User talk:Trey Stone/Archive01

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE, K? SO DON'T POST STUFF.

This archive page covers way too much stuff.

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. Very Verily 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:

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:

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|Halibutt]] 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. – Clockwork Soul 15:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I've put your sockpuppetry case up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration AndyL 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)

Foreign relations of Cuba

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC

You should have been alerted to the RfC on you. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at my comments here, --SqueakBox 18:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Accents

The accent should be included in names of people but not names of countries (Mexico) where there is an obvious English usage without an accent. As I have moved the name of the article to Ramón Grau, Ramon Grau is now a redirect. What you should have done is Ramón for the article and created a redirect for Ramon for searching, --SqueakBox 15:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

3RR violations

You have violated the Three-revert rule each on three different pages in the last 24 hours. As such, I am blocking you for 24 hours under it.

Please review our policies.

James F. (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 07:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinatra Doctrine edit

What was the problem with sentence you removed [4]? It describes fairly well the situation - I remember this time in Czechoslovakia. Pavel Vozenilek 10:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warnings

Allan Nairn, Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti, & Amy Goodman
You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ِِDon't Imitate NoPuzzleStranger's Tactics

I think he may be trying to entice you into a 3RR violation -- you've already had one, and you could be permanently banned. Don't let it go there. Post a list of your objections to the discussion page instead, and if we can't get it resolved through discussion there, we'll make a neutrality or factual accuracy dispute. If you are methodical and not infammatory, I will back you up.

You did a good job with Matos's testimony. We should try to find some other prominent former inmates with credible testimony to make a preponderance of the evidence case. Why don't you focus on that instead of getting into an RV war? I read an excerpt of a letter once that Castro wrote while he was imprisoned under the Batista regime. He discussed how he was being treated to H. Uppman cigars and gourmet coffee and wondered what his fellow revolutionaries would think if they knew. We should discuss how Battista was clearing trying to co-opt some of these guys through bribery and pampering, and contrast that to Castro's torture methods.

If you let the "revolutionaries" bait you and get you banned, they will win and they will be the people who get to stay on Wikipedia writing the history. DON'T fall for it. --Jpbrenna 23:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea that Trey Stone needs to be enticed into a 3RR violation; have you seen how many he's chalked up unenticed? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with his stats when I wrote that. I'll grant you that he would probably still be chalking up 3RV's without being prodded. He should get smart like the guy at the Victor Davis Hanson page and do one RV every 24 hrs. --Jpbrenna 23:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule for edits you made to Contras. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list. Broken Segue 12:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I was forced to block you. If you had believed that the block was unjust you should have tried to contact another administrator. However, I do not take kindly to insults or cursing. I may be a stickler for the rules but it seems that my judgement was correct since you have been blocked yet again. Hopefully incidents such as this will avoided in the future. Broken Segue 21:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting other users' comments

You have deleted other users' comments on Talk:Fidel Castro on two seperate occasions tonight. If you do so again, I will request an administrator to block you for vandalism. Firebug 07:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

k champ. J. Parker Stone 07:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Hi Trey, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Fidel Castro and have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. If you feel the block is unfair, feel free to e-mail me using the link on my user page, and I'll get straight back to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:35, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

H Matos

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make an edit like this: [5]? "Kangaroo court" is a highly perjorative term. We can't simply state that in the narrative voice in an encyclopedia article. If we attribute it to someone, that is a different matter. An edit like this shows you really don't get Wikipedia's NPOV philosophy. -- Viajero 10:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule at Amy Goodman. In future please limit your reverts to an absolute maximum of 3 in any one 24 hour period. Proteus (Talk) 11:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt and Latin America

The US did not back nasty regimes like Somoza's for the sake of "stability," it did so to safeguard the profits of the United Fruit Company and other US corporations. I am not a raving lefty nor anti-American, but this an undeniable fact. The Good Neighbour Policy did represent a new policy, whereby the US stopped treating countries like Cuba, Panama and Haiti as US protectorates, but this did little to change the situation in the banana republics, which were in effect colonies. I think my wording is both fair and factual, whereas yours is a euphemism. Adam 03:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ríos Montt

If you have a moment look at what has been happening at Efraín Ríos Montt, as I would be interested in your opinion, and your name was slung about at one point, [[User:SqueakBox|User:SqueakBox Boddhi is the best]] 20:56, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Redirects

Are you aware that 172 has redirected User:64.7.89.54 as a redirect to User:Trey Stone. If this is not, or is not exclusively, your account you may want to undo the redirect, SqueakBox 23:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

In my defense

the reason I was blocked in the first place has to do with "vandalism" on said page, a part of which was the removal of personal attacks, which according to official policy I have every right to do. J. Parker Stone 19:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, which is official policy, actually doesn't sanction the removal of personal attacks, it only observes that some people do. Remove personal attacks, which does sanction the removal of personal attacks, is a policy proposal without consensus and is considered somewhat controversial. In short, you edit warred on the talk page when someone objected to you removing personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear

Wait, I'm the belligerent RV warrior? What a crock. At least I don't refer to blatant Communist-leaning apologia as "POV vandalism," even though it is. 172 has done just as much "aggressive RVing" as anyone. This article was fine until he decided to muck things up again. J. Parker Stone 23:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Please consider your position, which is extremely dire. Act according to policy, think of the editing process and not the people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So wait, just because it doesn't portray communism in a bad light makes it POV? -- Natalinasmpf 05:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i think communism has done plenty to make itself look bad, pretty unambiguously J. Parker Stone 07:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

You're really good when you're not insulting people and edit-warring. Good work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Invasion of Grenada

re Ronald Reagan - thanks, my mistake--ClemMcGann 21:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez

Hi Trey,

We seem to have gotten caught up discussing Noam Chomsky. Meanwhile, on Talk:Hugo Chávez, I have asked you a question: do you actively oppose splitting the Hugo Chávez article, or do you just find it unnecessary? I'd like to get back going over there. Peace! DanKeshet 14:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

GF

Yeah, and you got off AIM. Thought there was something we were gonna discuss. Oh well. --TJive 06:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

block auto-expiration

seems to always be broken at this site. J. Parker Stone 8 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

email

Many apologies for not responding to your mail sooner, I managed to lose it somehow. I've replied now -- sannse (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Smedley Butler]

User Trey completely fabricates an anti-semitic angle to attack Butler in a really clumsy guilt-by-association argument on the talk page. There's no reason for any such ad hominem attack against a highly decorated Marine general. Please don't toss around labels like anti-semitic or communist when they're not warranted at all.

please don't bring this to my Talk page. i've not accused Butler of being an anti-Semite. what I have added is that he gave speeches to the CPUSA which, using what limited online material there is about him, appears to be true. J. Parker Stone 03:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

I find this the strongest sign of good faith on your part to date. [6] I'll have no problem doing business with you if you continue to show a willingness to seriously discuss the history without political posturing. 172 05:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well thanks. i apologize for all the crap today, it's just the comment about Occidental that set me off a bit. J. Parker Stone 05:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I am sorry about that myself. The months of insinuations that I'm a Stalinist gave me the attitude that everything was fair game. But if we can put all this crap behind us, I will be quite happy. 172 05:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Contra

I don't have much time online at the moment, so all I can do is briefly comment on the edits. Overall, your changes were a good copyediting. If your edits were reverted entirely on Iran-Contra, I would revert back to your version. I particularly appreciated how you noticed every instance in which "administration" was incorrectly capitalized (one of my pet-peeves), among many other corrections and mark-ups in the writing. For now the only two problems immediately come to mind. The current version refers to Hezbollah as "loyal" to Khomeini. The new wording could give a misleading impression overstating Iran's influence in Lebanon and understating Hezbollah's autonomy. Still, this is a minor matter that can be addressed by changing the word choice. Also, your edits removed the content on the International Court of Justice ruling. Before your edits, the two paragraphs on the ruling were out of place, and they did look like an attempt to add mud for the sake of adding mud. (For example, as I'm sure you're aware, your friend Chomsky likes to point to these rulings as having made the U.S. the 'world's only convicted terrorist nation.') Your edits corrected that problem, but now it is necessary to go back and find a more fitting context. The ruling is relevant in ways other than offering rhetoric to media outlets like Granma and Indymedia; they bolstered the position of opponents of Reagan's Central America policies in Washington, and in that context the topic has relevance in this article. Nevertheless, the paragraphs were problematic given the lack of context in which they were placed, and I can understand your decision to remove them... I should be online later tonight, hopefully to deal with the other issues, such as the Stalin article. Thanks for filling me in on these changes. 172 23:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah my "streamlining" of that article may have made it too narrow on the topics it covered, the ICJ ruling did come only a few months before Iran-Contra started to leak out. J. Parker Stone 02:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

You've been blocked for 24 hours for your 3RR violation over Ronald Reagan. Cheers, Viajero | Talk 09:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Viajero has long ongoing disputes with my edits (see FRAPH and death squad in particular) and that I pointed out why I did not violate the 3RR rule. I'd like to ask for an admin review of this block, something that was done because V here doesn't like my edits. thanks mucho. J. Parker Stone 09:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

editing political articles

Trey Stone, you have been banned by temporary injunction "from editing any article which relates to politics pending resolution" of your arbitration case - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle/Proposed_decision#Temporary_ban. Despite this, I see you are still editing political articles. You are violating your injunction. I will not report you for your violation of this ban up until now, but if you continue to violate your injunction, I will report you. Ruy Lopez 00:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 24-hour grace period Ruyman, and I don't appreciate you blind-RVing all my changes. Now go piss off someone else for a while. J. Parker Stone 00:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you HAD a grace period of "24 hours from the first vote". The first vote - which was in June. So your 24 hour grace period is over. Ruy Lopez 00:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A grace period of twenty four hours is usually observed between the fourth Aye vote and the enactment of the Injunction

now go away thx. J. Parker Stone 00:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no grace period. That occurs only when the injunction is issued the first day it is requested and when the ban is a full ban. Fred Bauder 02:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

...ok. i didn't see that specified in the rules section, though. J. Parker Stone 05:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I'll check it as soon as possible. The computer I'm on has a glitch whereby I can't open that account, though, so I apologize for the delay. 172 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. J. Parker Stone 00:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan

I am providing information to counterbalance pov claims and bring it up to wikipedia standards. Many places are unsourced and sound like a rant by one individual. We should work together to fix it instead of beginning our first conversation by pointing fingers.

Regards,

Guy Montag 02:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky

You may want to keep an eye on the Chomsky page. Chamelion and Cadre are systematically censoring the page.

Rios Montt

I got your email and sent a reply. I'll take a look at it. 172 | Talk 00:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El_C

Please review this provocation (out of the blue), and my response. Thanks. El_C 10:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it was drawn to my attention by someone. for chrissakes, i thought we were done with this. J. Parker Stone 10:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with El_C that this was an unacceptable provocation. Stop it. You are not to goad or taunt other editors about their choice of name, indeed you are not to engage in personal attacks of any kind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i don't plan to "goad" or use "personal attacks" against this particularly sensitive individual any time again. J. Parker Stone 11:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

You are right, I shouldnt be saying that the US is the root of all evil in the talk pages; everybody already knows that! (jk) LtDoc 04:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a record of Wikipedia transgressions you have, now dont you?LtDoc 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxes

I can't see why not. You're allowed to edit talk pages, so I'm sure you're free to start sandboxes in the talk namespaces. 172 | Talk 06:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if you want anyone to be free to edit it. If not, you can create one in your user namespace like User:172/Populist movement sandbox, an article rewrite that I never got around to finishing. (Actually, I now realize that I should've put that one in talk, and perhaps someone would've finsihed it for me. Oh well.) 172 | Talk 06:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Poor, Moonie

It says so at his User page ("Unification Encyclopaedia project"). Adam 08:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know the Moonies haven't attempted to establish an editing presence at Wikipedia in the same way the LaRouchies and communists have, so they don't get as much attention here, but Moon is every bit as mad a cult leader as LaRouche, much more influential, and even more corrupt. I certainly wouldn't have a Moonie "mediating" any dispute I was involved in. Adam 08:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]