User talk:Mackenzie Andersen

Maine team

Hello, Mackenzie! Welcome to Wikipedia! I moved your comment over to my talk page. Talk pages (prefixed with "Talk:" or in the case of user profiles, "User talk:") are where conversations typically happen on Wikipedia. In any case, I am not sure which "Maine team" you are referring to. There is a WikiProject Maine, which is a loose group of editors who are interested in Maine. You can sign up by signing your name in the members section. However, you do not need to be a member of a WikiProject to edit articles. Just hit the edit button! If you have any questions, just let me know on my talk page. Thank you for reaching out to me, and I hope you enjoy Wikipedia! Harej (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am interested in the project on the Maine Constitution, which I believe should be extended (or made into a new project) to include the Maine Statutes since the statutes have superseded the Maine Constitution over and over an over again. I say this because I have been researching the Maine economic development statutes since 2009. I record what I have researched and my opinions on my own blog, Preserving The American Political Philosophy. I created a time line called A Maine Citizen's Journey through The Statutes of Transformation, which is well documented with internal and external links

At this moment I am reading the report which was used to create The Maine Economic Development Corporation- which I received from the Maine Law Library. I have researched the Maine Development Foundation Corporation through the statutes but the report brings to light new information about The Maine Capital Corporation- a private investment corporation chartered by the Maine legislature which had the use of tax payer money in the form of offering tax credits for stock. It was chartered along side and contingent to The Maine Development Foundation Corporation.

All of the above being repugnant to the Maine Constitution, which prohibits the chartering of corporations by special acts of legislation with an exception for municipal purposes and if the objects of the corporation cannot be otherwise achieved. (Article Iv Part Third Sections 13 & 14)

The record that I am reading shows that when originally chartered by special acts of legislation, both the Maine Capital Fund and The Maine Development Foundation had "sunset laws" meaning they would be phased out at a specified date. The Maine Capital Corporation was phased out to become the FAME corporation (Financial Authority of Maine). The Maine Development Foundation Corporation still exists today and has spawned a massive network of state corporations which collectively functions as a channel for redistributing wealth. 5 out of six of the recently passed bonds will be channeled through the system I call Maine State Inc which is intentionally designed, in my opinion, to be non-transparent to the public through the camouflage of fragmentation used to hide the whole system which is designed so that all the parts work together. This is evident in the fact that all the subsidiary corporations of Maine State Inc have names but Maine State Inc has no official name- it poses as the State of Maine but a state is governed by its constitution and the consent of the governed and on that score- one of the recommendations found in the report used to formulate the Maine Development Foundation is "2, eliminate the requirement for a local referendum on municipal bond issues" which is to say- in essence- to eliminate the requirement for the consent of the governed. This all came about just eight years after the Home Rule Amendment was added to the Maine constitution - an amendment which authorizes municipalities to be agents of their own economic development.

The Report- Governor's Task Force For Economic Redevelopment, Recommended Legislation For An Economic Development Program -110th Congress, 1976 - reads like a design for a new system of government. I also have a second report dated two years later.

I joined the Maine Project but I am still trying to find my way around.

How Does One Challenge the Verification of Facts on a Wikipedia Page?

I was recently reading the Wikipedia page on Benefit Corporations. I found New York State on the list of pages that had passed a benefit corporation act but when I clicked on the verification link, I found only a white paper about benefit corporations and no reference for a bill that was actually passed in New York State. If it has been passed the reference link should connect to the bill that has been passed.

I could not find a location where in one can request of challenge verification

Mackenzie Andersen (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Mackenzie Andersen

I would go to the article's talk page and leave a message. In this case, Talk:Benefit corporation. Let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers, Harej (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2019

Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, James B. Longley, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I would also add that the passage seems to be your personal commentary or research; original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. If your research is published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal, or reported on in independent reliable sources, please bring up these sources on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is my personal research. No one else reports this history, not then or in the present when major acts such as the Major Business Headquarters Expansion Act are passed with NO media coverage. I became involved in personal research because I could see that there was no media coverage of the truth. I ran into the corrupt system because my business is in the dwindling free enterprise sector in Maine. I wanted to understand what was going on. The only way to do so is by reading the statutes and history for ones self. No I am not an institution- just someone affected by Maine's institutional policies.

I do not believe it is possible to do this research in an institutional context. I have not found the history that I uncovered, by reading the statutes and related documents from the Maine Legislative Library, in any sort of institutional coverage.

If Wikipedia does not accept verified information because they only work with institutional sources then it would be a waste of my time to add the sources, which Looked like they had been added when I looked at the review page, but I cannot verify that since my comments have been removed. I saw reference numbers and at the links at the bottom of the page.

In my opinion to omit the most impactful policy of the Longley administration is to lie by omission. What I wrote is true.

It can be verified by

Legislative Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Economic Development 1976. You will have to request this from the Maine Legislative Library since it is not online. In this report, you will find the two specific objectives, which I reported.

The other two sources are [[ http://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/Rpts/kf1080_z99m2_1984.pdf%7CLegislature report of a study by the Joint Standing Committee on Taxation to the 111th Maine Legislature]]]

MAINE SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE... ~ .Final ReportJanuary 1983 by Beldon Hull Daniels

Please read Verifiabilty, not Truth. Wikipedia does not claim to offer what is true, only what can be verified in independent reliable sources. Original research is not permitted. As I indicated, if your research is discussed in such sources, it can be mentioned here, but otherwise, no. You may want to find an alternative forum where what you want to do is permitted. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2019 (U

Bold text== I gave you the verification which are from documents of an institutional source- The Maine Legislature. == You are not talking about verification, you are talking about WHO submits verified material.

You acknowledge that it is about "who" when you say "Original research is not permitted". That statement has NOTHING to do with verification so stop pretending that it does. Original research can be verified. Do you think your policies are not transparent in their intent? Its not just about WHO submits verified information, but WHAT verified information Wikipedia wants to be out there, making Wikipedia into a propaganda media fighting an information war.

You took down my post which I had verified. I verified that it was verified with my own eyes.

The Legislature is not an independent source about its own activities, and your interpretation and opinion of what it says is original research. If you want to post your research or opinions as to if certain decades-old actions of the Legislature are a threat to free enterprise, you should find an appropriate forum to do so. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

==

So Wikipedia is saying that historical documents and statutes posted on the Maine government website as law are not verifiable sources because it is the legislatures's own opinion of itself?!?

Then by what "verifiable source" can a citizen of the USA be permitted to express an opinion based on verifiable facts, as deemed to be by the Rule of Law of Wikipedia?

Is a story in the Maine media a "verification" because it is a second hand opinion of what occurred? The Maine media dutifully posts nothing- literally nothing when major acts are passed. Very convenient since there is only a 90 day window of opportunity for a people's petition to repeal said law. If the public doesn't know the law was enacted, it greatly decreases chances of a petition to repeal it getting off the ground.

You are justifying a clear intent to censor verified information with an absurd opinion. If I thought there were any point to including a verified reference, which in the real world would be the document of record that I am citing- as obtained from the Maine Legislative Library, I would include in the citations the direct quotes relevant to what I post. However I know from your rationalization that there is no point to doing so because this is not about verification, it is about censorship of truth, which is what verification is supposed to verify. The only truthful thing you have said is that Wikipedia does not care about truth, and so Wikipedia is a nothingburger.

If you think "decades old information" doesn't matter- then why should you care that what occurred decades ago is made known, and why should Wikipedia even bother with anything other than current news?

Decades old legislation changed Maine forever into a centralized economy by and for public private relationships and has been entrenched by every administration since but Wikipedia doesn't care about that. Wikipedia needs to wipe out the history of when it came to be that Maine was instituted as a corporate state. -as if to wipe from memory that there was ever a free enterprise system and a middle class in Maine.

What is "decades old" became the present day out come of what began in the Longley Administration, unpublished in the Maine media except for a press release ,so all we have to go on to verify that the Major Business headquarters Expansion Act even exists is the fact of the act itself, which according to propaganda media is nothing but the legislature's own opinion of itself! This is the age fluid truths in which 2+2=whatever !

Don't worry, I have other forums. I just was passing by and noticed wikipedia's white toast bio of Longley, leaving out the most impactful policy that Longley entrenched.Mackenzie Andersen (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for anyone to express their opinions. This is not social media. We're here to summarize what independent sources state, not interpretations of primary source documents as you did. I'm not trying to censor you- I'm telling you this is not the place for you to do what it is that you want to do. You are free to post your opinions in any place meant for that purpose- a personal blog, social media, a letter to the editor, an academic journal, and many other proper forums. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I was not expressing an opinion, but you are so why don't move on to a position suited to your opinionated politics.

I expressed a fact. You are misrepresenting Wikipedia policies on original research. I just read the page. I posted verification of original documents that qualify under wikipedia standards. Wikipedia says that the verification has only to exist and it does, but I also provided information about where it exists.

Everything I posted are facts that I know because They exist in the original documents. To say that a document of record produced by the Maine Legislature is not an original document has no viability, especially when the subject is a Governor of Maine who was instrumental in directing legislation.

You have not even identified what you call an "opinion on my part", because then you would have to support that view with more of your ludicrous opinion used to deny documented sources that I have.

The only facts that were presented in an arguably opinionated way is that I said the goal of Longley's board recorded in The Task Force Report, provided by the Maine Legislative Library , was a plot against the Constitution. I would have changed the way I presented it by to merely juxtaposing the two facts one found in the report and the other in the Constitution, were I dealing with a rational being.

What you are misconstruing as "opinion" is my view that the significant policies that Longley instituted should be in the history. To leave out the most impactful effect of the Longley administration is to lie by omission- and that is my opinion- while yours is that Wikipedia is only suited for white toast biography that leaves out an essential truth that you have an interest in concealing.

You are misrepresenting the policies found on Wikipedia's information page, leading me to have a very low opinion of Wikipedia. You are unsuited the position you hold!Mackenzie Andersen (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I hold no 'position' here. I have some buttons that the general public does not have. I'm also not calling your views names, please be civil. If you have independent sources, and not your own research, that includes those policies and historical analysis, go right ahead. You are misunderstanding what I said. I don't dispute what the Legislative document says or its originality(it's original). What I am informing you of is that such documents are not acceptable as sources, as they are not independent. If you have an analysis that is published somewhere(be it in a book, journal, or other peer-reviewed forum that is independent), you can use that. You cannot use your own analysis. I certainly do not have the last word on anything here, feel free to get other opinions.

Your talk of threats to free enterprise and plots against the Constitution leads me to think you are here to publicize what you feel are affronts to the Constitution and not collaborate with others to improve this encyclopedia. I hope I am wrong about that. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

To help you, you should click "edit" instead of "new section" to continue an existing discussion and avoid creating unnecessary section headers. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You are calling my facts and sources "opinions" That is a name calling in this case>

This is what you said about "original research"

"the passage seems to be your personal commentary or research; original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. If your research is published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal, or reported on in independent reliable sources, please bring up these sources on the article talk page" 

I should have gone to the source before responding because Wikipedia's page on Original Resources; where the meaning comes across quite differently

" Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material - such as facts, allegations, and ideas - for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

My sources exist and were documented. The Wikipedia page says nothing about having to be published in a "peer reviewed scholarly journal, or reported on in independent reliable sources", This comment in particular takes the interpretation away from verification, where the Wikipedia page places the emphasis to "who" like a special club by which one must be approved.

My post did not say anything about free enterprise, which had come up on the talk page.

The Wikipedia guidelines do not say "independent source" it says "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article."

The article is about Governor Longley who brought in his outside board to create the report, which title begins with the words"Legislative Recommendations". The facts I quoted came from the report." a published source that is directly related to the topic of the article, and directly supports the material being presented"

Longley is important because he was a Governor and as Governor he advanced legislation that entrenched the centrally managed economy through legislation. The topic is the legislation. The Name of the report is identifies that it is about directing economic development legislation.

By some strange reason you dismiss an official Maine Document of Record because you claim it is "the Legislature talking about itselff" but it documents what I said about BOTH the Oversight Committee and The Beldon Hull Daniels Report concurring that the Maine Capital Corporation did not meet the terms of its enabling legislation, NOT my opinion- NOT "reaching a conclusion not expressed in the original report" . I FACTUALLY reported the opinion expressed in both reports- DOCUMENTs of record! Obtained through the Maine Legislative Library.

The Beldon Hull Daniels Report is not the Legislature so you can't say its the Legislature talking about itself,

It is true that saying "it was a plot against the constitution was "reaching a conclusion" The facts are that the Board wrote in its report that its second goal was to eliminated the municipal referendum and that the municipal referendum is providing in the Home Rule Amendment of the Maine Constitution. Both are documented in published documents relative to the article, which is about Longley. The report was commissioned by Longley.

Both Reports are talking about the Maine Capital Corporation, not autobiographies!Mackenzie Andersen (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You haven't offered any sources beyond the committee work. It is certainly valid to discuss the policies of Longley in the article, but not your conclusions about threats to free enterprise or a centrally managed economy unless those conclusions are published somewhere. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

U REPEAT!

What I submitted said NOTHING about free enterprise.

If you have to base an argument on what I said in Talk, Then that's because you know you don't have anything to defend your position,

The "committee work" - was ONE report and it was an Oversight committee reviewing the consistency of the Maine Capital Corporation with its enabling Legislation>

I reported factually on that. NO opinion! Further I just mentioned 2 other sources which you deny!

I know the difference between facts and opinion.You do not!

You do not even know that what you are trying to do is assert your personal bias about what facts of history should be allowed on the record of Wikipedia.

I see why Wikipedia has lost so many editors since 2007.

Who wants to waste time playing power games. I don't care!

I'm not playing a power game as I have no power, nor do I have a "personal bias" about "facts of history". I want information on Wikipedia to be properly cited and not be original research. That's all. However, since it doesn't seem that you want to work collaboratively and calmly to achieve a result, I have nothing else to say. Let me know if you change your mind. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

May 2021

Hello, I'm Srich32977. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mid-century modern, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Two additional factors: 1. the edit was not a minor one, so checking the minor edit box was incorrect. 2. Since you are mentioning the family business you have a WP:COI problem. (Thank you for explaining your edit in the edit summary.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)