User talk:Stirling Newberry/01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 03:15, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to do more than skim your additions to Tonality, and I will definitely want to make some edits, that's awesome. I just wanted to drop you a note in case you hadn't found: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology. Hyacinth 09:08, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Stirling, thanks for the note. Excellent contributions to sonata form, by the way; I'm enjoying watching the article develop. Antandrus 03:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi again: I left a comment under Cyclic form. By the way, superb writeup of the Elgar 1st on your blog. Antandrus 17:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I answered your question by e-mail. Regards, Antandrus 00:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Your Request For Representation From the Association of Members' Advocates

Good evening, I'm Wally from the AMA. We've picked up on your request for assistance and I've taken the liberty to initiate some sort of procedure to address it. I'll note from the start that I'm also contacting Terjapetersen to alert him to the fact that you've requested representation as well as mediation.

To start with, I'm unclear as to how far attempts were made to bring this process to mediation, and at what level it is being pursued. I see a request for mediation, unresponded, from this afternoon (I am in United States Eastern time, and it shows for me as 1219 hours) concurrent with your submission to the AMA for representation. It should be noted that, normally, requests are for assistance with the arbitration stage, however we are allowed and equipped to assist in mediation as well and I would assume the mediator-clients confidentiality is pertinent to advocates as well.

Also, I am uncertain where any conflict occurs on the gold standard page (mind you, the dispute upon which I investigated most preliminarily was with supply-side economics. If it was some time ago, could you note when and the basics thereof? Neither you nor he appear on the latest history or talk page.

Concluding, I'd like to make sure to address your rights in this process. Where mediation is concerned, you are not obliged to accept any offer, agreement or portion thereof proposed or endorsed by an advocate or mediator. You may withdraw from mediation at any time, dismiss an advocate at any time, or accept/decline settlements at any time, although if you do accept a settlement that should be considered final. That being said, both mediators and advocates are here to advise and assist you, and their advice should be given high value (in that order). It is highly beneficial to all concerned that the matter should be concluded through mediation. Should it reach arbitration - and the arbitrators may or may not hear a case, at their leisure and by majority vote - you or your advocate will present your case to the arbitration committee, as well the other disputant(s), and the committee will come to a binding decision. Failure to abide therein will result in punitive action, and the decisions may only superceded by declarations from the owner and developer of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, who is not wont to intervene. You can read more here: Wikipedia:Arbitration policy.

If you have any further questions, feel free to post them on the AMA requests for help or to contact me directly on my talk page. Specific representation (this post is simply preliminary) will be negotiated at a later date. Wally 20:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I have been asked to look into your request for mediation over Supply-side economics. Would you accept having me as a mediator, and if so, can you please provide me with a brief summary of your complaint. I can be reached by private email through my user page. Danny 22:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, haven't gotten a reply yet and I wanted to check to see if you were still looking for AMA assistance. Wally 14:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So you're already handling it, then? Would you still like your request for assistance left open? Wally 19:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] economics revert

Thank you for giving a reason for reverting the study -> specialization edit. Jrincayc 13:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Flaming?

I do not find your tone on the talk page for Immanuel Kant productive. You seem to be hellbent on assuming bad faith on my part, accusing me of lying, flaming, etc. I do not believe i have done anything of the sort. I want the article to be better. I assume you do as well. hopefully you can work with me to do this instead of engaging in snippy edit summaries and accusations of misconduct. Please --improve the article. I'd love to see the reorganization you mentioned it needing. Snowspinner 21:10, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I actually didn't delete the paragraph. I moved the content over to the section on metaphysics, because I thought a summary of works was better suited to that section than to the life section. While doing this, I also did some heavy revision, because I felt like the whole summary of the Critique of Pure Reason was overly jargon filled. But I did use your paragraphs as a base for that, substantial as my revisions may have been. And I appreciated the addition greatly, because it did help in the expansion of that section. As for the rest... I really haven't been intending to be hostile, and I apologize if I came across that way. My desired message was that we should work together to improve the article instead of grousing about it, and that addition and improvement is a good thing. If that came off as hostility, I do apologize. Snowspinner 21:31, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. All is forgiven. I'm incapable of thinking badly of a Kantian who makes Dr. Who references. :) Snowspinner 21:47, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kant flame war

I really don't think "I don't like the way you're handling this" is a personal attack. Quite the contrary, it's an important part of discussion. And I don't think Adam's post was meant as anything more than advice on how to avoid future conflicts like that. Have a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks again. As for archiving, let's let the matter settle. Leave it be for a few days, and once it's quieted, we can archive. I don't like achiving discussions in progress - even ugly ones. Snowspinner 22:55, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

I should say on my own behalf that, yes, my comment was meant as nothing more than constructive criticism. All Wikipedians make mistakes, and so we all feel that it is our responsibility to gently offer such criticism in order to help others become better citizens of Wikipedia. I will apologize if my criticism did not read as being gentle enough -- if I was inadvertantly rude, I apologize for that. However, I will not admit to flaming, because I have not flamed -- rather, I have acted according to Wikipedia convention. I am also baffled and rather offended by your assertion that I engaged in deception -- I most certainly did not.
I do not want this issue to affect work on the Kant article -- please continue your work on it. My concern is only with your response to what has been intended, on the part of both myself and Snowspinner, as constructive criticism. This itself is not a personal attack, but constructive criticism. You should know that if you continue to accuse those who offer such criticism of lying and personal attacks, you will continue to get in disputes on Wikipedia. Just assume good faith and we'll all be better off. (There is a longer and better description of Assume Good Faith on the Meatball Wiki page that the article links you -- I highly suggest you check it out.)
With that said -- good luck on Wikipedia in the future! — Adam Conover † 23:25, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry that my comments disappoint you, however I'm afraid that I stand by them. Snowspinner 23:26, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Snowspun

If light of your experiences here you may, or may not, find this interesting: how Snowspinner feels about votes against him -- orthogonal 01:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I almost always like your contributions to articles, but don't you think that that reference to deficit spending under Bush is a little POV in gold standard? 172 14:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation follow up

Hello there. User:Terjepetersen has now agreed to mediation regarding Supply-side economics and has requested me to serve as mediator. Please leave a note at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#User:Stirling Newberry and User:Terjepetersen indicating if that is acceptable to you as well. If it is, I will make a proposal for moving the process forward as expeditiously as possible. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee 14:19, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I'm familiar with the reports. The neoliberal BWIs are certainly critical of GWB, a thoroughgoing 'military Keynesian' like Reagan. The article should mention this; but the sentence I removed earlier seems to be endorsing the criticism (i.e. mentioning the "damaging effects" of the deficit spending, not "what they deem the damaging effects of deficit spending"). Also, it calls it a deficit "run up by GWB." However, this can also be attributed to the economic slowdown. 172 00:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Postmodernism in art

Hey, at least respond on the Talk:Postmodernism page if you're going to revert. Unless, of course, you're hoping for a ridiculous, one-letter, endless edit war. -Seth Mahoney 01:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tonality

Hi, just dropping you a note to say that I'm fairly confused by your posts to Talk:Tonality. I'm not writing to nag you about signing posts, however, it does appear that you are writing to yourself (like in a letter, Dear Hyacinth, blah blah). Thus I had assumed that we were in a three way conversation with anonymous, but the edit history indicated otherwise. However, there is no conflict or concern regarding the article or your messages, so feel free to ignore this. Hyacinth 18:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Same goes to you. Excellent on work on gold standard and so many other economics articles. Wikipedia's economics articles were in horrible shape until you and Jdevine came along. 172 08:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Liberalism

Please see my remark at Talk:Liberalism on your (mostly good) edits to Liberalism. -- Jmabel 21:17, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that we are not too far apart. I will gladly concede the term "libertarianism" to the American minarchists, or whatever else one wants to call them (although in, say, a Spanish-language context "libertarianism" is this sense is very confusing, since their cognate word is a type of left anarchism). However, I am very hesitant to extend "classical liberal" to any contemporary. I guess my view is that I only happily use that term pre-John Stuart Mill. Mill seems to me to be the beginning of a division in the meaning of "liberal", as he was open to certain socialist ideas very alien to the politics of, say, the Girondists or even the liberals of 1848.
I'm at work now, and have only a few minutes to respond, so this is all I can say right now. I'm sure we can work it out, it sounds like mainly a disagreement over semantics. -- Jmabel 17:11, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
(Response copied from Jmabel talk page ): Your suggestions sound good to me, and I agree that documenting the differing use of "libertarian" in other languages is an exccellent idea. As for "classical liberals" that's what they call themselves, so it should be documented. Stirling Newberry 22:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Just so long as we make it clear that pretty much no one else uses this term for them. -- Jmabel 22:52, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm writing the following here rather than on Talk:liberalism because I don't want to do anything drastic to your edits without your consent, and if I put this on the article's talk page it may come off as an attack on you rather than a suggestion to you.

You say on my talk page, "I'm about ready to cut the whole damn article and start over." Look, it's an article that a lot of people have worked on for a long time. I did a major rework of what was then the article Political liberalism last winter. The most recent major workover was less than a month ago by someone from Europe (not sure what nationality, but I'm guessing French or German) who is now on vacation, but did a complete reorganization of about 20 articles related to liberalism; I helped in that, mostly with English-language issues. Both of these rewrites involved a good deal of consensus-building with others involved in the page. This is a topic that looks very different from different national and political perspectives, and we have to try to integrate all that.

It looks like this time "being bold" has not worked well here; perhaps we can revert to the version before you started and take up your issues one by one. If you want to do a major rewrite, it would probably be best to raise your ideas on the discussion page and see if there is anything like consensus on them. I suspect that on some there will be consensus and on others there will not.

I am concerned, and I think legitimately so, that you may have unilaterally deleted substantive material that has been in this article or one of those merged into it for a year or so without doing it in a manner the rest of us can track. If you can't identify roughly what you've removed from the article, that's another reason why it might be easiest to roll it back a couple of days, identify what major changes you want to make, and keep those separate from routine copy edits. -- Jmabel 05:30, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ==Request for mediation follow up== Please Reply

Hello there. User:Terjepetersen has agreed to mediation regarding Supply-side economics and has requested me to serve as mediator. Please leave a note at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#User:Stirling Newberry and User:Terjepetersen indicating if that is acceptable to you as well. If it is, I will make a proposal for moving the process forward as expeditiously as possible. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee 19:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The business and economics forum

Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them.

mydogategodshat 18:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation with User:Terjepetersen is underway

Thank you for being willing to work with me to mediate your conflict with User:Terjepetersen. I have created a topic (thread) on the mediation message board. You can set up an account on the message board here if you don't already have one.

The topic (thread) on the mediation bulletin board for this mediation is here.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee, 18:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation will be considered over if neither of you responds

Two weeks ago I created a topic (thread) on the mediation message board to begin mediation between you and User:Terjepetersen and neither of you has left a message there or responded in any other way. If there is no movement on this request within 72 hours of this time [19:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)] the Mediation Committee will consider the case officially closed.

If you are still interested, you can set up an account on the message board here if you don't already have one. The topic (thread) on the mediation bulletin board for this mediation is here.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee, 19:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 08:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal theorist

Please read and add to the discussion on Talk:List of thinkers contributing to liberal theory. I would prefer if you wouldn't use vandalism as an expression in the discussion on that list. Gangulf 21:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But please go then into the argument in the talk page and explain me what these people contributed to liberal theory. It is still not clear to me what vandalism I committed and what narrow view on liberalism I have. I have seen some of yiur new additions, and with some of them I would agian wonder what they contributed to liberal theory. E.g. I admire Abraham Lincoln, but ..., I visited the page on Upton Sinclair, which desribes him as a socialist. Gangulf 21:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalism

What are you doing on Capitalism? You just reverted to RJII's version again. Was this a mistake? It'd be helpful if you participated in the talk page. Rhobite 15:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm simply confused, since you've now reverted to both competing versions in the space of 15 minutes. Which version do you favor? Also, you and RJII are both hitting up against the three revert rule - please don't revert again. And there has been discussion on the talk page, could you please explain how the circular reasoning in the first sentence is OK? Basically you're saying "a capitalist economy is anything that has the characteristics of a capitalist economy." What problem do you have with my rewording of that sentence? Rhobite 16:04, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Could you please explain your edits in Talk:Capitalism? Thanks. Rhobite 16:56, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Liberalism again

Your newly added content is an excellent addition to the article.

Do you have anything to add to the References section? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Postmodernity reverts

Hello, this is just a reminder about the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. It appears you have reverted the article three times within an hour, and you should be advised additional reverts might result in a 24 hour block for you and anyone else that violates the rule. Revert wars are senseless and unwinnable, so I would strongly suggest working out a compromise on the talk page. This way a stable article can emerge. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 23:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of vandalism

I'd like to ask you again to please stop accusing users of vandalism. Usually the only time we use that term is when the editor is obviously acting in bad-faith. From Wikipedia:Vandalism, "Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." In the past few days, you've accused Slrubenstein, RJII, Wilfried Derksen, and me of committing vandalism. I don't believe any of us were vandalizing articles. In addition you've done some name-calling such as using the term "randroid". We all want to work towards a better encyclopedia. If you continue to make accusations of vandalism and personal attacks, I'll have to list your conduct on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Rhobite 00:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Age of Enlightenment

05.188.116.138 made huge changes today to The Age of Enlightenment. I do not know enough about the topic to decide whether the changes are legitimate or not. could you give it a looksee? Kingturtle 00:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] For your information

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration CheeseDreams 22:02, 10 Dec 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 1000 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] Slrubenstein

You are not the only one Slrubenstein has attacked.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Slrubenstein

CheeseDreams 21:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Classical music

I strongly approve of your recent edit to Classical music. I hope that you don't catch hell for it. --HK 22:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was referring, as well, to your characterization of the classical and romantic periods. --HK 16:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(chiming in) Hi Sterling, welcome back: good to see you editing here again. I also liked your edits at Classical music. It's actually a while since anyone has worked on the "big picture" articles in this area (I've mostly been filling in gaps in the early music area). Happy holidays, Antandrus 16:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The past few days have been rough. It's great to see that you're back after a week-long break and ready to clean things up. BTW, excellent work on inflation and Great Depression! 172 05:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 21:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)