User talk:Stirling Newberry/06


 * 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

Civility
I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. --Revolución (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Moving your talk page
You moved your talk page to User talk:Stirling Newberry 0905. However, you can't really do this, because this would be the talk page for the non-existent user User:Stirling Newberry 0905. Therefore I moved it back to your userspace as User talk:Stirling Newberry/archive 1. You should retain a link to it on your talk page... trying to delete your talk page history is kind of frowned upon. -- Curps 05:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Well, Well
Stirling, your constant accusations of violations of Wikipedia policies without even researching what caused the issue disgust me. You either really need to think before you speak, or actually learn how to research those who are supposedly "attacking" you. Get a grip. Seriously, you're embarassing yourself - and the self-imposed "Google" hit linkspam just increases your supposed "notable" visability. Get a grip on reality, and stop going on the defensive constantly. 81.117.200.52 21:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Your message
I came here to reply to your message, and found that your User page had been vandalised yet again. I've reverted it and blocked the anon (not his first or even second offence), but it provided a counterpoint to your comments. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Rodney King
I just put up Rodney King as needing attention. I know nothing whatsoever about the case, and the article in its current state isn't the best place to find out. I have the idea that you both follow U.S. news and have a political perspective that may balance that of the anons that have been editing the article. If the matter is of no interest to you, I apologize. Jkelly 22:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:VIP | 2005 Atlantic hurricane season
Do you have some kind of personal grudge by accusing me of using a sockpuppet IP? I'll also refer you to Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Speculation. Also noting that there's a sentence after the names saying that the next three names to form will be named Alpha, Beta and Gamma. -- NSLE (Communicate!)  06:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you read Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Speculation? The consensus is right there. -- NSLE (Communicate!)  06:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it be best to request mediation or arbitration on this matter? -- NSLE (Communicate!)  06:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * EDIT: In fact, if you can come on to IRC, it'd be easier. -- NSLE (Communicate!)  06:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay. Also, I just want to make sure that you know that what you claim to be as "simple vandalism" is not.  Simple vandalism is basically "Blatant vandalism". -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiSort Project
Hey, I have started the WikiSort Project. Come on over and check it out.the1physicist 21:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me?
Stirling, please, for the love of God, before you call someone a liar in their edit summary, make sure they're lying. You always seem to be on the ultra defensive because someone disagrees with you. Welcome to life, for someone who seems intelligent, you seem to be lacking in other areas. Conradrock 19:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Stub types
Hi. I've just been at work stub-sorting and ran across a few of yours in a row. I thought I'd let you know that there's a template econ-stub that you might want to use instead of stub, which is actually deprecated. Using econ-stub will sort the article into a category where people looking to improve short economics articles can easily find it. You can see all the different stub types, including several sub-types of econ-stub at WP:WSS/ST. Just wanted to let you know.

Thanks for your contributions! GTBacchus 06:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Maniacs in Boston
Hi, Stirling; how's the fall? Sign up to attend or volunteer @ wikimania...  Also, we should talk more about user stats and research; incl. how to attract excellent submissions from nearby regions & depts. +sj +  08:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian blogosphere
Hi Stirling. Your Canadian cousins can use your illustrious presence over in this vfd.--Simon.Pole 04:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism
You've jumped into the middle of something, without commenting on the comment page and perhaps without even reading what has been going on on the comments page.

The liberalism article, as you might guess, is often the subject of major rewrites by people who are more interested in promoting their point of view than in being encyclopedic. Most recently, less than a week ago, Hogeye, who I think I can safely describe as on the libertarian wing of liberalism, rewrote the whole article to his liking. There was a discussion on the talk page about whether to revert everything Hogeye had written, or try to save the good stuff. Several of us decided to patiently work through the article, one section at a time, making limited changes and discussing them as we went.

Now, you have come to the article and made another set of huge changes on top of the changes already made by Hogeye, obscuring who is doing what to whom, and making more careful work more difficult.

Now, personally, I like some of your changes. In other cases, I think you should be writing a book instead of rewriting a wiki article, because your views are personal rather than standard.

Please, if you contribute further to the "liberalism" article, keep in mind the history of the article as it now stands, don't try to change everything at once like Hogeye did, and discuss changes on the talk page. Thanks. Rick Norwood 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for separate article on current surrealism
When you get a chance, would you please look at my proposal on the Talk:Surrealism page to create a separate article for current surrealist groups and artists, as a possible way of dealing with a lot of the nonsense and juvenile and hostile behavior that occurs on that page and with regard to the Surrealism article itself, and see what you think? Thanks. Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sloppy edits
First, nobody reverted you without saying so. Editing what you wrote is not the same as reverting.

Second, you seem to think we are editing you to change the substance of what you wrote. Actually, we appreciate the substance of what you write -- you bring a lot of knowledge to the table. But you are sloppy. Your large edit left sentences in the wrong paragraph, separated a pronoun from its antecedent, and put topics out of order.

As for your most recent edit, here is a direct quote.

"and anarcho-capitalism consider themselves to b forms of ..."

See what I mean?

Now, everybody makes mistakes, everybody makes typos. But please don't take an attempt to correct your typos as an attempt to change your meaning. Rick Norwood 13:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

recent mail
I was glad to get your mail, and trust we can work together on improving the article. Have you any thoughts on "taxation of business vs. poor" relative to "taxation of corporations vs. workers" wording? Rick Norwood 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Important AfD
Hi. If you have time please take a look at Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the main protagonist for the keep side is threatening to reverse the long-established consensus against creating historical categorization schemes on Wikipedia based on editors' original research. If you are interested, arguments against generating such a list have been stated and restated over the course of several years at Talk:List of dictators. Thanks. 172 20:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Nine Eleven
Your contribution to the September 11, 2001 attacks article "President Bush and his supporters would later argue that the invasion of Iraq constituted the 'central front' of the war on terror, arguing the flypaper theory that terrorists will come to Iraq and be defeated, and that the insurgency is directed or allied with terrorist organizations and state sponsored terrorism. Critics of the war on Iraq argue that this assertion is nothing short of absurd, and that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks, and that the two conflicts are different matters and that Bush's attempt to conflate the two is outright dishonesty. Legally it has a separate existence covered by a different congressional resolution, as it is not covered either under the resolution to retaliate for 9/11, and therefore it is not counted as part of the 'Global War on Terror' by the US Department of Defense." can be formatted to be encyclopedic through the use of quotes and cited sources. This information is valuable and could benefit the article and those reading it were it to be submitted in an NPOV format. --Peter McConaughey 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I had to revert your edit. Our articles need to be stated from a neutral point of view. In order to do that, the author can't make statements asserting his original research. Instead of attributing conclusions to Bush's statements, allow the reader to draw his own conclusion, or at least state what authoritative source considers this to be a conclusion. Your contribution is good stuff, but I would like to challenge you to make it stronger by citing sources and stating it from a neutral point of view. --Peter McConaughey 22:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That does it
I'm obviously shy. Thank you for deleting that text in Postmodernity. I just wrote under it, "John Gardner hates it." ;) Not that John Gardner is--well, you know.  --VKokielov 05:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What did you do with the history?
What have you done to the history on the "List of dictators" page? It went back to April 2002. jucifer 17:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi Stirling. I noticed your signature has an external link. It's not that I think your site is bad, it's just that having external links in signatures might not be something we want. It creates a precedent for people using it to spam Wikipedia talk pages and increase their incoming link count for Google rank improving purposes. Maybe the link on your user page is enough? Zocky 19:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Strongly. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel the same way. --Nicholas 10:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We fight off link spammers all the time, and your signature link might give people the impression that you're no different from them. A link on your user page would be fine, but it is well known that one of the best ways to artificially inflate ranking/hits is to link to a site as many times as possible on Wikipedia, making sure to use the name of the site in the link. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-9 04:23


 * Please remove the external link from your signature. android  79  13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have requested arbitration on this issue. Like many people here, I greatly admire the article work you do, but linkspamming is just not on. You've been asked nicely, and you've essentially said "make me"; as far as I see, we now have little alternative. Ambi 14:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the only problem is the signature span. His contributions are unreferenced POV mostly and he seems to rarely if ever make a contribution to the associated talk page. His edit summaries challenge the 3RR rule and he makes accusations that those that revert his unencyclopedic jargon are vandals. I see nothing to greatly admire about his contributions or the manner in which he makes them, but maybe you're just be a lot nicer than I am...at least I hope that is the case.--MONGO 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see External_links which clearly states that promotional external links such as those in your signature should not be used. I'm not attacking you or your contributions. Just your signature :) &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2005-12-9 18:02

Ok, so we went through the motions and now Sign your posts on talk pages clearly says "no external links". Is that good enough or do we need a decision by the board? Happy editing, Zocky 22:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I totaly agree. What if everyone did that.  People could start earning money by editing wiki.  jucifer 23:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Since it seems that you have not gotten the message: Please remove the external link from your signature. Whatever the value of your contributions, whatever the strength of your contributions to discussions, it's not acceptable. Thanks.--Sean|Bla ck 07:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright. Since you have refused to even discuss the matter, are ignoring the guidelines at Sign your posts on talk pages, and are still using the link in your signature, I've temporary blocked you. You can still reply on your talk page. You will be unblocked as soon as you remove the link from your signature. -- BRIAN 0918  15:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, I appreciate that you seem to think that not allowing users to use external links in their signatures is a bad idea. But, by now you must appreciate that other editors overwhelmingly dissagree. In multiple locations where this was discussed (see upper links), many editors opposed the practice and expressed serious concerns, while not a single one supported it. Please stop it so that we can all stop wasting our time with this. Zocky 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Can't someone who knows about bots just set one going deleting all his links. This is a real traversty.  Wiki shouldn't be about shameless self-promotion. jucifer 01:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Babel
Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Where is the archive of your talkpage?
While working on an article, it was noted that the discussion continued in your talk page. Could you be so good as to tell me where you have hidden the contents of your talk-page from Jan-04 to Jun-05 as I would like to read it.

Yours, jucifer 16:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * They seem to be at User talk:Stirling Newberry 01, User talk:Stirling Newberry 02, and User talk:Stirling Newberry 03. —Locke Cole 07:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Archives
I noted that several of your archives weren't shelved as proper subpages. I moved them and listed them at the top of this page for you, along with the date ranges involved. Hope it helps! -- Netoholic @ 02:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V citations
You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability: Format of citations and WP:V examples, and WP:FN. (SEWilco 08:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Deleting Inflation graphic dimishes work
Article: inflation

Stirling - (cur) (last) 14:08, 12 November 2005 Stirling Newberry (Removing core inflation graph it is a controversial concept.)

Can you elaborate here? Is there a factual error?

Have re-added and await your substantial justification for the delete. This piece took some time to create and, I think, adds to the presentation.

jk

Oil Price graph in Oil Shock
The axis label says it is in nominal dollars, but the data are in real dollars. I'm just a frequent user trying to help, and I do not know how to proceed.

69.47.134.193 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Jeff

By The Way
Hi Stirling, why did you automatically assume that the community was out to get you when we respectfully requested that you cease your linkspam? I just want to get your side of the story, and I apologize for any personal attacks that you may feel from my request, or personal attacks that I have committed in the past. I truly regret them now, and I now realize the error of my ways. I also realize that I have probably hurt you to a great deal, but you've hurt me too, after all.

So you said some things, and I said some things, it's in the past, let's move on.

Nice MySpace profile BTW!: http://profile.myspace.com/8910712

Very Truly Yours,

Ray Lopez 82.51.131.243 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Redux
Stirling, please, for the love of God, before you call someone a liar in their edit summary, make sure they're lying. You always seem to be on the ultra defensive because someone disagrees with you. Welcome to life, for someone who seems intelligent, you seem to be lacking in other areas. Conradrock 19:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

(Reformatted to continue discourse)
 * Personal attacks, like lying in edit summaries, are against the rules. Thank you for your cooperation. Stirling Newberry 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh, Stirling, how did I lie in any edit summary? In any case, you just contradicted yourself; you called someone a liar in your edit summary, then you tell me that calling someone a liar in an edit summary counts as a personal attack? Yeah, good thing you thought that through before bringing it to my attention. Conradrock 01:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Friedman
You might be interested to take part in the latest discussion in Talk:Liberalism on Friedman's citation. 159.46.248.228 14:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

1.0 Collaboration of the Week
Hi, I noticed you signed up as a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. Recently, a 1.0 Collaboration of the Week was created to work on essential topics that are in need of improvement, which will ultimately go in a release version of Wikipedia. You can help by voting, contributing to an article, or simply making a comment. Thank you for your support. :) Gflores Talk 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Theorum [sic]"?

 * Economist whose early work was based on Kenneth Arrow's General Possibility Theorum, and on the impossibility of both complete paereto optimality and solely

"Theorum"? Michael Hardy 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Dollar
I've nominated the page "Liberty Dollar" for nomination and am notifying you accordingly since you are a contributor. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pages up for deletion
I ask you to look at these two articles up for deletion: Cretan/Spartan connection and Revolution within the form, I ask for a vote for "make external link". Thanks. WHEELER 22:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Graph on Oil Crisis Page
I wanted to know what your source was for the graph on the oil crisis page that showed the history of world oil prices.

Regards,

Kunal

Spacefaring
Spacefaring has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe (Talk) 02:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Computers in postmodernity
On 21 January 2005, you redirected Computers in postmodernity to Votes for deletion/Computers in Postmodernity. I've reverted that redirect. I agree the article is in bad shape, but if you believe it should be deleted instead of leaving for someone to clean-up, please nominate it for deletion. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 03:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Version 1.0 "Release Version Qualifying"
Hi, I'm interested in your feedback on Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Qualifying. It's essentially an idea to use a process similar to WP:FAC to identify and handle articles and lists that would go in a release version. Maurreen 19:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0
I thought since you are interested in this project you might be interested to see a CD version of en now exists see Wikipedia-CD/Download & 2006 WP CD Selection. This is being discussed on the 1.0 project pages but progress breeds enthusiasm so I thought I would let you know. --BozMo talk 09:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Oil.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Oil.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Thank you.

Peer review requested for Deconstructivism
Hey there, I was wondering if you would be at all interested in peer reviewing Deconstructivism. We have got it to a stage where some criticism would be beneficial and we'd be very grateful for your input. Many thanks --Mcginnly 11:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Van houtte octopus.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Van houtte octopus.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self 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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 00:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection
I took the liberty of semi-protecting your user page a few days back... let me know if you want that lifted for some reason. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen your delightful trolls at work. It wasn't clear to me from your message whether you wanted the semi-protection left in place or lifted, though. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Serialism
A lot of comments in articles that serialism is bad or passé or historically superseded or whatever were added by John Kenneth Graham, who usually quoted himself as a great composer and authority on music in the process. I've been trying to expunge his POV and non-notability from the music articles, but apparently there is still more work to do. Thanks for helping. CRCulver 02:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism
Please see my note on Talk:postmodernism. Thanks JenLouise 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back
I just saw your account name appear on my watchlist. Welcome back! 172 | Talk 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

George Allen
I have no wish to become embroiled in an "edit war" with you. The "other criticisms" section has no place in an encyclopedia. If you remove the npov warnings, I will consider it vandalism to the article and do what I can to have you blocked. It is obvious from your page that you have an opinion that is hostile to George Allen. That in of itself is ok, as long as you keep your articles and edits to a neutral point of view. Nnoppinger 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job!
Good job swallowing your pride, and deciding that google bombing "bopnews" on Wikipedia with your signature was indeed a bad thing. WikipediaSleeperCell2 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet or impersonator
Hello. I noticed recently that a new user with a username almost identical to yours registered and copied your user/talk page. . I have reported them at WP:AIV. Feel free to comment there or look over their contributions and undo anything they might have done to masquerade as you. --Kuzaar-T-C- 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)