User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 1
User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 2
User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 3
Thanks for the message. Your friend sounds like quite the adventurer; you know we could really use your help on Ukelele if you have the time. You have expert knowledge that we need. You don't even need to edit the page if you lack the time or interest; criticism on the talk page would be just as welcome. There's also Talk:Ukulele/Comments. Thanks. — Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Next time you make false accusations regarding me, please present evidence.-- MONGO 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The page is in a diff here on Wikipedia as well as a long thread on another site which, conveniently enough, includes a great many people who have gotten quite familiar with your shenanigans from the inside.
As for my own evidence, let's just say that you've met me before but forgot who i am. So my suggestion is that people in glass houses shouldn't start throwing stones. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean to say that using the word "fascist" is worse than insulting someone as being a "liberal"? Stone put to sky ( talk) 11:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
First, i think that Wikipedia has made it quite clear that when we are discussing matters of protocol and sourcing the website itself is not to be used.
Second, the Nazis were not the only fascists. There were British, Italian, Central European (Croatian and Czech, in particular), Russian and French fascists. As well as quite a large number of U.S. fascists, as well (of which our current president's grandfather -- along with Henry Ford -- was a loud and proud supporter).
My suggestion to you both is that you need to get out of the house a bit more. Judging by the amount of time you each spend on Wikipedia you really don't have enough experience of this world to be attempting the arguments you are putting forth here, because with only a tiny bit more research on the word you'd discover that fascism as a political philosophy is still alive and well with supporters who are happily, openly going about their work in places like Italy, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain (among other places). There are Russian and Central European fascists, as well -- not to mention folks here in the U.S, most of whom call themselves "libertarian" or "conservative", these days. Simply because you two do not particularly care to be labeled as a "fascist" does not, ipso facto, turn that particular word into an insult - it is a clearly defined, neutral term which, in all its aspects, perfectly fits Devonshire, MONGO and Harrison's political advocacy (i have much less interaction with JungleCat, so i can' really say one way or the other on that). It is a name that many people around the world use to describe their political philosophy, and when they use the word they speak it proudly and without shame. Unlike MONGO's use of the term "liberals" or "extremists", there is nothing a priori insulting about the word.
Simply put, my use of the word "fascist" is as a neutral, descriptive term; perhaps you don't know any true Fascists. I, however, happen to count at least two as close personal friends of mine. I myself am not a fascist, and i think the perspective of people who advocate fascism is rather painfully limited and potentially destructive (fearsomely so). However, in the case of those two personal friends of mine i am still able to discuss politics with them politely and openly, and -- unlike in my relations with the cabal that you two happen to be a part of -- we are able to find a rhetorical space that allows for intelligent conversation.
So i must, once again, politely decline your admonitions. If you would like to take this up as an RfC somewhere i'll be happy to attend. Until such time, however, that the Oxford Dictionary singularly labels this particular word as a "pejorative epithet" (those big words are what we linguists use to mean "insult"), then you must simply deal with the fact that you are not allowed to stop people from using it when referring to you. Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"Our" policies? They seem more like "MONGO's personal policies" to me. At any rate, the "dumbshit" was clearly beyond the pale, which i admitted and am recalcitrant over. I haven't made that mistake again, and i won't. But i will insist, once again, that it was not the word "fascist" that was an insult. By adding "dumbshit" to *any* phrase it becomes an insult. Such as if someone were to call me a "dumbshit anarchist" -- insult, yes. But not the "anarchist" part.
And i will once again point out the implicit threat in your words; you are acting like the famed bully you are well known to be, MONGO -- appearing, once again, on my talk page and issuing threats all made up as if Wikipedia guidelines support you.
Of course, you may get me banned -- but it won't have anything to do with Wikipedia guidelines. It will, instead, be a product of the scheming you do on your off-site IRC chats and noticeboards. Stone put to sky ( talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. We all knew you would respond that way, MONGO. But that doesn't change the facts of this case. Simply lying about them has gotten you quite far up until now. It will be interesting to see how much longer that will last. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have brought this situation to the attention of administrators. You can respond here.-- MONGO 10:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
After trying ad nauseum to get you to understand that I did not like being called a fascist, nor enjoyed your misrepresentations about me and some supposed cabal, I saw no alternative for me except to bring it to AN/I. I'll write up an Rfc if it happens again. Sincerely,-- MONGO 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of state terrorism by the United States has you denying the good faith attempt to build consensus per Consensus, please read this policy. We are trying to determine if the citations meet WP policy, specifically RS. You are required to either participate in good faith, or not participate if you prefer. Statements like "Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)" don't stall the consensus process, because you are not engaged in a good faith consensus effort. Such "boilerplate statements may be ignored. Don't waste the bytes. They don't work, when you offer these they may be ignored.
Please engage (or not), but do so ONLY with a good faith effort. Raggz ( talk) 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Raggz, but this is more appropriate on the talk page. I must once again protest that you should be addressing these issues there. Finally, i will once again point out that, in fact, it is you who is violating the consensus on the page. You are attempting to introduce weasel words into the introduction and eliminate a good deal of content on the basis of specious interpretations of wikipedia guidelines. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read your writing below. We not only agreed to comply with Consensus, You proposed three day notice on TALK. While this is an informal and non-binding guideline, I point out that you are NOT even using TALK at all. Raggz ( talk) 09:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"I'm sorry, Raggz, but this is more appropriate on the talk page. I must once again protest that you should be addressing these issues there. Finally, i will once again point out that, in fact, it is you who is violating the consensus on the page. You are attempting to introduce weasel words into the introduction and eliminate a good deal of content on the basis of specious interpretations of wikipedia guidelines. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again: you did not clear that change with the people who are here. For future reference, i would suggest a waiting period of at least 36 hours before presuming that you have some sort of agreement here. Many of the maintainers of this page are quite busy -- i'm on a few off-days right now, so right now i happen to have the time to spend on helping you out, here -- but many of them are also quite busy and don't appear every day. Simply declaring that you are going to edit the page because you think an agreement has been reached in no way indicates an agreement has been reached anywhere except in your own mind, and waiting 30 minutes to then proceed from there to the actual edit -- without any input from the community of page maintainers -- is, as i have explained to you repeatedly, not a good method to use on this page. Simply put: if you make edits without first clearing them with the community of page maintainers here then you are almost certain to see them reverted. I have already explained to you why that is the case several times, now. Once again: my suggestion is that you create a sandbox and make your suggestions there, first. Then we can all make contributions and debate the changes without causing an edit war.
Of course, I am presuming that you are not interested in sparking an edit war. Am i wrong in that? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"
I just noticed that you have been trolling WP:ANI.
This is a warning to stop this behavior. Please read WP:TROLL, especially the sections on abuse of process and making false accusations, and make sure not to engage in these behaviors or other anti-social tactics. Unless you adjust your editing style, I unfortunately might need to block your account to protect the project from further disruption. Jehochman Talk 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The 3-tier diff and link series |
---|
Twice you have reverted the following text: "In 1998 the Cuban government charged the Cuban American National Foundation, which was founded in 1981 at the initiative of the Reagan administration and receives U.S. government funding [1] with, according to the official government-controlled Radio Havana Cuba, the continued financing of anti-Cuban terrorist activities [2] Granma, the official newspaper of Cuba, also reported that U.S. senator Mel Martinez was meeting with Cuban American terrorists and sponsoring them via CANF. [3]" Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
The source does NOT say that the US supports the Cuban American National '''Foundation'''. It says that it supports the Cuban American National Council. Read the cite. Stop inserting material that you know is incorrect into the article. Use TALK. What does this mean? That the Article cannot claim that the US Government funds the Cuban American National Foundation, unless you have another reliable source. Raggz ( talk) 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, these discussions and questions are appropriate on the talk page. All my reasons have already been given in the summaries, and if you have any issues you should take it up on that page -- not here. Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment about the edit. It is a very small contribution to the article compared to the work that you have done. It looks like the talk page is taking a very nasty turn, but I hope that all parties involved are going to be able to focus on content and step back from personality conflicts. TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk) 12:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You said you live and teach in Taiwan, yet you said "instructing my Chinese students in its use as a research and understanding starting point."
Surely you meant Taiwanese students, or do you teach the literature class or something? As it is, it doesn't make sense to say you teach Chinese students in Taiwan. John Smith's ( talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni is correct; the use of the word "Taiwanese" is very controversial, whereas my students are overwhelmingly ethnic Chinese. They speak chinese, write it, worship in chinese temples, support chinese cultural institutions, and identify first and foremost with their chinese historical and cultural heritage.
For my part, i view the issues you are implicitly referring to -- the "international legal status of Taiwan", "independence", "unification", "reunification", or whatever you want to call it -- far more subtly than merely what governmental title the people of this island will be subsumed under. For instance, the word "Taiwanese" is also used to refer to the ethnic Min majority here. However, these people make up only some 70% of the total population, and the unfortunate truth is that the foremost representatives of their political leadership are all deeply prone to ethnic chauvinism at the expense of the other minorities.
So, to answer your question quickly: no. I meant "my Chinese students". There are quite a few non-chinese peoples on this island, and the distinction is quite clear to anyone who is familiar with the politics and culture of Taiwan. Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you are wrong; and your pretense is showing through quite clearly. You obviously know very little about what the situation over here actually is. Stone put to sky ( talk) 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me right? All this because he put "my Chinese students" on his userpage? Seriously, John Smith's, talk to enough people from or in Taiwan, and you'll realise that some will only call themselves Taiwanese (台灣人), and some will call themselves both Taiwanese and Chinese (華人). Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 07:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
I award you this in recognition of your tireless work in defending Wikipedia from censors who would suppress important encyclopedic knowledge for non-legitimate POV reasons. Specifically your tireless work in defense of the often heated American Terrorism article. Giovanni33 ( talk) 07:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC) |
"The article would be a better WP article if it complied with WP policy. Let us focus on the article and not personalities? Raggz (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC) "
"It does. You don't. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)"
Waht do you really mean? Raggz ( talk) 08:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant that the article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and -- as has been explained to you repeatedly -- that your own interpretations of those policies and guidelines are clearly invalid.
Stone put to sky (
talk)
08:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As i said: we have already pointed out to you that not every source needs to use the specific words "state terror" to be included. We have spent many hours explaining precisely why this is so. Therefore, if you want to tag something with that and have us take you seriously you'll need to give more explanation on the talk page, here, and then actually spend the time waiting for an answer before you go and make the change.
Secondly, your "correction" may or may not be correct. However, as with other edits it would be best if you floated your suggestions on the talk page here, first, so that we can discuss the context of the change and whether or not you are actually interpolating your own interpretation in place of the actual wording. You have done that sort of thing before, and we are wary of it. None of this would be an issue if you had simply cleared your edits here, first. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
We are having communication challenges here. Can we resolve these by ourselves? Raggz ( talk) 10:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, and is inappropriate on my personal talk page. Please post these questions where they belong: on the article's discussion page. Stone put to sky ( talk) 10:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not really interested in the constant arguing that is taking place on the page regarding state terrorism, however if something further occurs regarding the Philippines, please let me know. -- WheezyF ( talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the dispute at the JDL related dispute at Meir Weinstein? Thanks. Black as pitch ( talk) 03:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I hope we agree that Wikipedia should show all views. If arguments are superior, then surely they can be supported by adding sourced opposing views, in a free exchange of views. But blank deletions of disliked arguments do not look good. Ultramarine ( talk) 06:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You wrote "purposefully lying". Read WP:NPA. This will be my only warning. I will report you the next time. Ultramarine ( talk) 10:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: "You appear increasingly combative and tendentious in your challenges -- all of which are clearly pushing a particular political POV -- and many people here are suspicious that you are in serious breach of WP:AGF." [12]
Interesting.
I am wondering: did you leave this warning on the pages of the other three editors who have made the same statement? Stone put to sky ( talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you please review the debate at Talk:Meir_Weinstein#my_opinion? Thanks. Black as pitch ( talk) 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
— slakr\ talk / 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Stone put to sky ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have not been sockpuppeting and haven't violated the 3RR
Decline reason:
Yes you have, and to be honest I would have blocked for more than 72 hours. -- lucasbfr talk 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
Uhhh....wait a minute. No, i haven't. I have no idea what's going on here, but it seems pretty clear there's some sort of mistake. I wasn't on wikipedia and none of those accounts have anything to do with me. I have never used a sockpuppet account and have made it quite clear that i don't like others using them, either.
In fact, i have requested a checkuser on Ultramarine at least once, maybe twice in the past. Oddly, the requests were simply rejected; nobody was willing to just take the time to check and see if his ip was related to another that was posting at the same time. Similarly, i have filed two(!) AN/Is on Ultramarine with absolutely no comment left on what are clearly attempts to abuse wikipedia guidelines.
Now i'm being banned for 72 hours because my ip is are "similar" to someone else's? Did it never occur to anyone that i may be (as in fact i am) posting from a university and from within the community around it? The block of ip's i post from are dhcp accounts from a local internet provider; they get assigned at random and have nothing to do with who one is or isn't, nor much to do with where one is or isn't. There's small likelihood of me getting a renewed IP that shares more than one or two numbers in common; these networks span scores of class b networks and run four that i know of in this particular area (Taipei). So now someone spoofs an ip address that looks "similar" to mine and i get banned? I don't understand what's going on, but i would like my name cleared and my account restored, please. Stone put to sky ( talk) 05:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote all these articles, and you go after me for political arguments, some nerve.
Your priorities suck, enjoy your time away while I make some needed changes to that article you love so much. -- TenOfSpades ( talk) 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
it is clear that someone in the administration is abusing their authority
Who? And how - by blocking you? There is no mind-probe to ascertain guilt and innocence - administrators can only go by the facts. If sockpuppets were being used from the same/near-same IP as you then they have to block you because 99.9% of the time they're right, and ignoring sockpuppetry would cause wikipedia to completely break-down. Don't complain because the administration is doing its job - you're thinking a bit too much of yourself if you believe you are being singled out. John Smith's ( talk) 12:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, why would people at your university suddenly involve themselves in this argument on an article which I'm sure would not interest them? It is a real niche subject. And how would someone "spoof" your IP address without knowing what it was/what you had been using? Indeed how would anyone "spoof" it to begin with? You may say that's the case, but it isn't a convincing argument which is why you weren't unblocked until the 72 hours was up. It wasn't personal from what I can see - have you had disputes with User:Slakr or User:Lucasbfr before where they were editing rather than acting as admins?
As for Ultramarine, you can't use the checkuser method to fish for people's IPs. They need to break a selection of rules as listed on the request page, otherwise your report will be rejected. If you have evidence of general sockpuppetry you need to collate it and make a convincing argument on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. John Smith's ( talk) 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added a Barnstar to your user page in recognition of your work on the Sandinistas article. I think it's really important that the US propaganda that was produced at that time is identified for what it is, although it seems that some editors use the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable sources policies to try and include dubious material. Arguing against these editors can be disheartening so thank you for pesisting in this case, the article will be all the better for it. Pexise ( talk) 17:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Good onya. Aho aho ( talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Edits like [13] or [14] aren't very helpful or civil - no need for things like "you need to get out more" or "you are either lying or phonetically challenged". Would you like others to speak to you like that? Comment on the content, please, not the contributor. Neıl ☎ 13:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser did not find it Confirmed, merely Likely, that any of these users were you.
What was Confirmed was that TenOfSpades and ElevenOfHearts were one and the same. Not that either was you. In fact, it would seem all the named accounts of the original request were found Unrelated to you. As far as I can tell, you're in the clear.
And of course, no action was taken against you. No harm, no foul, eh? :)
If I were you, I'd be more worried about 67.188.208.203. That one could cause trouble. — the Sidhekin ( talk) 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhhh...are you suggesting that i have anything to do with this? Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, really? So what you're saying is that people might block me even though i haven't done anything wrong? I mean -- i can see it happening once. But are you suggesting that it might become a pattern? Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. So how on earth can i avoid something like this? Basically, it sounds to me like what you're suggesting is that anyone who wants to make me look bad can. Certainly that last checkuser indicated that Ultramarine and his peanut gallery are trying to pin whatever they can to me, regardless of whether or not it's true. Stone put to sky ( talk) 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please create your own sandbox for your own proposals. You cannot edit my userpages without my permission. None given for the moment. Ultramarine ( talk) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, this conversation is now at an end. I will not discuss content with you, Ultarmarine. I appreciate you taking the time to make your position clear to me, though:
In light of these admissions i will, therefore, do as you ask: except when given permission otherwise, i will restrict my comments to the discussion page and let you know if i approve of the proposed changes or not. I find it hard to believe that you will find this situation to your liking -- it seems as if you are purposefully making things difficult on yourself -- but since you have made it clear that you are not willing to discuss or consider any other arrangements i shall abide by your requests. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You write "Reasons already given: POV language, Inaccurate text, improper linking" [16]
Content dispute. Take it to the discussion page, not here. Stone put to sky ( talk) 10:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't drive me away from that article by threatening me on the talk page. If you think you can make something stick against me on WP:ANI for reminding people of the results of the scokpuppetry inquiry against you, go right ahead and try. I advise you to read WP:CIVIL more closely. Jtrainor ( talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
See ANI report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_abusing_his_powers_in_content_dispute Please comment. Thank you. Supergreenred ( talk) 11:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For repeated sock puppetry, after two prior incidents, your account has been disabled until such time as you provide suitable assurances that no such thing will ever happen again. The evidence is located at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Stone put to sky .
To the administrator who may review this case, please do not unblock without discussion. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Stone put to sky ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
''This is an outrage! There is absolutely no possibility that i have any relationship to any of these people! I demand an immediate review, and i further demand that jehochman be immediately removed from this case! He has a history of harassing me that is clearly documented on this page! ::Let me repeat: these are invented charges with absolutely no basis in fact, clearly a conspiracy to remove me from the State Terrorism page, and i demand to be reinstated immediately!
Decline reason:
Checkuser rarely gets it wrong, and I have little reason to doubt that Thatcher--one of the more trusted checkusers here--misread anything. Personal attacks in unblock request don't help either. — Blueboy 96 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |title=
ignored (
help)
User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 1
User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 2
User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 3
Thanks for the message. Your friend sounds like quite the adventurer; you know we could really use your help on Ukelele if you have the time. You have expert knowledge that we need. You don't even need to edit the page if you lack the time or interest; criticism on the talk page would be just as welcome. There's also Talk:Ukulele/Comments. Thanks. — Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Next time you make false accusations regarding me, please present evidence.-- MONGO 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The page is in a diff here on Wikipedia as well as a long thread on another site which, conveniently enough, includes a great many people who have gotten quite familiar with your shenanigans from the inside.
As for my own evidence, let's just say that you've met me before but forgot who i am. So my suggestion is that people in glass houses shouldn't start throwing stones. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean to say that using the word "fascist" is worse than insulting someone as being a "liberal"? Stone put to sky ( talk) 11:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
First, i think that Wikipedia has made it quite clear that when we are discussing matters of protocol and sourcing the website itself is not to be used.
Second, the Nazis were not the only fascists. There were British, Italian, Central European (Croatian and Czech, in particular), Russian and French fascists. As well as quite a large number of U.S. fascists, as well (of which our current president's grandfather -- along with Henry Ford -- was a loud and proud supporter).
My suggestion to you both is that you need to get out of the house a bit more. Judging by the amount of time you each spend on Wikipedia you really don't have enough experience of this world to be attempting the arguments you are putting forth here, because with only a tiny bit more research on the word you'd discover that fascism as a political philosophy is still alive and well with supporters who are happily, openly going about their work in places like Italy, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain (among other places). There are Russian and Central European fascists, as well -- not to mention folks here in the U.S, most of whom call themselves "libertarian" or "conservative", these days. Simply because you two do not particularly care to be labeled as a "fascist" does not, ipso facto, turn that particular word into an insult - it is a clearly defined, neutral term which, in all its aspects, perfectly fits Devonshire, MONGO and Harrison's political advocacy (i have much less interaction with JungleCat, so i can' really say one way or the other on that). It is a name that many people around the world use to describe their political philosophy, and when they use the word they speak it proudly and without shame. Unlike MONGO's use of the term "liberals" or "extremists", there is nothing a priori insulting about the word.
Simply put, my use of the word "fascist" is as a neutral, descriptive term; perhaps you don't know any true Fascists. I, however, happen to count at least two as close personal friends of mine. I myself am not a fascist, and i think the perspective of people who advocate fascism is rather painfully limited and potentially destructive (fearsomely so). However, in the case of those two personal friends of mine i am still able to discuss politics with them politely and openly, and -- unlike in my relations with the cabal that you two happen to be a part of -- we are able to find a rhetorical space that allows for intelligent conversation.
So i must, once again, politely decline your admonitions. If you would like to take this up as an RfC somewhere i'll be happy to attend. Until such time, however, that the Oxford Dictionary singularly labels this particular word as a "pejorative epithet" (those big words are what we linguists use to mean "insult"), then you must simply deal with the fact that you are not allowed to stop people from using it when referring to you. Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"Our" policies? They seem more like "MONGO's personal policies" to me. At any rate, the "dumbshit" was clearly beyond the pale, which i admitted and am recalcitrant over. I haven't made that mistake again, and i won't. But i will insist, once again, that it was not the word "fascist" that was an insult. By adding "dumbshit" to *any* phrase it becomes an insult. Such as if someone were to call me a "dumbshit anarchist" -- insult, yes. But not the "anarchist" part.
And i will once again point out the implicit threat in your words; you are acting like the famed bully you are well known to be, MONGO -- appearing, once again, on my talk page and issuing threats all made up as if Wikipedia guidelines support you.
Of course, you may get me banned -- but it won't have anything to do with Wikipedia guidelines. It will, instead, be a product of the scheming you do on your off-site IRC chats and noticeboards. Stone put to sky ( talk) 08:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. We all knew you would respond that way, MONGO. But that doesn't change the facts of this case. Simply lying about them has gotten you quite far up until now. It will be interesting to see how much longer that will last. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I have brought this situation to the attention of administrators. You can respond here.-- MONGO 10:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
After trying ad nauseum to get you to understand that I did not like being called a fascist, nor enjoyed your misrepresentations about me and some supposed cabal, I saw no alternative for me except to bring it to AN/I. I'll write up an Rfc if it happens again. Sincerely,-- MONGO 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Allegations of state terrorism by the United States has you denying the good faith attempt to build consensus per Consensus, please read this policy. We are trying to determine if the citations meet WP policy, specifically RS. You are required to either participate in good faith, or not participate if you prefer. Statements like "Once again: specious argument. See the above comments by BernardL regarding the Atlantic, NR, Monthly Review,etc. and by me regarding Granma. AHRC, etc. They all apply equally well here. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)" don't stall the consensus process, because you are not engaged in a good faith consensus effort. Such "boilerplate statements may be ignored. Don't waste the bytes. They don't work, when you offer these they may be ignored.
Please engage (or not), but do so ONLY with a good faith effort. Raggz ( talk) 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Raggz, but this is more appropriate on the talk page. I must once again protest that you should be addressing these issues there. Finally, i will once again point out that, in fact, it is you who is violating the consensus on the page. You are attempting to introduce weasel words into the introduction and eliminate a good deal of content on the basis of specious interpretations of wikipedia guidelines. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read your writing below. We not only agreed to comply with Consensus, You proposed three day notice on TALK. While this is an informal and non-binding guideline, I point out that you are NOT even using TALK at all. Raggz ( talk) 09:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"I'm sorry, Raggz, but this is more appropriate on the talk page. I must once again protest that you should be addressing these issues there. Finally, i will once again point out that, in fact, it is you who is violating the consensus on the page. You are attempting to introduce weasel words into the introduction and eliminate a good deal of content on the basis of specious interpretations of wikipedia guidelines. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again: you did not clear that change with the people who are here. For future reference, i would suggest a waiting period of at least 36 hours before presuming that you have some sort of agreement here. Many of the maintainers of this page are quite busy -- i'm on a few off-days right now, so right now i happen to have the time to spend on helping you out, here -- but many of them are also quite busy and don't appear every day. Simply declaring that you are going to edit the page because you think an agreement has been reached in no way indicates an agreement has been reached anywhere except in your own mind, and waiting 30 minutes to then proceed from there to the actual edit -- without any input from the community of page maintainers -- is, as i have explained to you repeatedly, not a good method to use on this page. Simply put: if you make edits without first clearing them with the community of page maintainers here then you are almost certain to see them reverted. I have already explained to you why that is the case several times, now. Once again: my suggestion is that you create a sandbox and make your suggestions there, first. Then we can all make contributions and debate the changes without causing an edit war.
Of course, I am presuming that you are not interested in sparking an edit war. Am i wrong in that? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)"
I just noticed that you have been trolling WP:ANI.
This is a warning to stop this behavior. Please read WP:TROLL, especially the sections on abuse of process and making false accusations, and make sure not to engage in these behaviors or other anti-social tactics. Unless you adjust your editing style, I unfortunately might need to block your account to protect the project from further disruption. Jehochman Talk 06:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The 3-tier diff and link series |
---|
Twice you have reverted the following text: "In 1998 the Cuban government charged the Cuban American National Foundation, which was founded in 1981 at the initiative of the Reagan administration and receives U.S. government funding [1] with, according to the official government-controlled Radio Havana Cuba, the continued financing of anti-Cuban terrorist activities [2] Granma, the official newspaper of Cuba, also reported that U.S. senator Mel Martinez was meeting with Cuban American terrorists and sponsoring them via CANF. [3]" Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
The source does NOT say that the US supports the Cuban American National '''Foundation'''. It says that it supports the Cuban American National Council. Read the cite. Stop inserting material that you know is incorrect into the article. Use TALK. What does this mean? That the Article cannot claim that the US Government funds the Cuban American National Foundation, unless you have another reliable source. Raggz ( talk) 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, these discussions and questions are appropriate on the talk page. All my reasons have already been given in the summaries, and if you have any issues you should take it up on that page -- not here. Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment about the edit. It is a very small contribution to the article compared to the work that you have done. It looks like the talk page is taking a very nasty turn, but I hope that all parties involved are going to be able to focus on content and step back from personality conflicts. TheRedPenOfDoom ( talk) 12:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You said you live and teach in Taiwan, yet you said "instructing my Chinese students in its use as a research and understanding starting point."
Surely you meant Taiwanese students, or do you teach the literature class or something? As it is, it doesn't make sense to say you teach Chinese students in Taiwan. John Smith's ( talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni is correct; the use of the word "Taiwanese" is very controversial, whereas my students are overwhelmingly ethnic Chinese. They speak chinese, write it, worship in chinese temples, support chinese cultural institutions, and identify first and foremost with their chinese historical and cultural heritage.
For my part, i view the issues you are implicitly referring to -- the "international legal status of Taiwan", "independence", "unification", "reunification", or whatever you want to call it -- far more subtly than merely what governmental title the people of this island will be subsumed under. For instance, the word "Taiwanese" is also used to refer to the ethnic Min majority here. However, these people make up only some 70% of the total population, and the unfortunate truth is that the foremost representatives of their political leadership are all deeply prone to ethnic chauvinism at the expense of the other minorities.
So, to answer your question quickly: no. I meant "my Chinese students". There are quite a few non-chinese peoples on this island, and the distinction is quite clear to anyone who is familiar with the politics and culture of Taiwan. Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you are wrong; and your pretense is showing through quite clearly. You obviously know very little about what the situation over here actually is. Stone put to sky ( talk) 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me right? All this because he put "my Chinese students" on his userpage? Seriously, John Smith's, talk to enough people from or in Taiwan, and you'll realise that some will only call themselves Taiwanese (台灣人), and some will call themselves both Taiwanese and Chinese (華人). Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 07:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
I award you this in recognition of your tireless work in defending Wikipedia from censors who would suppress important encyclopedic knowledge for non-legitimate POV reasons. Specifically your tireless work in defense of the often heated American Terrorism article. Giovanni33 ( talk) 07:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC) |
"The article would be a better WP article if it complied with WP policy. Let us focus on the article and not personalities? Raggz (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC) "
"It does. You don't. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)"
Waht do you really mean? Raggz ( talk) 08:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant that the article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and -- as has been explained to you repeatedly -- that your own interpretations of those policies and guidelines are clearly invalid.
Stone put to sky (
talk)
08:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As i said: we have already pointed out to you that not every source needs to use the specific words "state terror" to be included. We have spent many hours explaining precisely why this is so. Therefore, if you want to tag something with that and have us take you seriously you'll need to give more explanation on the talk page, here, and then actually spend the time waiting for an answer before you go and make the change.
Secondly, your "correction" may or may not be correct. However, as with other edits it would be best if you floated your suggestions on the talk page here, first, so that we can discuss the context of the change and whether or not you are actually interpolating your own interpretation in place of the actual wording. You have done that sort of thing before, and we are wary of it. None of this would be an issue if you had simply cleared your edits here, first. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
We are having communication challenges here. Can we resolve these by ourselves? Raggz ( talk) 10:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, and is inappropriate on my personal talk page. Please post these questions where they belong: on the article's discussion page. Stone put to sky ( talk) 10:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not really interested in the constant arguing that is taking place on the page regarding state terrorism, however if something further occurs regarding the Philippines, please let me know. -- WheezyF ( talk) 17:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at the dispute at the JDL related dispute at Meir Weinstein? Thanks. Black as pitch ( talk) 03:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I hope we agree that Wikipedia should show all views. If arguments are superior, then surely they can be supported by adding sourced opposing views, in a free exchange of views. But blank deletions of disliked arguments do not look good. Ultramarine ( talk) 06:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You wrote "purposefully lying". Read WP:NPA. This will be my only warning. I will report you the next time. Ultramarine ( talk) 10:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: "You appear increasingly combative and tendentious in your challenges -- all of which are clearly pushing a particular political POV -- and many people here are suspicious that you are in serious breach of WP:AGF." [12]
Interesting.
I am wondering: did you leave this warning on the pages of the other three editors who have made the same statement? Stone put to sky ( talk) 13:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you please review the debate at Talk:Meir_Weinstein#my_opinion? Thanks. Black as pitch ( talk) 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
— slakr\ talk / 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Stone put to sky ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have not been sockpuppeting and haven't violated the 3RR
Decline reason:
Yes you have, and to be honest I would have blocked for more than 72 hours. -- lucasbfr talk 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
Uhhh....wait a minute. No, i haven't. I have no idea what's going on here, but it seems pretty clear there's some sort of mistake. I wasn't on wikipedia and none of those accounts have anything to do with me. I have never used a sockpuppet account and have made it quite clear that i don't like others using them, either.
In fact, i have requested a checkuser on Ultramarine at least once, maybe twice in the past. Oddly, the requests were simply rejected; nobody was willing to just take the time to check and see if his ip was related to another that was posting at the same time. Similarly, i have filed two(!) AN/Is on Ultramarine with absolutely no comment left on what are clearly attempts to abuse wikipedia guidelines.
Now i'm being banned for 72 hours because my ip is are "similar" to someone else's? Did it never occur to anyone that i may be (as in fact i am) posting from a university and from within the community around it? The block of ip's i post from are dhcp accounts from a local internet provider; they get assigned at random and have nothing to do with who one is or isn't, nor much to do with where one is or isn't. There's small likelihood of me getting a renewed IP that shares more than one or two numbers in common; these networks span scores of class b networks and run four that i know of in this particular area (Taipei). So now someone spoofs an ip address that looks "similar" to mine and i get banned? I don't understand what's going on, but i would like my name cleared and my account restored, please. Stone put to sky ( talk) 05:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wrote all these articles, and you go after me for political arguments, some nerve.
Your priorities suck, enjoy your time away while I make some needed changes to that article you love so much. -- TenOfSpades ( talk) 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
it is clear that someone in the administration is abusing their authority
Who? And how - by blocking you? There is no mind-probe to ascertain guilt and innocence - administrators can only go by the facts. If sockpuppets were being used from the same/near-same IP as you then they have to block you because 99.9% of the time they're right, and ignoring sockpuppetry would cause wikipedia to completely break-down. Don't complain because the administration is doing its job - you're thinking a bit too much of yourself if you believe you are being singled out. John Smith's ( talk) 12:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, why would people at your university suddenly involve themselves in this argument on an article which I'm sure would not interest them? It is a real niche subject. And how would someone "spoof" your IP address without knowing what it was/what you had been using? Indeed how would anyone "spoof" it to begin with? You may say that's the case, but it isn't a convincing argument which is why you weren't unblocked until the 72 hours was up. It wasn't personal from what I can see - have you had disputes with User:Slakr or User:Lucasbfr before where they were editing rather than acting as admins?
As for Ultramarine, you can't use the checkuser method to fish for people's IPs. They need to break a selection of rules as listed on the request page, otherwise your report will be rejected. If you have evidence of general sockpuppetry you need to collate it and make a convincing argument on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. John Smith's ( talk) 12:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added a Barnstar to your user page in recognition of your work on the Sandinistas article. I think it's really important that the US propaganda that was produced at that time is identified for what it is, although it seems that some editors use the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable sources policies to try and include dubious material. Arguing against these editors can be disheartening so thank you for pesisting in this case, the article will be all the better for it. Pexise ( talk) 17:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Good onya. Aho aho ( talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Edits like [13] or [14] aren't very helpful or civil - no need for things like "you need to get out more" or "you are either lying or phonetically challenged". Would you like others to speak to you like that? Comment on the content, please, not the contributor. Neıl ☎ 13:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The checkuser did not find it Confirmed, merely Likely, that any of these users were you.
What was Confirmed was that TenOfSpades and ElevenOfHearts were one and the same. Not that either was you. In fact, it would seem all the named accounts of the original request were found Unrelated to you. As far as I can tell, you're in the clear.
And of course, no action was taken against you. No harm, no foul, eh? :)
If I were you, I'd be more worried about 67.188.208.203. That one could cause trouble. — the Sidhekin ( talk) 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Uhhh...are you suggesting that i have anything to do with this? Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, really? So what you're saying is that people might block me even though i haven't done anything wrong? I mean -- i can see it happening once. But are you suggesting that it might become a pattern? Stone put to sky ( talk) 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. So how on earth can i avoid something like this? Basically, it sounds to me like what you're suggesting is that anyone who wants to make me look bad can. Certainly that last checkuser indicated that Ultramarine and his peanut gallery are trying to pin whatever they can to me, regardless of whether or not it's true. Stone put to sky ( talk) 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Please create your own sandbox for your own proposals. You cannot edit my userpages without my permission. None given for the moment. Ultramarine ( talk) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, this conversation is now at an end. I will not discuss content with you, Ultarmarine. I appreciate you taking the time to make your position clear to me, though:
In light of these admissions i will, therefore, do as you ask: except when given permission otherwise, i will restrict my comments to the discussion page and let you know if i approve of the proposed changes or not. I find it hard to believe that you will find this situation to your liking -- it seems as if you are purposefully making things difficult on yourself -- but since you have made it clear that you are not willing to discuss or consider any other arrangements i shall abide by your requests. Stone put to sky ( talk) 09:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You write "Reasons already given: POV language, Inaccurate text, improper linking" [16]
Content dispute. Take it to the discussion page, not here. Stone put to sky ( talk) 10:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't drive me away from that article by threatening me on the talk page. If you think you can make something stick against me on WP:ANI for reminding people of the results of the scokpuppetry inquiry against you, go right ahead and try. I advise you to read WP:CIVIL more closely. Jtrainor ( talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
See ANI report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_abusing_his_powers_in_content_dispute Please comment. Thank you. Supergreenred ( talk) 11:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
For repeated sock puppetry, after two prior incidents, your account has been disabled until such time as you provide suitable assurances that no such thing will ever happen again. The evidence is located at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Stone put to sky .
To the administrator who may review this case, please do not unblock without discussion. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Stone put to sky ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
''This is an outrage! There is absolutely no possibility that i have any relationship to any of these people! I demand an immediate review, and i further demand that jehochman be immediately removed from this case! He has a history of harassing me that is clearly documented on this page! ::Let me repeat: these are invented charges with absolutely no basis in fact, clearly a conspiracy to remove me from the State Terrorism page, and i demand to be reinstated immediately!
Decline reason:
Checkuser rarely gets it wrong, and I have little reason to doubt that Thatcher--one of the more trusted checkusers here--misread anything. Personal attacks in unblock request don't help either. — Blueboy 96 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |title=
ignored (
help)