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)
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)
Thank you for your message. I'll respond fully on my talk page in a short while (just leaving work). EyeSerene talk 14:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
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. 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)
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)
Hope it's okay, I linked the usernames on your two user pages. Keep up the good work on Scout articles! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't understand what you mean by linking user pages, but thanks North8000 ( talk) 11:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand now. North8000 ( talk) 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
-For superior work in area of Scouting articles, especially the BSA controversies and high adventure articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
User:North8000 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Sincerely,
I would welcome your help mediating a solution to the impasse at the 2A page. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So there. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 10:17, 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)
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)
New article on a Scouter, psychiatrist, and author. Very interesting. Pls help improve. Up for DYK too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
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. N419 BH 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
Someone is really good at pushing your buttons, isn't he? AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 16:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Ham tech person 00:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Please go to this page [1] and make your opening statement. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Message Regarding Posting in The Mediation For the ongoing mediation on
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement, please respond only to posts made in previously completed rounds. After everyone has posted for the ongoing round, you may rebut those posts in a new round. Please do not delay in posting your responses. Thanks! |
Ham tech person 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
North, I'd like to recommend this help page. Dylan Flaherty 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Cool. Sincerely, North8000 18:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I started the article Calvin Rustrum. Hard to believe that it wasn't already an article. North8000 14:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I nominated the article SS Edmund Fitzgerald for Good Article review/status. North8000 14:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you so much! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Glad to help, and thank you for the barnstar. Finetooth ( talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello HJ Mitchell
OK, just to sort this out:
As of 6 weeks ago:
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)
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)
Has been fixed, may I label it a GA? LittleJerry ( talk) 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The chief argument of social democratic libertarians is this:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've added a comment of yours here. Peter jackson ( talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just out of interest, could I ask which case you were referring to just now at WT:V? -- JN 466 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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 :-)
The article is still a mess. North8000 ( talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Libertarian war! byelf2007 ( talk) 17 July 2011
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)
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
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,
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:
Vietminh ( talk) 08:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this comment you left on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protolira valvatoides because you left it after the discussion was closed. The article was kept anyways because it was nominated by a user who has a gross misunderstanding of the deletion policy. I am dealing with this user issue separately. Cheers! — KuyaBriBri Talk 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
Carolmooredc has given you a
kitten! Kittens promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
Thanks! Means a LOT to me considering history and what I attempt to do. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
-- 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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
I just wanted to thank you for being patient on this matter :) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For continuing to try to bring some reason to chaos. Enjoy your vacation, all the best! -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you so much! Just got back, and haven't gotten my head screwed on yet, but wanted to say thanks. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 02:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
An 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)
![]() |
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)
Since you participated in this recent AFD you might be interested in this follow up discussion. TMCk ( talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey North8000/Archive1! 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)
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)
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)
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)
My name is Austin Gaines and I am a freshman at Clemson University, making a page about a lake in my state. I have seen that you have made my edits to the Lake Superior page, and was wondering if you could give me some suggestions as to what I could add to my page.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel555 ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 - David DWEvansMD ( talk) 12:09, 17 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That is my understanding North8000. DWEvansMD ( talk) 12:49, 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)
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)
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)
Thank you very much. That's fine. 81.107.34.21 ( talk) 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for getting my back. -- Wpwatchdog ( talk) 16:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I invite you to revisit he article Aqib Khan. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi North.Thanks for changeing the date.Things here should be correct.Yes I'm new here on Wikipedia and find it a bit "hard"to understand how things work here.I have some knowledge about The Seekers and have done some work on the Norwegian page about The Seekers.Did some work on the english page as well but others changed it so I thought why bother.But I will see, maybe I will have a go on The Seekers page.They aere still loved by millions around the world and I know many come here to find info about them.Take care,Proculled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proculled ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello User:North8000. I hope this message finds you doing well. I noticed that you were interested in lectures that discuss the reconciliation of science and religion, as you mentioned here. You may find this helpful. Cheers, Anupam Talk 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hi North. I hope you're ok with my close here here. Best. Wifione Message 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could you explain what you find objectionable about my edits to Libertarianism? Lmatt ( talk) 20:15, 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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Another example of using false accusations as a tactic to try to get one's way. North8000 ( talk) 23:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Byelf2007 ( talk) 25 March 2012
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[[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)
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)
How you been? Want help archiving your talk page? PumpkinSky talk 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Second Amendment to the United States Constitution". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inijones ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski (FYI only, no action required) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 homo phobia, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[[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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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"
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)
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)
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. Tide rolls 17:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
All settled. North8000 ( talk) 12:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Suggest more careful reading and editing of edits, before undoing them all too hastily? Examples:
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:
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?
> And, either way, I don't see any edit that says the above.
[...] "Fiberglass is the most common material used in manufacturing canoes."
> 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?
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.)
Kanoniem (
talk)
12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Kanoniem ( talk) 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for a very sound and well conducted review. Farrtj ( talk) 01:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
And then some!
I just came across this on Wikipediaocracy by chance and thought you might want to know. Corporate 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
<3 --Lubna Rizvi 10:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You may wish to revisit due to recent significant quality improvement at the article page. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
Feel free to trout me for bringing up the wikilawyer-is-offensive thing again. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your review :) -- Earthh ( talk) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Elizabeth Maconchy. Uncle G ( talk) 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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 help. I put a reply on my talk page. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 03:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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 page – diff:
Dolphin ( t) 05:46, 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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 10:37, 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)
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:
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)
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)!
Thanks! It means a lot! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
After this morning's actions I didn't think waiting made any more sense. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
The Foundation for Economic Education article citations with page numbers now all have exact page numbers. -- Abel ( talk) 18:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GreekParadise ( talk) 05:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you add the OTRS ticket, please? -- evrik ( talk) 17:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
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
ツ Jenova
20 (
email) 09:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
ツ Jenova
20 (
email)
09:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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?
Nice work!!!!!
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
|
Here's a plate full of cookies to share! |
Hi North8000/Archive1, 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)
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)
"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)
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)
~~~ has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.
Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{ subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
Thanks! Very easy to review because it was so well done. Nice work! North8000 ( talk) 01:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
I notice, with suddenly piqued interest, your first post on the Talk page of said RfC/U:
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi North. Wondering if we could get your input here? CorporateM ( Talk) 23:25, 20 June 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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, — ΛΧΣ 21 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
just gave you your cue in the AN thread :) Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control (by Gaijin42)
As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please feel free to comment. /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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 ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Are you going to finish the review? SL93 ( talk) 07:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 96.255.105.38 ( talk) 01:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your comment on the 2A talk page. SMP0328. ( talk) 03:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. I shall make a broader announcement soon, but I am creating an FAQ on my userspace to assist discussion concerning intelligent design: [37]. Do you have any suggestions while I am drafting? Please feel free to post them on the talk page.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler. 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, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey North8000. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scott Alexander (politician). 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi North. I know you're not a BrightLiner RE COI, but I was hoping to get your input on my Request Edit for the Pricing and Performance section we've been working on. I haven't gotten any input or archived articles from Monster, so my plan is to just keep things moving along. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Often bold editing goes off the wayside when a PR rep gets involved. I think it's a good thing for anyone but the PR rep that is. I took a shot at the Trademarks section and offered some comments. Also, I'm not convinced it needs its own section, rather than being part of the history, as was done here. Most of the trademark lawsuits seem to have taken place in 2004 with a few being more recent. A blip in Monster's 30-year history. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ian Charles Stewart. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello North. Thank you for the note. Yes, I kind-of noticed S Marshall in a few places here and there.
For what it's worth, I did create my account a year before S Marshall. :)
But, I suppose changing my signature might be of help.
Regards.--13:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No biggee either way....In my quick glance, I saw that you've been around a long time....but he seemed to have that "look" first. Again, it's just an FYI. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey North. I took a shot at the History section of the Monster article at: User:CorporateM/Monster. I think I'll need to take a second shot at the Products section at some point, because I ended up putting a lot of that stuff into the History section. But this will definitely round out the article into pretty decent page. Home stretch! CorporateM ( Talk) 02:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello North8000, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for your faithful service and commitment to Wikipedia! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy! |
I hope you enjoy your time off the grid, and I'm sort of jealous, actually. When you get back, I want to make sure you see: [38]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox album. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi North. I've been trying not to pester you, because I saw some other comments on your Talk page to the effect that you were out for a while. I was wondering if you were back and had some time to devote to this article. I just have a few more things on my To Do list and it should be GAN ready.
Right now there are two controversies that are covered twice, in duplicates (once in dedicated sections and once under History). It being a controversial area, it would be inappropriate for me to clean up the redundancy myself.
Do you have time to take a look? I've pinged a good half-dozen editors looking for someone willing to get involved, but I get a lot of the "maybe in a week or two" which in my experience usually doesn't pan out (or maybe it's just that I usually say that and don't end up doing so) CorporateM ( Talk) 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
As a GA reviewer, the first things that come to mind when I look at it are:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We must have some kind of mind-meld, because I was just noticing the External links. I would just remove them, since all audioholics did is repost a primary source on a lawsuit that was not included in profile stories about Monster's trademark disputes. For the Lead, I got a draft started on the Talk page already that is much more comprehensive and less focused on listing products and divisions. It also complies with WP:LEAD by including major controversies. There are some free images on Flickr, but I think I might just go to a retail outlet and take pictures. I was thinking one picture of a setup where cables can be compared for the Relationship with Retailers section and another of a product. It's almost impossible to find good historical images. Monster has some, but I've been trying to extract copyright permissions from them for months, so I'd rather resort to something I can collect myself. Let me know if those pictures sound ok before I make the trip! CorporateM ( Talk) 14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI - I took these pictures at a Best Buy. I didn't realize just how dominant Monster was in electronics stores. Each department had a pretty large area devoted to various cables, headphones, etc. I even saw Monster glass cleaner, but didn't spot the elusive Monster mints I read about. While I was there I bought a pair of headphones, but I'm cheap, poor and not an audiophile, so I bought a $20 pair from Sony ;-) Anyways, there is a lot of glare on the packaging and they are not great pictures. I will also see if I can get something from Monster. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see [39] NE Ent 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I would ask that you actually investigate CorporateM's false attributions before unconditionally supporting his actions. Examples have been provided, both on the admin noticeboard and in the Talk section of the Suburban Express article. 99.147.28.113 ( talk) 17:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I will reverse your reversal once. I respectfully ask you not to reverse my reversal (Ref 3RR) in that article until we discuss the matter here in good faith to avoid edit warring. You undid my revision 578617800 (my revision was not a revert) because you think that this is different. It is about an activity / team and does spotlight individuals. Please take a look at this afd [40]. The "vanity publishing" of several pictures of one person were posted in many places. The picture I removed shows that one editor. I believe you will agree with the removal of this picture, like other editors do. Have a nice day. Worldedixor ( talk) 02:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I made this posting ( 1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and share it in case you are interested in commenting. Steeletrap ( talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. North8000, thanks for creating Eric W. Morse!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. 2
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy ( talk) 00:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Audie Murphy. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Just wanted to say again how much I appreciate your work to clean out the very oldest GAs from the backlog. I know often those end up there because other editors feel they're in some way problematic; I'm glad we've got someone with your editing chops to take them on. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you very much for the review of the article. This is my first GA. Very encouraging! Best, Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 06:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Just playing around at this stage, but maybe you can help decide if it is worth continuing this line of thought? /info/en/?search=User:Andrew_Lancaster/ID_RfC_draft . For now, I shall also drop a line to Garamond Lethe who has also proposed RfC ideas. I appreciate that my idea is different from previous ones. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll put my draft there as well. Your idea looks more thorough than mine but might be too complicated? (also could clarify which items is "1c"? My one big critique is to not move a step backwards, and even the other "side" is not asking for that. The narrowest version under consideration is "purporting to be science"' and not the narrower "ID movement". Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
11:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you want me to keep going with other stuff? or were you still working on the controversy? Also, what do you think about the date corrections I mentioned? CorporateM ( Talk) 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Left a response here. Regards. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 18:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Windows 8. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. North8000 ( talk) 00:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for voting to unblock me. I appreciate your wise reasoning. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello - I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families" [41]Regards, Smeat75 ( talk) 06:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about it; even through I had that paged watched. In the future, when you leave a comment, it may encourage forgetful people like myself to reply quicker if you WP:ECHO them. I should be able to take a look at your comments tomorrow. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sex Pistols. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! |
I figure it's unlikely anyone has this page watchlisted, or that there have been any active editors on the page besides the company itself, so I thought I would see if you were interested in taking a look at my draft I shared on the Talk page. I'm mostly cleaning up prior COI editing and bringing a promotional article more in-line with Wikipedia's standards for a small software company. Pretty easy little article. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to check-in on the ExactTarget article. I know it's difficult to compare the current article to the proposed. At the same time, it's not practical to go through edits one at a time. Let me know if I can help some way. In the meanwhile, thanks for your continued participation on the Monster page. It sounds like it is probably GA ready then and I was just being too hard on myself - I'll see what the reviewer says. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
North8000, I responded to your comment on my talk page. I don't understand what you're saying, so please clarify there. Thanks! -- MisterDub ( talk | contribs) 19:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Goethean left a note on my talk page asking me to take a look at a number of your edits on Talk:Libertarianism. I have taken a look at both his diffs and the overall context of the discussions and am concerned. It appears that your tone has not radically changed from the last time I took a serious look at your editing behavior. The same issues are there – a failure to assume good faith, a negative tone, disparagement, and perhaps most common of all, a failure to look back to the sources and instead argue for one's own point of view. If this editing style does not change, I will block your account. NW ( Talk) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Sellers. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! Have you considered to make a final decision on the GA Review of Blowing from a gun? If you haven't noted it, take a look at how I have comprised and heavily re-edited the "Rituals and Perceptions" section, due to a comment by an administrator-user. Arildnordby ( talk) 14:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. I answered there....no hurry, I go waay slower than the bot said :-), even more so in view of your absence. North8000 ( talk) 15:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 14:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the GA review. I have now moved Saengerfest to Sängerfest, and the review link is now a red link on the talk page. Do you know how I can fix that? — Maile ( talk) 13:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cough medicine. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Please redact immediately. That is dangerous information if it gets into the wrong hands. Heh. -- Onorem ( talk) 13:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
. :-) :-) Yes! North8000 ( talk) 14:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFC
There is a code error when you give barnstars like
[42] and
[43]. The ending |}
isn't on its own line and then it doesn't work. The table isn't closed and the following posts become part of the barnstar, for example in
[44]. How are you awarding the barnstars? The source code at {{
The Original Barnstar}} looks right to me.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
{|
to begin a table, and |}
to end it. Each one needs to be on its own line".
PrimeHunter (
talk)
21:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your help in defending the spirit of Wikipedia. You're always here. Thank you! Justanonymous ( talk) 22:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks! I try. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 23:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to editing Wikipedia. So please be kind. I am trying to contribute Automation Master to the open source community. I have thousands of lines of code and hundreds of pages of documentation to contribute. Much of which is in outdated formats which must be converted. As I juggle this task, I try to place the appropriate information in places as I find them. It may not be complete and may seem a little self-promotional, as some is copied and pasted from sales oriented literature. If you find my edits too self-promotional, please correct them. The Automation Master page is just started. I have yet to convert and publish much supporting documentation and track down references to existing papers and articles - all while learning proper Wikipedia technique and etiquette. How should I proceed? Reverse your edits? Ask you to reverse and modify them to be suitable? Try again later? Thanks, Max
How am I doing so far? Automation Master A lot of content is still cut & pasted. When I am finished, I will edit an make it flow better. Maxhitchens ( talk) 18:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Copy of post I made at editor's talk page:
North8000 ( talk) 13:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, Would you be willing to help enforce the consensus regarding the lead at this article? Thanks very much. CFredkin ( talk) 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Claude Monet. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. North8000 ( talk) 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
—
Keithbob •
Talk • is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
North8000, merry Christmas. Hey over on gun control I'm seeing some very disruptive behavior: Blanking, ignoring of WP:BRD etc. After ANI and the "no-action" decision these guys are just doing whatever they want. Andy specifically said he would not respect WP:BRD consensus requirement and Goethan just noted that he was willing to get blocked for edit warring. I can't edit that way. It's a horrific and acrimonious environment and I'm just going to wind up getting blocked and I don't fancy that. Some of these guys enjoy the close quarters edit war environment but I'm not like that. I've noted that our usual editors are not present, I imagine because of the holiday and these guys are taking advantage of that to just tear up the tenuous peace that had existed there for some time. I'm going to stay away from that mostly until we can get a broader group of editors or until some of these guys get banished or blocked or both. This is just horrible how there's no respect for any policies at this point. - Justanonymous ( talk) 20:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, and I apologize for Skookum1's behaviour. I've actually never known him to be this nasty - I am not sure what the issue is. I too am taking a break from the discussion, although I might restart it in the new year. Although I am not sure you and I necessarily agree on the substantive issues, it would be very helpful to have your continued input. If Skookum1 resurfaces, we can always just collectively ignore him. Anyway, enjoy the rest of the holidays. Cheers, -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 15:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
After doing nearly the nearly identical kind of "battle debate" on several other Talk pages recently (we both seem to independently and collectively bash our heads against virtual walls), I was inspired to write my first essay. Can't say that I like the subject, but it seems like one of those things that needed to be said... WikiBigotry. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 20:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I use to have a COI about a year ago and would like to improve the article. It is a software company, but what they are really notable for is using themselves as a case study for marketing and advancing social media marketing, digital marketing, etc. through research, thought-leadership, etc.
I've prepared a draft here. I was wondering if you felt I should do the whole Request Edit bit, since I use to, but don't currently, have a COI. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, when this discussion must be closed?-- Δαβίδ ( talk) 11:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Single-payer health care". 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 8 January 2014.
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.
23:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a party to that. I have been trying to help only from a process standpoint. North8000 ( talk) 03:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the aside (and if it helps everyone involved I can move the discussion to the Mediation talk) but you reverted changes related to the dispute. To say you are not involved is a bit disingenuous. -- CartoonDiablo ( talk) 07:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have responded to some of your queries here Talk:Loyal Order of Moose/GA1; my responses have not shown up on the main talk page for some reason.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 19:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar | |
For unfailing civility and good grace in all your interactions on Wikipedia, but especially throughout 2013. Well done, friend. Malke 2010 ( talk) 17:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks! I try. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gun_control and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
(By Gaijin42)
I don't see anything on it at that link. North8000 ( talk) 21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 ( talk) 19:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've requested clarification from ArbCom regarding Gun control and that article's possible inclusion in the Tea Party movement topic ban. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Martha Nell Smith. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi North8000. With regards to your reviewing the article Nina Girado, I just want to say thank you so much because I am glad that you want to be featured the article you are about to review and I just want to apologize that I have not responded about reviewing the article.
God bless you
Thanks for backing me up. I appreciate your help I have added a new compromise on the talk page but still might need your help in defending this so-called "fringe" opinion. Ultimately though I am not trying to push an agenda as much as attempt to keep Wikipedia neutral on a topic that is so controversial as Zionism. Anyway in short thanks for your help and please continue to do so.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 08:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The clarification request involving you has been archived. The comments left by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
All of the white papers, magazine articles and other reference material are in a storage locker in Harrisburg, PA. I thought that since you eliminated all of the links to the article that I could just let the article sit until I access that material and add the references you need. I will not be back to Harrisburg until summer. What should I do? Maxhitchens ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on Automation. I wrote most of what is there based on my experience as a chemical process and project engineer. I developed the P&I diagrams and wrote the functional descriptions of the control loops for paper machines while the controls engineers did all the other I&C work, so consequently I have familiarity but not expertise. I read Benet 1979 and 1993 and wrote the lede and history sections. I would appreciate your checking what is written. Also, if you see any major omissions please add anything you are able to or comment on talk. Thanks. Phmoreno ( talk) 00:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The editor Hipocrite has come from nowhere and inserted himself into the Spitzer article, and made changes against consensus while the debate is still in progress. Do you know anything about this guy? -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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)!
A year ago, you were the 369th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Single-payer health care. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I was asking about this edit. Just an fyi. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:First Republic of Austria. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. Your input is requested at the Talk pages for both these articles. Thanks very much. CFredkin ( talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Not that it will affect the outcome of the case, but it might be wise to proofread and copyedit your comments, so they are easier to understand. Like this one (my emphasis in bold):
“ | Roger, my concern is more abuse of editors by the process (which process —— the editing process, the Arbcom process, or what?) than having a preference on how any particular article ends up. With that in mind, IMHO, that (what?) seems to imply that an article representing scholarship is not only a (an?) article content requirement (vs. (a requirement of?) wp:npov which specifies reflecting coverage in RS's in general) but that it is moved levels above the (the what?), to a behavioral guideline, and an arbcom level behavioral guideline. I've not seen either (either what?) anywhere. Sincerely | ” |
If you're saying that Arbcom is just limited to considering civility issues, then I don't think that's correct. If they see editors intentionally distorting reliable sources, or continually insisting upon using sources that consensus has determined are unreliable, then Arbcom may have a legitimate role to play. Cheers, Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones( smalltalk) 12:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for starting this. Would you mind if we were to take our time? I am a bit busy with a number of things right now and may take a tad longer than I'd like with regards to prompt replies at GAN page. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for the oppose on my ban. I appreciate it. I'm also sorry I am posting from this username. Unfortunately the admins have preemptively blocked the IP's I was using in an effort to force me to create an account, so they could then be able to justify blocking me for socking (I really hate it how they are allowed to bait the trap like this) I had to create one for now. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko BannedEditor ( talk) 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You wrote the following here [46] "That said,, VNT was removed from wp:ver". What did you mean by it? When was the same removed? Earlier what could not be quoted and after making this change what can be quoted? Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 11:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies). 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi North. I was wondering if you had time this week to chip-in on a couple articles where I have a COI.
There's a small article on SMS Audio, where I've proposed an updated version I shared here, which updates the 1.5 year-old article and trims some promotional and trivial information. Additionally, I've proposed a major overhaul of an article on a $30 billion construction company, Fluor Corp., which should bring the stub up to something GAN-ready. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe "advertised as sweat-proof?" CorporateM ( Talk) 20:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anjem Choudary. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the review. Your approach is a bit... overly structured... but it certainly works well, and you're raising good points. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, North8000! As my GA reviewer on Blowing from a gun I felt you did a really thorough, conscientious and tolerant job out of it. I'm extremely grateful to you for that!
However, I'm the sort of editor who sort of needs the "full" overview of a topic, before I can begin judicious cutting of the article, down to those essentials that truly warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia.
This means that as time has matured my views, I think the article as it stands, could benefit strongly from some major cutting.
The scheme I've developed, consists in confining the country studies to just 4, with the following reasons: 1. Great Britain in India towards rebellious/deserting sepoys (REASON: paradigmatic case, the one "everybody" knows about)
2. Portugal (Reason: Earliest attested case, in farflung colonial ambitions)
3. Mughals (Reason: Local tradition inspiring the British)
4. Afghanistan (Reason: Last attested practice)
The rest of the country studies (some 70% I think of present article size) would get into the dustbin (although I think I'll add a notice that a more comprehensive edition can be found in Page history)
Now, as my GA Reviewer, I think you have a special right to voice your views on whether a) This scheme seems good and b) If the article then really needs to get delisted from GA, since it is no longer the article reviewed.
Furthermore, whatever your views on GA status, would you be willing to have a look at the article reduction after it's done?
If you feel the article is good as it stands, and don't really need trimming, I think I'll respect your view. Arildnordby ( talk) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hell in a Bucket (
talk)
15:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
We’re a team of researchers at Stanford University, and we’re interested in how editors review nominated articles for GA status. Rather than just looking to the assessment guidelines, we’re also interested in how individual editors then use these guidelines to evaluate articles.
We were hoping if you’d be able to spend some time with us, and help us understand how you would differentiate, say, a C-class article from a Good Article.
Looking forward to hearing back! Our email address is jc14253 AT cs DOT stanford DOT edu
Justin Cheng and Michael Bernstein Stanford University http://hci.stanford.edu/
Jcccf ( talk) 01:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Block review. Your input there would be appreciated. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 19:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronn Torossian. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, North. I just wanted to ask why you reverted my edit on the Libertarianism intro? (00:26, 17 March 2014) I didn't quite understand your explanation that it was "unsourced because it is fundamentally wrong." The sources are everywhere -- almost unavoidable. Property rights (including self-ownership) and laissez-faire are not just a tenet of classical-liberal libertarianism, they undergird it and provide it its fundamental philosophical base. Even if you don't entirely agree, "accept" is still very much the wrong word to use when describing that faction's beliefs and attitudes toward laissez-faire and private property. By the way, we can go with some other similar verb if the word "advocate" is a problem.
Also, what was your problem with switching the word "some" to "many" when it is quite accurate -- not just in North America or even the anglosphere, but worldwide. Capitalist libertarianism is not just some small fringe faction that warrants a dismissive nod while beaming at the socialist side. That whole sentence just seems heavily weighted toward the libertarian socialist element. Clearly their side of the sentence was given more thought and care. And, hey, that's fine; it's not that bad. I was just making some minor edits to make sure the capitalist side was given due (and accurate) acknowledgment. -- Adam9389 ( talk) 02:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taliban. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi North. If you have a minute, I would very much appreciate your feedback here. I am just making sure all the citation templates are filled out now. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
How's that? It's from the same Forbes post, which states "Traasdahl protests that Tapad doesn’t collect data that can be used to pinpoint someone by name." Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Per WP:COIMICRO, I won't belabor the point. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Willie Jerome Manning. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to vote or comment at this RfC? I noticed your name at the talk page for WP:NOR and figured you'd be an appropriate editor to ask, since the discussion concerns that policy. Dan56 ( talk) 05:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Good Article Barnstar | |
For reviewing the article Durga Shakti Nagpal, I would like to present you this barnstar as a sign of my appreciation for the review. GKCH ( talk) 07:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks! And nice work on that article. That is the type of topic that is inaccessible to most people unless people like you do the work that you are doing. Sincerely, 10:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I made the change because not all assault rifles are fully automatic, for example, the M16A2, M16A4, and M4 Carbine. While fully automatic does demonstrate the difference more clearly, it also plays into misconceptions, and there are already misconceptions that "Assault Weapons" are automatic anyway. Mr. Someguy ( talk) 11:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Carrie Newcomer In India Monsoon.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
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}} 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. Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Per this comment by you, Would you please explain why you understand that young earth is not fringe, as defined in WIkipedia? Please see here. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 12:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
ping... :) Jytdog ( talk) 14:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I negotiate with lawyers all day. There is productive, solidly grounded legal negotiation that gets things done, and then there is sophistry that does nothing but waste time. It doesn't seem to me that you are trying to actually communicate anything. Perhaps I am missing something. In any case, you don't seem to be actually engaging so I will stop asking and watching. Jytdog ( talk) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, North, I just undid this. That template is linked at the top of DRN to use when our notification bot fails. I didn't understand your edit summary, so maybe you have a great reason that I didn't understand. Whack me if that's the case. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Heya!
Nobody was talking on the AfD and no administrators are going near it, so I went to see if I could do anything with the article, and I have thusly. I was hoping you would look at it again? Even if your view is that I am a very silly person and it is a bad article, at least we will have a resolution. Personally, I think Soviet Russia was hilarious when people weren't dying. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Shield. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Your username is included on the DRN under Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Your participation in resolving this dispute would be appreciated. Thank you. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The company has a very complex reputation with very polarizing sources. The article was originally authored primarily by someone with a strong negative opinion, leading to a lot of primary sources, mis-represented sources and a massive Controversies section. However I am also finding that the History section I wrote 2-3 years ago was not perfectly neutral. It had too many details and too much weight on successes rather than challenges in its history.
Like the Monster (company) article, I plan on going rogue and bringing it up to GA without the company's involvement. This is often necessary and I haven't been fired for it yet ;-)
I was wondering if you would have the time/interest to collaborate on it and a couple related articles next week. It will be the most difficult company article I have written, given how difficult it would be for any editor to be neutral on such a confusing and polarizing topic. However, bringing a High Priority Business topic up to GA is very appealing. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been gone a lot but would be happy to try to help in my usual sporadic way on both. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your kind words. Is the Shepard page 1RR? I need to know. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Quis separabit? 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thank you for your message. I'll respond fully on my talk page in a short while (just leaving work). EyeSerene talk 14:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
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. 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)
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)
Hope it's okay, I linked the usernames on your two user pages. Keep up the good work on Scout articles! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't understand what you mean by linking user pages, but thanks North8000 ( talk) 11:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand now. North8000 ( talk) 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
-For superior work in area of Scouting articles, especially the BSA controversies and high adventure articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
User:North8000 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Sincerely,
I would welcome your help mediating a solution to the impasse at the 2A page. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So there. -- Hauskalainen ( talk) 10:17, 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)
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)
New article on a Scouter, psychiatrist, and author. Very interesting. Pls help improve. Up for DYK too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
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. N419 BH 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
Someone is really good at pushing your buttons, isn't he? AliveFreeHappy ( talk) 16:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Ham tech person 00:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Please go to this page [1] and make your opening statement. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Message Regarding Posting in The Mediation For the ongoing mediation on
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement, please respond only to posts made in previously completed rounds. After everyone has posted for the ongoing round, you may rebut those posts in a new round. Please do not delay in posting your responses. Thanks! |
Ham tech person 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
North, I'd like to recommend this help page. Dylan Flaherty 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Cool. Sincerely, North8000 18:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I started the article Calvin Rustrum. Hard to believe that it wasn't already an article. North8000 14:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I nominated the article SS Edmund Fitzgerald for Good Article review/status. North8000 14:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you so much! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Glad to help, and thank you for the barnstar. Finetooth ( talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello HJ Mitchell
OK, just to sort this out:
As of 6 weeks ago:
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)
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)
Has been fixed, may I label it a GA? LittleJerry ( talk) 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The chief argument of social democratic libertarians is this:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've added a comment of yours here. Peter jackson ( talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just out of interest, could I ask which case you were referring to just now at WT:V? -- JN 466 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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 :-)
The article is still a mess. North8000 ( talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Libertarian war! byelf2007 ( talk) 17 July 2011
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)
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
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,
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:
Vietminh ( talk) 08:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this comment you left on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protolira valvatoides because you left it after the discussion was closed. The article was kept anyways because it was nominated by a user who has a gross misunderstanding of the deletion policy. I am dealing with this user issue separately. Cheers! — KuyaBriBri Talk 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
Carolmooredc has given you a
kitten! Kittens promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
Thanks! Means a LOT to me considering history and what I attempt to do. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
-- 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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
I just wanted to thank you for being patient on this matter :) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For continuing to try to bring some reason to chaos. Enjoy your vacation, all the best! -- Nuujinn ( talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you so much! Just got back, and haven't gotten my head screwed on yet, but wanted to say thanks. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 02:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
An 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)
![]() |
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)
Since you participated in this recent AFD you might be interested in this follow up discussion. TMCk ( talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey North8000/Archive1! 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)
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)
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)
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)
My name is Austin Gaines and I am a freshman at Clemson University, making a page about a lake in my state. I have seen that you have made my edits to the Lake Superior page, and was wondering if you could give me some suggestions as to what I could add to my page.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel555 ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 - David DWEvansMD ( talk) 12:09, 17 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That is my understanding North8000. DWEvansMD ( talk) 12:49, 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)
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)
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)
Thank you very much. That's fine. 81.107.34.21 ( talk) 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
Thank you for getting my back. -- Wpwatchdog ( talk) 16:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I invite you to revisit he article Aqib Khan. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi North.Thanks for changeing the date.Things here should be correct.Yes I'm new here on Wikipedia and find it a bit "hard"to understand how things work here.I have some knowledge about The Seekers and have done some work on the Norwegian page about The Seekers.Did some work on the english page as well but others changed it so I thought why bother.But I will see, maybe I will have a go on The Seekers page.They aere still loved by millions around the world and I know many come here to find info about them.Take care,Proculled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proculled ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hello User:North8000. I hope this message finds you doing well. I noticed that you were interested in lectures that discuss the reconciliation of science and religion, as you mentioned here. You may find this helpful. Cheers, Anupam Talk 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
Hi North. I hope you're ok with my close here here. Best. Wifione Message 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Could you explain what you find objectionable about my edits to Libertarianism? Lmatt ( talk) 20:15, 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)
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)
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 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Another example of using false accusations as a tactic to try to get one's way. North8000 ( talk) 23:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
Byelf2007 ( talk) 25 March 2012
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[[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)
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)
How you been? Want help archiving your talk page? PumpkinSky talk 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Second Amendment to the United States Constitution". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inijones ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski (FYI only, no action required) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 homo phobia, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[[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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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"
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)
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)
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. Tide rolls 17:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
All settled. North8000 ( talk) 12:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Suggest more careful reading and editing of edits, before undoing them all too hastily? Examples:
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:
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?
> And, either way, I don't see any edit that says the above.
[...] "Fiberglass is the most common material used in manufacturing canoes."
> 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?
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.)
Kanoniem (
talk)
12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Kanoniem ( talk) 15:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for a very sound and well conducted review. Farrtj ( talk) 01:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
And then some!
I just came across this on Wikipediaocracy by chance and thought you might want to know. Corporate 16:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
<3 --Lubna Rizvi 10:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You may wish to revisit due to recent significant quality improvement at the article page. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 19:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
Feel free to trout me for bringing up the wikilawyer-is-offensive thing again. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your review :) -- Earthh ( talk) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Elizabeth Maconchy. Uncle G ( talk) 15:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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 help. I put a reply on my talk page. Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 03:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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 page – diff:
Dolphin ( t) 05:46, 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:
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:
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 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)
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 10:37, 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)
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:
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)
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)!
Thanks! It means a lot! Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
After this morning's actions I didn't think waiting made any more sense. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 14:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
The Foundation for Economic Education article citations with page numbers now all have exact page numbers. -- Abel ( talk) 18:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GreekParadise ( talk) 05:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you add the OTRS ticket, please? -- evrik ( talk) 17:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
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
ツ Jenova
20 (
email) 09:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
ツ Jenova
20 (
email)
09:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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?
Nice work!!!!!
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 03:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
|
Here's a plate full of cookies to share! |
Hi North8000/Archive1, 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)
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)
"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)
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)
~~~ has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.
Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{ subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
Thanks! Very easy to review because it was so well done. Nice work! North8000 ( talk) 01:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
I notice, with suddenly piqued interest, your first post on the Talk page of said RfC/U:
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)
![]() |
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi North. Wondering if we could get your input here? CorporateM ( Talk) 23:25, 20 June 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)
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)
![]() |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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, — ΛΧΣ 21 16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
just gave you your cue in the AN thread :) Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a DR of which I have included you as a participant. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Gun_Control (by Gaijin42)
As the AN has closed, this has been reopened. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please feel free to comment. /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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 ( talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Are you going to finish the review? SL93 ( talk) 07:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 96.255.105.38 ( talk) 01:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your comment on the 2A talk page. SMP0328. ( talk) 03:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
Hi. I shall make a broader announcement soon, but I am creating an FAQ on my userspace to assist discussion concerning intelligent design: [37]. Do you have any suggestions while I am drafting? Please feel free to post them on the talk page.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 16:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler. 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, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey North8000. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scott Alexander (politician). 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi North. I know you're not a BrightLiner RE COI, but I was hoping to get your input on my Request Edit for the Pricing and Performance section we've been working on. I haven't gotten any input or archived articles from Monster, so my plan is to just keep things moving along. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Often bold editing goes off the wayside when a PR rep gets involved. I think it's a good thing for anyone but the PR rep that is. I took a shot at the Trademarks section and offered some comments. Also, I'm not convinced it needs its own section, rather than being part of the history, as was done here. Most of the trademark lawsuits seem to have taken place in 2004 with a few being more recent. A blip in Monster's 30-year history. CorporateM ( Talk) 12:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ian Charles Stewart. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello North. Thank you for the note. Yes, I kind-of noticed S Marshall in a few places here and there.
For what it's worth, I did create my account a year before S Marshall. :)
But, I suppose changing my signature might be of help.
Regards.--13:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
No biggee either way....In my quick glance, I saw that you've been around a long time....but he seemed to have that "look" first. Again, it's just an FYI. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey North. I took a shot at the History section of the Monster article at: User:CorporateM/Monster. I think I'll need to take a second shot at the Products section at some point, because I ended up putting a lot of that stuff into the History section. But this will definitely round out the article into pretty decent page. Home stretch! CorporateM ( Talk) 02:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of unusual deaths. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello North8000, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for your faithful service and commitment to Wikipedia! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy! |
I hope you enjoy your time off the grid, and I'm sort of jealous, actually. When you get back, I want to make sure you see: [38]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox album. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi North. I've been trying not to pester you, because I saw some other comments on your Talk page to the effect that you were out for a while. I was wondering if you were back and had some time to devote to this article. I just have a few more things on my To Do list and it should be GAN ready.
Right now there are two controversies that are covered twice, in duplicates (once in dedicated sections and once under History). It being a controversial area, it would be inappropriate for me to clean up the redundancy myself.
Do you have time to take a look? I've pinged a good half-dozen editors looking for someone willing to get involved, but I get a lot of the "maybe in a week or two" which in my experience usually doesn't pan out (or maybe it's just that I usually say that and don't end up doing so) CorporateM ( Talk) 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
As a GA reviewer, the first things that come to mind when I look at it are:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We must have some kind of mind-meld, because I was just noticing the External links. I would just remove them, since all audioholics did is repost a primary source on a lawsuit that was not included in profile stories about Monster's trademark disputes. For the Lead, I got a draft started on the Talk page already that is much more comprehensive and less focused on listing products and divisions. It also complies with WP:LEAD by including major controversies. There are some free images on Flickr, but I think I might just go to a retail outlet and take pictures. I was thinking one picture of a setup where cables can be compared for the Relationship with Retailers section and another of a product. It's almost impossible to find good historical images. Monster has some, but I've been trying to extract copyright permissions from them for months, so I'd rather resort to something I can collect myself. Let me know if those pictures sound ok before I make the trip! CorporateM ( Talk) 14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI - I took these pictures at a Best Buy. I didn't realize just how dominant Monster was in electronics stores. Each department had a pretty large area devoted to various cables, headphones, etc. I even saw Monster glass cleaner, but didn't spot the elusive Monster mints I read about. While I was there I bought a pair of headphones, but I'm cheap, poor and not an audiophile, so I bought a $20 pair from Sony ;-) Anyways, there is a lot of glare on the packaging and they are not great pictures. I will also see if I can get something from Monster. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see [39] NE Ent 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I would ask that you actually investigate CorporateM's false attributions before unconditionally supporting his actions. Examples have been provided, both on the admin noticeboard and in the Talk section of the Suburban Express article. 99.147.28.113 ( talk) 17:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I will reverse your reversal once. I respectfully ask you not to reverse my reversal (Ref 3RR) in that article until we discuss the matter here in good faith to avoid edit warring. You undid my revision 578617800 (my revision was not a revert) because you think that this is different. It is about an activity / team and does spotlight individuals. Please take a look at this afd [40]. The "vanity publishing" of several pictures of one person were posted in many places. The picture I removed shows that one editor. I believe you will agree with the removal of this picture, like other editors do. Have a nice day. Worldedixor ( talk) 02:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I made this posting ( 1) in relation to the Volokh Conspiracy source, and share it in case you are interested in commenting. Steeletrap ( talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. North8000, thanks for creating Eric W. Morse!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. 2
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy ( talk) 00:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Audie Murphy. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Usage share of operating systems. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Just wanted to say again how much I appreciate your work to clean out the very oldest GAs from the backlog. I know often those end up there because other editors feel they're in some way problematic; I'm glad we've got someone with your editing chops to take them on. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you very much for the review of the article. This is my first GA. Very encouraging! Best, Cimmerian praetor ( talk) 06:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Just playing around at this stage, but maybe you can help decide if it is worth continuing this line of thought? /info/en/?search=User:Andrew_Lancaster/ID_RfC_draft . For now, I shall also drop a line to Garamond Lethe who has also proposed RfC ideas. I appreciate that my idea is different from previous ones. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll put my draft there as well. Your idea looks more thorough than mine but might be too complicated? (also could clarify which items is "1c"? My one big critique is to not move a step backwards, and even the other "side" is not asking for that. The narrowest version under consideration is "purporting to be science"' and not the narrower "ID movement". Sincerely, North8000 (
talk)
11:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you want me to keep going with other stuff? or were you still working on the controversy? Also, what do you think about the date corrections I mentioned? CorporateM ( Talk) 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Left a response here. Regards. Miguel Escopeta ( talk) 18:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Windows 8. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. North8000 ( talk) 00:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for voting to unblock me. I appreciate your wise reasoning. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC) |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Alejandro García Padilla. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello - I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families" [41]Regards, Smeat75 ( talk) 06:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about it; even through I had that paged watched. In the future, when you leave a comment, it may encourage forgetful people like myself to reply quicker if you WP:ECHO them. I should be able to take a look at your comments tomorrow. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sex Pistols. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! |
I figure it's unlikely anyone has this page watchlisted, or that there have been any active editors on the page besides the company itself, so I thought I would see if you were interested in taking a look at my draft I shared on the Talk page. I'm mostly cleaning up prior COI editing and bringing a promotional article more in-line with Wikipedia's standards for a small software company. Pretty easy little article. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to check-in on the ExactTarget article. I know it's difficult to compare the current article to the proposed. At the same time, it's not practical to go through edits one at a time. Let me know if I can help some way. In the meanwhile, thanks for your continued participation on the Monster page. It sounds like it is probably GA ready then and I was just being too hard on myself - I'll see what the reviewer says. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
North8000, I responded to your comment on my talk page. I don't understand what you're saying, so please clarify there. Thanks! -- MisterDub ( talk | contribs) 19:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Goethean left a note on my talk page asking me to take a look at a number of your edits on Talk:Libertarianism. I have taken a look at both his diffs and the overall context of the discussions and am concerned. It appears that your tone has not radically changed from the last time I took a serious look at your editing behavior. The same issues are there – a failure to assume good faith, a negative tone, disparagement, and perhaps most common of all, a failure to look back to the sources and instead argue for one's own point of view. If this editing style does not change, I will block your account. NW ( Talk) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter Sellers. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there! Have you considered to make a final decision on the GA Review of Blowing from a gun? If you haven't noted it, take a look at how I have comprised and heavily re-edited the "Rituals and Perceptions" section, due to a comment by an administrator-user. Arildnordby ( talk) 14:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the heads up. I answered there....no hurry, I go waay slower than the bot said :-), even more so in view of your absence. North8000 ( talk) 15:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 14:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the GA review. I have now moved Saengerfest to Sängerfest, and the review link is now a red link on the talk page. Do you know how I can fix that? — Maile ( talk) 13:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cough medicine. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Please redact immediately. That is dangerous information if it gets into the wrong hands. Heh. -- Onorem ( talk) 13:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
. :-) :-) Yes! North8000 ( talk) 14:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFC
There is a code error when you give barnstars like
[42] and
[43]. The ending |}
isn't on its own line and then it doesn't work. The table isn't closed and the following posts become part of the barnstar, for example in
[44]. How are you awarding the barnstars? The source code at {{
The Original Barnstar}} looks right to me.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
{|
to begin a table, and |}
to end it. Each one needs to be on its own line".
PrimeHunter (
talk)
21:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your help in defending the spirit of Wikipedia. You're always here. Thank you! Justanonymous ( talk) 22:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks! I try. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 23:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to editing Wikipedia. So please be kind. I am trying to contribute Automation Master to the open source community. I have thousands of lines of code and hundreds of pages of documentation to contribute. Much of which is in outdated formats which must be converted. As I juggle this task, I try to place the appropriate information in places as I find them. It may not be complete and may seem a little self-promotional, as some is copied and pasted from sales oriented literature. If you find my edits too self-promotional, please correct them. The Automation Master page is just started. I have yet to convert and publish much supporting documentation and track down references to existing papers and articles - all while learning proper Wikipedia technique and etiquette. How should I proceed? Reverse your edits? Ask you to reverse and modify them to be suitable? Try again later? Thanks, Max
How am I doing so far? Automation Master A lot of content is still cut & pasted. When I am finished, I will edit an make it flow better. Maxhitchens ( talk) 18:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Copy of post I made at editor's talk page:
North8000 ( talk) 13:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, Would you be willing to help enforce the consensus regarding the lead at this article? Thanks very much. CFredkin ( talk) 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Claude Monet. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. North8000 ( talk) 18:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
—
Keithbob •
Talk • is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
North8000, merry Christmas. Hey over on gun control I'm seeing some very disruptive behavior: Blanking, ignoring of WP:BRD etc. After ANI and the "no-action" decision these guys are just doing whatever they want. Andy specifically said he would not respect WP:BRD consensus requirement and Goethan just noted that he was willing to get blocked for edit warring. I can't edit that way. It's a horrific and acrimonious environment and I'm just going to wind up getting blocked and I don't fancy that. Some of these guys enjoy the close quarters edit war environment but I'm not like that. I've noted that our usual editors are not present, I imagine because of the holiday and these guys are taking advantage of that to just tear up the tenuous peace that had existed there for some time. I'm going to stay away from that mostly until we can get a broader group of editors or until some of these guys get banished or blocked or both. This is just horrible how there's no respect for any policies at this point. - Justanonymous ( talk) 20:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, and I apologize for Skookum1's behaviour. I've actually never known him to be this nasty - I am not sure what the issue is. I too am taking a break from the discussion, although I might restart it in the new year. Although I am not sure you and I necessarily agree on the substantive issues, it would be very helpful to have your continued input. If Skookum1 resurfaces, we can always just collectively ignore him. Anyway, enjoy the rest of the holidays. Cheers, -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 15:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
After doing nearly the nearly identical kind of "battle debate" on several other Talk pages recently (we both seem to independently and collectively bash our heads against virtual walls), I was inspired to write my first essay. Can't say that I like the subject, but it seems like one of those things that needed to be said... WikiBigotry. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 20:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I use to have a COI about a year ago and would like to improve the article. It is a software company, but what they are really notable for is using themselves as a case study for marketing and advancing social media marketing, digital marketing, etc. through research, thought-leadership, etc.
I've prepared a draft here. I was wondering if you felt I should do the whole Request Edit bit, since I use to, but don't currently, have a COI. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, when this discussion must be closed?-- Δαβίδ ( talk) 11:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Royal National Lifeboat Institution. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Single-payer health care". 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 8 January 2014.
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.
23:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a party to that. I have been trying to help only from a process standpoint. North8000 ( talk) 03:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the aside (and if it helps everyone involved I can move the discussion to the Mediation talk) but you reverted changes related to the dispute. To say you are not involved is a bit disingenuous. -- CartoonDiablo ( talk) 07:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I have responded to some of your queries here Talk:Loyal Order of Moose/GA1; my responses have not shown up on the main talk page for some reason.-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 19:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar | |
For unfailing civility and good grace in all your interactions on Wikipedia, but especially throughout 2013. Well done, friend. Malke 2010 ( talk) 17:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks! I try. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gun_control and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,
(By Gaijin42)
I don't see anything on it at that link. North8000 ( talk) 21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 ( talk) 19:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I've requested clarification from ArbCom regarding Gun control and that article's possible inclusion in the Tea Party movement topic ban. Malke 2010 ( talk) 00:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Martha Nell Smith. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi North8000. With regards to your reviewing the article Nina Girado, I just want to say thank you so much because I am glad that you want to be featured the article you are about to review and I just want to apologize that I have not responded about reviewing the article.
God bless you
Thanks for backing me up. I appreciate your help I have added a new compromise on the talk page but still might need your help in defending this so-called "fringe" opinion. Ultimately though I am not trying to push an agenda as much as attempt to keep Wikipedia neutral on a topic that is so controversial as Zionism. Anyway in short thanks for your help and please continue to do so.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 08:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgism. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The clarification request involving you has been archived. The comments left by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rs chen 7754 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
All of the white papers, magazine articles and other reference material are in a storage locker in Harrisburg, PA. I thought that since you eliminated all of the links to the article that I could just let the article sit until I access that material and add the references you need. I will not be back to Harrisburg until summer. What should I do? Maxhitchens ( talk) 14:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help on Automation. I wrote most of what is there based on my experience as a chemical process and project engineer. I developed the P&I diagrams and wrote the functional descriptions of the control loops for paper machines while the controls engineers did all the other I&C work, so consequently I have familiarity but not expertise. I read Benet 1979 and 1993 and wrote the lede and history sections. I would appreciate your checking what is written. Also, if you see any major omissions please add anything you are able to or comment on talk. Thanks. Phmoreno ( talk) 00:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The editor Hipocrite has come from nowhere and inserted himself into the Spitzer article, and made changes against consensus while the debate is still in progress. Do you know anything about this guy? -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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)!
A year ago, you were the 369th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Single-payer health care. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I was asking about this edit. Just an fyi. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:First Republic of Austria. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. Your input is requested at the Talk pages for both these articles. Thanks very much. CFredkin ( talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Not that it will affect the outcome of the case, but it might be wise to proofread and copyedit your comments, so they are easier to understand. Like this one (my emphasis in bold):
“ | Roger, my concern is more abuse of editors by the process (which process —— the editing process, the Arbcom process, or what?) than having a preference on how any particular article ends up. With that in mind, IMHO, that (what?) seems to imply that an article representing scholarship is not only a (an?) article content requirement (vs. (a requirement of?) wp:npov which specifies reflecting coverage in RS's in general) but that it is moved levels above the (the what?), to a behavioral guideline, and an arbcom level behavioral guideline. I've not seen either (either what?) anywhere. Sincerely | ” |
If you're saying that Arbcom is just limited to considering civility issues, then I don't think that's correct. If they see editors intentionally distorting reliable sources, or continually insisting upon using sources that consensus has determined are unreliable, then Arbcom may have a legitimate role to play. Cheers, Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather ( talk) 04:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Record charts. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules - Smallbones( smalltalk) 12:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for starting this. Would you mind if we were to take our time? I am a bit busy with a number of things right now and may take a tad longer than I'd like with regards to prompt replies at GAN page. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and thank you for the oppose on my ban. I appreciate it. I'm also sorry I am posting from this username. Unfortunately the admins have preemptively blocked the IP's I was using in an effort to force me to create an account, so they could then be able to justify blocking me for socking (I really hate it how they are allowed to bait the trap like this) I had to create one for now. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko BannedEditor ( talk) 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You wrote the following here [46] "That said,, VNT was removed from wp:ver". What did you mean by it? When was the same removed? Earlier what could not be quoted and after making this change what can be quoted? Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 11:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies). 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi North. I was wondering if you had time this week to chip-in on a couple articles where I have a COI.
There's a small article on SMS Audio, where I've proposed an updated version I shared here, which updates the 1.5 year-old article and trims some promotional and trivial information. Additionally, I've proposed a major overhaul of an article on a $30 billion construction company, Fluor Corp., which should bring the stub up to something GAN-ready. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe "advertised as sweat-proof?" CorporateM ( Talk) 20:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anjem Choudary. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking on the review. Your approach is a bit... overly structured... but it certainly works well, and you're raising good points. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, North8000! As my GA reviewer on Blowing from a gun I felt you did a really thorough, conscientious and tolerant job out of it. I'm extremely grateful to you for that!
However, I'm the sort of editor who sort of needs the "full" overview of a topic, before I can begin judicious cutting of the article, down to those essentials that truly warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia.
This means that as time has matured my views, I think the article as it stands, could benefit strongly from some major cutting.
The scheme I've developed, consists in confining the country studies to just 4, with the following reasons: 1. Great Britain in India towards rebellious/deserting sepoys (REASON: paradigmatic case, the one "everybody" knows about)
2. Portugal (Reason: Earliest attested case, in farflung colonial ambitions)
3. Mughals (Reason: Local tradition inspiring the British)
4. Afghanistan (Reason: Last attested practice)
The rest of the country studies (some 70% I think of present article size) would get into the dustbin (although I think I'll add a notice that a more comprehensive edition can be found in Page history)
Now, as my GA Reviewer, I think you have a special right to voice your views on whether a) This scheme seems good and b) If the article then really needs to get delisted from GA, since it is no longer the article reviewed.
Furthermore, whatever your views on GA status, would you be willing to have a look at the article reduction after it's done?
If you feel the article is good as it stands, and don't really need trimming, I think I'll respect your view. Arildnordby ( talk) 20:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered
bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Hell in a Bucket (
talk)
15:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dallas Buyers Club. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
We’re a team of researchers at Stanford University, and we’re interested in how editors review nominated articles for GA status. Rather than just looking to the assessment guidelines, we’re also interested in how individual editors then use these guidelines to evaluate articles.
We were hoping if you’d be able to spend some time with us, and help us understand how you would differentiate, say, a C-class article from a Good Article.
Looking forward to hearing back! Our email address is jc14253 AT cs DOT stanford DOT edu
Justin Cheng and Michael Bernstein Stanford University http://hci.stanford.edu/
Jcccf ( talk) 01:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Block review. Your input there would be appreciated. GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 19:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronn Torossian. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, North. I just wanted to ask why you reverted my edit on the Libertarianism intro? (00:26, 17 March 2014) I didn't quite understand your explanation that it was "unsourced because it is fundamentally wrong." The sources are everywhere -- almost unavoidable. Property rights (including self-ownership) and laissez-faire are not just a tenet of classical-liberal libertarianism, they undergird it and provide it its fundamental philosophical base. Even if you don't entirely agree, "accept" is still very much the wrong word to use when describing that faction's beliefs and attitudes toward laissez-faire and private property. By the way, we can go with some other similar verb if the word "advocate" is a problem.
Also, what was your problem with switching the word "some" to "many" when it is quite accurate -- not just in North America or even the anglosphere, but worldwide. Capitalist libertarianism is not just some small fringe faction that warrants a dismissive nod while beaming at the socialist side. That whole sentence just seems heavily weighted toward the libertarian socialist element. Clearly their side of the sentence was given more thought and care. And, hey, that's fine; it's not that bad. I was just making some minor edits to make sure the capitalist side was given due (and accurate) acknowledgment. -- Adam9389 ( talk) 02:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taliban. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi North. If you have a minute, I would very much appreciate your feedback here. I am just making sure all the citation templates are filled out now. CorporateM ( Talk) 16:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
How's that? It's from the same Forbes post, which states "Traasdahl protests that Tapad doesn’t collect data that can be used to pinpoint someone by name." Feel free to revert if you don't like it. Per WP:COIMICRO, I won't belabor the point. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Willie Jerome Manning. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to vote or comment at this RfC? I noticed your name at the talk page for WP:NOR and figured you'd be an appropriate editor to ask, since the discussion concerns that policy. Dan56 ( talk) 05:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Good Article Barnstar | |
For reviewing the article Durga Shakti Nagpal, I would like to present you this barnstar as a sign of my appreciation for the review. GKCH ( talk) 07:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks! And nice work on that article. That is the type of topic that is inaccessible to most people unless people like you do the work that you are doing. Sincerely, 10:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I made the change because not all assault rifles are fully automatic, for example, the M16A2, M16A4, and M4 Carbine. While fully automatic does demonstrate the difference more clearly, it also plays into misconceptions, and there are already misconceptions that "Assault Weapons" are automatic anyway. Mr. Someguy ( talk) 11:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Carrie Newcomer In India Monsoon.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
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}} 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. Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Per this comment by you, Would you please explain why you understand that young earth is not fringe, as defined in WIkipedia? Please see here. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 12:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
ping... :) Jytdog ( talk) 14:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I negotiate with lawyers all day. There is productive, solidly grounded legal negotiation that gets things done, and then there is sophistry that does nothing but waste time. It doesn't seem to me that you are trying to actually communicate anything. Perhaps I am missing something. In any case, you don't seem to be actually engaging so I will stop asking and watching. Jytdog ( talk) 20:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, North, I just undid this. That template is linked at the top of DRN to use when our notification bot fails. I didn't understand your edit summary, so maybe you have a great reason that I didn't understand. Whack me if that's the case. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Heya!
Nobody was talking on the AfD and no administrators are going near it, so I went to see if I could do anything with the article, and I have thusly. I was hoping you would look at it again? Even if your view is that I am a very silly person and it is a bad article, at least we will have a resolution. Personally, I think Soviet Russia was hilarious when people weren't dying. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Shield. 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. — Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Your username is included on the DRN under Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Your participation in resolving this dispute would be appreciated. Thank you. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The company has a very complex reputation with very polarizing sources. The article was originally authored primarily by someone with a strong negative opinion, leading to a lot of primary sources, mis-represented sources and a massive Controversies section. However I am also finding that the History section I wrote 2-3 years ago was not perfectly neutral. It had too many details and too much weight on successes rather than challenges in its history.
Like the Monster (company) article, I plan on going rogue and bringing it up to GA without the company's involvement. This is often necessary and I haven't been fired for it yet ;-)
I was wondering if you would have the time/interest to collaborate on it and a couple related articles next week. It will be the most difficult company article I have written, given how difficult it would be for any editor to be neutral on such a confusing and polarizing topic. However, bringing a High Priority Business topic up to GA is very appealing. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been gone a lot but would be happy to try to help in my usual sporadic way on both. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 11:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your kind words. Is the Shepard page 1RR? I need to know. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Quis separabit? 14:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)