User talk:T Turner

Thanks for the note about Stirling Newberry. It looks like you keep your Talk page "flushed." Well, there's a certain economy in that, not to mention discretion.

I have a POV on most subjects that is distinctly non-majority (see my User page, which you probably already did), but I try VERY hard to be aware of what the consensus position is before writing, and to keep my own input at least intelligible from THAT POV (calling that POV "neutral" might be a misnomer, unless you just declare that they mean the same thing).

Stirling, however, strikes me as rather more the tool of his own POV, although it may just seem that way to me because his POV seems pretty different from mine. I get the impression from his User page and his behavior that his POV is highly Stirling-Newberry-centric, and that he wishes to be thought the ultimate authority on the subjects he addresses.

By the way, if you really ARE an NPOV warrior, your attentions to the Gold Standard article, for which I have further plans, are and will be much needed.

Looking forward to this missive being flushed real soon. --Joe 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled our friend some time back, and came to the conclusion that I've got a "real one" on my hands here (you can Google ME, too). I very much enjoyed Tyler Cowen's post limning his work and prowess. Cowen is a giant in my pantheon.

In editing Gold Standard, I wasn't aware it was his work I was touching. I DID (pardon my capital letters - I "shout" for emphasis) inspect the Page History and Talk pages of the article prior to putting my edits in, but his counters came rather "out of the blue" to me. However, he and I are now locked in an embrace of sorts, and it doesn't appear anyone is going to let go soon. It isn't mutual admiration, that's for sure.

I'm no sweetie, myself. Maybe the two of us deserve each other. I hope I may claim the high(er) ground, here, but I must leave that judgement to others (meaning not me, nor him).--Joe 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

I removed this warning because I am not attacking User:Stirling Newberry as he was attacking me. T Turner 22:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material below has been restored to provide context for the discussion that T Turner placed on WP:AN. Please don't remove this information until your complaint has been resolved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Please be aware that your user account appears to have been created solely and specifically to harrass and annoy Stirling Newberry.

I would be most pleased to see that impression dispelled. The most efficient and effective strategy that you can employ to achieve that objective would be to start contributing to Wikipedia articles (your lone article edit appears to be a revert of Stirling) and stop interacting with Stirling. If you feel that there are problems with Stirling's behaviour, there are various avenues open to you. Note that unless and until you evince some interest in non-Stirling aspects of Wikipedia participation, you are very unlikely to receive administrator assistance.

Continued attacks on Stirling will result in the suspension of your editing privileges on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, you're obviously not a new editor and you're clearly familiar with Wikipedia practice and policies. If you'd like a clean slate and fresh start using this new account, you're welcome to use this one in a positive, non-confrontational way—a way, please note, that does not involve or interact with Stirling Newberry. Otherwise, you will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End of deleted material

You have failed to make any non-Newberry related edits. If you're not a Ray Lopez sockpuppet, you're another individual bent on harrassing Stirling Newberry. Find something productive to do here, or leave. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 31 August 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting unblock, as per WP:NPA, as all I did was question one's identity, as shown below:

Decline reason:

I am confident that you are User:Ray Lopez again (sadly). I have also read through your contributions in some detail and can confirm that a block for breaching WP:NPA was just and the permanent nature of it unsurprising. Thanks, and goodbye. -➨ ЯEDVERS 18:58, 1 September 2006 (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.

[1] is not considered a personal attack. I was blocked by one of Stirling Newberry's friends, which I feel is highly inappropriate. Additonally, Stirling made a personal attack here: [2] before I even started talking to him, so how is my account one that is used to specifically target Stirling Newberry? This block is extremely unjust, and I want to pursue RFC review upon either a tempoary unblock, or a reversal of this block.

Please see WP:BLOCK#Posting_personal_details --pgk^(talk) 18:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]