User talk:Trey Stone

I'm concerned that South Park, while formerly quite badass, has been jumping the shark as of late. Post your thoughts.

Chilean coup of 1973

Please see my question at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973. You left one sentence in a weird state, I'm not sure what you meant it to be. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:59, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Good edits to this article. VeryVerily 10:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I liked your discussion on Anti-Americanism, even though I utterly disagree with you on most points. You are an American, and you have the luxury of all the benifits that implys. The disadvantages include never really understanding another point of view, especially those of small people, and small nations, caught up in conflicts between the Big Boys such as yourself. You have that luxury, and the luxury to indulge in it. We do not. Fergananim

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:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

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)

Page move

Trey, when moving pages, please don't forget to fix redirects. The instruction is usually right before your eyes when a move is completed. Just click the button. Mikkalai 05:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trey, we generally do not move the articles from one correct version to the other just because someone doesn't like the British English. Before you yet again try to move the Collectivisation in the USSR article, please read the Wikipedia:Style#Usage_and_spelling guideline.

--Regards, [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|User:Halibutt/sig]]]] 09:06, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Mmmk. J. Parker Stone 09:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting

Trey, when you are going to revert a page, please check the version difference and scroll down to the end of comparison in order to check the whole text, so that you will not kill other edits, irrelevant to conflict. In the middle of edit wars some other innocent editors fix typos and do other useful job, often lost amid the reverts and re-reverts. 17:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge

Your recent edit was quite a big one, really.

It said: "There have been allegations that the U.S. and the United Kingdom supported the Khmer Rouge after their downfall because of the recent Cold War battle in Vietnam. Australian journalist John Pilger has accused the Reagan and Thatcher administrations of propping up the Khmer Rouge in Thailand. [1] U.S. President Reagan had publicly condemned the Khmer Rouge as having caused the death of one-third of Cambodia's population, and opposition to the new regime was not limited to the Khmer Rouge; however, the organization did play a significant role in resistance against the Vietnamese-backed Heng Samrin government."

Now it says: "There have been allegations that the U.S. and the United Kingdom supported the Khmer Rouge after their downfall because of the recent Cold War battle in Vietnam. Australian journalist John Pilger has accused the Reagan and Thatcher administrations of propping up the Khmer Rouge in Thailand. [2] It should be noted that U.S. President Ronald Reagan had publicly condemned the Khmer Rouge, and that opposition to the new regime was not limited to the organization. However, the Khmer Rouge did play a significant role in resistance against the Vietnamese-installed Heng Samrin government."

I don't think phrases like "it should be noted that" are good in an encyclopedia. But more important, you have omitted the context in which Reagan condemned the Khmer Rouge. Could you please restore that? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was tentative over whether the issue of possible U.S. support should be added in the first place, but it's fine if that gets restored for now. J. Parker Stone 02:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TDC Email

TDC <at> dodgeit <dot> com that is my email TDC 04:29, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

I deformatted the email adress so that the evil spammers won't find it. Hope you don't mind. BrokenSegue 04:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stand tall

Stand tall against leftist bullying. Ollieplatt 06:58, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please do not engage in personal attacks. After taking a quick glance at what you reverted, I definitely see where you're coming from, but please try and make your point without insulting other users (eg. calling them jackasses). Thanks for your understanding and anticipated cooperation. You'll get your point across a lot better if you just state the facts. See you around! -Frazzydee|✍ 03:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I appreciate your sympathy. If you ever have the spare time, feel free to help me in this anti-Castrosanitization campaign. J. Parker Stone 03:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of South Africa

Hello, I saw that you recently edited History of South Africa. I'm attempting to completely rewrite the article to deal with the fairly shaky organisation of the current version. I would appreciate all assistance you can offer with edits to my interim version before I post it on the History of South Africa article. The version I am working on can be accessed here. Thank you so much! Páll 09:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you from editing for a period of 24 hours for user page vandalism, making personal attacks, and violating the three revert rule. If this behavior continues, we will have no choice but to block you indefinitely. – ClockworkSoul 15:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've put your sockpuppetry case up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitrationAndyL 14:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't try and block me just because you don't like my edits (and don't give me crap about how it was warranted, you can't objectively make the decision, and the one-day ban was probably not even warranted in the first place -- WL and you have been revert warring (plus, unlike me, making blatant left-POV edits) just as much) J. Parker Stone 20:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Advice

I've just had a glance at your edits since your block expired. They worry me. In particular I'm worried by your edit summary "i am not going to have someone butcher a section that I created." Please check the edit window next time you make an edit. This is what it says: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.

Your edits will be butchered, just as mine are and the same goes for everybody else. That's what Wikipedia is about. If you act as if a section belongs to you, I can't keep you out of trouble. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know -- it's more like I don't appereciate it being butchered, even if it is gonna be butchered by some. J. Parker Stone 21:42, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and I'll stop with the over 3 pseudo-reverts -- but I would like a resolution (particularly on the Castro article) soon. This user's impossible to deal with. J. Parker Stone 03:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Trey_Stone

Have you see the above? It's a sign that you're still editing in a manner that sails far too close to the wind. Please take notice of these warning signs, or you'll find yourself in trouble. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Castro

Whats the deal with the Castro article? I am not seeing a huge difference between the contnent between the two sections? What is this fight between you and Web Luis all about?

Selassie

Don't change the article to Haile Selassie in the way you did as you completely distort the record history. Only an administrator can do this while merging the histories. Anyway that is what they do with all kings. e.g. Elizabeth II of England, --SqueakBox 19:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I do think that people should be able to directly access the page by typing his common name, though. J. Parker Stone 19:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Haile Selassie redirects to the article, so no problem accessing the article, --SqueakBox 19:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to move the article to Haile Selassie, please propose the move using the protocol described on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Don't try to do it by cut and paste--the edit histories get mixed up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But have a look at my proposal on the talk page first, --SqueakBox 19:45, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rich bastard Castro

I think we're going to have to disagree about that. It's not POV, it's very well sourced from a very respectable publication (which you should be reading religiously) and it goes to the very heart of how Castro is. He's just a typical Latin American dictator who uses Marxist labels. The Revolution has made him very rich why not say so prominently. I bet if "W" made $550 million during his term in office it would be in his Wikipedia article intro. With accompanying flashing lights. Let's apply the same standard here. Dagen 03:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well first of all the accuracy is disputed because Cuba is perhaps the most ultrasocialist state currently in existence, with Havana owning the vast majority of productive assets. Forbes admitted that it had trouble calculating Castro's net worth because of dispute over to what extent nationalized property should be considered a part of his wealth.

Second of all it's a recent charge and it's not what Castro's known for. If you put anything negative in the intro it should probably be about the fact that Cuba is a closed society. J. Parker Stone 03:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some might think it's positive. I would like $550 million. Even if looted from the Cuban Treasury. Only kidding, of course :-) I agree he's not known for being corrupt but he should be, it's a scandal. I concede there are calculation issues given how closed Cuba is but he lives like a King, with fleets of Mercedes etc so I think it's pretty clear just how high on the hog he's living down there, with little harems of Cuban skanks pleasuring his every sick fantasy. Dagen 03:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will not accept an article that calls Batista a dictator (ahem, he was elected remember) and doesn't call Castro one (who seized power with force and retained it for forty years with a police state). Don't go soft on us, are you in bed with that Ohio Senator who sold us out? Dagen 04:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Batista was elected in 1940 and served until 1944 as official president. He ran for president in 1952 but seized power in a coup d'état when the pre-election polls showed him losing and suspended the constitution. Castro should be called a dictator as well, even if his is more of a party dictatorship than a personalist dictatorship (like Batista's.) J. Parker Stone 05:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He had several election wins, which is several more than Castro the pimp. My opinion is that the whole party thing is window dressing for Castro's brutal one-man corrupt rule. The fact that he's passing the family business on to his idiot brother kind of proves that doesn't it. If it was a party show they would have found someone from outside the family. Btw, I'm not a fan of Batista but I do like to keep young conservatives on the right path. We need more Tom DeLays not more Voinovichs. Straight backs and straight talk. Dagen 06:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you're probably right that Castro's rule's more autocratic than say the PRC, but it's debatable and I don't know where it'd go in the article (not in the intro) J. Parker Stone 06:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and I actually thought he won one election and was essentially President eight years before that because he was Army Chief of Staff. J. Parker Stone 06:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They had some system of term limits going I think which restricted the # of elections he could run in. But I agree, Batista was a bad guy but he was OUR bad guy. And had Castro not muscled in, I have no doubt Cuba would have become both prosperous and democratic.

On another subject, could you take a look at the Request for Comment on TDC. I think it would be useful for you to review the sledging of him and make your own view (non Voinovich) known in his defense. Those bringing the complaint include Viajero and his ideological associates including "Helpful Dave", Gamaliel, DJ Silverfish, Tony Sidaway, Rama. No doubt more comrades will join the fray to beat the crap out of him. Your more familiar with his edits than I am so I think your input would be good. Dagen 06:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS PRC is evil. Just run by billionaire gangsters who use Marx as a stage prop. Dagen 06:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't this information being added to the Foreign relations of Cuba article?

Why isn't this information being added to the Foreign relations of Cuba article? DJ Silverfish 02:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's an important part of the Castro presidency. J. Parker Stone 02:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is more properly characterized as Foreign relations of Cuba. DJ Silverfish 02:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These "Relations with foreign political movements" points [3] should be included on the Foreign relations of Cuba page. It refers, after all to the foreign policy of Cuba. Its an important part of Cuban political history as well as the Castro presidency. It should be organized in the context of the Cuban foreign policy as a whole. DJ Silverfish 04:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding yourself to articles

You added a link to yourself in JEM Management Corp. You've been around here for a while, so you should know by now that this is not acceptable. Please don't mention yourself in articles. Thanks. Rhobite 03:40, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Your user page

I looked at your user page. Some of the language was unacceptable and the threat to revert named contributors on sight is inflammatory (and will get you into severe trouble if you carry it out). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You know it's tongue-in-cheek, and the admin that overruled AndyL said there was no policy against "potty mouths" J. Parker Stone 18:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, doesn't wash. Remember you're accountable to us all, not just Silsor, who clearly thought you were just being blocked 'for saying the word "fuck"'. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

k

VFD

Have a look will you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_people_described_as_Stalinists

Suharto/Soeharto

Hey please put a message first in the discussion page before you revert the changes of the spelling. Soeharto writes his own name that way in Latin script. So this is not a matter of transliteration. I haven't reverted your changes as I don't want to start an edit war. Meursault2004 01:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Allan Nairn/FRAPH/Amy Goodman

If you disagree with the findings of investigative reporters like Nairn and Goodman, that is your right, but your efforts to insert blatant editorializing in such articles to soften the bad news is completely unacceptable. Your only recourse is to find specific reports which contradict their findings, which prove that they are wrong. If you can't cite this kind of information, then please leave these articles alone. -- Viajero 21:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you disprove that

a) the U.S. stopped arms shipments to Indonesia in '93, b) the U.S. backed a Yes vote in the U.N. over Suharto's human rights record, c) the U.S. intervened to restore Aristide to power?

If not, than shaddap. J. Parker Stone 22:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)