Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:07, 28 June 2007

User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 1

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 Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages: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. --NuclearZer0 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.....--NuclearZer0 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. --NuclearZer0 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. --NuclearZer0 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. --NuclearZer0 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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, at worst a ploy. Regardless, is 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 this talk page has presented the community, i do protest that expressing my disapproval -- particularly in such a mild manner -- is in no way an "attack" upon you or your comrades' person.

If you would like to make a suggestion to a different wording -- one that succeeds in expressing my disapproval, acknowledges your own wealth of knowledge and experience, as well as giving 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 (who 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)