User talk:Northmeister/Archive22901

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Deletion

It is not considered good manners to flag pages and sections as dubious without also explaining why on the discussion page. I hope to see your reasons for flagging conspiracism and producerism. Both pages are cited to reputable published sources.--Cberlet 15:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to list Conspiracism for deletion, go ahead. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I listed it with Producerism for deletion. Both seemed linked and both are odd. --Northmeister 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You risk making yourself a target of the anti-LaRouche jihad

By now you are probably beginning to get the smell of how this thing works. If you mention LaRouche in a favorable light, or even express support for an idea that LaRouche supports (it doesn't matter whether LaRouche originated the idea), you will be harrassed and possibly banned from editing. See non-person. I invite you to take a look at my talk page for more background on this. If you like, you may email me for a list of editors who belong to the clique; a conflict with any one of them may lead to the curtailment of your editing priviledges. Wikipedia is not what it seems. --HK 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." -Will Beback 00:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

photos

actually there seems to be an excess of photos; they do not add to the content of an economic article; are they meant to serve some other purpose? Thanks Hmains 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

They simply to show the faces of those associated with the American System and I don't believe there are too many here. --Northmeister 04:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

oh; ok; thanks Hmains 17:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks HMAINS, I actually took your advice after-all after looking at the page, and if it hasn't been vandalized by Will Beback, then you will see what I did. An further input would help out. Thanks. --Northmeister 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not call legitimate editing "vandalism". That term is defined here: Wikipedia:vandalism. As for pictures, there's no reason to make them large. Regular "thumb" size is sufficient, and allows users to make their own choice of image size while reducing the load on the image servers. -Will Beback 00:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln

The source I know of, with respect to Lincoln and innovation, is this one. I think it's great that more editors are participating on the American System article. --HK 22:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That is what Wikipedia is suppose to be all about. Getting it right and writing it straight. Thanks. --Northmeister 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We need a source which indicates that innovation is a principle of the American System, or something which connects Lincoln's comment to it. -Will Beback 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is above. The other sources are on the American System talk page, I've already provided to you. Do not post on my talk page unless you have a legitimate concern. You keep asking the same question over and over with constant insult to my intelligence, degree, resources, references well provided, cites through-out that article...you've wiki-stalked, you've been accused of this before, you have also harrassed others before and you are seem concerned with a McCarthy-like crusade to silence evidence to the contrary of what you believe. --Northmeister 06:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Caps in edit summaries

I realize you may be upset with a user, but please try to avoid the all caps in edit summaries, it really does look a little ugly in the RC feed. Thanks! Tawker 03:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologise about that. Didn't realize that. Thanks for letting me know. --Northmeister 03:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Edit warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. You have reverted the Chip Berlet more than three times in the last 24 hours and may be temporarily blocked for it. Please use the talk page rather than reverting. -Will Beback 07:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You should take the same advice as it was you and your compatriots SlimVirgin et. al. who have reverted material by ColonelS on that page before a discussion was even under way. Don't give me your higher than thou B.S. I've had just about enough of that. --Northmeister 15:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for laughing, but you have repeatedly asserted that I don't have enough educution to edit articles about American History, so I find your inability to spell "thou" to be amusing. Thanks for humor break. -Will Beback 00:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a good speller, I admit that. Alway's been my weakness, as it was JFK's and other persons throughout history from common man to historic personage. Whatever the case, I am glad you can laugh as you obviously don't know much about American History. Your present revert is uncalled for on the American System page and the above is indication of your constant harassment. In any case I've corrected the spelling for your continued amusement. --Northmeister 00:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the correct spelling isn't as funny as "thow" was. Regarding American System - I am still looking for a source for the Centennial Expo being an outcome of the American System. Since you are such an expert on American history you should have one available. Please find one before re-adding that material. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You well know I've provided credible evidence from credible sources on this and your continuance to ask for more is uncalled for. Rjensen, an established economist and third party has indicated approval of my additions and inclusion of the Expo. This is another case of your harassment of me which I continue to ask you to stop. You will not, and harassment is a case for blocking a user from editing. --Northmeister 00:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What are the credible sources that you provided? I can't find them. -Will Beback 01:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the unreverted page (beforefore your recent rampage which I cannot presently respond to) and you will find your sources. Look at the dates and you will understand history and cause and effect events. Look at Ulysses S. Grant who was President then. Look at 1851 when another Expo took place under a different economic system and the comparisons made. Look again once you understand how history works; at the citations I've made. Then think before you revert. The inclusion is consistent, and supported by other editors. Your the only editor who does not support the inclusion. You often cite that it is supported by LaRouche...so what. LaRouche was also against Alito, so was most of my party (Democratic) but does that make being against Alito a LaRouche idea to be burned out of wikipedia? That seems to be your criteria for the witchunt your on. I am not sure of your affiliations, but if you have any humanity in you and support liberty and freedom, you should objectively look at what your doing and then compare it to what McCarthy did long ago. --Northmeister 01:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What we need is a source that links the Centennial Expo to the American System of economics. None of the sources do that. To draw conclusions about causes and effects is orignial research. Let's just use a historian who says they are linked. -Will Beback 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is the rule at Wikipedia when disputes over editing occur. Since Rjensen, myself, and HK, let alone other editors who have contributed have said keep the Expo, you should not take it out until discussion is over. Therefore, before my block is up, do justice and put it back in. Second, based on that response from you...we can move to your points. Further, restore the Bush after quote and take out citation needed for obvious sentences. You will be on firmer ground if you work in fairness rather than rashness. You have time to do that. When this is done, we will discuss your question on the Centennial. --Northmeister 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not override verifiability. You keep saying you have provided sources, but when pressed you can't name them. It is perfectly fair and proper to remove unsourced assertions. -Will Beback 01:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a fair request above for legitimate reasons. One editor out of the four (three of whom have added material - one who has only deleted material) does not concur on the inclusion. My request stands on justice grounds. It is your choice to honor that request out of courtesy and your choice not too. It is up to you. If honored, we will discuss the Centennial point of yours. --Northmeister 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I will cheerfully restore the Centennial Expo material when I've seen a source that connects it to the American System. It'd be courteous of you to stop adding unsourced material. -Will Beback

Your above assertion is false, the Centennial Expo is well sourced and supported by consensus. I left the decision to you, you have made your choice. That is fine. --Northmeister 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not well-sourced until a source connects it to the American System. Otherwise we could put in every event between 1824 and 2006 and claim it has some connection to the American System. Please prove me wrong by finding such a source. I will gladly admit I am wrong when you've done that. -Will Beback 01:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

More than willing to discuss this with you if you honor my request. Until then...let it be. You've made your choice, and I can't respond presently to what you do on that page. So be it. --Northmeister 01:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So you won't provide a source, or even discuss the matter, unless I first put your unsourced material back? That sounds like some weird kind of blackmail. I'm not sure why you "can't respond" to a courteous, albeit repeated, request for a source. Since you've restored the material many times without providing a source, I'm not sure what restoring it again will do. -Will Beback 03:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for violating WP:3RR. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Which committee blocked me and where is the evidence that I reverted against the rule of not applying to vandalistic reversions by others? --Northmeister 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've read the 3RR rule and you are right, my bad. I accept your block as I was in the wrong, thanks for your dedication. --Northmeister 00:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

North, man, work with me on the LaRouche mediation. please stop trying to defend yourself and assert your position to everything everyone says in the the mediation space. one position statement, one rebuttal, no crosstalk. ok? Ted 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologise. But if you see what I responded to, you will see why I responded in the manner I did. The issue of Arbcom came up, it is often used. The issue of PRA came up, and I had to respond to it. I think you grasp the problems I am having. I've tried to compromise with these people and work with them at points, but it is impossible. Thanks for clearity. I have but one question. Am I not to respond to the points made? If not, then I will not, I am unsure? --Northmeister 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

one of the things I'm trying to do is wean everyone away from making responses - that just creates a huge quagmire. you don't need to defend yourself or defend your position or defend your honor. all you have to do is (a) make clear statements about what you think, (b) cite references that supprot what you think (as opposed to those that chop down what other people think), and (c) listen carefully to what other people say. if they say things that offend or insult you, or that you think are just plain wrong... no matter. the personal stuff is not a reflection on you, but on the relationship you have with this person; the incorrect stuff can be dealt with in the process of citation. never try to change people, it will never work; aim to change relationships. Ted 17:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearity. That is good advice. I appreciate your care. --Northmeister 17:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure.  :-) I've gone and made a suggestion on the LaRouche site—read it, and sign at the bottom if you agree. If you do, I think I can convince the other editors to let you put in your edits, but you really have to make an effort to keep in line with the requests I've made. I know you might find them difficult, but you're fighting uphill against an ArbCom ruling; you can always drop me a line if you need help figuring out what's appropriate and what's inappropriate. Ted 18:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have agreed to your suggestion and gave my statement on that page. I really appreciate your dedication and effort here. Your help now and offered help in the future is accepted with much gratitude. Thank You. --Northmeister 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Reform Party of the United States of America edit protection

I requested that the Reform Party article be protected or semi-protected. You can see the request here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection You might also want to add your name to the request as well. - DNewhall

I concur with you. This user is anonymous and continues to add material without discussion. I've added my signature to the request. --Northmeister 19:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Syllogism

1. Calling a non-vandalising edit vandalism is unacceptable, and doing so in your edit summary doubly so. The same for the (admittedly obscure) "violation of Wikipedia".
2. Accusing User:SlimVirgin of acting out of a desire for revenge rather than honestly is a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
3. You are not helping; my discussion with User:Twrigley has been amicable, and I hope that we can work together to improve the article. By bulling in, making accusations, and reverting the page, you're simply endangering that. I suggest that you calm down, perhaps by reducing your coffee intake. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Making statements without warrant is a violation of Good Faith as well. You must have full knowledge of what SlimVirgin was engaged in before you comment. She refused mediation, Ted was the mediator, she retaliated on an article she had no prior engagement with. That is fact. Point number 3 above is simply not true. You started editing after SlimVirgin reverted an entire page of work (per above) and refuse to work with Twrigley on his unreverted page. You have no prior interest in this article. You came only after SlimVirgin reverted. You can be seen either as a Sockpuppet of SlimVirgin or as a collaborator of herself by your actions. If that is not true, assuming good faith, then why the hostility and false accusations above? Seems like SlimVirgin techniques to me. --Northmeister 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop harassing SlimVirgin about this [1]. Even if she is "retaliating" (and I don't think she is), you are doing the same thing, which is not acceptable. Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk) 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sean, I am trying to defend someone who is being 'harassed' because he tried to help a situation through mediation, which you are well aware of because of the page it involved. The points I make above are reasonable with the conclusions I came to. It is bad manners to revert an entire page to make some sort of point or to 'harass' an editor. You write you don't think she is doing this. Sure, why is that? Look at when she did this (after the mediation) and the lack of prior committment to that page and ask yourself objectively what went on. I don't want editors of any stripe harassed. Now, this editor has decided to leave. Do you really want Wikipedia to be like this? I may leave myself if this continues, but not before I make my case with all this evidence to the Wikimedia Board, not Arbitration (because of the decisions made in the past despite evidence overload). You know what has happened here to this editor, as an administrator, I officially request that you block SlimVirgin for violating Good Faith among other actions when she did this or look into the actions. --Northmeister 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to block someone for disputing the content of an article and discussing it.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think this was done in 'good faith' by reverting an entire article of 'days' of work in collaboration with other editors and after the fact of mediation? --Northmeister 04:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see my reply. Regards, --Ancheta Wis 10:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read your reply and thank you kindly. --Northmeister 15:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Results of Abuse

As a result of SlimVirgin's reversion of Twrigley's days of work at the syllogism page, he is now leaving. I did my best to defend him against this abuse. I give him my best wishes. I do hope all who read this and the reasons behind it, will be enlightened to what is happening to wikipedia because of the few who made it harder on the rest of us. --Northmeister 22:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Gatekeeper Afd

Hi Northmeister, if you believe that User:Jersey Devil is violating Wikipedia policy somehow through his posting on the deletion debate, I suggest you cite the relevant policy rather than continuing to assert "dishonorable" conduct, "harassment," and "surveilance." Regarding the last of the three, I'm afraid you're in for a tough fight if you don't want your or other's actions on Wikipedia reviewed, as that is kind of the nature of the project . . . I am not meaning to be harsh on you in any way, but from my experience here, I don't see how Jersey's comment is inappropriate. Also, please see WP:3RR. Have a good one. - Jersyko·talk 05:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I stated the policy in my latest comment. Why people feel they have to post such stuff, rather than reasonable debate about the merits of an article is beyond me. If he would of posted without 'voter stacking' and in a civil manner it would of been better and less of a harassment issue and personal attack. It is sad that such individuals (who already commented) seem inclined to simply disrupt a vote to make a point. There are a small number that do this again and again here. It makes wikipedia an unpleasant place to be. See what happened to Ted above. --Northmeister 05:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern. You're absolutely right that some editors on Wikipedia need to remember to tone things down a bit, especially when their emotions seem to take control at times. I hope you are able to continue editing here despite the few bad apples, I think you'll find that there are a lot of really great editors who are dedicated to creating something great here, too. Cheers. - Jersyko·talk 05:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reported your violation of the 3rr. (See bottom of page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR). See "I've been blocked under 3RR! What do I do?" at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule if you dispute it.--Jersey Devil 05:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see this. I have responded to your continuing harassment, now calling me a Larouche person or someone accused as such by 'others'? Do you mean a small group of others? Do you mean falsely accused? What was the point of bringing that up? --Northmeister 06:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

3rr block on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics)

I've blocked you [2] for WP:3RR on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics). JD posted a perfectly short note of what she perceived as vote stacking; I can see no reason for removing it under NPA. Discuss this here if you wish to William M. Connolley 11:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure she was 'assuming good faith' and not engaging in 'personal attacks' when doing so. I am sure there is no 'conflict of interest' here. Expected this. Accept this. Thank You. --Northmeister 13:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What occurred above, for anyone who is interested is yet another example of what is happening at Wikipedia:

• Selective use of administrator powers is only one.
• Taking a look at the Gatekeeper vote page also indicates that personal attacks upon others and the use of libel and smear towards persons without credible evidence continues. The said person Jersey Devil not only wrote a comment that was offensive and meant to 'harass' but did so after conducting surveillance of another users postings. This is itself wrong. SEE Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
• The above user also violated 3RR literally, by reverting my edits. I deleted material that could be considered a personal attack and a 'lone' administrator by virtue an administrator only by being here a certain length of time is allowed to make a judgment call that I be blocked for 24 hours for trying to keep smear and libel off of wikipedia and enforcing the 'no personal attacks' which is within my rights, but that that said user who committed the offenses and who has violated 3RR is allowed to carry on with their smear in lieu of their CLEAR VIOLATION of 3RR?
• Good editors are never likely to stay at wikipedia and wikipedia is turning out to be a political website meant to attack the ideas and man of Mr. LaRouche, as I constantly hear that he is a 'cult' leader etc. etc. without evidence or proof of the same. I never hear this allegation outside of Wikipedia except by the perpetrators who are here present to spread this misinformation, namely Chip Berlet and those like Jersey Devil that are either sock-puppets or within that small group. Together with SlimVirgin, Will Beback, and Sean they continue to misuse their administrator powers violating the spirit of wikipedia and to spread smear, reverting good articles, stalking the edits of those they suspect, surveillance of other users, labeling other users what they are not (like McCarthy did), and using the word "LaRouchite" to silence their critics without evidence and proof and as if that means anything.
• Once again, Arbcom cases are being used to enforce a personal vendetta with no credible evidence and innocent bystanders are caught up in the hysteria over LaRouche, which is without proper warrant for a 'free encylopedia'. Massive evidence has been brought against editors engaged in tactics that are wrong and Arbcom has made decisions that any reasonable court of law would laugh at considering the evidence.
• The above action is another example. I was blocked and Jersey Devil was not, when clear violation was made by Jersey Devil of numerous Wikipedia standards and policies, especially 'no personal attacks' on a vote page.

I expected the block because of the dishonesty here, and I accept it in light of the way things are run here. I can now firmly recommend that wikipedia is not a credible source of information if libel, smear, slander, and McCarthyism are present and individual editors are allowed to block another without proper reason. I have appealed to Wikimedia, the parent of this site and their native sense of truth and justice, and my appeals go unheard. When will this stuff stop or is wikipedia just another blog for personal opinion? --Northmeister 14:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You said by mail:

"Comment, vote stacking, always happens in these type of articles up for deletion with the same group of people. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]--Jersey Devil 19:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)"

This was what I deleted from the vote page. It is a clear violation of Wikipedia standards on 'no personal attacks'. The user's intention is clear. To put all those who vote, Keep into a 'GROUP' and it is clear which group by later posts "LOURICHITE".

I disagree. If this was a violation of NPA we'd be removing half the talk pages. As to LOURICHITE, I don't know what you mean. Oh, and all your ranting above doesn't help. If you really mean Expected this. Accept this. then *do* accept it William M. Connolley 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Again more of the same. Not only is my email, sent in confidence (that by all right reason should of been responded to the same) placed here for all, but one word is placed spelled wrong and then a question is asked based on the wrong spelling. That itself is a violation of No Personal Attacks among other wikipedia policies. If an administrator as above does these things and posting in the manner above and tone above, then you the reader who happens upon this page, can understand what wikipedia is clearly and how it has been corrupted by the above individuals. *Do* expect that I will never accept what you did above, an outright re-wording of my email to you and then a response based on that rewording. *Do* realize that I accept the decision you've made to block me, because I have no ability to respond, not because the decision was right. *Do* realize that the wrongs done here are clearly logged, and you've shown by your actions that to which you belong. --Northmeister 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, read your decent comment on the Hamilton page and stopped by out of curiosity only to find some smelly edit conflicts scattered about. Straight to the point: what's pitting users like Twrigley, Herschelkrustofsky and yourself against omnipotent administrators like SlimVirgin and others?? I myself am an unrepentant NPOV crusader and would like to see the Wikipropaganda criticised by the users listed above. Cheers! PS What a disgusting violation of confidentiality, the publication of your personal e-mail content. Hope youre not too put off by the project's weak points. Ksenon 03:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, never mind, all clear to me. Could you just point me to the mediation case where Ted went against SlimVirgin? Ksenon 04:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the link to the dispute can be followed here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-02-17 Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. I do hope you understand why I'm upset at the way I've been treated and labeled. My intention from the start was to contribute to history related articles, but have been sidetracked defending people and by the ways of a few editors. Will Beback has been civil recently, but the others have been relentless. It's really too much for an internet excursion beyond my daily life. The arguments and defenses take up way to much of my time here. I appreciate your comments above and agree with you. I'm now at a point where I find myself defending a man (LaRouche) whom I've been labeled as associated with just because there is so much POV editing going on regarding him and those who support him and these people use Arbcom cases to jump at anyone who they 'think' belongs. My wish would be to have Wikimedia look into this and come out with a better process to handle POV editing from EVERYONE, not just a select group that is targeted, with a committee that is objective. But that is a hopeful rather than pragmatic wish. Well, good luck. I've found decent people here outnumber the negative types...they (negatives) just get more coverage. --Northmeister 04:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing up. Especially disturbing is Ted's leave of the project following SV's complete revert of his work on syllogism (which did require a bit of tweaking) and subsequent edit conflict, which was apparently sparked by his good-willed (if not beauratically-correct) mediation attempt, prompting a stalk. As for the labeling- it's a part of Wikipedia. Central European articles (where Im involved) are notorious in this sense. You can and will be labelled a German/Polish/Romanian/Hungarian/Ukrainian nationalist/chauvinist for attempting any enforcement of NPOV. You gotta shrug it off, though it does come easier to the more crude. I can see how the harsh ArbCom decision regarding LaRouche can be arbitrarily and maliciously interpreted, leaving room for abuse of legitimate NPOV seekers. Hopefully you wont get discouraged from continuing your beneficial editing. Wikipedia is an ever flowing river of editors, but their contributions live, as will be the case with Ted (if he doesnt choose to return). Be bold, get around to editing some less controversial articles and leave LaRouche for a while to cool off and not prematurely throw in the towel. Ill see what I can do over at syllogism. Take care. Ksenon 05:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after having looked at syllogism in detail, it seems that SV's revert did spark some discussion and a drive for improvement, esp. by Mel and DBuckner. I dont think you should engage in a revert war witht hem, as they seem to know what theyre doing. To have Dbuckner leave though would be a disgrace. Ksenon 06:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I stated as much on his talk page. The intention there was to protect Ted from abuse. I agree the work being done now is good. I think Dbuckner misunderstood me and why I was there defending Ted. --Northmeister 06:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, my friend, I have never been uncivil towards you. Nor has my friend SlimVirgin. Speaking for her and all right-minded editors, our sole desire is to produce the best possible encyclopedia. We're friends with anyone who desires the same thing. Not to worry, with everyone rowing together we'll bring this boat into port. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to work with anyone who does not pre-judge me and label me as something I am not. A lot of this might have been a misunderstanding, I'm not sure. I understand your caution but I do not accept the way Arbcom decisions are being used. As far as the dispute over LaRouche pages, it is a matter of too much and to many pages, plus to much POV from Berlet's perspective influencing the edit of that material. There should be one page, with a biography, his political views, and small section at the bottom with criticism of him. He is not influential enough in my opinion to warrant all this debate. I am opposed to any use of Wikipedia for political ends no matter the side. I have no agenda but accuracy and truth. I've spent to much of my time here trying to defend people from tactics I disapprove of, when my intention was to help out with historic articles as that is my area of study and expertise. It is unfortunate that Ted got caught up in the disputes and has left. I know your friends with SlimVirgin, but how can you approve of what she did at the Syllogism page? This type of thing has to end, so reason can prevail. I have the same motives as you state above "to produce the best possible encyclopedia." --Northmeister 19:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it is wrong to follow editors that you're in disputes with to unrelated articles in order to undo their efforts? [3]. You seem to have done what you comndemned above. -Will Beback 05:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I do think it is wrong. Consider Dirigisme, Wealth of Nations etc. and get back to me. I also consider it wrong to constantly call someone something he is not (see the above links). I also consider it wrong that reverting edits made by other users without discussion as to why is wrong (see above) and then get back to me. --Northmeister 05:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Behavior

You do not engage in edit warring with user:Jersey Devil or anyone else. This is why LaRouche editors get such a bad reputation around here. -Will Beback 01:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am engaged in nothing of the kind, I would request that you and your sock puppet stop reversing articles that I have edited. I would also ask that you be civil. --Northmeister 01:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Another indication of harassment above by insinuating against my objections that I am a Larouche editor. You can go to hell, and I will never accept this treatment and McCarthyism. --Northmeister 01:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Go to hell". Please try and be civil. Realize that what you are doing is a mistake that can get you blocked from Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 01:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You can also 'go to hell' as you're the pot calling the kettle black here. Your behavior is unaccetable, and you're a dishonorable person as you broke our agreement to discuss before reverting. So be it. --Northmeister 01:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for incivility and disruption

I have blocked you for forty-eight hours for incivility and disruption. Please try to behave better when you return. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Which block rule is that based on please? --Northmeister 02:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suspect WP:NPA (for telling me and Will Beback to 'go to hell') and WP:POINT for reverting my reverts for the sole purpose of revenge.--Jersey Devil 02:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked Tom, do not post on my personal talk page unless you have a valid reason. Tom, you've been involved in incivil disputes together with Will Beback I see in the past, so much for fairness at Wikipedia. You should recuse yourself from the above decision, I will make a point of protest to Wikimedia, as I have logged all this mistreatment and McCarthy like tactics used on a supposed open forum. I have also logged the harassment made that makes users upset and tries to get them to leave if the said individuals including yourself in the past continue to disrupt wikipedia with tactics that are not accurate nor right. --Northmeister 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not your "personal talk page" nothing is personal on Wikipedia. It is explicitly stated Wikipedia policy. Maybe you should read wikipedia policy before you accuse others of "vandalism", "trolling", and "stalking" on edit summaries.--Jersey Devil 02:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

More harassment...leave well enough alone. You've been successful in blocking me, so be it. Your tactics worked this time, so be it. All the words above apply directly to you and Will Beback, and this is my talk page for my user account. Its open, but you use it to harass me. My block did not even allow me to respond to your accusations, how fair is that process? It also happened right quickly, but Tom Harrison is no non-partison since he was involved in past disputes of this kind of treatment. So be it. --Northmeister 02:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I AGAIN ASK - WHICH POLICY and WHY 48 hours?

Here is the list:

"Expiry times and application Expiry times are entered in the GNU standard format, which is described in the tar manual. Alternatively, a block may be "indefinite" or "infinite", meaning the block is permanent, until a sysop explicitly unblocks the account.

If no expiry time is entered, an error message will be displayed.

A user may be blocked by more than one administrator at a time. In this case, the user will be blocked until his/her shortest block has expired. For instance, if an administrator blocks a user for one day, and another administrator blocks the same user for two days, then the user will remain blocked for one day, assuming that the blocks were given at the same time.

• Vandalism — For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last up to 24 hours. For static IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month. Logged-in users that repeatedly vandalise may also be blocked for the same time periods. Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism.
• Excessive reverting — It is helpful to leave a notice of the block, with links to the differences that demonstrate the violation, on the user's talk page. Sysops blocked under this provision must not unblock themselves.
• Disruption — For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time. New accounts may be blocked for any length of time or permanently, and Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently. However, indefinite blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits.
• Usernames — The IP address of these users should be left autoblocked. Accounts and IP addresses that illegitimately use another account's name in the signature should be warned first, and then can be blocked. Please be sure that the account is a malicious impersonator before blocking it; someone might choose a name similar to that of another user without any ill intent. If they are making legitimate edits, they should be told of the possible confusion and encouraged to change usernames. Sysops can force a name change by blocking the username with an expiry time of infinite. The blocking sysop should include Template:UsernameBlock in the block message (by writing UsernameBlock in the "reason" field), along with a link to the RfC or user talk page where the matter was discussed. If a user page has already been created, any user may add an explanation of why the user was blocked and a link to the RfC page on the blocked user's userpage. It is not advisable to create user pages or talk pages for users with offensive usernames. Care should be taken to unblock the user's IP address. To unblock the IP but not the username, wait until the user next tries to edit a page, and something like #1234 was blocked because they share an IP with OldUserName will appear at Special:Ipblocklist. Click "unblock" next to that number. Then the user can log in under their new name. If an account has been blocked both for vandalism and for having an inappropriate username, the IP should be left auto-blocked. Accounts and IP addresses that illegitimately use another account's name in the signature should be warned first, and then can be blocked.
• Public accounts — These should be blocked with a block message pointing out that public accounts are not needed. As an alternative, when confirming that the password is public, it is quite simple and often creates less fuss to just go into Special:Preferences and change the password. This makes the password no longer public, and can also be done by anyone, not just an administrator.
• Bots — Initial blocks should last 24 hours, which should be sufficient time to allow the operator of the bot to respond.
• Personal attacks which place users in danger — Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why."

Why was the block so quick? What policy above did I violate? I have a right to know why I am being blocked for 48 hours! Thank You. --Northmeister 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No answer. Pretty much assumed this. So be it. Another example of what is happening at wikipedia because the few disrupt, offend, get a user upset, the user responds upset, then blocks the user 48 HOURS beyond a level of normalcy, from someone involved in personal disputes with others before who is an administration and should recuse themselves from the above action. The reason given 'disruption' and 'incivility'. Hmm, Last I knew incivility, especially without a warning as such does not require blockage and I was only incivil per above when I told the two users to 'goto hell' which I still believe they should for the actions taken here at wikipedia over a long period of time to harass myself and continue to label my edits as LaRouche edits when they are not. But that is no skin off my back. I have logged all this abuse and will present it to those who need to know to preserve wikipedia for what it should be, and not a place for dishonest processes like what happened here to me. I was not even able to respond to Jersey Devil's allegations...is that just? As far as disruption, I do not see how I violated this. It was never explained, and Jersey Devil could be considered along with Will Beback and so many other editors for doing the same. I was cleaning up articles and being bold in do so, by Jersey Devil who has a history of wiki-stalking certain users and making changes without discussion. Will Beback, has a history of calling my edits and me Larouche whatever, and will not stop this harassment. I am offended on one hand and consider such tactics libel on the other. Fair notice. --Northmeister 02:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for forty-eight hours for incivility and disruption. If you think that is unfair, ask any of the eight hunderd other admins to unblock you and I will not re-impose the block. "I am offended on one hand and consider such tactics liable on the other. Fair notice." Be offended if you want, but do not make any legal threats. I am going to assume that you meant to say "liable" rather than "libel." Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

'liable to cause me to refer to others' is what I meant. Libel and defamation of character? I think so. Threat? No. Response on accuracy of personal attacks made against me which you seemed to ignore in your block. Yes. --Northmeister 03:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Out for 48

As can be seen above I will not be editing for 48 hours. Jersey Devil has been involved in wiki-stalking and starting a reverting-revenge campaign on my edits since March 12th when I reverted his edits (which contained personal attacks and surveillance of others) on a deletion page. He has since conducted himself in a manner that has violated many rules here at wikipedia. I am unfamiliar with wiki-rules compared to this character so he uses such rules to cause a block and by someone whom was in dispute with me over the nefarious producerism page (see all above)...My anger as can be seen by "go to hell" comments is the result of days of personal insult from a small group here, labeling my edits with "LaRouche" and then deleting them or challenging them on that merit. Jersey Devil has not only done this with Will Beback among others, but has also spread this smear across wikipedia to other editors. Anyone interested in the actual cases of the above, I will email them the material. I have been insulted since I arrive and my edits put to smear and attack by such said users; thus the reason for my anger here. That said, the rules are misused and those who originally perpetrated the acts like Jersey Devil are not disciplined. The world should know of how this works and Jimbo Wales should also know of what is happening here and why. I repeat to all, user Jersey Devil and Will Beback have been engaged with a small number of others in harassment and violation of NPA on several occasions. You may look at the history and what caused the response out of haste by me that was used to block me for 48 unjust hours. Again, unacceptable and improper. My spelling errors made in haste (I admit I am a terrible speller especially when I am thinking faster than I type) are made fun of and used to personally attack me. Again see above. A repeated set of abuses needs to be looked at. The names are known and include SlimVirgin, Will Beback, Jersey Devil among others. They have been intolerant, and have engaged in personal attack that amounts to harassment. I appeal to the community for a redress of my grievance based on its standard of fairness and justice. As I have appealed all along to their native sense of civility. Anyone reading from the beginning my case will realize what is being done and can work to put a stop to this insanity. Jersey Devil has done the same to others as he has done to me. He is particularly set on harassing Striver. These NPA's need to stop. Will Beback works fairly and then does the same thing again after a few days. He continues to insist my edits are Larouche edits, and continues to make this accusation with no credible evidence once that I linked to a LaRouche website or am a member. I have stated that I am not, that I do not support LaRouche and he is allowed to continue these personal attacks that amount to harassment. Let this be a record in the continuing struggle for decency and proper enforcement of the rules here at wikipedia. The world should know what goes on here. Jimbo Wales should intervene to stop this insanity. I appeal to his sense of justice and fairness, to why he founded wikipedia in the first place. None of my edits have been without sources, or without links to credible places...none have been to disrupt a page or add something to a unrelated topic...Will Beback proved this himself by actually researching and finding I was right about BUCHANAN...Why he continues to insist in the way he does with me I do not know...when I have time and again bent over backwards to provide numerous citations for his questions. Again, this is a record and an appeal for something to be done to right the injustice here... Thanks. --Northmeister 06:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

IN CONCLUSION....WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE FOR RELIABLE FACTS AND IS BEING USED TO SMEAR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISTORTED FACTS AND TO COVER INFORMATION UP. WILL BEBACK AND JERSEY DEVIL ARE SOCK PUPPETS; AND ALL USERS SHOULD CONSIDER THEM THAT. THEIR COLLECTIVE ACTIVITY INDICATE THIS. THEY HAVE HARASSED ME, STRIVER, HK, AND OTHER USERS IN THE PAST. THEY ARE TROLLS AND STALKERS AND NO ONE SHOULD TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. THEY HAVE NO SENSE OF HONOR AND HAVE BROKEN CORDIAL AGREEMENTS WITH THIS USER NOT TO STALK OR TROLL ABOUT BUT TO DISCUSS ON TALK PAGES PER THE DEMOCRACY NOW PAGE. THIS USER WILL BEBACK/JERSEY DEVIL SHOULD BE BANNED FOR THEIR CONDUCT. IN A PLACE THAT COULD BE COUNTED ON FOR FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY THIS WOULD OF BEEN DONE LONG AGO. BUT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT WHAT IT ADVERTISES TO BE. THAT IS CLEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND JERSEY DEVIL/WILL BEBACK ARE JUST ONE EDITOR WHICH MAKES THIS VERY CLEAR. NOW TO FLY THAT KITE... --Northmeister 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against incivility and disruption. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator. I posted this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents last night. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw that and thank you for the courtesy. I had a response to the complaint by Jersey Devil and it crossed paths with your block - so I was not able to respond. The use of the words "go to hell" was the result of being called once again a "LaRouche" supporter. Will Beback has a history of doing this with me that my Contrib's would show as well as his. He was ferocious with the American System (economics) page, but I provided the citations he asked for. When I stated in no uncertain terms I was not a supporter of LaRouche, that I would not vote for him, that I did not support some of the ideas he proposes - Will Beback continued insinuating that I was a "LaRouche" supporter and continued labeling my edits as "LaRouche" edits, the most recent above just before (being legitimately sick of this type of thing and obvious harassment and personal attack against WK:NPA) I responded he could "go to hell." This is of course what he and Jersey Devil wanted and I gave it to them on a platter, who wouldn't with such treatment.

• My "un-civil" statement above was the result of harassment and personal attack against me since arriving and trying to improve the American System (economics) article. It came after Jersey Devil did himself revenge-reverts against Dirigisme, Wealth of Nations, and other economic article which I added links to American System, since it is an economic system American practiced at one point in history and relevant for further economic study as much as communism may be or socialism if not more so. Dirigisme in particular is a 'government interventionist' policy that reflects the ideals of the American System under which Lincoln passed the Pacific Railways Act, National Banking Act among others and under which later Presidents and Congresses broke up monopolies and trusts. If you look at my edit history (forgive me for not linking to it as I am a novice at such linking but am learning, just go to my contributions) you will see that most of my interest was in economic and historic articles where my degree is. I intended to offer my skills here to improve wikipedia but have been impeded in this by Will Beback and by trying to defend the honor of certain editors harassed by SlimVirgin in her revenge-revert of Syllogism (see above) a user named TED (see above). This small group including SlimVirgin, Will Beback (who has changed his user name because he was admonished in the past by Arbcom for using the same sort of tactics he now uses against me -goading with an attempt to anger me as a relatively new user and using the rules against me - which I am still learning - there are so many for such supposed free to edit site - lots of bureaucracy that overwhelms new users I must admit) and Jersey Devil (who has also harassed Striver endlessly -see his user contribs) and who goes around simply reverting articles without discussion.
• Jersey Devil has twice been successful in getting me blocked dishonestly as he is engaged in the very things he accuses me of -see his contributions and statements about me and the revenge reverts he originally did against my edits.
  • First because on the Deletion Discussion of Gatekeepers I reverted more than three times, which was my mistake, but which I did because he was making a personal attack (as he has a tendency to do) on another user by inciting that that said user was stacking the vote (see the history of this by going to my contribs and seeing what I reverted).
  • I defended myself to no avail here, that I did not violate 3RR as I was simply reverting a violation of WK:NPA.
• Jersey Devil's second successful dishonest blocking of me came just yesterday.
  • He once again goaded me by reverting without discussion (simply said See Will Beback - again take a look at the contribs for Dirigisme). User Will Beback and I were engaged in a dispute as to whether American System belonged as a link to further study (along with other similar systems).
  • Jersey Devil and I were involved in a previous dispute resulting from the before said incident of Personal Attack on the deletion page for Gatekeeper. He proceeded to revenge-revert all my edits and label them as "LaRouche" edits in an obvious personal attack. I responded, wouldn't anyone, by looking into his edits. I made a stand at Democracy Now!, since he was engaged in reverting once again without discussion.
  • The user Radical Mallard has since been in dispute with him over this 'rudeness' at as he calls it at Democracy Now!, the same 'rudeness' and breaking of the rules of wikipedia that goes on against another user harassed by Jersey Devil - Striver.
  • I made a cordial agreement with him that he should not revert entire articles and days of a users edits without bringing up a reason for it in the talk page. He apologized and agreed to this - which is the reason why I stood up at Democracy Now in the first place - to stop his personal attacks and Disruptions of wikipedia in the manner he is engaged in.
  • What does this user then do? He waits a few days and after consensus and Will Beback and I were still engaged in dispute at the Dirigisme page (see above on Will Beback's relentless stalking of my edits and challenging me everywhere and see all the citations on the American System page - that article is probably the most cited here at wikipedia and looks more cratered than the moon - which looks poorly in display - but such is the result of what is happening) - he disrupts again and reverts my edits at Dirigisme in violation of our cordial arrangements to discuss. I self-reverted (against my better judgment) based on this try at collaboration at Democracy Now (which is what we are suppose to be doing), and gave Radical Mallard some time to consider his defense of the edits there and he breaks the agreement in an obvious violation of biting Newcomers.
• Will Beback who has been relentless in stalking me and goading of me, and in personal attacks with the continued assertion (which is false) that my edits are somehow "LaRouche" edits...when actually doing the research, he agrees that Buchanan indeed endorses America's traditional American System and then tries to put into it into 'context'., once he realizes that he again has no ground for his attacks on me as in the past when I provided citations to him.
• Lastly, I fully understand I should not have said "Go to hell" or that as a newcomer I have broken the 3RR rule without knowing this. The amount of Wiki-rules is over whelming to newcomers and it hard to follow them. One needs a lawyer it seems to fully understand them and at a place where people are suppose to be free to edit.
  • My edit history, with the exception of the producerism delete debate (and here I was challenging a very dubious page together with conspiracism which are neologism's(sic) in violation of wiki-rules), has been one of adding relevant material and improving wikipedia's article American System...that was my intent from the beginning.
  • Right from the beginning I was targeted and called something I am not. I was brought up not to accept this type of treatment but to stand my ground against insult and lies. I was brought up to stand up for those mistreated by others (my defense of TED and others). I was brought up to fight back when someone dishonors my good nature. I was not brought up to lay quietly and allow injustice to occur and I will not.
  • From the beginning I have stated my case, even to Wikimedia (I got a reply that was less than adequate and not from the Board), that what is going on must stop - from the beginning I have appealed and no one listens to my appeals. I then get into a situation where 'enough is enough' and I simply say 'go to hell' and off with me head so to speak for 48 hours. Wouldn't anyone be tired of being treated as I have been?

CASE FILE IN BRIEF on Jersey Devil:

1. His contributions list...HERE
2. Violation 'don't disrupt to make a point origination' one of them (Dirigisme)...HERE
3. Violation of WK:NPA and harassment policy....HERE HERE ALSO-this lead to his revenge-reverts of Dirgisme, Wealth of Nations and many of the edits I made...when I attempted to stop his attack on another user SEE HERE WHAT HE WROTE and he is engaged in the same thing harassing Striver "How amusing to see you do the same thing [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] you told other people to not do [9] --Striver 00:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)"

I also submit this evidence of Jersey Devil's past PERSONAL ATTACKS to quote:

• "No personal attacks
  • Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Calling Striver a "POV Hawk" on your user page, accompanied by the text "POV Hawk-The Greatest enemy of the NPOV Wikipedian", is a personal attack. I also suggest that it is not productive to stalk Striver and list all articles he created on AfD. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind. Thanks, Lambiam 16:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)"

and

• "Stop being a vandal"
  • "On five occassions on my talk page you have referred to legit edits as vandalism. That, in itself, is vandalism and/or a personal attack. Don't be a vandal. Listing an article for an AFD is a content dispute, not vandalism. If you disagree with the listing you can vote against. Now, are you suggesting it coincidence that all those articles you listed for AFD happened to be created by Striver, a Wikipedian you want banned? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)"

and he was admonished for his conduct here,

• "take a break"
  • "Hi. I'd like to encourage you to take a few days off from actioning User:Striver's articles. Other users have found your persistent nominations disruptive. Without passing judgment on whether your actions are correct or not, please consider an observation someone made the other day, in an unrelated matter -- just because something is the correct thing to do, doesn't mean you should do it like a hurricane. I'm sure you want to keep Wikipedia tidy, but right now you're clogging WP:AFD. I hope you'll consider this message. Thanks for taking the time to help out Wikipedia! :) — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)"

THUS,

I am contesting this block because of the above and all my past statements (see above and my contribs and my user page for statements), including the history behind why I was brought to say that...by Will Beback, SlimVirgin, and especially now Jersey Devil who looks to me to be a sock-puppet of Will Beback.

1. I ask all objective administrators to study my case and look at what is occurring.
2. I ask you deal with these people for what they continue to do.
3. I ask you remove my block.

You can see how I have been treated here and why I responded after months of this treatment in the manner I did. Will I respond the same in the future?..no obviously as I recognize I should of counted to ten or one hundred as Thomas Jefferson said to do. I was wrong to respond with "Go to hell" even though I believe it still. It was however not enough to warrant a 48 hour block. -- I am an honorable person, I do not violate agreements made in trust...this I agree...now that I know of the goading, I will simply not respond as I did above with "Go to hell", whether this injustice is reversed as it should be or whether I have to wait 48 hours. Wikipedia can preserve its sense of respect by dealing with these individuals or not, that is your choice. I am just one voice, one lonely voice in the wilderness. I ask that you listen to my plea and do the justified thing. Thank You --Northmeister 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)