User talk:Northmeister/Archive23103

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 as featured

Hi, Northmeister. I took a break from editing and watching the Presley article. During Laralove's much needed clean up, a few changes were made that I thought made it worse and I got tired of it; the 'Christian' additions still seem extraneous when gospel is such a significant feature and I don't think the Christian thing has an adequate citation. Changes to the Hollywood/film section have not been entirely successful. I've rewritten the Hollywood years to get it to make sense again. The filmography trivia is poorly written in places; some of the trivia seems pointless e.g. there's a bit about a film being the only one of his career that features a church interior (Wow! And Blue Hawaii is the only one to feature... pineapples!). I'm not sure if Laralove and others have finished their cleanup. I think it's just about ready, apart from this.Rikstar 12:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been offline for some time. Not sure when you're around to make any needed changes. How does the time difference work? I'm in London. Tried to clean up Filmography, but got reverted by Aladdin Zane. Asked for explanation. I'm hoping to be online this evening, it's 19.46 here in the UK. Rikstar 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your excuse for reverting because of length is a load of bull. as he did nothing to except change names, i will be reverting anything i find unsuitable back to the way it was for the reasons i stated including Elvis instead of Presley because even as his website is called Elvis.com and not Presley.comAladdin Zane 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The world knows him as ELVIS not Presley, Walk anywhere and say did you hear they are releasing a lost record of Elvis, and everyone will know who you are speaking of, Where as if you do the same, but say, did you here there are releasing a lost record of Presley, and they will say presley who? or who's Presley. Try having respect for the name and image this man made for himself and refer to him as Elvis.Aladdin Zane 21:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say that Elvis' page does not BELONG to you and rikstar, and some may consider A LOT on this page to be less relavent than the stuff in the trivia section of the movie. For instance the trivia part about it being the only film in which he is featured in a church that rikstar mentions, is a good bit of trivia considering his devout christain beliefs along with the numerous gospel albums he recorded.Aladdin Zane 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hands are not tied, read the wording ""After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only"" the word may is used not MUST. Also this was put in for the purpose of people that referred to by only one name such as Cher or Madonna even though they have last names in their page you are not going to see them referred by their last names instead of Madonna or Cher. With that a simple fix will be to change the whole article to Elvis instead of Presley :)Aladdin Zane 21:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But bottom line read what you posted, the wording is MAY not MUST and the 2 words have very different meanings.Aladdin Zane 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So with that said If your a true Elvis fan you will help me change every reference to him as Elvis and NOT Presley. If you watch a biography on him, and watch his friends talk about him, they refer to him as Elvis and NOT Presley, the part about "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only" Is only about uniformity, Meaining they don't really want people referring to him Elvis in one place, Elvia Aaron in another, Elvia Aaron Presley in another, Elvis the Pelvis in another, The king in another, they just want it to be more uniformed. So why shouldn't it be the name he made famous world wide over any other? So do him a great favor and help in changing them to what they should be.Aladdin Zane 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Northmeister. It's 11pm here and I'm kinda pooped. Been an interesting evening. Rikstar 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Northmeister. Greetings from a humid London. I couldn't sleep. I see there's been another interesting editing session in my absence!

I've looked at the article and feel the Musical Influences section is too important to be tagged on at the end. I appreciate the 'timeline' argument, but there can be exceptions to this and it can still flow OK. I am also concerned that creating 'tagged on' sections will give the green light to others who have been insisting there is a need for extra sections, like "Memphis Mafia" and "Colonel Tom Parker". I've made changes to the very last boxed section - using the heading "Christian Recordings", as this is more NPOV. Again, I think the article is ready for FA submission, but my reservations (above) still apply. Do like the Theo pic, BTW! Rikstar 02:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Have reviewed recent edits. I agree some have been beneficial, but I think a rewrite is needed. I will attempt that now.Rikstar 17:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit of cleaning up and trimming - hope OK. Rikstar 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut a few more bytes here and there - and got rid of the rebuttal to the claim he slept with MM. I didn't want to, but couldn't find a cite. I've not checked the Notes recently, for errors and consistency. I've noticed the Kb length of the article is different between the 'history' and 'edit this page' pages of the main article; maybe this is what you were looking for regarding the size of it. If that makes sense. Rikstar 06:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your cleanup regards images. The location of the 68 comeback sessions was NBC studios, Burbank, California. Rikstar 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only things that I could mention are:

"However, there is little doubt that long-term drug misuse, combined with his obesity, caused his heart to fail." The phrase in bold has been added twice and remains. Although obesity may well have played a part, there is only a lack of doubt about drug misuse causing his death. The citation also does not refer to obesity undoubtedly causing his death, so I'm gonna remove it.
On a personal note, I cannot abide the bronze statue featured in the Legacy section. Maybe it's because I trained and worked as a professional artist that I can't stand how innaccurate and un-Elvis-like it is. Then again, it serves as a quiet nod to the kitschy merchandise that's mentioned in the same section, so I guess it can stay without me having too many sleepless nights.

Other than that, I think things look OK. Rikstar 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressivism

Hey North, sorry I've been out of touch on the article - I'm taking an extended wiki-break for awhile. I may stop by periodically, but in the meantime, I leave the page in your capable hands. It was good working with you. Peace.--Jackbirdsong 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need a concensous to edit. Also the last thing i fixed was the crappy headings you @#$% people are oblivious too. some bold, some with a line under the heading, and you wonder why it doesn't get featured, try the uniformity in the article that isn't there. I can guarantee you most of the paragraphs are in horrible shape as far as uniformity goes. You do not see a encyclopedia with such horribly different headingsAladdin Zane 18:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stamp of Elvis

Could you explain for each article separately why the use of the non-free image of the stamp of Elvis Prestley is significant? If you need help, let me know. – Ilse @ 02:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No non-free images on talk pages

I removed two non-free images from Talk:Elvis Presley/Sandbox. Non-free images are not allowed on talk pages or other pages outside the article namespace such as template, wikipedia, help, and user. For more info see WP:NFCC #9 "Restrictions on location". – Ilse @ 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a day

Let's take a day away from this. Edit warring does not get us any closer to consensus. The material is on the talk page and we can easily discuss it there. So far the discussion has been at cross-purposes, but it's better to disagree there then to engage in unproductive battling in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on the "parable" was a feeble riff on the first line of the book that the other editor alluded to, One Hundred Years of Solitude. ("Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.") If you read the references supplied in th parable you'll see that the author is the one trying at advance the usage of the incorrect "Columbia". No insult was intended towards anyone. I have participated in the discussion in a civil manner. I have not insulted other editors by calling their efforts "vanadalism", not have I posted notes every few minutes demanding a response. I have worked to create and maintain a consensus. I believe I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize for. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you do. "vanadalims" - Be sure to point out my typos while your at it. Thanks. --Northmeister 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my typo, not yours. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep mentioning an insult, but I don't see where the insult is. If you're referring to the "parable", can you explain why you find it insulting? It isn't about you, it's about Ramsey2006. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right? What gave you that impression? Re-read it and please remove it as inappropriate. --Northmeister 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to file a complaint against me in an appropriate forum, but article talk pgaes are for discussing articles. I've removed your latest comment because it appeared to be a complaint against users rather than a discussion of improving the article. Feel free to repost a message that omits the personal references. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a bunch of bias bunk. Selective are we - don't delete the personal attack against me in the parable, but delete comments I made about abuse there? I am not familiar with Wikipedia bureaucracy as much as yourself - but you can be sure I will not allow your insulting behavior to go on without making my case. --Northmeister 05:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When asked (above) you didn't said why you found the parable to be an insult to you. I still don't think it was either intended or appeared to be an insult to anyone. Regardless, that doesn't entitle you to post nasty messages on an article talk page. I suggest you take things less seriously and edit more calmly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit harassing me. I'm tired of the goading and your games. Enough already. --Northmeister 05:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor baby

FILE231UB: Anchor baby reversion mess.

Hi. At this point, I really don't think I should make any comments that might make it look like I'm taking sides for or against any of the participants in the current dispute. That could undermine my position if (as seems likely) I do end up asking TPTB for arbitration.

I do feel, in general, that we should acknowledge both that "anchor baby" is used not only by people who are driven by pejorative / derogatory motivations, but also by people who have no such motivations but are innocently (albeit perhaps naïvely) using the expression as a convenient, neutral shorthand. It might also be appropriate, I suppose, to recognize a third position — namely, that some people are offended by any use of the term and want to convince the second category of people not to use it as neutral slang.

I also believe that if it is debatable as to what a given source actually says or means, it may be better to allow the source to be cited, indicate that its significance may be unclear, and give the readers the opportunity to refer to it and decide for themselves. I think common sense dictates that truly neutral sources are, by their nature, unlikely to explicitly call themselves neutral, and I'm very disturbed at the way people here have been lobbing WP:NPOV and WP:NOR back and forth at each other over this point. Indeed, I've been thinking for some time that we've needed to get some sort of authoritative ruling laid down here as to where the dividing line really lies between common-sense interpretation and original research — and that controversy alone probably justifies a call for arbitration, even if this latest bout of accusations had not flared up. Richwales 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would really like to resolve this stuff. It's taking too much of my time. --Northmeister 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is taking way too much of my time too, I'm afraid. Someone on the "No original research" talk page made an intriguing suggestion that I think may be our last, best hope of a compromise. He said: my suggestion is it's better to say that the term is used to describe children born to immigrants [link to sources] and that x and y describe the term as pejorative. If z is found saying it's a positive term, that can be added later. I.e., rather than say it's a pejorative term, say that certain specific sources (and cite them) have described it as pejorative. This might not be acceptable to people who insist the term must only be thought of as pejorative and aren't willing to retreat from that view, but it might also "put the shoe on the other foot" by requiring that those who feel the term is pejorative should accept the responsibility of documenting their claim. I'm really not inclined at the moment to get involved in another bout of arguments, though; if I contribute any more to this issue, I will probably confine my efforts to trying to get the warring parties to come together, or to try to force them together via a call for arbitration or whatever, and for me to be most effective in that way, I think I should probably stay out of the thick of it from here on. Richwales 04:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that suggestion as it makes sense afterall. Two sources do describe the term as pejorative and stating as such without making assumptions otherwise is the best. I have proposed this solution on the talk page. --Northmeister 05:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Awarded to Northmeister for learning and improving, and for not letting a mistake impede his growth as a Wikipedian ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley

Thanks for your comment, Today I moved the U.S. Hit singles chart off the main page, and to the hit singles page. To make the main page more of a NPOV, instead of an American POV. Also, I think the main page now looks smoother with no charts on it. It also made the main page smaller.Rogue Gremlin 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to free trade article

Hi,

I see you removed my changes to the Free Trade article. (I just did another one without realizing this.) I don't recall exactly what I wrote, but much of the existing article consists of opinions. Economics is much more about philosophy and ideology than about science.... I'm not sure how you want to fix that. Free trade is a theory that has never been successfully tested, so it's hard to reference actual facts.

The argument generally boils down to: "this is how it'll work if it was implemented properly", and the response is: "that may be how you wish it'll work, but there's no evidence it would actually work like that" :-) It's a collision of theoretical vs empirical methods, as is most of economics: neo-classical/Austrian vs Institutional/ecological/behavioral.

Anyway, you offered to work with me on it, and I'm open to that. I created a new account, username ericbalkan.

Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericbalkan (talk • contribs) 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Trade

I don't understand your comment. One of the edits I made was to point to the Wiki article on Fair Trade, as one of the alternatives to Free Trade. How is that "not in good faith"?

- Eric  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericbalkan (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recent "challenge" for use of pix

You can probably save me lots of time. What is it that "they" want now? Steve Pastor 22:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

Thanks for the vote. You seem to have gotten at least Elvis up to a high status. Would you be willing to go through the EVP article and see what you think needs to be changed before it becomes a Good Article? ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 05:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair trade again

Hi,

I'm really not sure what the next step is here, in regards to the Free Trade article. Can we take my edits one at a time? The first one I posted was a link to the Fair Trade article. I put it in the Alternatives section, and followed the form for the other links there. What was the problem? If that one's not acceptable, it's not worth even discussing the others.

Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericbalkan (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis

If vandalism stays low-level, it's best to just warn vandals and report them at WP:AIV as necessary. If it gets any worse, leave me a note or request protection again at WP:RFPP. Semi-protection, particularly due to vandalism, is in no way a reason for an article not to become featured. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Northmeister. Been out of the loop due to broadband problems. I agree, 141's edits merit a rewrite or deletions before nomination. They don't fit well as things stand. Hope to have time in next couple days. Rikstar 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. See my comments on The Presley talk page. If I have the time... Maybe it should be nominated anyway. Even if it was 'right', someone'll change things. All the best. Rikstar 14:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've bitten the bullet and hopefully managed to work out recent problems. I hope you and others approve. Still needs tweaking - see talk page. I have left a request for 141 to supply page citations for his recent contributions. I noted the 'Resilient Barnstar' award - a very noble gesture on your part. Rikstar 12:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your support and encouragement is, as always, very much appreciated. Rikstar 14:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think EP is ready for FA nomination (or has it happened?) - unless you feel the sandbox version is a contender. I've checked out EVP but I don't think I can do much. Rikstar 07:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What point?

You keep accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but I can't find where you say what point it is that I'm supposedly trying to make. You're welcome to discuss my behavior on my talk page or other appropriate forums, but article talk pages are not the right places to lodge complaints against editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked for intervention on this. I'm not sure what's in your mind, only you are. I had to respond on the American School page, due to the nature of your objections - out of place considering our compromised agreement on the page. Little by little you've wittled away at our compromise made with WAS 4.0. I've attempted to address your concerns (as evidenced by several edits since the compromise) and you continue to make unnecessary objections there and where you can elsewhere. You answer your own question. Why the constant dispute between us? Why have you never shown be good faith since I arrived here? I can't answer this - only you can. Other than onefortyone at the Elvis page who accuses me of all sorts of things - you're the only editor or admin that I can't get along with despite efforts by myself to address our concerns - extensions of cordiality; efforts by others to intervene etc. Either you have a personal vendetta for some unknown reason or your simply harassing me. Either way it has to stop. The best remedy for this is to stay away from me and the edits I make voluntarily or for this to goto mediation or arbitration in which all of it from day one should be put on record and where I'll request removal of adminiship and a community block for disruptive behavior and harassment. I see no other resolution - and its more than the most recent incident. --Northmeister 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point that I'm trying to make. I'm not harassing you and I've never been uncivil with you. I've been working on the American System and Anchor baby articles since before you started editing Wikipedia. If you don't like working with me then you don't have to edit the same articles I'm working on. I've lost track of how many times you've threatened my with various actions. Yes, please bring this up with the ArbCom if you think that is the appropriate action. But please stop threatening to do so as that becomes harassment in and of itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never threatened you with anything. I've asked you to stop the behavior towards me and pleaded with you to work in a cordial and ethical manner. Time considerations were my concern in the past, and still are, along with not knowing the process well; together with attempts to address this with third parties - as well as good natured attempts to address our concerns and invitations to compromise offered toward you' - were my actions and I suppose my mistake. This however has to be resolved by third parties officially in some form along with past behavior by yourself towards others in a similar manner. --Northmeister 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "The best remedy for this is to stay away from me and the edits I make voluntarily or for this to goto mediation or arbitration in which all of it from day one should be put on record and where I'll request removal of adminiship and a community block for disruptive behavior and harassment."

I interpret that as saying, "either stay away from the articles I edit or I'll seek to have you de-sysoped and banned." I see that as a threat. If it isn't please then explain what you are actually intending to do if I continue to edit the same articles I've edited for years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited is a kind word. Disrupted is more appropriate. The above comment is the most recent - because I am fed up with all this. Not keeping your word, not acting in good faith from day one - not showing any sign of cordiality my way when I've extended this to you - throwing around WP's as if they were candy in the summaries (given false impressions) - changing your mind when I agree with you (at Anchor Baby). Goading me to get me upset as a new user when I respond inappropriatly as I've admitted and learned from. Continued goading and pushing my buttons with your rhetoric. Might be ok for an editor but not for an admin who could do real harm here. The above is not a threat - it was a warning to stop your behavior and act in good faith like those of the past - but I see that is not going to be the case. --Northmeister 20:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

Thanks man (: I went to the page to withdraw the GA nomination, then decided to give it a few more minutes- and you stepped in. It's really good to have a neutral editor on the article. I don't even know what you think of the subject, and that is how it should be. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AWB

OK, I've approved your request but please do not use the software to do anything controversial. Jogers (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP progress.

What happened? I thought we were going to work on the EVP article? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a short (maybe a week) wiki-break. I'll return thereafter to continue our work. --Northmeister 02:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: The Once and Future King (The Twilight Zone); The Girls (1960s band); He Touched Me; Elvis Now; Elvis taxon; Dolores Fuller; Elvis Meets Nixon; Precognition; Promised Land (song); Jocelyn Lane; Robert Ryan; A Big Hunk o' Love; The Pandoras (1960s band); Roy C. Bennett; An American Trilogy; Tiny Timbrell; Bernie Baum; Don Robertson; Sid Wayne

Cleanup: Robert Siodmak; Left-Hand Path and Right-Hand Path; Spiritual evolution
Merge: Crystal ball; Scrying; Can't Help Falling in Love
Add Sources: Floyd Cramer; Billy Strange; Arthur Crudup
Wikify: List of drama films; Aura (paranormal); Post-Keynesian economics
Expand: Elvis (text editor); Aaron Schroeder; Yvonne Craig

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley

I've re-protected it for 4 months because the vandalism was just getting ridiculous, but unprotected pages shouldn't have the lock template left on unless it is a hidden note (thus it will not show). I removed it because it was expired on that date (after a one week protection) and if it wasn't me, User:DumbBOT would have automatically removed it. Anyways, that's probably the last chance before a permanent protection.--JForget 02:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. You missed all those insightful contributions from vandals who made recent editing such a joy. The section on the women in his life was deleted and replaced by an unregistered editor. Laralove has been outstanding getting the Notes - and the deleted section - into shape, but I think she would have reservations about nomination (see Presley talkpage) because of the Notes. I'm all for peer review whenever editors like Laralove give the green light. And I'm looking forward to protection staying in place! Rikstar 05:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EP has big problems (see EP talk page). It's too long, according to LaraLove. I've offered to cut it, but 141 will probably object for the usual reasons and it won't improve. I'll probably edit it anyway. Rikstar 15:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Sorry, I actually didn't mean to revert your removal of the tags since I was removing the images anyway. My edits are all explained on the talkpage. ScienceApologist 03:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing image and other issues

I removed the image because I truly believe that AAEVP is trying to supply content for Wikipedia to further their own self-promotion. As for the rest of my edits, I'm getting tired of there being a lot of blather and no action on the talkpage. I was under the impression when I got here a month ago that you were trying to mediate. Obviously, whatever attempts you were making have failed as we've gotten nowhere and the article has remained in a shambles. Therefore, I'm going to work on this article until I think it is better. I am under no illusions about whether Davkal and Martinphi will accept my edits, but I'm not going to sit idly by pretending that there can be consensus and reason while grandiose claims of "research" and "experiments" into this "phenomena" are left in article space. I invite you to edit what I'm doing with severity.

I'm imagining right now that a student of mine comes across this article. I want it to be neutral, verifiable, and accurate and not read like copy from Unsolved Mysteries. ScienceApologist 03:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]