User talk:Northmeister/Archive22903

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.

Common interests

Hello Northmeister, I looked at your user boxes and there are several subjects of mutual interest with needy articles. The list American Poet is a place to start. Some of the stubs need content added to make them notable. Many of them can be expanded. Does this subject appeal to you? FloNight ^talk 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not my main area of knowledge, but yeah. --Northmeister 20:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) -I will take a look at them tonight. I know I am a rather big fan of Poe and have read much about and by him; but this is rather complete. I see a lot of red stuff, maybe we can work on those to add material. --Northmeister 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northmeister, I'll look into it and talk to him. I've worked with him on articles related to sexual abuse and pedophilia. We have always been able to talk through our minor differences. We tend to agree with each other.

Let's work on poetry soon, okay. : ) FloNight ^talk 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out on sabbatical

I am taking leave for awhile and will return. Thanks to everyone who helped me out. HK a grave injustice was done - your honesty and will, in the face of such treatment is a mark of distinction "for you have been in the ring" and stood your ground with integrity and character. Arbcom your decisions have lead to mistreatment of others - they need to be reviewed before Wikipedia suffers as Salem did from the Witchhunt trials of long ago or McCarthy after Eisenhower's condemnation. My best to all and never give in to force for right makes might in the end as history shows us. --Northmeister 01:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on Lumière

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. I will really appreciate your neutral comment on this Rfc. Their main argument is that the ratio of the number of my edits on the main space over the number of my edits on the policy talk pages is low. My answer is that it is low because I cannot work on the mainspace with the way the policy is currently applied. So, I should either give up Wikipedia or try to contribute to the understanding and the clarity of the policy. I do not disturb the policy talk pages. I just make thoughtful comments. I am respectuous of other people, etc. There is no policy that say that the ratio of ... edits on the main space over the ... edits on the policy should be large. So, I am not doing anything wrong. I believe that the issue here is that they are afraid of editors that try to clarify the policy to be able to use it with authority (like any editor should be allowed to use it). They prefer that editors rely on a consensus of "those who actually understand the policy", instead of relying on a true consensus over the policy, which requires that every one can understand this policy. I am for a true consensus, not just a consensus of "those who actually understand the policy", especially when "those who actually understand the policy" oppose almost any change to clarify it. -Lumière 03:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American System

I was going to add American System to the "actual economies" template but the article was all about theory rather than the details of an actual economy. I visualise the addition you made to mixed economy being restored with the books full name, authors, publishing date, page numbers, and actual quotes placed in footnotes. I'd be happy to format the footnotes if you will add the data. But the quotes must make clear an authority on the subject says something about "mixed economy". Maybe A says a mixed economy is one with these characteristics and authority B says nation X's economy from year Y to Z had those characteristics. At least that's what we are shooting for. If there is too much ambiguity and division of opinion or whatever, then we can use a quote from an authority saying that. Note that we already have quotes in the article that cover some of this; but it probably would be a good idea to refer to it specifically if you are going to use it as evidence in identifying what specific systems are and are not mixed economies. Perhaps an approach that simply identified specific noteable parts of a mixed economy in specific noteable economies. Maybe concentrating on transitions as economies adopted either more or less of specific traits. Adding tarriffs. Taxing incomes. Nationalizing an industry. Regulating farm production. I'm just thinking aloud here... WAS 4.250 20:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good start and analysis of the Mixed Economy and incorporation of American System into it with the others. A starting point would be the quotes I gave on the discussion page. What do you think and if you would help footnote them, that would be great. I concur on the rest of your analysis of the situation. Maybe a better formula for inclusion can be done base on your thoughts. --Northmeister 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate hate hate arguing (tho I love a reasoned debate) and am in favor of being bold as much as possible, and when it isn't possible to be bold then just going somewhere else in wikipedia and being bold elsewhere. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether to believe claims about contributors or not. And don't care. The contribution must speak for itself. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you and work with you if you go out of your way to be nice and not make enemies. There are a lot of ego maniacs around here and I will not be part of a dispute between two ego maniacs but I will side with logic and evidence and civility (the "and"s are not "and/or"s). WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gather data. Present sourced data. Edit sourced data." is what I recommend. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "the American system" is a whole lot more important to you than to me, so you do the heavy lifting. Ask me for how I can help you, don't sit around expecting me to care about this as much as you do. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I'm retired and bored and I might suprise you. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay. Thanks and I concur with your sentiments wholly. I just have a short temper that a certain editor likes to flare over and over again. I am really rather agree-able with legitimate polite discussion. I hate inquisitorial questions and false presumptions that lead to false accusations that further lead to acrimonious discussion rather than cordial discussion and collaborative effort. Again, thanks, we actually agree. I will re-read the above, and answer you more directly later. --Northmeister 01:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are gonna get along just fine. Cheers. WAS 4.250 01:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I got your email. Glad you are back editing. : - ) Seems that you already hooked up with WAS 4.250. Excellent idea. Listen to his advise about focusing on content and not the editor. Northmeister, it might be a good idea to avoid making controversial edits of any type. Add verifiable, reliable sources for everything.

Also, do you still want to work on some American poets articles together? (Don't want to pressure you. I'll just cry myself to sleep for a week if you don't.) Really, it is fine by me if you want to skip it. But if we don't do this, I would encourage you to work on some type of articles that are not controversial. When the more controversial articles get too intense, you can work on these for a few days until things settle down. As alway, these are just suggestions. You can follow them or ignore as you think best. regards, FloNight ^talk 02:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the greeting. You're right. I am giving your suggestion serious consideration again. Will Beback has just resorted to calling me names again - why does he have to do this? Anyway, I'll get in touch with you about that poetry. Singing off for the night. --Northmeister 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is power, maturity, and usefulness in ignoring childish behavior by others. As you walk down the street, some six year old calls you names. Do you call them names back in anger? No, you smile and behave like an adult and everyone who observes the interaction knows which is the adult and which is the child. Even on the internet they do know you are a dog if you act like a dog. WAS 4.250 12:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. Thanks. --Northmeister 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop deleting my comments from the talk page, and also please stop moving the pages around. You're making a mess. -Will Beback 01:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You started the mess. I am not deleting your comments...I am restoring the material to its proper place, before your unilateral moves...I will also try to restore yours comments...if I deleted or failed to move comments, then I apologise. There are two articles...American System (economic system) which speaks of the overall economic system and American System (Henry Clay program) which speaks to Henry Clay's plan or program he advocated from the very system that Hamilton inspired in the likes of List and Carey and others in early America, eventually enacted and maintained by the GOP and Lincoln originally. Thus, things are where they should be. --Northmeister 01:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening for discussion here

WillBeback, I am open for discussion here at my talk page on the American System stuff. Open frank and honest discussion here, or if you prefer by email - but here is fine - is what is needed. We need discussion and collaboration (it takes two for this) to work out any differences. I have no agenda, but accuracy and truth as best as that can be ascertained via reliable sources. I am more than willing to hear your case and to try to work this all out. I personally do not understand your hostility and presumptions. There are two article now, both are good and still need working as all Wikipedia articles do. They direct the reader or researcher to the proper place and divide the system from the program. Let us engage here before any further moves are made. Let us work together and not against each other - and let us both improve Wikipedia. Whatever personal questions or motivations you think I have, ask - I will be frank - further I expect the same from you. I offer this to engage and to stop the insanity over at the American System (economic system) page. --Northmeister 02:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend both of you accept that the other isn't as bad as you think. Will lacks "hostility and presumptions" exactly as much as you do. You are both trying hard and doing your best. WAS 4.250 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try this out

I am asking you to edit American System (economic system) for a little while with a single objective in mind. Maybe a week? And not to directly or indirectly address Will Beback during that undetermined time period. I am not asking for anything other than simply give it a try, see what happens, talk to me about what is or is not properly sourced on the article. We will work together and see if progress can be made in making sure everything in the article is Verifyable, NPOV, and Not Original Research. (See WP:V and WP:NOR and WP:NPOV; they have been updated and I don't know when you read them last.) My intent at this moment is that everything Will Beback finds questionable is to go into some other article (I don't care which). Let's try this out. Thanks. WAS 4.250 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reverted back. The ball is in your court. Help make the sourcing data include all the proper data. A mere link is not good enough. See H5N1 and H5N1 genes for good sourcing examples. It doesn't have to be perfect, but if you won't help me make the sourcing data better, then I have to question why I'm even bothering with this. WAS 4.250 17:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out working, so I must see all you did and your talking about. Give me the time to check this over. As far as WP:NOR; I do not accept any changes after April 10th because of unilateral change by SlimVirgin. As far as sources, the article is overwhelmingly sourced. But, I am willing to work in the manner you say. We just need a framework to work with. I don't understand what you said above...could you be more clear on what you want to do...maybe in a point bulletin that can be worked on one by one. Thanks. --Northmeister 23:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me the time to check this over. The only time limit is someone other than you, me, and Will jumping in and trying to edit.

As far as WP:NOR; I do not accept any changes after April 10th because of unilateral change by SlimVirgin. I just wasted my time doing a diff and then realized all the sourcing improvements are after that date also. You called me into this. If you want my help, then we start with what is now. Modify it one piece at a time in small enough pieces I can handle. I am no way an expert on this. I am trying to help you.

As far as sources, the article is overwhelmingly sourced. But, I am willing to work in the manner you say. Fine. Help.

We just need a framework to work with. I don't understand what you said above...could you be more clear on what you want to do...maybe in a point bulletin that can be worked on one by one. Please try improving the article one tiny bit at a time rather than trying for a grand stategy. Please start with the sourcing.

Thanks. You are very welcome. We all want a really good encyclopedia article. WAS 4.250 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We must start with the article the way it was after hours of work on it - we can go from there. When we have this, then we can go paragraph to paragraph and make it a better article. But I will not accept the revert to Will's version or taking material he objects to without giving me the source reason why out - it is yes, incumbent upon me to source it if he objects -this I will do or it leaves. The structure is restoration - paragraph by paragraph work to improve it. This I can work with. I like a lot of what you did, but not the revert to Will's version - I do not accept that. The sources are there to back up what I wrote. --Northmeister 23:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued your efforts and restored the material that was deleted by the revert to Will's version prior to the creation of the Henry Clay American System page. I think we can work on it paragraph to paragraph to work out any sourcing or other problems from this point. I have a holiday to spend some time doing this for the next few days. Direct the lead, and I will follow in your efforts...The improvements you made so far are excellent and make the article look better. Substance may be a concern as well, so we can work on that or getting the wording right next to fit into the system and history as Lind and others outline it. As far as WP:OR, I was speaking of changes made to that page unilaterally without consensus which is another subject altogether, and not the page we are working on - sorry for the confusion. I will not mention Willbeback any further by your criteria I see you set for a week, that I overlooked on first read.--Northmeister 00:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]