Misplaced Pages

• FILE22901: February 2006-March 2006
• FILE22902: March 2006-April 2006
• FILE22903: April 2006-May 2006
• FILE22904: May 2006-June 2006

"Mr. Bojangles, Mr. Bojangles, Mr. Bojangles - Come back and dance!" - Sammy Davis, Jr..

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

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

American School PoV

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

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

Ghostly Talk

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

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

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

Progressivism

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

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

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

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

Presley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, dear... the Presley article!

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

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

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

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

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

Re: wikiproject rock

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

Image:TR Great White FleetSails.JPG

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

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

AN/I

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

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

Elvis Album pic

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

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

Thank you

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

progressivism

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

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

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

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

My arm's OK

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

U.S. Prime

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

Misplaced Pages New York Meet-Up

Frank Sinatra

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

Elvis Presley: Featured Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elvis Presley: Good Article candidate

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

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

American School (economics)

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

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

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

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

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

Larouchies' at it again

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

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

Progressivism

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

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