User talk:Ricochet21

November 2019

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Thomas M. Montgomery—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Thomas M. Montgomery. Your edit removed sourced text, categories, ref section, & external link section. This wouldn't be permissible without agreement on the article's talk page. David Biddulph (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Maile (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Appeal the Indefinite Block on My Editing to Thomas M. Montgomery's Wikipedia Page

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ricochet21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unblock: By indefinitely blocking my ability to edit Thomas M. Montgomery's Wikipedia page, you are endangering Wikipedia to a lawsuit for libel.

My edits removed tabloid journalism and contentious material through the posting of poor and disreputable sources. The edits I removed were libelous. The person making these libelous and spurious edits that I removed is Scott Peterson.

The edits I removed were made with Thomas M. Montgomery's full knowledge and approval. I am Thomas M. Montgomery's trusted confidant.

No one at Wikipedia has contacted me about discussing the edits I made to Thomas M. Montgomery's page.

On the other hand, Scott Peterson has proven himself an adversary to Thomas M. Montgomery by posting libelous and spurious edits to Montgomery's Wikipedia page. Please indefinitely block Scott Peterson from editing Thomas M. Montgomery's page.

I request quick and full reinstatement of my editing privileges to Thomas M. Montgomery's Wikipedia page so I can rectify the revert and spare Wikipedia any legal endangerment.

User: Dave Stockwell

Decline reason:

Please review conflict of interest, as well as no legal threats. As you threaten legal action against Wikipedia as Gen. Montgomery's representative, you cannot be unblocked until the threats are explicitly withdrawn. No one here can stop you or Gen. Montgomery from pursuing legal action, as that is your/his right to do, but you cannot edit Wikipedia until the threat is removed or the legal action resolved. If you wish to pursue your concerns within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy, please withdraw the legal threat and agree to pursue your concerns with talk page discussion per Wikipedia standard practice, or follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL. I must decline your request. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you do wish to pursue legal action against Wikipedia, you may wish to contact the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation using the contact information on this page. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is No Legal Action Threatened Against Wikipedia

There is no legal action threatened against Wikipedia, either by me or Thomas M. Montgomery. I retract any implication.

The edits left by Scott Peterson are libelous. Reverting Thomas M. Montgomery's Wikipedia page continues to endanger Wikipedia by Wikipedia personnel.

Scott Peterson needs to be indefinitely suspended from editing Montgomery's page.

Allow me to recap: There is no legal action threatened against Wikipedia, either by me or Thomas M. Montgomery.

I retract any implication.

My suspension needs to be unblocked immediately.

User: Dave Stockwell

The legal threat issue is now resolved. If there are libelous statements in the article about General Montgomery, please follow the instructions at WP:LIBEL; you don't need to be unblocked to do that, as it involves sending an email detailing the errors in the article. It is Wikipedia policy to remove libelous statements when identified, you just need to do so in the proper manner. To be unblocked, you need to address the reasons for the block, which were "Edit warring, removal of content, removal of all sourcing, ignoring requests to discuss before making wholesale changes to Thomas M. Montgomery". Before you make your request(which will be reviewed by someone other than me) I would suggest that you review policy on edit warring, dispute resolution, and conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I leave this note as a clarification for any other admins reviewing this block. The Scott Peterson referred to by this blocked editor has never edited the Thomas M. Montgomery article, nor has that particular Scott Peterson ever been an editor on Wikipedia. What Dave Stockwell refers to is found in the article's sourcing. Scott Peterson is the Istanbul Bureau Chief for The Christian Science Monitor. His book that was used as one of the sources was published by Routledge, a pretty respectable source. The fact that Dave Stockwell has done so much rewriting of that article - and wants to be unblocked so he can resume editing - without understanding the difference between a published source and a Wikipedia editor, is something to be considered in any unblock. — Maile (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ricochet21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I now understand why I was blocked Dave Stockwell (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline (multiple, simultaneous unblock requests) Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ricochet21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I now understand why I was blocked. Please accept my sincerest apologies for the previous exchanges, and my profound thanks for the professionalism of all Wikipedia officials with whom I've had contact. Barely 48 hours ago, I was brand new to editing Wikipedia, so my learning curve has been steep indeed. Allow me to address the following areas that resulted in my block: 1) Edit Warring, 2) Dispute Resolution, 3) Conflict of Interest, and 4) Ignoring Requests to Discuss. But first, some background. Thomas M. Montgomery is a retired three-star US Army general officer who served with distinction in the UN Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II) 1993-1994 as the commander of US forces and the deputy commander of UN forces. I served as chief military spokesman for US and UN forces. Scott Peterson was a war correspondent covering the UN intervention in Somalia for the Christian Science Monitor and Reuters. I knew and worked with Peterson under dangerous combat conditions. He quoted me in his book (referenced on Montgomery's page) titled Me Against My Brother: At War in Somalia, Sudan and Rwanda. Both Montgomery and Peterson are honorable men. 1) Edit Warring. I now understand that I engaged in edit warring. My desire in editing was to remove the spurious and potentially libelous material that was injected onto Thomas M. Montgomery's Wikipedia page in November 2019 without his knowledge, discussion or permission. I understand that my actions to make these corrections engaged in edit warring. It won't happen again. 2) Dispute Resolution. I am willing to engage in dispute resolution with whomever posted the material in question onto Montgomery's Wikipedia page in November 2019. I now understand the difference between a published source and a Wikipedia editor. I know now that the editor was not Scott Peterson but I don't know the identity of that editor. The questionable information that editor used could have come from any one of dozens of sources, so it's unclear why Peterson's book was sourced unless there is some connection between the editor and Peterson. Regardless, I am willing to engage in dispute resolution. Prior to dispute resolution, please revert Montgomery's page to its state before it was edited in November 2019. 3) Conflict of Interest. I now have an appreciation for conflict of interest. I have had contact with Montgomery and Peterson since Somalia (which was more than 25 years ago) and felt compelled to correct Montgomery's page because of those friendships. There is nothing more to it than that. I am willing to post my identity when editing Montgomery's page if so requested by Wikipedia officials in order to maintain transparency. 4) Ignoring Requests to Discuss. I cannot see where I was requested to discuss the editing issues before making wholesale changes to Montgomery's Wikipedia page. I would not have ignored any request so please accept my apology if I have misunderstood or overlooked such a request. I am willing discuss these issues prior to editing Montgomery's page. Regarding potential libel, I will follow up separately with WP:LIBEL. I have tried to address all issues affecting my block in as concise a manner as possible. Please let me know if I have missed anything and I will quickly and gladly comply in providing clarity. I hope my explanations here are taken in the best possible light by Wikipedia officials in determining whether to unblock me. Please consider reverting Montgomery's page to its state before it was edited in November 2019. Warmest regards, Dave Stockwell editor (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This good block has been lifted based on this new editor's expression of understanding of the issues that led to the block and willingness to avoid those editing practices in the future. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dave Stockwell. First, thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia (WP). Based on your above explanation I'm inclined to unblock you. However, I would suggest you proceed very cautiously after that as it seems you are still confused about the way WP works. Specifically, you wrote "it's unclear why Peterson's book was sourced unless there is some connection between the editor and Peterson". There are six million articles on Wikipedia. I have personally written more than 200 articles sourced to thousands of books, journals, websites, etc. In none of those cases did I have a connection with the author of those sources. For instance, I wrote Jiggs II purely out of interest in the topic. I didn't know Jiggs, and I don't know a single person cited as a source in that article. Scott Peterson's book was published by Routledge and saw a print run of several hundred thousand copies. The editor who added the Peterson book as a source appears to be a very new editor, however, the notion that he or she must have had "some connection" with Peterson betrays such a shaky grasp as to how Wikipedia operates that continued blocking might be seen by others as an absolute necessity to protect Wikipedia. I think if you could just kindly post an assurance that, in the near future, you'll seek help and advice at every step of the way (either through the WP:TEAHOUSE or by asking on the Talk page of anyone who has posted here) I could unblock you without causing much controversy. (Otherwise we might both end up blocked!) Chetsford (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of identity

Hello. A combination of the username under which you are editing, and claims you have made on your Talk page, suggests you are LT COL Dave Stockwell (ret.), former spokesman for UNOSOM. In general, proof of identity is only required for persons editing under the username of a person so widely known that they meet the standards of WP:N. However, because LT COL Stockwell has been widely quoted and cited as part of his official duties I believe proof of identity is in the spirit of WP:IMPERSONATE. Please provide proof of identity via email to info-enwikimedia.org. If you are not LT COL Stockwell, please post a note on your userpage clarifying this. This request is done to protect the real Stockwell (who may be you) from being impersonated by others; it is not intended to be overly onerous. If you need assistance, please ping me. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford: Ticket received. In progress. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia Works

Chetsford: Thank you for allowing me to clarify that the editor who used Scott Peterson's book as a source likely is not connected to Scott Peterson. I concur with that assessment and acted rashly. I will do better in the future.

I became an editor for Wikipedia over the weekend. Boy have I learned a lot in 72-96 hours! I applaud the lengths to which Wikipedia operates so valiantly while the rest of the world swirls down the drain on innuendos, half truths and even outright lies.

Please know that I emailed proof of identity as requested. I am indeed US Army LTC David Stockwell (retired), former chief military spokesman for UNOSOM II and Task Force Ranger.

Also, if I am unblocked, please let me know how I can address the serious editing that took place on Thomas M. Montgomery's Wikipedia page in November that precipitated my response. That editing is filled with major errors in fact, innuendo, tabloid journalism and potential libel. I believe that editing needs to be reverted to the changes I tried to implement over the weekend. I am preparing a written report for WP:LIBEL. Is that the right way to go or is there a better venue? To see them on Montgomery's page now is pretty infuriating as you might imagine.

Is there a way to revert Montgomery's page to before the November editing until this can be sorted out?

Thank you for being so supportive and understanding. Please let me know what more I can do.

Cheers, Dave

Hi editor: I'm lifting the block, however, I think - for starters - you should carefully review WP:TALKPAGE and then do some practice editing in your sandbox here. Ninety-percent of the work that occurs on Wikipedia happens on Talk pages so understanding how to correctly reply to threads and post comments is critical to your ability to engage on Wikipedia. I'll, next, look at the Montgomery article and may comment on it at that article's talk page. When I do I'll "ping" you which will generate an alert that a comment in which you're interested in has been posted. You can then reply to it there. If at any time you have questions about Wikipedia, you can post them at WP:TEAHOUSE. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS.

PS. Should Thomas M. Montgomery address Wikipedia? If so, what is the best way for him to do that?

Dave Stockwell

He is welcome to do so but that's usually not advisable (see WP:AUTOPROB). Any additions or changes to an article have to be sourced to a WP:RS; the first-hand accounts of the subject of the article are almost never incorporated into Wikipedia biographies. The entire process of viewing one's biography being updated in real-time can be extremely frustrating. Chetsford (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in response to your message on my user talk page, advice is available at WP:BLPSELF and at WP:Contact us/Article subjects. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Ricochet21. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chetsford (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing Thomas M. Montgomery's Photo

Would like to replace the photo on Thomas M. Montgomery's page. The current photo shows him from Somalia wearing a field uniform and the two stars of a US Army general officer. As was previously pointed out by another, Somalia was one year out of Montgomery's 34 years of service. The photo I propose shows Montgomery in a more formal uniform wearing the three stars of the rank in which he retired.

I uploaded the photo under Upload Wizard. The URL for the photo is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_U.S._Army_LT._Gen._Thomas_M._Montgomery,_(Uncovered),_United_States_Military_Representative_to_the_North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization_(NATO)_Military_Committee.(U.S._Army_photo_by_Mr._Scott_Davis)_(Released)_(PC-192385).jpg.

Not sure what else to do at this point.

--Dave Stockwell (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Stockwell - Please see my comment / propose here. Chetsford (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Ricochet21 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)== Proposed replacement page for Montgomery ==[reply]

Chetsford: Wow! Fantastic work. I am so impressed. After more than 26 years, this whole experience has reinforced to me that I am still too emotionally involved to have ever come anywhere close to such terrific work. Well done.

My only observation is this. UNOSOM II consisted of three elements--political, humanitarian and military. All of UNOSOM II was led by US Navy Adm. (Ret.)Jonathan Howe. The political arm sought to align the warring clans toward unification leading to national elections. (I know, right?) The humanitarian arm continued providing international aid to the Somalia people. The military arm was tasked with providing security for the political and humanitarian aims to be achieved. The priority of UNOSOM II's efforts was political and humanitarian. The military was proposed as a distant third place. When UNOSOM II took over from UNITAF on May 4, 1993, the UNOSOM II military promised to be a sleepy backwater in Africa, which is why I was alone in my duties as spokesman UNITAF spokesman was a USMC colonel who had a staff of 60! When the war started on June 5, it was just me (freshly wounded from having been shot in the head without wearing a helmet and still bleeding) facing an influx of more than 80 international reporters.

The war turned that construct on its head. All media attention focused on military action. Case in point: The UNOSOM II spokesman preceded me in all news briefings. He reported that the political arm was continuing talks with Clan X or Clan Y, and that the humanitarian arm had delivered Z worth of tons of food and medicine to the Somali people. Then I briefed the military side and all hell broke loose. The performance was worthy of Saturday Night Live if it hadn't been so serious!

My point is that the narrative you propose implies that Bir and Montgomery were in charge of UNOSOM II. A sentence or two about Howe might put the military's role into perspective.

Sorry for taking you the long way with too much extraneous detail. You have my utmost respect.

Cheers, --Ricochet21 (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, your posting in Montgomery's page is exceedingly well done. Thank you for your patience and mentorship. Deepest respect, --Ricochet21 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great - I'm out of the country at the moment but will try to source this feedback and edit the draft accordingly next week. Once I've updated it, it would be good if you could weigh-in (either support or oppose) at the article's Talk page regarding replacing the article with the draft. A consensus of participants at the article's Talk page would be needed for a wholesale replacement. Chetsford (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]