User talk:Northmeister/Archive23001

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.

American School PoV

It reads like a piece of propaganda, without detachment. It may well be right, but can’t be presented as the ultimate truth, and it should at least acknowledge criticism such as the Austrian school’s.

-- Leandro GFC Dutra 11:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostly Talk

The article Ghostly Talk has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. See also WP:ATTRIBUTION. NawlinWiki 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the article did not indicate that this program is notable. For example, it didn't identify the "radio station in Detroit", and it didn't give the last names of the hosts. More importantly, it didn't cite any reliable sources -- see WP:ATTRIBUTION. If you can write an article backed by reliable sources, showing that this program is notable, the article can be reposted. NawlinWiki 18:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressivism

Hi Northmeister, I appreciate your willingness to hear me out and compromise in regard to our recent discussion, and I fully understand your concern about biased editors inserting POV and punditry into political articles - believe me, I've seen my share as well. So I wanted to apologize for allowing my emotions to get in the way of my Assuming Good Faith, and thank you for your input. I think we share a knowledge of and appreciation for the progressives (where are they when you need em most?), so if you have any more info to squeeze into the article, please don't hesitate to do so. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 18:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wondering what your take is on the current discussion regarding the article. Cmon seems to be firm in his belief that progressivism is a solely American phenomenon, and bears no influence on Green or other contemporary political ideologies. I have read otherwise, and it seems to me quite logical that given the movement's size and scope it would leave a mark of some kind on international politics, but until I have the time to dig through old books and papers, I don't want to be out of line with wiki policy on original research either. Would appreciate your thoughts, and if you knew of any good usable references online? Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on talk page. I tend to agree with you with a note of caution however. --Northmeister 03:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input - I agree we should be careful, but the idea that the "majority of the article is original research or POV" as another editor has expressed, is frustrating and frankly ridiculous, IMHO. I'll keep on researching. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presley

I've looked very quickly indeed at the Presley page and talk page and their respective histories. I noted your radical shortening, noted that a lot of what you cut is obviously trivia, dubious sleaze or both (but didn't bother to investigate closely), and noted this response:

User:Northmeister has removed several paragraphs from the article in order to cut it from a very biased point of view. He himself states on his user page, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley." Therefore, he removed most material that included some critical remarks concerning the singer's life. (my emphases)

This of course attributes personal motivation to your edits. It doesn't surprise me, though: It's compatible with that particular editor's trait of attributing any hurdle to his propagating his PoV to sockpuppetry, fans, and sockpuppetry of fans. One or two fans, using sockpuppets, must not be allowed to stop a tireless one-man campaign to shed light on Presley's every orifice* -- no, "This is not acceptable".

(*Surely his throat would only be of overwhelming interest to mere fans. Dedicated pursuers of the facts and the truth -- as retailed by Bill Dakota et al. -- may have other priorities.)

[Cough] Your talk page almost froze my browser; perhaps this explains how, though I can't be bothered to go through it right now. -- Hoary 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I haven't forgotten your earlier questions; I'll attend to them soon. Meanwhile, though, I notice your comment in Nicholas Turnbull's page. No surprise in what it says, but some mystification about a single sentence: I've left considerable material (much dubious and trivial) in the Elvis Presley article from this editor and he does this without assuming good faith. Surely something has got garbled there; you may wish to revise it. -- Hoary 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. Yeah it got garbled. I was trying to show my intentions towards overtures with onefortyone. This has not helped though. I've edited Graceland in the same manner as I did with Mount Vernon - and Elvis Presley much like I would other articles. His assuming of bad faith on may part and numerous editors in the past is getting old - especially when he keeps filling up the page with the stuff he does. That said, I wish to have oversight - to ensure these articles are neutral and wikipedic enough to be 'good'. I don't want any of my own bias to slip into my edits - but I am only human. I often use other articles as markers which have been featured. --Northmeister 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS your format fix is now ready on my talk page, all pink and shiny. -- Hoary 05:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - let me know if it worked. --Northmeister 06:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine in Konqueror, thank you. (I haven't a clue about how it looks in Internet Exploder, though: that won't run on this computer, I'm happy to say.) -- Hoary 06:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear... the Presley article!

Hello, Northmeister. Thank you very much for your message. As you'll see from my response to Onefortyone's comment, I would love to get my teeth into this article to produce something informative, readable and balanced, but which also manages to celebrate what this man was and what he achieved (you can see an example of my previous efforts in the '68 Comback Special article). However, I have grown weary of certain contributors and the amount of work involved to improve it. Thanks to you though, I will think about the matter.Rikstar 04:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from me too. While I can't add much, I have been watching this page for quite a while. I'm so pleased at the good job your doing cleaning it up and just wanted to let you know that. It's looking so much better. - Maria202 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You and your welcome to jump in a do what you can to help us out. --Northmeister 22:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add my support to your efforts on the Presley article. I took it as far as I could but user onefortyone's obsession (and that's really what it is) with the Presley article is very difficult to deal with. Be prepared to be called a "sock puppet" and generally to be maligned in every way imaginable. All the best. Lochdale 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has already occured. See the link below or onefortone's talk page. Thanks for the support. I am pulling away from all articles related to Presley except the main page for the forseeable future - as it is not worth it going over and over again on the same issues with this editor. Thanks again. --Northmeister 05:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wikiproject rock

Hi, sorry for the delay, but i have been busy lately. I think it is quite a good idea and i will tell ReaperX who deals with these issues in the wikiproj\ect. Thanks for bringing it up though. DavidJJJ 18:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TR Great White FleetSails.JPG

Hello Northmeister, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:TR Great White FleetSails.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Northmeister. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great painting - but I replaced it with another image of Roosevelt per above. Thanks for the attention. --Northmeister 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I don't know if you're aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Still an unresolved problem. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't aware of this. I'm not sure what to do about this user - he should of been banned months ago. The Presley page actually looks good. Most of the editing is being done by Steve Pastor and Rikstar; with others helping out with minor edits here and there. My main concern is layout and format etc. Thanks for making me aware and your welcome to monitor the situation and give me guidance where I might overreach with onefortyone. --Northmeister 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Album pic

Not sure if you can help, but a fair use issue has cropped up with the LP cover used in the Presley article. Can you help? We got 7 days, then it'll be deleted. I haven't much of a clue. Thanks Rikstar 09:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the original uploader for information or to save the photo. This bot is out of hand and will ruin numerous photos legitimately used as 'fair use' all over wikipedia. A human should be doing this so guidance could be given to the uploaders. --Northmeister 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I really appreciate the note on my talk page. I am sorry as well if my remarks came off as unprofessional. I think we both got carried away a bit since we also share an interest in politics and seem to feel quite passionate about certain subjects. You are right, our differing ideas on nation-states and globalization should not be an issue on editing the US article. Thank you and Best Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

progressivism

I had moved the 'tenets' to the "progressivism in the US" article, as they seemed too specific to the US and a broader set of criteria seemed necessary, per discussion. What do you think should be done to the section? Should we leave the tenets as is and simply expand on them, or start over completely?--Jackbirdsong 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the progressivism article; I'm not sure. Probably start over completely incorporating the tenets based on the reliable material on progressivism. It depends. The tenets themselves certainly belonged in the Progressivism in the US article. --Northmeister 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my research I'm continually running into this problem - all of the citable (website) references describe progressivism as a non-ideology or a non-movement such as [1] as opposed to the more cohesive movement/ideology that I have researched and/or been taught in political history courses and my own time. The problem is, these sources contradict each other, and I'm concerned about which should be incorporated into this article. This is a complex and frustrating topic to write an encyclopedia article on for this reason, and I guess I'm not sure how best to proceed at this point. I felt the previous state of the article took into account so many of these issues (at times simply by skirting them) and now that all of these major changes are being made I'm not sure how to confront these issues - any suggestions would be much appreciated, and references would certainly be good too. Throw me a clue, because I feel a bit lost here. Cheers.--Jackbirdsong 23:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I'm going to be out for a few days. I'll help out when I return. --Northmeister 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My arm's OK

See Elvis Presley "And finally..." Rikstar 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Prime

		The Original Barnstar
		For exemplary good grace in the debate over the structure of United States—DCGeist 20:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
--David Shankbone 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra

I've been admiring the way that you've shortened the Elvis page, and I think I'm going to take a similar tack with Sinatra, as it's huge right now! Gareth E Kegg 00:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]