User talk:Stirling Newberry/05

A Casual Observation

I don't know you. I have no predispositions. But I read you diatribe on the Liberty Dollar page, and I have to say that you could be one of the most ignorant fucks that's laid his hands on a keyboard. Self-righteous leftists are responsible for covering half the world in a shroud for most of the 20th century. Good to know you're keeping the ignorance alive! Listen to your critics here and elsewhere. Yes, us freedom folks gave you a freedom of speech, but must you relentlessly punish us for it?

A message for you

Two questions: why do you consider someone who doesn't conform to your point of view a personal attack, e.g. Rhobite, Conradrock, Trey Stone? Also, why do you refer to your self as "notable" and in the third person when the only notable thing you have done according to Google is write a couple of blogs whining about Bush? Also, how are you a "Military Analyst" when you have done nothing with any aspect of Military operations? Please answer me, millions of other people would love to know. Ray Lopez 11:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your spamming

Quit spamming the link to your blog on talk pages. Its in bad taste and form. Quit abusing wikipeda for your google hits, Stirling. Ray Lopez 09:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Don't ever edit my User:Talk page, especially since you blank your own. I'm removing your stupid "bopnews" spam link, which does not belong on my talk page. Also, bring on an RFC, you're just upset that you have been called out. Ray Lopez 16:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, What?

Our problem is between us, Stirling. Not Gamaliel, Not Trey Stone, no one but you and I. So, why don't you and I try to work out our problems that I addressed in the above paragraphs instead of you whining about filing an RFC because I asked you the wrong questions. By the way, your "bopnews" crap is SPAM. You should quit doing it. Ray Lopez 16:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another message

Stirling, I'm still waiting for my RFC. As I said before, I will not post the RFC against you until you try to bring out all of the "injustices" that I have committed against you out. Maybe you've finally matured, and realized that people who disagree with you aren't attacking you. Ray Lopez 17:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hola

Hey Stirling -- glad to see you're contributing to the wiki! Hope all's well. -- Simon (friend of Matt's). Sdedeo 12:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine

I am telling everyone who signed or commented on Ultramarine's RfC that I have filed an RfAr against him. Thanks for your interest. Septentrionalis 18:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come Back

When are you coming back? We haven't had anyone throw a temper tantrum in a while! Ray Lopez 14:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 1.0

Hi Stirling

I'm a new member of the WP 1.0 editorial team. I have spent many hours going over all the ideas proposed on the Wikipedia 1.0 pages for finding acceptable articles, as I wanted to summarise the main ideas as a prelude to the team working on them (if they want to!). Your idea of having general users do much of the cleanup and article selection work is (I think) one of the main ideas out there. The idea of using tabs to facilitate the process seems very nice to me, and I also like Mark Lewis's idea of having users rate the articles with a voting tab. Your approach seems to have a lot in common with David Gerard's ideas. I have a few questions about your approach:

Do you still advocate this approach? Have you made any changes since your original posting?
What should this project be called?
What progress (if any) has been made on this since January? I realise that things have been pretty much stalled on WP 1.0, but if things have been achieved I'd like to know about it.
Do you have ideas on how to get "from here to there"? It seems that first we have to convince the community that it is a good idea, and second we have to get the people who write wiki code to write the code for implementing it. I'm very ignorant of this sort of thing, so personally I can't really help, I'm afraid!

I'll post things on the team page in a few days, feel free to edit things there as well if I've got anything wrong. Thanks, Walkerma 20:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response on my talk page. Sorry about the duplications in my questions above (now removed). I'll post on the main 1.0 page a summary of your ideas from the talk page (which have a lot of detail), please edit my summary if I've got the wrong end of the stick. It sounds like you are proposing several big changes which cut through all of Wikipedia, not just 1.0, but I'll try to focus mainly on the ideas for identifying quality articles via users feedback. Walkerma 20:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image vandalism

Hi Stirling: I deleted the vandalized image ((del) (rev) 12:53, 18 September 2005 . . StirIing Newberry . . 481x331 (31615 bytes) (Stirling Newberry) from the history. Let me know if it happens again.

I don't see any user contributions for the vandal you mentioned (was everything deleted maybe?) Unfortunately I don't have the ability to see IPs behind a vandal's user name; only a few developers do. Take care, Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia meetup Monday?

Stirling! How are things? Haven't seen your delightful essay style recently, which likely means I'm looking in all the wrong places. There's a WP meetup Monday evening; Jimbo will hopefully be there, as will a children's education rep from the Museum of Science. I hope you can make it out... we'll be gathering at Tosci's near Central Square.

Drop me a line or give a ring, at any rate. Lots of exciting things going on these days, even leaving aside the vicious weather. +sj + 04:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. See also our Wikimania bid for next year; sign up if it sounds cool :-)

See you soon! 899 Main St. +sj + 20:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nutjob?

I'm not pushing a point of view. It's called neutrality. Deal w/ it

calling the theories erroneous IS a pov. So either edit that or shut up.

The reason I'm changing it is because of the blatant point of view. Are you developmentally challenged?

September 11th

Your edit summary was inaccurate, no link was reverted. Stirling Newberry - 15:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How odd, I was trying to revert out the link. Sorry about that. --fvw * 15:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stirling. Could you not use the term 'nutjob' in edit summaries? It's okay to think it quietly to yourself, but it tends not to be helpful when voiced. I've warned Lamrock about civility, personal attacks, and the 3RR; I will be keeping an eye on his behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republics

Hi Stirling,

I really liked your new addition to the lead section of the Republic article. For the first time someone adding a "political science" definition of republics not entangled in republicanism-as-ideology.

Nonetheless, and that's why I come to your page, I propose the following: wouldn't we create a Republics in political theory page (or, for me the same: Republics in political science - the other one being a redirect)?

Thus far I had linked the "republics in political science" section of the "Republic" article to the "republicanism" article. As I see now, there's no need to do that. And besides I already had created another subsection of the "republic" article ("influence of republicanism") that refers to "republicanism" as main article.

Provisionally,

I kept the first sentence of your "political theory" definition of republic in the lead section;
Moved the longer explanation of the two bifurcations of that definition (with a minor tweak) to the rebaptised "republics in political theory" section.

The minor tweak involved the "figurehead" qualification of constitutional monarchs. Some constitutional monarchs retain political power: e.g. Belgium, the monarch "steers" the negotiation phase for the formation of a government after an election - and there are some voices every now and then whether or not that is OK, and whether or not the Belgian monarchy should be turned into a figurehead monarchy (taking Danmark as example, where the monarchy is indeed reduced to a symbolical function which could be qualified "figurehead")

Thanks if you could give some feedback regarding this! --Francis Schonken 09:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I don't know what happened between the two edits you did on my talk page:

18:27, 1 October 2005, thanking for my polite and constructive note regarding republics (above) diff
16:13, 13 October 2005, where you accuse me of personal attacks, original research and not citing sources diff

I'm really unaware where any such problem might have come into existence? Can't even remember we met anywhere in between? Can't see where I would have been in trespass of any of the offenses you throw before my feet? FYI, I'm a notable defender of wikipedia policies and guidelines, including no personal attacks, no orignal research and citing sources, and I practice as much of that as I can. --Francis Schonken 18:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selective blanking of "Republic" article

I don't know how it happened but there appears to have been a selective blanking of the "Republic" article, by an anonymous editor (IP: 213.202.183.129): 08:05, 12 October 2005 (diff)

I also don't know why this wasn't reverted: this selective blanking operation destroyed (among other things) footnotes and other references, and interwiki links. RC patrol usually reverts such edits, I really have no idea why this didn't happen this time.

Sorry that I didn't notice the revert. I'm not that attached to that article that I keep it on my watchlist. I pass by every now and then, and that's all. If you hadn't put such an alarming message on my talk page, I wouldn't even have gone to see to that article (I just did, that's the only article I can recall where we met).

Is it OK for you that I ask a sysop to revert to the version before that partial blanking? Shouldn't be too hard to find one I suppose! --Francis Schonken 19:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS

Also this edit to your user page (between two of my edits) is none of my doing: 10:13, 13 October 2005 (diff)

That edit was by IP 68.235.161.91, equally unknown to me. I have a fixed IP differing from that IP, and from the IP mentioned in the previous section, and further I always edit under user name. --Francis Schonken 19:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Mistakes happen, no problem.

I'll remove your 2nd note from my talk page, least said soonest mended I suppose.

But don't know how you think about reverting the Republic article to the version prior to the selective deletion described above. Well, if I ask a sysop that would also remove your last edit (but restore your prior definition included in the lead section), that's why I ask you. We could also restart work from the present version of that article, but all in all I suppose that more work than doing the revert to the older version including references first.

What do you think?

--Francis Schonken 20:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see user talk:Bishonen#If you have a minute - I sure hope Bishonen has a minute --Francis Schonken 21:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Well, Well

Stirling, your constant accusations of violations of Wikipedia policies without even researching what caused the issue disgust me. You either really need to think before you speak, or actually learn how to research those who are supposedly "attacking" you. Get a grip. Seriously, you're embarassing yourself - and the self-imposed "Google" hit linkspam just increases your supposed "notable" visability. Get a grip on reality, and stop going on the defensive constantly. 81.117.200.52 21:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the archive of your talkpage?

While working on an article, it was noted that the discussion continued in your talk page. Could you be so good as to tell me where you have hidden the contents of your talk-page from Jan-04 to Jun-05 as I would like to read it.

Yours, jucifer 16:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]