User talk:Northmeister

; Archives
	FILE22901: February 2006-March 2006; FILE22902: March 2006-April 2006;

Welcome!

Hello, Northmeister, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 22:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The prime problem of our nation is to get the right type of good citizenship, and, to get it, we must have progress, and our public men must be genuinely progressive." - T.R. [1]

"I've got to be FREE...Come sail away with me!" Styx............."Put me in cold! I'm Ready to play TODAY!" John Fogerty.

Common interests

Hello Northmeister, I looked at your user boxes and there are several subjects of mutual interest with needy articles. The list American Poet is a place to start. Some of the stubs need content added to make them notable. Many of them can be expanded. Does this subject appeal to you? FloNight ^talk 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not my main area of knowledge, but yeah. --Northmeister 20:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC) -I will take a look at them tonight. I know I am a rather big fan of Poe and have read much about and by him; but this is rather complete. I see a lot of red stuff, maybe we can work on those to add material. --Northmeister 21:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northmeister, I'll look into it and talk to him. I've worked with him on articles related to sexual abuse and pedophilia. We have always been able to talk through our minor differences. We tend to agree with each other.

Let's work on poetry soon, okay. : ) FloNight ^talk 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out on sabbatical

I am taking leave for awhile and will return. Thanks to everyone who helped me out. HK a grave injustice was done - your honesty and will, in the face of such treatment is a mark of distinction "for you have been in the ring" and stood your ground with integrity and character. Arbcom your decisions have lead to mistreatment of others - they need to be reviewed before Wikipedia suffers as Salem did from the Witchhunt trials of long ago or McCarthy after Eisenhower's condemnation. My best to all and never give in to force for right makes might in the end as history shows us. --Northmeister 01:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc on Lumière

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. I will really appreciate your neutral comment on this Rfc. Their main argument is that the ratio of the number of my edits on the main space over the number of my edits on the policy talk pages is low. My answer is that it is low because I cannot work on the mainspace with the way the policy is currently applied. So, I should either give up Wikipedia or try to contribute to the understanding and the clarity of the policy. I do not disturb the policy talk pages. I just make thoughtful comments. I am respectuous of other people, etc. There is no policy that say that the ratio of ... edits on the main space over the ... edits on the policy should be large. So, I am not doing anything wrong. I believe that the issue here is that they are afraid of editors that try to clarify the policy to be able to use it with authority (like any editor should be allowed to use it). They prefer that editors rely on a consensus of "those who actually understand the policy", instead of relying on a true consensus over the policy, which requires that every one can understand this policy. I am for a true consensus, not just a consensus of "those who actually understand the policy", especially when "those who actually understand the policy" oppose almost any change to clarify it. -Lumière 03:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American System

I was going to add American System to the "actual economies" template but the article was all about theory rather than the details of an actual economy. I visualise the addition you made to mixed economy being restored with the books full name, authors, publishing date, page numbers, and actual quotes placed in footnotes. I'd be happy to format the footnotes if you will add the data. But the quotes must make clear an authority on the subject says something about "mixed economy". Maybe A says a mixed economy is one with these characteristics and authority B says nation X's economy from year Y to Z had those characteristics. At least that's what we are shooting for. If there is too much ambiguity and division of opinion or whatever, then we can use a quote from an authority saying that. Note that we already have quotes in the article that cover some of this; but it probably would be a good idea to refer to it specifically if you are going to use it as evidence in identifying what specific systems are and are not mixed economies. Perhaps an approach that simply identified specific noteable parts of a mixed economy in specific noteable economies. Maybe concentrating on transitions as economies adopted either more or less of specific traits. Adding tarriffs. Taxing incomes. Nationalizing an industry. Regulating farm production. I'm just thinking aloud here... WAS 4.250 20:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good start and analysis of the Mixed Economy and incorporation of American System into it with the others. A starting point would be the quotes I gave on the discussion page. What do you think and if you would help footnote them, that would be great. I concur on the rest of your analysis of the situation. Maybe a better formula for inclusion can be done base on your thoughts. --Northmeister 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate hate hate arguing (tho I love a reasoned debate) and am in favor of being bold as much as possible, and when it isn't possible to be bold then just going somewhere else in wikipedia and being bold elsewhere. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether to believe claims about contributors or not. And don't care. The contribution must speak for itself. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you and work with you if you go out of your way to be nice and not make enemies. There are a lot of ego maniacs around here and I will not be part of a dispute between two ego maniacs but I will side with logic and evidence and civility (the "and"s are not "and/or"s). WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Gather data. Present sourced data. Edit sourced data." is what I recommend. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "the American system" is a whole lot more important to you than to me, so you do the heavy lifting. Ask me for how I can help you, don't sit around expecting me to care about this as much as you do. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I'm retired and bored and I might suprise you. WAS 4.250 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay. Thanks and I concur with your sentiments wholly. I just have a short temper that a certain editor likes to flare over and over again. I am really rather agree-able with legitimate polite discussion. I hate inquisitorial questions and false presumptions that lead to false accusations that further lead to acrimonious discussion rather than cordial discussion and collaborative effort. Again, thanks, we actually agree. I will re-read the above, and answer you more directly later. --Northmeister 01:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are gonna get along just fine. Cheers. WAS 4.250 01:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I got your email. Glad you are back editing. : - ) Seems that you already hooked up with WAS 4.250. Excellent idea. Listen to his advise about focusing on content and not the editor. Northmeister, it might be a good idea to avoid making controversial edits of any type. Add verifiable, reliable sources for everything.

Also, do you still want to work on some American poets articles together? (Don't want to pressure you. I'll just cry myself to sleep for a week if you don't.) Really, it is fine by me if you want to skip it. But if we don't do this, I would encourage you to work on some type of articles that are not controversial. When the more controversial articles get too intense, you can work on these for a few days until things settle down. As alway, these are just suggestions. You can follow them or ignore as you think best. regards, FloNight ^talk 02:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the greeting. You're right. I am giving your suggestion serious consideration again. Will Beback has just resorted to calling me names again - why does he have to do this? Anyway, I'll get in touch with you about that poetry. Singing off for the night. --Northmeister 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is power, maturity, and usefulness in ignoring childish behavior by others. As you walk down the street, some six year old calls you names. Do you call them names back in anger? No, you smile and behave like an adult and everyone who observes the interaction knows which is the adult and which is the child. Even on the internet they do know you are a dog if you act like a dog. WAS 4.250 12:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]