User talk:Stargoat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello "Stargoat" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

Thanks man. Stargoat 15:32, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sock puppets

VeryVerily has made the claim that I am a "sock puppet" meaning I have another user name or user names. This is my only user name and the only one I've ever used. In regards to this I say:

The Cambodia pages should be about facts. VeryVerily and his friends have been accusing me there of everything from propaganda to being a denier of this or that to this that and the other thing. One of the charges is that I am a sock puppet. This is false, but regardless it is a separate issue, and should be treated elsewhere. These pages are a discussion the ARTICLE, not whether or not I am a sock puppet as VeryVerily calls it. If he wants to mention he thinks I am and link to the appropriate place to discuss that, and I can say it's false but people should go elsewhere that's fine. One mention of this mudslinging is fine, as long as the discussion does not go into ad hominem attacks. If you want to hear ad hominem's I will say only this. VeryVerily has been temporaily banned for revert wars with another user. I have never been banned or had any Wikipedia discipline. In fact, as far as I can gather, none of the users I am accused of being a sock puppet of has ever been disciplined or temp banned or anything from what I have read of it. But that could be wrong - I do not know the history of these users. VeryVerily and his cronies do not mention anything like there is a permanent ban on one of those users or something though.

If you see the discussion page, Adam Carr perhaps unconsciously admits that I improved the page when, at least under his consensus I assume, the sentence "Depending on the source a reported 15% to 40% of the population died between 1975 and 1979 (500,000 to 2,000,000 people)" was removed. Ponchaud's 2 million figure does NOT start at the CPK takeover in 1975 but before that. I point this out especially because Ponchaud is anti-CPK and whoever put that in is exaggerating what even an anti-CPK author said and trying to make it sound worse by saying it started in 1975 instead of before that.

I am sad to see VeryVerily trying to poison the well. TheAnome is anti-CPK, and editted my edits, but he at least was working to resolve the page, something I have done every step of the way. I even constantly try to resolve things with VeryVerily even though I know he won't try to. I make the effort anyhow. But anyhow, me and TheAnome were doing very well hashing out a fair, NPOV page and then VeryVerily comes along saying I'm a sock puppet, along with the Adam Carr view that I am mentally a propagandist who would refuse to compromise so it's pointless to try to work with me. Wikipedia rules say we should try to resolve things and work it out but this is the attitude being taken. I find it very unfortunate that The Anome was being quite reasonable until the "no compromise" faction of VeryVerily and his friends came around and tried to turn him into a no-compromiser. They seem to have succeeded at first, although whether or not he remains like that remains to be seen.

I should also say in the Request for Comments archive there is a page on VeryVerily where people have listed there complaints against him. And he has been temp banned. Hanpuk 16:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Just trying to find out who I'm working with. Stargoat 16:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Troll

stooge

My very first troll! Yea!! I will endeavour to show you wikilove. I love you, man. Stargoat 02:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Long live the Great Red China!

I feel humbled to have partaken in the effort to subvert state power by editing on Wikipedia. God bless Mao Zedong! Long live Uncle Hu and Grandpa Jiang! --Jiang 06:50, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Stargoat, for replying on my talk page re. the banning of Wikipedia by the Chinese government. I have a passionate interest in censorship (or rather, against it) and will be watching this matter closely. David Cannon 22:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence

I tried getting The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in order, please check up on whether the material is copyrighted. Very interesting article I hope you add to it. Arminius 21:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's another article at Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. They need to be merged. The word "the" is not necessary in the title, so let's do it at the older version. --Jiang 02:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect complete. KirbyMeister 19:02, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. Anything else I should merge? KirbyMeister 19:05, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic bombing

Actually, I'm just finished with it. Sorry, I should have used {inuse}. Good luck on whatever else you've got going. Yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Relating to Wikipedia: Manual of style (biographies) and Saddam Hussein

In Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only. For example:" - Read Arabic name - "Hussein" isn't any surname. WhisperToMe 19:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Recently"

Hi Stargoat, please don't write that things [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jiang_Yanyong&diff=4123017&oldid=3972487 "recently"] happened - these are encyclopedia articles, not news stories. Do you have the date?

Thanks, Tualha 14:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Little Emperor

I searched the site for the phrase and nothing showed up. I guess it hasn't been covered yet... --Jiang 07:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Strategic bombing

Thanks. -Joseph 21:51, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

[edit] Note to self

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_strategy

[edit] Moving pages

See Wikipedia:How to move a page. --Jiang 20:36, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I have removed my personal attacks towards you at Talk:World War I. Please accept my apologies. -- ato 06:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TrangBang.jpg

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Image:TrangBang.jpg.

[edit] On PRC government's "Three-If" condition which will trigger the between the mainland and Taiwan

page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan

Notwithstanding this, the PRC government has issued three triggers for an immediate war with Taiwan. These three conditions are:

  • if a grave turn of events occurs leading to the separation of Taiwan from China in any name, or
  • if Taiwan is invaded and occupied by foreign countries, or
  • if the Taiwan authorities refuse, sine die, the peaceful settlement of cross-Straits reunification through negotiations.

comparing with:

  • A Taiwanese declaration of independence, or
  • Taiwanese development of nuclear weapons, or
  • Direct foreign influence in Taiwan.

According to the PRC government's white paper text (page: http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:8088/detail.asp?table=WhitePaper&title=White%20Papers%20On%20Taiwan%20Issue&m_id=4 , see the paragraph just above the headline "IV."), the three conditions will force the mainland government to use military force.

So the three conditions do not include the "nuclear weapons' development" but include "refuse negotiations indefinitely".

[edit] Union Station (Chicago)

You have deleted reference to Daniel Burnham who is an architect you should know about. You have also deleted "See also" references to other great railroad stations. Perhaps you'll rethink your actions here. Wetman 23:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kissinger

OK. Actually, I edited it without seeing the protection notice; it was quite embarassing. I'm going to unprotect it, but if an edit war develops, it will no doubt be unprotected again. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:47, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Khmer Rouge problem

I've tried to start some kind of structured conflict resolution here: [1]

Here's Ruy_Lopez's take on the situation: "Please see the talk page for Khmer Rouge if you get a chance. I'm tearing some right-wingers limb from limb there.". Don't have the time right now, but I wan't to set this right (or, barring that, have my views on the subject completely changed while reading up on it). Friism 05:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you could state your arguments under the appropriate header, it would help the move to some kind of meaningful mediation. GuloGuloGulo 19:08, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bo Yang

apparently not.

ill see what i can add if u start an article on it. --Jiang 23:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] constructive

I attempted to make a point of being constructive, by breaking the debate into parts. This is certainly more useful than vague criticism directed at other community members. I've made my suggestions known, you don't seem to support them, but I fail to understand how I might "be more constructive." Perhaps I can follow your lead.

LegCircus 18:58, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

There was already a solution on the Kissinger page when you stepped in, and started making non-constructive comments and demands. We don't need that here. If you have a problem with VV, take it up there. If you have a problem with the the right wing in America, take it up Nov. 2. Otherwise, please start offering firm suggestions on changes to the article. Stargoat 20:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why you wrote this message. I have (recently) said nothing about VV. I have said nothing about the right wing. And, while you're welcome to continue calling me non-constructive or worse things, you are not being helpful by doing so.

What would you like to see happen with the page? Maybe there are points we agree on.

LegCircus 20:51, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Recent comments on KR talk page

I respectfully request that you follow Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks. I was tempted to remove the attacks but did not because it is not yet official policy, and I was directly involved. Thanks. GuloGuloGulo 20:04, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Why are you fabricating accusations of personal attacks? I have not done so. Stargoat 20:53, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"To remove... it is also indicative of a racist nature of the people attempting to remove it" (emphasis mine). This is the long way of saying "those who think it should be removed are racist." Likewise with: "To remove any of this... would be morally identical to being a holocaust denier." Thinly veiled personal attacks are still personal attacks. GuloGuloGulo 21:14, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
You seem to be removing some of the more important parts. There are no personal attacks here. You're just looking to be a victim. Stargoat 22:11, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If "you seem to be removing some of the more important parts" is referring to my use of ellipses, I believe I used them only for clarity and brevity and they are not censorious in any way. But, to satisfy your objection I will provide the complete quotations.
"The photo is of the victims of the Khmer Rouge. To remove it is to whitewash the crimes of the Khmer Rouge. Furthermore, it is also indicative of a racist nature of the people attempting to remove it. The first image of the holocaust article is a picture of jews lined up. Removing this picture says that the Cambodian dead in the Khmer Rouge's killing fields are not worth as much as the Jewish dead in Nazi Germany." As an aside, I responded to this and look forward to hear your rejoinder.
"To remove any of this would constitute a whitewash. It would be morally identical to being a holocaust denier."
I maintain that while these are not personal attacks in the classic sense (i.e. "You're a Nazi," etc.), they are, as you might say, "morally identical". GuloGuloGulo 22:40, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
As I have said on your page, you are simply looking to be a victim. I have made no personal attacks. But what I have said, is true. Stargoat 23:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I suppose we agree to disagree then. If I encounter more remarks like this, I will likely seek an outside opinion. GuloGuloGulo 00:28, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you've confirmed my fears. You are merely looking to make yourself a victim. Stargoat 02:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Toy

{{NPOV}} is his a new toy. I placed it on the "Bombing of Dresden in World War II" just before the page was protected (on Oct 25) so that we could have vote. Wish I hadn't!. After the vote I took it off, but he re-instated it a few days later. Sigh. What you are seeing here is an overspill from that page. Good luck with you discussion with him (you will need it) because he has very strog opinions and his answer to Keynes question "When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?" would be to keep the same opinion and force it on everyone else. Have a look at the Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II to see what I mean. Philip Baird Shearer 10:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(cc'd) FYI, "Ruy Lopez" is laying waste to the Khmer Rouge article while the arbcom in their infinite wisdom have enjoined me from interfering (but not Ruy Lopez). VeryVerily 10:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why the hostility? I was just giving you a heads up on an article we both have worked on but you might not have been watching. VeryVerily 04:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Khmer Rouge NPOV dispute

Would you please visit Talk:Khmer Rouge and outline the parts of the article that you think should be added, removed or modified in order to restore NPOV? I support your decision to slap a NPOV on it but you must respect the other editors and discuss the problems with the article on the talk page. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:12, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration comments

I just wanted to say I appreciate your commenting on my arb case, which I only noticed rather belatedly. I'm sure there's some justice to the charge that I can be frustrating (etc.); my impatience level certainly goes through the roof whenever one of these troublemakers shows up on a page I'm working on. Anyway, thanks for putting in a somewhat good word, although of course it won't matter a bit as the arbs would do their thing anyway even if they actually read your comments. VeryVerily 20:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I sent you a message through the Wikipedia email feature in response to your comments on my talk page. 172 05:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Stargoat

Thanks Stargoat for fixing the vandalism in the USS Liberty incident article.

It's amazing... they call us (deliberate attack) the conspiracy theorists, yet the moment they see something they don't like, they remove it. Hit-and-run... Liberty researcher 16:27, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mosaic law-Code of Hammurabi

Hey, I saw your argument with Codex Sinaiticus on the talk page. While I disagree with Codex's attribution of the code Moses, your 300 BC date is pretty fringe as well. I urge to familiarize yourself with the documentary hypothesis, which posits the composition of the Torah from several sources over the period from 900-400 BCE. This is the mainstream view.

As for the Hebrews in Egypt, this is an unresolved problem. I myself don't see any evidence for it, but some scholars posit a small exodus, although the biblical account is certainly exaggerated. Both you and Codex need to understand that neither of your positions is in line with mainstream, despite the claims you were both making.--Rob117 22:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The final four stream version of the modern Torah was created in 300BC. Other works that resemble the Torah are not the final version and not what a modern (or a reader in AD 30, for that matter) would have recognized as the complete Torah. I am, in fact, correct.