User talk:DougT1235

Initial creation

primary/secondary/tertiary

Hi, I agree with you that the primary/secondary/tertiary distinction is not as important as some people think it is. I also think it has not much to do with NOR, so I thought it would be more appropriate to continue the discussion on your talk page. Did you notice that I didn’t actually use the words primary, secondary or tertiary in my post? Some people seem to think that just using a primary source is OR! For a few months I have been working on a proposed guideline. It doesn’t contradict any existing policies or guidelines but it does perhaps have a slightly different emphasis. This is a deliberate decision that was made to try to reduce the chance of the sort of mistakes we are talking about. It has caused quite a stir with some people. Take a look at WP:PSTSPROP. Yaris678 (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was gone for a while and didn't see this until now. And so sorry also that the specifics of the prior conversations are also a bit of a blur.

WP policies are quite good, and have done an immense amount of good. But, by the nature of the process of how they are developed (edited sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph) they need work regarding overall organization / architecture. For example, they have a huge amount of overlap. (hence the issue behind your "I also think it has not much to do with NOR" statement.

I also think that the "primary/secondary/tertiary" topic is given too much weight in Wikipedia policies. And that it an over-generalization to imply that one is categorically more worthy than the other.

And so I think that some off-line architecture work is in order.

I read through the page that you referenced. I didn't do enough crosschecking to learn the differences and thus learn it's intent. If it to clean up the distinctions between / definitions of the three source types, I'm sure that that is a very good idea, but probably not on my personal hot button list. But if you eveer want to get together to play architect....... DougT1235 (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traveler's Dream

I never meant the deletion nomination of Traveler's Dream as a personal attack on you or North8000 or on anyone affiliated with Traveler's Dream. And I never meant to do anything underhanded as you have alleged. I think as you gain more experience with Wikipedia you will come to realize that. I just think the group doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion (which is not a negative judgment of the worth of the group or its' members by any stretch).

In any case, I have seen that both you and North8000 have complained about the quick timeline of the AfD of this article. You could request at the AfD that the article be "userfied" to either of your namespaces. That would delete it from the main article namespace without a consensus that the group is or is not notable, but not delete it entirely. This would allow you both to work on it at your leisure and, if it is notable, etc., move it back to the main article namespace when it is ready. Read Wikipedia:Userfication for more. I will point North8000 to this, too.

Novaseminary (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing I would note to you, DougT1235, is that if you are affliated with any of the members of the group, you should comply with WP:COI; if not, just disregard. Novaseminary (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traveler's Dream 2

I'm sure that you noticed what happened to the article. FYI the closing admin userfied it under "Sandbox" in my user space. I also had an interesting / informative discussion with the closing admin on their talk page.

I know that as you described, your sources were mostly older (before they were a band), but that one Niles MI article was from when Traveler's Dram was in existence. Do you have any more like that? Is there any chance that I could get you to scan and send me that article and those three pages from that Newsweek magazine? If you were willing to, you could send to me at North9000 at gmail.com.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty disgusted that the Wikipedia process lets those kind of people run amok. I'll try to get those to you by email, but am quite disillusioned and don't plan to do much else.....it looks like doing anything constructive on Wikipedia is turning into being a waste of time. DougT1235 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the materials, doubly so for parting with a hard copy of the 1976 Newsweek magazine; it was more than I hoped for. I'll send you this by email as well. And what a small world story, neighbor! North8000 (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Music Articles

I've been doing a little work on the American folk music and Folk Music articles. Interested in joining the party? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also The Seekers and Pete Seeger North8000 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tea Party Movement

Doing some work on that article. Can this coax you out of retirement? :-) North8000 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock (or meatpuppet) of North8000?

DougT1235 edited from the same IP address (99.151.174.223 (IP info)) as User:North8000. Compare this diff (attributing a post from the IP to North8000) with this diff (attributing a post from the IP to DougT1235). Both DougT1235 and North8000 participated in the same AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveler's Dream). In addition, DougT1235's edits are almost exclusively to discussions or articles North8000 has participated in or edited. DougT1235, please familiarize yourself with WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT before coming out of "retirement" as North8000 suggested above. Novaseminary (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you presumably read (but did not note here, or possibly that gave you an idea of something to misstate) as I learned later when he mailed me materials, he lives very close to me....probably has the same provider. I hope to coax him out of retirement,(even on his narrow topic which you misrepresented as something else) but have not been able to do so. So this is how you respond to my request to please stop following me? By now you have have many more severe violations of guidelines and policies. I won't even start listing the wp:xx's that you have violated. Again, please stop following me. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I have violated policies, please submit the evidence to the appropriate incident board. Maybe DougT would want to weigh-in, too. As for living close to DougT, above on this talk page you noted that he emailed you materials, but your reference to "hard copies" was ambiguous. And you mean to tell me that edits from the same IP address only days apart are the result of you being neighbors? And you just found out you were neighbors, editing from the same IP, after you both happened to edit the same AfD? Incredible. Novaseminary (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned that it is pointless to refute your mis-statements, because then you keep making up new ones. Including how you conveniently mis-interpreted "doubly so for parting with a hard copy of the 1976 Newsweek magazine" as ambiguous regarding email vs. mail. Hard copies do not travel by email, and does not "part" with something that is emailed. If you persist, I may be forced to take those actions you suggested, but I find your behavior to be obsessive & scary and do not wish to have even that type of additional contact with you. Stop following me! North8000 (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You did indicate that DougT had physically given you material, after you asked him to email it to you. There was obviously some offline communicating going on, or DougT is a sock. Novaseminary (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In early June (above) I also wrote "And what a small world story, neighbor!" North8000 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]