User talk:Stirling Newberry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Your impersonator 2 Semiprotected 3 Dresden 4 Trickle-down theory 5 Funny story 6 THANK YOU!!!!!! 7 Inflation 8 Good work 9 Actually 10 Golly Gees 11 Gold Standard 11.1 Nazi gold standard 11.2 Apologist for Nazis? 12 How dare you 13 Hmm, there is a GOOD possibility that you are indeed User:Ray_Lopez 14 Sonata reversion 15 User notice: temporary 3RR block 16 Regarding reversions[1] made on September 3, 2006 to Gold standard 17 International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 18 Autstrian attack 19 Lopez 20 Atonality 21 Systematic elements

Your impersonator

Hello again, sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. The impersonator was indefinately blocked when I listed him at AIV; if it hasn't already been done, I'm going to go ahead and put at his userpage/talk page an indefblocked template so as to clear any confusion about who he was- it looked like he was an account created to make it look like you were making personal attacks. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have any other users that you suspect of being him, bring a case to Checkuser or Administrators' Noteboard/Incidents. I'd say that if you had some solid evidence that this is one guy out to get you, you'd have a strong case for an arbitration case, though since he seems to not stay long on one account if this last one is a precedent. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely something that administrators can handle if it's something coming from a single range of IPs. Unfortunately, I don't know a whole lot about handling Wikistalking, though WP:RFAR, WP:ANI, etc. are your best routes. Most of what I do is work on preventing vandalism, POV pushing, and such in the articlespace, so sometimes I have to deal with problem users. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected

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

Dresden

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

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

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

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

Trickle-down theory

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

Funny story

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

THANK YOU!!!!!!

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

Inflation

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

Good work

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

Actually

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

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

Golly Gees

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

Gold Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nazi gold standard

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

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

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

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

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

Apologist for Nazis?

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

How dare you

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

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

Hmm, there is a GOOD possibility that you are indeed User:Ray_Lopez

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

Pixelshelf 20 Portsmouth St PX-WI Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141

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

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

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

Sonata reversion

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

reply by Stirling Newberry at User_talk:Rainwarrior#Sonata

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

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

reply by Stirling Newberry at User_talk:Rainwarrior#Sonata

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

User notice: temporary 3RR block

{{unblock}}

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

I don't see any 87. in your page history William M. Connolley 08:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

82. is the interbusiness.it block used here. And you can check the harassing edits left since then if you need confirmation that this was planned and you were fooled by a long time wikistalker/wikivandal. Stirling Newberry 15:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

International Standard Book Number (ISBN)

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

Autstrian attack

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

Lopez

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

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

Atonality

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

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

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

Response at User talk:Rainwarrior#Robert Fink

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

Systematic elements

[2][3] May I assume these reversions were in error and you agree that one shouldn't call it "pov vandalism" that an administrator carried out the result of a deletion discussion one year ago? Femto 11:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Femto#POV vandalism, and:

[4][5][6] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Femto 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)