User talk:Northmeister/Archive23101

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.

Elvis Presley: Featured Article

Forgive me, maybe I'm a bit bleary eyed after my Presley edits, but I'd like your help in submitting 'Elvis' for FA status. I've read up on what to do, but find some things problematic; I don't want to screw things up. Hope you can help. Please let me know. Rikstar 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I am presently on vacation. Will return sometime next week. I would be more than willing to both support the effort and help you out. Just from a general look at the article it seems you've done quite a bit of work since I've been absent. I think you ought to be commended for all the effort you've put into the article - you've done more than your share - great job!!!! I will look the article over when I return. Time is limited now - Like to see it featured maybe around August when he passed away or something like that. Until next week - best wishes and keep up the good work. --Northmeister 15:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. August sounds extremely appropriate. Please see Presley-Talk. Praise must go to you, too, for initially taking a hatchet to something that scared the bejezus outa me Rikstar 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Northmeister. I agree it should be nominated now. Only glitch is the lack of consistency in the Notes. Some, for example:

 "Elvis Presley: Sun 209"
 "Elvis Presley Sun Recordings"
 "Elvis' First Record"
 "Johnny Cash Remembers Elvis Presley"
 "Overton Park Shell 50th Anniversary, Elvis’ 1st live show"

don't have retrieval dates. Others don't have any kind of accompanying note if they need a brief title/explanation. I think we'll get pulled up on this. Apart from that, I think (hope) we have a winner. Rikstar 04:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC):

Hi. LaraLove has kindly gone to work to whip the Presley article into shape. FA is out of sight at the moment. Please see her usertalk page for the latest. Rikstar 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, great observations and help from this editor (Laralove). --Northmeister 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WARNING! Onefortyone has contacted LaraLove using old posts of his arguments, accusations about us being one and the same, edited quotes critical of him, etc. Rikstar 09:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read about this over at the Elvis talk page. Onefortyone, Willbeback below and others like them make Wikipedia's reputation sour. Just read an article on who contributes to editing, which includes major corporations and the CIA etc. You can now check on where the source is for edits. Anyway, I'd ignore his banter - I think people are well aware of him and the others like him across Wikipedia. --Northmeister 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I will be ignoring the banter, but will respond to reasonable discussion by making appropriate edits, if required. Rikstar 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley: Good Article candidate

There are problems with 3 photos in the Presley article - don't know if you've seen the talk pages recently. I'm not sure what to do. Rikstar 20:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know. Been so busy with a move etc. That I've been unable to help out for awhile. GREAT JOB with the nomination and all that. Looks like we met the criteria per Giggy except those phots. Only thing wrong with them that I could figure out is the copyright info for fairuse - I updated two photos - with the information I had - but the third (funeral) I am currently trying to obtain information on. Until then I replaced it with the commons photo by a user of Elvis' gravesite. (this response also on your talk page) --Northmeister 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

American School (economics)

I got to looking at this article over the weekend. A lot of it appeared to be poorly sourced holding-forth on later economic policies that, although they might have resembled the American System, were not described as such by the people who instituted them. Nor did there seem to be any mention of any source for the term "American School" as opposed to American System. Can you help me understand why the article exists? Gazpacho 12:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a plethora of available references that include the names: American School-Philadelphia School-American System-National System as interchangeable. It is the economic school of thought America practiced until modern times (circa 1970s). Plus, re-read the article - this is all explained therein - there is also an quite lengthy quote (which needs work) that spells all this out. You say - American System rather than American School - why? Just curious because if your looking for Henry Clay's American System program of that was part of the Hamiltonian system - it can be found under American System by name. The article does not hold on later ecponomic systems - as those later systems had nothing to do with American School policies prior to the invention of Keynesian economic theory. The later systems might more correctly be children or foes of this school of thought rooted in Alexander Hamilton's economic thinking - through Clay - Lincoln - and the early GOP through Roosevelt. The article does need improvement. But why it exists - read all the sources provided (they are numerous) to find out and be enlightened about American history. --Northmeister 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Amending my statement above, I think we can work together, if you wish - to clean up the article. --Northmeister 00:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I did not link you to anyone.[1] I wrote that you and "editors promoting the LaRouche worldview had been adding large amounts of material which didn't appear directly connected to the mainstream historical accounts of the American System."[2] If you review the edit history of American System, I think you'll find that that is a correct assessment. I did not say that you are a "pro-LaRouche editor". I did not engage in "name calling". Regarding your own remarks, I do not engage in "hysteria". It is categoriclaly incorrect to say that I have a "worldview that anything he doesn't fully understand he labels as Larouche". I find that to be an offensive remark. I'd ask you to please be civil and avoid personal attacks like that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-read your remarks from my shoes and our past history. You clearly once again use the linkage - at least your rhetoric indicates this. It's tiring and at the least an indirect personal attack on my editing patterns and offensive to me. Do any of the articles I've edited since we last communicated regarding the American System/School have linkages? Is Elvis or Ghostly Talk or Progressivism have any signs of linkage? Let me know if they do! From day one, you've harassed me because of what you suppose I am, not for what I truly am; you've pre-judged my honor and intentions; you've labeled me, followed my edits, interjected with direct or indirect linkages (always Larouche related); you've kept a database of me assorting me to the group you think I belong (see previous); and you've attempted to seperate me from the community of editors. That's our history; and that's the sort of thing that in the real-world of life leads to tyranny and holocausts. --Northmeister 01:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Larouchies' at it again

The "Larouche Conspiracy Nut" types (ie. Larouchies) on Wikipedia are at it again I see. Just looked over the American School article and realized 24* an anonymous user completely deleted whole sections (called vandalism) under the fear it was "Larouchite" in his/her words. This crowd of editors, and WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE (actually shouldn't say that as they might think we're reading their minds) are concerned night and day with the non-entity Larouche and consider him and his followers I suppose the EVIL EMPIRE from planet MORLOCH or something. Their tactic (since some have administrator priveledges) is always the same: intimidate the non-believer (us in the real world), call him/her names, push the "Larouche is bad - bad I say" agenda whenever it looks like reason is about to prevail at their numerous edit wars and abuse of priveledges inflicted, etc. etc. The above in the previous post is all true: they like to keep an enemies list like Nixon did (with all their EVIL EMPIRE editors in it or who they think belong to that); they follow your edits (actually a violation of Wikipedia rules and standards) interjecting their PARANOIA into different and unrelated articles often pushing creditable editors out of the discussion due to intimidation; they attempt to discredit their target of hate every chance they get and then claim innocence (yeah right - make sure you have your tinfoil hats ready!) and they make themselves a really big PAIN IN THE A** - but I shouldn't build up their bubble to much. In reality, the real world that is - they seem to be a collective CULT like group deriving their pleasure from their CONSPRIRACY THEORIES namely "LAROUCHE IS BAD - BAD I SAY etc." - Larouche who? EXACTLY. ITS TAKES ALL TYPES I SUPPOSE! BAH HUMBUGER! (The word the Larouchies most fear!!!) --Northmeister 13:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles: American School, Report on Manufactures, Anchor Baby, etc. have all been subjects on constant edit warring on the part of the group above and one character in particular that has been admonished in the past for their behavior: Willbeback/Willimacw or what ever that editor chooses to use for a name. This editor with admin priv. has recently abused such priv. assigning accounts he FEARS (see paronia above) are involved with a user HK who was in this editors opinion unjustly targeted and banned from Wikipedia for 'what?' - being a member of the group that the Larouchies described above have a loathing and fear of for some ungodly reason (considering the man is unknown outside of Wikipedia or that group they think is a part of the AXIS of EVIL - something smells in Denmark as the expression goes) Numerous accounts have been described as sock-puppets by this crowd of HK without evidence, but hey they have the power (of Grayskull I suppose)- anyway the user in question is now engaged in his usual pattern of harassment of this user - WILL ANYONE EVER DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS USER? Take away his priv. and put him under investigation? There is enough evidence for it. Wikipedia deserves better. --Northmeister 15:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Progressivism

My objection was to the deletion of the clarification that the Progressive movement in its original incarnation was an explicitly non-Socialist one, offering what would now be termed a "Third Way": reform of the capitalist system from a distinctly bourgeois, reformist point of view without any support for the disreputable radicals. Progressives occasionally allied with the left, but were not above redbaiting, particularly in rural areas and among the middle class. --Orange Mike 13:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I actually agree with you here. I'd suggest you move to re-include the deleted material. --Northmeister 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Civil

You wrote:

• If you are here to helpout and work with other editors then start being civil and stop moving this discussion in circles. [3]

Aside from some personal remarks from you, I haven't seen any incivility on Talk:Anchor baby. What are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have noticed the samething - see the talk page for your remarks. Calling my thinking illogical, insisting that I thought as a 'flat earther' plus much more. It is what it is. Reasoned discussion needs none of this. Let's work from your amended sentence - see the talk page. --Northmeister 21:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a diff in which I was uncivil towards you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-read your own remarks. I have better things to do than track everyone of your insults. Goto the Talk Page or click on your contribs to remind yourself. Again, let's work from the amended sentence - see talk page. --Northmeister 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I resent your making unfounded charges about my behavior. Please refrain from doing so unless you have actual evidence. Making false charges is in itself uncivil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah Humbug. None are unfounded...see talk page Anchor Baby. "The thinly veild personal attacks on user Northmeister do not really make the case for inclusion of the word "pejorative" anymore appetizing to me then it did on its original merits, now even less so." [4] in one editors opinion. Again, your getting away from the actual discussion at hand - working from the proposed sentence as amended to make the article NPOV and factual. --Northmeister 22:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The citation you've provided does not appear to refer to any remark by me. Is there a "thinly veiled personal attack" that I've made that you can point to? I bring this matter here because you raised it. If it's without merit then please remove your assertion that I've been uncivil. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The citation is some other editors observations to back up my own per your rhetoric. Starting with the 'nigger' comment from you onto your 'flatearth' is "illogical" argument onto your latest 'do not' assumptions - your behavior is demeaning towards myself and that has to stop - that is uncivil. I have no obligation to do your work for you. If your interested in your specific demeanor and rhetoric - then I advise you check the diffs on your own time. I can forgive that and the numerous other incidents outside that article and discussion - but you have to change your behavior - and be more polite and accepting of diversity among editors. We are at a point of possible resolution. Let's work on that and resolve the impasse there. --Northmeister 22:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you seek greater civility on talk pages then please set the example you'd like others to follow. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And your not being uncivil here? What is the purpose of the above statement, among many made in that 'veneer' sort of way? What does it serve? Not Wikipedia. This discussion gets us no where to a resolution. Since there are sources for the amended sentence, then I must insist that you either provide a source indicating why the NBC affiliate, New York Times, Washington Times, Catooga News (sic) etc. are not neutral by not qualifying the term as your two sources do or that we work on including both definitions into the article as NPOV dictates with reliable sourcing. It isn't about our views, I've said that all along, it's about the real world and how the term is used and defined period according to the sources. Let's work from the amended sentence to resolution without personal comments like above. --Northmeister 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: Your [sic] being uncivil now with your edit summaries.[5] Which edit summary of mine was uncivil? Do you consider the material that you wrote about me above to be civil?

• ...one character in particular that has been admonished in the past for their behavior: Willbeback/Willimacw or what ever that editor chooses to use for a name. This editor with admin priv. has recently abused such priv. assigning accounts he FEARS (see paronia above) are involved with a user HK who was in this editors opinion unjustly targeted and banned from Wikipedia for 'what?' - being a member of the group that the Larouchies described above have a loathing and fear of for some ungodly reason (considering the man is unknown outside of Wikipedia or that group they think is a part of the AXIS of EVIL - something smells in Denmark as the expression goes)... WILL ANYONE EVER DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS USER? Take away his priv. and put him under investigation? There is enough evidence for it.

If that's what passes for civility then I don't see how you can possibly suggest that I've been uncivil. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

You know full well what brought that statement on. It serves no purpose to continue this discussion. The observations above are from my experience and observations of things since coming to Wikipedia. Your recent actions don't leave much room for alteration of my observations in regards to myself and wiki-stalking my edits and the comments often made. We are suppose to be here to edit, and help improve wikipedia. Your past actions haven't helped in that regard. Case closed. --Northmeister 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to substantiate the charges you make then don't make them to begin with. The charge of wikistalking is misplaced, considering how you suddenly arrived at Illegal immigration to the United States and Anchor baby to revert my edits[6][7] after a dispute on an unrelated page. Furthermore, you charge above that I've abused the admin tools but again you offer no proof. If I have done something wrong, either by making personal attacks or by abusing the admin tools, then I invite you to raise the issue in an appropriate venue. However if you continue to make unfounded charges against me in inappropriate places, like article talk pages, I'll ask the community to review that behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah! Humbuger! Please do, so we can review your entire behavior since I arrived here. --Northmeister 00:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)