User talk:Stirling Newberry


 * Archives
 * 01 - 11 January 2004&mdash;11 January 2005
 * 02 - 3 January 2005&mdash;9 February 2005
 * 03 - 14 February 2005&mdash;25 July 2005
 * 04 - 25 July 2005&mdash;13 August 2005
 * 05 - 13 August 2005&mdash;16 October 2005
 * 06 - 17 October 2005; 17 August 2006

Your impersonator
Hello again, sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. The impersonator was indefinately blocked when I listed him at AIV; if it hasn't already been done, I'm going to go ahead and put at his userpage/talk page an indefblocked template so as to clear any confusion about who he was- it looked like he was an account created to make it look like you were making personal attacks. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have any other users that you suspect of being him, bring a case to Checkuser or Administrators' Noteboard/Incidents. I'd say that if you had some solid evidence that this is one guy out to get you, you'd have a strong case for an arbitration case, though since he seems to not stay long on one account if this last one is a precedent. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is definitely something that administrators can handle if it's something coming from a single range of IPs. Unfortunately, I don't know a whole lot about handling Wikistalking, though WP:RFAR, WP:ANI, etc. are your best routes. Most of what I do is work on preventing vandalism, POV pushing, and such in the articlespace, so sometimes I have to deal with problem users. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is This Page For real?
This isn't the best written page on Wikipedia, obviously. I've trimmed down the excesses somewhat but what it really needs are citations. It needs some research. In its present form it looks just like a silly fan page or vanity page. Gingermint (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected
I've semi-protected your talk page for the moment. This is not an ideal thing, but seems called for. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dresden
I had put that this was primarily a British raid, which it was. I know that some Americans would be very proud to have been involved with this. But personally, I would distance myself from it, if I were an American, and put the blame fairly and squarely where it should be, with the British. Wallie 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Stirling, please read articles and actually know the history of specific actions before reverting. Reverting based on your opinion does not assist with the development of an encyclopedia, it only serves to hinder it. Thank you for your cooperation. WikipediaSleeperCell2 21:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Big words coming from someone who has written no articles and seems to primarily leave comments on talk pages. Stirling Newberry 21:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bad you don't have the decency to respond to Wallie's comment, which is above mine. I just wanted to point out that yet again, you were wrong. You constantly act on your own accord instead of working within reason. Which is why you stormed out of here instead of just removing the spam-link you were previously including with your signature! Really mature Stirling. WikipediaSleeperCell2 21:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Trickle-down theory
I removed a lot of apparent original research and POV holding-forth from Trickle down effect, and merged what was left into Trickle-down theory. I've proposed to move the latter to Trickle-down economics to make way for a disambiguation page between the political phrase, and the older usage in reference to marketing. The theory article is still missing some citations, which you might be able to fill in. Gazpacho 23:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny story
I spent nearly an hour this morning trying to figure out what Trickle Down had to do with the Milne model. What yoeman (yeoman?) meant in this context, and why you'd be taking time away from politics to edit an article on the Big Bang. I think I've figured out that you just didn't change the comment of your edit. That's okay. I enjoyed listening to one of your interviews and learned a lot about the Clarke campaign!

THANK YOU!!!!!!
you made me so happy to stand up to that guy! thank you so much! this page needs an experienced heavy weight to save it from some people who are really taking OWNERSHIP! i don't even care if its my edits that are on the page... just as long as other people can contribute without getting pushed off please take an interest in this page i've tried so hard to talk to this guy he wont compromise on anything.Esmehwk 04:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Inflation
Your attention is requested at inflation. JBKramer 16:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work
Good work on Inflation there buddy! Keep up the good work! I miss bopnews, btw. R Lopez 21:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually
I'm doing nothing wrong. My username is not similar to "Ruy Lopez" as that's the reason why Ray Lopez was banned. Inassuch, I'm not doing anything illegal.

On the other hand, accusing me of calling your personal number? That's a little bit paranoid; I don't even have your phone number nor do I care to have it. Have a good day, Mr. Paranoid guy! When's bopnews coming back btw? R Lopez 14:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Golly Gees
So calling you paranoid is a personal attack? I would consider accusing me of "harassing you" with calls to your phone number slanderous. I haven't called you, I haven't personally attacked you. Please, get a grip on reality. Really. Do you notice that your creditability is dropping? What evidence do you have that I'm even calling you? R Lopez 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Gold Standard
You reverted a lot of work I just put into the Gold Standard article, most of which I thought just amplified and enhanced what was already there, rather than actually changing its direction. For example, you reverted my turning a reference to the American Civil War into an internal link to the article on the subject. Do you object to that, or was that link just "collateral damage" in your campaign?

Among the things you restored was the inclusion of the Muslim organization Hizb ut-Tahrir among a group of advocates of the gold standard that included Alan Greenspan and other such authorities on monetary affairs. Would you tell me what is the value of listing Hizb ut-Tahrir (not a widely recognized authority on monetary matters) among advocates of the gold standard? To me, it appears an effort to smear advocates of the gold standard by association with an apparently odious group.

Please talk to me. You'll understand I'm disheartened to find a couple of hours' work erased a day or two after I put it in. --Joe 18:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. You're quite right about an international gold standard NOT requiring limitation of international transfers to INTERGOVERNMENTAL transfers. I was conflating the (international) gold-exchange standard of 1933-1971 with the broader concept of international gold standard irrespective of internal (domestic) aspects of gold monetization. It's a shame, though, that you reverted the (I thought) better-detailed description of the operation of the gold points (which was NOT predicated on governmental participation). What would you say if I carefully redid that little piece, without mentioning any requirement for governments to be parties to the transactions?

On Hizb ut-Tahrir, I followed the reference to the draft constitution they published (through the footnotes to the article), and what I find is that they stipulate bimetallism (both gold and silver serving as the basis for money), rather than a gold standard (the definition of which excludes other legal standards for value). I think it's wrong to list Hizb ut-Tahrir under advocates of the gold standard on that score, and that if you cared to associate them with any sort of monetary policy, you should add them to a list under the bimetallism article.

Let me know. --Joe 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no answer from you, but changes you've made since my previous entry appear to respond, so thank you.


 * I've since made other changes not related to earlier work of mine that you reverted, but I hope to improve this article in the future in a number of other ways that I don't expect or intend to alter its present structure or overall direction, nor affect lists of persons or organizations that advocate a gold standard.


 * I'm sure they'll interest you all the same. --Joe 19:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see you quietly reverted my revision of the first paragraph of Gold Standard to something I consider inferior. Between this and your other reversions (none accompanied by any explanation more enlightening than "null edit" [?]), I think I'll seek the services of a mediator to see if I can break the (largely negative) stranglehold you evidently wish to maintain over this subject.--Joe 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you (finally)! "Unreflective of current scholarship"? Well, that could mean: (a) doesn't mention the latest findings; or (b) conflicts with, or refutes it (and here, in all cases, I have in mind that subset of current scholarship that you have chosen to recognize as such - scholarship, current and otherwise, is not unanimous in any place or time). With a historical subject like this, itself not a current phenomenon, it would seem essential to provide out-of-date views of the matter, as long as the impression is avoided that such views constitute today's received wisdom.

Now, I've already admitted (and you've reverted) the incorrectness (in its scope) of the "intergovernmental" characterization of international gold movements. You've reverted LOTS of my other stuff, I'll understand because it is unreflective of current scholarship. Would you be good enough to mention at least ONE (other) thing that runs afoul of this standard, and identify the current scholarship it isn't reflective of?

Since it's freshest, you might start with that introductory paragraph I put in to explain what a gold standard is, and how it works in theory. Your copious and taciturn wielding of the reversion meataxe might be the sort of thing that inspires Turner's "personal attacks" (which struck me only as a critical description of your participation in Wikipedia editing).

By the way, by "current scholarship," do you have in mind the discovery that Hizb ut-Tahrir advocates a bimetallic monetary standard for Muslim states? Would that happen to be your own current scholarship? I've got very current scholarship of my own, but I understand Wikipedia frowns on insertion of the findings of one's own primary research.--Joe 20:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not hostile - you just THINK I'm hostile because you ignore my requests for substantiation of the sweeping generalizations with which you justify all the reversions you have done on my edits. And just to be sure, you took the further step of opening up a section for (unsolicited) Advice on my talk page, which will stand as a monument to what becomes of an attempt to engage you in discourse on specifics.

Wanting to glean every possible morsel of wisdom from your Advice, however, I sought to make the inquiry of Mel Ettis, apparently a current or past Wikipedian, you recommended. I was unable to locate any means (User page) of communicating with him, so I shall remain frustrated in this and other things, until such time as you may provide SPECIFICS.--Joe 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous assumption regarding my intentions in participating in Wikipedia. I expect you had to plead my case vigorously to persuade the administrator not to send me the way of T Turner, whose contributions did indeed seem to fall within a VERY (pardon the shouting) narrow theme. I always thought it was the USE OF SOLID CAPS that was regarded as shouting in e-mails and the like. I just use it on individual words for emphasis, as you can see.

Your changes to the first paragraph of Gold Standard are promising. I have some edits in mind, but I won't revert the paragraph. I've never reverted a paragraph, nor deleted any but old ones of unknown provenance.--Joe 01:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazi gold standard
I'm trying to move this irrelevant excursion into German-bashing toward at least fact, while preserving the German-bashing that seems so precious to you. Germany, as you know, left the gold standard (devalued) in 1931. After that point, particularly after Hjalmar Schacht took over as finance minister, the convertibility of the Reichsmark was subject to hundreds of regulations (and provided my father in New York with a living for a couple of years) and was notoriously unconvertible, quite aside from what its gold parity might have been in the period. Also irrelevant to gold was inflation of the Reichsmark and, through Mefo bills, the German domestic money supply. Germany's price controls (echoed in every other belligerant country, including the United States, at the same time) again are irrelevant to gold and provide really foolish-sounding material in an article on this subject.

But I've left in what I consider a far more accurate description of how Germany did in fact use gold, including looted gold, for foreign exchange after the point at which Reichsmark became virtually unusable in such markets. I hope this keeps your POV (in unrelated matters) intact.--Joe 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Be careful not to take more of my criticism onto yourself than is intended for you. I have most definitely imputed a POV to your actions (chiefly deletions and reversions), as you have to my additions and replacements (and one deletion, since reverted by you). However, much of the criticism contained in explanations of my edits are of the MATERIAL I'm editing, that I am typically not able to attribute (at least originally) to you. When you revert old material back in, you become, in my eyes, its "author" and a target of the criticisms I made of the material. But as I attack material before you have so undertaken its sponsorship, my criticisms of it may or may not pertain to you according as you are or are not its original author.


 * This article has had many authors, many reversions, and evidently a good few edit wars in the past, and as I address some of the deficiencies in it remaining from all this, I do not blame you for them unless (as seems to be the case) you effectively claim "ownership" of the subject and its article in toto.


 * Much of the material you're now defending will, when it has attracted sufficient attention, turn out to be undefendable. --Joe 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologist for Nazis?
Lest my efforts in Gold Standard give the impression that I'm an apologist for Nazis, check out the edit I just made to the article on Bill O'Reilly. Another reason that edit should interest you is that the incident I there report involves General Wesley Clark. Joe 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How dare you
How dare you make a false accusation of me sending you "harassing spam" texts to your phone. I don't have your phone number or email address, nor do I want them. If you make an accusation like that again, I will pursue options on ensuring that you are not allowed to make such a bad faith accusation again.

Further, just because people disagree with you does not mean that it's a "personal attack." Please research the definition of a personal attack before you begin throwing blanket accusations. Such accusations destroy our view of your character and indeed waste everyone's time. Quit attempting to cloud the sanitizing of your original research and POV by classifying those who disagree with you as "Vandals, Harassers, and Ray Lopez (as I can see from above.)" I honestly think you have done this Ray Lopez stuff to yourself so you can have some attention. Until you have a constructive comment, stay off of my talk page, and I assure you, I will stay vigiliant against POV warriors such as yourself. Have a good day. T Turner 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, there is a GOOD possibility that you are indeed User:Ray_Lopez
So, I decided to see who's been harassing you, according to your Wikipedia talk history. User:67.18.109.218, when you do a reverse dns lookup (Try it! Go to a command prompt, and type in nslookup 67.18.109.218) it resolves to crackaddict.com. When you whois crackaddict.com, the owner shows up as:

Pixelshelf 20 Portsmouth St PX-WI Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141

Which is a little strange, since you hail from Cambridge, don't you Stirling? So, I must ask the question - why is one of your biggest harassers, the one you accuse of being User:Ray_Lopez live in your hometown? I, and probably many in the community, find it hard to believe that someone else in Cambridge, the town you live in, will logon to Wikipedia and start a harassment campaign against you. Obviously, Ray Lopez, and his various related sockpuppets must be yourself trying to garner a little bit of attention.

Please explain, as this evidence is extremely compelling. I think it is quite possible that this might come up in a future RFC against you, Mr. Newberry. Have a good day, sir. T Turner 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * TT is indef blocked 2006-09-01T02:55:53 Antandrus (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "T Turner (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (harrassment account: only edits have been attacks on another user) so I'm not sure this evidence counts. On that basis, I've removed the sock tag from SNs user page. However, I'm by no means certain... if you know better, please revert me William M. Connolley 12:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sonata reversion
Hi, you reverted Sonata, I'm assuming because you misunderstood Noetica's edit summary. If you look at the edit you restored, it replaced a tag, which is garbage on the page, not a request for citation. Furthermore you reverted my own edits which were made prior to Noetica, and also you reverted several of Noetica's other minor edits to the page. If you wanted to revert the removal of the cite template (which, as I said, I think is a bad idea anyway), you could have done just that one thing. - Rainwarrior 16:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * reply by Stirling Newberry at User_talk:Rainwarrior


 * You're complaining about mixing copy editing with reversion... but if I look at your revert summary, you address only the one issue of removing a, and then the rest is a blanket dismissal of everything else Noetica did in the edit. His series of edits were actually minor, I don't think the "cf" and italicization can be objected to. There are only two parts which might seem questionable (but you left no comment about them), the removal of a quote (which I thought was reasonable, the quote seems meaningless to me), and use of the word "standard".


 * Noetica is certainly vocal in his use of the edit summary, but I don't see the hostility there that you do. I agree with you that things should cool down, but summarily reverting Noetica's edits isn't going to help that (you didn't even write "see talk" and then discuss it on the talk page). Furthermore, reverting my own edits along with it isn't going to help either. - Rainwarrior 17:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * reply by Stirling Newberry at User_talk:Rainwarrior


 * I'm glad we can continue this in the open at the Talk:Sonata page. - Rainwarrior 17:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on September 3 2006 to Gold standard
I note that you have claimed to be reverting a sockpuppet. But I see no evidence for this.

William M. Connolley 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The IP address, which you can check, comes from the same range as repeated vandalism to my user page (in fact why it was sprotected before).. It's a Ray Lopez outbreak, and I can tell because within moments of your block one of his harrassing phone calls came in to my private number. It's his favorite italian ISP provider to use. Stirling Newberry 22:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any 87. in your page history William M. Connolley 08:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 82. is the interbusiness.it block used here. And you can check the harassing edits left since then if you need confirmation that this was planned and you were fooled by a long time wikistalker/wikivandal. Stirling Newberry 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On the basis of ANI, I'm going to unblock you. However, please be more cautious in future - you should report socks and get them certified *before* reverting on the basis of them being socks, and certainly if you're reverting socks you need to leave a notte on the talk page saying why William M. Connolley 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

International Standard Book Number (ISBN)
Hi - I ran across Wikicite technical background while searching on ISBN; I added a note that the format is now 13 digits rather than 10. I'm wondering if the article needs to be there at all, given that you wrote it in February 2005, and there is the International Standard Book Number article. If not, you might want to speedy delete it as the author. Thanks. &mdash; Chidom   talk   03:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Autstrian attack
Deflation. JBKramer 00:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Lopez
Question, how are you so certian that the edits on Deflation are from Lopez? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I filed a Checkuser, if you want to add anything to it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Atonality
Hi. I was wondering if you could clarify an edit you made to the Atonality page a long time ago. In this edit, you wrote: "Some ethnomusicologists and composers have asserted that all music is perceived of as having a center, including, at various times Anton von Webern and Robert Fink."

Were you referring to the UCLA musicologist Robert Fink who wrote "The Language of Twentieth Century Music", or the self-published author of "On The Origins of Music", Bob Fink, who later added links to his website surrounding your addition to the article.

The reason I am asking is that this edit made recently by another user may have been in error, attributing it to the latter due to confusion caused by the added links. - Rainwarrior 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Response at User talk:Rainwarrior


 * Thanks, that clears that up. I don't think the comment that is in the article is too obscure, but someone else marked it with a "citation needed", so a citation would be reccomended. - Rainwarrior 20:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Systematic elements
May I assume these reversions were in error and you agree that one shouldn't call it "pov vandalism" that an administrator carried out the result of a deletion discussion one year ago? Femto 11:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See User talk:Femto, and:


 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Femto 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your impending doom
Do you realize that you are going to die? Do you realize that we are going to go to your lovely house, slit your throat, and laugh as you're being sodomized with a broom stick? We desire to do this because you are unbelievably toolish, thus losing your right to live. You know we have your phone number and address, so whenever we swing by Pine Street, remember that you did this to yourself due to your inept incompetent ability to act like you actually know what you're talking about.

Could you have look at this?
. Thanks--CSTAR 16:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Olduwan
Oh, what a nice picture. And a composer too! If I had known I was interacting with such a sensitive man I would have been less vehement. I left an apology and apologia for you on the Olduwan page. Best wishes.Dave 11:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Postmodern architecture
Hello Stirling, you got off to an excellent start on postmodern architecture some time ago. What do you think of how it is shaping up? Any advice on how to develop this article? Comments on the discussion page and so on? DVD+ R/W 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Stirling Newberry 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing Stirling Newberry
I'd advise that you read WP:AUTO --feba 23:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed no speedy deletes from the page, and you've added none. However, you have added links to your own products, against WP:COI
 * and it is quite obvious from that page that I am not the one who has removed them... --feba 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see
Saw Ray Lopez logged in again. Are you bringing back your sock war? RJ Jenkins 09:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Gold standard
Could you provide additional references for your material in the Gold standard article? It is correct from what I know of the subject, but more references would make it easier to follow. Also: someone seems to be hounding you. I suspect that the Admins will have already dealt with this to the extent they are able, but if you haven't already, please review Death_threats. Michaelbusch 04:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Newberry, I appreciate your zeal when it comes to this article. However, it is now quite lengthly. Please condense and add additional references instead of adding much more material. Michaelbusch 04:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I may play with it some, but could you please put in a few references? Michaelbusch 05:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop
We had one disagreement once, and now you're blaming everything negative that happens to you on here on me. I don't care about you or for you, and I would appreciate you stop using my name in vain. By the way: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mr. Ray Lopez 05:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You've broken the law, had at least a dozen accounts blocked and are breaking indefinite block now. You, or others making statements as part of your group, have made death threats against me and against at least one other user. I think "don't care for me" is as wildly inaccurate as most of your statements. Stirling Newberry 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Newberry: you may wish to consider setting up a new account under a pseudonym (see Username). This would help you to avoid harassment. Michaelbusch 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Postmodernism
I've reverted to your version of this. Nicely written. edward (buckner) 10:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting talk page you have here. edward (buckner) 10:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at these
Your picture on your user pages looks surprisingly similar to the picture at User:Mr. Ray Lopez. Henry Martinez 04:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You also might want to have a look at User:Anti Newberry, User:Antioch Newberry, User_talk:Atom Newberry. Henry Martinez 19:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your trolls
Mr. Newberry,

Why are all these people trolling you? Or is it just one person?Proabivouac 06:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deflationary spiral
Is there any chance of the article Deflationary spiral being finished or at least enough done to it to be able to remove the stub notice?

Free Thinker 17:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Principia-titlepage.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Principia-titlepage.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Henry_jenkins.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Henry_jenkins.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Generalized Ozaki cost function
Generalized Ozaki cost function is a Articles requested for more than two years that recently was created. In view of your many contributions to the Economics article, please consider adding more info to the Generalized Ozaki cost function article. . Also, please consider helping out at Articles_requested_for_more_than_a_year. Thanks. -- Jreferee    t / c  02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden
Hi Stirling, as one of the editors of Bombing of Dresden in World War II, would you mind commenting here about a possible name change? There is a proposal to call the article simply Bombing of Dresden. Cheers, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sphere.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sphere.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Digital Revolution
Category:Digital Revolution, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Pub.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pub.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Stirling Newberry! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Peter Temin -

File copyright problem with File:Stirling newberry.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Stirling newberry.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Tempel Impactor 150Km.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Tempel Impactor 150Km.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Ace storm atlantic.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ace storm atlantic.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lie?
Re. Colour me confused. What lie? I removed your statement because the claims are potentially contentious and not supported by any source. Such claims should not be in any BLP. Briffa has published a large number of papers, many of which are heavily cited. That the Yamal sequence stands out is certainly not obvious. Likewise, there is no source for the claimed dispute nor for then fact that he is frequently (a very weasely term) mentioned. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

BLPs
you need cast iron sources to add controversial material to BLPs Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So where is the evidence for "his most widely cited data set"/ "dispute" etc. etc. I still do not see any references. Polargeo (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am watching your talkpage and would prefer it if you did not split the discussion onto my own talkpage. If we start getting into details it should be transfered to the article talkpage anyway. Polargeo (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Article probation notice
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning
You've been around a bit but it looks like a warning re WP:3RR is in order William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'll add: don't add unreferenced critical material to a BLP. ATren (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Stirling Newberry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!
Hi Stirling Newberry,

I got your name from the Editorial Team participant list, and wanted to tell you that we will be testing out assessment metrics in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, with your interests in politics and economics you would be an asset to the Assessment Team, and I was hoping you would be interested in reviewing articles with the | Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Seasonal ace 2009.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Seasonal ace 2009.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You will be amused
By the revival of wikicite. – SJ + 05:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Matt Stoller


The article Matt Stoller has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Reads like a resume, doesn't meet notability guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Arbor8 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Matt Stoller for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matt Stoller is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Matt Stoller(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Arbor8 (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

January 2012
Hello, Stirling Newberry, I saw that you made a draft for a new article at. Accoring to WP:STALEDRAFT, "Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable (the template userspace draft can be added to the top of the page to identify these)." But in this case, you haven't edited your draft for a long time. If you are done, please donate it by moving to a WikiProject Abandoned Drafts subpage (a participant may help). If you are not done, please finish it and move it. If you abandoned it, you may request it for deletion by putting "db-u1" or donating it. Thank you. Arbor8 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Opium Wars
Hi. There has been a reopened discussion ongoing at Talk:First Opium War to merge the contents of Opium Wars into First Opium War and Second Opium War. A consensus seems to have been reached among all the users who contributed to the lede/Opium Wars section, and merging may be imminent. You have been identified as a major contributor of the article about to be abolished (see: User:Kiyoweap/Opium Wars) and thus are welcomed to participate in the merge, especially in the sections which you have contributed. Or, any other input under the Merge discussion thread given above would be appreciated. Thanks. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2013
Stirling Newberry recently suffered a stroke and this fact should be reflected in the article.

76.125.7.171 (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per Wikipedia's policy regarding information on living persons - see WP:BLPTALK. Stirling is welcome to make any statements he would like about himself on his own userpage, but past that BLP requires that any such claim be independently verifiable. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 06:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Modernism
Template:Modernism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Commoditization


The article Commoditization has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Personal blog of Rushkoff used as the main reference for the article is not a credible scientific source justifying the existence of a new pseudo-scientific definition of 'commoditization'. Terms 'commoditization' and 'commodification' have been used interchangeably in various publications. (rationale from speedy deletion nom by user:217.96.240.183"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ GB fan 11:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Modernism
Template:Modernism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- wooden superman  13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)