User talk:Stirling Newberry/03

thanx for stepping in. i hope this will solve the problem. Xtra 20:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dresden
What an improvement. . . thank you! A few of us have tried, but our edits didn't "take," though I'm sure yours will. I can't tell from your user page whether you're an historian or not, but I'm assuming you are or that you've worked in a related field. The article is so much better now. Best, SlimVirgin 19:53, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've deleted a couple of typos (an extra "and" etc) from the text you added, but no content change. Here's the diff . The words "terrorise," then "terrorizing" were in the same sentence, so I changed terrorise to "z", but if that's an issue for you, feel free to change them both to "s". Best, SlimVirgin 20:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am interested to know why you deleted the phrase I added to the section International Law: IV and IX "because it is possible that bombardment by air may not be covered by either". Philip Baird Shearer 23:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks did not know about the Greco-German arbitration tribunal (1927-1930) -- I'll look  it up. Philip Baird Shearer 00:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II SlimVirgin has asked:
 * 2) "The United States military lays out the following historically based case that bombing of Dresden did not constitute a war crime." It's the Air Force History Support Office that makes this case. Why not name the source of the material? And what is a "historically based case"?


 * I think that you wrote that piece of text, if you did perhaps you could answer her.

Moving on to another item which you might find interesting. On Page 365 of "Dresden Tuesday 13 Feb 1945" by F Taylor, he states that the USAAF planned to use used 678.3 tones of HE and 400 tones of incendiaries, not all were dropped on Dresden but those that were, were in the same ratio. This he says was an unusual bomb mix because it was more like an RAF city busting mix instead of the usual USAAF precision mix. He also says that there is some confusion over the exact target of the USAAF:
 * Initial orders to senior officers was Dresden marshalling yards.
 * Individual bomber groups mostly just were briefed to bomb Dresden or in one cases, 303 Bomb Group,  military targets in Dresden and specifically to marshalling yards in Chemnitz.
 * The definiative report from the comander of the 1st division, Brig-Gen Tucker states:
 * Primary Target -- visual -- Center of built up area Dresden.
 * Secondary Target -- visual -- M/Y Chennitz
 * H2X --Center of Dresden.
 * Last resort any military target positivly identified in Germany (east of the Western Allied armies's bomb line (and west of the Soviet bomb line))

So it appears that the Bombing of Dresden by the American was an area bombing of Dresden not the usual precision raid which the wikipedia article currently implies by saying that the Dresden marshalling yards were targeted. This also has an impact on any possible war crime accusations as the USAAF seems to have adopted RAF tactics for this raid. Philip Baird Shearer 17:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

arbitration
Hi. I have started an arbitration against PSYCH. I did not want to, but felt I had to after finding out that he had posted on other websites to get people to help him argue on wikipedia against me. Please see Requests for arbitration/PSYCH for information. Xtra 22:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks?
This isn't editorializing, it is reporting. And stop making personal attacks. Stirling Newberry 04:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Pointing out errors is not a personal attack. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Our edits at William_A._Dembski
Stirling-- Based on your edit summary notes, I assumed my correction to the article had been reverted in its entirety. I now see that I was incorrect in that assumption, so I've re-added your phrase to the current version, which I had inadvertantly removed in my revert of your previous edit-- My apologies. I feel the issue that the original passage might have been a cut and pasted from ChristianityToday is a non sequitur at this point since the passage has been reworded and we can drop it. Just for the record I am not a supporter of ID, creationism or any other form of magical thinking.--FeloniousMonk 04:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Willy
Thanks Stirling. Your creation of the new user page for WoW is what alerted me to the problem. I love having a T1 line for vandalism reversion, but now I have to get back to work, LOL. Antandrus 23:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, composition! I don't get nearly enough time for that these days. Actually I think the accordion is underrepresented in contemporary composition. I knew an accordionist/composer a few years back and she got a lot of attention, way more than violinists/pianists like me. Antandrus 00:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mass deaths and atrocities of the twentieth century
"Bloodletting" is Matthew White's own terminology, and given that this article is a brief explanation of his work, I think it only right that term remain. It is perfectly understandable and correct, and "mass killing" is no substantive improvement. Denni &#9775; 02:47, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
 * reverting editor admits to pushing POV Huh? Here I was, ready to give you a pat on the back for some nice additions to this article, when I discovered this nasty little bit. Sorry, friend, I "admitted" nothing. I merely suggested that, since the data under discussion were compiled and tabled by Matthew White, and since this very same table on his web page used the term "bloodletting", then perhaps it would be reasonable to follow suit. I would really like to know where you see POV here - there was undeniably a considerable amount of blood let, and to use a term which describes it as such is hardly engaging in POV. You're acting like a newbie! Denni &#9775; 01:25, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * I am very obviously wasting my breath. Seems you can't get past your own POV. Denni &#9775; 04:26, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Global Warming
I just wanted to thank you for your edits here. The global warming page had grown in need of some reorganization like that to better clarify the major issues involved. People spend too much time edit warring every detail around there, and it greatly detracts from the effort to organize the material into a coherent encyclopedic format. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes they are, and this has apparently been a problem for a while. I've been trying to draw attention to it since I first stumbled on the global warming page.  If you'll note, the same group of editors has trickled this behavior into a wide variety of climate change related articles.  It seems to all be about the politics of persuasion, and it's masked as a "science vs. non-science" debate, which I don't believe could be farther from the truth.  Good to have somebody around calling for sanity and normal Wikipedia standards found elsewhere.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wang Ch'ung
Good to see someone else contributing (most of the articles I start are almost completely ignored by everyone else). I've tweaked some of your additions (for example, putting the bit about thunder before my original account of his view of ghosts); I hope that you approve. There was an Edit conflict when I tried to save it, so I'll now have a look at what you were doing while I was fiddling. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 19:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting &mdash; but I'm afraid that I'll have to leave the material concerning Ban Gu entirely to you, as he was completely new to me.
 * The page could do with something to break it up; I'll try to find a suitable illustration. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

European art music
Thanks for the support. I have absolutely no preference regarding classical vs art, they seem equally ill fitted but I can't think of a better term. I think placing classical musics at classical music (and placing European music at a title which indicates it's European) is the most helpful for potential readers. Hyacinth 03:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! What do you mean by decentralization? The lack of an overemphasis on European related content? Hyacinth 00:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your portrait
The picture you have on your user page is marked on its image description page with the non-existent template. Naturally, the most logical explanation is that you meant GFDL, but since this is a question of your licensing intent with legal implications, I prefer not to read your mind, even to jump to the most obvious of conclusions. If you would fix the page or otherwise confirm if you intended to license this picture under the GNU Free Documentation License, it would be appreciated. --Michael Snow 21:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fashionable Nonsense
I've left this message because I noticed you engaging in a discussion with users who are attempting to spread popularization of the

viewpoint stated in Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's book Fashionable Nonsense and related events. I've begun an attempt to create a repository that will attempt to, ultimately, remove this misinformed position from an ideally-neutral Wikipedia, except to acknowledge the viewpoint in its own context.

This attempt isn't going so well, so I'm contacting people like you whom I've seen discussing the topic earlier than I've intended. See both the intended meta-article and its discussion page for details.

Fashionable Nonsense is not a scholarly work

If you're interested in contributing in any way, please feel free to do so. If not, thank you for your other contributions to Wikipedia.

VermillionBird 01:31, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

VfD: "FACTS"
Votes_for_deletion/FACTS --Goethean 17:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Republics
Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 14:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed RfC on User:Daniel C. Boyer
I noticed you have had disputes with Mr. Boyer over the surrealism article. We are currently drafting an RFC against him for what we consider to be acts of self-promotion and a hostile unwillingness to consider comments or concerns of other Wikipedians. If you feel that his conduct has fallen below the letter or spirit of Wikipedia policies and believe you can document this, please feel free to add this to the rough draft. Thanks! Postdlf 20:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi
It's good to see you editing again, Stirling. I hope you're back to stay. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. It looks like you're not active anymore, but if you come back and are at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. I've marked you on this list as "inactve". Feel free to update this as well. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 3, 2005 18:33 (UTC)

Your message
? What prompted that? I seem to have missed something somewhere. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Re: Bell's theorem
Thanks for your support in Bell's theorem. That sudden criticism (now retracted at least in its ferocity) may have been legitimate as far as the readability of the article is concerned. But I stand by the article's technical accuracy. As is pointed out in the body of the article, the treatment given follows Asher Peres' treatment of the subject in his papers and his book (great book by the way, but hard to get. Currently ells hardbound for US$494 and is unavailable in paperback)

Your adding a new header was a straightforward, but extremely helpful edit. Thanks.

Keep up the good work here and elsewhere.--CSTAR 18:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Race and intelligence
I've put the article on RfC, as you mentioned on 172's talk page, so we'll see if that helps. But in addition to the problems with the content, there are clear article ownership issues, and I'm not terribly optimistic. If you care to join in, you're welcome to. --Michael Snow 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

documentation
It was a little ambiguous of what you wanted to know I had documented. I assume you mean the identity of the recent No Gun Ri editor.

If you look at the history of No Gun Ri, you see that User:214.13.216.142 has been white-washing and reverting it. Well, where is 214.13.216.142 located?

There's a number of ways to find out. A generic thing to do is to go to the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) and do a whois. Doing this will narrow the search a little bit, and ARIN is a recognized authority.

Well, ARIN tells you if you put the above users IP address in that every IP address that begins with 214 belongs to the US Department of Defense. OK, but how can one narrow this down even more?

Well, now you have to do a PTR lookup, or what Wikipedia calls a Reverse DNS lookup. I am a technician and did so through something called "dig". But you can do it from a number of web pages as well. Web pages like this one, or this one, or a whole host of other ones will let you do it. If you go to Google, and type "reverse dns" or "ptr lookup" or things similar to this, you will find more web pages where you can do this. And it will show this user is coming from a military domain, from CentCom, and finally from CentCom's "MNSTC-I", which I had never heard of, but after digging found out was the "Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq".

I've been on the Internet since the 1980s, when it was called the ARPA-net (Advanced Research Projects Agency net), and was under Department of Defense control. Then control shifted to the National Science Foundation, then US corporations, although there were still government, and military connections. If you understand technical things you'll see things like this. Once I was reading an article on an Australian web page on CIA involvement in a sort-of coup d'etat they had in Australia in the 1970's (see Gough Whitlam...actually, Christopher Boyce knew about this, he was sent to US prison for a long time - and I see his Wikipedia article doesn't mention the US involvement in Australia, no surprise). Anyhow, I unlike most people, had my computer set up to log everything. Shortly after hitting this page, I received an SNMP request asking my computer to identify itself and who it's user was. The SNMP request came from an army intelligence outfit in Quantico, Virginia...it had a long name like MNSCTCI, I can't remember the acronym off the top of my head. I know they can monitor Americans reading foreign web sites, but I thought they weren't allowed to do things like the SNMP due to the Posse Comitatus Act, but Reagan lifted a lot of prohibitions put on them by the Church committee during the 1970s, which is why in the 1980s you had Iran-contra, the FBI paying people to seduce nuns in CISPES and the like. Ruy Lopez 23:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Violation Notice against you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Stirling_Newberry Classicjupiter2 16:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism
Strong support for your work on Surrealism, thank you for engaging in much needed clean up and improvements. Perhaps it will even be possible to fix the surrealism and film section some day. Stirling Newberry 21:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you! -->>sparkit| TALK << 22:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Your feed back ...
Sociological_considerations_about_greenhouse_gases Thank you for your feed back, I rewrote the article entirely! I must admit it was also not neutral enough, don't hesitate to formulate some other critics, may be a bit more precise!

Gold Standard
You removed a list of legal criteria from Gold Standard on the grounds that they were inaccurate. Could you add a more accurate list? Ubermonkey 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response at my talk page. Could you add it to the Gold Standard page itself?  Right now, the page has "There is also a set of legal criteria which typically must be fulfilled for an international gold standard:" without a list following it. Ubermonkey 20:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Trolling
Whoa, that's definitely trolling. I'll keep an eye on it. (Btw I don't think you can be blocked for 3RR for that. If you are I'll unblock you myself.)  Best wishes, Antandrus  (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The 3RR policy doesn't apply to reversion of simple vandalism (I didn't know that until just now). (I remember this being the same IP who placed the Heinz Chur sonata information in the list, and I suspect the same IP as in Symphony also. (Ok, investigating: 80.139.236.200 created the Heinz Chur article and placed the initial entry in symphony, 80.139.185.251 changed the entry in symphony, and of course other 80.139.*s have been vandalizing Sonata (music) from the looks of it.) All *.dip.t-dialin.net, which is, I believe a fairly large server, but I may be mistaken. (No doubt Mr. Chur wrote Cello concertos also. (Edit: concertos, not a claim that he began the article listing some of the not-few available to cellists.) Why couldn't it be Dennis Busch?) More snarkily than the situation actually deserves but cooling down literally and figuratively and will indeed keep a watch - thank you. Schissel : bowl listen 22:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I might agree with sending it to WP:ViP except that -


 * t-dialin.net has enough users to make a general block 80.139.* unwise, I believe- without information suggesting that this entire bank of IPs belongs to this one user or to a small group.


 * More and most to the point: I agree that it's trolling, though it comes closer to Harrassment/Personal Attacks (in reaction to reversion*) than to vandalism, by the way, though I also agree that it might be judged to be an edit conflict rather than simple vandalism, since it's not linkspam as usually understood (linking to a vanity page, maybe - where on MDG, a label I have several recordings from- e.g. Krenek quartets...- where is that recording Heinz Chur mentions of the piano sonatas? Nowhere I can see...) yes, I do want to revise that statement *g*). (Will keep watching, am still thoroughly annoyed by this person.)


 * * The editor adds a link to the nonexistent Stirling Newberry article, and to your relevant compositions; I can think of a few reasons why, and to the extent that they are reasons and not a case of Silly-editor-syndrome they may involve confusion on his part as to the relevant meaning of the term 'Notable' (Notability, etc.) Schissel : bowl listen 23:38, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Trolling - definitely! The only reason I demur is that it doesn't seem to fit the categories listed under (simple) vandalism properly.


 * (I am not neutral and do wish trolls and vandals had heard of sleep. This is an encyclopedia and not their playground. Ah, something I should have thought of earlier though: thankfully, the articles linking to Heinz Chur haven't grown in number, decreased now that they're off the sonatas page...) (Editing something I wrote above for clarity, though)   Schissel : bowl listen 00:12, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Test
Sig test Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 22:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Iris Chang
Stirling, did you leave a note on my talk page or somewhere asking that Iris Chang be unlocked? I'm sure I saw it, but now can't find it again. Anyway, I've unlocked it for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Moriori?
Hi there! You just placed a vote labelled 'support' in the section for 'oppose'... which exactly do you mean? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:11, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Iris Chang
I'm not an admin, never having been nominated, so I cannot unprotect the page. It was protected as a result of edit warring and constant reversion, but it's now unprotected. I think the editors in question have reached a near-compromise that will allow the article to remain stable and unprotected. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Pedant 18:39, 2005 July 19 (UTC)

Postmodern music
Dry your eyes mate. Personal attacks? I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll give you personal attacks: c'mon, grow up. Now this here is a personal attack and i make no apoligies for it. Why don't you write something for this proposed critical section? One or two sentences even. It won't take you long. Or would you prefer that the article remain one-sided?--Nicholas 16:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest, how can you be postmodern and maintain a belief in nPOV? Surely postmodernists believe that there is no such thing.--Nicholas 10:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar
I see that you have worked on some articles concerning money. I have been trying to improve the Liberty Dollar article. The subject is a company that sells silver certificates and coins for use as an alternate currency. It's an odd little outfit. One of the issues that I am concerned with is that the article should correctly portray the regular Federal Reserve System and other aspects of the normal financial system. I'd appreciate another editor's involvement, in case you have any interest or knowledge in the field. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your significant contributions towards cleaning this article up. That's a big improvement. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pastor Russell Dispute
Thank you for reviewing and endorsing the second RfC on Charles Taze Russell

Are you an admin? If so, could you please put up an NPOV banner and then protect the page for 48 hours? There appears to be a consensus that it is not a neutral point of view. No one but Pastorrussell has disagreed.

If so, thank you.

Robert McClenon 00:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Pastorrussell
Personally, I don't think that the user in question is actually a "Pove troll". His behavior is indeed characteristic of a troll. I don't consider religious fanatics to be trolls (except in special cases, where they troll on purpose). I think that he is a religious fanatic, and as such, he has no idea when his statements will be provocative.

That is a distinction without a difference. He is a difficult user. thank you for reviewing the second RfC and signing it and adding a concurring opinion. Robert McClenon 23:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about the problem of dealing with Wikipedians who see the world in Manichaean terms and divide it into true believers and forces of darkness. A few points should be noted. First, it is my opinion that you cannot defend civilization by behaving in an uncivilized manner. However, the dualists and I have different concepts of civilization. Second, many true believers have apocalyptic scenarios in which they see good being increasingly outnumbered by evil in the end times and under siege until the good triumphs through divine intervention. In the meantime, they have more fear of the devil than faith in God. I see that as a lack of faith on their part. However, they are typically evangelical Protestants (as is user PR), and I am not a Protestant.

Third, I could also divide the world into true believers and forces of darkness, but I have an entirely different definition of true believers and of forces of darkness. True believers are those who believe in civility and reason. Those who think that any point of view warrants uncivil behavior are themselves forces of darkness. One can, like Anikin Skywalker, become evil in the pursuit of good. However, if I were to divide the world that way, it would start flame wars. Robert McClenon 14:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)