User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 3

Advice I was given
I was told seeing as our current situation is growing and your usage of questionable sources is on the rise that I assume good faith and instead point you toward Verifiability, CITE and WP:RS. I hope you read these and ask the fols on those respective talk pages for any advice or questions you may have about sources I remove, or ask for. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * good advice User:NuclearUmpf, maybe you and User:NuclearUmpf can agree on guidelines about these three policy pages, maybe Seabhcan‎, who helped stop an edit war between myself and User:NuclearUmpf, and was praised by User:NuclearUmpf, can make suggestions.  I will post a link on Seabhcan's page.  Another option is a third party mediator, you can start another mediation together, like I did on the alleged terrorism page. Travb (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. I'm up to my neck at work today, however, but give me a while to think about it. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  16:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated in the past with Seabhcan, all I request is that the source meets WP:RS and WP:V and states an allegation of terrorism.....--Nuclear Zer0 17:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Remark edited. This is not the page for a debate on the American Terrorism page.  Take it there.  Stone put to sky 02:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tried, you stopped using edit summaries and participating on the talk page. --Nuclear Zer0 03:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? I absolutely have no idea what that sentence is trying to say. Stone put to sky 03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Stone, NuclearUmpf is trying to comprimise, WP:AGF and please try to forget your past disagreements. As the old saying goes "you get more bees with honey than vinegar". Travb (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Your stuff
You are not permitted to post in other peoples evidence section. --Nuclear Zer0 11:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Am already on it. Check the changelog for proof. Stone put to sky 11:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Debate the points?
I am fine with that, but please do not revert my edits if you are not going to make a talk page edit to actually debate them. Thank you. --Nuclear Zer0 23:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A Machiavelli view on wikipedia
This may help you, A Machiavelli view on wikipedia. This is advice I gave to User:Joshuarooney who is now indefinetly banned, because he didn't listen.

I see much, much more hope for you, because I see that you are listening to me, and changing your editing behavior.

Nuclear wrote: "is an attack and if you continue them I will file and RfC" He is serious. Ask User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All how fun his RfC is, it was filed by those who share some of the same views as Nuclear, and edit all the same pages, including the page you are debating on. I would suggestion apologizing to Nuclear, immediatly. He may or not recipocate. That doesn't matter. It is in your best interest to sincerely apologize.

Seabhcan refused to apologize, and he is desopyed. In ArbCom's, since you are not an admin, they will ban you. A RfC is the first step to a ban. If Fair continues to mouth off, other wikiusers will happily file a ArbCom.

I say this as a virtual friend.

Here is my advice I moved from the Allegations page:


 * User:Stone put to sky, Nuclear is always going to have the better argument, because he is able to contain his emotions better than you. Until you learn to contain your emotions, and not get mad, Nuclear will get the best if you. If you are frustrated at Nuclear, e-mail me or someone else you feel shares your POV, and rant there, not on wikipedia.  I am a good listener.
 * User:Stone put to sky: stop writing stuff like this, these broad generalizations: NuclearUmpf is willing to accept are those propagated and applied by the U.S. Executive and the U.S. military. Even if it is true, it does not help your argument one bit, and if you are not careful with what you say, those words can give others ammunition to file an RfC, as Nuclear stated: "If he wishes to continue in this antagonistic behavior" is an attack and if you continue them I will file and RfC."

I am asking User talk:Fairness And Accuracy For All, to advise you how fun RfC's are. Travb (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Less fun than a barrel of Bush-monkeys. Civility is VERY important. I learned my lesson and now I'm as polite as a schoolmarm. I advise you (Stone) to do the same. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen, if I ever get out of line, let me know, and I will immediately delete the comment, immediatly. One of my many pet peeves about wikipedia is  about most admins and veteran editors is how arrogant they are, they know better than everyone else.
 * I never want to be like that, and ignore advice from those who have been on wikipedia less time then me. They may have good advice that they learned outside of wikipedia, good life lessons. I always appreciate your advice, thanks man, happy editing.
 * I suggest you rewrite that section, and delete those parts that offended Nuclear. If you decide to apologize to Nuclear, send me the link. It will honestly make my entire month. Travb (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My guess is that Seabhcan, unlike a certain someone else, doesn't care one bit that he was DesiPopeyed. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice above F.A.A.F.A., I didn't realize it was you, I thought it was Stone, because this is not your usual tone. You really have changed.  I am really glad. I was stupid and stubborn and it took me an indefinite ban to radically change.  I am lucky to be here on wikipedia. Best wishes. On second thought, I am removing my comments about Sea. Sorry Seabhcan.  I will apologize to him on his wikipage. Travb (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your new page

 * User:Stone put to sky/A Travb (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Stone, how are you doing? Haven't heard from you for months. Nuclear was banned so maybe you can add back that information which you were fighting with him about. Travb (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Civility
Hey there. Please do not make comments like this again: ''Anyone who might suggest that this topic be deleted is either a dumbshit fascist or a dumbshit dupe. In either case, they have no place here in wikiepedia.'' I could have taken this to WP:ANI. I trust you will take this advice seriously. Please don't do it again. JungleCat   Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that...I recommend you not call anyone on Wikipedia a Fascist again.--MONGO 00:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there something wrong with holding Fascist beliefs? Perhaps you could ask these guys if they take offence at that statement or not? Cloveoil 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly urge you to adjust the comments you made on the deletion.--MONGO 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly urge you not to change your comments, policy would support that they are kept in place, to remind other users of your past transgressions. Cloveoil 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Might be interested
I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America discussion for deletion. After the article has survived many deletions, you may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NPA Warning
I see you must have added the personal attacks using your IP at Talk:State terrorism by the United States. If you can't argue your points without attack those you are disagreement with, then you should take a break. This isn't the first time you have been asked to not attack others.--MONGO 10:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What personal attacks? If you find something offensive, then i am quite open to re-examining what i said. While i admit that i often find it extremely difficult to assume good faith with you, for the moment i have tried quite diligently to avoid any sort of personal attacks. Stone put to sky 10:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not transclude talkpage comments to article space again. Yes, you singled out editors in your comments and that is a big no-no. If you can't argue about the merits of the issue without impuning others, then you need ot walk away from your computer. Yes, you have been asked before to not do this. I'm not asking again.--MONGO 10:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I singled out editors' behavior, pointing out that it is a clear violation of wikipedia guidelines and that there is a clear effort by a small group of people to get the page deleted. That in no way constitutes an attack if it is clearly true -- which of course it is, because you and a passel of other people signed on to a petition to get the page deleted only just above on the same page.

If you do not want people to point out that your behavior runs contrary to wikipedia guidelines, then i suggest you don't act that way.

Having said that -- and after having looked over the post quite carefully now, three more times -- I can see nothing that attributes anything that can be construed as a personal attack. I have argued that the rhetoric promoted by a large, undefined group of posters is weak and not based in fact; that opinions are being thrust upon the page in place of facts; and that the posters who do this have been making clear demands to get the page deleted, even after repeated and wide confirmation of the page's value by the greater community.

Please explain to me -- with specific examples, detailing the offensive remarks -- what you consider to be a personal attack. I am quite willing to take your perspective into consideration, but until you tell me what's offensive i can not possibly correct the post, simply because i'm not sure what it is that's giving offense. Stone put to sky 10:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't suggest to have editors banned just because they disagree with you. If you are incapable of editing civily I suggest you take a break.--MONGO 11:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that editors be banned because they don't agree with me. I am suggesting that your own sensibilities are so clouded that you cannot be counted upon to edit this page in good faith.

I am not asking that you be banned from wikipedia; i hold in great value many of your contributions, and i firmly believe you are a valuable and sincere editor. On this page, however, you have made virtually no contributions and done nothing except constantly harass the regular editors and press for deletion of the entire page.

If you can explain something to me in a clear and reasoned fashion then i'll be happy to withdraw my suggestion: If you do not believe the page should exist then how can you be counted upon to edit it responsibly? Stone put to sky 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are gravely mistaken about my motives of the page in question. I see it as one of the worst pages of POV radical nonsense on this website. The overwhelming concensus is that (at least) the page be renamed as "allegations". That is precisely what is going to happen (at least) when it is unprotected. I do not think you can be counted on to not keep from impuning the integrity of editors you disagree with. Last time, you have been asked to stiop doing this. I am asking you to stop impuning my integrity and lying about my desyopping...which had ZERO to do with me being a political POV pusher.--MONGO 11:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

i am in no way mistaken about your motives. You have made them quite clear, from the moment i first saw your posts.

Also, i do not think the page will be re-named, MONGO. While your action may succeed, i do not see it as a foregone conclusion, and in any event it will be a temporary victory. Wikipedia is not a democracy; just because most people vote for a given action does not qualify the action as valid. There must be a solid and logical reason for making such a change, and up to now you and your cadre of deletionists have yet to make the case.

Regarding your de-sysopping: if you are ashamed of your past, then i suggest you reform. The best way to never be reminded of it is to never force anyone to point it out. Insofar as your de-sysopping is relevant to issues at hand, i for one shall not desist from mentioning them. While it pains me that it upsets you -- and it was not a decision taken lightly, for believe it or not i am sensitive to your feelings -- it seemed like something that was important to remind people of, at the time.

I have not lied, and i have been very discreet in my comments. I would like to point out here that i consider such accusations a grave impunity on my character, to the point of being a serious, actionable personal insult. I have not made charges of the sort you suggest, and i am in person as well as pen a scrupulously honest and forthright man. I do not open my mouth about things i have no knowledge or understanding of.

For my part, i merely pointed out that you -- like several of the others at work on the State Terrorism page -- were disciplined and your responsibilities curtailed as a direct consequence of your behavior on many pages. This is relevant, because you and several of the editors on these pages are often seen together, and often work towards the same rhetorical ends. It would be unremarkable if you alone had been disciplined; but to see so many people who have been the recipients of so many administrative actions working together and espousing the same actions does suggest something, doesn't it? Stone put to sky 12:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's better to avoid commenting on other people and their motives, especially if the subject is already contentious. Please limit your remarks to content and avoid making it personal. Tom Harrison Talk 13:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not made it personal. The remarks were limited to content; i was commenting on the demands made by you and your comrades, and by the remarkable fact that virtually all of the people who object to the content of the page are each calling for its deletion -- not based on facts or reason, but simply because they do not approve of the content.

No insinuations about your motives, character, or abilities were made or implied. No insults nor condemnations of your persons were tabled. On the other hand, the same can not be said about your collective response to my post -- responses which so far include pointed insinuations and open slurs upon my integrity and intent.

I am sorry if you did not feel my comments were appropriate; if you would be so kind as to indicate where they were unsatisfactory i would be happy to retract any pointedly personal or demeaning remarks.

It is unreasonable for you and your comrades to repeatedly demand changes to content without providing reasonable, substantial, and specific justification conforming to a single standard for the changes you promote.

Just as there is nothing wrong in pointing out that none of you have ever contributed any content of substance to the page -- despite a collective editorial presence of many years -- similarly there is nothing wrong in pointing out that you, MONGO, TDC, and Devonshire continue to make edits on pages whose very existence you protest. That conflict of interest runs to the heart of our current impasse, and there is no reason why these obvious facts should be taboo. Stone put to sky 13:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are the parts of your remarks that comment on people instead of content:

You mistakenly said several editors "have each been the recipients of equally clear and unambiguous disciplinary action for their political posturing and abuse of the wiki system." This is not the case.

"They seem completely numb to the possibility that their own viewpoints are wildly skewed from mainstream, international opinion, and -- unfortunately for those of us who try to maintain this page -- are utterly incapable of reconsidering their own nationalist, partisan sentiments."

"a cynical challenge to firmly established, uncontroversial wikipedia protocol"

"feel so fearful as to seek the constraint and limitation of soundly argued, free spirited reasoning"

These ramarks make it personal, and are not about content. They include clear and negative statements about people's motives - "cynical", character - "fearful", and abilities - "incapable of reconsidering their own nationalist, partisan sentiments." Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Harrison
Well, now. Thank you for the pointed response.


 * You mistakenly said several editors "have each been the recipients of equally clear and unambiguous disciplinary action for their political posturing and abuse of the wiki system." This is not the case.

No, i wasn't mistaken, and you know that. It would be an easy enough thing for me to go track down the various instances, but i'm not going to waste my time with such trivia.


 * "They seem completely numb to the possibility that their own viewpoints are wildly skewed from mainstream, international opinion, and -- unfortunately for those of us who try to maintain this page -- are utterly incapable of reconsidering their own nationalist, partisan sentiments."

Please examine what i am saying, here: that the posters who insist upon these ever-changing standards of validity are numb to the possibility that their ideas are not in the mainstream (and possibly very much so).

It is not an insult to say that someone's ideas are not in the mainstream, nor is it an insult to suggest that someone might not be sensitive to that fact.

Similarly, i have never heard the term "nationalist" characterized as an unconditional insult. To be a nationalist is, in many circles, considered a badge of honor. A "partisan" is nothing more than someone with strong political opinions, and again -- in itself -- in no way an insult.

Put them all together and i said nothing more than that the page currently is protested by a large group of people who seem insensitive to the possibility that their ideas aren't shared by the international community, and who fiercely love their government and band together in its defense. I see nothing in those words that is either personal or an attack.


 * "a cynical challenge to firmly established, uncontroversial wikipedia protocol"

You and i both know that there is a thing called an AfD. For some reason, several people on this board seem to believe that taking a straw poll on deletion will somehow bolster their arguments for the changes they are demanding; this attitude can, at best, be characterized as an innocent mistake and at worst a ploy. Regardless, it's a clear violation of established wikipedia protocol.

From where i am sitting it appears to be co-ordinated. Considering the ferocity with which people like you, MONGO and Devonshire wield the wikipedia guidelines -- and the obvious time you have each spent learning how to use them -- i would have presumed you would have known that such straw polls are a clear challenge to the wikipedia community as a whole and express -- at best -- a disdain for the wikipedia project.

Finally, cynicism is not an insult. I typically characterize myself as a cynic; while i admit that i do not approve of this challenge that your actions (on the talk page) have presented the community, i do protest that expressing my disapproval -- particularly in such a mild manner -- is in any way an "attack" upon you or your comrades' person.

If you would like to make a suggestion for different wording -- something that succeeds in expressing my disapproval, acknowledges your own wealth of knowledge and experience, and gives the nod to your violations of protocol -- then i will be happy to use it. For my part, i cannot come up with anything that is equally concise and expressive.

It is my failing, and i acknowledge it.


 * "feel so fearful as to seek the constraint and limitation of soundly argued, free spirited reasoning"

It is not an insult to say that someone is fearful. To the contrary -- to acknowledge someone's fear as i did is the opposite of an attack. Further, there is nothing personal in this statement; it is clearly a qualification of 'my fellow countrymen', a group that implies many, many more people than you, MONGO, and Devonshire (the last of whom claims -- and please correct me if i'm wrong -- to be from Britain, no?). The paragraph in which it is placed is a clear break from earlier arguments.

Finally, is there any more clear constraint and limit of free speech than to demand the deletion of a well-researched and undeniably substantiated wikipedia article? Particularly one that has already received such unambiguous endorsement from the greater wikipedian community.

For my part, i do not consider your list to be anything more than an unremarkable collection of facts and characterization. If you contest this, i suggest you take them up with arbcomm.

For my part, i'm uninterested in spending any more time on this. Stone put to sky 14:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbitration would not be appropriate now. I think a request for comment would be the next step, and that only if you persist in commenting (negatively) on people rather than content. If you do not want to spend any more time on it, then please limit your comments to content rather than people. Tom Harrison Talk 15:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr Harrison, you are wasting my time. From now on, please restrict your comments to the talk page. If i see merit in your objections, then i will -- as consistent with protocol -- consent to taking the discussion back here.

As things stand, i want you to understand that i interpret your last few posts -- and MONGO's -- as threats which are equivalent to personal attacks. Stone put to sky 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming
I have no opinion on the naming controversy about the article currently at State Terrorism by the United States; however, whatever title is decided upon ought to at least be consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions. In particular, the "T" ought not be capitalized. Also, if you move a page, you should also check whether you are creating double-redirects; and, if so, fix them. --Russ (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Russ. It's nice to meet you.

I'm sorry about the "T" thing. I will try to make sure something like that doesn't happen again; i was following what i considered to be standard formal writing rules on titling, but if i was wrong then i'll be happy to accommodate wiki guidelines.

Regarding the double-redirects: frankly, i just got confused. Also, if it's true that there were double-redirects created then i really don't have that much time to devote to it; moreover, there has been a vocal and consistent anti-name-change group on the page (quite near half the people who voted in the straw poll) who have been adamant that the name shouldn't be changed. Perhaps i'm being selfish for thinking this way, but it really does seem as if the responsibility for returning the links to proper status should lie with those who either have the time, or changed the name against the wishes of some half the commentators on the page.

If, when i next have time (maybe tomorrow, maybe the next day or even later) the redirects are still around then i will do my best to see they get properly reset again. Stone put to sky 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that the double-redirects have now been fixed by bot, so you don't need to worry about it. --Russ (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Please read 3RR]. If you continue to revert, I will report you.Ultramarine 08:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Please join talk, Stone. - Merzbow 16:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? I check the talk pages regularly; i haven't seen anything new recently except for a bunch of back-slapping and yahooing by you, Ultramarine, and MONGO. When y'all add something i can respond to, i'll be happy to respond. Until then, i don't really see any point in jumping into y'all's private party and ruining all the fun. Stone put to sky 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose account
You are definitely just a POV pushing single purpose account aren't you...look at your contributions. I think POV pushers like you should be banned indefinitely from editing. I strongly urge you to start writing an encyclopedia and stop misusing your account it to promote your radical agenda. If this doesn't stop, I think I see an arbcom case in your future.--MONGO 07:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this contribution, MONGO. It is nice to see you show your true colors.

My politics are my own, and none of your business. For my part, i can only say that i have little regard for your views about my person, and your insults really do not affect me.

Feel free to continue to do as you wish. This has been logged, and i await the day when you finally follow through on the considerable threats and abuse you and your friends have heaped upon me. Stone put to sky 07:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Preview, edit summary, and marking edits as minor
Hello,

Just some feedback about your recent edits to the State Terrorism article... if you look at the history of that page, you just see a bunch of your edits, minutes apart, to multiple sections of the article. It makes it a bit difficult for somebody to follow the evolution of the article. You could help by using the show preview button to make most of those edits under one edit-save session. Additionally, you could leave an edit summary like "correcting spelling", and mark the edit as minor. Sancho 16:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm sorry about that, Sancho. Honestly, i haven't ever really explored the Wikipedia UI and so have a lot to learn. In fact, i don't think i even ever really realized there were three buttons down there until you just mentioned it, now. I appreciate the advice, and i'll try to start putting it to use immediately. Stone put to sky 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right on. Thanks. Make sure to check out the short list at Help:Minor_edit. Sancho 19:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Voting for me
Hi. I noticed your edit where you moved my comment to the poll section. It's better not to do this sort of thing without asking; I quite deliberately didn't "vote" in the poll because I believe wikipedia is not a democracy. As I have said elsewhere in the page I think the best course of action would be to follow Tom harrison's idea of improving the article rather than participate in a poll on whether to insert weasel words into the title. Having said that, I appreciate that you were acting from good intentions and that the poll is being quoted from. I therefore am not asking you to move it. I just wanted to (I hope politely!) point out that one shouldn't move other people's comments like this. A better approach would have been to query it with me. Let the !vote stand now though, and best wishes to you. --John 19:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh; sorry about that. You know i'm passionate about the page; i only edit this one, occasionally, and not many others.

Now that i think about it, i can't even remember if i "moved" it or just "copied" it. If i actually did move it then i feel pretty stupid.

In the future i'll try to keep your comments in mind and get such things o.k.'d with people beforehand.

Just an aside, though: where did Harrison ever say he wanted to "improve" the article? His presence on the page has been almost always a vote for deletion, and i've never seen him contribute anything to the page except for support in deleting content. Stone put to sky 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Tom's contribution is under the "NPOV Title" section. --John 21:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Read the page before you incorrectly accuse me of vandalism again. How many times do you have to be warned on this issue?--MONGO 10:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the page; there was no clear consensus, and you obviously changed the name against the wishes of the majority of contributing editors. You may not consider that vandalism, but i am confident that the wikipedia sysops will.

If you would like to take this up for mediation or arbcomm, i will happily participate. I have nothing to hide, and nothing to fear.

I would like to point out that you are, once again, leveling threats and using aggressive language with me -- on my own talk page, no less! From your interaction with me, i have come to believe that this sort of behavior is to be expected from you. Which is a pity, i think. Stone put to sky 10:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're simply a single purpose account, misusing the open forum of this website to push your agenda driven contributions. This is easily demonstrated by your edits...they speak for themselves. You have (several times now) accused myself and others of vandalism, so either you don't understand the Wikipedia definition of vandalism or you are trying to be disruptive. There was ZERO consensus to change the article to the title you have now given it, so don't play coy with me when the fact is that there was and still is a majority to change it to the name I had. Besides, if you bothered to look at the Afd and the comments by many there who voted keep but rename, the overwhelming consensus was to add Allegations to the title.--MONGO 10:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case; but there was "ZERO consensus" (as you put it) to change it to "Allegations of..." in the first place.

As my mammy used t' say: what's good f'r da goose is good f'r da gander.

Finally: the AfD was not an RfC on the name-change, but rather an AfD. The "consensus" there is irrelevant unless we have fully discussed it on the article page and reached a consensus there. You have not allowed the article editors to complete that process but have instead tried to force your personal ideas upon the page, even despite a clear and unyielding consensus against your proposition.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that clearly falls under the heading of WP:VANDALISM.

Regarding my account: i would be happy to edit a few other pages, but unfortunately i find all of my available time to edit wikipedia tied up by a small group of editors who continue in an unrelenting effort to delete content from a page i personally consider very important. Say what you wish; you don't know me, have never met me, and your insinuated insults about my personal life and choices really don't bother me.

I would ask that you cease this attempt to bully and cow me. I consider it extremely uncivil and clearly beyond the bounds of wikipedia principles. Stone put to sky 10:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * MONGO's admission that the "overwhelming consensus was to add Allegations to the title" is revealing, as he essentially admits that there was not consensus for the page move he made (which obviously went much further than simply adding "allegations" to the title). To Stone, obviously I'm basically in agreement with you about the page and I understand and very much sympathize with your intense frustration with some editors (particularly since this kind of thing has been going on for so long), but I just don't think throwing around the "vandal" charge is a good idea.  It simply provokes anger, and I don't know that MONGO's edits are vandalism so much as bad editing.  Even if one could make an argument for vandalism, what's the point?  Others will vehemently disagree and you'll end up arguing about nothing substantive.  Definitely object forcefully to some of the nonconstructive edits that are happening, but I think toning down the language is a good idea.  Just my two cents.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 19:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation at State-sponsored terrorism by the United States
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. ElinorD (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please play nice
Stone, this edit at the talk page does not help anything--particularly phrases like "spouting self-congratulatory bullshit" and interspacing your replies with Tbeatty's every sentence. It's just not civil to talk like that, and will simply make it even more difficult (if that's possible) to proceed on the State Terrorism by the United States article, particularly since you are an important contributor there. When Tbeatty parrots you he is obviously just trying to wind you up. Don't let him do it, it's best to let it slide by or at least respond with as much civility as you possibly can. That's hard--personally I don't think I've always succeeded--but I think we should really try to take the high road here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, first: "spouting self-congratulatory bullshit" is a characterization, not of anyone's personal behavior, but of "[self-]righteousness" in general. I thought my prose and editing style had made that clear; if it didn't, i'm sorry.

Second (and i'm not trying to be contrary here at all): i consider the "high road" to be holding Wikipedia's content to consistent, neutral standards, and i think you agree with me on that. It seems, though, that by "taking the high road" you're suggesting indirect reponses to provocative, repeatedly offensive behavior, or purposefully ignoring glaring violations of Wikipedia policy. I understand that you intend these suggestions to promote in a constructive and civil environment, but i don't see that they've ever succeed in that yet and cannot imagine that they ever will.

Still -- I agree that there should be a better way than the current conflagration, but the problem here is that i really have been on this page now for a long, long time, and can bear direct, personal witness to the patterns of abuse that these people engage in.

Yes, tbeatty is "just trying to wind me up"; but it is not his words that have me wound up, right now. I was banned for a full day ostensibly because i "violated the 3RR rule". My experience went thus:


 * Made some comments to the page; realized i wasn't logged in;  logged in and found i was banned.
 * Whipped off an e-mail to ElinorD, who banned me, saying that to my knowledge i had made exactly 3 reverts, while the rule clearly said "more than" 3 reverts. I did not receive a response.
 * Discovered that Tom, tbeatty, MONGO, and a few others began deleting large sections of the article (apparently moments after the ban, IIRC).
 * As the regular contributors responded to the vandalism (and wiki policy clearly qualifies the behavior as vandalism), sys-ops -- apparently sympathetic to their POV -- froze the page.
 * In the process, MONGO clearly made more than 3 reverts, but ElinorD didn't see fit to ban him.
 * All this amid a long pattern of repeated insults (often deleted by MONGO), quid pro quo offers, and clearly provocative, aggressively incivil posts by MONGO, Merzbow, and others.
 * And finally: the deletions began shortly after a failed AfD, following a pattern that has been consistent now for three years.

Are there really no avenues of recourse available to the editors here? Is there really nothing to be done? Why is there a cabal like this, that can work in impunity, and no counterweight to its force anywhere to be found?

For me, the "high road" is this: either Wikipedia follows its own policies, or it doesn't.  The way to guarantee that it remains unbiased is not to hope that it gets better in the future, but to demand authenticity and commitment to academic validity at every level, in every detail, now.

Stone put to sky 09:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of your description of events above (I have not checked the logs on the 3RR stuff) and again, as I said in the other comment above, I completely understand and am sympathetic to your frustration with some of the editors on this page, especially since you have been at this for quite awhile. My only point is that replying to Tbeatty in the manner you did does not help in any way. Like I said I basically agree with your grievances as described, but they really do not relate to what he said or to how you replied.  Promoting "a constructive and civil environment" may be, as you suggest, essentially impossible on this article, but there's no reason to make it even more difficult with uncivil comments (or even comments which could be interpreted as uncivil). I agree with your characterizations of the "high road" here in a more general sense, but I think there is also a high road when it comes to communicating with other editors. It's relatively easy (and beneficial) to seize that high road given some of the incivility that we've seen from folks in the pro-deletion camp.  This is my point, and though I don't want to harp on it too much, I think it is worth considering.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 10:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

O.k, then; i will keep that in mind and do as best i can. Stone put to sky 10:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Big bang
Don't waste your time. Ultra's edits are always through my proxy, so they will never have proof. Catch me if you can, I am the gingerbread man!

Anarchist wikipediar (JDL)
hey stone boy, I have bigger dreams then removing terrorism from JDL. I could care a less. But I want to let you know, saying the JDL is a terrorist group because the actions of a few individuals is like saying you enjoy sondomzing Iraqi men because you were part of the US army (since there have been several reported cases) Does that make all US servicemen sexual predators? No, does it make all JDL members Kahanist terrorists, no... Am I a Kahanist??? Not really. You see where I am going? I don't thik that about US servicemen at all, just an example. In fact, I support them wherever they are. I know you are proud to be on the left, and an archist as you describe yourself, probably against Israel too????? That's your choice.
 * --Eternalsleeper 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mongo's Arbcom in progress
You may be interested in this: User:MONGO/arbcom ... Seabhcan (Here we go again!) 13:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

IP edits
Is this you? If so, why not just log in?--MONGO 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice work here too...--MONGO 11:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not me. I log in under my own name; i do not post anonymously. Stone put to sky 15:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I know it's you
This and this, why are you hiding? --MichaelLinnear 00:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hiding; the only unseemly things going on here are your accusations and suspicion. When i post i log in under my own name; i do not post anonymously. Stone put to sky 15:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Please be more civil in deletion debates in the future. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make that bad faith.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  18:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil in pointing out that you have a history of bad faith noms and a political axe to grind, especially when you nominate something for deletion without any reference whatsoever to actual wikipedia guidelines. Uncivil would be if i called you something like "big nose"; pointing out quite valid reasons for ignoring your deletion request is not, however. Stone put to sky 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is, especially since you are wrong on all three counts. In essence, you are fabricating false history in order to discredit people who disagree with you, and you are confusing "calling names" with incivility in general. Just cut out the ad hominems and focus on the issue at hand.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Violations of NPOV and OR

 * There is no consensus that Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States presents the "facts". Consensus has on this may have existed, and if so, it has shifted. For this reason, reliable sources are required which are presently missing. Do not further revert or edit without consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)



I read all of the citations and deleted those that did not support the text. None of them suggested that any "government" had any allegation, so government was edited out. Your reversion was a reportable violation of NPOV and OR. If you had offered a reliable source - or if there already was such, it would not have been a reportable violation. Please refrain from such in the future.

We may debate these issues on TALK and there strive for Consensus, or I will need to seek an alternative solution. My offer to seek consensus is sincere, as is my expressed willingness to seek an alternative solution. Which do you prefer? Raggz (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you feel that way, Raggz, but the article clearly has sources that demonstrate the truth of that statement. There are sources in there from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, multiple academics and at least three different countries.  Thus, your assertion seems rather odd.   Moreover, I would ask you to address these issues on the talk page.  You posting here clearly indicates a threat is being made, and in fact i am on my way to report it now.  Good day.  Stone put to sky (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Violations of Consensus
''"(1) Yes, the article is a mess. But that is simply because there exists a group of people on Wikipedia who would like to see the page deleted entirely. Rational and good-faith attempts to work with these people to develop more professional and balanced commentary have been met by mass deletions of material and the elimination of widely acknowledged facts and sources. Consequently, the page has now become a compendium of what it is these people can not delete. It will, unfortunately, remain that way until the good-faith editors who are currently working here -- myself among them -- feel comfortable enough to undertake a restructuring of the article. Until that time comes, i suggest you work with us in a more productive manner than you have have been. Up until now, you have simply popped on to the page and started complaining about it's "point of view". What i suspect, however, is that this subject is, by its very nature, one that you abhor and would like to see swept under the rug. Until such time as you can demonstrate that you have some interest above and beyond merrely deleting the page, i am afraid that your efforts here at "cooperation" will confront a great deal of inertia.Stone put to sky (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"''

"Inertia" is what I take to mean that you will obstruct the process of Consensus? What do you mean?

You have a habit in Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States for stating that there is "no consensus" that appears to be directed to applying "inertia" to the process for Consensus with the intent to deny the policies of OR and NPOV. If you want to effectively disrupt the consensus process you need to add some form of argument, just saying I disagree does not work because it may be ignored when even an dumb participatory comment may not be ignored.

I prefer to work with you, but needed to add these comments just in case you persist with your declared "interia strategy" to impede the progress toward consensus that thia article needs. Raggz (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What i mean by "inertia" is that there is a reluctance to delete or add any content to the page without first sandboxing it and getting the agreement of all the editors on the page.  That is, after all, what consensus means: getting the agreement of the entire community.  You, however, have not yet demonstrated an ability to reach consensus on any point.  On this page in particular attempts have been made to use straw polls as 'votes' and get content included in that manner;  that, however, is against wikipolicy.
 * What has become clear from your actions is that you are interested first and foremost in discrediting the subject matter of the page. That is unfortunate.  Prior AfDs have not worked on it, and subequent ones will also fail.  Despite my past experiences with other posters to this page who have started out as you -- by deleting and challenging its right to existence -- i keep hope that you and people like you will not follow the same path and instead discover what the phrase "Freedom of Speech" was intended to protect.
 * It was intended to protect precisely such speech as this one. While I am perfectly willing to work with you to get the page into a less confrontational form, so long as you insist that you will be satisfied only with massive deleting of content and watering down of the page's subject i will, of necessity, be forced to rely upon the established consensus of the greater wikipedia community to inhibit your efforts.
 * It would be my great pleasure to see the page cleaned up. Unfortunately, it seems as if your idea of "cleanup" is "bring it in line with my own point of view".  That, however, is not what "cleanup" means, and so i must ask you once again -- politely -- to make sure that your edits are first properly presented and vetted on the talk page.  Sincerely --Stone put to sky (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should engage a mediator on this? Raggz (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Presently the Article is limited ONLY to allegations and may not discuss any facts. Carried logically to an absurd degree, we may delete anything claimed to be factual because this is beyond the scope of this article. Encyclopedias generally do not have such limits, and I really doubt that this one wants such either.


 * What I am suggesting is that the Article change focus so that facts will be permitted in it, the limitation to only allegations seems arbitrary? I suggest that we pose this question to a mediator? Raggz (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Investigation
Aloha. I was given your name by User:Silly rabbit. I would like to ask you about what happened last spring on AN/I concerning someone named "MONGO" and anyone else. Feel free to e-mail me with information or contact me on my talk page. This is the first I've heard of it, so excuse me for my learning curve. While watching my enhanced watchlists this week, I noticed a high amount of content deletions (negative numbers) occurring that were traceable to articles related to Iraq. I have no real interest in the topic nor in any content dispute, so my investigation concerns only the pattern of noise that emerged from these recent changes - a pattern that seemed to be in sharp contrast to relevant policies and guidelines typically enforced by administrators. Strangely, no administrators were rushing to revert or engage. When confronted with this evidence, a number of editors and admins came forward to dismiss this as a content dispute but it appears to be a disruptive behavioral pattern masquerading as a content dispute. As an experiment, I engaged several involved editors and quickly realized that they were working together to game the system. That's where I'm at now and I would like to pursue this further. Please contact me at your convenience. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks for the message. Your friend sounds like quite the adventurer; you know we could really use your help on Ukelele if you have the time. You have expert knowledge that we need. You don't even need to edit the page if you lack the time or interest; criticism on the talk page would be just as welcome. There's also Talk:Ukulele/Comments. Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request
Next time you make false accusations regarding me, please present evidence.--MONGO 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not made any sorts of false accusations about you. And you know that. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This bogus unsubstantiated post to AN/I is precisely the kind of misinformation and wrongful allegation I am referring to. Don't repeat this kind of nonsense unless you can provide evidence. There is the distinct possibility that more than a few people other than myself and the others you slandered might disagree with you. I haven't edited that page for six months, Tom harrison hasn't edited anywhere since 11/24 and Morton Devonshire left the project before that. Get your facts straight next time....and cease making insults.--MONGO 09:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is in a diff here on Wikipedia as well as a long thread on another site which, conveniently enough, includes a great many people who have gotten quite familiar with your shenanigans from the inside.

As for my own evidence, let's just say that you've met me before but forgot who i am. So my suggestion is that people in glass houses shouldn't start throwing stones. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the laugh, Stone. I figure your banning is inevitable...I'll just wait for you to call someone a fascist again just because they disagree with you.--MONGO 09:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that using the word "fascist" is worse than insulting someone as being a "liberal"? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. I don't see anything bad with being a labelled a liberal or a conservative for that matter. Calling anyone here a fascist has an entirely different meaning.--MONGO 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stone, to put everything in perspective, I am a conservative. However, I also know that my contributions to Wikipedia must be from a neutral point of view as per our policy here. I also have some friends and even a few relatives who are moderate liberals. To be honest, they know that this is their political view, and they will admit it with no shame. If you called me a liberal, I wouldn't care for it, but it wouldn't offend me either. If you are a liberal, that's fine with me. Here is where we have a problem - You really need to stop using the word "fascist". Please see this section here: Differences and similarities with Nazism from our encyclopedia page defining the term. You are treading into thin ice using this word to describe users who view differently than you do. If you keep this up, will be reported for disruption. Please consider my advice and do not ever use that term again to describe other users here. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Come now -- you are one of the most extreme and biased editors on Wikipedia. For my part, my edits have presented only bare, neutral facts for the simple reason that any time i have tried to add neutral, properly sourced commentary MONGO has rounded up his passel of sockpuppeteers and kiddie-thugs and had them delete it.  Both of you are well known for your lack of both neutrality and civility in Wikipedia, so it is quite ironic to see you popping in here to lecture me on the mattter.  Stone put to sky (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First, i think that Wikipedia has made it quite clear that when we are discussing matters of protocol and sourcing the website itself is not to be used.

Second, the Nazis were not the only fascists. There were British, Italian, Central European (Croatian and Czech, in particular), Russian and French fascists. As well as quite a large number of U.S. fascists, as well (of which our current president's grandfather -- along with Henry Ford -- was a loud and proud supporter).

My suggestion to you both is that you need to get out of the house a bit more. Judging by the amount of time you each spend on Wikipedia you really don't have enough experience of this world to be attempting the arguments you are putting forth here, because with only a tiny bit more research on the word you'd discover that fascism as a political philosophy is still alive and well with supporters who are happily, openly going about their work in places like Italy, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain (among other places). There are Russian and Central European fascists, as well -- not to mention folks here in the U.S, most of whom call themselves "libertarian" or "conservative", these days. Simply because you two do not particularly care to be labeled as a "fascist" does not, ipso facto, turn that particular word into an insult - it is a clearly defined, neutral term which, in all its aspects, perfectly fits Devonshire, MONGO and Harrison's political advocacy (i have much less interaction with JungleCat, so i can' really say one way or the other on that). It is a name that many people around the world use to describe their political philosophy, and when they use the word they speak it proudly and without shame. Unlike MONGO's use of the term "liberals" or "extremists", there is nothing a priori insulting about the word.

Simply put, my use of the word "fascist" is as a neutral, descriptive term; perhaps you don't know any true Fascists. I, however, happen to count at least two as close personal friends of mine. I myself am not a fascist, and i think the perspective of people who advocate fascism is rather painfully limited and potentially destructive (fearsomely so). However, in the case of those two personal friends of mine i am still able to discuss politics with them politely and openly, and -- unlike in my relations with the cabal that you two happen to be a part of -- we are able to find a rhetorical space that allows for intelligent conversation.

So i must, once again, politely decline your admonitions. If you would like to take this up as an RfC somewhere i'll be happy to attend. Until such time, however, that the Oxford Dictionary singularly labels this particular word as a "pejorative epithet" (those big words are what we linguists use to mean "insult"), then you must simply deal with the fact that you are not allowed to stop people from using it when referring to you. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "fascist" friends...do you call them "dumbshit"s as well? It does seem old news ot warn you about what you did sometime ago. But since you seem to not understand that it is just as unacceptable now as it was then, I guess I'll have to waste editing time dealing with your ongoing inability to adhere to our policies.--MONGO 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Our" policies? They seem more like "MONGO's personal policies" to me. At any rate, the "dumbshit" was clearly beyond the pale, which i admitted and am recalcitrant over. I haven't made that mistake again, and i won't. But i will insist, once again, that it was not the word "fascist" that was an insult. By adding "dumbshit" to *any* phrase it becomes an insult. Such as if someone were to call me a "dumbshit anarchist" -- insult, yes. But not the "anarchist" part.

And i will once again point out the implicit threat in your words; you are acting like the famed bully you are well known to be, MONGO -- appearing, once again, on my talk page and issuing threats all made up as if Wikipedia guidelines support you.

Of course, you may get me banned -- but it won't have anything to do with Wikipedia guidelines. It will, instead, be a product of the scheming you do on your off-site IRC chats and noticeboards. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your message
Thanks for the message. Your friend sounds like quite the adventurer; you know we could really use your help on Ukelele if you have the time. You have expert knowledge that we need. You don't even need to edit the page if you lack the time or interest; criticism on the talk page would be just as welcome. There's also Talk:Ukulele/Comments. Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request
Next time you make false accusations regarding me, please present evidence.--MONGO 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not made any sorts of false accusations about you. And you know that. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This bogus unsubstantiated post to AN/I is precisely the kind of misinformation and wrongful allegation I am referring to. Don't repeat this kind of nonsense unless you can provide evidence. There is the distinct possibility that more than a few people other than myself and the others you slandered might disagree with you. I haven't edited that page for six months, Tom harrison hasn't edited anywhere since 11/24 and Morton Devonshire left the project before that. Get your facts straight next time....and cease making insults.--MONGO 09:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is in a diff here on Wikipedia as well as a long thread on another site which, conveniently enough, includes a great many people who have gotten quite familiar with your shenanigans from the inside.

As for my own evidence, let's just say that you've met me before but forgot who i am. So my suggestion is that people in glass houses shouldn't start throwing stones. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the laugh, Stone. I figure your banning is inevitable...I'll just wait for you to call someone a fascist again just because they disagree with you.--MONGO 09:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that using the word "fascist" is worse than insulting someone as being a "liberal"? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. I don't see anything bad with being a labelled a liberal or a conservative for that matter. Calling anyone here a fascist has an entirely different meaning.--MONGO 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Stone, to put everything in perspective, I am a conservative. However, I also know that my contributions to Wikipedia must be from a neutral point of view as per our policy here. I also have some friends and even a few relatives who are moderate liberals. To be honest, they know that this is their political view, and they will admit it with no shame. If you called me a liberal, I wouldn't care for it, but it wouldn't offend me either. If you are a liberal, that's fine with me. Here is where we have a problem - You really need to stop using the word "fascist". Please see this section here: Differences and similarities with Nazism from our encyclopedia page defining the term. You are treading into thin ice using this word to describe users who view differently than you do. If you keep this up, will be reported for disruption. Please consider my advice and do not ever use that term again to describe other users here. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Come now -- you are one of the most extreme and biased editors on Wikipedia. For my part, my edits have presented only bare, neutral facts for the simple reason that any time i have tried to add neutral, properly sourced commentary MONGO has rounded up his passel of sockpuppeteers and kiddie-thugs and had them delete it.  Both of you are well known for your lack of both neutrality and civility in Wikipedia, so it is quite ironic to see you popping in here to lecture me on the mattter.  Stone put to sky (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First, i think that Wikipedia has made it quite clear that when we are discussing matters of protocol and sourcing the website itself is not to be used.

Second, the Nazis were not the only fascists. There were British, Italian, Central European (Croatian and Czech, in particular), Russian and French fascists. As well as quite a large number of U.S. fascists, as well (of which our current president's grandfather -- along with Henry Ford -- was a loud and proud supporter).

My suggestion to you both is that you need to get out of the house a bit more. Judging by the amount of time you each spend on Wikipedia you really don't have enough experience of this world to be attempting the arguments you are putting forth here, because with only a tiny bit more research on the word you'd discover that fascism as a political philosophy is still alive and well with supporters who are happily, openly going about their work in places like Italy, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain (among other places). There are Russian and Central European fascists, as well -- not to mention folks here in the U.S, most of whom call themselves "libertarian" or "conservative", these days. Simply because you two do not particularly care to be labeled as a "fascist" does not, ipso facto, turn that particular word into an insult - it is a clearly defined, neutral term which, in all its aspects, perfectly fits Devonshire, MONGO and Harrison's political advocacy (i have much less interaction with JungleCat, so i can' really say one way or the other on that). It is a name that many people around the world use to describe their political philosophy, and when they use the word they speak it proudly and without shame. Unlike MONGO's use of the term "liberals" or "extremists", there is nothing a priori insulting about the word.

Simply put, my use of the word "fascist" is as a neutral, descriptive term; perhaps you don't know any true Fascists. I, however, happen to count at least two as close personal friends of mine. I myself am not a fascist, and i think the perspective of people who advocate fascism is rather painfully limited and potentially destructive (fearsomely so). However, in the case of those two personal friends of mine i am still able to discuss politics with them politely and openly, and -- unlike in my relations with the cabal that you two happen to be a part of -- we are able to find a rhetorical space that allows for intelligent conversation.

So i must, once again, politely decline your admonitions. If you would like to take this up as an RfC somewhere i'll be happy to attend. Until such time, however, that the Oxford Dictionary singularly labels this particular word as a "pejorative epithet" (those big words are what we linguists use to mean "insult"), then you must simply deal with the fact that you are not allowed to stop people from using it when referring to you. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "fascist" friends...do you call them "dumbshit"s as well? It does seem old news ot warn you about what you did sometime ago. But since you seem to not understand that it is just as unacceptable now as it was then, I guess I'll have to waste editing time dealing with your ongoing inability to adhere to our policies.--MONGO 08:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"Our" policies? They seem more like "MONGO's personal policies" to me. At any rate, the "dumbshit" was clearly beyond the pale, which i admitted and am recalcitrant over. I haven't made that mistake again, and i won't. But i will insist, once again, that it was not the word "fascist" that was an insult. By adding "dumbshit" to *any* phrase it becomes an insult. Such as if someone were to call me a "dumbshit anarchist" -- insult, yes. But not the "anarchist" part.

And i will once again point out the implicit threat in your words; you are acting like the famed bully you are well known to be, MONGO -- appearing, once again, on my talk page and issuing threats all made up as if Wikipedia guidelines support you.

Of course, you may get me banned -- but it won't have anything to do with Wikipedia guidelines. It will, instead, be a product of the scheming you do on your off-site IRC chats and noticeboards. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)