User talk:Stirling Newberry

Archives

• 01 - 11 January 2004—11 January 2005
• 02 - 3 January 2005—9 February 2005
• 03 - 14 February 2005—25 July 2005
• 04 - 25 July 2005—13 August 2005
• 05 - 13 August 2005—16 October 2005
• 06 - 17 October 2005; 17 August 2006

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)

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)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [1]