User talk:North8000/Archive 1

Thank you so much! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, and thank you for the barnstar. Finetooth (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North. I'm not going to place the L1

It hit several pet peeves at once.....I stand by the substance of what I said, but should have used calmer and nicer words. Even if talking about a robot. North8000 (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid making negative personal comments about your fellow editors, such as unproven allegations of "gaming the system" or bias. Such remarks are uncivil.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poppycock, will, the source clearly said the exact opposite of your edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Will, that is a comment about actions, not individuals, so I don't think that "personal comments" is correct. Also, an entire WP guideline is written about and titled gaming, so I don't think that the terminology is uncivil. I really do believe those things about your actions at the moment. Nevertheless, if you took anything I said personally, then that was opposite what I intended and I apologize. If you knew me, you would know that I can have spirited, blunt, fast moving, direct "opponent" debates with people that are good friends and who I am privileged to know. ...I completely separate the two. Not knowing me, I could see how such might get misinterpreted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting about an action I make is a comment about me. If an edit is incorrect then say, "there's an error in this material" rather than saying, "Editor A is biased and is gaming the system".   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, what you say may be often true in real life, but Wikipedia makes a big distinction between talking about actions and talking about people, the former being commonplace and accepted. But again, if you took anything I said personally, then that was opposite what I intended and I apologize. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, which I accept. In the future, remember that "assume good faith" is a policy. The guideline,

WP:GAMING, says: Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship deliberately. Accusing someone of gaming the system is accusing them of acting in bad faith. It's a serious charge which should be accompanied by solid evidence and, if true, should result in remedies. It's not an accusation to make lightly.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Will, without talking about any particular situation, I think that one of the reasons that AGF is a guideline rather than a policy is that it can't be and isn't applied categorically, particularly with my next point in mind, where minor breaches of gaming/npov become evident. Gaming can be something as minor and common (and certainly not a serious charge) as using the wp system to promote a POV at the expense of accuracy. Not that any of that particularly applies here. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A subsequently-banned user, but we were were on reasonably good terms the whole way through. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you were trying to do there, but it looks like you tried to make a cut and paste move. Please don't do that again—it just makes a mess. Please use the move button, though I should point out that article titles shouldn't have a disambiguator unless the title is actually ambiguous with at least one other topic that has a Wikipedia article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the title that you moved it to is available (Voyageur) then that is preferable. But I believe that it was a pretty substantial disambiguation page which now appears to be gone. (?) North8000 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I got the wrong title. Voyageurs was where the deleted history was. I've fixed it and merged the two histories back together. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HJ Mitchell

OK, just to sort this out:

As of 6 weeks ago:

• There was a Voyageur disambiguation page (but no entry for Voyageurs on it, and a Link to Coureurs de bois, mistakenly identified as a synonym)
• There was a Voyageurs redirect page which went to the above disambiguation page
• There was a Voyageurs section in the Coureur des bois article, where everybody agreed it didn't belong.

As of Month Ago I "started" the Voyageurs article by "upgrading" the Voyageurs redirect page into an article. I also added "Voyageurs" as an item in the disambig page. I assumed that it would eventually need a brand new name "Voyageur (fur trade)" but wanted to go slow on that. Because: 1. wp:mos says not to use plural, and says to use disambig in the title if necessary. 2. I floated the idea for weeks on the talk page (no response either way) 3. Such was previously suggested by others is the disambig talk page. I actually like "Voyageurs" better, but only contemplated and did the move for the above reasons.

As of two days ago

I started the "Voyageur (fur trade)" article by moving the Voyageurs article material to it, and turned the Voyageurs article into a redirect to it.

As of now

The two rounds of work that you did put it back to where it was 3 days ago. Should I just leave it as Voyageurs? That would be fine with me. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It ended well as the new Voyageurs article. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I kept plugging away at the citations and I think I am at least 3/4 done. I deleted and/or replaced a few citations that I thought would get contested. We recently had a couple of dead links that I replaced. I haven't checked out the rules for Title Case that Imzadi mentioned. Do you feel like checking that out? I still like your idea of trying for FA on November 10. What kind of time frame did you have for the review?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be happy to work on the title case stuff.

I have it figured out. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to your other question, I also have to learn a couple more things about the sequence:

I thought that an article of the day had to be a FA, but there was something at FA that seemed to imply otherwise (a rule that you couldn't nominated the article of the day for FA). With the time line in mind, this might be worth looking into.

Looks like it must be a FA.

Also, have to figure out if it would be a good idea to submit it to peer review first. Actually, I'm sure it would be a good idea except for the time line.

Hate to look for shortcuts, but this article has been gone through pretty thoroughly already, and it sounds like all three of these in "series" might be a tight squeeze to get into 11 months: 1. Peer review. 2. FA review 3. Waiting to become article of the day. (GOTTA be November 10th!! even if 2012? ) I hope to learn and have a more intelligent answer within a few days. If anybody else reading this has any thoughts....

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We did it, made FA, and also made the front page of Wikipedia as article of the day. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has been fixed, may I label it a GA? LittleJerry (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LittleJerry. I fixed the last item myself (took out the image which appears to have an unsolvable permission problem) and was planning to wait until today to see if I got reverted in which case the article would still have the issue. I didn't want to say that explicitly because I wanted my edit to stand on its own merits, not stand due to me being the reviewer. I'll pass it today. Thanks for nominating / pointing out such an excellent article and for your fixes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is done.North8000 (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chief argument of social democratic libertarians is this:

• State intervention in the form of control is the chief problem with the existence of the state
• Profit is a form of rent and/or a Marxist analysis of exploitation; either resulting in private profits being a form of coercive intervention
• Therefore, expansion of the state ambit is acceptable for redistributive purposes
• And an expanded social democratic compromise results in less immediate state intervention into the vast category of recipients of state benefits
• As state benefits are no longer micromanaged (an intervention gone)

It is internally coherent from its premises. But it is a rare formulation. Primarily comes forward in social justice movements, and can be seen in the radical social democratic demand for a

Does this help explain how people who think that way perceive their own ideology? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and explanation. There are so many thing things involved in the complex discussion and that I don't know what to say without setting down to hours to write it. Instead, if you permit me a few thoughts to come to mind. From what you describe above, that group is not Libertarian, they just put the word in their name. Rather than press that point (which I may be wrong on)I just think that a quick not that in effect says "not everybody who puts the word "libertarian" into what they call themselves is necessarily a libertarian. I think that this would make this less confusing to the readers.

There was a huge war there, and folks on BOTH sides were warriors. I think that it has passed now, but some folks are still transitioning out of seeing everything through that lens and context. Aside from that issue,I don't think that there is any substantial dispute or difference of opinion at the article.

Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pulling Talk:Libertarianism back to the discussion. I'm sad that my contribution ends up being 4 paragraphs and four discursive footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that after a couple years of effort it is much improved and friendly. And we found a few rosetta stones along the way which helped. North8000 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you see that I have been precisely correct the whole time in the recent Libertarianism threads. As such, I'd appreciate no future lectures on

Hello BigK. Whether I was right or wrong, I honestly saw you as the only one still viewing this as primarily a war situation, and my ONLY goal was to convince you that that period is at least temporarily gone. Let's call what I was doing a matter of promoting my perception of the situation, (including from various one on one communications with folks on both "sides") My email is north9000 (9000, not 8000) at gmail should you ever want the simpler discussion of touching base one on one. (noticed that you do not have email enabled) All of that aside, here's the actual big picture: thank you for the nice words, my compliments on your expert WP contributions in even the most complex areas, and it's a pleasure and privilege to know you and work with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just felt a little attacked (in a very small way), and that the AGF bit may have distracted a little from the various issues at hand. In any case, it's good to see that things seem to be on their way towards adding citations and ideas for improved material due to your efforts. Your dedication is enviable. BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for leaving you guys hanging, somewhat, on the TPM issue a hundred years ago. RL kind of collapsed on me and I've only just been dug out. No, I wasn't in jail. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and welcome back! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you were a member of

Happy to. I'll have to get up to speed on it first. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comment of yours here. Peter jackson (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm flattered! North8000 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you for your great teamwork on our goal of FA for the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article. Wpwatchdog (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm flattered, I'll try to live up to it. You have an even bigger one coming for a zillion things you are doing.

I'm still running at 10% on WP due to a RL blow, but am getting back in the saddle. North8000 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Support, threaded discussion is supposed to go in the "discussion" section (because it usually results in the "support" and "oppose" sections being filled with unwieldy amounts of text), and you were being counted twice. I grouped your two comments together. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not following exactly, but it sounds cool. Thanks for doing it and thanks for telling me. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was wondering if you had specific issues with the {{

Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will ask them. As it is, unless I make a huge mistake, most probably nobody will be able to tell there was any change, since everything will be behind the scenes (except for the fact the default for {{sfn}} is a parentheses-less form), and as I said earlier, the FAC crew, for all their effort, rarely give the referencing style more than a cursory look. Circéus (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If WPWatchdog is cool with it, (as I see they are) so am I. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with it.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there guidelines / suggestions on how people who started to edit using their real names and then became subjects of articles should contribute to articles / discussions on matters on which their contributions in the outside world were significant parts of their professional activities? I do not feel that this should give their opinions extra weight -- perhaps avoiding the citation of one's own work should hold even more strongly in this situation. I even wonder if there is a COI. I post the question here, because you noticed and mentioned that I am both editor and subject. I did not want to inject this into the verifiability discussion. I have to leave further comment on the Determinants article, the verifiability of leads, and the need for articles about mathematics to be open to general editorship (after all, I am NOT a mathematician) for now. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael. Thanks for the message and it nice to hear from you. I think that if one reads them closely (vs just throwing around the acronym as many people do) the wp:coi guidelines provide an excellent definition and excellent and realistic guidance on this. But to provide a short answer to your question,no, there is no coi inherent to that situation. Beyond that, it is a matter of behavior. And, since in the Wikipedia context, I would rate you as a (currently) overly-cautious editor, I think that there is zero chance of you violating the behavioral part of wp:coi.

My suggestion (for reasons completely unrelated to this discussion) is that MOST people should not use their real life names as their Wikipedia usernames, or even make any connection in Wikipedia between the two. Of course there are exceptions, it's a personal choice. Since you just got started, you might want to decide if you want to make that switch to another identity. But if you do, read wp:sock closely and do not violate it. I emphasize this because unlike in real world, that is considered a serious offense here.

But beyond that, my suggestion is that "you worry too much about this stuff"; just jump in and start discussing at the article's talk page and then start editing there. (I'll watch the article for a while, and would be happy to insert a comment to break the ice) As I described in more detail at wp:ver, I think that you misread the situation at the article; I think that others there were waiting for you to offer ideas,discussion and edits. An easy mistake to make because when you entered Wikipeda you jumped down the rabbit hole, and now have to learn how things operate in this rough-and-tumble but fun parallel universe! Enjoy! And certainly let me know if I can be of any help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is time consuming. I am 82. I need to prioritize my expenditure of time very carefully. When I started to edit WK articles, I thought I had material to contribute, because I remember topics that should be included and how to obtain relevant verifiable information that might be lost otherwise. I now have established dialogue with a major archive that supports oral history projects that are well indexed online. In consequence, I have no further need to contribute to WK on this score.

I think the verifiability issue of far greater general importance to the protection of society from dangerous pro-active information pollution by WK than the specifics of the determinant article. I have noted the May 2011 Update of the Foundation [5]. This states "it's been getting increasingly difficult for people to edit the Wikimedia projects", and refers to the "steady decline in the participation and retention of new editors" and to the need to "promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture".

I seek a verifiable citation to the opening paragraph of the lede of an article. I am intrigued by the extent and variety of arguments resisting this, that has introduced irrelevancies, misrepresentations and expressions of bizarre policies and ignorance. Overall, this could betoken a situation in which established editors protect the power of established editors to prevail with whatever they want on WK.

An open, collaborative, invitational ethos would be supportive of the right to seek verification.

You have been courteous and diplomatic in steering me away from the verifiability page. It would be discourteous for me to go back to the verifiability page without first asking if you would object to my seeking administrative ruling on whether it would be appropriate for a verification to be provided when an Editor requests one. Or at least a ruling on the circumstances in which such a request is reasonable and should be responded to.

Michael P. Barnett (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael, thanks for the message. You are so cautious and polite that there is nothing that you could conceivably do that I would consider discourteous. And answering your question, I would not consider that to be discourteous. I do re-assert my advice which is essentially that you being so so polite and so so cautious (combined with not yet fully understanding the mysterious ways of Wikipedia) is causing you to fundamentally mis-read the situation. Again, I'm always ready and eager to help or talk if you care to. Thanks again for the message. Sincerely, North8000 13:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest, could I ask which case you were referring to just now at WT:V? --JN466 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is friendly and low key and I would like to keep it that way. I will email you that answer on the condition that it be only for illustrative purposes of my point and for the courtesy of answering your question. I don't want to "win" anything from extra intervention, I would rather move forward into a good working relationship with the other person, hopefully convincing them to be less seemingly pov driven (via expert wikilawyering) rather than "win" this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool of you. I will have a look at the discussion if you send me the link, but I won't intervene. --JN466 02:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As you are actually doing a lot of work on the 'Titanic' article, I wondered if you are interested in additional sources. I've two comprehensive papers as PDF (Unfortunately, only scanned, hence no text search possible) which are (although not fully flawless) highly valuable. If you are interested, just send me an email containing your email address (on my user's page --> Toolbox --> E-mail this user). Regards, --DFoerster (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Hacket C. and Bedford, J.G. (1996). THE SINKING OF THE S.S. TITANIC – INVESTIGATED BY MODERN TECHNIQUES. The Northern Ireland Branch of the Institute of Marine Engineers and the Royal Institution of Naval Architects, 26 March 1996 and the Joint Meeting of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, 10 December 1996.

(2) W. Garzke et al. [Marine Forensic Panel (SD 7)]: Titanic, The Anatomy of a Disaster. The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 1997

Thanks for the message. That would definitely be great. I'll send you a email. As background, me and WPWatchdog have worked a huge amount together at the SS Fitzgerald article, which jusst got FA. ....sort of a ying and yang, we're each good at and do different things. Someone asked us to help at Titantic, and, I asked on the talk page and now we sort of moved over to the Titantic article. But we'd much rather join the party than be the party.

PS: After the next few hours, I'll be off the grid (no internet access) for a week. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! I think the Encyclopedia Titanica rates as a quality source as long as the citation does not refer to the message board? Do you agree? Or should we address this question on the article's talk page?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It will probably be another day before I'm fully back. I don't yet know enough to have an opinion on your question......I'll take a closer look, but wanted to get back to you in the meantime.

I looked at that web site. Looks like an immense amount of good information. So then on to the next two questions. #1 Is it a reliable source of information, and #2 Does it meet wp:"rs" criteria. On #1, I think that it is as good as anything. That means (consciously or subconsciously) checking what we get from there against plausibility, its "trappings", and what was learned from other sources) when using it. On #2, I'm not sure, but I think that the answer is yes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received those two pdf's from DFoerster. Last I checked you don't have email enabled, but if you ever want them drop me an email at north9000 at gmail dot com

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news - Imzadi1979 agreed to help clean up the Titanic citations.[6].--Wpwatchdog (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I left a note at Imzadi's talk page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a proposal to change the first sentence of wp:ver at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal for a change in the first sentence. Your input is requested. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reply to your comment there, but first, I just want to say thank you for the very kind words you said about me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were well deserved. You made a proposal which I would call a masterstroke. And you being on the opposite side of me in the the debate would not slow me down for a second in saying this. The big picture is that it's all good people there with the best in mind for Wikipedia; just different perspectives on what will work best. Thanks for the note. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my proposed changes in the GA2 page. Please also consider whether they pose a copyright problem. If they are suitable, either you or I can add them to article space. Thanks! Racepacket (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added them to the article. Can you take another look? Would it be possible to complete the GA review? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I think on lots of them there are no notes on the review page regarding which items were implemented. So my only way to know which are done would be to keep re-reading the article, which takes longer. It would help speed it along (if yo wish) if you could note on the review page which items are completed. Also remember that these are just suggestions, if you think any are unnecessary or not a good idea, just let me know. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is done including adding the table with a heading. Please wrap up by 14:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC). Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I understand the unusual time note. This has to be done right irrespective of anything, but fortunately I've have already been going through it again, have no additional items, and passed it. Nice article, interesting article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your template and GA listing so it is fine now. Thank you for your thorough review. Racepacket (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, North. Since you seem to be the only person even aware

Nice that you are developing that and to see signs of life. Nice article! My one suggestion would address some confusion I had when I read it, probably due to my brain running at half speed before my morning coffee. The "history" section is more about the artist than the album, and I was subconsciously thinking it was an article about him. Then when I got to the track listing I though "which album is this for?" You might want to add a few words to the section headings or possibly sub-sections to the history section to clarify this. Let me know if I can be of help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making sure to restore my edits after you rolled back the page to remove Hofman stern's unhelpful edits. Just thought I'd make sure to acknowledge your conscientiousness :-)

Antediluvian67 (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for the note, and thanks for contributing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The article needs a big fix-up (someday) and will need more eyes, if you care to watch it.

The article is still a mess. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian war! byelf2007 (talk) 17 July 2011

VERY happy that you're there, even if we occasionally disagree.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a word of thanks for your tactful but authoritative intervention.

Errr ... Shouldn't that note read "A brain stem standard for death ,adoptedin the UK, and which has gained some ground in the US"

The best summary I've found of the issue that the article tackles is from Canada: A review of the literature on the determination of brain death Have a look, it covers the bases. VEBott (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually I did mean UK; let me explain. I'm no expert on the topic, so I'm just talking about what is in the article. And, based on what is in there, it is not clear whether or not that is the official standard within the UK. When one looks closely, they see that there was no cite/sourcing in the article for that / such a statement. And so my statement was more cautions /minimal, saying that it has gained some ground in the UK. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, brain stem death is indeed the official standard in the UK and has been since it was formally adopted in 1995. I will ensure that this is clear in future rewrites, with appropriate reference. It's an ongoing task. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VEBott (talk • contribs) 10:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! And, on behalf of readers, thanks to both of you for your work and vigilance on this. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there - I appreciate your comment on the other board and hope that a direct message isn't inappropriate. A discussion on this issue is now ongoing at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning and I believe this has now reached a point where Wikipedia rules come into play and, while I've been doing some reading, I don't really have any expertise in this area. I would therefore be extremely grateful for any advice you have to offer.

The current state of play on the talk page is that it is held that, because Bradley Manning has not stated that he identifies as British or directly asked for help from the British Government (or, to be strictly accurate, that he has not affirmed his British citizenship since his arrest), it cannot be mentioned in his infobox. Bradley Manning's status as a dual citizen is mentioned in at least six reputable sources:

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-reassert-worries-about-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-mannings-treatment/2011/04/05/AFXo4GlC_story.html

New York Magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/04/brits_pressure_us_on_bradley_m.html

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/bradley-manning-british-government-concern

The Guardian [again]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/13/bradley-manning-mother-william-hague

The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8377603/Bradley-Mannings-treatment-ridiculous-says-Hillary-Clintons-spokesman.html

Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367746/WikiLeaks-soldier-Bradley-Mannings-freedom-speech-row-Julian-Assange-UK.html

Some of these - for instance the Washington Post and the first Guardian article - carefully weigh up Bradley's lawyer's statements on the matter and come to the conclusion that Bradley is indeed a citizen of the United Kingdom. That Bradley Manning became a UK citizen automatically at birth is clearly the case in law but I understand that Wikipedia is primarily interested in reputable secondary references to this information.

I feel that, given the weight of supporting references, some of which actually take Bradley's non-affirmation into account in reaching their conclusion, to suggest that that non-affirmation is a reason for not listing his British citizenship alongside his American citizenship is incorrect. I also notice that where a personal statement is seen as necessary in Biographies of Living Persons (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates), this applies to religious and sexual identity or matters likely to damage the reputation of the subject, so I am not sure the rule is applicable in this case.

Am I wrong?

(And thanks for reading thus far!)

My best,

Naomi

Auerfeld (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naomi,

Not sure what to think about the info box. IMHO about 90% of everything points to his nationality as being simply American. The reasons why I consider the 10% to be only 10% is that even if the British government said he can have or has British citizenship, (and apparently there are wp:RS'd statements to that effect) the next question is that could a person be forced to have an additional citizenship without accepting it? Also, keeping in mind that this is a statement / opinion of just one national government. And then finally, could this possible 2nd citizenship refute calling his nationality simply American? I think "nationality" includes more things than just citizenship(s). So, outside of Wikipedia, I personally would call him an American. And inside Wikipedia, I would just include an explanation of the situation in the text without trying to boil it down to a one word judgment.

When I said "not sure about the info box", I said that because IMHO the info box, including the very brief statements that it makes, should include only stuff which is not seriously contested. Including "British" as a nationality IMHO would not meet this test. Possibly calling him simply "American" also does not meet this test. If the latter were true, then a remedy might be to leave it out of the info box and just explain it in more depth in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000

Thanks very much for your comments. I note what you say about nationality conveying a difference sense to citizenship - this is not the way I see things, but if others do, I take that on board. Perhaps the solution here is to indicate somehow that what is being referred to as nationality in the infobox is not the same as citizenship - either to link the reference to the discussion in the main body text or, alternatively to leave it out altogether as you suggest. I think that, as long as it does not appear that Wikipedia is making a judgement that Bradley is not a UK citizen, then the basic demands of accuracy are fulfilled.

I'll also post this to the article talk page - thanks again.

Naomi

Auerfeld (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my own quest to comment I happened to re-read the earlier discussion which you took part in and found the following written by you:

“Wp:npov dictates neutral wording. It does not say that non-neutral nouns can be substituted if they are more common. "Cutting" is straight-forward descriptive and neutral. "Mutilation" expresses an opinion. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)”

I‘m not sure if you aware or not, but NPOV does have a policy specifically for dealing with cases where a name is the most common but could be considered un-neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming), the text in question reads:

• “In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed.”

Vietminh (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's great that you reached a compromise, and it looks like the main folks involved there are cool with it, and, if so, I encourage y'all to go with that compromise. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, guess you didn`t check back. You were the only person in support of the compromise besides me and Jakew. Vietminh (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I haven't been watching the article Each time I've gone there was responding to a request. I put another comment there. It looks like we may disagree on the underlying question, but agree that the compromise is a good idea. So, ironically, I think that thinking differently than you on the former supports you on the latter!  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I saw you just commented, did someone also request you for a comment before the compromise? Vietminh (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it was from a noticeboard.

I'd be happy to leave the article if you prefer. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not my place to say that one way or another, thanks for your comments they are much appreciated. Vietminh (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I think I'll be phasing myself out there. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this comment you left on

Thanks for the note. It was a sort of edit conflict situation, it was open when I started writing the comment. All's well that ends well. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the SS Edmund Fitzgerald article for Featured Article consideration at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald/archive2 North8000 (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please have a look at the comment in the FA submission section of the article's talk page. Since you nominated it last time it's your baby :) Best, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 03:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good idea and I responded there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I resubmitted the article [[SS Edmund Fitzgerald for Featured Article (FAC) review. The review page is here: [[7]]

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Thanks! Means a LOT to me considering history and what I attempt to do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's great working with you. Maybe that beer is possible. Next stop, November 10th! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For all of your hard work in getting SS Edmund Fitzgerald promoted to Featured Article. Brad (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! It has been quite an adventure. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started the proposed policy Wikipedia:Government yesterday, motivated by deadlocks like e.g. now on the Verifiability page. If you are interested, you can help to develop it further. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I'm flattered by the invitation. I read it quick and will read it again and noodle on it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above post is by user Ninnep North8000 (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ninnep,

Thanks for the note. First you should understand that the comments there are not a critique of your work. They also not intended to say that your writing is badly biased. Actually it is responsibly written, albeit by someone who is an advocate for a cause. And I also laud you for your advocacy. And, in hindsight, some of the comments may be a bit terse/rough. But the crux of those comments are that a Wikipedia article needs to cover a topic rather than advocate something. I see that you are a new editor. Wikipedia, for editors, is somewhat an "alternate universe" that one must learn. For a brand new editor to go right to creating an article sets a pretty rough road for themselves, being forced to learn / deal with all of those things at once. I'd be happy to help if there are any questions.

A second issue is the structure of the title. Deinstitutionalizaiton is something that is done with people, not with facilities as the title states. I think that some type of rename is needed.

The subject(s) involved on this seem like they would make a good article or articles, if those articles do not exist already. And it seems like you would be a good person to build it. My first thought is that you need some time to wikify this, whether it be by delaying a deletion review for a month or two, or by userfying the article so that you can work on it off-line without all of this pressure and then bring it back out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite and update. I mentioned originally that my involvement in the project will be just a little....taking ones that I think I could do well at. I'll keep watching for those.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for being patient on this matter :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't have a strong opinion there, just trying to help gel a solution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For continuing to try to bring some reason to chaos. Enjoy your vacation, all the best! --Nuujinn (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Just got back, and haven't gotten my head screwed on yet, but wanted to say thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did the merge. The article was a 95% copy of it's section in the target/parent article so it was easy. North8000 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you should reconsider, based on the newly added sources. Marokwitz (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. I have not been watching the article and I agree with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went there and said that. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Half Barnstar
		For your work with Blueboar, seems appropriate somehow even though I dropped one on you recently. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll have to let Blueboar know that we're sharing one.  :-). You certainly also have one coming but I have to figure out how to do it right. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you participated in

Thanks for the heads up. That outcome surprises me, but I was just weighing in as an uninvolved person, so that result is fine with me even though it's not what I recommended. Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a long rationale, but you've spent time on this. Good on ya! Have a Friday night beer. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm sending one your way too. When this is over, some bigger ones will be due and I've already got yours named. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my comments in the section The part of the proposal at the end of the first paragraph? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's good. Maybe not perfect (IMHO "a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion would be logically perfect) or realistic to be able to to have a bold out-of-the-blue edit stick on the first sentence, but a good addition. Kudos to you. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Re "Maybe not perfect (IMHO "a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion would be logically perfect) or realistic to be able to to have a bold out-of-the-blue edit stick on the first sentence, but a good addition." - I didn't understand these comments since the mentioned items were not part of the edit. This edit concerns adding to the current policy just the two sentences, which were taken from the main proposal. It is not meant to replace the current proposal.

Please note that the more parts that the main proposal has, the more difficult it it will be for the proposal to gain a consensus. By getting this part into policy in advance, it will reduce the parts of the main proposal. And if this less-controversial or non-controversial part is not accepted, that information may be useful. If it is accepted, then at least part of the main proposal will have been successful and improved the policy page. Do you think it would be a good idea to put these two sentences into policy before the main proposal is put to a consensus poll? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bob. That wording is wording which I made up; I was just saying what I would consider to be ideal on that phrase. Everything that you said is good points & thoughts. I'm kind of focused on the main proposal and its rationale. I think that the fact that it has emerged from an extensive process and that it is a compromise are important things for making it fly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being understanding... My main complaint is your use of "not truth" without the word "verifiability" attached. The intent of the proposal is to return us to the original intent of a very specific phrase: "Verifiability, not truth"... not the phrase "not truth" which means something completely different. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure what I think, (I was thinking that those two words most accurately describe the topic of debate) but I decided when in doubt to quickly take it completely out as you suggested while there was still an option to cleanly take it out of that prominent place. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I'd be happy to. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are

WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! I will do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Hope to see you soon :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've started a discussion here on access issues for some of the features - I'd love to hear your thoughts :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, dude! :). Oh - and the next Office Hours session will be held on Thursday at 19:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. Give me a poke if you can't make it but want me to send you the logs when they're released - we'll be holding sessions timed for East Coast editors and Australasian/Asian editors next week. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; once again, office hours for the

article feedback tool! These will be held at 22:00 UTC this evening; logs from the last session can be found here. Hope to see you there :). Do drop me a note if you're not familiar with IRC and would like the cliff's notes, or if you can't attend but would like the logs/have some questions for me to pass on to the devs :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more information on the discrimination page about political discrimination. I still think we need to cover liberals but you can probably think of quite a few more political ideologies which have been oppressed. I added information about Anti-Zionism/Anti-Israeli actions in the United States as well as Anti-Communism and Anti-Freemasonry in the United States and during the Holocaust in Europe. Please help me make this a worthwhile section.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help in any way that I can. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you voted on the first AfD for Occupy Ashland, just a note that it's up for a second deletion nomination here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Austin Gaines and I am a freshman at Clemson University, making a page about a lake in my state. I have seen that you have made my edits to the Lake Superior page, and was wondering if you could give me some suggestions as to what I could add to my page.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel555 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following on their talk page. I saw them at both Lake Superior and my talk page. I answered at Lake Superior and at my talk page. BTW, the practice is to put new posts on the bottom of talk pages. I moved your Lake Superior one to the bottom and will move the one on my talk page to the bottom. Otherwise nobody will see them. So, stay tuned and I'll have an answer on my talk page (at the bottom) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to start is to find some sources (ideally secondary sources) that cover it and start putting in important material based on those sources. Size, depth, geology, history, flora and fauna, and current uses are a few good ones for most lakes. Let me know if I can help further. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of SS Edmund Fitzgerald know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 10, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Edmund Fitzgerald in 1975

The SS Edmund Fitzgerald was a 729-foot (222 m) Great Lakes freighter that made headlines after sinking in Lake Superior in a massive storm on November 10, 1975 with near hurricane-force winds and 35-foot (11 m) waves. The Fitzgerald suddenly sank approximately 17 miles (27 km) from the entrance to Whitefish Bay, at a depth of 530 feet (160 m). Her crew of 29 perished without sending any distress signals, and no bodies were recovered; she is the largest boat to have sunk in the Great Lakes. The Fitzgerald carried taconite from mines near Duluth, Minnesota, to iron works in Detroit, Toledo and other ports. Her size, record-breaking performance, and "dee jay captain" endeared the Fitzgerald to boat watchers. Many theories, books, studies and expeditions have examined the cause of the sinking. Her sinking is one of the most well-known disasters in the history of Great Lakes shipping and is the subject of Gordon Lightfoot's 1976 hit song, "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald". (more...)

Cool. A year ago it wasn't GA yet and WPWatchdog and I decided to shoot for GA, FA and then getting up as today's feature article 11/10/11, anniversary of the sinking. With the immense help of WPWatchdog and many others along the way we did it. Cool! North8000 (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a FAC editor who may have frustrated you, congrats. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And you never frustrated us. At each stage we wanted nothing less than a thorough, tough review to make the article better. And your expertise, which is immense, doubly so in the areas of sourcing and referencing, was very much appreciated. Thank you for that and your efforts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for carrying it over the goal line. You were a great partner!--Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WPwatchdog, we did it! What an immense amount of excellent work you did on this, and what a pleasure you have been to work with on this! Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the report at ERRORS was a bit of a kerfuffle, but when dealing with the TFA ERRORS page, the best approach is usually the one taken by Nikkimaria :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Not sure what you meant because I did not see any post by Nikkimaria there. When I saw it it struck me that that extra info should pretty simply clear it up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria didn't post there-- she just removed the sentence from the TFA blurb, so that ended that-- it didn't seem to be going anywhere, and the objection to a reliable reference to a dee jay struck me as pedantry. Some FAC reviewers (myself included) hate reading ship articles that are numbers, numbers, and more numbers that never tell the story of the ship-- I thought the "dee jay captain" provided nice relief from all the stats we typically see in ship articles, but if the folks who populate the ERROR page disagree, it's best not to get into a tussle, which is why I think Nikkimaria's action was wise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with it. On the topic, the person who thought it was wrong missed something pretty obvious....the source was saying what people were calling the captain, not an attempt by the article or even the source to characterize what the captain was doing. But it's no biggee whether or not that is in the blurb. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello North8000, regarding your comment here, the image did not have a specific

Thanks. I thought that that was a single image, so when I clicked on "it" and saw the fair use rationale already there I thought mistakenly "it" was for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that project still on-going to get the article to FA in time for the centennial? If so, let me know when things are falling into place so I can do some citation cleanup and comments. Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder and nudge. Both WPWatchdog and I did some work on it. From my end then I started working on reading and absorbing two large technical reports on it and then I kind of slipped into low gear, though I monitor it and the most heavy-duty of the sub-articles. (the time line one, which is really a more detailed account of the collision and sinking) and do some things. I think WPWatchdog (to a dramatic extent we make sort of a good yang and yang team....we did very different things at the Edmund Fitzgerald article) is willing to work on it, but due to those dynamics, if I don't get off my butt on this......... There is also additional complexity of there being a lot more material available than the Fitz article (stories from 1,511 survivors vs. zero from the Fritz, movies, etc.) and many sub articles so there are decisions as to what goes in the top level article and to what depth. But I think that that is all manageable. Me, I'm motivated to get it to be a very high quality, interesting, accurate and informative article.....to go beyond that to wiki-perfection will need other folks on the team. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we have the team and intensity that we had at the Fitz article. Me, I'm motivated to get it to be a very high quality, interesting, accurate and informative article.....to go beyond that to wiki-perfection will need other folks on the team. I think that WPWatchdog, who did an immense amount of work on the Fitz article is willing to help but not quite as revved as on the Fitz article. I floated the idea at the talk page but so far no others have responded. So I plan to work more on the article (more than I have been), and I'm not sure where that leaves your thoughts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that subject might be too popular for the article to become stable enough for FA. Every time someone makes a movie that shows space aliens landing somewhere in 1912, there will be a clamoring for the article to reflect this "fact." And then there is the constant drizzle of more mundane what "really" happened type stuff. Even keeping it stable while the FA process runs its course might be problematic. Am I being too pessimistic? Rumiton (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that THAT aspect would be doable with a core of editors who are focused / committed to that and who who stick around. 2-4 people would do it. I think that the bigger challenge is getting a team to do all of the needed work. I think that me and Imzadi1979 would do similar things that we did at the Fitz article. What we're missing is person/persons to do the immense amount of researching, sourcing and detailed work as WPwatchdog did at the Fitz article. My impression is that they may be willing to do some here but not to do a repeat of that Herculean job they did on the Fitz article. Long story short, I think we'd need 1-2 additional people willing to really jump in deep on this. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked whether a post I made was a comment or a support 'vote'. It is not numbered, is tabbed, does not start with or contain the word 'support' and clearly relates to the preceding comment. Am I missing something? I cannot see any particular technique other than those I used to indicate a comment rather than a 'vote'. PRL42 (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do that would be to change the indent on your first comment from ":" to "#:", the indent on the person who responded to you from "::" to "#::", and the indent on your second comment from ":::" to "#:::". This shows them to be all underneath the previous comment as you intended. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful post on the NPOV talk page. I need some time to think about all of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm flattered. I've been working on it; it still needs to have its writing tightened up (repetitions etc) and to have the the proposals made more specific, but with your question it seemed like a good time to put it in there anyway. North8000 (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually partially agree with you in certain aspects. Homophobia is a term that I don't think should be used for many reasons. A)uneducated people don't realize that phobia can mean discrimination. B) it is limited to homosexual people often times ignoring bisexual, asexual, pansexual, polysexual people. C)it should be more consistent with words like racism and sexism. For these reasons I more appropriately use the term Sexualism. Technically sexualism would apply to heterosexual people as well.

On another one of your comments. Reverse discrimination of homophobia would not be againist those who oppose homosexuality and the normalization of it. It would be those who do to heterosexuals the discriminatory measures that they do to homosexuals. Ex. Beating up a heterosexual couple or not allowing them in your store because they are heterosexual. This is known as heterophobia and is also covered under the term Sexualism. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on all counts, except reverse discrimination can take forms outside of what you describe. For example,I remember a news story.... of all of the dozens of insulting rant notes pinned to a bulletin board at a Wisconsin University, only the one where the rant was anti-gay got the poster charged with anything for doing so, and with a felony to boot. But on your last paragraph, I never used it in that fashion. I just made that comment to the effect that in the USA, legal anti-discrimination measures inevitably are reverse discrimination measures. What this also means is the the US tends to flip from discrimination directly to reverse discrimination, skipping the middle ground. I gave this as "back-story" info, but causing concerns about this actually happening or resentment to it having happened is counterproductive to the original cause, and this is a common phenomena. As indicated I'm bowing out at the article due to my self-imposed wiki-sanity policy, but wishing you and others there the best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misusing the word reverse discrimination no offense. Reverse discrimination is discrimination towards a majority group not towards a group which opposes a minority. Reverse discrimination would include anything that discriminates againist Whites, males, heterosexuals, cisgender people etc. It has nothing do with whether or not say a heterosexual who dosn't agree with homosexuality. In order for it to be reverse discrimination for example a heterosexual would need to be attacked exclusively FOR being or being percieved as being heterosexual whether they believe homosexuality is okay or not. Now don't get me wrong reverse discrimination towards heterosexuals does exist. About 1/50 hate crimes recorded by the FBI in the United States are towards heterosexuals. But you must use the word properly. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, but it is a minor point. Certainly there are many definitions/usages for reverse discrimination. And certainly you would acknowledge that many people would call preferential treatment (e.g. affirmative action, "hate crime" legislation) for one minority attribute reverse discrimination. ? North8000 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually affirmative action discriminates againist everyone not just the majority. It limits the amount of people of a certain race or gender and in some cases other things to being allowed in a certain organization. I actually for the most part don't agree with affrimative action however unless there is clear evidence that certain groups are not being represented. On hate crime legislation this actually dosn't discriminate againist anyone. Hate Crime stops crimes based on say religion. Not just hate crimes againist vulnerable groups such as Jews. For example if a Jew attacked and killed a Protestant while yelling epitaphs that are clearly anti-protestant. Or say a gay man beat a heterosexual while yelling the word breeder these would be prosecuted as hate crimes. And just so you know a heterosexual attacking a homosexual dosn't equal a hate crime unless there is clear evidence that the victims sexual orientation played a part in the process of the person being picked to be assaulted. On your other note look up the word reverse discrimination. It is'nt discrimination to say that a KKK member can't attend a festival for Jews, Arabs or People of Color. It is to not allow a White person with no evidence of racial hostility to do the same thing. On another note there has been instances where heterosexual people have been restricted from entering into gay bars. That is clearly reverse discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story I spoke of was where someone got charged with a felony (hate crime) for putting a general anti-gay rant on paper to a bulletin board in a dorm hallway. As I remember it was University of Wisconsin in Madison a few/several years ago.North8000 (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly argue that event was many things. Unfortunately discrimination is not one of them. He was prosecuted for what he said. Even the first amendment dosn't protect this. The first amendment gives people the right to say anything however it does not protect them from the reprecussions of what they say.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but I had brought it up in the context of an anti-discriminaiton measure becoming many would consider to be reverse discrimination. Charged with a felony for pinning a note to a bulletin board, whereas the consequences would be less or non-existent if his note wasn't against a specially protected class.North8000 (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are confusing reverse discrimination which is discrimination against a majority group in this case heterosexuals with anti-discrimination which are completely different things. In order for this to be reverse discrimination they would have had to target the heterosexual because that he/she was heterosexual. Not because of their opinions on homosexuals. Anti-discrimination is NOT always discrimination unless it specifically attacks the majority group.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving a particular definition of "reverse discrimination"; my whole point is that others have different definitions. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition is not proper however I could personally define biology as being "the state of walking on the moon." But that dosn't mean that it is right. In order to make such claims on the part of reverse discrimination you need sources and you need to show these sources are properly using the word.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically saying that preferential treatment of one class is never legitimately called reverse discrimination. I can't believe that you actually think that, but if you do, we simply disagree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that thats what you got out of the argument. That is not what I said. Giving preferential treatment to one class at the expense of the majority class and ONLY at the expense of the majority class can be considered reverse discrimination. Giving preferential treatment that does make people who are against the class angry does not however. There is a difference between being a heterosexual and being a sexualist. Being discriminative towards a heterosexual is possible and considered reverse discrimination. Being against sexualists is not. That is anti-discrimination.

My assertion is that the law in that example is an example of reverse discrimination, and that many would consider it to be reverse discrimination. I think that you disagree with both of those statements, so I think that we simply disagree in that area. Anything further on this particular item would probably be going in circles, but it's always truly a pleasure to talk to you, even when we disagree. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello North, I have dabbled on Wiki off and on for years, but still somewhat of a newbie editor. So I'm not quite what I think about what was done to the recent Talk discussion that was closed/hatted by other editors. I understand that my veering into general discussion was a violation of Wiki guidelines, but I wasn't sure it required such a drastic response. While I'm mostly inclined to drop the matter, I wondered what you thought of how that situation was handled. Regards, --Pekoebrew (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is still a POV mess. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate, it would be a significant gift to the field if WP had an umbrella article on this fascinating topic. :-) It's the kind of concept/phenomenon where there's value in seeing different applications: could even prompt scientists and engineers to apply it to their own area, eventually. Tony (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note and you are probably right,. But despite all of the technical sounding stuff in there, right now the article really doesn't cover specifically what it is. Missing defining the core concepts, and is even missing a definition of specifically what SIP is. (e.g. to say what is covered by the scope of that term, if such a def exists) And this is from a very technical and EE person who has read the article at least 15 times. If I could ever get my hands on those technical papers I think I could improve it and clarify the situation. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try after I'm out of work jail (14 Dec ... I'm wrecked at the moment). But I was talking more of an article that included selected parts of the welding SIP thing as subsection(s). You mentioned US Navy developments in a quite different area, plus possibly other analogous developments. They probably go under different technical names on google. One could start with a stubby article that at least provides short sections on several of these sig. image applications. I don't know the field well enough to contribute on such a fundamental level, though. What I'm saying is that the welding SIP article could be selectively merged into a new, broad-scope one. Tony (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to say. I don't disagree, and would be happy to help, but the questions in my previous post still exist. North8000 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of searching. It appears pretty clear that the SIP term was invented by that individual / company and refers to their specific product. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achowat showed me that these user pages are not actual Wikipedia articles. Apologies for the confusion. 75.42.222.149 (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It just looked like a lot of semi-random comments in a lot of places in short period of time and I got concerned about the possibility of harm being done. Let me know if I can be of help or answer any questions in any other areas.North8000 (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do something so the top of these user page thingies say they aren't Wikipedia articles? It was very confusing.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.222.149 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell by the page title. Whenever the title starts with "User" it's a user page. The two main prefixes are "User:" and "User talk:" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more notes: You might want to get yourself a user name. And put (exactly) 4 tildes (~~~~) after your post to sign it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brain stem death. North8000 - You showed kind interest and willingness to help the technically inept when I was last concerned with this entry several months ago. I have now revisited it and feel that I have, perhaps, a duty (as one involved from the first) to try to get it into uncontentious historically and scientifically accurate form. The November revision offers a Wiki-approved format to work on but my editing will inevitably upset the referencing and links. Would you be prepared to put them right once we've got the para contents in order?DWEvansMD (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure specifically what you are asking or proposing, but I'd be happy to help. Let me know the specifics. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the way with a revision which will, I hope, be seen as simplifying this unfortunately confused topic. I have cut out some of the references and that requires complete re-listing, of course. As I haven't mastered the system used on this site to cite them and link to them, it's for that I'll particularly need help. DWEvansMD (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Your saying "I have cut out some of the references and that requires complete re-listing, of course." sounds like a misunderstanding of how they work. Happy to help there as well. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now posted my revision in a form which will, I hope, meet Wiki standards of factual statement including mention of criticism without partiality. Since it is the concept of "brain stem death" - as diagnosed clinically - as human death which is the matter of general interest and the likely reason for enquiry, and that is a peculiarly British concept, I have cut out the confusing references to brain death concepts and protocols - in the genesis of which the diagnosis of the vitally important brain stem death element was, of course, necessarily involved. The unscientific Minnesota study - of 25 "moribund" patients, only 9 of whom had EEGs - had much improper influence on the reductionist thought processes of some neurologists some 40 years ago but should not be quoted these days. I have also cut out the US President's Bioethics Council's refusal to accept "the UK standard" in the hope of avoiding confusion with "brain death" (in its various forms the worldwide standard for death diagnosis on neurological grounds). Maybe you'll think the title should be more restrictive, as someone suggested a while back, but "Brain stem death in the UK" wouldn't be quite right as the UK lead has been followed by others, particularly its erstwhile colonies. I would therefore prefer to leave the title as is. I have resisted adding a very recent reference to Shah, Truog & Miller's very frank admission (in the current J Med Ethics) that all "brain death" and other invented redefinitions of death (for transplant purposes) are but legal fictions but it could be added as a minor edit at a later date if thought appropriate. It's interesting that two of the authors are from the NIH and Truog from Harvard (where the "brain death" notion was first mooted in 1968). May I leave you to deal with the references which are now in the simple style preferred by most journals on submission? Many thanks, David DWEvansMD (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. My initial work will be with using the Wikipedia tools for them, not in rewriting the reference format. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. There were a few loose ends ( three unusued references, three cites to reference numbers that do not exist) which I noted on the talk page. I'm assuming that the latter refer to the former but were just misnumbered, but did not want to edit based on that. Let me know if I can be of further help. North8000 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - and apologies for missing the renumbering of the last three references. I have now corrected that on the site, taking the opportunity to remove a redundant sentence about apnoea testing generally. I wonder if you think the rather complicated anatomical drawing of the brain stem (etc) should be restored. A simpler, more diagrammatic, picture showing how small the brain stem is would, I think, be more helpful to the lay enquirer but the one we took from the US President's White Paper was thought to be copyright sensitive. Again many thanks for your help - so much appreciated - DavidDWEvansMD (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I incorporated those last ones.

Not sure about the merits of particular diagrams, but using any image or diagram that has copyright questions is very difficult in Wikipedia, so I would avoid that. Mind you this is done not to protect the creators of the works, but to force the creators to release them for unlimited use (including commercial) by others. This is done by refusal to recognize any conditional permission, so it does no good to get permission from the creator of the work. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you like an opinion on the article, it is immensely better. One critique is that it still needs the UK context added to statements in several places. There are several statements made where something that is true only for the UK is stated as if it were universal. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that North8000. Opinion much appreciated. I will "let it settle" for a while and then have another look to see if I can clarify the specific UK application. Maybe, if I can get that aspect right, we can look forward to the removal of those unsightly and unsettling headers .....DWEvansMD (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "Wikify" tag can go now and I'll try removing it.North8000 (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I hope the "undue bias" tag can go too ere long. The "globalize" tag may be more of a problem as the "brain stem death IS death" idea is, as we've noted, essentially and peculiarly, British and Commonwealth. I am seeking expert advice about its wider usage, particularly for legal purposes. DWEvansMD (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the significant use of the term were limited to the British Commonwealth, and you said something to that effect, or at least state that context for the info, I think that you're OK. 16:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to put questions in superscript on IMHO problematic sentences in order to tag them for fixing by you. For example, you have a paragraph where you just say "the Conference" and I would add a question to make it say: the Conference^{What conference?}. These would help towards removing those other two tags. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. That would be very helpful. "The Conference" referred to is the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and their Faculties in the UK, references 3 and 4, so perhaps just adding the reference number would suffice. I'm awaiting formal confirmation that "brain stem death" is recognized as death only in the UK and its former colonies/Commonwealth. When I have it, a short addition to the first section should be enough to make it clear that what follows is specific in that sense - and it would probably be a good idea to restore the US President's Bioethics Council's White Paper reference as evidence that "brain stem death" is not accepted as death in the USA (where whole brain death is required, as in most of the world). That would, of course, require re-numbering of the subsequent references (+1). Would that be a big problem? Thanks for your active criticism and real help. It will be good to get this article right soon if we can. DWEvansMD (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes. The material should be explained in the article without reliance on material linked by footnotes. Answering your last question, it's not a problem; under the system that it is now in it gets handled automatically. So, here goes!North8000 (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes in light of your helpful comments North8000 and look forward to hearing what you think of my efforts to deal with them. I thought of putting in a specific statement, in the preamble, to the effect that the article is essentially about the UK concept and practice but deleted it as redundant when I saw how that is emphasized throughout the piece. It's the equation of "brain stem death" - as diagnosed by the official Code - that matters, isn't it? The legal position is, even now, unclear in the UK since it's a matter of case law here and there has never been an established precedent in the context of organ procurement. I still await the advice of my lawyer friends about its status elsewhere in the world - particularly Commonwealth countries - and may be able to "firm up" the legal side of the matter at a later date. Meanwhile I think it best to simply let it be known that it's "established practice" (in the UK) without risking criticism of misunderstanding the true legal position, whatever that may be. Perhaps the final mention of the UK Code of Practice needs yet another reference in the closing paragraph, though I guess readers will be tired of going back to that at that stage. Happy New Year - and thanks again - DWEvansMD (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. With all of the changes in the article, culminated by your recent changes in response to my notes, I think that the POV tag can go and I'll try taking it off. Regarding the last top level tag, "globalization" would be an issue if the concept is significant elsewhere but not covered in the article. You don't have to "prove a negative" in order for that tag to go, but some due diligence and exploration owuld be good for that purpose and also a good idea for for making a good article. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had the expert legal advice I was awaiting and find that, contrary to what we have been told for many years, the concept of brain stem death as a sufficient basis for declaring death for legal (usually transplant) purposes is not accepted throughout the Commonwealth countries, most of which hold to the concept of whole brain death (however they diagnose it). I have therefore tweaked the preamble minimally in the hope of making it clear that the reductionist concept is peculiar to the UK and a couple of its erstwhile colonies. Do you think that will suffice for removal of the remaining tag or do you think I should add a sentence saying that what follows refers specifically to the UK use of the concept and its diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis and certification of death itself (particularly for orgnan procurement purposes)? That seems a bit cumbersome to me, especially as we keep reminding readers of the special UK use all the way through but I will value your opinion. As regards the proper use (for prognostic purposes) of the syndrome's diagnosis in general - by whatever criteria clinicians may use according to their judgment and local or national hospital standards - I don't think we can or should say anything as there's no evidence of that use to go on. Happy New Year! DWEvansMD (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A happy new year to you too! In order to try to provide the best possible answer, I have two questions for you:

1. Is it also a standard for death in India and Trinidad & Tobago as noted in the article?
2. Setting aside the "Legal standard for death" topic, is brain stem death significantly a technical / medical topic elsewhere? To let you know where I'm going with this, if it were to be a significant technical / medical topic elsewhere in the world (evene if nto a legal standard for death) and the article only covered brain stem death with respect to places where it is a legal standard, then it would have a globalization or scope-narrowness problem, because it completely excluded coverage of those other significant areas. Conversely, if it is really only significantly a topic in the places where it is a legal standard, then coverage of those constitutes full coverage of the topic and then IMHO it wouldn't have a globalization/scope problem.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes - it is a legal standard for death in India and Trinidad & Tobago. 2. Setting aside the de facto and basic science aspects - particularly the ongoing debate about the ability of the various tests to diagnose true and total death of the brain stem (however defined) - the only real significance of formally diagnosed "brain stem death", as diagnosed by the procedure laid down in the UK Code of Practice, is its use as a legal standard for death certification. Comment and clarification much appreciated. DWEvansMD (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you answered my main open question. I just want to double check my understanding. So, "Brain stem death" is a term that is really only used with respect to being a legal definition of death. And so it is not a general scientific or medical topic outside of those countries that we just discussed? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding North8000. DWEvansMD (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I think that it's probably time to take the globalization tag off. I'll expound on this more at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you North8000 - and congratulations on the splendid links - for I expect it was you who dealt with them. They should prove very helpful to the typical lay enquirer. DWEvansMD (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I can't take credit for any links but hopefully helped a little. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit worried North8000. When I went to Wiki this afternoon - before the UK protest shutdown - and keyed in "Brain stem death" I got a page saying there is no such site. The same thing happened on two repeat attempts - and when I tried to 'Log In' I got a page saying there is no contributor named DavidWEvansMD (same response to repeated attempts). What is going on? Have I and the site been removed by "the Thought Police" perhaps?! If so, I suppose there is nothing I can do about it and must accept the way things are. But perhaps I could e-mail you, as a friend, for information. Would you allow me to have your e-mail address for discrete use please? Mine is [email protected] 81.107.34.21 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange .....! All seems to be well again now, some 10 minutes later. The site comes up promptly, and via Google, and I logged in as normal to add this. Some entirely innocent glitch, maybe. Apologies for worrying you too - if I did. But I'd still like to have your e-mail address, in case of future difficulty, if you wouldn't mind. DWEvansMD (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably just temporarily broken. Sure! on the email address. I sent you an email with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just revisited this topic and lo and behold, Dr Evans has reverted it into a polemic in which he himself is the most referenced author, a presentation quite out of keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. Admittedly some effort has been made to disguise the distortion. However, any approach which seeks to treat this topic as a British legal matter rather than as an international medical issue remains gravely misleading.

The article must give due emphasis to the fact that most countries, including the US, do not impose any mandatory confirmatory tests of whole brain function, but only demand evidence that the brain-stem is dead.

Due emphasis means not only stating that this is so but also explaining why, and placing the evolution of the British criteria in their full historical context - both influenced by and influencing work done elsewhere.

So let's hope we can agree a way of bringing this article back up to the standards of international relevance Wikipedia requires and which the subject so clearly warrants. VEBott (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sourced material, please add it. And if there are specific statements that you think are wrong, polemical, etc., bring them up on the article talk page. But if you are saying the article is too narrow, I would think that the main focus should be adding sourced material on whatever areas you feel are missing or uncovered. You are saying a lot of things about Dr. Evans's work on the article which are inaccurate, insulting and uncivil, and missed wp:agf by about 2 miles. Like baselessly inventing bad faith. Let's skip the drama and insults and instead build the article. I'll answer this in more detail at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help please North8000? I have been trying to update Reference 11, which is way out of date, but cannot seem to get into the list to edit it. It should read : Coimbra CG. Are 'brain dead' (or 'brain stem dead') patients neurologically recoverable? In Finis Vitae - 'brain death' is not true death. Eds. De Mattei R, Byrne PA. Life Guardian Foundation, Oregon, Ohio, 2009, pp. 313-378. DWEvansMD (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. I did it. Let me know if it looks OK. (BTW, that material is in the text where the reference is cited.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That's fine. 81.107.34.21 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much work later, the article ended up well. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I understand that at the time Ireland was part of the UK, but it is still a bit misleading. A person who might not know much about this topic they could easily assume that Ireland is still in the UK. Today it is very common for people to refer to Ireland as the Republic of Ireland. The following is only a suggestion; "The largest passenger steamship in the world at the time, the Olympic-class RMS Titanic was owned by the White Star Line. It was constructed at the Harland and Wolff shipyard, which is located in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK"

I know that it wasn't built in Northern Ireland but the shipyard is still active and it is in Northern Ireland Velvet1346 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some version that is accurate both then and now that nobody is going to be angry with? North8000 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting my back. --Wpwatchdog (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, it was well deserved. North8000 (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to revisit he article Aqib Khan. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed mine to "keep" Much improved, including sources establishing wp:notability. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you removed {{POV}} from IEEE 1394. The logo is not the issue. Please have a look at discussion pages before removing the heavier banners. Specifically read Talk:IEEE_1394#POV_issues_with_.22Comparison_with_USB.22_section. --Kvng (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the issue was the proprietary and non-representative logo. So, as my edit summary said: I "Remove(d) logo and POV tag as possible resolution. Just trying to help; feel free to revert if you do not agree." What you are pointing me to now is a February 2011 section (which had more recent(August) posts) many many sections back. I did not realize that there was any reason to look that far back (I had looked back all the way until I saw a Feb 2011 date, a post which was newer than the one that you pointed me to.) Further, the top level tag was put on in August 2011 but what you are basically telling me is that the comment on why the tag was there was NOT in the August 2011 sections, but only as an addition to the Feb 2011 section. Either way this falls under, as I said, "...as possible resolution. Just trying to help; feel free to revert if you do not agree.". North8000 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored {{POV}} due to issues identified in discussion but removed the logo as per the other discussion. --Kvng (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the issues are still there, that's the right thing to do. I would suggest indicating the reasons in the current talk page area. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hi North8000 It's a well known fact that The Seekers had their farwell concert July 7 1968 at a BBC-TV studio in London.I can't understand why you are misleading people and writing that it was on the 9 July.I tried to correct it but you wrote the 9th again.Please contact Graham Simpson at Musicoast and he will confirm it.He wrote the book about Judith Durhams life and is in close contact with The Seekers. (by user: Proculled)

To explain. It is a common form of vandalism for folks to change numbers etc. in articles, we usually call that "subtle vandalism" Your change, being while not logged in, and with no edit summary raised a concern that that might be the case. So I reverted your change and wrote the following edit summary: "Don't know if this was subtle vandalism or a correction. Please talk to us if it was the latter. Thanks" So we were looking for you to just touch base on the article talk page (or make your edit with an explanation/edit summary) to indicate that it was a sincere edit and put your edit back in. I'll put your edit back in. Also, it looks like you are new to Wikipedia, and are knowledgeable on and have sources on the The Seekers. That article could really use somebody like you there. Please stick around and edit the article and let me know if I can help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North.Thanks for changeing the date.Things here should be correct.Yes I'm new here on Wikipedia and find it a bit "hard"to understand how things work here.I have some knowledge about The Seekers and have done some work on the Norwegian page about The Seekers.Did some work on the english page as well but others changed it so I thought why bother.But I will see, maybe I will have a go on The Seekers page.They aere still loved by millions around the world and I know many come here to find info about them.Take care,Proculled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proculled (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I'll keep on eye on it and help in any way that I can, or let me know if I can help. You know The Seekers far better than I do, but I know Wikipedia stuff. BTW, the routine is after you post on a talk page, put 4 tilde's ("~~~~") after your post and it will automatically sign your user name and date etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Libertarianism". Thank you. --Fsol (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there. As indicated, my main concern is process...you basically trying to force that into the lead against consensus. That article has a brutal past, and over the last year we have gotten the process to be much more civilized/stable/civil and I'm willing to put myself into the breech / take heat to help maintain that, even if it involves somewhat going against my own preferences. (I'm a proprietarian libertarian, but I don't think that proprietarian is even agreed on by libertarians, much less a central tenet.) Secondarily, I think that the consensus had a good basis. Property rights are note even agreed upon by libertarians, much less it being a central tenet of libertarianism. I think that the best solution is to put your material elsewhere in the article and I'd support that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that after a couple years of effort it is much improved and friendly. And we found a few rosetta stones along the way which helped. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:North8000. I hope this message finds you doing well. I noticed that you were interested in lectures that discuss the reconciliation of science and religion, as you mentioned here. You may find this helpful. Cheers, Anupam^Talk 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! North8000 (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! In regards to your original comment there, I made these edits to balance out the information already present. What do you think? I look forward to your response. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 04:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article continues to have a substantial structural FLAW which leads to POV problems. But I was convinced that the net benefit of a fix is lower than I perceived and decided to not pursue it further. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North. I hope you're ok with my close here here. Best. Wifione ^Message 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Good close, a bit different than my recommendation, good close. I didn't have a stake in it, I was just trying to help by reviewing some of those. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See you around. Wifione ^Message 12:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely sorry if it sounded like I was scolding you. That wasn't my intention in the slightest. My pointedness was simply to draw attention that our discussions need to progress, to funnel toward some kind of a defensible resolution rather than endlessly repeating itself. This is an article about a controversial topic so its talk pages attract people who like to troll and others who like to soapbox about ID (both/all sides far too eager to do this), but that's not the purpose of the page. The purpose is to nail down content for the mainspace, and in any content dispute it's the entry level requirement, the bare minimum, that sourced content be the focus to settle it. If it's sourced, it qualifies for discussion. If it isn't sourced, remove it from the article until it is.

That's all I intended from my comment. When "we need to do this's" are neatly spelled out, and each one of these "this's" are obviously non-issues either because they *are* already addressed in the article or that the reasons they *aren't* addressed were just explained mere hours before, I'll say as much because there is no value in any of us wasting time in these wild goose chases over imaginary "problems". Yeah, so I may have sounded sharp toned against you and I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention. My answers were maybe too focused on my own take of how the discussions there go awry, but they were never meant to be against you. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and, of course, accepted. I didn't take it as directed at me specifically; my offer to leave the article was more an indication that I was only there to try to help. But to explain my notes there, one strength that I think I have is to see the structure of material/statements and the mechanics on how it affects the overall course of events. When I look at that article I see something that is more promising (more easily remedied) that the usual eternal POV war that most wp:articles on controversial topics are doomed to due to some weaknesses in wp policies / guidelines. In this article that is a fundamental lack of clarity in the area of the main question that I posed. Also that the answer to that question might not be in-dispute. And so getting the answer agreed-upon might be both a realistic possibility and a good foundation for resolving some long-running issues. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus of the Arbitration Committee, the request for arbitration enforcement in which you participated has been moved here. The hearing will take place at the new location,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. My comments are limited to some narrower areas but might be useful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the keep on

Sorry I didn't log out of my brothers account I forgot because I asked him to comment on my articles about to be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. A good template for something I've been thinking Wikipedia is missing....navigation type list articles. Where categories don't do the job, and the material isn't suitable for a disambig article. IMHO the perfect one would have a nav sentence or phrase by each, but this is good too. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this isn't relevant because there's no sign that it's notable enough to be included in this entry. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Hairhorn (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further into it, there are even more problems. See my latest edit summary in the entry for more. Hairhorn (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well to me that looks like discrimination on the discrimination page. The cite gave the title, date and location of the article. Chicago Tribune, Feb 5th.. Did you check? So you have said both copy vio and that the article doesn't exist (so its copied from a non-existent article?) and that the editor may have been the subject of the Tribune article, with no basis for any of the three accusations. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there is a basis, based on the name they give on their user page. But I am doing my best not to out the user any more than they have already outed themselves. Hairhorn (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They explicitly give their name, where they live etc. on their user page. Upon a re-read of the article, I noticed that it has done a pretty good job of staying at the higher/more general level. Something this specialized might start messing that good pattern up, so it's fine (and, in hindsight, even preferable) with me that the material stays out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland has 5th highest violent crime rate in the US.[8]. It has paid out more to victims of police misconduct than any other city in CA by far.[9] Its police force may be taken over by the federal government.[10]

In short, Oakland is a highly notable city. Important things are happening in the city government there. It's frustrating to hear that local leaders aren't "notable enough" when they're the civil authorities responsible for truly life and death decisions.

Why are the people of Oakland devalued in this way that their leaders 'don't count'?

I would write more on the biography if I thought it would help, but I'm not sure what more I could add that would change any minds. People for whatever reason want the article deleted despite a lot of Reliable Sources on the individual.

it's hard to write for a project that doesn't seem to value my time. thank you for being an exception. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm assuming that that you're talking about the Patricia Kernighan article. (?) I think that folks there are being sincere in trying to do the correct thing, but some are making an error. One of introducing a second criteria beyond meeting wp:GNG. If you wanted to bolster it further, my advice would be to find an(other) article or 2 which has some detailed coverage of her specifically and incorporate that as a reference. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey north,

I'm fixing up the article for POV to save it from deletion. Looks notable from the refs. A412 (Talk * C) 05:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool/nice work taking that on. I've since reinforced that my opinion was and is "keep". The subject is notable, has references, it just needs a lot of work. The latter is technically not relevant to the decision, but a fast start there can't hurt. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re *your* latest post: Ah! good summary. But see

Yes And then a subsequent effort ran out of gas. A huge undertaking, probably too huge to ever happen. Probably the more realistic possibility is to take the duplicated items out of NOR. The remaining 10% would be the particular points made about OR per the real world meaning of that term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello North. The article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morphological_computation_(robotics) was deleted. Because of my fault (ignorance, basically), and as was pointed by User:Train2104, the talk page is lost (I thought that it will remain after deletion, sorry). Is there any way to recover the Talk page of that article, so we can put the whole history/criticism in here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morphological_computation_(robotics)? I tell you this becuase some people have already commented (they where mentioned in the article) about the "authoritarism" of the deletion. Having the full discussion could help to illustrate them the reasons for the deletion (for example I cited all the policies that were violated). I also noticed that you reviewed the whole article again, thanks. Finally, is there a way to get a copy of the wikitext of the article? If that is possible and not too much problems, I would like to get one. Just because I foresee how these comments I am reciving may evolve.

Thank you very much and sorry for my mistake. Kakila (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems confused here. As far as I can see, it was Sandstein who closed the AFD and deleted the article (and its talk page), not you. And to delete an article or to retrieve the contents of a deleted article takes access to administrator tools, which I don't have and assume that Sandstein has. Being both the person who handled it and somebody with access to the tools to fufill your request, I think that it would be best to contact them. Let me know if I can help. North8000 (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to say I deleted the article. what I meant is that when I marked it for deletion, I did not copy the discussion about the article and therefore it got lost when the article was deleted (not by me). I will contact Sandstein. Thank you very much. Kakila (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I hope the whole situation works out well for you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you back to the AFD discussion and offer that you take a look and the sources so-far added to the article. As improvement is easily do-able, and has actually begun, perhaps you might be inclined to change your "Weak keep" to something a bit stronger? Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take another look. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look. Changed my recommendation to "keep". My original note was "WP:notability not established in the article, but ability to meet wp:notability looks likely". Now sources have been added. Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking in. Appreciations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article lacking sources is always a concern, but does not always call for deletion if the issue is addresable. Perhaps you might revisit the discussion, as numerous sources meeting

You're right. You showed that they do exist. (but still barely in the article) I put one of the better-looking ones into the article & changed my recommendation to "keep". Thanks for the heads-up. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I may be able to myself expand the article tomorrow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mate. I took too long to realise I'm being trolled; thanks for speaking up but it may be better to leave it alone for the moment.—S Marshall T/C 20:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you may have noticed, when it comes to differences of opinion I'm pretty low key, but when it comes to threats to having a proper process in place for that debate, I'm quite the opposite. The idea of saying that someone might have to be investigated for investing their time to speak for the view that was the vast majority view from the huge RFC certainly was the latter. It seems that as a result the individual posted a much more civil "prequel". But I'll take your advice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! One or more of the drafts you posted at WT:VER have been transferred to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Workshop, and you can see or edit there, if you are interested. Cheers NewbyG ( talk) 16:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for merging

Sorry for the slow response, I've been gone for a few days. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll check it out. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you actually meant this in humor, but the way it's come out is side splitting :):) Wifione ^Message 06:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've been gone for several days, sorry for the slow response. Your are certainly right about how it looks. But I was an unintended comedian. I was trying to be graceful. Their post was unintelligible, but it seemed like there might have been a good point behind it. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "At WP:Verifiability". Thank you. -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you find objectionable about my edits to Libertarianism? Lmatt (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should do this at the article talk page rather than splitting. But I don't find it objectionable, just a bad substitution for the first sentence in the lead. Probably would be good as content in the article. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that after a couple years of effort it is much improved and friendly. And we found a few rosetta stones along the way which helped. North8000 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000, and thanks for agreeing to the mediation - it's great to have you on board. Seeing your post at the mediation page got me wondering about about the mediation agenda, and whether there could be a way of doing things that is more efficient. Do you have any ideas to get the mediation going even quicker, by any chance? I'm sure that if we pooled our ideas together we could do something really awesome. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the most efficient method (but one which may fail) is what's happening right now on the wp:ver talk page right now. Looks like a reasonable chance that that the whole thing could be tentatively settled by tomorrow, and finalized if the tentative stuff sticks for a couple weeks. If that fails, the I think it more important that your process moves it decisively forward than it is for it to be fast. Towards that end my ideas would be:

• Identify and confine it to the contested areas. If you start blending in other general improvement ideas for wp:ver the process would mire down/die under its own weight.
• Get the participants to identify their goals/priorities with respect to the items of dispute. I.E. items that they feel most strongly about.
• I can do more on this one, but need to develop a set of questions that deals with the mechanics/logical underpinnings of the wording and it's effects, folks feelings in those areas, and how it gets invoked. Most folks are dealing with just the intended meanings and intended uses, but that isn't enough.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added two conference proceedings by the article creator

They were used as references in the German version of the article. I don't know German to know the sentences that cited them which is why I put them in as further reading rather than as references. IRWolfie, I am just trying help figure out what the outcome should be there. You seem to be making efforts towards a particular outcome, including, it seems, seeking to parry / find issues with anything that would tend to support an outcome contrary to that. When, after a long period of saying I wasn't sure (including through the entire 1st RFD) and I finally decided to weigh in, I clearly noted that one group of links as (only) lots of people are selling product with that technology and that such indicated a likelihood of sources. You "missed" what I said and critiqued those commercial links as not being wp:rs's, something that I clearly never claimed that they were; I never even claimed that they were sources, just what that they showed what I described above. We have an article that is a technology that is clearly in widespread use, is manufactured by many companies, and has a multitude of sources available as evidenced in the German version of the article. (Your core arguments are the very same arguments that I initially made, so, of course, I understand them.) IMHO we would certainly be doing the wrong thing by deciding to delete the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it may have seemed that I am aggressive but it is not my intent. I don't think I've seen reliable sources to establish the topic as notable. I don't think we should keep an article on the suggestion that reliable sources may exist but that we can't locate them. I was establishing (for the closing admin) that the links are not reliable sources on the off chance that they may be interpreted as such. We can't use them in the article and I don't think a specific technology is in widespread use; it seems the methods widely differ from what I've seen to get LEDs between glass.

talk) 10:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, we're both just trying to do our best to help out there. I would have to spend a few hours on the topic of the article to figure out what to do and be certain of it; I've spent only about a 1/2 hour and am trying to do my best with what I learned in that time. To me it looks like a "sky is blue" situation that the topic is notable and that substantial wp:notable sources exists. You are basically saying that such has not been shown via sources used as cites in the article, and that that particular combination of words/ technologies may not be wp::notable. Those points are not at odds with each other. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my edit: I was careless while looking at the diff and thought that the anon deleted the item. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for the note! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seemed redundant to me. I'm wondering, how would s.t. be a single body of water other than hydrologically? — kwami (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was reading too much into it i.e. with respect to the other issues with the article rather than looking closely at the exact wording. Good point and I'll revert myself on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to make a blanket statement about it being a single "lake", because "lake" has no objective definition. I think "body of water" is unambiguous, but maybe someone will show that it's not. — kwami (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that I have visited this talk page before, Hi there user:North8000, however I cannot locate any other comments here that I might have made (recently, wasn't it)? It may be time to do some archiving on this talk page?

I admire your editing, user, you have a strong heart, and a propensity to stand up for the weak and defenceless and those under attack. Those are desirable traits, if I intuit correctly, I hope I am not speaking out of turn.

Now, let me say, I must, I feel under attack from you from your last post at the talk page. I shall have to explain, I can see. Your accusation, that is how I see it, is uncalled for, and inaccurate. You ought to learn and think before you post, sorry.

Those diffs, they replace the statements that were there. No-one has "bombed"the page, it ain't a war!! I don't war!! It is a perfectly adequate means of archiving the statements, I ought not have to go into it, you could check the links, archiving you see.

I will put this as I must; please don't talk down to me; please don't be tempted to repeat rubbish, (that's what you are doing) that originated with other users; please consider my feelings, if you're that way inclined, I know you are, and believe me I consider your feelings, and post in good faith.

Just take a few days to think about it, see where you went wrong this time. There is no hurry, I have withdrawn from proceedings there, I ain't a good drafter of proposals to draft proposals to propose as a draft Rfc, but I wish you, sincerely, the best.

In the meantime, I suggest you self-revert that post; it makes you look stupid, and hurts me. Anyway, why address me when I have withdrawn from the page? You are off-topic, and off-beam, as I admit I am sometimes, and that has lead you into misjudging me. The human condition, it is.

If you are unable to comprehend the convoluted way I have to go about communicating under theses circumstances (I was not born with a brain-to-USB interface) bear with me, we shall then have to discuss it at either convenient user talk:page. I don't like to chat as such, I am sure we can have fruitful interactions though, really, but this matter is a dead onion, or a no-way street. Do your Rfc thing, that I may comment on, when it goes live to the public as it is intended to do. I have no good momentos of that page: I was insulted, and I also insulted some user, to my current shame.

It is not up to you to control the page, you spoke needlessly and out of turn, it is the prerogative of the Mediator, user:Mr. Stradivarius to chastise me, if that were required, so you are not really on top of the ground rules. Believe me, I have as much dedication to seeing the right thing done, in the long run, and to all users, not just those on one side or other of a lame edit conflict.

I have said enough, we will work together well in the future, you see. Please stop mis-judging me, in fact please stop judging me at all, we are

I recommend, if you are still disconcerted here, that you seek sensible advice from the Mediator, user:Mr. Stradivarius, at user talk:Mr. Stradivarius. That is how it ought to go, if you have questions that don't need to be raised at the talk page itself, as in this instance for instance; you will see that I have sought such advice from Mr Strad, a most knowledgable User. Or, if you wish to bumble and stumble through a conversation with myself, if anything would be served by that, then reply here, I will watch, or come to user talk:newbyguesses, we do it there, whatever suits . Best wishes, think hard, take no offence, none is intended. Same, sincerely, Peace. NewbyG ( talk) 07:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newbyguess, I have no quarrel with you, I don't even know your position on the issues there. My complaint is that is the same that others have had, that you are making a mess out of the talk pages with your unusual (to put it nicely) practices. In this particular case you inserted put a bunch of links (with no statements with them and not even your signatures, and the link text was just "link" )into postings which were by other people. But I don't consider it essential that my comment to you be on that page. Per your request I'll move it off of that page to here. I'll do it quickly so that it doesn't start a new thread there. North8000 (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it, here it is:

Newbyguesses, could you start putting coherent thoughts onto talk pages instead of what you have been doing, such as what you just did....bombing this page with diff links with no statements with them. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Could you check those diffs? Unless I got it wrong, they are the exact diffs to replace the words that were previously posted there. So, they ARE signed, they are by user:Newbyguesses, not conflicting with any other user's comments, and there should be no problem with that. If user:Mr. Stradivarius has any problems, he will surely post to User Talk:Newbyguesses, not your problem. (That section could even be archived, none of those posts are relevant to steps 3, 4, 5 etc.) I won't be posting at all any more to the Mediation, very likely. When you say "coherent" do you perhaps mean ??

Anyway, thanks, but do your own thinking, don't just go along with the mob, and have a go at me when I have stayed cool and out of the picture, and don't want criticism when I did one little post, huh. No, we are fine now, sincerely, it is all good and I wish you the best, and we will meet again , there's 3,000,000+ articles to edit! Have you not noticed that I am not being "disruptive", I was blocked, then unblocked! I have been editing for 5 years, so this trouble I had is distasteful to me, but of course you are in no way involved in that, my thanks, sincerely. My position on any issue(s) at WP:V is undecided, "leaning towards don't care", not a member of any special-interest group, "got better things to do", that is, things more in line with my abilities and interests. Not gonna be taking sides, don't think. My thanks NewbyG ( talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The upbound page was recently deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See my talk page for reasons given to delete the downbound page. I created both articles but I have to agree that they really belong in a dictionary.--Wpwatchdog (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go by your thoughts and recommendation on that. I was originally thinking that maybe it should end up as something like a "nautical directions" article and thought thought that it should get sorted out at AFD if it goes further. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including let me know if you want me to undo my unprodding. North8000 (talk)

I'm OK with your change. I just recalled that I already added the terms to the

Glossary of nautical terms. Do you think that is sufficient?--Wpwatchdog (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think so. The links from articles could just go to the overall

Glossary of nautical terms page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Placing an opinion on a talk page at the article about a wp:npov problem at the article is not by any stretch of the imagination "disruptive editing". Your extensive refactoring and deletion of talk page comments however is clearly improper and a clear violation of guidelines. Please stop. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of using false accusations as a tactic to try to get one's way. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability

First of all, it is not an easy question to comprehend.  Figures of speech, of which I believe that VNT is an example, are defined as being ambiguous, having both a literal and a diverging meaning.  So I guess you are saying that no matter how someone interprets any of the various meanings, the effects should be contained on WP:V.  But it still seems to miss a viewpoint that it is WP:V policy that truth is not required for inclusion on Wikipedia.  So if your proposal is in policy, how do you respond to someone that says, "It doesn't matter to me that you have evidence that the urban legend isn't true, it is verifiable."  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, excellent thoughts and question. I'll start with the short answer. What you just described covers an immense range of situations and complexities. WP:ver should just "mind its own business".......say that verifiability is one of the requirements for inclusion. .....period, end of story. without saying anything that can be interpreted as weighing in on all of those other topics. Let all of the OTHER mechanisms of Wikipedia (policies, guidelines, editor discussions, RFC's etc.) deal with those other topics.

This is an interesting conversation, and I'd be happy to carry it on further in any direction that you care to. To answer your particular question, I'd need more particulars. But let's say that it's something that 99% would say is a false urban legend. And that a wp:RS stated it as being fact. Then my answer would be: OK, you've shown us that wp:ver does not EXCLUDE your material. Now we can start the discussion of whether and how the material should be in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#122.60.93.162_Personal_insults.2Fnon-relevant.2Fmaking_assertions_without_any_effort_to_justify

Byelf2007 (talk) 25 March 2012

Thanks for the heads up. Their lack of specifics certainly does limit the usefulness and weight of what they are saying. And saying it very bluntly without such is an impolite tone. And the one comment to Fifelfoo crossed the line regarding wp:civility. And feel that banning them from Wikipedia regarding this is a few levels too far. That's pretty much the extent of my thoughts/knowledge. Not sure if you would want me to weigh in there or not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello North8000, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello North8000, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have the excellent judgment to agree with me :-) I want to draw your attention to that deadline, lest you be locked out of the next steps. Cheers, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, I'm just hitching a ride for half of that big $$$$$.) Thanks, I needed that nudge. Now I think I have it done. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to look at article improvements[11] to see if you might up your support from just "weak". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did that and upgraded my "Weak keep" to "keep". Nice work. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All it took was a little research and a few edits. Thanks for checking back. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, first, I want to apologize: I try to be level-headed, but got rather frustrated dealing with what I saw as unjustified editing. If I may be frank, I felt that you were pushing

I am,

All that said, I really do

I think that you were giving me credit for dealing with high falutin' stuff whereas I was only dealing only in rudimentary mechanics and as a result we may have been speaking two different languages. Either way, thank you very much for the post, I sorry for any grief that I caused, and thank you for your efforts at building Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain I understand your position, but I feel you don't understand my response. There are two distinct subjects: the Intelligent design made popular by the DI under the name Intelligent design, which is a form of creationism (IDC); and the teleological argument, which is the common name for any argument for the existence of God based upon apparent design (argument from design, intelligent design, etc.). There is already an article on the teleological argument, so first off, we're dealing with the first subject, IDC. That's the scope of the article. Secondly, we needn't limit information within the article to IDC because there are related subjects and these relations, where sourced, ought to be present in the article as well. As prime example, IDC is a contemporary adaptation of the teleological argument, so that subject (the teleological argument) is to be

summarized

in the IDC article and the relationship explained. In this case, we have a History section which explains that IDC is a teleological argument, but one specifically couched in scientific terms and supported by creationists.

Your "Widgets" example seems to indicate a confusion about the subjects' relationship, so allow me to pose a more accurate scenario. Let's say that we have an article called "Red widgets," its hatnote(s) explains that the article is about red widgets, and the lead states that "all red widgets are red." We can still discuss green widgets, or widgets generally, if either subject has a prominent relationship to red widgets. For example, it may be the case that red widgets is a contemporary adaptation of widgets, and we might explain some general facts about widgets within the "Red widgets" article, to showcase the similarities and differences between the two.

This is essentially how the ID article is organized, and I think the primary cause of confusion is with the

WP:UCN

policy and the common names of these subjects. In your widget analogy, the prominent names for each subject is the only name given, and there is no ambiguity. However, the prominent name for IDC is "Intelligent design", whereas the prominent name for arguments from design, including the colloquial usage of the phrase intelligent design, is "Teleological argument." This would be like the "Red widgets" article having the prominent name of "Red widgets," though the "Widgets" article (under its prominent name, "Widgets") is sometimes referred to as an argument from red widgets. Then, you can see how this colloquial usage of "red widgets," though a distinct subject from the prominently named "Red widgets," can still be in the article about "Red widgets" even if it refers to "Widgets" generally.

I'm trying to make this as clear as possible (hence the novella :P), but please let me know if I need to expound on anything. Or, if you'd prefer I drop this entirely, I can do that as well. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I understand where you're coming from. If I may attempt to recap a few core (to-this-discussion) points:

1. The teleological argument article already exists
2. "the prominent name for arguments from design, including the colloquial usage of the phrase intelligent design, is "Teleological argument."
3. Lets decide to put all ID that is not DI into the TA article, and all ID that is DI related into the ID article.
4. Because #2 is true, it's OK to put all ID that is not DI into the TA article.
5. Because #2 is true, it's OK to say that ID is only the thing created by DI.

So I think that your main arguments are dependent on #2 being accurate. I am no expert on this, but to me it appears that #2 is inaccurate and implausible. First the material and sources in the articles seem to indicate that the common name for all non-DI ID IS ID. Second I find it hard imagine a person with non-DI ID beliefs characterizing their beliefs as "I believe in the teleological argument" rather than "I believe in intelligent design"

So it looks like your argument relies on #2 being correct, and mine relies on #2 being incorrect. So I guess it all boils down to: Is #2 correct or incorrect?

Thank you for this enjoyable discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you! That is exactly it! Now,

WP:PRECISION

, which says to "[b]e precise, but only as precise as necessary." It further states, "[i]f the subject of an article is the primary (or only) topic to which a term refers, then that term can be the title of that article without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." "Intelligent design," being the primary topic and most prominent name for IDC, therefore gets to keep the name; the same applies to "Teleological argument." The naming convention also suggests a method of natural disambiguation: "If [the title] exists, choose a different, alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit, not as commonly as the preferred but ambiguous title". So, arguments from design, including those that use the phrase intelligent design, can be naturally disambiguated to another (more) commonly used title: "Teleological argument."

So, what we've done is separated the two subjects by their most prominent titles and placed a hatnote on one to make the distinct subjects clear. This is why we felt understanding the naming policy was important. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, (just) to avoid confusion, I must take issue with your second sentence, IMO #2 is a real-world outside-of-Wikipedia question, and so IMHO your note that guidelines support #2 is not correct. Aside from that note you did not address what we both agreed is the pivotal question. (#2) Also, although it is not germane at the moment, adding one thing that I neglected to mention is that your argument is one that it is OK to do what you advocate, not an argument that it is preferable to do so. That said, I re-read those guidelines that you linked and also read what you wrote several times and analyzed it. IMHO the result is that your additional arguments are also dependent on #2 being the case / accurate. If #2 is not the case, and the reverse is true (that "ID" is the common name for non-DI ID) then DI ID is not the primary topic, it is merely the currently-most-common instance of the actual primary topic which is ID overall. So I think it still boils down to: If #2 is accurate, your argument "wins", if #2 is not accurate, my argument "wins". I believe that I have presented some evidence that #2 is inaccurate (to avoid repetition, I'll just point to it as in the paragraph just after the numerical listings.) I don't believe that you have presented any evidence that #2 is the case / accurate. Thanks again for this interesting and enjoyable discussion. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, North8000. I think we've at least come to a better understanding and I'm happy we were able to hash these things out. It really has been a pleasure.

I'm not sure that it would matter if the prominent name for the teleological argument was intelligent design though. As I said before, policy wants us to be no more specific than we have to, and we can naturally disambiguate "non-DI ID," even were it called ID prominently by specific

WP:RSs, to the teleological argument, due to the prominence of this title and the lack of an alternative title for ID. In this case, we just happen to have two separate, prominent names. Thanks again, and take care! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey if i offended you about your knowledge that was not my intention. It was a good discussion. Happy editing! Zyon788 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post No sweat, no problem. I originally neglected to read the source that you linked and so originally I confused the issue by responding on the topic in general but not to that linked item. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey North 8000,

I was wondering if there was a way to set the scope of a page, in particular the power electronics page. Thanks, P-Tronics (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main thing that nails it down (or is supposed to nail it down) is the article title. BTW, article titles can be changed. When there is potential ambiguity, then a disambiguation statement at the beginning (or in a disambiguation page) also has influence. Another thing would be a sourced definition of "power electronics" early in the article, such as in the lead. When here is a question on what definition to implement via. these mechanisms, or how to implement what is in the mechanisms, that is usually handled via. a discussion on the article's talk page.

My first thought at this is semiconductors who's task includes handling power (I.E. not just signal or information) Precursor items that do a similar job could be mentioned as such.

If there is a particular question, I'd be happier to get more deeply involved on that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] Your recent editing history at

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

That is nonsense. You are improperly refactoring and deleting at the talk page, and you even deleted the notice of such as "vandalism". Also quite silly to use a "please use talk page" template for something that is occurring at the talk page. Please undo what you did or I intend to report. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The typo in my friendly message above should read "article probation", not "article probably". Here's a link:

Thanks for the post and info. I don't agree with your characterization of my edits there, and there was clearly no 3RR violation. But I think I'll appreciate and take your advice, not report Muboshgu and let this cool down a bit. I came here originally because this article was at a notice board, I think that it was because that a group of editors was by actions saying that wp:npov can be overidden by consensus. And that is sort of how it looks at that article. One point which may be important to you, I did NOT use the word "hagiography". I did say that the article looks like it was written by the re-elect Obama campaign committee, but I didn't say "working for the Obama campaign, being Obama fans,". The latter may be just how you interpreted my comment, but your "hagiography" note seems to clearly indicate you may be mixing up and taking what somebody else wrote as mine. Thanks again. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on a few counts there. To continue my war metaphor, jumping into a place like that you can get caught in the crossfire. Sure we do disagree on some things, but as long as editors can get along and stay productive that's what it's all about. Thanks for keeping it courteous. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How you been? Want help archiving your talk page? PumpkinSky talk 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and nice to have you back. So far I sort of keep my whole history here (except for two specialty archives) here. But not set in stone, it's just what I've been doing so far. Open to opinions. North8000 (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000 I'd like to discuss the Membership controversies section of the BSA Page. The section seems to be incomplete, and there are recent developments that should be reflected within the page. I don't know the best way to approach this, and any advice would be appreciated. Cheers! Jay Rush (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Happy to talk about it; any topic, any venue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked this, even on talk - it was a copyvio of http://www.engineersgarage.com/articles/plc-programmable-logic-controller?page=4

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Good catch. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello North. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Final drafts proposal. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inijones (talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski (FYI only, no action required) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the
  applications page
  to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski, I note that you have added some content. I also note that you have stated on the talk page that you support what people have said but feel that "... signing on to all of them them seemed a bit heavy for me". Unfortunately, that is the way that the RfCs operate (cumbersome but there you are). When the request is examined, consideration is taken of which editors agree with what observations (doubtless here: more is better!). Regards, 109.152.145.86 (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. In order for me to weigh in heavy duty on an individual's general conduct (as those do) I require myself to have extensive experience with /review of the individual to be absolutely sure of myself. Doubly so with me not knowing the ramifications of a finding in that forum. This is an usually cautions standard but the one that I live by. I'll see what I can do there which is consistent with this. North8000 (talk) 02:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI it was my impression that User:Andy_Dingley is more knowledgeable than I on this situation. North8000 (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]