User talk:Northmeister/Archive22904

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.

You have been a joy to work with.

It has been a joy working with you, Northmeister. I found your behavior to be polite, easy-going, well-mannered, informed, eager to make Wikipedia better, never using foul language, never changing the subject from how to improve the article to other things like personal issues, all-in-all a wonderful Wikipedian. What a pleasure it has been. I look forward to working with you anytime anywhere on anything. WAS 4.250 17:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I extend the same your way. Thanks. --Northmeister 17:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry

Copied from my talk page: I've begun work on some of the poetry we had discussed. A lot of the authors I've read and like are already done. So I thought working on those that are not done, that are listed in American poetry, would suffice. I started with the New Formalist poets. I just did Molly Peacock, see what you think. Any suggestions on what to do would be fine. --Northmeister 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northmeister, very nice work! The last few hours, I've been in a terrible mood and felt very stressed out but this wonderful article has made me happy. Molly Peacock seems like a good choice. There should not be any issues about her notability or reliable sources. I'm going to look for literary criticism of her writing. I'll look it over again to see if there is any thing else to add. take care, FloNight ^talk 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Northmeister, thank you for your supportive comment. I'm going to work on the Molly Peacock poetry article today. Take care, FloNight ^talk 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It came easy. --Northmeister 04:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 02:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

Seen your edit summary of a revert. "rv: it was a response to 9-11 true, but change of material not warranted". I was planning to revert back as the edit seemed correct and you do not seem to refute it. Figured to prevent any hostilities I would simply drop by and ask you explain to me your edit aummary, particularly "material not warranted" as you seem to agree with the merits of the edit by stating "response to 9-11 true". Thanks --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 01:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page to your question above, thanks for giving me a heads up. --Northmeister 01:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the compliment. Just let me know if you need any help. Thanks again.--Ryz05 _t 04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Democrat Party" article

Hello. Someone has written a "Democrat Party" article that dignifies this perjorative term. The correct name of the party, of course, is "Democratic Party." Wikipedia is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Griot 00:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States

Hello Northmeister, I noticed that you just reverted my edit on United States. I noticed that in your edit summary you put that "to[o] much taken out that is historic and needed". I was just wondering what you thought that I removed that was really important in the history section, as many people on WP:FAC have been calling to decrease the size of the History section on the article. Note that the majority of my edit was simplifying United States to U.S. to create a conformity and minor changing/removing of certain extraneous words. Thanks, Andy _t 01:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no problem; I have beat you to restoring the content ;) and also re-added the settlement of the seceding of the state from the union. Andy _t 01:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 _t 15:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protectionism: I have responded to your comment at Talk:Protectionism. -Ste|vertigo 16:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic-Republican Party

Thanks for weighing in at the Democratic-Republican Party (United States) article. I feel like I've been fighting a hundred years war with editors who want to change the party's name to "Republican Party," when clearly the vast majority of books and online enyclopedias use "Democratic-Republican." Your citing of the Cyclopedia was most welcome. Griot 18:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome; and your right. --Northmeister 23:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry anyone?

Northmeister, if you are getting frustrated working on poetry or taking a break is a better option than what you doing now. Stay calm and think about other ways of handling the situation, okay. FloNight talk 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Actually, I am working on the Elvis Presley page...it was horrendous, with information repeated etc. Maybe we can work together to get that page right - since I am a fan (although he died when I was too young to remember) - maybe you can keep me straight there and help in the formating. I am assuming your reference above is to another editor who 'followed' me there, whom I offered to work with him collaboratively to improve the same said article. What say you - think this is a worthy effort? --Northmeister 02:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Page protection?! Brilliant! Honestly, thanks for the advice. I had no idea there was such a thing. I'll keep an eye on Abe's page and try that route if the vandals keep it up.Mattweng

Presley studies

Hi there. I'm sorry not to have been very energetic at the Presley talk page. The simple fact is that Presley's music doesn't interest me much and I'm not interested in his sex life and other tabloid matters: from time to time I try to put a lid on the idiocy there, but that's about it.

You're making a mistake about the birdbrain who uses either of two AOL IPs: taking him/her seriously. Here's AOLuser on Presley in a nutshell, and here's AOLuser on Wikipedia. It seems that he/she has the hots for Michael Jackson, and sees Presley as some kind of obstacle to his deification by Wikipedia. If you see more drivel from AOLuser, ignore it, delete it, or stick it in the special section I created for the purpose. And don't regret the time AOLuser wastes on Wikipedia: it keeps him/her off the streets. Happy editing! Hoary 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort. I appreciate any contributions that will make the article more presentable. Mainly organizing what is there to be coherent, taking out unsourced material or non-relevant material for an encyclopedia - and fixing sentence structure-spelling(my weak point at times, especially when I am typing darn typos!)-and grammar. Whatever you can contribute in those arenas would be gladly welcomed. Thanks again for your efforts thus far. --Northmeister 01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

You do not own any articles at Wikipedia. Do not act like you own any articles at wikipedia. WAS 4.250 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted my proposal for a solution requesting an official apology for defamation of my character and false allegations and your above writing me about owning articles? I don't get it. I will state again, I will not accept edits by Will Beback because of his disruptive history with other editors and with me at that page - until he provides sources which is reasonable and has nothing to do with ownership. I also feel it is reasonable he apologise for his personal attacks and for stalking my edits. I do not make accusations lightly, the record shows everything - just check it. --Northmeister 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-break

I'm taking a short wiki-break and will return. --Northmeister 05:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presley

Welcome back. You'll be happy, or perhaps alarmed, to hear that this sorry article is now semiprotected rather than fully protected. This means that you (for example) can edit it, but people who aren't logged in cannot. -- Hoary 07:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I do hope it gets improved in the long run. At least non-registered users can't vandalize it. --Northmeister 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good by Nature

Saw that comment and I would have to disagree. Let us appeal to history, and our current times for adequate evidence. Can we count the number of lives that have been extinguished due to fanaticism, power hungry madmen, and despotic rulers? No it is a number astonishingly large. If men were inherently good then why are there so many cases of pedophilia, rapings, and mutliating murders? Why are gangs out of control, and why do millions starve while a rich elite turn a blind eye? Why are fanatical religions promoting the extermination of a particular race of men, and why does racial tension abound worldwide? These are not actions of an inherently good creature. It appears to me that men are on the whole pretty bad! Grundle 20:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? Not sure what comment your talking about. --Northmeister 20:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC) - I see, about men being inherently good. Well its subject to debate. I tend to feel that most of us are inherently good and it's our environment that propels man to wicked deeds together with the few who for whatever reason feed upon disenchantment. "One bad apple ruins the bunch" as the old saying goes. --Northmeister 20:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley article

An editor has complained that you are removing sourced material from the draft of Elvis Presley. Please work with him in good faith and do not remove sourced material without a specific reason. " I don't see where that material helps"[1] is not a good reason. -Will Beback 01:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onefortyone has a long history - good faith has been substantially shown by my edits, which I've included his. Mostly I am trying to keep the article to wikipedia standards and to verifiable sources that are summarized rather than an extensive list of quotes. His present complaints don't make sense to me. I've set up the sandbox to address his concerns and to work out problems with his edits. Thanks for the input. And your still invited to help out in making it a presentable article - which is my only concern. --Northmeister 01:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be aware of it but Ted Wilkes has been banned from editing Wikipedia. He was banned in mid March for 1 year by the Arbitration Committee. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 00:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]