Misplaced Pages

User talk:North8000: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:02, 2 November 2010 editNorth8000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,439 edits Your recent unsourced additions← Previous edit Revision as of 01:25, 5 November 2010 edit undoNorth8000 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,439 edits Sock or Meatpuppets?Next edit →
(9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 497: Line 497:
::::Follow you? It is , especially . I don't go around joining . I focus on articles. Regardless, your recent addition of a source at ] at my request highlights why sourcing is so important (even if your citation was woefully inadequate). Because I was able to decipher the chapter to which you cited, I fleshed out the cite with . Upon reviewing the source (which now anyone can easily do by clicking through from the article), it turns out the "fact" you added had an error and lacked context so that readers may have been left with the wrong impression. It was not archaeologists from the ] who excavated at the park, but rather, the ]. Of course, that is not a huge error, but more importantly, the single sentence you added made it seem as if the 1974 excavation was all there was, or was at least a big deal or significant piece of information. It turns out, per the source, that the 1974 excavation wasn't the most significant excavation at the park. Earlier excavations by the ] and the ] were first, and more significant. I added the context. None of that would be in the article now if I had not demanded that the new sentence, which on its face seemed ok, be supported by a source. The article would have been left with a misstatement and readers with a misimpression. ] (]) 17:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC) ::::Follow you? It is , especially . I don't go around joining . I focus on articles. Regardless, your recent addition of a source at ] at my request highlights why sourcing is so important (even if your citation was woefully inadequate). Because I was able to decipher the chapter to which you cited, I fleshed out the cite with . Upon reviewing the source (which now anyone can easily do by clicking through from the article), it turns out the "fact" you added had an error and lacked context so that readers may have been left with the wrong impression. It was not archaeologists from the ] who excavated at the park, but rather, the ]. Of course, that is not a huge error, but more importantly, the single sentence you added made it seem as if the 1974 excavation was all there was, or was at least a big deal or significant piece of information. It turns out, per the source, that the 1974 excavation wasn't the most significant excavation at the park. Earlier excavations by the ] and the ] were first, and more significant. I added the context. None of that would be in the article now if I had not demanded that the new sentence, which on its face seemed ok, be supported by a source. The article would have been left with a misstatement and readers with a misimpression. ] (]) 17:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
::::: The above makes no sense and or is erroneous on several counts, but I don't think that this conversation is going anywhere. Each time I refute one of your misstatements here you replace it with more misstatements. Please stop following me. ] (]) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC) ::::: The above makes no sense and or is erroneous on several counts, but I don't think that this conversation is going anywhere. Each time I refute one of your misstatements here you replace it with more misstatements. Please stop following me. ] (]) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

==Sock or Meatpuppets?==
You might want to consider or respond to ] and/or ] (and note that ] also posted ). Please be sure to read ] & ]. If these happen to be coincidences, my apologies; please disregard. If not, please stop. ] (]) 20:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not as you imply / mis-represent. Please see response there. So this is how you respond to my request to please stop following me. You have now racked many severe policy violations. Stop! ] (]) 20:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::What policies have I violated? ] (]) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

::: The most obvious is wp:harassment. Stop! ] (]) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

::::Which part? Of course, I have never threatened you, never released your personal information, and we've never had private or off-wiki communication. That leaves ]. As per that section (with my bolding), "'''Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing''' errors or '''violations of Misplaced Pages policy''' or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That is all I have done, You might disagree with the substance of my discussion, but you can't argue that I have not raised policy concerns related to your edits and behavior. And if "It's not as (I) imply / mis-represent", how do you explain it? Are those socks or meat puppets? ] (]) 21:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

::::: Again, see answer there. Please stop this obsessive behavior, and please stop following me! ] (]) 21:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::I have not edited any new pages you have edited recently, nor joined any conversations you are involved with, so please stop asking me to stop "following" you. (And as noted in the section above this, the last time I edited an edit of yours I found a mistake, and was subsequently able to cleanup a source, add a new source, and add a paragraph of new information; not a bad outcome.) And, as for my notice to you re: your possible socking, you never had to reply, here or on DougT's talk page. I would have let it go with the warning/demand that you not do it again that I left above. I wouldn't have had any further communication with you about the issue had you not made personal attacks against me and indicated that the evidence I presented was not what it was. Regardless, whether or not you have ever done it in the past, you have now been warned to not sock. If any other sock-like behavior occurs, I may submit you to ]. If you continue to make personal attacks (rather than explaining the evidence, or even denying that you have meat or sock puppeted, or just moving on), I may submit you to ]. Alternatively, if you follow policy and only make good faith mistakes, we will get along fine. Nobody is out to get you, WP just works better when people follow the rules as best they can. ] (]) 00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Again, see answer there. But, no, I never have. You have been following me for a long time, and recently went on a tear / dramatically increased it when I undid your deletion of 3/4 of the Machine Vision article. The is obvious, the odds of what has occurred occurring by random are one in trillions of trillions of trillions. And the dialog that you started in the previous section speaks for itself. Unless you want to keep it going, I am going to end and archive these discussions. ] (]) 01:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:25, 5 November 2010

Archive 1

What's here

For folks who like to know about North8000, I have left everything up here from day one. Two exceptions are:

  • exchanges arising from my technical blunders which I archived because they tend to be lengthy and boring.
  • anything that was not really written to me (broadcast and pasted in spam items) which are simply deleted.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A nod your way

You ask: "what article is perfect and complete on day 1"? At issue primarily is not the quality of your article but the fundamental nature of it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating a document that lists BSA's policies, your interpretations of what you think those policies mean, and your experience about how those policies are generally enforced. That's a great Scouting webpage, blogpost, or other thing.

But the Misplaced Pages trick is, as you know, there's a huge gulf between "what I personally believe" and "what a NPOV, Verifiable Encyclopedia article should say". Your article is mostly "The BSA's Policy statements, the BSA's explanatory statements and listed points of view, and one person's comments on the matter". In essence, you cut out the controversy, creating a page that is, in essence, belongs on BSA's server far more than it belongs on Misplaced Pages.

Misplaced Pages's model is _not_ the only out there. I think the "next" wikipedia will somehow involve collaborative _opinion_ pieces in addition to just NPOV encyclopedia articles.

You say: "And while there are statements like "Gender restrictions for youth membership in Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting programs are fully enforced" that are currently unsupported, I would think that such a statement is uncontested."

It is uncontested, that's why I picked that one, rather than a controversial one, of which their are many examples also. But I picked it because that's just a great example of something that isn't an encyclopedia-- they were generally enforced when I was a scout, I've never heard of that policy not being enforce, therefore it must be fully enforced, right?

The conclusion probably is a correct one, but an encyclopedia article has a higher standard. Are there any statistics backing up which policies are more fully enforced than others? Has an independent, reliable, secondary source ever said that?

If that was the only one, it wouldn't be a big deal-- but there's lots of that in the article.

As far as gay, here is the truth of it: there are no statistics on how many gays leave BSA due to the membership policy. Neither of us truly know whether most openly gay BSA members are welcomed at the troop level, how many are considered at some point for expulsion but ultimately retained, how many are informally discouraged to leave, or how many are expelled but never speak out about it.

My guess is that many are welcomed by liberal-area troops under an informal "don't make a big deal about it and we won't either" agreement. My guess is that if the decision is made by conservative troops, councils, or BSA national, then unless you've repented of your gay ways, you wind up leaving BSA one way or another-- maybe a private talking to, maybe a formal expulsion. BSA National wants to gloss over the bad PR that comes with discriminating against kids, but they want to still be able to. That's my guess.

Your guess seems to be: Troops, liberal and conservative, are welcoming to gays so long as they don't make a big fuss over it. BSA National almost always lets gay scouts stay, unless the scout has been running a big campaign out of it and is actively trying to corrupt others. (I'm guessing about your guess)

But our guess don't make it into the article-- neither mine nor yours.

Here is all we know:

  • The BSA's policy for more than a decade officially prohibited all homosexuals from registering.
  • Over the course of many many years, the BSA did, in fact, expel homosexual scouts.
  • The BSA's website currently makes the following statements: (all those quotes).

--Alecmconroy (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the policies article

North, the deletion of your article was pretty well a forgone conclusion from the beginning. However, I hope you see this as a learning experience and now work constructively to improve Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. The consensus is clear that that article fits wikipedia guidelines and is the article we should have. I think you need to learn more about how wikipedia works. It is not easy and it is certainly more difficult than when I started several years ago. The folks from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Scouting are here to help. You only have to ask. Best wishes. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us keep the discussion here, so it is in one place. Your talk page is on my watch list, so I see your edits here. I have therefore moved the following from my talk page and replied here: --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I think that the "controversies" article should exist, albeit with much rework so that it covers it's stated subject. I also think that coverage of noteworthy (= in controversial areas)BSA policies needs to exist somewhere, and not primarily or solely in a "criticism of" type article. Since most documented enforcement activities are documented because there was a controversy) (e.g. a court case) I guess that the latter could have a home in the "controversies" article. However I don't think that the folks behind the "controversies" article would allow such coverage to exist, identified as such. Using the Colbert line, I think they would say that the facts have a BSA bias.
the court cases are well covered in the "controversies" article and in their own articles. As to "facts", wikipedia is not about facts. We just report what others say. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely, think that the "controversies" article is a real mess, albeit with lots of good material in it. IMHO even the coverage of court cases is very spotty and confusing and blended with / obfuscated by other material. Somebody took down the FAR template and so practically nobody would even know it's under FAR or how to comment.
I'm trying to figure out what you meant by saying that Misplaced Pages doesn't cover facts, just what others say. Of course I understand that it covers sourced material, but I would think that the end result is that it covers factual material. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I really don't know the motivation of the folks that beat this out of existence. Whether they purely want Misplaced Pages standards enforced, whether they sincerely think that such an article would inherently be badly biased, whether they knowingly want to confine coverage to articles with an anti-BSA bias or... My first guess is that they are mostly people who sincerely arrived at a very negative mis-impression of BSA in these areas, and sincerely, feel that it is "right" to make sure that the only type of coverage that occurs of this topic is of the type in a "criticism of" type article.
You say "they are mostly people who sincerely arrived at a very negative mis-impression of BSA in these areas". I think you are quite wrong. Many deletion votes came from active BSA leaders and other wikipedians like myself who are are active in the Scouting Wikiproject. That project seeks to give the best coverage of Scouting in the wikipedia way. We did not see your article as helping that goal, as it was an unhelpful fork of an article that is a FA yet one that is difficult to maintain. BTW, when I looked yesterday, the FA review of the "controversies" article, which was requested by the then coordinator of the Scouting Project, not by a critic of it, had attracted no comment. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. As an aside, you'll note was what I said is "I really don't know" and that that was just my first guess. My guess was from trying to interpret what I was reading, mostly from folks other than yourself, with some being from overseas. And I was thinking that gay issues are so non-existent in everyday scouting that even 90% of the folks in Scouting don't understand the gay/BSA situation, and that so it would be absolutely hopeless for someone from overseas to understand the situation, and so easy to gain a misunderstanding, which seemed evident in their choice of words, like they were doing battle with evil. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm from Australia, but I have followed the 3Gs (God, Gays and Girls) for 20 years or so. The internet is amazing. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You are right. We'll see where this goes. North8000 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I was brought into this and it appears that it was a total waste of time. I'm not sure, but I think that I will drop out of any further effort in Misplaced Pages in this area. Thanks again for the note. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I hope you will not drop out, but develop to be a valuable member of the Scouting Project. Good luck, anyway. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that. If I found a place to contribute that didn't involve a huge amount of unpleasant arm wrestling, I think I'd still be happy to do it. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

BSA policies, would love to chat more

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

Matt, thanks for the message. And doubly so from someone where we saw things a bit differently. Bit burned out on this at the moment but would be more than happy to talk.

North8000 (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Newcomer

You reverted the removal of several ELs I made at Carrie Newcomer. I have redone them, one at a time, with more specific references in the edit as to why. Let me know if that isn't sufficient. Novaseminary (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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

References

Hello. Please read WP:Referencing for beginners. It is preferable to use the <ref> tags rather to create footnotes by hand. Thanks! Novaseminary (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and info. I've actually used those in an article I'm helping develop off line, but am not yet fluent at it. So doing it carefully / properly on an mainspace article will be a bigger task for me. (I've read the heavier duty article on referencing, but that a little tougher learning the "forest for the trees".) The beginner article (which I didn't know existed) you pointed me to is VERY helpful in this area. I left the cleanup tag on there pending me or somebody doing that (plus whatever else)

Thanks North8000 (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. It's a great system once you get used to it. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


File permission problem with File:TravelersDream 002.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:TravelersDream 002.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

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

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you 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 Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I had explicit permission for the required licensing from the owner when I put it up, and indicated that with the image, but did not provide evidence. Now (3/16/10) the owner has emailed Misplaced Pages per the details described in the template and confirmed the above and provided contact info for any further questions, and I have a copy of that email. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Traveler's Dream

I have nominated Traveler's Dream, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

It is a good effort, I just don't see that they meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Novaseminary (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Traveler's Dream AfD option

Hello, North8000. I see that the AfD for Traveler's Dream has caused you angst. Please see User_talk:DougT1235#Traveler.27s_Dream for an option I highlighted on DougT1235's talk page that might give you more time. Novaseminary (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Re your note

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

Detailed response at my talk page. Best, EyeSerene 17:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Article userfied at User:North8000/Sandbox. I've removed the categories and templates because they're for mainspace use only, and tagged the article so other editors know it's a work in progress (though you can remove that tag if you want to). The picture license is fine for userspace so I haven't touched that (non-free images can only be used in mainspace, but that doesn't apply here). All the best with the article's further development. EyeSerene 23:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Also deleted User:North8000/TD BU per your request. EyeSerene 23:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Dear North8000, I see that you continue to think that I somehow acted improperly with respect to the former Traveler's Dream article and that you continue to attack me personally for my actions regarding this article. Of course, having that opinion is your right. But I would ask that you not make personal attacks against me on talk pages or wherever else. With respect to this comment on an administrator's talk page, I would note that I think your statement is inappropriate.

First, I did not assault the Traveler's Dream article. I only edited it in the first place because I thought it might be notable. I was convinced otherwise after taking a closer look. In fact, I linked to the "pre-assault" version on the AfD itself with this comment, so even if I did assault the article and my edits somehow turned a notable group into a non-notable group, anyone could have seen what I did.

Second, I was not obsessed with deleting the article. If you look at the userfied version in your sandbox, the only fully-formed, properly formatted references are there because I took the time to clean them up. All of the removed text that you still seem to think somehow showed notability I removed because it was unsourced puffery. The pre-assault version of the article was simply unacceptable by Misplaced Pages standards.

I had never even heard of the group until I read the article. My goal in first editing the article was to prevent advertising and other non-encyclopedic text from making its way into Misplaced Pages. As I noted before, it was reverting a link spammer that I came across the Carrie Newcomer article which was our first interaction. It appears that you think all of the Traveler's Dream article drama was my retribution for your reversion of my EL removal on the Newcomer article. But think about it for a second: on that article, I just redeleted the offending ELs with more full explanations in the edit history and then left you a note on your talk page. I didn't make the AfD nomination for almost two more weeks (mostly because I wanted to see if the group actually was notable). And now you even seem to agree that for Misplaced Pages purposes the group is not notable. So this was slow motion retribution for an action that the Misplaced Pages community (and you, it now appears) thinks should have happened anyway. That seems like a stretch to me.

Could it be that I encountered an article that needed serious work and raised notability concerns, I worked a bit on it, asked for those more knowledgeable editors to assert and prove notability, and then, only after it became apparent that the subject of the article failed notability, did I AfD the article? I didn’t even say (and still haven’t) anything negative about the group. I have no reason to, it is irrelevant. They could be fantastic and fail notability or terrible annd meet it with sources to spare. As I noted in the initial nomination comment, they might be great. This wasn’t personal. I would appreciate it if you didn’t make it that way. If you have a problem with me as an editor, please use the dispute resolution process rather than continuing to make personal attacks.

Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Novaseminary,

By a preponderance of evidence/observations/analysis, (and I am the type to look at and think about a whole lot of things) I still think the same thing. My choice of words here means that I'm only about 98% sure, e.g. that I could be wrong.

BTW I feel that accusing me of personal attacks when in fact I never even mentioned you is more of the same cleverness. And, in fact, not only did I not mention you, I did not even say it was the AFD nominator, and, in all honesty, had a duo in mind when I said that.

(Note added later...I subsequently learned that a falsely accusing someone of a personal attack is itself a personal attack. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you sincerely feel that I am genuinely wrong and care what I think, then we should discuss this further. (A non-public venue that still maintains privacy would be best, if there were such a thing.) Otherwise I consider this to be all in the past.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I subsequently added more to this to your talk page and didn't want to duplicate it here.

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

More friendly comments for you (unlike much of the above )

I have left some more comments for you over at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (music) (very recently). I also reveiwed the horribly acrimonious AfD linked above (not that you were necessarily the worst offender there, but ho hum...). It might also be useful for you to look at WP:HEY. Inclusion is more about sourcing—correction all about sourcing, especially if the subject is still alive. Cheers --Jubileeclipman 22:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:NOR

Hi. Were you directing your WT:NOR comment towards me or to someone else? One reason I ask is because of the indentation of your comment which might mean that you are responding to someone else's comment above mine. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


I just indented on "autopilot" without thinking. I meant it as a general inquiry for anybody to answer. Sorry North8000 (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

WT:NOR - examples of abuse of policies

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

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

Hello Bob,

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

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

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

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

Thanks again

Sincerely,

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

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

RfC discussion involving WP:SYNTH

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

Links

Hope it's okay, I linked the usernames on your two user pages. Keep up the good work on Scout articles! — RlevseTalk11:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

James G. Howes will be DYK lead

James G. Howes is scheduled to be the lead DYK article, with photo, at 8pm Eastern US time, 1am 22 Jun UTC. Let's give it lots of views! Way to go User:JGHowes!! See current version of Template:Did_you_know/Queue and Template:Did you know/Queue/3 for more info. — RlevseTalk12:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Snowrocky

What type of dog is Snowrocky and where was this taken? Just curious and since it's PD we can move it to Commons. — RlevseTalk23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rlevse. 3/4 Malamute, 1/4 Siberian Husky, and it was taken behind my house. (have a large wooded lot). Adopted, "Rocky" was the name he came with. Prior to that malamutes have been in our family for a long time. I have other images pulling a sled and out in the woods and frozen lakes in Northern Minnesota and Northern Ontario on winter camping trips. I put it up when I was experimenting trying to learn Misplaced Pages images and then decided to throw it on my user page. I haven't learned what PD and Commons are yet, but feel free to do whatever you wish with it. If you feel like it, let me know what happened with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So I will put the loc as Minnesota. PD is "public domain" which means you let anyone do what they want for free. CC variations and GFDL preserve some rights but are still "free" licenses meaning anyone can use them for free. Basically they mean you get credit for the photo. Commons is a wiki for media, mostly photos, that lets all WMF wiki projects use the photo without uploading to each separate wiki. Use the name as it is on commons and the photo will "show through" to the wiki you want to use the photo. See File:WikiProject Scouting fleur-de-lis dark.svg which below the image has a link and note about its home wiki being Commons. See File:Scouting 'round the World 1977 edition.jpg which is not on Commons. — RlevseTalk02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!North8000 (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Scouting barnstar

The Scouting Barnstar

-For superior work in area of Scouting articles, especially the BSA controversies and high adventure articles. — RlevseTalk12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I try. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page of any Scouting article, look at the Scouting Project tag. In the upper right-hand corner is a link to the Scouting Portal. — RlevseTalk10:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Happy North8000's Day!

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

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

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — RlevseTalk00:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I am honored! I'll continue to the best that I can. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic Trails Award

New article and DYK if you care to help improve. I wanted to get it up on July 4th! — RlevseTalk21:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Pollard (Scouting)

New article and DYK if you care to help improve. Up on July 6th, anniversary of the court ruling! — RlevseTalk00:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

2A mediation

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Edward L. Rowan

New article on a Scouter, psychiatrist, and author. Very interesting. Pls help improve. Up for DYK too. — RlevseTalk15:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your run in with Novaseminary

I noticed that you have had some issues with Novaseminary. He is one of the most vicious, vindictive, destructive people in Misplaced Pages. Pretty much his entire interaction with others in Misplaced Pages is picking fights with and fighting with people. He is so vindictive that he stalks people he has had fights with.

What makes him so unusually destructive is the he is so expert at playing the Misplaced Pages game, and USING the Misplaced Pages system as a way of fighting, and disguising his fighting as legitimate Misplaced Pages work. He is expert at fooling Misplaced Pages administrators who do not have the time to do the through review and investigation. You probably had some flaw which he capitalized on

Novaseminary also hides his “rap sheet” by badgering everyone to never write him on his own talk page, and then continuously and immediately erasing everything written on there so that it would be a huge amount of work to review his history on how he relates to others, which is basically manipulating the Misplaced Pages system to have nothing but fight after fight after fight. Feel free to copy and use this to inform others when needed.12.7.82.66 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had some more recent contacts that have been better. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

Buttons

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

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

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

90% of all statistics are bullshit

North... Some friendly advice... I have noticed that whenever you have a concern about a Policy or Guideline, you inevitably use the statistic "90% of Misplaced Pages" in raising your concern. Please, stop doing this. Spouting meaningless statistics and percentages actually harms your arguments and makes you look like a crank. Just say "a lot of articles" or "too many articles" or something more generalized. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I use in in the obvious context of being a rough personal guess, and I think that it is clearly taken that way and so I would not agree with your negative characterization of it and and "missive" tone. But I think that it is nevertheless good advice and thank you for it and will keep it in mind.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

libertarianism

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

Darkstar1st (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Happy to do it. I haven't gotten in that deep yet, but a few things were clear pretty quickly. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, a friendly comment; ignore if you wish. Check the 'Quotes and Excerpts' section in Herbert Read. (for 'libertarian socialism'.) Also, your argument that l.s., by "plain English", is a form of Socialism, is faulty. By that argument, dry ice is a form of ice. Come to my talk page if you are interested in discussing language! N6n (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I'll do that North8000 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW dry ice is a type of ice, and, given a choice, more likely to go into an "ice' article than a "dry" article. :-) North8000 (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, 'dry ice' is 'ice' only by a looong stretch of the definition of 'ice'. (which is valid, however.) My point was that language does not say it conclusively that "in two words, if the first is sort of an adjective, (i) it is an adjective, and (ii) not vice-versa (i.e., second is not an adjective of the first)".
Also, check the reply to your post on my talk page. (Check the link in it, the author there uses "libertarian anarchists", but it is clear that he/she is talking about libertarianism.) N6n (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to say it here: Thanks! North8000 (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Winter and spring holiday in place of Christmas and Easter

First, you added something to a list sourced from a book, and I'm pretty sure from your comments it isn't sourced from a book. Secondly, it's simply your own opinion at the moment - so please find a source for it being a typical example that belongs in that section. Thanks. Note that you have said 'in place', so something like Birmingham's 'Winterval' doesn't count, as it didn't replace Christmas. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here; my first involvement was restoring the deletion. But I think tagging it is fine; it will be easy to source. It is so pervasive that it will be easy to source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sorry. But I've taken this to WP:RSN here. You need a source saying it's pervasive (and it needs to mention Easter as well). Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
"Pervasive" is the term I used in talk; it's not in the article. I think that we have this conversation going on in 3 1/2 places. Should we consolidate it somewhere? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
At RSN. You are adding sources that don't even use the word winter, sources that aren't discussing the use of language, etc. Do you actually have a reliable source that says is an example "of language commonly criticized as "politically correct" - because that's what you need. We, as editors, can't decide what is common, typical, noteworthy, etc. If you don't have such a source, please remove your new sources, and certainly remove any that don't actually talk about language and the use of "Winter holiday" or "Winter program" in place of Christmas or Christmas program. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that we're taling in too many different places, not that I don't enjoy having a conversation here. But to keep it simple, I'll respond at RSN. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
(this is just copy of what I wrote at RSN) I was just pointing out that this statement has the same sourcing (good or bad) that the others (which nobody is questioning) do, plus much more. Doug, I've spent too much time on this one line already, even on the principle of it. I'll change the wording to further reduce the "issue",and then let me know on my talk page where you prefer to go with this or just do what you want to do with it. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism become a Disambiguation page

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

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

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

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

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

Wikilawyering

Please stop making accusations of Wikilawyering. That's not what's going on and such accusations do not help, they are only disruptive. Yworo (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC):

After 5 years of warfare, that article is a mess, and the warfare continues. It can't get any worse or more "disrupted" than it already is. And many of the main participants are seeking to denigrate or have dismissed everything that their "opponents" say on the TALK page simply for lack of sourcing on the TALK page; without even disputing or discussing what was said. On the flip side, I don't see any underlying disputes behind the warfare, it's more of a Hatfields and McCoys situation, which makes the situation much more promising than some of the other "eternal warfare" articles. Otherwise I would have given up and left the article long ago. And so I think that if they would start discussing instead of warfare via wiki-lawyering there would be progress. All of my "wiki-lawyering" comments are in statements along the lines of "why don't you discuss instead of wiki-lawyering" and I consider such to be a constructive effort.North8000 (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not warfare. It's the simple requiring of following Misplaced Pages sourcing requirements. Yworo (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
To take one narrow example, I consider people denigrating and dismissing what people say on a TALK page solely based on non- fulfillment of a non-existent requirement for citations for talk pages to be both warfare and misfired Wiki-lawyering. So we may need to agree to disagree on that one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the history of the article talk page, you will see there have been virtual reams of discussion that went nowhere. If sources were ever produced, they turned out to not be reliable or to have been originally interpreted. In many cases, sources were never produced. That's what is meant by "soapboxing", editors expressing their opinions without any real sourcing to back them up. It leads to hours of wasted time, and the correct solution is to bring the sources to the discussion along with the opinions, so there is some basis for determining whether time is being well spent. This requiring of sources on the talk page happens on all contentious articles where soapboxing is a problem. It is not unreasonable and it is consensus driven; therefore there doesn't have to be a rule for it. Most editors know that only sourced material matters, and not their own opinions, and have no problem with this requirement unless they are actually POV warriors. Please think about how your reaction to this consensus requirement makes you appear. Yworo (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the whole middle ground where things really happen. Sourcing is intertwined with discussions, not used as a way to denigrate other people's points without even discussing them. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
IMO, you need to take an emotional step back. It's only your opinion that requiring sources is being used to denigrate people. It's not, it being used to denigrate unsourced opinions, which is quite different. Only to the extent that the people overidentify with their own opinions will this cause them to feel offended. In such a case, they may be too emotionally involved with the subject to be objective about improving the article. Yworo (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I corrected a typo which may have clouded what I said on this. What I said/ meant was "used as a way to denigrate other people's POINTS without even discussing them.denigrating peoples, I was not discussing denigrating PEOPLE. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
That didn't really change much. Yworo's point still stands. The problem is not with the people who are asking for reliable sources, but with the people who are incapable of presenting sources or Misplaced Pages policy to support their suggested changes. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I made my point above, including my assessment of what has been happening. Both of you keep 1/2 changing the topic away from what I brought up. If you think that it might help to discuss this further, then I would like to discuss this further. If you are writing this to score hits in the overall war at that article, I am not in that war, and don't want to do that. If that is the case, then I would like to end this as agreeing to disagree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yworo, you've been spamming WP:Warnings on the User pages of everyone who disagrees with you on Talk:Libertarianism. You're nowhere near as bad as some of the other regulars in that talk page, but you are clearly trigger-happy when it comes to citing WP:policy and using Wiki-litigation as a means to force those who challenge your views to back-down. BlueRobe (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your opinion, BlueRobe. Yworo (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

in your face mr soapboxer!

at last the mighty and holy North8000 has come crashing to earth after singeing the wax on his wingsuit. to date, you have been one of the most polite, intelligent, and agreeable editor to support bringing the article into line with wp weight/primary topic rules. after many verbose pleasantries, and several valid points, we can now all see it was only a smokescreen, and your true intent was to soapbox. it appears these attacks are the last bastion of hope used by your accusers when no intelligent argument can be made to the reason you presented, i am starting a sockpuppet investigation, as you most certainly have exposed yourself as the one person plaguing wp to disrupt the article since 2006. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar, I am completely baffled by this, I don't know where you are coming from or what your complaint is, and you are one of the writers that I most often agree with. Can you explain? North8000 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
apologies, i was trying to be as obscure as the charges leveled, the absurdity of you being accused sent me into a fit of incoherent babble, as it seemed the only rational response. is so frustrating making valid points only to have the debate ended and instead of proved wrong, you were simply accused. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think Darkstar1st was being sarcastic. He's actually mocking those who have offered resistance to your proposal on the Libertarianism page. BigK HeX (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I guess I was a little slow on the uptake. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
i am enjoying someone else getting the accusations for awhile. i felt like i had little or no support for most of the last 6 months here, even bluerobe reverted an edit of mine agreeing with the editor who eventually got him banned. why we cant have a separate page for each of the 3 terms in the dictionary is where i get off, it's been fun, but it is clear to me there are far more who wish to suppress the meaning of the term as is understood and practiced by the most people today, than there are of us, or are of just me. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR has started a very methodical process to arrive at common tenets (the overviewdraft2 subpage) As long as the effort doesn't die of it's own weight, I have high hopes that methodical = true answer. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably better if we continue here...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not fun

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

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

3RR - Machine vision

Just an FYI, we are both at 3 reversion on the Machine vision article. Of course, we should be careful not to violate WP:3RR. Cheers. Novaseminary (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

??? I don't understand. I thought that I was at one and you were at zero. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. For 3RR purposes a revert is not the same as an "undo". Per 3RR, "A 'revert' in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word." You edits subsequent to your undo don't bother me at all, but it is not like you and I can decide to exempt each other from 3RR. Considering the spamming that has gone on on this article, we wouldn't want to give a spammer any reason to report us. Keep in mind, though, adding text that had never been in the article, including sources, is not a revert under this definition. So, it is not like we can't do anything, just can't reinsert previously removed text (or delete text). Novaseminary (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
See, this edit, minor as it is, is arguably a revert for 3RR purposes (and by my count puts you over the limit). On a related note, please keep in mind WP:COI when editing this article, including adding and citing to sources. Novaseminary (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC).
I still don't see how that is a revert. But either way thanks for the heads up.
Regarding your COI note, what are you implying, or what led you to mention that? North8000 (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You said on that article's talk page that you have 12 years in the industry, so you obviously have more than a passing interest in this subject. Som other edits you have made in the past led me to wonder about a conflict, too, but I see no need to go into that now. Anyway, we all need to follow WP:COI, so it isn't necessarily a criticism or anything. But as an industry peson, I would think you need to be more careful here in that regard than in, say, editing on today's featured article, Chetco River (unless, of course, you are developing property along the Chetco River!). Novaseminary (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC).
Again, my edits on this article were just minor very academic tweaks and updates until today when you deleted 3/4 of the article. But, as long as you are not implying anything, we'll just leave it as being a friendly note by you and a thank you for that. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

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

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

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

Move of comment

I moved your post to the current section. Hopefully this is what you intended, it looks like the number of sections caused some confusion. If incorrect please fix it and my apologies, if correct could you drop a note there to confirm. Thanks. FT2  17:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still confused, so I'll figure that you understand it better than I do. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent unsourced additions

I'm sure you know this (since you have commented--extensively--on related pages), but it is best to add new facts to articles with sources so that your additions comply with WP:V. Of course, many newer users do not know this, and there still remain many, many unsourced facts and articles leftover from before WP:V was enforced with regularity. Nonetheless, this is not reason for experienced editors to add unsourced material as you did recently at Starved Rock State Park (), Naperville, Illinois (), Lisle, Illinois (), and McHenry, Illinois (). Your personal knowledge is not a sufficient basis to add new facts without sources (WP:OR & WP:V). Remember, only a dolt would ever trust a fact on Misplaced Pages simply because it appears on Misplaced Pages. But we can be quite useful to people, and raise the value of WP, if we source our articles so readers can verify the facts themselves. Novaseminary (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the wp:v standard is "challenged or likely to be challenged", and unsourced fact is not per se a violation of it, and so the presence of such is a norm for new edits/articles as well as old.
Are you following me? North8000 (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Nova, I think North has a point. While it's always good to have citations, it's only necessary for things that are at all controversial. If you want to challenge his additions, then you can certainly request citations. But if nobody doubts it, it doesn't actually need citations. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
But the very first sentence of V is "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The edits you made that I mentioned above did not include any way to verify what you said is true. Can you attribute them to a reliable source or is it just OR? While I might trust that you mean well and have personal knowledge of the facts you insert, why would I trust editors with little or no edit history? And rather than make readers examine the credibility of whomever added a fact (and go through the trouble to determine who added that fact in the first place), why not put a link to an RS so there is no doubt? Why the aversion to sources? This is partly why (in addition to your disregard for a guideline) another editor also reverted your (North8000) edits at USS Missouri (BB-63) (as discussed here). An OR is never ok, challenged or not (despite what you claimed or hoped here). Novaseminary (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
You are going off topic. This was about whether or not including a statement without a cite is per se (=categorically) wrong which was the core premise of your post.
This debate aside, back to my question.....are you following me? North8000 (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I think I follow you, but I didn't say including a statement without a cite is categorically wrong, I said "it is best to add new facts to articles with sources". There are statements you can add without it being best practice or necessary to add a cite (including summary/topic sentences, etc.), though even those must be verifiable. If you want to avoid the problems you have had at Machine vision, USS Missouri (BB-63), and elsewhere, it is best to not add new facts without adding a corresponding source (or pointer to an existing source). Verifiability, verifiability, verifiability. If you want to add value to the encyclopedia instead of getting caught up in talk page arguments, just add sources. It puzzles me as to why an editor who spends a significant amount of time debating points on talk pages refuses to take an extra few seconds to add a cite in the few times that editor actually edits an article. Of course, how you spend your time is your business; do what you like, but your edits are much less likely to stand, and that seems like a shame. Novaseminary (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) You completely mis-characterized events at those two articles. The only contention at Machine Vision was when I reverted your deletion of 3/4 of the article, a deletion which wiped 7 years of work by other editors. And the reason someone removed my addition on the USS Missouri article was NOT for sourcing, it's because they didn't want even the most prominent of cinematic and video featurings of the USS Missouri to be in what was interpreted as being a military history article. I left it as open request for comment on the talk page.

When I am asking if you are following me, I am not asking if you comprehend me, I am asking if you are following me around Misplaced Pages. North8000 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think I mischaracterized the "events" at the two articles. There is really no need to go into it, the edits and discussion there can stand on their own. In any case, I only wrote to suggest and request that you add sources when you add new facts. It can save a lot of hassle and can really help improve WP. Novaseminary (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that the third non-answer to my question confirms it. Please stop following me. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Follow you? It is not like you edit many articles, especially in light of the volume of your talk page contributions. I don't go around joining your many discussions. I focus on articles. Regardless, your recent addition of a source at Starved Rock State Park at my request highlights why sourcing is so important (even if your citation was woefully inadequate). Because I was able to decipher the chapter to which you cited, I fleshed out the cite with these edits. Upon reviewing the source (which now anyone can easily do by clicking through from the article), it turns out the "fact" you added had an error and lacked context so that readers may have been left with the wrong impression. It was not archaeologists from the University of Illinois who excavated at the park, but rather, the University of Illinois at Chicago. Of course, that is not a huge error, but more importantly, the single sentence you added made it seem as if the 1974 excavation was all there was, or was at least a big deal or significant piece of information. It turns out, per the source, that the 1974 excavation wasn't the most significant excavation at the park. Earlier excavations by the Illinois State Museum and the University of Chicago were first, and more significant. I added the context. None of that would be in the article now if I had not demanded that the new sentence, which on its face seemed ok, be supported by a source. The article would have been left with a misstatement and readers with a misimpression. Novaseminary (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The above makes no sense and or is erroneous on several counts, but I don't think that this conversation is going anywhere. Each time I refute one of your misstatements here you replace it with more misstatements. Please stop following me. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock or Meatpuppets?

You might want to consider or respond to this and/or this (and note that this IP also posted this). Please be sure to read WP:SOCK & WP:MEAT. If these happen to be coincidences, my apologies; please disregard. If not, please stop. Novaseminary (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not as you imply / mis-represent. Please see response there. So this is how you respond to my request to please stop following me. You have now racked many severe policy violations. Stop! North8000 (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What policies have I violated? Novaseminary (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The most obvious is wp:harassment. Stop! North8000 (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Which part? Of course, I have never threatened you, never released your personal information, and we've never had private or off-wiki communication. That leaves WP:HOUND. As per that section (with my bolding), "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That is all I have done, You might disagree with the substance of my discussion, but you can't argue that I have not raised policy concerns related to your edits and behavior. And if "It's not as (I) imply / mis-represent", how do you explain it? Are those socks or meat puppets? Novaseminary (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, see answer there. Please stop this obsessive behavior, and please stop following me! North8000 (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not edited any new pages you have edited recently, nor joined any conversations you are involved with, so please stop asking me to stop "following" you. (And as noted in the section above this, the last time I edited an edit of yours I found a mistake, and was subsequently able to cleanup a source, add a new source, and add a paragraph of new information; not a bad outcome.) And, as for my notice to you re: your possible socking, you never had to reply, here or on DougT's talk page. I would have let it go with the warning/demand that you not do it again that I left above. I wouldn't have had any further communication with you about the issue had you not made personal attacks against me and indicated that the evidence I presented was not what it was. Regardless, whether or not you have ever done it in the past, you have now been warned to not sock. If any other sock-like behavior occurs, I may submit you to WP:SPI. If you continue to make personal attacks (rather than explaining the evidence, or even denying that you have meat or sock puppeted, or just moving on), I may submit you to WP:DRR. Alternatively, if you follow policy and only make good faith mistakes, we will get along fine. Nobody is out to get you, WP just works better when people follow the rules as best they can. Novaseminary (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, see answer there. But, no, I never have. You have been following me for a long time, and recently went on a tear / dramatically increased it when I undid your deletion of 3/4 of the Machine Vision article. The is obvious, the odds of what has occurred occurring by random are one in trillions of trillions of trillions. And the dialog that you started in the previous section speaks for itself. Unless you want to keep it going, I am going to end and archive these discussions. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)