five current members of the Supreme Court! -- but read the CRS article I provided. Like it or not, that was the clear and undisputed law in every Federal court that decided a Second Amendment case after Miller and before Emerson. Do you deny these are "real rulings on the core question"? I concede there is no Supreme Court ruling between Miller and Heller, but I never said there was. I'm not "trying to say" anything but to cite the facts. What are you "trying to say"? That these cited facts aren't true? Or are unimportant? Or that telling people what the law was pre-Heller is biased? With due respect, I honestly don't understand your objection. Are you saying the NYT Chief Supreme Court reporter filed a false report? If so, you should demand the NYT post a correction. (Ironic, as there is a correction already in it.) But on what grounds is it false? And on what grounds is the CRS and LOC false? You haven't cited a single source. And I've now found dozens for the simple proposition that prior to Heller, the collective view was the law in every Federal court that considered the case from 1942-2000. If you don't like the phrasing, fine. Let's work together to find phrasing you do like. Or, if we can't reach an agreement, I am willing to go to request for comment or mediation. I'd also like to see what Celestra comes up with it. Celestra does believe the Congressional Research Service is a reliable source. Do you disagree?

GreekParadise (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully, I find that three are immense logical flaws and false implied premises in what you are inferring above and your efforts to support what you are trying to insert. This will be a substantial conversation. If you prefer a separate discussion here that would be fine with me but otherwise perhaps we should move this to the article talk page? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. I was hoping we could work it out here, but we can talk there. Have you read the Congressional Research Service report which found the collective view was the view of the federal courts from 1942-2000? Please let me know if you have read it and if you disagree with this characterization. And if so, on what basis. P.S. The article by Liptak was no more an op-ed than footnote 4 upon which the lede relies on for its holding on Heller and McDonald. If you don't accept it, we have to delete the second paragraph of the lede.GreekParadise (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Either venue is fine....that was just a suggestion. I skimmed CRS report...it is quality stuff. IMHO it indicates that the core question was undecided in the courts as of when it was written.....so what you are wanting to put in directly conflicts with that. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your commentsEdit

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your kind words on the Libertarianism Talk page. I'm sorry to have leapt to that conclusion, but it honestly appeared that our past conflicts were getting in the way of collaboration. I think we both want the same thing on that article (less anarchism, more "right-libertarianism"), so I hope we can work together to accomplish this. Again, thank you, and I wish you all the best! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. When people who disagree with me stand their ground but don't resort to bad tactics I not only do not consider that to be a conflict, I respect them for that and enjoy the conversations. That is how I viewed our previous interaction, so I had not the slightest minus regarding you going into this. There was one moment which was (merely) frustrating which was on my talk page, right when you and I dissected the debate to it's logical essence you politely bailed. But that was just a "after all of that work, just when we were so close" frustration. Thanks for the post.
There is a lot of history at the Libertarianism article. 2 1/2 years ago that article situation was really in flames, like the nearly worst that I think I've seen in any article. My roles starting then has been a sort of a middle of the road facilitator. First we got it cooled down and eventually we discovered a few Rosetta stones that helped sort it out....that we were talking two different languages. It turns out that the word [Libertarian] has two different common meanings in the US vs. Europe. Not just that different strands are practiced on opposite sides of the pond, but two fundamentally different meanings. The common meaning in the US is simply (setting a priority on) "less government, more freedom." END OF DEFINITION. I won't explain the meaning in Europe, I think you know it better than I. I think that the primary reason for this is that in the US the word "liberal" has been transformed/corrupted to mean "bigger government". And so a new word was needed for (classical)liberalism, and that word is libertarianism. And so another difference is that the common meaning in Europe is defined by lengthier philosophical definitions (e.g. whether they are for or against private ownership of resources, the moot question of whether they would take the US all the way to anarchism). Trying to view / define common US libertarianism in the context of such fleshed-out political philosophies taxonomies is imagining things. I think that you are tending to make that error. BTW the common meaning of anarchism/anarchist in the USA is people who throw firebombs in riots or motorcycle gangs who take over towns. So there another educational job we have in the article.
The article has been pretty reasonably peaceful despite the fact that nearly everybody there would prefer to take it to one extreme or the other. That is the situation that you are stepping into. Welcome aboard! North8000 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! You are correct about the changing meaning of the term liberal, but to expound on that, the differences between common US and European political terminology stem from the USA's history as a nation born of Liberal philosophy: whereas European conservatives wished to conserve the absolute, monarchical system of rule, US conservatives wanted to conserve the Liberal values of our nascent nation (social freedom, laissez-faire capitalism, and a secular and democratic nation). During the early USA's adherence to laissez-faire capitalism (or nearly so), liberal came to mean those who wanted the government to put an end to what many saw as the resulting labor abuses (e.g. child labor, long hours, unsafe work conditions); this relationship between capitalists and the government is sometimes referred to as state capitalism. As these two political ideologies evolved, the conservatives became more accepting of the stronger, centralized government for which the liberals pushed, though for quite different reasons (e.g. national defense, foreign interventionism, the legislation of traditional/religious values), eventually earning the label neoconservative. Those who wanted less government manipulation (and therefore more freedom) began identifying as libertarians because both the liberals and conservatives (aka neoliberals) sought a more powerful state, even though all three are Liberals--I'm using a capital L here to distinguish adherents of the political philosophy from the lay meaning. In Europe, of course, conservative meant conserving the absolute rule of the monarchy, liberal referred to an advocate of democracy and free trade, and libertarian was a synonym for anarchist (which also carried an anti-capitalist connotation, hence its common classification as a leftist philosophy). This is also why libertarianism and anarchism are organized into left and right categories: left-anarchism refers to the traditional, socialist anarchism; right-anarchism refers to egoist anarchism (the former is kind of like a stateless feudalism in my opinion) or the relatively recent anarcho-capitalism; left-libertarianism refers to the socialist anarchism; and right-libertarianism refers to a capitalist ideology that seeks less government, with considerable debate over whether this entails anarchism or minarchism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Carpal tunnel and youEdit

Hey North. I'm glad my solution worked on Ian Gillan. Having just looked and seen how you performed the fix though, I figured you must be unfamiliar with the native search and replace tool we now have. On the editing toolbar there is an easily missed icon (it's all alone at the far right side, away from all the others) that looks like this  . With it you could have replaced all of the {{sfn|Gillan's with {{sfn|Gillan|Cohen in one click. (In the old days I would have done it by dropping the whole article's edit content into a word processing program to do the same thing). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't know that it was in the Wikipedia interface. Thanks! I knew that I could do it globally using other tools but decided on the one-by-one route to be cautious, and to de-bundle in case there was an issue with some. Plus it's good early AM wake-up therapeutic work. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

CartoonDiabloEdit

You feel exactly the same way about CartoonDiablo's behavior as I feel about Thargor Orlando's. I could have written exactly the same paragraph as you did, swapping the user names. Perhaps there is something we can learn from that? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I try to be objective. If you are talking about their behavior during the last 1-2 months then I would have to question your statement and ask you where it comes from. During that period IMHO I think that it is pretty clear that TO has clearly been behaving well and CD clearly badly. If you are talking about something prior to that then I would have to plead ignorance. I was not "present" then and did not look back into history.
BTW I've just gotta tell you something that stuck in my mind from when I was looking around trying to learn/understand you, which included reading your statement of politics on your user page.....maybe a bigger "learn something from that" moment. Based on what you wrote, we have about 95% the same politics, yet your comments indicate an assumption that that we have opposite politics. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but those 5% probably mean everything! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, the 5% is that I am undecided/torn about more government involvement in health care, and I'm a friendly-to-religion atheist. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not interested in having government run the health care system. Health care professionals run health care. What I want to see is government financing health care through taxation fully. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Not saying its good or bad (it's probably a mixture of the two) , but taxing/paying does inevitably mean controlling it to a significant extent. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

RfD:Other people's moneyEdit

Hello, North8000. You recently participated in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other people's money. You may be interested in a discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Other people's money. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

File:CarrieNewcomer.jpgEdit

Can you add the OTRS ticket, please? --evrik (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It is exactly as I wrote when I put it up, (and rock solidly-so) and I don't have one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013Edit

  Hello, I'm Jenova20. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:HiLo48 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Even if assumed here and here were not aimed at me, they still constitute a personal attack and you should know better. Keep it up with you want to end up at ANI again, or cut out the petty digs and work on the encyclopedia. If i see another unprovoked attack aimed anywhere near me then we'll have a thread on ANI. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Jenova20 (email) 09:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, you missed that boat twice over on that one. First, who said anything about you? (or anybody in particular). I just said 1 or 2 folks on that page, an immense page with an immense number of people on it. Second, even if if I had referred to anybody, it was a discussion about bad and destructive behavior which would not be a personal attack. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:Civil. There is no exception to making uncivil accusations against users just because another users civility is in question on the same page. Your accusations were uncalled for and unhelpful. Please refrain from doing it again. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 11:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Your post has so many false statements and false implied false premises in it that it is too flawed to make sense out of much less answer. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Well whatever, that is the same argument as always from you. Either way, if i see another instance i'll be taking it to ANI. This discussion is over for me now. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 12:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe more common for what you write, but in general not common. Other than that, same answer as my previous one. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

NRA Edit warringEdit

I agree the content on sandy hook should guards should be in, per the talk consensus. I'll leave a message on Athenes talk asking her to come to talk. We're going to get blocked at this pace and I'd rather we not be. Thx much.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I plan to stay miles from going that far. But it certainly is relevant if commentary is going to be included. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Assault weaponEdit

You reverted my edit here. I've restored it. The article uses a bunch of named references, but included the full cite template anyways. This is unnecessary when named references exist and it creates a lot of wikimarkup hurting readability. Ryan Vesey 00:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. That's cool. North8000 (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

GA InstructionsEdit

I have completed a redo of the current nomination page with the revised instructions here. What do you think?--Dom497 (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WOW, nice work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Weak suggestionsEdit

What you think of making it a linked page instead of templates so that it is accessible for people to edit and evolve/improve it?

Stronger SuggestionsEdit

  • The links to it are way too small, bordering on hidden. Also be sure to link from the main GA page to, not just the GAN page
  • Has some typos. I'd fix them but it takes me too long to figure out how to find and get into that template. Spelling on eligable, ineligable, "deleted" s/b "delete"
  • Under "partial review" probably should be "if nobody responds" not just if the nominator doesn't respond
  • Eventually the distinction between waiting for fixes while "under review" and using "on hold" to wait for fixes should be clarified.
  • When you say "Also, if the article is part of any WikiProjects, make sure you change the rating of the article through the WikiProject's template that is found on the talk page." you need to tell them what to put in there.


Nice work!!!!!

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I will address you comments when I get a chance.--Dom497 (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your AN/I commentsEdit

I am not going to address the content of your comment, but I would suggest that you go through them and fix the username of the editor whose name you repeatedly misspelled. Her name is Killer Chihuahua, not Killer Chinchilla. If you are going to attack another editor, you might as well get her name right. Horologium (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Since when is carefully questioning the objectivity of someone who is impugning me "attacking"? But I thanked them for the correction in the uname and fixed it. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Due ProcessEdit

I won't let your right to speak on gun control/tea party/etc. issues be infringed. You will not be topic-banned! As you remember, we disagreed vehemently on the VN/T issue. I believe I even probably called for you to be topic-banned, during the heat of the "battle". Silencing one's opponents is a great way to win an argument; but what happens when things aren't so "black-and-white"? If you ever need help with the anti-rights party, do not hesitate to ping me! Doc talk 09:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No one has any "rights" on Wikipedia to infringe. This is not a democracy. I believe North8000 is aware that we are not here to "speak on gun control/tea party/etc." or any other subject. We are here to summarize reliable sources and write an accurate encyclopedia. The above troubles me greatly because it appears to be a very distinctive battelground mentality and I recommend North not involve themselves in such actions or support. Take a breath, step back and cool down. I doubt arbcom will take the case and clearly admin has moved the discussion just for taking up too much room, and that was closed, so there is little to worry about from what I see.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't trouble you that greatly. As Jimbo has said many times: "We are not transcription monkeys". North8000 has his opinions, and I support his right to express them as much as I support those who strive to strip him of his opinions. The "right-wing" is vilified far too much by the liberal media. Do you actually contest that the media is controlled by the "left"? Carry on. Doc talk 09:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Frankly there is no way of telling if you are doing this as a way to make North look as bad as possible. For that reason I would note that at this point North has absolutely nothing to do with this post. We have no rights to express any opinion here. You may say whatever politicaly motivated statements you wish on a usertalkpage but this isnot acceptable on an article talkpage. North is an experianced editor and i truly believe he understands that we are not here to take a stand on any issue regardless of our own opinions. I very much doubt I am giving him too much credit here.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
If you do some research on journalism in general you will discover that 1) the notion of a "liberal media" is a myth; it doesn't exist 2) journalists are more conservative than other professionals and tend to be centrist 3) most media outlets are business-oriented and lean right. The nonexistent "liberal media" is a favored bugaboo of the populist right, and they use it to sell books and attract radio listeners. That it doesn't exist doesn't seem to matter. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in making North8000 look "bad" or "good". I am allowed to show my support for that issue, and support for his right to express his position on issues. "Don't Tread On Me" - and I won't tread on you. Doc talk 10:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

We have no rights on Wikipedia. Don't threaten me please.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an American expression - it was not a threat towards you in any way whatsoever. Yeesh... Doc talk 10:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It was a clear threat Doc regardless of it being an expression. "Don't...and I wont...on you." It is clear you have an agenda, the question is, are you not here at all to build an encyclopedia? It looks that way to me at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
See Gadsden flag (and more specifically Gadsden_flag#Tea_Party_Movement_symbol) I don't think it was used as a threat (but it could be perceived as one). Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the expression Viriditas...but it is not ""Don't Tread On Me" - and I won't tread on you." It is simply "Don't tread on me" period. It was indeed used as a threat and was taken as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
And as yet, a simple apology has yet to be extended so the threat stands.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct on the Gasden flag! It's been American expression for quite some time. As for me, I've been here for over five years, Amadscientist. I've added plenty of content, references, etc. Reverted a ton of vandals. Weighed in on issues more important than this. You can look at me as hard as you want to: but you're wasting your time. How do you really think I was "threatening" you? Nope. Same team, bro. ;P Doc talk 10:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You used a partisan expression to make a threat against another editor as a means of intimidation. I do not take these issues lightly. Yes, you have been here long enough to know better. I know you will not apologize because that would defeat the purpose of intimidation and the chill effect you desire. Simply put, you crossed a line and are now on notice. Do not extend your own additon of what you intend to do after using that expression and you wont be guilty of threatening others. I would accept your premise if you were capable of an apology. Since one is not forthcoming I see this as a threat to do further "battle" with me in the future against our civility guidelines and policy. Be aware you can be blocked for such actions after making such threats.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds like... a threat. It's not my first day here, buddy. See below. Cheers... Doc talk 11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you intended it as a threat. In its original usage the phrase is intended as a warning (this is explained in the linked article); one should not step on the metaphorical snake lest one get bitten. A warning is somewhat different than the threat the snake represents: the snake does not attack unless it is provoked, and its bite is deadly. Be warned, but do not feel threatened! I actually understand this on a personal level, because I was around a lot of rattlesnakes as a child. I never felt threatened, but I knew not to step on them. Viriditas (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
LOL! I grew up in rattlesnake country. I am aware of the actual warning the rattlers gives. It was meant as a threat against me and it was taken as such.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps in hindsight I shouldn't have added the "and I won't tread on you", as I can see it being interpreted as a threat. But I never meant it that way at all: I was just attempting to expand on the concept in general. My apologies if any other meanings were inferred. I did not intend to threaten anyone. Doc talk 10:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Doc. I accept your apology and thank you for extending it.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, rattlesnake does not taste like chicken...no matter what anyone says.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
All is well :> Doc talk 11:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, nice to have y'all visiting! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Austrian School.Edit

Hello North. Please review WP:IDHT and WP:CON. Your points on Austrian School talk have been answered many times by various editors. Time to move on. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've barely been involved in the general debate and that is not what this is about. I first asked that question a half hour ago and it was about something you first said an hour ago. And you've not answered it. I'm particularly interested on where exactly the "without explicit agreement" came from. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
But never mind. The point/goal was to say to just stick to discussing the merits of the topic at hand. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not supposed to post here (I came to this page for a different reason), but SPECIFICO, seriously, just asserting the same "I'm already correct so there" thing over and over is not going to work. This is getting very old. Please stop this nonsense, or at least keep it to talk pages. Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Quick questionEdit

"published stuff that I wrote in other technical fields gets cited by others in Wikipedia, and people ask me to read and decode technical stuff for them"

Awesome. What are these? Where do I find it? I'm curious because you've been such an active, articulate, and fair editor for so long on pages I'm also interested in. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

(for the benefit of other readers, I wrote those comments in tandem with a statement that I remained a dummy on a topic after reading its article, saying it needed to be more explanatory) Thank you so much for those compliments. Those are the things that I absolutely strive for. I have come to realize that trying bring POV'd articles to the center marks you as an opponent of people who don't want things brought to neutral. And they conduct war by calling their "opponent" all kinds of bad things.
Unfortunately answering your question here would out myself. Perhaps we could establish a trusted rapport by email and I could then tell you. Thanks for asking! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Gun Control Article BiasEdit

If we need to take this to arbitration, we can. I don't want to edit war on the article ..... the bias at the moment is extreme, the pov pushing is glaring, and the format is deficient. If Stopyourbull wants to work it out on the talk I'm all for that but if this is just going to be obstructionist, I'd rather get some admins who are entirely outside of this field and help us write a good descriptive article on the topic vs some of what is there. Thoughts?-Justanonymous (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Admins aren't going to guide content. I think we should edit and discuss towards normal quality article standards in line with Wikipedia policies. That one article is so out of line from those that those will go a long way. If any individual starts really being bad then that would be the time to go to admins on any behavio5r issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed-- He's reverting the deletion of weasel words and non-facts though. Edit warring will surely bring the admins but I don't want to get banned. I'll see what I can do. Thx for the help.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Para-skiing classification articlesEdit

Thanks for your reviews of these articles, which were nominated last October. Sorry it took me a week to respond, but my watchlist has been flooded by bot edits. I believe that all points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been helping trying to reduce the backlog at wp:gan. Including tackling 5 of these at once. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The one item I raised is repeated across the articles. I figure we can use LW3 as an example to sort it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Where are we up to with this? Amy chance of wrapping it up? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been both sick and traveling. Plus I'm doing seven of these at once, two of them recently nominated ones at your request. But I think we can be all wrapped up within 2-3 days. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
All but one are passed and finished. I closed out LW3 as being the "coordinating point". The 1 (LW6/8) is awaiting response/discussion. Bewteen who nominated and who is handling I was trying to figure who is who regarding editors....looks like two folks are the main editors and have done a large amount of good work in an interesting area that people would otherwise not know. Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey dudeEdit

I notice and support your comments here and elsewhere regarding the Presidency of Barack Obama article. In particular, your remark about the article possibly being written by the Barack Obama re-election committee is spot on, and you'll find that it generally applies to the Barack Obama Wikibio and all related articles. Genuine criticism has finally started to creep into these articles since Obama won re-election and can't run again, and since Obama has clearly moved closer and closer to George W. Bush on national security issues, such as keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open, indefinite detention of unlawful combatants without trial, drone strikes etc. ... mainly because such criticism is coming from the left. Criticism from the right is per se illegitimate. And yet, compare the Obama articles with the George W. Bush and Tony Blair Wikibios, for example. To a very large extent, I've given up on all those articles; they're the worst POV examples I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The common strategy is for the WP:OWNers to claim that the inconvenient content in question is irrelevant, not notable, unsourced (or poorly sourced, or sourced only in "hit pieces" in some "unreliable," "reactionary" publication like the National Review or the Wall Street Journal), or a WP:WEIGHT violation (which I perceive as their ace in the hole, used when all other objections have been defeated). The common resolution they seek is to move the inconvenient content to some other article, "anywhere but here," so that "our" article can remain pristine. Does this sound familiar? To a somewhat lesser extent, I've encountered the same problem with Ugg boots related articles. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that it will take some evolution in policies to fix these. Until then I just occasionally say a few things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW your expertise on Region 7 has me intrigued. North8000 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm originally from Arizona (my name is a dead giveaway), so Philmont was my High Adventure experience as a Scout, but my older brother ended up going to college (and eventually getting hired and buying a house and getting married) here in the Chicago area, and I eventually followed in his footsteps and lived in his basement when I went to college myself. During the summer breaks from his college classes, he was a staff member at Northern Wisconsin for several summers. I was too young to be involved very much before it closed, but they tore down the base and restored the whole area to its natural state. My brother and I have been camping there several times since then, and all of the old portaging trails and campsites are still there. What I know about the base and its history, I learned from him. It's still got the best beach for swimming in the area, but nobody uses it. And since the Scouts have been gone for 30 years, there's plenty of wood for campfires! Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Cool. And nice addition to the article. As a youth / near-youth I was there twice, once under each name (starting with Region 7). Old fashioned Voyager training (leader training a week before the unit's trip) there was the toughest week in my life (in a nice way) . Is the base public land now? It was much later (as an adult) that I finally made it to Philmont. What a place! North8000 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The base has always been public land belonging to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. But it was leased by the CCC, then by the Scouts, and rumor has it that the rent was $1.00 a year. DNR isn't interested in making money from the land, they're only interested in appropriate uses for the land. Scouting execs who were pushing for a transfer of all Midwest High Adventure resources to Minnesota ensured that all but one of the buildings were demolished. It made a return of High Adventure Scouting to that area almost impossible, but the storage shed is still there. And yes, both Philmont and Northern Wisconsin are incredible. They have a charm and a magnificence that the city dweller may never see. Sunset at White Sand Lake after a day of canoeing, swimming and some truly delectable barbecuing is just about as close to Heaven as I'll ever get on earth. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Phoenix and WinslowEdit

Phoenix and Winslow is using unacceptable behavior to support his case on the Ugg boots trademark disputes article. He has altered two other related articles to support his argument for this one and has canvassed an editor to support him in the RFC. He knows he can't canvass as he was reprimanded for doing it in an RFC last year. Can you ask P&W to reign in this behavior or is this something that needs to be done elsewhere? Your advice would be appreciated, Cheers. Wayne (talk) 09:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really the place for behavioral discussions, but the fact that you both have respected my thoughts might mean that I can be of some help. North8000 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Thx for your help. It may be too late though as Phoenix and Winslow has just made some false accusations against myself and User:Mandurahmike. Wayne (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Well mate, you've falsely accused MONGO. You produce so many distortions and so much spin that it takes forever to unravel them all. Fortunately, at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations you've run into a brick wall called WP:BLP, your favorite source was unanimously declared unreliable at WP:RSN, admins stubbed the article to get rid of your mountain of BLP violations, and none of the nutball followers of Lyndon Larouche have shown up to help you yet. So you have no friends there, and your love affair with WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories cannot be indulged at Wikipedia's expense. In the Ugg boots articles, however, your fellow Australians frequently come to your aid and WP:BLP concerns are easily avoided. You can safely vent your obvious frustrations from the Franklin article, and indulge in the usual Wikilawyering practice of raising objection after objection; after they've all been exhaustively defeated, rely on WP:WEIGHT and WP:ROC (which are are almost entirely Wikipedia editors' opinions) and your numerous Australian friends to "send that inconvenient but well-sourced content anywhere but here; we have a biased narrative we're trying to post to the world in Wikipedia's voice." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the specific topic in dispute at the moment (inclusion of counterfeiting cases) I don't think that there is a clear-cut answer. I would think that that would be the type of thing that folks would not be overly concerned about either way. IMHO the gorilla in the living room is that you two have a lot of rough history with each other and are on pretty rough terms with each other. And that seems to be overshadowing any differences in opinion regarding content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I request permission to transclude (copy) a portion of your post from the "GA criteria final checklist" section to the "Survey" section. I don't want anyone denying that we have consensus at some future date because your opinion is being ignored. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about the meaning changing if taken out of context, but a quote of what I said that indicates and/or keeps the context would be fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Don't worry, I'll be extra careful about preserving your meaning. Please inspect after I transclude it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean quote it rather than Wikipedia transclusion tools. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Reviewer Barnstar
For your review of Paralympic classification articles. Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And nice work on the articles! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User:LauraHale did all the work. I just shepherded them through the review process. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Naval HistoryEdit

Hi, 'North8000', I'm a member of WikiProject Ships. To help naval historians here at Wikipedia in the effort of writing and citing naval history articles sometime ago I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century and Bibliography of early American naval history pages. Over the last year(+) I have been tracking down and including names of captured ships and naval history texts for inclusion in either of these articles. I like to think that I have included most captured ships (19th century) and most naval history texts (1700s-1800s) for inclusion in these articles, so if you know of any captured ships or naval history texts that are not included would you kindly include them, either on the page or the talk page of the appropriate article? Any help would be a big help and feedback is always welcomed. Thanx! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Will do. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gun controlEdit

Hi, please see Gun control and Talk:Gun control. I decided to go ahead and be WP:BOLD. I restructured and rewrote the article according to some suggestions in the discussion. I snipped a LOT of excess arguing and POV violations, moved the authoritarianism section into history of gun control, and condensed some info into the Arguments section. The arguments section still needs some trimming/balancing. Feedback is appreciated. ROG5728 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Will do. North8000 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are some cookies for youEdit

  Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi North8000/Archive 1, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


Sesame Street media GANEdit

Hey North, wanted to let you know that I responded to the question you posed. Let me know what you think of what I said. Oh, and thanks so much for the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Happy to do it. I've been trying to help reduce the backlog, and I noticed that yours was one of those that has been waiting the longest. I'll go over the the review page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate it. And I've made some additional comments over there since. I'm a fairly active GA reviewer myself. I also try and review the ones in the oldest unreviewed articles list myself, because I suspect that it's more helpful to do so. I've come to the conclusion, though, that there's a reason those articles don't get reviewed. They tend to be challenging articles to review, whether because of their length, their obscure topic, or complexity. As a result, reviewers may tend to avoid them. Perhaps the Media article languished in GAC for so long because of its schizophrenic nature, and because the subject is unfamiliar. I like a challenge, though, and I commend you for the same. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I've made some comments there. There are a few types of articles / article situations that I avoid reviewing, but I don't hesitate a bit on (and almost relish) complex situations and complex or obscure topics, including ones that I don't know. Although I probably shouldn't, I've avoided a few because they looked certain to fail (i.e. probably couldn't be fixed within a reviewing period). Also ones where the verifiability looked weak but where the sources were all off line......where the review is going to become a research project. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

PCEdit

"Introduced grammar problem, and also took out "certain" qualifier which IMHO is important". Could you be more specific what is the grammatical problem introduced exactly? I find the present "certain other religions" grammatically confusing and out of place. What is "certain other religions contexts"? And what is the "certain" here? Seems WP:VAGUE compared to my revision. --hydrox (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a close look and realized that I was in error in my comment about your edit introducing a grammatical error. But I think that "certain" is essential to the definition on those three items, as PC makes distinctions in treatment within each of those three groups. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the pedantry, but "makes distinctions in treatment within each of those three groups"? What do you mean exactly? The current opening of the article is grammatically incorrect, as it confuses the proper grammatical case in the middle of the list. To wit, it currently stands incorrectly: Political correctness is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in [...] certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies [...] contexts. If you insist on using "certain" here, the items must be in the genitive: Political correctness is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in [...] certain other religions', beliefs' or ideologies' [...] contexts.
Yet, I still fail to see why you insist on using "certain" here. I see it as a non-essential weasel word, whose purpose remains unclear and that could be just easily dropped. What are these "certain religions' contexts"? Per our opening, political correctness also tries to avoid offense in "occupational, racial and cultural contexts". But why are those not "certain occupational contexts" then? Can you see the problem? --hydrox (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I noted that my grammar comment was wrong, and so I'm not really arguing grammar. It sounds like I could learn a few things from you in that department. But IMO the "certain" qualifier in there is essential. Whether one considers the orthodoxy to be real or putative, the common meaning or practice certainly does not require going to great lengths to avoid offense to all religions, beliefs and ideologies, only certain ones, and indeed goes quite the opposite on others. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Well.. In my book at least political correctness entails sensitivity towards all religions, but I am no expert in the subject. I have now made a revision that I hope to be a compromise. --hydrox (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Your version looked good. Then someone really scrambled it. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Salmaan TaseerEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Salmaan Taseer. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

Thanks for taking the time to review this one--it'd been in the queue for quite a while! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Very easy to review because it was so well done. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

PC articleEdit

The editor posted on my talk page as well as Talk:Political correctness. He doesn't seem to get it. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

An unusual mix. Does not seem to understand Wikipedia or the common meaning of PC. The wording of politeness combined with some tendencies towards arrogance. And an intelligent person. Longer time but sporadic editor. My first guess.....potentially promising editor (if they don't have their ears shut) who is problematic at the moment. Maybe we can help. North8000 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun ControlEdit

Hi North. I kind of give up on the Gun Control thing, without prejudice. It's just become kind of a free-for-all with editors talking past one another. I actually would welcome it if there were some simple RS that makes the argument and ties totalitarian regimes' gun control to the broader subject. If it's a valid point, we shouldn't need the controversial sources or questionable uses of them. Meanwhile, it really is like Hitler's mayo. Yes he enjoyed mayonnaise, but that undisputed fact is not a significant fact about either our general body of knowledge about mayonnaise usage nor about Hitler's actions. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Specifico. Thanks for the post. My thoughts are to not "tie" or characterize but just to cover. I know that my discussion on the "mayo" difference was a bit abstract but I believe that there is something sound there. In short, that gun control is really an action rather than an object. So it's like Prohibition, Hazing, War and Exploration rather than mayonnaise. In each case, significant occurrences of the action are inherently examples of the actual subject and I believe germane; no "making" of a connection is needed to make them germane. This applies to mere coverages of the examples....I can see your point with respect to any wording with implies a connection (e.g. with authoritarianism). My post on AzureCitizen's talk page kind of says my real thoughts which are that some changes are needed. When I see specific quotes included (e.g. the holocaust survivors) I go on yellow alert regarding cherry picking, but I would think that that the two quotes were in direct opposition to each other on the topic at hand would tend to assuage or mitigate that concern. What do you think? Thanks again for the post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you look at the WP mayonnaise article it is partly about the substance but largely about its use and deployment just like gun control. Anyway I know you to be thoughtful but the noise level over at Gun control is just not going to allow the issue to be sorted out just now. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles that are on on somewhat fluid topics/fluid realities and where there is a real world contest/clash involved are all painful unstable messes in Wikipedia (unless one side totally "wins" at the article.) And policies/guidelines are misused (against the goal of a quality article) as often as they are used. And anybody who tries to bring one of those to the center is going to get called a lot of bad things and become a target. For those reasons I try to ration myself to being active on/ making a real effort to just one of those at a time. I think that this article is right on the borderline of being one of those sad cases which would put me over my quota. Maybe we could both go there with the thought/agreement that POV's should count zero and article quality is all that matters. North8000 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)



Please comment on Talk:Georges YatridèsEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georges Yatridès. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I did so. North8000 (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article reviewsEdit

Hi North. Thanks for reviewing the PRSA article! Do you think I could convince you to take a second look at my work at YouSendIt? Someone passed it as GA, but I didn't think it actually met the criteria yet. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"Whew! You are pretty tough on yourself by wanting people to be tough on you! I'd be happy to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I am too tough on myself as I was thinking of quite a few other areas that could have been improved. Of course, the community is tough on me and it does improve my work when the standards are raised, but it might be annoying for me to go around asking so many editors to provide feedback on an acceptable article.
I have a couple other items I could use your help on, if you're interested, but I don't know what topics you take an interest in. CorporateM (Talk) 13:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Happy to. I'm interested in about 90% of everything in the world. And most of the "10%" is the pervasively-covered types of sports.North8000 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to remember then that I can bug you about any topic ;-)
For Publishers Clearing House, I felt it was important we clean our own house before suggesting content, primarily by requesting deletion of an article on one of their PR staff, which I can only presume was COI written and looks like a notability problem. A really obvious deletion IMO and not COI at all except as a matter of cleaning up our act.
The Monster Cable Products article contains a lot of controversies that do exist and are important, but have substantial undue and bias issues. The article gives the appearance of being written for the explicit purpose of making the company look bad. We will have to go through these one-at-a-time and balance them with the other aspects of the company, its products and history, but I've requested deletion of the False Advertising section, which I think might be so undue that it does not belong in the article at all, since its only sources are short blurbs and press releases. CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Austrian SchoolEdit

I thought of commenting directly on the talk page about the section title IAW BRD, and then I thought about a comment here. And then I decided not to bother you. But then I noticed you had volunteered as a moderator on the topic. (Perhaps angels don't fear to tread when they are wearing snow shoes. I, on the other hand, have rushed in occasionally!) Issue? Section heading. Before reverting the "contributors" I looked at Keynesian economics (the antithesis of AS). It uses "theory". The "theory" section heading was there 50 edits ago (but I did not look to see if there'd been changes in the last 30 days.) WikiProject Economics does not have a style guide that covers the topic. Nor do any of the FAs or GAs have similar sections, so the issue does not have examples to use as guideposts. So I leave it at that -- would you care to change it back? It's your call.  S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello S.Rich,
Thanks for the post. Starting from the "end", I feel the "tenets" is better, and so from a standpoint if intellectual honesty I don't plan to change, but I won't be upset if someone else changes it. My reasoning is as follows:
  • Technically, about half of everything that everyone says or claims (and the majority of all science) is a theory, but by common usage of the term, the word "theory" is not applied to them. If the President says "this action I took today will help create jobs" that is technically a theory, but common practice is not to brand it as such. And, in common practice, branding it as such is "lowering" it.
  • It seems like a good compromise. Dictionary.com defines "Tenet" as "any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., especially one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement." which seems appropriate.
I feel the "tenets" is better, and so from a standpoint if intellectual honesty I don't plan to change, but I was just trying to help and won't be upset if someone else changes it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Alas, the lack of other quality econ articles or a style exemplar to provide guidance leaves this open for different presentations in different articles. Not a big problem, but I wonder what would happen if "theory" was changed to "tenets" in Keynesian economics.  S. Rich (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Probably makes a little difference in Keynesian because it was self-titled as a theory. Expanding on my previous note, I tend to think that the words here are communicating to readers and should lean towards using their common meanings. For example, in legal circles, an unmarried woman is technically termed a spinster, and the dog breeding circles, a female dog is a bitch. Yet the common meanings / intonations of those words are very different, and so they would tend not to be the nouns used in writing for general readers. But, again, I was just trying to help and would not object if you changed it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Georges YatridesEdit

I confirm that my name 'Yatrides' as User is a single identity on Wikipedia. I do not represent any group or organization neither for a website and depends on no one. All that is written on Wikipedia comes from third party sources (articles of newspapers and magazines, Academic studies, TV information and broadcasts, movies). Georges Yatrides

--Yatrides (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! My suggestion there was more limited than that. As I indicated, I'm ready to help there if folks want. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Surreal Barnstar
In admiration for your thoughtful and sometimes forceful contributions to Wikipedia, from a kindred spirit of the view that civility is at times tenanciousness. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Sometimes I have to resist the temptation to just take the easy way and keep my head low. Moments like this remind me that it's worth trying. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegetariansEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegetarians. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


COI StuffEdit

Hi North. I'm researching the products, trademark and reception/performance topics for Monster and will circle back on those in a bit.

In response to your post on YouSendIt, I wrote a quick, proposed draft for expanding the lead and was wondering if you were willing to throw it in or give me a {{request edit|G}} I think at that point I'm gonna call that article done-and-done. I'll circle back every 6-12 months or so for updates.

If you want to help on other articles, I have an endless queue of edit requests that I'm usually pestering editors about ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help on this (I lean towards editing myself, but either way is fine....which do you prefer if it looks OK?) and others. We'll just try it and see / take it as it comes. If you're working me too hard or if I'm being too rough on you we'll just let each other know. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
With my PR cap on, I feel it's my duty to collaborate in the way preferred by the individual editor, much like traditional PRs track the communication preferences of each journalist. As a volunteer I do a little bit of everything depending on the circumstance.
I have another one over at Viralheat here if you care to take a look. I knowingly added incorrect pricing information the first time, because it was the most updated available in secondary sources at the time, so we're doing a quick round of updates. It's a social media management service known largely for its low cost. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


RFC/U on user:ArzelEdit

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've arbitrarily reworded this clause that you (and several others) found problematic.   — C M B J   23:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


Please comment on Talk:List of vegansEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of vegans. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Did so. North8000 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Moderated Discussion at Tea Party movementEdit

Let me say from the beginning that this is not canvassing. This is an attempt, with the best of intentions for Wikipedia, to resolve a problem.

  • so I must ask that Xeonphrenic be banned from this page ... -- Arthur Rubin
  • I recommended that at ArbCom, but I'm not sure they'll do anything; unfortunately the Moderated Discussion page and the article's main Talk page are not appropriate places for such a discussion. The gentleman has been engaged in this behavior on several articles related to U.S. politics for several years. It's completely unacceptable. So I recommended, and I'm again recommending, a topic ban on all articles related to U.S. politics, broadly construed.
  • You've indicated several times that you would oppose this resolution. I notice that you were willing to change your mind at Ugg boots trademark disputes and I suggest that you should do so here. You have also repeatedly lamented the sorry, sad condition of the Tea Party movement article. There is one person who is principally responsible for the sorry, sad condition of that article. This is the solution to that problem. Please don't try to prevent this solution.
  • I recommend RFC/U as they did with Arzel. Allegedly ANI is also an appropriate forum to begin with, but that has every likelihood of turning into a bloodbath. We need to go to RFC/U first to establish tone, numbers, and the body of evidence. You and Malke could certify the RFC/U, we could discuss it, and then (if consensus suggests it) we could move to ANI and "vote" on a community ban. In an RFC/U followed by ANI, we do not need to rely on ArbCom to make the decision. We're the ones who have had to deal with this behavior on a daily basis, so we're the ones who are in the best position to see the problem and the solution with the greatest clarity. We'd need to bring SilkTork into it to ensure no one challenges its legitimacy.
  • This should be done with the caveat that Xeno should have the option of asking for a removal of the topic ban, after a substantial period (six months to a year) of productive work on other articles. I'd like to believe that almost anyone can be rehabilitated, and he does have the potential to be a productive editor. And it is altogether possible that during the course of all these discussions, Xeno may accept that his behavior is unacceptable, and change his behavior without a topic ban at all. I would welcome that resolution if it is possible. Malke also suggested a mentor if he is to be rehabilitated. I am placing similar messages on Arthur and Malke's pages. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
A couple of random thoughts:
  • ANI's on vague behavioral topics almost always turn into mob-violence situations where people can deceive/misrepresent (=lie) with immunity.
  • I made the "would oppose" statement with respect to the Arbcom case.
  • Again I considered my shift at the Ugg article to be microscopic (from near neutral to neutral) but I'm also open to big changes in my opinion, but not changes to word I've given. My word was about the arbcom case.
  • I'd rather just lean on them to reduce the behavior. But that's how that last debacle started, snowballed by wrong things. So just "leaning" on someone is considered by many to be not OK, but mis-using the wiki-systems to wage vicious warfare to try to get real harm done to people can be done with immunity. So that presents quite a quandary.
  • I'm a softie. If someone is nice about it, (vs. the wiki-savvy viciousness that is all too common) I tend to not get too angry about even the most superchamp POV'ers.
  • Maybe a friendly RFC/U?
Overall, I dunno. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me show you what it's like when one productive editor is allowed to proceed without being hassled. This is the article on the Soviet T-34 tank from WWII: [27] [28] Today marks the two month anniversary of my arrival at that article. Look at the difference. It used to be a Featured Article but was de-listed, after a bunch of people who thought they knew what they were doing started adding unsourced, poorly sourced, and biased content. Believe it or not, the T-34 has fanboys who think it was just the most totally awesome thing that ever happened to the word "tank." (It did make an enormous impact but it also had a lot of weaknesses, and the Germans quickly discovered and exploited them.) DMorpheus is an experienced editor. He's been working on the article a long time and he does great work but the fanboys overwhelmed him. When I showed up, he chatted with me a little bit on the article Talk page but other than that, he pretty much let me fire up the chainsaw and let it rip.
I took a little break from the article in the second half of April because I was busy with TPm, Ugg boots, and real life (believe it or not, I do have a real life). Kyteto showed up and "citation bombed" the whole article. So when I came back, I redoubled my efforts, found all the sources he wanted, cited them, made almost all the other citations follow a consistent style (still working on that but almost done), added three tables to show relative tank strengths of German and Soviet forces at various stages of the war, wrote up a new section on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, added a few more bits here and there, and hey ... it's almost ready to be a Featured Article candidate again.
When I'm not being hassled, obstructed, and tripped up at every turn, I can get a lot of work done in a fairly short span of time and it's good work. If they're not going to really help, I do wish certain individuals would just follow the example of DMorpheus and stay the hell out of the way. We can't "lean on them." As you can see, that always blows up in your face. Our only option is to use the tools that have been given to us, and follow the painfully slow, grinding Wiki-systems to their conclusion. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You are probably right; I just haven't admitted it yet. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: [29] Please participate and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Oy veyEdit

I notice, with suddenly piqued interest, your first post on the Talk page of said RfC/U:

  • What would you want......a list of their last 1,000 edits, and notes showing that 90% are relentlessly towards tilting articles towards one particular end of the political spectrum? Would Xenophrenic want someone to make that effort? Yes, evidently that's what he and the peculiar IP editor who geolocates to Bucharest, Romania (and who edits at times most Bucharest residents are sound asleep) are insisting upon.
  • My own hope is just saying enough here to convince Xenophrenic to change a bit, NOT enough to get them in trouble. Unless someone forces the latter by declaring that any input without the latter is illegitimate. Xenophrenic and said IP editor have indeed declared it. Therefore the latter has been forced. See the main RfC/U page, where I have compiled a whole bunch of diffs from Xeno's non-TPm editing from April 1 to today (55 days). The finding at ANI that there wasn't enough evidence for a topic ban on Xeno is irrelevant, since it was over with on February 26, and it was strictly limited to TPm related edits. So now "enough to get them in trouble" is being said. What's your reaction? I'm very tired and I'm going to bed. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumedEdit

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, my only real concern is Xenophrenic retroactively re-writing a post that I had already responded to, making my response appear off target. I would like that remedied. North8000 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
North, I've edited that discussion to remedy it; please let me know if you still have concerns. I sometimes forget when conversing with an editor that it is not a private conversation, and I see how my addition of text could cause confusion in a reader of your subsequent response. Please accept my apology.
An unrelated observation: See that little note SilkTork left for you at the top of this section about the "Content discussion, resumed" thread? He even-handedly left that same note on the Talk page of every editor to participate in that thread. There is, however, one notable exception. On every other editor's Talk page, he also inserted an example quote from that editor that he found problematic, to illustrate his point. Every editor except you, that is. I don't want to read anything into SilkTork's messages that isn't there, but I think the lack of sample problematic text in his message to you speaks positively about your role in that discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and thanks! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for youEdit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Hi, Thanks a lot for taking up and completing the review of Thanjavur. The comments were helpful and i would take them as input for my other articles as well. Ssriram mt (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!. What an excellent job you have done! North8000 (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


KaneEdit

I was wondering how long Kane would remain in the infobox. Please don't cane me for not removing him earlier. – S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, an influential philosopher from the full body slam strand of libertarianism. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL. And I'd prefer a slam from Kane over those I seen from some of the WP editors out there. (no reply expected) – S. Rich (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


Please comment on Talk:Bruce LeeEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bruce Lee. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


I did so. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I got the same request and did as well. Some of the debate seemed almost laughable, but I guess everyone has their passions... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello thereEdit

I'd like to talk with you about the Xenophrenic RfC/U, if you have a moment and you're online. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but not exactly sure what you mean. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not going anywhere. Xenophrenic isn't admitting that his behavior is a problem, and he has attracted a team of "defense attorneys." I'm afraid that I have no alternative but to take it to WP:ANI. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment of the situation there. But IMO AN and ani's on "general behavior" topics are usually random insanity. IMO more time and work on evidence and objective analysis at the RFC/U would help assure correctness. I just noticed that Xenophrenic answered my inquiry and I'm prepared to do more work and analysis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing HouseEdit

Hi North. I've been poking around for a couple editors that want to get involved here. SmartSE said he was busy in real-life and Drmies said he didn't know enough about the subject. At the very least it would help to have an experienced impartial editor explain secondary sources regarding the use of press releases. However, it is a large body of work (10050-cites) and a neutral article in this case contains a substantial amount of controversial material, so I understand how it may be intimidating. Happy to go through it one section at a time if it's easier.

Let me know if you're up for it. Appreciate your time as always. CorporateM (Talk) 19:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to blaze through any areas that you wish. Including a blaze through article or talk to give thoughts. Something that gets huge I'm not sure that I'm up for. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I'll wait a day or two and then start breaking it off into more digestible bits. CorporateM (Talk) 02:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
How's this? CorporateM (Talk) 03:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi North. I figured I would post here, since we were getting off-topic, but it is worth discussing.

I've adopted the phrase "permission-based" in that I am comfortable making edits that are given a green-light by a disinterested editor that serves the reader's best-interest. I often ask for a {{request edit|G}} to serve this purpose, as the template gives explicit permission to move forward. This also adds the accountability/ownership of the edits to the PR person, which editors want, while leaving editorial decisions in the right hands.

However, I thought it odd that an editor praised me recently for "putting Wikipedia's interests first" as this would be unethical for me to do. It is unethical for any PR person to put Wikipedia's interests before those of their employer, because this is a conflict of interest. Additionally, a PR person is a "corporate representative" in that for the most part our actions are approved by the corporate bureaucracy and we do not have individual autonomy to make our own choices.

However, you brought up the "situation" which is important. I am very choosy about which clients I accept and every client signs our Statement of Ethics, which forbids intentionally violating policy or hiding information.

It is impractical to expect any company - or the PR people that represent them - to put Wikipedia's interests before their own. But I am able to persuade organizations that it is in their best-interest to just do what Wikipedia wants. Like a lawyer that represents their client exclusively, but is required to disclose evidence to the court and will recommend to their clients they reach an immediate and fair settlement the judge (volunteers) will accept.

There is also the legal issue to consider. However, I believe there will never be consensus and every editor (COI and volunteer) will do things a bit differently. We know dubious editing when we see it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that good info. Obviously a complex topic. Structurally, there is some common ground that fulfills both "Wikipedia first" and "client first"; basically all areas where the two do not conflict and thus where the "who's first? question is moot. But there will inevitably be areas where they conflict. I was just giving my thoughts regarding what you mentioned. Let me know if I can help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You bet! Thanks for chiming in. Yah, those edits are pretty obvious anyway. If you want to watchlist it, I'll go through the article bit-by-bit. CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey North. I haven't heard from Bilbo on the proposed Online Development section and he's usually pretty responsive (commented on the Revenue issue recently). I went ahead and pinged him directly on his Talk page. If there are no other comments, do you think we could add the new section this weekend? (a week after it was first posted) I'm happy to do some cleanup after the merge. Figure it should be a pretty non-controversial improvement. CorporateM (Talk) 14:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Just took my first glance at it. It's kind of obscure on the talk page so good thing you pinged Bilbo. Happy to have a loook, and also to put it in if I'm comfortable wwith that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Yup, I also archived some stuff so it's easier to see the current items and added the Request Edit template to give it a nice big flag. I have found it frustrating when COIs insist I do something right this second (within hours even), so I try to find the right balance of keeping things moving without being pushy/demanding. The article is currently in pretty awful shape and we have a lot of ground to cover. Also, it will be reviewed more thoroughly by a GA reviewer at some point anyway and I'm just happy to do some triage. CorporateM (Talk) 14:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sega GenesisEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sega Genesis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


Publishers Clearing HouseEdit

Hi North. I went ahead and started an RFC on the issue of which source to use for revenue in the Infobox here. Bilbo agrees with the employee count, so this is the last dispute-area for the infobox. CorporateM (Talk) 02:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to. I'd call that a "trying to decide" area rather than a dispute-area. North8000 (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

HelloEdit

I have to admire your determination to continue working on that article, but we have effectively become second-class citizens. We've been working diligently to improve the article for months, in your case years; we've participated with enormous patience in the moderated discussion for three f@cking months, despite all the bullshit; and because we participated in the moderated discussion, we can't edit the article. Meanwhile, anybody with an axe to grind can just show up and change the lede f@cking sentence of the article to "The Tea Party movement is an American political movement that advocates strict adherence to its own view of the United States Constitution," without any discussion on the Talk page or any other page — he just drove by, rolled down the window and did it — and there it stays without being reverted, and the drive-by editor faces no repercussions whatsoever. SMH Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I think that there are some obvious flaws in the approach and decisions. And to some extent the new battle area has been to try to cleverly work SilkTork on their talk page. But overall I think that SilkTork's efforts have been a plus despite that. The article was previously held in a junk state for years and now there has been progress. :A better plan would be:
  • Keep it locked for another 1-2 months and keep the active rework going on during that
  • After that strictly follow and require following BRD, plus going straight to "D" if it is obviously controversial.
North8000 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comments at Gun controlEdit

This comment has three problems. First, per WP:NPA, you should comment on content, not on contributors. Second, it is an example of the appeal to hypocrisy, a type of ad hominem, a logical fallacy. Third, you are defending your flagrant violation[30] of Wikipedia's non-negotiable neutral point of view policy. Opinions should be in the opinion section, not in the history section. This includes opinions about history and versions of history developed by those with a well-documented flagrant pro-gun ideological commitment like Stephen Halbrook. You may retract your personal attack, or I will hat it for you. — goethean 14:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination. I was pointing out that arguments that you have previously used are in opposition to what you are trying to exclude now. And you are completely mischaracterizing my reverting of your edit which was controversial and on an item being discussed. And I advocated moving opinions to an opinion section, and keeping the basic facts in the history section. So you either missed both times that I wrote that, or deliberated mis-stated my position in your post here. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
We are talking about the Gun control article. Content about Nazis are not "basic facts" about the history of gun control; it is a highly contentious argument about gun control created by someone with a well-documented history of anti-gun control activism. Your placement[31] of these highly contentious factoids, arguments and opinions in the history section is a clear violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. — goethean 15:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
See previous post. Continuing to call my reversion of your problematic edit "placing" is misleading at best. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The Nazi content was moved to "History" from "Arguments" in March by ROG5728. The article has been the subject of edit wars ever since ROG5728's highly contentious and policy-defying edit. Undoing ROG's edit is not problematic or contentious, it restores the semblance of NPOV to the article. — goethean 17:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Well then lets just split it. Put the history items in history and the arguments in arguments. That's what I've been proposing. You have been contending that merely covering history is POV, blockading that idea while editing the article remove everything (including history) from history. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
How I wish that you would stop ignoring my comments. A partisan, political activist version of history is not "history". What if I came up with a history book which shows how opposition to gun control was masterminded by anti-Semites from the John Birch Society? Would you agree to put that material in the history section? Of course you wouldn't, because partisan versions of history are not history — they are arguments. No matter how much I jump up and down screaming "Historical facts are history!!!" as you and Gaijin are doing, it's not history. Calling the Third Reich an example of gun control is not a neutral retelling of history and doesn't occur in history book which are not written by political activists. It belongs in Opinions, which is where it was before ROG5728 moved everything around in March. His re-organization of the article violated NPOV and needs to be undone. Your reversion of my edit violated Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — goethean 17:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
You are conflating and / or alternating between two different things. In the beginning you seem to be contesting the wording.......I wasn't even getting into that, but of course that could be worked on. But later you seem to be saying that any coverage of Nazi gun control in "history" is a POV, and I do not agree with you on that. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Any coverage of fringe, NRA-inspired political talking points in the history section violates NPOV. Treating the Third Reich as a significant episode in the history of gun control is fringe. The article's history section currently has 434 words on Australia, 341 words on US, 86 words on Bolshevik Russia (i.e., more NRA propaganda), and 582 words (40%) on 1930s Nazi Germany. This is an appalling violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV. — goethean 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a conversation, you are just firing volleys / walls of words/links and conflating topics, preventing any real discussion on any one of them. A few items in there would certainly be good to discuss. North8000 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your inability to defend your indefensible edits. — goethean 19:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Gentlemen, you seem to be all worked up over this. Why not just divide the Nazi stuff along the lines of the rest of the article. Put the simple historical facts in HISTORY and put the analysis and opinion in OPINION. Also make sure the other history sections are factual, with opinion moved down to that section. Wouldn't that make it easier to sort this out? SPECIFICO talk 23:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good; that is what I suggested. North8000 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Make it so, Mr. Sulu. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am in absolute agreement regarding opinions as to the importance/implications of those facts (particularly how it applies or not to modern gun control) - However, some of the opinion (mainly harcourt currently) My interpretation is that is being used to try and dispute the facts themselves (IE, for a while it said "Harcourt says gun control did not happen at all" ). And moving that stuff out into the opinions may be problematic. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, either way, I just split it. We'll see what happens next. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Publishers Clearing HouseEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Publishers Clearing House. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House Early HistoryEdit

Hi North. Wondering if we could get your input here? CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Another place that could use your input here. Please let me know if I am ever pestering you too much or becoming a burden ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Happy to do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey North. If I haven't worn out my welcome yet (seriously tell me when I have) you're also welcome to contribute if you choose on Yelp, Inc. here.
I felt I may have had a subtle bias on a high profile controversy and since Kiethbob prefers to author content independently, he would be a good one to ask to participate, since anything authored by me may lead to accusations of slanting and cherry-picking.
However, there are a few areas of his editing I contested, such as the use of a Forbes blog as a source and creating a dedicated controversy section. Could use a quick third opinion. CorporateM (Talk) 22:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey North. If you're comfortable with it, I was hoping you would consider my Request Edit here for the Sweepstakes section if no additional objections are raised this weekend (or early next week if you like). I think Bilbo and I have worked through any objections and I pinged him as well to see if he had additional comments. CorporateM (Talk) 15:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a peek.North8000 (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you are probably pretty worn out on the Publishers Clearing House article, but there is another issue here you may be interested in contributing to. I would understand if you need a break. CorporateM (Talk) 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Happy to. Nah, I don't get worn out. FYI what works for me is just that I don't feel any obligation / responsibility, and ideally not on a time table. Then it will continue to be fun as it is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Awesome. Then I will continue to pester you, but I will be patient while doing so ;-)
Bilbo and I have reached agreement on a Lead for the article, which I've submitted a Request Edit for here if you care to take a look. I pinged Ed a couple days ago, who has done some of the other Request Edits, but he's probably just busy IRL. I have another one to submit shortly afterwards regarding some edits we've agreed on for the Prize Patrol section to decrease promotionalism and improve sourcing, but I think it's easier to do them one-at-a-time. CorporateM (Talk) 15:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks North. I took care of the redundancy, though some more duplicate content has been added with the NYT quote being used twice (oh well). I've got this Request Edit in the queue as well, which I may just make myself, it being counter-COI and Bilbo already having approved it informally. I think with a few more things, I should be able to have it ready for a GAN. CorporateM (Talk) 00:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool. An interesting aspect: I saw your edit as being neutral / fine from a coi standpoint, yet some items from the old lead as being the type of thing that a typical reader would want to see but which a risk-of-coi editor would not be seeking to present (but also not seeking to avoid). That was my general thought when seeking to retain some of the previous material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Heh, ok. Usually I re-write content from scratch, then compare it to the current to make sure I'm keeping everything of value, but sometimes it can be six-nine months between when I first wrote it and when it actually gets implemented, the article can change a lot and I can make mistakes like any other editor. I wouldn't read so much into it or make assumptions that COI is in any way related. I literally wrote the draft article over a couple days, showed it to PCH, they said "we may not like it, but it's fair" then got the green light a month or two later. But then it's not always that way - sometimes there's a lot of pressure from various departments and it shows in the content. CorporateM (Talk) 06:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that post and useful information. But to reinforce, there was NO COI problem, I meant my post exactly as written. I meant it more as a tip/observation in a subtle often-missed area. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

TPmEdit

Hi North. Your input here would also be most welcome. (And to clarify, by "anti-TPm writers", you were referring to sources and not Wikipedia editors, correct?) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Answering your last question, yes, I meant writers, not Wikipedia editors. I think that that was clear because I said that people were promoting them as being sources rather than as being the participants that they are, and nobody presents a Wikipedia editor as being a source. On your first question, pretty much any source that claims an "agenda" which nobody in the TPM is actually working on. Or who uses negative spin words to describe it. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, what you said was clear to me, but when Arthur responded with "It is not necessary for the anti-TPm writers to be conscious of their bias", I got the impression he may have thought you were referring to Wikipedia editors. Can you please name a specific reliable academic source you feel has claimed an agenda which the TP isn't actually working on, or used negative words to describe it? (If I need to spell it out for you: I disagree with that assertion - I don't think any academic source recently presented fits that description, but I'm giving you the opportunity to cite an example that I may have overlooked.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I indicated the general problem and am not going here. User:North8000/Page2 North8000 (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
We must be talking about two different statements then. The one I'm talking about is this one by you:
Second, addressing Xenophrenic's comment, in the ongoing mess at this article, there have never been "(actual) reliable academic sources." That term has been often used to refer to anti-TPM writers (who are actually participants, not sources) who meet the letter of the "floor" of wp:rs (which has no criteria for actual reliability) and people have been misrepresenting the "r" in wp:rs as meaning real world / actual reliability. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
As you can see, you didn't indicate a general problem at all. You presented a fiction: "there have never been (actual) reliable academic sources"; you were called on to support it; you would now rather not discuss it. I find that link to your little essay interesting. It's been my experience that nearly everyone gives consideration to what they say before they say it. I suppose there may be a scarce minority who do not; if they find their pronouncements frequently being "whacked", or are frequently asked to "substantiate" them at WP:WQA, "prove" them at ANI, or "put up or shut up" at ArbCom, then I guess they may even be compelled to write such an essay. To me, and this is just my opinion, it seems a lot less trouble to simply stick with non-fiction. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
There are so many incorrect things in what you just wrote that it would be too lengthy to respond. North8000 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Poppycock. But I lack the motivation to continue that discussion right at this moment.
I just wanted to say thanks for the barnstar. I've heard you mention that you were "running out of gas" in the moderated discussions. I think I passed that point quite some time ago, and I feel like I've not only run out of gas but am forced to push this jalopy from behind in the sweltering heat (it's 102 degrees here as I type this), and the nearest gas station is nowhere in sight. Blech. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for putting that together. If there's one encouraging thing there, it's that the long time regulars seem to more be debating "what's best" instead of prioritizing tilting the article. Maybe everyone is panting behind the jalopy! :-) North8000 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Quick question for you. With Malke's latest proposal, that "is a conservative movement" wording that seems to bother you has crept back into the text. I reworded that sentence to be closer to the cited sources, and I believe I've addressed your concern at the same time. Here's Malke's wording (closer to my initial 12d proposal):
  • The Tea Party is a conservative movement, but it has avoided involvement with conservative social, religious and family-values issues. National Tea Party organizations like the Tea Party Patriots...
And here's my latest wording from Proposal #15:
  • The Tea Party has generally sought to avoid placing too much emphasis on traditional conservative social issues. Some national Tea Party organizations, such as the Tea Party Patriots...
Does the wording in the second example sufficiently address your concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Xen, where is the version that you are working on? Are you redoing version 15 right on the moderated discussion page? Can we join in? Malke 2010 (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see this before I departed for the holiday weekend, Malke. Yes, version 15 was the most recent one being modified, and of course you may join in. That version was archived while I was gone, so I've brought a copy back to the moderated discussion page and renumbered it "17", and edited it to include many of our discussed changes. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well,first, pretty much any of the versions written by you or Malke I consider good enough to go in, after which we would tweak them. That said, the wording that you described does help on the question. Since the TPM agenda doesn't match any of the "named" ideologies ((US) liberal, (US) conservative, (US) libertarian) I don't think that using any of those is useful in the agenda section. The reality is that it's agenda is (roughly) the overlap of US liberal and US conservative. They go heavy on smaller government, lower taxes, lower spending. (and "balanced budget" when it serves those ends) They go light on social issues. So if we need to use those terms, something like "reflects it's conservative and libertarian influences." might be good. North8000 (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The point I was trying to convey from the sources I was reading was that FreedomWorks and Tea Party Patriots were doing their best to steer their activists away from what would otherwise be standard conservative/Republican issues (The God/Gays/Guns stuff, etc.). Those same sources never mentioned that the movement was also trying to avoid typical libertarian issues as well. That's why only the "conservative" word was used in that particular context; it was never meant to imply that the movement didn't have both libertarian and conservative influences. I'm still playing with the wording, while looking for an old 2010 source on the subject I recall reading. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Sorry to write short. I'm traveling and buried this week and my Wikipedia participation is down to about 1/4. North8000 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for youEdit

  The Good Article Barnstar
For accomplishing the difficult task of reviewing the article Military history of Asian Americans I would like to present to you this barnstar as a sign of my appreciation for the review. Editors such as yourself ensure a high level of quality content on Wikipedia. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! And nice work on the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BPEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

GA requestEdit

I think the Ugg boots trademark dispute article is ready for your GA review to be restarted. As it had some new material added during the RFC you will need to re-read it. Considering how long it has taken so far there is no particular rush lol. I look forward to your comments. Cheers. Wayne (talk) 13:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I had closed out the last one. So the process would be that you would renominate it, let me know and then I'd be happy to start the review right away. I'd also be happy to take a look before renomination.....I'll do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. So you should re-nonimate it and let me know when you do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I have re-nominated Ugg boots trademark dispute. Regards. Wayne (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth IIEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth II. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you ok with reliably-sourced material or not?Edit

Before I seek formal mediation on the Second Amendment, I thought I'd give one last try just to discuss general wikipedia principles with you.

1. Do you agree with me that reliably sourced relevant, unbiased, non-redundant material in wikipedia should not be deleted?

2. Do you agree with me it is improper to revert an edit without checking the added material or its sources?

If you can agree that the answer to both these questions is yes, we might just reach a compromise. It befuddles me that you repeatedly label verbatim citations from Supreme Court opinions or the Library of Congress as somehow my personal biased POV. Assuming good faith on your part, I can only conclude you haven't read the citations. But that kind of personal attack is what has led to hostility at the article, which I would like to tone down. Otherwise, you and I may be fighting for decades.

If you cannot agree with me on these two points, at least let me know what your view about wikipedia policy is, and I'll know we have a more profound disagreement than the Second Amendment article.GreekParadise (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia must be sourced or sourcable. The is a requirement for inclusion, not something that dictates inclusion. Material must also meet other Wikipedia requirements; if it meets all requirements, then editors and editor processes are allowed to choose whether it goes in the article. For any article, >99.99% of sourced material on the topic is not in the article, and <.01% is. Without even getting to the latter, your attempted use of an out of context phrase from Miller violates Wikipedia policy and so we never even get to the final question. It is mis-use of a primary source in a way that is not allowable per wp:ver and wp:nor, and in about the worst possible way.... the removal from context and any analysis does it in a way that deceives readers into believing that Scotus addressed the individual right question. (Which, by the way is also in direct conflict with immense wiki-suitable sourcing, including writes on both sides of the individual right question)
For me disagreeing with someone does not even the slightest bit mean hostility. Some of my best friends on Wikipedia are people who I seldom or never agree with. But your immensely bad and nasty behavior at the talk page (and even above, with false accusations and (maybe inadvertently) manipulative approach) and previous "carpet bombing" approach to editing the article is getting a lot of people upset. If you would just take a civil and normal approach to deal with areas of disagreement, then the whole thing could be friendly and pleasant, even if we disagreed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
So your question is the logical equivalent of me asking "are you OK with having human beings in your house?" and if you say yes, then I say "so that means you shall never tell a human being to leave your house". North8000 (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You claim I have attempted "an out of context phrase from Miller." Please be specific as to what you are referring to.GreekParadise (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd Amendment, et. al.Edit

Wow, I thought the NRA and Gun Politics articles were a "war zone", but they're nothing compared to what goes on here and the related articles... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case resumedEdit

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has decided to resume the Tea Party movement case, which currently is in its voting stages.

Regards, — ΛΧΣ21 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd AmendmentEdit

I haven't been watching this page that closely, but if things get hairy, please contact me on my talk page. I'll be glad to step in from time to time. ∴ Naapple TALK|CON 21:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murray RothbardEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Murray Rothbard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


FEEEdit

Hello North. You did a lot of work on the GAR for Foundation for Economic Education. If it is not on your watchlist would you care to look at it again? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Happy to. It's in my watch list but I haven't really been watching. it. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Saw your comment. How about opining on the section above? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I went there and read some but not enough to see/understand what is happening there/ what any open issues are. I was planning to / will go back and absorb / understand more. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Where U at?Edit

Argh... the narrow minded ones are doing their thing at Talk:Gun_control... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

 User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been gone. Getting back in the saddle now. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good to see you back! So a question, I've been working under the assumption/impression that gun control is a subset of gun politics versus the other way around simply because legislation that involves guns, but has nothing to do with "control" exists. Not so...? Just to be clear, they are distinct topics to me and should have their own articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We agree on the big picture, and maybe see a sidebar item a little differently. Thanks for the post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think one of your recent comments may have been confusing on this point. I believe you were raising a rhetorical argument, but it comes off a bit confusing. I think you are saying that TFD is making a logical fallacy, but it is unclear "Such would lend some support to an argument that gun politics is a subset of gun control, and zero support to an assertion of the reverse or that they are synonymous." However, per his request, I have added several sources that are discussing gun politics without discussing gun control (or at least identifying topics within gun politics other than gun control). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You are right......I guess should skipped the "some" sidebar point, and now emphasize that that "some" isn't much. North8000 (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party arbcom CaseEdit

I just noticed this. I have a bit to say, but is there an appropriate forum at this point? Is it too late? Thanks.William Jockusch (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been gone. Getting back in the saddle now. That's a complicated question The Arbcom case was sent off onto a tangent from it's inception so I don't know where it can end up (see my "60,000' view post there). Maybe take a glance at that and we can talk more. Regarding TPM there is also the talk page and also and moderated discussion page, and also an RFC/U. North8000 (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Barack ObamaEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Barack Obama. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: March Against MonsantoEdit

Some of this may be OK, but this is a massive bundle of controversial rework and deletion of sources

Er, no it isn't. None of these sources have anything to with the subject.[32] It's pure original research. Do you understand that we can only write articles using sources about the subject? You won't find the words "March Against Monsanto" anywhere. This was previously discussed when Thargor tried it last month and there was no consensus on the talk page for his additions. Now, ‎ "SpectraValor" has shown up to try again. I'm completely confused when you say this is a "controversial rework". Nothing has been reworked or changed. The article has been completely stable for the last few weeks until these guys tried to add the same nonsense back into the article. The scientific consensus is well represented in the current version. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that isn't rule (policy or guideline) so you are in error. And no, it isn't wp:or because it is wp:suitably sourced. So you are wrong on both counts. I am more concerned about a good process for such changes (vs. the huge bundle that you just dropped) than any end result, so if you could just unbundle and discuss, I think that things would go much better. Interestingly, I think that my POV is the same as yours on this, but as always, when we enter as editors we need to check such that at the door and so 50% of my "disputes" are with people who are promoting my POV. That is our duty as editors in wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I've responded to this on the article talk page. It sounds to me like you 1) you aren't familiar with the OR policy, 2) you didn't look at the diff of the disputed edit, and 3) you didn't notice that the sources were off-topic. If you had at the very least looked at 1, 2, or 3, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Without examining the references to closely, I'd say Viriditas is correct. The WP article is about Monsanto and protests concerning Monsanto itself. It is not about GMOs -- that topic is properly covered by the hatnote article. With this in mind, adding info about the wonderfulness or evilness of GMOs is off-topic. Even if reliably sourced, the added info serves to imply something not found in the actual sources -- that Monsanto or GMOs are evil or heavenly -- so adding such info is improper synthesis. (And please forgive me for butting in.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I wish that there was a degree-of-relevancy criteria for article content (as Viriditas is erroneously asserting) but there isn't. But either way I'm all for keeping the general GMO debate out of the article. But that doesn't mean on one-sided inclusion of the anti-GMO talking points under the premise that that is what the protestors are saying. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
That Monsanto stuff caught my eye much to late in the evening. (I put your page on my list after I posted a note to you a while back.) I should've stayed away. After a very quick review, I think the confusion there occurs because people/editors are mixing fringe science with fringe opinion. "GMOs are dangerous because science can't prove they are safe." Response: "You can't say that because that's fringe science." Response: "But science has not found any danger." Response: "The Europeans are banning GMOs." Response: "In the US everyone is eating GMO food, but don't suffer any ill effects." Response: "People are protesting in massive numbers -- let democracy have its way. Besides, what harm is there in simply labeling the products." Response: "Those people are a tiny minority, they are promoting fringe science, they are fringe." A mulberry bush is in there somewhere. I wonder if mull-berries can be GE'd. Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that the main thread between me and Viriditas has moved to the article; what helps is that Viriditas ostensibly wants the same thing that I do....minimizing the article becoming a presentation of the sides of the GMO debate. As is usually the case, there are numerous complexities involved. In the RW, people who have a certain point of view often sit silently when someone who is supporting their cause makes an argument that they know is invalid. And at an article, people see adding or avoiding skewing to a wikipedia article as a means to further their cause and will support any argument which tends to do that. I really do check my RW POV's at the door when I put my WP editor hat on. As a result, about 50% of the time when I get into one of these spirited debates it involves opposing someone who supports my RW POV, and supporting someone what is against my RW POV. Which is sort of the case here. I really don't like GMO's (even though I think that the common current ones are safe), but am opposing those who want to make/keep the article a vehicle to promote that POV. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Take a look at Golden rice. A GMO food that will save/improve the lives of millions of children – each year. – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are right. My main concern is GMO enters us into a realm where anything can happen. After we get comfortable/complacent with it, someone could make a mistake which overruns the world. Also that it (like many other things) represents an enabler / issue avoidance of the fact that the earth can hold only a few billion people without population creating hundreds of problems / that the pyramid scheme of planning everything on a foundation of eternal population growth is a pyramid scheme. E.G. Nitrogen fertilizer just kicked the can down the road and put us on a new plateau where the problem isn't solved but we now can't survive without heavily using it. Whew, we're getting deep in here! :-) Thanks for the post! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Agent OrangeEdit

The person who removed GMO research results as not being germane just added that Monsanto made Agent Orange during the Veit Nam war.

This was added to the background section. The source (CNN) is about the March Against Monsanto, so it is entirely germane.[33] The GMO research resultss had nothing to do with this topic. I'm surprised you don't see the difference. Tapper writes:

Monsanto is a giant, $58 billion multinational corporation with field offices in 60 countries. It was founded more than 100 years ago – and is best known for producing the chemical known as Agent Orange that scorched thousands of miles of earth during the Vietnam war.

You don't believe that mentioning they are known for Agent Orange is relevant? Why do the preponderance of reliable sources about the march believe it is relevant?[34][35][36] Perhaps the problem isn't that we mentioned Agent Orange, the problem is that we only mentioned Agent Orange, and not Roundup, Dioxin, and PCBs all in the same sentence. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BPEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

andyEdit

just gave you your cue in the AN thread :) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The ironic part is that there is a nice discussion with open minds there just waiting to be joined with folks clearly just trying to figure out the best thing to do. Instead of just tossing hand grenades. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

gun control DREdit

There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control (by Gaijin42)

Maybe that could work! North8000 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Monster Cable ProductsEdit

Hi North. I should be active on the Talk page again soon, probably this weekend. We've had a hard time getting any kind of approval or green light on anything (or any feedback from Monster at all really), so I'll just be running with my first draft and will ask for forgiveness later. As a result, it may be somewhat drafty though.

So far I've got a "do the cables make a difference" section, a draft Products section, and a "Relationship with retailers" section (the first paragraph of the performance section goes here). I think the other thing you wanted to be a priority was the trademark disputes, so I've got that and the History on my To Do list. Probably most of the other content like the candlestick sponsorship controversy, the relationship with Dr. Dre and a lot of missing content about the other less controversial stuff would go under history.

There are also a lot of reviews for dozens of different products and I haven't figured out how to handle Reception yet, there being so many different products, but I figure that's the last priority. CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Just clarifying, those were my suggestions. North8000 (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Maybe I'll do the history after these. I do want to balance the article a bit so that it doesn't cover the controversies exclusively. CorporateM (Talk) 13:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
FYI I've submitted the CEO's page at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Noel Lee CorporateM (Talk) 13:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I just gave the CEO draft another fresh read. I think it is slightly bias, but definitely an improvement over not having an article and something others can improve upon. One thing that comes to mind is how he grew the company by convincing people that cables make a difference. This is a big part of his story, but somehow needs to be balanced with the fact that not everyone is convinced. I'm not sure exactly how though. CorporateM (Talk) 13:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I think I'm done tinkering with the cable performance section. I don't think there is any way to get the original source material from Stereo Magazine, which is too bad since the unreliable source repeating the information has an obvious agenda to view the results from a certain lens. Might be something that will come up in a GA review later on. Let me know what you would like to do RE next steps for this section and the others. No rush. CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey North. For the Monster page, do you want to give me a Request Edit|G, or put the materials in? Or would you prefer I make the edit? One concern I have is that the editors that previously added the clearly bias material will come back and accuse me of spin, violations of WP:COI and the like. Though I suppose such accusations are unavoidable, regardless of who makes the edit. Also, I wasn't sure if I should add all the material or just that one section. CorporateM (Talk) 18:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll email you about my upcoming schedule.North8000 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi North. Just a heads up, I asked Monster if they had the original Stereo Review Magazine articles from 1983 and 1990, so we could use the actual source, instead of relying on this (obviously bias) website recanting what the original article said. She said that they are pack-rats, so they just might have it! If I can get my hands on a copy, would you like one? CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks...sure would. BTW, I think that the article at that link that you provided did a pretty good, impartial and practical job. ((Other than the cynicism about why some people would buy something that is better than practically needed....that's a big part of what audiophile is about.) North8000 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
When Stereo Review Magazine dialed back its criticisms, the website speculates this was caused by an advertising relationship, then when they say gauge is all that matters, he labels it "an honest answer." It's apparent which side of the debate the author is on, but actually you're right. He does include POVs he doesn't agree with and there are reliable sources on both sides. BTW, I am not an audiophile and personally see no reason to upgrade from free lamp wire, so unlike the Yelp page, my personal opinion is not really that self-serving. I realized I must be pretty bias on the Yelp controversy, because - like Wikidemon (I think) - I approach the topic with the assumption that Yelp is not actually tampering with reviews. When you raised whether they were actually, I cringed. I think I'll just work on less controversial areas where I don't have an opinion.
Anyways, since I seem to have an open license to bug you endlessly (as long as I'm patient), if you have a minute, I'd be interested in your opinion on the Hightail (formerly YouSendIt) page again. At the very bottom of Talk, I mentioned an editor removed some content and I think made the article worse. CorporateM (Talk) 13:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Yelp, I don't know what they have or haven't done, but I do know that there is widespread mistrust of them. Regarding Hightail, happy to do it and will do. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have sent the Second Amendment article to dispute resolution.Edit

Please feel free to comment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution GreekParadise (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also posted a RfC. Please help resolve this. I'm tired of going in circles on this. This needs to be resolved. If this fails, we will have to go to formal arbitration. I just don't believe you have a right to hide or de-emphasize the law as it existed from 1939 to 2008. You should state the law fairly and neutrally in chronological order and not hide the law in the intro, then post a bunch of pro-gun scholars and pages and pages of pre-ratification discussions that have little relevance while hiding at the very bottom where you know few readers will go the law as it existed for 70 years in a single disparaging paragraph. That's not fair. If one justice changes his/her mind or retires and a new one appointed, would you be fine with pages and pages citing only the militia view and one small disparaging paragraph on Heller stating for five years an individual right was found but then corrected?

Please try to be fair and neutral as if you were really trying to write an encyclopedia that gave actual history rather than writing as anti-gun-regulation advocate. Remove your personal political views and ask yourself is this a article that fairly portrays the actual legal history of the Second Amendment through time? Or is it an article with an agenda to persuade the reader that Scalia's view of the law in 2008 is the only way the law has ever been from the beginning of time? Be fair. Strive to be neutral. Discuss what the case law actually said the law was at the time we are discussing. And we can finally resolve this continuing headache. I fully agree Heller and post-Heller cases are important. But to devote 10 pages to pre-1791 and 10 pages to post-2008 with a part of one sentence on 1939-2008 strikes me as extremely biased and unfair.

I'll make a personal plea. You are the only one of the wikipedia editors I disagree with that has actually read some of my sources and knows I have them right. The others just refuse to read them and dismiss them as false because they choose to believe Scalia would not possibly misstate prior law. But you know that post Miller and pre-Heller, the militia view prevailed. Allow me to have a section: "1939-2008: The Militia Era" rather than a miserly part of a sentence. Then we can have "2008- :The Individual Rights Era" and both sides can be fairly represented.

If you don't agree, I'll have no choice but to keep posting warning notices on the article. I don't want someone who is uninformed on this issue to mistakenly believe that the individual rights theory has always been the sole theory of the Second Amendment from the beginning of time. You and I both know that is untrue.GreekParadise (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Here I'm going to speak to the reasonable side of you. The 30,000 ft.view is that during the period that you are emphasizing the general "individual right" was not challenged, nor was it addressed by the courts. The cases taken to the higher courts (most notably Miller) involved unusual weapons and unusual situations, and were decided based on whether the milita related language protected the particular behavior, and the individual right question was not taken up by any higher courts. You have been try to spin up / gin up the situation that I just described to sound like the "individual right" was taken up and rejected during that prior. This is wrong many times over and on many different grounds. You have also been trying to do many other things that are far out of line in Wikipedia terms, including leveling many false accusations against other editors as a way to further your POV.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Take to 3O?Edit

Have you two thoroughly discussed the issue? Are you at a standstill? If so, I suggest you post the question at WP:3O. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the previous post? If so, it's a huge immense story, and I'm just a very tiny piece of it. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I shudda posted a link to the particular discussion. Talk:Libertarianism#Can_we_please_stop_confusing_state_.22government.22_and_.22state.22.3F. I'll post at Finx as well. – S. Rich (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
At libertarianism, for years we have had folks from both extremes beating us folks in the middle up for not having the article reflect that their preferred version of libertarianism is the "one true form". The result of a huge RFC plus ensuing 3 years of dialog has been that the article is to cover all significant strands of libertarianism. I've been a pseudo-moderator at the article and am merely the one who has elucidated this to Finx,, but there is an immense group there who supports covering both types.
So, to oversimplify, Finx is one of about 20 "Type A" libertarians who says that "Type B" libertarians should be excluded or deprecated. And another 20 "Type B" libertarians have said that "Type A" libertarians should be excluded or deprecated. I am merely elucidating the decided-upon common ground that both shall be covered. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

drEdit

Just in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


Please comment on Talk:KamapithaEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kamapitha. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Done (started) North8000 (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Hi North, I have answered your query in the talk page. Chaipau (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I noticed but was trying to think of what to say next. I'll do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The other editor has rejected the compromise. Chaipau (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It is difficult working with the other editor, and I require your help. He is removing a particular source at his own whim (diff, and is not responding to appeals diff. Chaipau (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent revertsEdit

Und massive fast barrage of edits which deleted massive amount of sources and material on invalid grounds. Please slow down. split it up and discuss proposed edits.

Proposed edits? You have it backwards. I restored the last stable version of the article that did not violate the OR policy, was compliant on the use of citations in the WP:LEAD, and used WP:RS only about the subject. That's standard. What did your edit do? It restored unnecessary citations to the lead section which summarizes reliably sourced content already in the body and adds off topic sources that have nothing to do with the topic. You also added wording that comes not from a reliable source, but from a video editorial blurb that is no longer in the article. So your edit summary makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot show anything wrong with the current wording because it is sourced directly to a source about the march from the Associated Press. This is unlike the version you restored which is sourced to citations that have nothing to do with the subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please also note, you have a habit of removing content and refusing to justify your removals. "Agent Orange", for example, was removed from the article without any justification. I have asked you to explain this edit up above but you have not replied. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a lengthy debate and best not split from the article talk page. I'll just note a couple of things here. You have been inventing a non-existent policy as justification for removal of sources. Essentially claiming that if a source does not discuss the topic of the article use of the source in the article is "OR" and justifies you removing the sources (and even en masse) This is wrong in so many ways that I don't know where to start. Second is simply a process standpoint. You have been dominating the article content (and towards a particular POV) with massive barrages/bundles of edits, and on the very items which are contentious and under discussion. If you would heed the advice above "Please slow down. split it up and discuss proposed edits" or at least two of the three recommendations, I think that things can all get worked out using the normal processes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The WP:NOR policy is perfectly clear

"you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context...Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research...precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia.

Your claim that this policy is "non-existent" has now been refuted. "Essentially claiming that if a source does not discuss the topic of the article use of the source in the article is "OR" is policy and always has been. Where the hell have you been? Are you editing in some kind of alternative universe where we don't have a NOR policy and Mitt Romney is president? Here's a challenge to your intellect, North. If you are so certain you are right, surely you can find a single featured article where the sources are used in the way you support? Just one? Viriditas (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
And, are you ever going to answer the question as to why you removed "Agent Orange" from the article without any reason? This is the third time I have asked you to respond to this query. If you can't defend your edits, then you need to stop making them. It is pretty simple. Viriditas (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
On your first point, you are neglecting what that is about, it sets a sourcing requirement for presence of material, it does not set a requirement for the presence of a source. And doubly so it does not provide a license for you to unilaterally delete amount amount of wp:RS sources, triply so wiitha a massive contested deletion on a topic that is the subject of the current discussion. On your second question I thought that the answer (not germane) was obvious from the edit summary. What does making Agent Orange for the Vietnam war over 40 years ago have to do with the current/recent protests? And if you think that it is germane, simply take it up on the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I can certainly delete those sources because they had nothing to do with the topic and were not even remotely related to the protest movement. We don't write articles about off-topic sources. There may be room to add a note indicating that more can be found about the scientific consensus by looking at source a, b, and c, but inline, not that's just not done. And, what does Agent Orange have to do with the subject? The sources about the protest evidently think it is germane, and you wouldn't be asking me if you read them. Stop removing material if you haven't read the sources. Viriditas (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm just one editor. My main advice is to unbundle these things and take them to talk at the article. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
In other words, for a fourth time, you absolutely refuse to explain why you removed the term. Got it. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Quit the crap. I already answered it twice....once in the edit summary and again more explicitly above. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas, I have an issue with a statement you've made several times in Edit Summaries for the March Against Monsanto article, "Don't need sources in lead" and variations of this. Quoting from the WP Manual of Style regarding the Lead:

The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many read only the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

North was correct to inquire about your edit habits if you have fundamental misconceptions about Wikipedia such as this. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, everything in the lead under discussion was already sourced in the body per my edit summary, and nothing in the lead was controversial. Therefore we didn't need any sources in the lead as they were redundant and impacted readability. Please try to get your facts straight before you make silly claims like this. North was not correct to inquire about my "edit habits" at all, and I have no "fundamental misconception" about how we write lead sections. Since there was absolutely nothing controversial or in dispute found in the lead, and since everything was already cited, there is absolutely no reason for them to be added back in. The sole reason they were added back was due to blanket reverts made by editors who were edit warring. So you're not even on topic here. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This is true, but also Wikipedia:LEADCITE#Citations "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." (tempered by) "Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." Personally, I think that only information that is likely to be controvercial/challenged should be cited in the lede (assuming the same information is cited in the body) but I believe the general consensus is more of an all/none situation. I am not aware of the specifics in this situation, so the following statement is not intended to be an comment on anyone here's behavior or edits : It has been my experience that people often try to tag or remove summary paragraph introductory statements or lede statements that are strongly backed by cited statements later in the paragraph/body as a method of wiki-lawyering/stonewalling. Conversely some editors attempt to use the leeway granted by non-lawyers to slip in stuff that certainly SHOULD be cited. Both extremes are a problem. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motionEdit

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

For being so sensible and nice. I can't imagine why I ever got mad at you, so you don't have to keep reminding me I did :-)

User:Carolmooredc 20:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! BTW, I never mean to remind you. A few situations arise where I think useful to say "been there, it's no big deal, and respected when it's from someone who's sole focus here is quality articles. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated, but feel free to avoid blowback from others on it.   User:Carolmooredc 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection ActEdit

I hope i just didn't seriously 'step in doo doo', but I moved the Federal Assault Weapons Ban article to its actual title. I moved (and redirected) the Talk page and fixed the other redirects as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think a good move. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Update - Hey North, I've been somewhat purposely staying out of this one. The amount of discussion around this is just staggering. After martyring myself with the Second Amendment article, I thought it might be a good idea to take it easy for a bit with lower profile articles. Anything I can help with? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to answer so slow. I was gone a few days but more importantly I needed some time to figure out a recommendation, which requires summarizing the situation. I see it roughly like this:
  • There were/are two POV-warrior editors saying "big changes needed" and both (in different ways) behaved in a way (including barrages/avalanches of edits) that totally disrupted and prevented any rational process, and nastified the situation. One (who was blatantly nasty) is now topic banned and the other (who is only subtly nasty) is up at ANI but still scrambling and nastifying the process at the article, albeit to a much lesser extent. And so it's kind of in a recovery/jumbled state, slowed down by one person still doing that stuff, albiet to a much lesser extent.
  • The other group of editors (which come from BOTH sides of the real world debate) who see it's as a typical article, which it's state as OK, but are also want to make it better and are very open to discussions and changes.
So I think that the important thing is to take a stand against any scrambling of the process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Big Blue River Bridge (Grafton, Nebraska)/GA1Edit

Are you going to finish the review? SL93 (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for being slow. A combination of being it being a bit unusual plus me being mostly off-wiki at the moment. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Mostly done, awaiting response from editor(s). North8000 (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey North, I'm still cheering for you at Intelligent design.Edit

Don't let them get the best of you. I think an existential challenge (like a news media story on the ostensible WP:NPOV pillar and how well it's holding up Wikipedia) that gets Jimbo's attention is the only thing that can reform the POV and article-ownership over there. Don't get kicked out, just for speaking accurately and pushing it. 12.226.82.2 (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that is an example of leaving one's POV at the door when editing. Over there I am butting heads with the folks who have the same real-world POV on the topic as me, and supporting folks who have the opposite real-world POV as me. It won't need Jimbo to fix it, I think that a concerted effort by I'd guess 3-5 people would do it. 1-2 of those will need to know Wikipedia policies well enough to deflate the baloney (creative modification of policies to pretend that non-existent ones exist) that they are using to avoid it getting fixed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steven CrowderEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Steven Crowder. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Done North8000 (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

AnarchismEdit

Hey, North8000! I just wanted to say thanks for the pleasant conversation on Talk:Libertarianism. I almost don't want to continue the discussion there because it's not related to article improvement per se, but I think many editors will benefit from the latest description of anarchism. If you have any further questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to address them as best I can. I tend to be more of an "anarchist without adjectives" as far as political action goes, but I am extremely fond of both Tuckerite socialism and Murray Bookchin's libertarian municipalism and will know more about these theories than the others I listed previously. I may not be able to answer all your questions, but I should be able to point you in the right direction at least. Anyway, thanks again and have a great break! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. One thought that I've had over the last 3-4 years there after reading a lot of sources and the article itself is that (ironically) the most informative place to learn about certain aspects (particularly comparative ones) of libertarianism is on the talk page of the libertarianism article. (I should add "MisterDub's FAQ material that North reverted" to that :-)) (A few years ago there was actually an article in a magazine that said that, when we were using a table to try to sort out the various strands and tenets) And items like the answer that you prepared for me are certainly an example of that. North8000 (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gary North (economist)Edit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gary North (economist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI noticeEdit

  Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've posted the personal attacks by Ubikwit on the ANI. You might want to comment since you commented on the PD talk about it. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOUEdit

Thank you for support. I've felt so lonely on that page, and your comment was appreciated.

I have had a Wikipedia account for many years but until recently have made few contributions. Since I'm struggling to master this editorial "talk" thing, I've gone back to square one and reviewed the tutorial and I'm doing my level best to do it right.

On an unrelated note, I love the photo on your user page. When I was a girl, my dad took the cane from an old fishing pole and fixed a clean tuna can onto the end. We'd put seeds in it and then I would stand out in the snow and call "chick-a-dee-dee-dee." Eventually, I had them eating from my hand. Sigh. Life was simpler then...

Thanks again.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten deep enough to understand the issues, but that one particular one was pretty clear cut. If a neighborhood kid brought me a high quality book, I wouldn't try to exclude the book because of where I got it.
When you entered editing in Wikipedia you jumped down a rabbit hole where many things are weird or confusing. Let me know if I can help.
I also love that picture....probably due to a combination of about 6 reasons. I found it at the snowshoe article.
Life was simpler then, but you can still do that stuff. A worthy quest! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the human kindness. I'm not feeling much love on WP right now. Lightbreather (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lightbreather,
I've helped a lot of newer folks who were having trouble with the system, and would be happy to help if I can. There are two different levels of actual or perceived nastiness on Wikipedia.
  1. Is a combination of it being a confusing place, and a bit "rough and tumble". I think that you are running into a combination of these, plus (and probably the most important) you have chosen about the most difficult imaginable place to start, which is doing a large amount of edits on a contentious-topic article.
  2. Wikipedia can be a very vicious place. The good news is that you have not encountered that aspect yet. The bad news is that that means it can get a lot worse. :-)
Let me know if I can help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

ID Dispute resolutionEdit

As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.Edit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

BRDEdit

Discussion may take place on the article talk page or the editor talk page. Dispute resolution process requires discussion, but it need not be on the article's talk page. Did you see the talk page discussion I began? Also of note is the fact that DRN does indeed take requests based on the equal footing of the editor talk page in instances where extensive discussion takes place there and not the article's talk page. It is not misleading, it is common practice.--Mark 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course all of that is true. But it does not address the concern and basis expressed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on the actual concern and basis? BRD is about a bold edit, followed by a revert and then by discussion. Why is suggesting that it is acceptable to use an editor's talk page per policy, guidelines and the DR process inappropriate?--Mark 17:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
First, it's no biggee, I just decided to weigh in on the process. IMHO it's not that it would be really bad or against policy with your edit, it's just that it would better without it. And the reason for that is that the best place for discussion about the article is the article talk page. Conversations on the talk page of an individual editor tend to split the conversation, and are not seen or participated in by most of the editors at the article. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The only reason that it seems of some importance is because its "Bold, revert, discuss" and I believe that BRD is in some ways a manner of Dispute resolution itself. Now, the reason I feel it is an improvement to the article (essay) is that editors are actually confusing what is meant by discussion and I feel it is important to let editors know (or remind them) that discussion can be almost anywhere (within some limits). This really does have an impact on disputes when one is saying that there has been no discussion when, in fact, there is substantial discussion on the editor talk pages. If DR/N accepts that as do the other DR processes, why wouldn't we want to at least mention it on the BRD essay where editors will be looking for this information? At this time there is no consensus for inclusion of the content but I am not giving up as I do feel this is a very important issue for Wikipedia, BRD in general as well as our dispute resolution process. Thanks for replying!--Mark 23:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs people like you sincerely working to try to make things better. As I mentioned, to me it's no biggee either way and I'd be happy to step back. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation WarEdit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service.RFC bot (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. North8000 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


I took it to talkEdit

Why is the citation of Daniel Alan Butler, who knows NOTHING about science, being allowed to pander this garbage? The citation attached to this was completely invalid - a misinterpretation of hearsay by a bad author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by