User talk:MichaelLNorth

 ''Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~ at the end. If you would like to make comments on my Wikipediaing in general (positive or negative), feel free to do so on my own Request For Comments page. [ Start a new talk topic.]''

Personal Attacks
I am going to remind you to avoid personal attacks. You claimed on the Glenn Beck talk page several things that were simply untrue. Specifically you accused me of protecting the Sarah Palin page, and yet, there is no record of me ever editing or even discussing that page anywhere on Wikipedia. I don't expect an apology, but I do expect you to tell the truth. Bytebear (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This was an honest mistake, and I have immediately strike'd the words "and Sarah Palin" in my comment. I must have been looking at someone else's talk page, and then misremembered. I sincerely apoligize. However, I will ask that you WP:Agf and and not attempt to portray those with different views about what should and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia as part of an organized effort to alter historical record. You say that I have said claimed "several things that were simply untrue". This clearly means multiple distinct instances. Please inform me of the other separate occurrences, so that I may correct these mistakes. MichaelLNorth (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been three days, and you have still not provided me with further examples of "several things that were simply untrue". Please either provide further examples, or retract your claim to reflect that this was a two-word inaccuracy which I very quickly apologized for and corrected. MichaelLNorth (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rants
No, but if you look at the content, the only intention was to either provoke or just generally be disruptive. Calling for Morphh to be banned (and Bigtimepeace) and other activites wasn't helping. Soxwon (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If he had even made an attempt to comment on the article, I would have left it. He did nothing but troll and comment on other editors, I see no reason to restore it. Soxwon (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll revert. Soxwon (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't help but notice that you've made article edits since this comment,but not reverted. Surely this is an oversight on your part, so I'll be happy to do this for you. ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck
Color of Change's site, clearly states on ordering a protest again Glenn Beck's show:

http://www.colorofchange.org/beck/

Fox's Glenn Beck recently said President Obama is "a racist" and has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Beck is on a campaign to convince the American public that President Obama's agenda is about serving the needs of Black communities at White people's expense. It's repulsive, divisive and shouldn't be on the air.

Join us in calling on Beck's advertisers to stop sponsoring his show.

Are you going to tell me that they are not boycotting Beck and telling his advertisers to pull out from his show? -- R32GTR (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism and conspiracy debunking categories

 * They are completely unrelated and there are enough variables that make a comparison unrealistic. I also know much less about Beck than SSCS. I was leaning towards not even playing this game but might as well give you some answer.
 * If he has been labeled a conspiracy theorist as much as SSCS has been labeled eco-terrorists or if the percentage of reliable coverage is in regards to notable conspiracy theories than it could easily be argued that the answer is yes. However, you would run into the concern of percentage of coverage having nothing to do with conspiracy theories while most coverage of SSCS at least discusses controversial tactics. You could also say that Beck is a conspiracy theorist for all of his alleging groups are funneling money around and have potentially inappropriate ties. I don't see why this would be a BLP issue if the sources cover it. If you want to compare them the coverage should be from sources as reputable as the ones who apply it to SSCS. If he has only debunked one theory I assume significant coverage is not available but I haven't looked into it. If there is amazing coverage it would be the perfect time to clean up the category over at conspiracy theories to give theorists, theories, debunkers, publications, or whatever their own subcats since it is a bloated mess. Unfortunately, you could also have editors giving you a hard time about weight since (I assume) this is a very minuscule part of his career. You could always counter that by saying that people born in a certain year get categorized so it would be a weird discussion. Like I said though, I really don't know that much about the situation and they are completely different.Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone does read an article different. To me this is a clear case of categorization like a project as you mentioned but I understand the concern that it might come across as a Wikipedia approved label. I try to work under the impression that Wikipedia doesn't approve anything and that the prose and sources help the reader make the conclusion. That is fundamental to the Wikipedia project and editing in a way that goes against that can lead to huge problems. They have also conducted eco-terrorist acts although they may not be an eco-terrorist organization in the eyes of many. Does that make sense or did that come across as double speak? Basically, explosives on the hull of whaling vessels to sink them (this incident is already int he category) looks like a terrorist act to me but throwing a bottle of stinky stuff doesn't. That's just my opinion on it, though. Those more aggressive acts certainly make the case for inclusion even stronger. If you are still concerned that there is a disclaimer I hope there is a way to fix it. Further explanation in the prose or even adding subcategories to let the reader know that it is an allegation.Cptnono (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not double speaking, but let's make sure to separate the issues here. I don't care who calls SSCS "eco terrorists" or what they've done. What makes this worth discussing is that there is no consensus over whether they're heroes or villains. I understand that you take wikipedia with a grain of salt (I think this is what you mean when you say "wikipedia doesn't approve anything"), but a vast sea of people take it as fact -- especially something like an article category which may seem more "official" than a statement within the article. I appreciate your willingness to compromise by adding "alleged", but I feel that we would have to categorize it with "alleged non-eco-terrorists" as well (or something equivalent) to fairly represent the other major viewpoint, and that would just look incredibly stupid. MichaelLNorth (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Teabagger and Tea (disambiguation)
Please review recent edits. -74.242.231.34 (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that it is an NPOV violation to say that "teabagger" is used as an insult. The term is not used by by tea party folks, and is used by anti-tea party folks in an effort to deride the tea party folks. Note that it's quite typical for insulting terms to be labelled as insults or pejoratives. E.g.: Faggot "a pejorative ", Nigger "a pejorative term", Spic "an ethnic slur", Wingnut "Wingnut (politics), a derogatory American slang term". Labeling pejoratives as such is the norm in Wikipeda, and is not an NPOV violation. TJIC (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

>    So if I provide you with sources of "tax day tea party" protesters referring to themselves as "tea baggers", you will agree ... to revert

Do you suggest that if I can find examples of African Americans referring to themselves as "niggers" that we should likewise remove the word "pejorative" from the relevant page? Pejorative means "A pejorative (also term of abuse or term of disparagement), as a noun, means a word or phrase that implies disapproval or contempt and is meant to be insulting, impolite, or unkind". It's quite clear that the vast majority of people using the term in the political debate mean it as a term of disparagement, even as it is clear that the majority of people using "nigger" mean it as a term of disparagement. Thus, I don't see why sources of tea party protestors using the term would suggest that we would want to remove the word "pejorative" from the disambig page. TJIC (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're right. — Mike : tlk  05:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Btw, this has been one of the most civil interactions I've had on Wikipedia - thank you! TJIC (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again
I'm really enjoying the conversation about the subjectivity/objectivity of the word eco-terrorsim. Thanks for the friendly tone and thoughtfully challenging discussion. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson
McCain just said it on Larry King Live. --Tocino 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson
You seem to have reverted my additions. Are you questioning whether the Congressman achieved notoriety for his actions? He's been on the tube for the past day more than his entire career. Or are you questioning the raising of over $500,000 by his opponent in the hours following his outburst, for which I provided a footnote to The Los Angeles Times, a newspaper located in the city of Los Angeles, California? MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Marma. I reverted your changes because I don't believe the content to be appropriate for the lede section of a biography. It is very likely that you're right, in my own personal opinion, but we can't see into the future. If you would like to discuss the appropriateness of this, we should take it to the article's talk page. Thanks. — Mike : tlk  05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Michael. You don't believe this to be appropriate for the lede of a biography? That's like saying one should write a biography of FDR without mentioning World War II, or about Richard Nixon without mentioning Watergate. The fact is that these are important events that have brought these people to public attention. I doubt 99.9 percent of the American public had ever heard of Joe Wilson before the other night. It's a service to our readers, as we used to say in the journalism biz, to put the most important information in the lede. The way the article's written now buries it several grafs down – the most cardinal sin in journalism, and besides, it makes for a lousy read. Anyone with a brain is going to wonder why it's not mentioned 'up top.'MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that this discussion take place on the article's talk page, so other editors who are involved can contribute. Would you mind copying your comment there? Thanks. — Mike : tlk  05:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Help on an article
This article on the group "The Fellowship" is one giant coatracks article. I found it after hearing of the group in the news, then checking the wiki page on it, and it is basically one giant coatracks article. To clean that entire bloated mess up is beyond my skills at editing (I only joined Wikipedia a few months ago), could you help me clean it up? EricLeFevre (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

SSCS talk page
The edit button would have shown you that it was another editor. Also, I did edit their comments because missing closing ref tags was screwing up the way the page displayed.Cptnono (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It confused me for a second, too. At last you caught it early.Cptnono (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxpayer March on Washington
Because you've been so helpful with the article, I listed you as a co-author at T:TDYK in order for you to receive credit. If you want your name removed, let me know. Cheers.  APK  say that you love me  21:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck, Cptnono

 * This is the second time you have falsely accused me of things that can be easily found in edit histories. Mine was the initial removal (like I said half for good reason half for not so I get your point) but the most recent and longer standing removal was done later at 07:30 by another editor. If you want to call me out on something that is fine but make sure you are reading the edit histories fully.Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you've posted in this section. I disagree with your "half good reason, half not". Also, I'm not sure why it's a "False accusation", since you did remove it. Maybe you're not the only one who removed it, but I still haven't said anything untrue. I expect you to be conservative, but fair and a rule-follower. To be honest it bothers me more that an experienced editor who has contributed with the article for a while would gut the section more than some random POV pusher or whoever did the other edit you're talking about. — Mike : tlk 01:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually meant to post it in the above section. Please move it to wherever you want. And yes, you said this is the reason it isn't in when another editor had done it after mine was reverted. So you screwed up in reading the history. Not a big deal I just pointing out you have done it to me twice. You also can't disagree with my motives unless oyu are calling me a liar.Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to call you a liar, nor have I ever, to the best of my knowledge. What I'm saying is that WP:UNDUE has to do with what YOU believe proper weight should be, based on the sources YOU have read. It is subjective, and your opinion may be different from mine or another editor's. Please correct me if I have mischaracterized your reasoning. I still can't find the 07:30 edit you're referring to, but I would like to link it in Talk:Glenn Beck to clarify the misunderstanding. Here is 1am to 2pm (this might be a time zone problem), and the section is not removed. — Mike : tlk  01:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to move this discussion since it sucks here! The liar comment was in response to "I disagree with your "half good reason, half not". I initially thought you disagreed with my reasoning not method. Oops. On the history of the talk page another editor did it at 7:30 on the same date. I space who but will check it out after writing this comment. As I mentioned on the talk page. Most of the editors contributing don't edit in an overtly POV pushing manner but it still seems to come out in what I assume is not intentional. It is frustrating. When I first came across the article there was so much bickering I was shocked. I guess now I get it. There is some shit at SSCS but it hasn't devolved into this (I don't think). Thank you for your input on the block mention. I actually didn't want to touch the article yesterday because I thought 24 hours away might help me simmer down.Cptnono (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. I failed to read the history properly as well. It was revision Revision as of 19:38, 17 September 2009 (not 7:30) by Soxwon. I stopped and went to bed but it looks like two editors continued to revert over it. Since we are editing the same articles: I will admit it if I screw up so please feel free to continue letting me know just double check the histories! I still feel a little justified in my original removal (and a little guilty) but would feel much better if improvements were always being made without that stuff.Cptnono (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't read your proposal yet but we were going in the right direction for a bit the other day so I assume we are close.Cptnono (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A little help
Please review articles in my edits for anything you care to add. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

GB + VJ + AC
I don't quite read you. I can't put in GBVJAC together without backup, and I thought you said it was ok once it hit Time/NYT/WashPost. I declined to put it in because of objections from other editors. It's a pretty ugly crowd, and I'd appreciate your being clear on this matter and whether you could exercise some guidance to finally incorporate recognition that Beck had a significant (if less than Adrianna Huffington thinks) effect on the controversies? Good grief, it doesn't have to be perfectly free from blemishes as a reason to keep the basic information out forever. Bachcell (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Applauds
Thank you very much for you political involvement in Wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know that the sheer amount of time you pour into keeping articles, espcially about conservative public figures, objective and reasonable. This undertaking of yours must take much time, and I just wanted to applaud you for keeping a good standard. WaltBren (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Non Free Images in you User Space
Hey there MichaelLNorth, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:MichaelLNorth/Sandbox1. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Polyhedral Mesh.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Polyhedral Mesh.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lg soft.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lg soft.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Abundah.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)