User talk:Stone put to sky

User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 1

User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 2

User talk:Stone put to sky/Archive 3

Your message

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)

Request

Next time you make false accusations regarding me, please present evidence.--MONGO 12:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not made any sorts of false accusations about you. And you know that. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This bogus unsubstantiated post to AN/I is precisely the kind of misinformation and wrongful allegation I am referring to. Don't repeat this kind of nonsense unless you can provide evidence. There is the distinct possibility that more than a few people other than myself and the others you slandered might disagree with you. I haven't edited that page for six months, Tom harrison hasn't edited anywhere since 11/24 and Morton Devonshire left the project before that. Get your facts straight next time....and cease making insults.[1]--MONGO 09:03, 12 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)

Thanks for the laugh, Stone. I figure your banning is inevitable...I'll just wait for you to call someone a fascist again just because they disagree with you.--MONGO 09:19, 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)

Well, yeah. I don't see anything bad with being a labelled a liberal or a conservative for that matter. Calling anyone here a fascist has an entirely different meaning.--MONGO 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone, to put everything in perspective, I am a conservative. However, I also know that my contributions to Wikipedia must be from a neutral point of view as per our policy here. I also have some friends and even a few relatives who are moderate liberals. To be honest, they know that this is their political view, and they will admit it with no shame. If you called me a liberal, I wouldn't care for it, but it wouldn't offend me either. If you are a liberal, that's fine with me. Here is where we have a problem - You really need to stop using the word "fascist". Please see this section here: Differences and similarities with Nazism from our encyclopedia page defining the term. You are treading into thin ice using this word to describe users who view differently than you do. If you keep this up, will be reported for disruption. Please consider my advice and do not ever use that term again to describe other users here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Come now -- you are one of the most extreme and biased editors on Wikipedia. For my part, my edits have presented only bare, neutral facts for the simple reason that any time i have tried to add neutral, properly sourced commentary MONGO has rounded up his passel of sockpuppeteers and kiddie-thugs and had them delete it. Both of you are well known for your lack of both neutrality and civility in Wikipedia, so it is quite ironic to see you popping in here to lecture me on the mattter. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:43, 13 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)

Your "fascist" friends...do you call them "dumbshit"s as well? [2]It does seem old news ot warn you about what you did sometime ago. But since you seem to not understand that it is just as unacceptable now as it was then, I guess I'll have to waste editing time dealing with your ongoing inability to adhere to our policies.--MONGO 08:28, 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)

Is that a fact? I see, I am so nefarious in my actions. I am asking you for the last time to adhere to our policies, and those include not using derogatory terms to describe those you disagree with. In case you have not seen them before, look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I don't appreciate being called a fascist or having my integrity impuned with false allegations about running some cabal.--MONGO 08:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Asking me to adhere to which policy would that be, exactly? Once again: "fascist" in and of itself is not an inherently derogatory term. If you don't believe me then simply go look it up in a dictionary or political science textbook. As for your running of the cabal, there is at least one person who has publicy come out and exposed it. You know who i'm talking about, so i won't bother to link to the diffs. In addition to him, though, there are others i know who have (and are willing to publish) documentary evidence to back up their own claims. And then, of course, there are my own logs and e-mails. I'm not ready to move yet, MONGO, but when i am it really won't matter if it's under this name or another one, so ban away. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone...you're referring to a posting by NuclearUmpf, who was banned. His accusation that things were coordinated off wiki was nonsense...many people from different political perspectives watch those pages...and this website has people who are no longer editing or have just arrived....it is constantly in a state of flux. NuclearUmpf returned as editor SevenOfDiamonds and the arbitration committee banned that account as well. If you wish to see my actions as being "wrong", there is nothing I can do about that...but to post inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims against myself and others when I haven't touched the page you're alluding to in over 6 months, is a pretty bad example of your inability to refrain from no personal attacks and your ongoing incivility. If you have suspicions regarding myself or others using alternative accounts (sockpuppets) to edit war on the pages you suggest, then you should take your evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser to get it substantiated...I think you'll be disappointed when you find your allusion is erroneous.--MONGO 09:15, 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)

Denial of Consensus

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)

Violation of Consensus

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 would like to point out that you have engaged in a destructive edit of my personal talk page. I will presume that, this once, it was an honest mistake. But i will not do so again. When you are dealing with others on their personal talk pages you should be quite careful not to inadvertently engage in destructive behavior. That is common courtesy, here, and i would be happier if i weren't forced to mention it again. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:33, 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)"

Not using talk? I just returned from there. It is you who are posting here -- which is obviously not on the State Terrorism talk page -- whereas it is i who is posting in the appropriate place. I have given clear and unambiguous responses to every comment you have posted. And finally, although you did wait three days you never did gain consensus for the proposed changes. In fact,although three days have passed since you first attempted the alteration to the page, it is only just now that you ever posted the proposed alterations to the talk page -- thus, it would be from *now* that the "3 days" commences; not 3 days back. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm back to praise your effort to engage in the process required by Consensus. Today you are engaged, and I could ask for nothing more. As of today, you matter, because you are making a good faith effort. Yesterday, you were not engaged, today you are. Consensus shifted again today, away from consensus to a deadlock. I can understand that you are tired of the same issues, and thank you for your decision to engage once more. Raggz (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your praise is entirely unnecessary and misplaced. I have only ever asked for your own engagement in the proper protocols, and up until this moment at least -- i have yet to check the state terrorism page -- you have not complied. If you continue to reject wikipedia guidelines and protocols then i will continue to insist that you change your behavior, and with that in mind i would urge you to consider your own actions rather than trying to shift blame for this impasse upon me. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Trolling

I just noticed that you have been trolling WP:ANI.

• Diffs: [3] [4] [5] [6]

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)

I'm sorry -- could you please explain your objections in greater detail? What is it about those posts that you feel qualifies them as trolling? Stone put to sky (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

From the page you link to:

• Edit warring

I didn't do this.

• Uploading inappropriate content

I didn't do this.

• Misuse of process

The AN/I is about me, and i am defending myself. Or am i missing something?

• Pestering

I haven't done this. In fact, it was i who was sought out by these people -- most of whom i haven't even had any interaction with

• Misplaced criticism

So far as i can tell the criticisms have been overwhelmingly directed at me. Not the other way around.

• Creative trolling

And i didn't do this.

I'm sorry,but i'm just at a complete loss about what the problem is. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You are making very long posts to ANI, one after another, without any supporting diffs. These are naked assertions of wrongdoing against fellow editors. If somebody does something wrong, you need to provide a concise explanation, with diffs, as I have done above. Additionally, arguing about the proper use of fascist (epithet) in this situation is anti-social. If fellow editors object to a specific term, do not continue to use it or even mention it to them. You seem to be intelligent and command a large vocabulary. Surely you can find other words to express yourself to avoid offending people. I recommend you have a nice cup of tea or whatever may be your favorite refreshment. As you relax these conflicts may become less important, and you will be able to cooperate more effectively. Jehochman ^Talk 06:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't given supporting diffs because i haven't accused anyone of anything. Others are accusing me of wrongdoing. All i have done is point out that i haven't, in fact, done anything wrong.

And let me get this straight: are you commanding me to never again use the word "fascist" on wikipedia?

It seems odd to me that you are protesting my supposed "trolling" but haven't, apparently, read what was written there: i haven't labled anyone a fascist. I've never directed the term at any particular person or group, neither as an epithet nor as a proper characterization.

How can i provide supporting diffs for something like that? I'm not making any evidentially-based claims nor am i accusing anyone of any particular transgression. I haven't pushed to have anyone disciplined or banned. I haven't asked that any action be taken against anybody. The most i've done is ask for administrative oversight on a hotly contested page. How, then, can i provide diffs? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me pour more WP:TEA. We can talk further tomorrow. Jehochman ^Talk 07:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone, stand tall against such abuse of wikiplicy by Jehochman. Jehochman POV and loyalty is evident in his glowing support for MONGO's failed adminship. [7] Answering accusations against yourself on ANI is not trolling, Jehochman knows better. Big surprise, Jehochman didn't exactly scold and threaten MONGO with a boot when he told and editor to fuck off. If Jehochman continues to harass you with irrelevant policy, post a complaint on WP:ANI. Trav (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL I just realized something, your statement "Anyone who might suggest that this topic be deleted is either a dumbshit fascist or a dumbshit dupe." is [8] from 3 April 2007, almost 9 months ago. Why is this being brought up at ANI now? LOL. Trav (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know. What's more, it was a very general statement that was in no way directed at MONGO or anyone in particular, just a general observation that there seemed to be deeply felt political motives -- rather then real concern for Wikipedia policy -- behind the RfD. But even so, i apologized for it and have not made any similar transgressions since.

I did stop by MONGO's page and discovered, there, that he and JTrainor were amassing "evidence" -- most of which is stretched extremely thin -- to bring against me in another attempt to get me banned. Which i find unfortunate. I do not spend my time looking to get into such skirmishes; it seems they just come to me. Even so, i will endeavor to give MONGO, JTrainor, et al, my best face and intent. Just as i hope that they will me.

But having said that, these attempts to amass evidence and bring AN/I's against me does seem to be motivated by something more than just a concern for Wikipedia policy. I do not think either my sincerity, good will or diligence is in question, here. Thus, all this attention gives me a strange sense of concern. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You can delete this information, as this user did on my page.[9][10]

Along with other users, I find this user's hypocrisy disconcerting. Don't let them push you around. Also please be careful with what you say and don't shoot your friends in the back. Trav (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. As a general rule, though, i don't like to delete things i post. I don't have anything to hide and i'm not out to game the system; so i leave my words on display. WSIWYG

Believe it or not, i try quite diligently to keep from hurting others; even my rivals and enemies. As i'm sure you've found, however, people online and on wikipedia can often appear to be something different than what they actually are. Cooperating here is like cooking; when making a salad it's better not to throw whatever's available together, but instead to carefully pick over possible ingredients according to the demands of your entree. Similarly, sometimes even an enemy's interests and passions accord well with the moment, while at others even the most sincere efforts by the most sincere comrades can seem counter-productive.

But, just as a restaurant doesn't provide a step-by-step recipe about how to prepare the meal, so also personal motivations fall by the side (or are quashed by an admin). Between us there is a lot of past cooperation that worked well in the face of a lot of adversity; when the chips were stacked against us, we worked together to excellent effect. That's something i will not forget, and it has given me a solid measure of faith; you have no need to worry about any hidden vendettas from me. Even so, i can think of many times when it has seemed to me that editors with whom i am in general agreement have evaluated contributions of mine as counter-productive and/or beneath consideration; in frustration i've watched on as suggestions and proposed content was deleted or ignored, only to see much of it be later re-introduced in a slightly altered form. That's the nature of Wikipedia and that is one of the reasons i like this place so much; ideas (both good and bad) get rejected, re-formulated, re-phrased, re-parsed, spun and re-spun, giving one an insight into collective efforts that is impossible to achieve anywhere else.

So you have nothing to worry about from my end; speak your mind with me and i'll reciprocate (but don't we both know that this place makes that quite difficult?). I promise that you can always, at the very least, count on our general agreement. With this latest round of deletions on the Allegations.... page apparently drawing down, i plan on spending more time over on the CIA page where i hope that we can cooperate to make some really, really good things happen. For the moment, however, i need to take a brief break: The (Chinese) New Year is coming up and the family thing will soon be underway. I need to put together some nice desserts and pies and go do the feast. I will, however, be looking in on the CIA page and taking notes about where to go next. Last i checked, Berkowitz' sandbox didn't really go anywhere.

And thanks again. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Incorrect Citations

Warning

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 with, according to the official government-controlled Radio Havana Cuba, the continued financing of anti-Cuban terrorist activities 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." 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)

Why did you also delete the FACT template? Raggz (talk) 05:15, 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)

RE: Just wanted to say...

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)

Query about your user page

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)

Yes, it does make sense, since Taiwan is a Republic of China! The people in Taiwan are mostly Chinese (Han Chinese to be specific). The indigenous Taiwanese only make up a tiny minority of the population, in fact.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, if I wanted your opinion I would have asked you. You were advised to leave me alone - stop pursuing me. John Smith's (talk) 07:58, 31 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)

Hmm, Chinese is a nationality not an ethnicity. And the term "Taiwanese" to describe people is hardly controverisal - you see it in all the Chinese newspapers. Do your students call themselves Chinese? Few people in Taiwan do. John Smith's (talk) 07:58, 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)

I am wrong how? That Chinese newspapers do not refer to "Taiwanese compatriots"? That most Taiwanese do not call themselves Chinese when identifying themselves? I suppose it depends how the question is asked, but I've never had someone correct me and say "no, I am Chinese in Taiwan" or some such. I actually do know a fair bit about Taiwan. John Smith's (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not my job to educate you about Taiwan. I get paid over $40/hr for this sort of work, and if you are interested then send me a pay-pal donation and i'll be happy to set up some online courses for you. For my part, i live here and i have already spent a few sentences explaining to you how you are wrong. I'm not interested in repeating myself and i certainly won't argue with you. As my grandmother used to say (albeit more prosaically): there's no use in arguing with someone who knows less than you do. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, someone's a bit snooty. I was only asking a few questions about a place you live and I have interest in myself. An interesting discussion is hardly an argument. And you have not explained how the term "Taiwanese" is controverisal if the Chinese & Taiwanese media use it, Taiwanese use it and even Chinese people use it because I hadn't even raised those points earlier. Yes, there are "ethnic Taiwanese" who maybe deserve the term more. But does that mean the majority of people living in the US are not "Americans" but actually English, Germans, etc? John Smith's (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, not "snooty". You have stepped upon a sore spot and, after having two people discreetly point out to you your insensitivity you have nevertheless continued to press the issue.

As i said: i'm not going to spend my time educating you. If you don't understand what i'm saying then please, mull it over a bit until you come up with questions that are less offensive and more humble. As it is, your "few questions" have come off as direct challenges to the information that i provide on my user page; you have made some assertions in utter confidence of your own understanding but which are clearly great errors to most other people; you continue to argue that you are correct even after i have explained to you where you should reconsider; and you now are drawing support from false analogies, with each new assertion demonstrating a greater need to go back and reconsider what i've already said.

It would be as if someone were to say "Oh, you say on your user page you're an American, but we all know that the main country over there is really called The United States. So what is it -- did you mean you're Canadian, or Mexican?" And then were to follow it up with "Well, American isn't an identity, it's an ethnicity, so you clearly must be Amerind." And then were to go for the trifecta by saying "Well look at you! I was just asking a simple question! I'm from France, and while we have some emigres from other nations we are largely a single ethnicity; so now are you saying that we French aren't descended from Franks?"

You would find such questions rather off-putting, just as i do yours. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sky, I was asking a question about how you refer to your students - not how you refer to yourself. I think your comparisons don't quite work.

My comments were not meant to be a challenge - I am sorry if you thought they were. I thought that you might be referring to the actual class you taught, as well as the possibility you saw them as "being" Chinese. There was also the fact you could have made a mistake if you had taught in China before - I know someone whose website said for half a year that they were in Singapore when actually they had moved to HK (they just forgot to change it).

Talking about how much money you can charge and saying that one knows "very little" is being snooty - the latter is also insensitive, as you don't actually know what my links/ties/interest in that region is. You also said that this matter is a sore spot. If you would like to tell me how it is sore for you, I would be most interested. If not, that's fine. But it is a little unreasonable to assume someone would think that Taiwanese indentity is a sore spot for someone who comes from North America. I know a lot of US expats in Taiwan, with differing views on what Taiwan is, where it should go, etc but none have said Taiwanese identity is a sore-spot for them, nor that calling someone "Taiwanese" was controversial. So from my experience I believed there wouldn't be a problem here either. John Smith's (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is true that there are a lot of expats here who think they speak for the Taiwanese people. By and large they are from the U.S. and Canada.

It is also true, however, that their opinions are rarely -- if ever -- supported by most of the people who live here.

While you may feel i am "being snooty", i personally think it rather odd that my basic, factual statements about how the word "chinese" is used (in english), the ethnic makeup of Taiwan, and the tension which surrounds how the (chinese) words "chinese" and "taiwanese" are used here have all been challenged. I have not been making up explanations or theorizing about anything. What i have stated are basic facts. Yet you have chosen to take them as points of debate and pursued them as if they were in question.

While you may not see my examples as accurate, i assure you they are. I have the advantage of having been a resident of both North America and Taiwan. My examples accurately translate the sense of consternation i have felt at your line of questioning.

What i find most odd, however, is that i have outright told you, now -- three times -- that i feel i have adequately answered your questions and that the subsequent push for more information seems to me both intrusive and impolitic. Yet you have continued.

Please do not think i am angry. I am merely suggesting that it would perhaps be wisest if you were to take a brief break, think about the things i have already stated, and then -- if you still have questions -- come back and pursue the matter later, when you have composed your questions with a more welcome rhetoric.

I am not averse to chatting. I simply do not like other people questioning my private identity, just as i do not enjoy debating lexical and cultural ideas that i happen to find trivial. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The point about the expats was more that they had never said to me that it was "sore" in respect of how they felt - so if it is a sore point for you, I had no reason to expect that being the case. If you are saying it is sore for some Taiwanese, well neither of us are Taiwanese.

Your views are not snooty in the slightest. What I found snooty was talking about how much you charged for work and that my knowledge was so poor/insufficient when you know little about me.

If someone says "I have answered your question" but one cannot see an answer to their satisfaction, it is natural to point the point again. It is hardly rude to do that. If I kept asking then that would not be polite, but I haven't pushed the matter again.

What I gleaned from your response was that you feel the term "Taiwanese" is controversial, and I am sure some others feel the same way. What I was suggesting, and maybe there was some confusion, was that it is not generally perceived as being controversial. For example, some people view the BBC as being controversial. But if someone said "it is controversial" I would disagree because I would not see that as a generally held view. If you had said "group X sees the term 'Taiwanese' as being controverisal", I might have agreed. But to say something is controversial, in my book at least, suggests that it is a generally-held view/clear fact.

What does your private identity have to do with this? I have never questioned it. John Smith's (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, JohnSmith's, but i'm quite busy and haven't the time to continue this conversation. Perhaps we should continue it another day. Stone put to sky talk) 14:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)) 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting you to reply at any particular point - feel free to contact me on my talk page. John Smith's (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

John Smith appears to have quite the talent for "pushing people's buttons". I hope you can let this incident pass and continue to contribute your insightful outlook and not let what may be interpreted as his provocations to distract from the content work you are doing on the article Allegations of State Terrorism. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries.  ;-) Stone put to sky (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Provocations"? How is it provoking to suggest to an American-expat that calling people in Taiwan "Taiwanese" is not controversial? John Smith's (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree JohnSmiths good at pushing people's buttons. I think he should send a paypal donation to StoneInTheSky for Stone's time in educating John on this question, even though the student seems ungrateful. I have also lived and taught in Taiwan, and I can vouch that JohnSmith is wrong and Stone is correct.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, someone who lived in Taiwan would not say "Taiwan is a Republic of China", nor would they use the historical state as a reason to call people in Taiwan "Chinese" given the only reason it isn't changed is because of pressure from Beijing and Washington. John Smith's (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have your own reality, then, because I have lived in Taiwan, and since I said that, ergo, your statement is contra-factual.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So because you lived in Taiwan you are right that people there say "Taiwan is a Republic of China" and I am wrong in suggesting the island's political title has no bearing on the identity of the people that live there? If you were there you couldn't have paid much attention to material on this subject. John Smith's (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lamest...thread...ever... Notice that none of this has anything to do with the encyclopedia. Step away...--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I already did. And thank you, Giovanni, for pointing out what i thought was obvious. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:39, 1 February 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)

And John Smith's, don't bother accusing me of wikistalking. I've got both yours and Giovanni's userpage, as well as your ArbCom case on my watchlist (and you know I'm just as annoyed at Giovanni as I am at you for continuing your feud). It tends to catch an editor's attention when an admin writes in the edit summary "final warn"[11]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow.

i really mean that --

Wow. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Barn star

		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)

What you really meant was ...

"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)

More detail is necessary, please explain? Raggz (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting without clear explanations

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)

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. Every allegation must have a source that alleges state terrorism. Not every source need allege this. Raggz (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I request again, to know why you made the two specific reverts (above). If you don't tell me, I cannot understand your reasons. Raggz (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think -- but i'm not sure -- that what you meant to type was something more like this:

"I don't understand your explanation. Could you please make it simpler for me?"

To which i respond:

But how can i make it any simpler than it already is? Your edits appeared to violate both established consensus and Wikipedia policy and were of questionable veracity. How much simpler can it be? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I request again, to know why you made the two specific reverts (above). WP:CON does not require consensus for my correction of what Churchill actually said? Do you misunderstand? You also reverted Richards, Charles (1 December 1990). "Gladio is still opening wounds". The Independent: 12. This cite does not allege US state terrorism. Why? Do you believe that this citation has any relevance to this topic? If so, please explain? Raggz (talk) 09:51, 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)

Assistance

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)

Meir Weinstein

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)

Deleted materal

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)

This is a content dispute. Thus, i will take this opportunity to point out that this should not be addressed here. I will go on, however, to remind you that all of your objections have been repeatedly addressed on the page in question for nearly six months, now. The vast majority of the regular, contributing editors to this article agree that the sources you have provided for these extraordinarily uncommon claims are not sufficient to back up the points you have tried to use them to justify. Certainly, Wikipedia should show all sides. However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the consensus of the regular contributors to that page is that your additions to the Sandinista article are essentially political activism that has no basis in acknowledged fact or established consensus.

I suggest you find more and better sources for your assertions, at which time I will be happy to continue this discussion. I do insist, however, that content disputes remain on the discussion pages for the articles in question. Do not bring them to my talk page; this something i have already asked of you several times. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

NPA

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)

I asked you to take a look at the talk page to which we were posting. All that was needed was for you to scroll up and look. I pointed out that there were at least five different long-term editors who had objected to the material. You response was "incorrect".

Let's see, i count: MarkB2, Pexise, myself, Abe Froman, and Notmyrealname who objected to inclusion of the material. Tbkflav -- a neutral, third-party editor with no direct interest in the page -- appeared and voiced his opinion that the section was in serious need of review and a re-write because of its violation of NPOV. These discussions continued from July to the present, and were carried on at various times by all of the editors mentioned as well as a few anon's.

Your response was "incorrect". Since it's clear that i was not incorrect -- and that it was very, very easy for you to see that -- are you saying you were not purposefully misrepresenting the situation? If so, i will happily retract my assertion. The only problem is that, if it is true and you were not lying, then you were casually making a false statement in an obvious effort to discredit my line of argument, even though you hadn't bothered to scroll up and look at the discussion page to which we were posting.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that also -- now -- an egregious violation of WP:NPA? As in: casually making false statements? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be CIVIL

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]

Personal remarks, accusations, and failure to assume the assumption of good faith?

Please, try to stay cool! — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

In this context? I've seen just one other editor making substantially similar statements, and that editor now seems to me to be cooling down, so I've opted not to pursue it. I'm not sure who the other two may be; perhaps I'm coming too late to the scene?

Feel free to pass the tips on to whoever you feel may benefit from them though. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Weinstein

Can you please review the debate at Talk:Meir_Weinstein#my_opinion? Thanks. Black as pitch (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not allow this edit stay. It is extremely POV. Please discuss it before doing it again, he is the leader of the JDL (that is the name of his organization) nothing before that. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you find common ground to comparing Meir Weinstein to that of a Hamas leader? Meir Weinstein has killed no one, and has only engaged in peaceful protests! JDL is not listed as a terror organization in Canada and never was.--Eternalsleeper (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/it0468/appa.htm#appa Stone put to sky (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Abusing sock puppet accounts: violation of the three revert rule.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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).

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)

Boo hoo hoo. Enjoy your break and stop trying to tie me back to Ultra, non standard socks proxy port says there will never be proof the accounts are linked. You would think a uni would not be running an outside accessible proxy wouldn't you? All I did for this site and fools like you kept attacking me, now I have 3 accounts you can't link back since you never found the original and I get to move onto my next target. Even after I tried helping you poor fools on the state terror page with sources, ungrateful, cry more noob. --TenOfSpades (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote all these articles, and you go after me for political arguments, some nerve.

• al-Badr
• Kimberly Osorio
• Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network (PAGN)
• Operation Sinbad
• Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa
• Al-Abud Network
• Jaysh Muhammad
• John Matos
• Jose Antonio Llama
• Mario Montoya Uribe
• Zapata Swamp
• Zapata Wren
• BINCI
• Harold Bedoya Pizarro
• Colombian presidential election, 1998
• Zapata Sparrow
• Luis Hernando Gómez Bustamante
• Polaris (poker bot)
• Juan Carlos Ramirez-Abadia
• Carlos Alberto Rentería Mantilla

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)

Ah, Gloating. The sign of an advanced intellect.

I did nothing to deserve this block, and it is clear that someone in the administration is abusing their authority. That's sad. Wikipedia could have been more. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:55, 24 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)

Why do you presume the article would not interest them? What if these were students of Chinese, sent here on scholarship from Africa, Australia, and other parts of Asia? Really, Mr. Smith -- your arguments are specious in the extreme. Blocking someone because they are part of a network that includes at least 130,000 other addresses -- of which some 40,000 are students -- is plainly stupid policy. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

They are not specious - it is highly unlikely an editor would launch into an article like that with no prior involvement, especially to use their names as a means of making atacks on another editor. It may have been unfortunate timing, but certainly to an admin that has to work on a very narrow set of data there wasn't much else they could do.

You misrepresent the policy. It is not to block someone because they are part of a large network, it is to stop people abusing that claim. Let's imagine that everyone editing the page was part of a network similar to how you are. So then everyone starts using sockpuppets and when an admin tries to block them they say "hold on - you can't prove I did anything, as I'm part of a big network". So the page descends into chaos whether or not you are joining in. It isn't a 100% fair rule, but it is a necessary evil. You couldn't be let off without letting many other people off. John Smith's (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's imagine, instead, that word leaks out into a Political Science department that a bunch of right-wing americans are on wikipedia trying to whitewash their country's involvement in the promulgation of "plausibly deniable actions". So a group of foreign and EFL students from the department get together to post messages contesting that.

Long story short: i walked around campus the next day posting photocopied signs asking people to either learn how to speak polite english or not post. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be meatpuppetry, which is also prohibited. But in any case, the point is that the administration have only a blunt set of tools to operate with. John Smith's (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. It would be meatpuppetry if i was the one who coordinated them. Except i wasn't. I was the one who asked them to stop.

Frankly, with your reading comprehension so obviously as poor as it is, i am surprised you haven't been banned yet. Which meatpuppeteer is it that you serve? Stone put to sky (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

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)

Thanks, Pexise. The gesture is sincerely appreciated. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, Mate

Good onya. Aho aho (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Good onya! BernardL (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Calm down

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)

Thank you for the civil message, Neil, Frankly, after my last few experiences with the favor generally bestowed upon Ultramarine by various admins i was expecting to be banned.

As for my posts, i would like to point out that there are a very, VERY large number of editors on that page who have been complaining that Ultramarine is forcing an edit war based on badly misrepresented WP guidelines and MANY of those have been suggesting that it's likely a purposeful ploy. Regardless of whether or not one espouses these convictions, it is undeniable that he continues to make the same arguments, repeatedly, and to demand edits, repeatedly, even despite their painstakingly patient refutation by more than (at last count) six editors in the last two weeks and some 20 over the course of the last couple of years.

Because you have been so reasonable I will be happy to set aside my own convictions in this matter. I would appreciate, however, some sort of action taken to guarantee that Ultramarine's insistent, over-the-top behavior be curtailed in some manner. The page is a constant barrage of threats to delete, threats against other users, and point-of-view pushing of the worst sort. In light of that, what would you suggest we do? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have your email - I'll go through it carefully tomorrow. In the meantime please "bite your tongue" with regards to Ultramarine (or whatever the equivalent is - sit on your hands, maybe?). Neıl ☎ 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sky, what threats has UM been making against users? I had a look on your report to the admin board but couldn't see any specific examples made by you on this point. The only thing you mentioned was the comment on the checkuser result, which has not been agreed as a personal attack or the like by other neutral parties. John Smith's (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Personal attacks" are when people try to cast aspersions upon the activity of another user by making baseless accusations about their behavior. Ultramarine said i was banned for "sockpuppets". I know i wasn't "sockpuppeting", however, so i happen to know that i wasn't banned for "sockpuppets". That, therefore, is clearly a personal attack.

In addition to this, however, there is the clear association of "ad hominem" arguments with "personal attacks". An "ad hominem" argument is an "argument to the man"; in other words, when i introduced a complaint to the AN/I board saying that Ultramarine was engaged in clearly tendentious and counter-project editing patterns, his response was to say that my complaint should be disregarded because "i had been banned for...."

There is no better example of an ad hominem attack. I made a complaint, and Ultramarine - rather than defending his behavior - attacked my name by saying that my word should not be trusted, on the basis of a ban that had recently occurred. Clearly, the attack was sidestepping the issue of whether or not his behavior was objectionable in favor of attacking me as a person.

Such attacks are the heart and soul of the "NPA" policy. Ultramarine was in clear violation of it. Honestly, i cannot see how you can miss this clear and sparkling fact. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sky, you may maintain you were wrongly blocked, but until you can get the decision overturned the official Wikipedia view is that you were blocked for sockpuppetry. Ultramarine does not have a mind-reading device that allows him to find out whether you are telling the truth or not. So it is not a personal attack for him to mention admin sanctions that were made against you.

On other points, it would help if you provide diffs of "threats" and the like he has made. John Smith's (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was i unclear?

NPA is a policy that cites ad hominem as one of its cornerstones. Ultramarine's attack was clearly an ad hominem response to my request that his behavior be reviewed.

Beyond that, there is the second problem of the lack of accountability for Wikipedia admins. In this case i am citing there was clearly an arbitrary decision that was made. It's irrelevant whether or not i can prove it. The point, of course, is that the admins who made the block -- and the Wikipedia organization as a whole -- are unaccountable to public scrutiny. In this case -- which i know to be falsely implemented -- we have Wikipedia administrators who blocked a user based upon incomplete evidence and false conclusions. From there, we now have a user who is using this opaque and unaccountable process to defame the poster in question.

Behavior like this is precisely the sort that the WP:NPA was intended to address. And yet, here i see you defending the Wikipedia administration as beyond question, and Ultramarine's behavior as not really damaging, even though he is clearly attempting to negate any public review of his behavior by casting personal aspersions upon my character.

Your "comments" are clearly ill-considered and woefully incomplete. Frankly, i would prefer if you kept them to yourself. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My comments are quite complete and accurate. I'll make the points again, very clearly this time. First, whenever complaining about something a user says a diff is always helpful because most people can't be bothered to trawl through comments even if you know precisely where they are. I can't see a diff and neither can anyone else reading your comments.

There is nothing that suggests greater clarity, here.

"Providing diffs" is only necessary when the comments are buried in archives or a link to the page in question isn't provided. First, since there were multiple commments from the peanut gallery just above my complaint, and further since i had already provided a link to the page and indicated that the entire page deserved review, providing diffs would simply be an insult to any intelligent, responsible person capable of reading plain english. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Second, you say that you were falsely blocked, but that is your word against Wikipedia's mechanisms for identifying and dealing with people who break the rules. You were "wronged"? Join the club - plenty of people out there who probably didn't deserve what they got. The point is that for the purposes of Wikipedia, Ultramarine was allowed to comment on your recent block. He probably thinks that you're lying because, unsurprisingly, few violators admit to their guilt. If only the innocent asked for a review of sanctions, you'd be fine - but sadly that's not the case.

Not my problem. Not my problem at all. Ultramarine is guilty of an ad hominem attack which he initiated solely for the purpose of discrediting a request for a review of his clearly abusive behavior on multiple pages. And guess what? Now you are defending him. And guess what? You're using ad hominem arguments. So guess what? You, too, are now guilty of violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I hope someone's keeping a tally somewhere, because you're currently sprinting towards a perma-block.Stone put to sky (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're making far too much of the sockpuppet report and what happened subsequently. In the grand scheme of things it won't mean anything. Just move on and think of ways to win over uninvolved editors - focus on what Ultramarine has done in regards to editing, for example. John Smith's (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not me who's "making" anything of this. It's you. I made a complaint, Ultramarine said the complaint should be ignored because i was "sockpuppeting" (or however it is you people call it), and now you've popped on to my user page to defend him and pretend like a clear personal, ad hominem attack wasn't what it actually was and, in addition, to insinuate that somehow it's actually my fault.

Keep on truckin', my man! Stone put to sky (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL doesn't make you immune to criticism. Jtrainor (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Oh, never mind. I know what sort of nonsense i'll be forced to read and i'd rather not have it on my talk page. Go back and make good time with your playmates. I prefer to have fruitful, conscientious interlocutors here. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re the latest checkuser

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)

That was to the last point, right? No, I'm not suggesting you have anything to do with that IP. What I am suggesting is that the presence and behaviour of that IP could cause you trouble: The IP was blocked for a 3RR violation; shortly thereafter, you come and continue its pattern of reverting.

Of course, that's a tendentious representation. There are other ways to represent it, none of which I'll detail in this context. I just hope you'll take care, and not be caught by surprise, if trouble comes from it, 'cause it's beginning to look like if it does, you may find yourself in its way. I'd keep an eye on IP editors for a while. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:46, 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)

Oh, indeed. Based on what I've seen of this site, I'd say it's fairly easy to get a "bad name", and quite difficult to get rid of it. It's a quite natural reaction, really, and in my time here, I haven't seen anything to counter it.

Once is not a pattern, of course, but if it can happen once, it can happen twice. And patterns come sneaking up. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:00, 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)

You can't avoid it. But I think you can deal with it better than you do. For instance: "And yet we now have an admin popping in here and suggesting that certain accounts are "confirmed" to be associated with me?" That's probably not a wise thing to say, particularly considering none of the accounts mentioned in that case were in fact  Confirmed to be you.

(In  Unrelated news, I'm  Likely far too fond of those  Confirmed etc templates ...) — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

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)

There is no point in creating a sandbox for comment unless you allow others to comment, Ultramarine. It makes no sense for you to solicit my suggestions and then refuse to allow me to offer suggestions. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Create you own proposal on your own userpage and we can compare.Ultramarine (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you would rather copy and paste from userpage to userpage than utilize the inherent ability of a wiki to communicate directly? Stone put to sky (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see my proposal if you cover it with your own. Just create an userpage and it will be easy and quick to compare.Ultramarine (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal was a single sentence saying not much more than that Ortiz had been raped. The differences between our proposals are clear and easy to see. I'll be happy to make a sandbox, but i want you to clarify your position first:

Are you suggesting that you would prefer to cut and paste from userpage to userpage rather than utilize the Wiki as it was intended? Stone put to sky (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I want to compare and discuss two different versions. If these largely agree then material may be combined after discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So it appears that you are saying no -- you do not want to engage in collaborative, wiki-based editing but instead would prefer to cut-and-paste from userpage to userpage. Am i correct in that? Stone put to sky (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I want to discuss the differences before starting major edits.Ultramarine (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So you do want to use the magic powers of the Wiki sandbox to work cooperatively towards consensus?

Then please explain to me what the point is of having two sandboxes covering the same material. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Large differences between our two versions. When we have reached a general agreement we should certainly combine the two versions.Ultramarine (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course there are large differences: yours consists of a single sentence, mine of several paragraphs. I frankly don't see how there could be any confusion. So let me ask again: are you saying that you want me to create a sandbox where you can make your proposals for editing or are you saying that you want to cut-and-past between two different sandboxes because you cannot work cooperatively with another editor on the same text? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to discuss our version before doing major editing.Ultramarine (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do, too. But you won't let us respond directly to your sandboxes. So i will ask again: are you saying that you want me to create a sandbox where you and others can discuss, modify, and re-work your proposals for editing or are you saying that you want to cut-and-past between two different sandboxes because you cannot work cooperatively with another editor on the same text? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to have two version I can look at. Then discuss the major differences. Then edit.Ultramarine (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So please answer my question, clearly: are you saying is that you cannot use the wiki to edit cooperatively with other people on the same text, or are you saying that you can use the wiki as it was intended and edit a single text cooperatively? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

After we have resolved the major differences by discussion, we should certainly edit cooperatively.Ultramarine (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are still sidestepping the question. Please answer it directly: please answer my question, clearly: are you saying is that you cannot use the wiki to edit cooperatively with other people on the same text, or are you saying that you can use the wiki as it was intended and edit a single text cooperatively? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we cannot discuss before starting editing?Ultramarine (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is what i have been asking you. Since you have yet to answer it, let me repeat the question, once again:

Are you saying is that you cannot use the wiki to edit cooperatively with other people on the same text, or are you saying that you can use the wiki as it was intended and edit a single text cooperatively? Stone put to sky (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"That is what i have been asking you." Yas, I think we should discuss before starting with the editing. Please present your proposal in your own sandbox so we can discuss and compare the versions.Ultramarine (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So i will take your continued refusal to answer my question as acknowledgment: you are unwilling to edit cooperatively on a wiki sandbox. This clearly seems, to me, to show that you are unwilling to take into consideration other people's proposals for your proposed changes, that you do not wish to abide by Wikipedia guidelines and policy, and that you are unconcerned about re-working your changes to improve their grammar and fit them into the article context.

I am sorry that you find it so difficult to work cooperatively, Ultramarine. Because these changes are your proposals and not mine i do not understand how you can suggest that i "create a sandbox" -- i have no idea what is going on in your head and could not possibly make any sort of accurate guess as to what might satisfy you. The most i could do would be to cut-and-paste the content that is already there in your own sandbox to my own page, but that truly does seem rather absurd.

Even so, when i come across content in your sandboxes that i think is worth keeping i shall do so. As of yet, however, most of your sandboxes consist of reducing several paragraphs to a single sentence or two, and in that light i think it is enough for me to simply say that i do not approve of the suggested changes. So you should try again. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly always want to edit cooperatively.Ultramarine (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that certainly is an odd statement. If you "always want to edit cooperatively" then why are you unwilling to cooperate in the sandbox? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly want to cooperate in the sandbox. We should discuss major differences before starting editing.Ultramarine (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

O.k, then. Here goes:

I think your deletion of all that material down to one sentence is a bad idea. If you want me to make suggestions about how it should be edited then i'll be happy to make some changes to the sandbox. If not, then i suggest you try again. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete it, I moved it to the main article. A summary to a main article should be brief. Your last proposal was very long and different to mine. I suggest you present it first in a sandbox of your own so we can discuss the two versions.Ultramarine (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested edit to the article is to reduce a substantial section of some four or five well-sourced (12 or so), on-topic paragraphs (most of it a single quote) to a single, off-topic sentence.

I disagree with this proposal.

Since i have already posted my suggestions to that sandbox it will be a small thing for you to examine the diffs to find my suggestions. I see no reason for me to re-post them anywhere else.

Since you do not wish to cooperate in re-working your material in the sandbox i can only say that i disagree with your proposed changes. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A summary to a main article should be brief. Do you agree?Ultramarine (talk) 09:35, 11 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:

• You will not cooperate on a sandbox
• You are not interested in working with other people to generate content.

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)

False statements. It is unfortunate if you do no want to follow Wikipedia policy and dispute resolution and try to discuss to reach an agreement.Ultramarine (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Break

Not a false statement at all. You have demanded that i not participate in helping out with the sandboxes you create. I have asked you repeatedly, and will do so again:

Are you refusing to allow others to help out with your edits in the sandbox because you cannot use the wiki cooperatively, as it was intended?

Or are you saying that you can use the wiki as it was intended but have some super-secret reason that makes it impossible for others to work with you cooperatively?

Please keep in mind that simply saying "I can edit cooperatively" implies the second. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We should discuss before doing major edits when there are two very different versions. Do you agree?Ultramarine (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. The sandbox is there to allow us to have that discussion. You, however, will not allow anyone to work with you to make suggestions about the sandbox content. Therefore, you are refusing to discuss major edits. Which is why i am asking my question -- and it seems odd that i can ask it for a full day and not receive an answer. What's the problem, Ultramarine? Why can't you answer this question? --

Are you refusing to allow others to help out with your edits in the sandbox because you cannot use the wiki cooperatively, as it was intended?

Or are you saying that you can use the wiki as it was intended but have some super-secret reason that makes it impossible for others to work with you cooperatively? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you present your version in your own sandbox. Thus we can easily compare and discuss major differences. Then we should edit.Ultramarine (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot possibly present "my own version" of edits you want to propose. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly present your proposed version in your sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So now we are back to the same question:

You appear to be saying you find it impossible to utilize the wiki to edit cooperatively, as it was intended. Why is that? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not saying that. Are you arguing that we cannot discuss two very different version before making changes? Ultramarine (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is not what you are saying then why are you upset that i posted suggestions to your edits in the sandbox you created? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes it difficult to compare two very different versions. If you post your proposal in your own sandbox this will be solved.Ultramarine (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. That's what the "history" button is for, and in fact that makes it far simpler to compare versions. Your suggestion increases the difficulty.

So once again, i am asking you: You appear to be saying you find it impossible to utilize the wiki to edit cooperatively, as it was intended. Why is that? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that. It was you wanted a sandbox before making large changes to the main article, so yourself agree that it is not always correct to state "That's what the "history" button is for, and in fact that makes it far simpler to compare versions." Two versions avoid reverts back and forth before issues are resolved.Ultramarine (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also makes it easer for outsiders to compare the two versions if they are linked to.Ultramarine (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We asked you to put up proposed changes in a sandbox so that other editors can comment on them and help get them into shape for inclusion on the main page. Except you don't want any help from any other editors -- you simply want editors to look at your proposals and then state whether or not they are acceptable. This is fine. I will do that. I will not intrude on your sandboxes.

Your claim that copying your sandbox to my own page and editing there "makes it easier for outsiders to compare" is patently false. Observers will be forced to switch between two completely unlinked sandboxes to see the differences. Both editors will be forced to cut-and-paste from one box to the other.

If, however, you were to simply allow others to work with you cooperatively and collaboratively on the sandboxes you create then none of this would be a problem. You obviously refuse to do that, though, so i will continue to respect your wishes. It seems to me you are making a lot of busywork for yourself, but you seem to like that. I'm sorry you find it so difficult to cooperate with other editors, but that will not change our decision to insist upon presentation of major changes in sandbox.

It seems to me that you are only making it much more difficult for the editors to include your proposed content. That's too bad. I was looking forward to working with you to address your concerns over the article. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Both sandboxes can be easily linked to from the discussion page of state terrorism article. You wanted a separate sandbox before introducing a version with major changes. Now you are proposing a third version also with major changes. Your own logic dictates another sandbox for this new version.Ultramarine (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, to avoid 3 versions, I could put my proposed version in the article while you put in a sandbox while discussing. Or vice versa. So there are only two versions.Ultramarine (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another straw-man. You do seem to excel at those. This entire line of reasoning seems to prove you cannot work cooperatively with others.

No, i am not proposing a third version.

I am attempting to work with you in developing a major revision that we can include on the article page. You, however, do not want to work together. You want to propose changes and then ask others to respond with a counter-proposal. Except that most editors are satisfied with the content that is currently posted, and nobody understands why it is so difficult for you to make edits that use proper grammar, do not introduce inconsistencies into the article, and why so many of your edits delete valuable material and attempt to replace it with irrelevant information. Because your edits consistently have so many serious grammatical, syntactical, logical, and relevancy problems it makes sense for you to post up your proposed edits in a sandbox beforehand and work with others so that we can come to an agreement about how the article should proceed.

Except now you have informed us that you do not want to negotiate suggestions and we should not attempt to use the sandbox to correct or comment on your mistakes. Fine. We won't. If you create a sandbox and we don't like it then we will say so, and that's the end. It's not up to us to try and guess what you want, and we're not going to cut-and-paste from your userpage to the main page to try and make you happy. Wiki-tools are already in place to facilitate cooperation, but you have made it clear that you are unwilling to use them and instead insist upon creating a lot of busy work to waste other people's time.

That's too bad. It's up to you to cooperate with the other editors here to work towards consensus. You have made it clear that you are unwilling to do so, and now that's that. We will tell you if we support your proposals or not. If we don't then please don't try to force them through -- they will be reverted. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Except now you have informed us that you do not want to negotiate suggestions and we should not attempt to use the sandbox to correct or comment on your mistakes." False statement. There is the article version, my version, and now your proposed version. 3 versions. My suggestions is that you change the article version to your proposed version and I present mine in the sandbox while we discuss. What is problematic about that? Ultramarine (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no "third version". There are only your proposed edits.

Let me say that again: there is no "third version". There are only your proposed edits.

Clearly, if your proposals continue to fail relevance test, continue to suffer from poor sourcing, grammar and syntax, and fail to express a logical development within the context of the article then they will continue to be reverted.

Our suggestion was that you create a sandbox so that we can work together to work up controversial edits so that you don't introduce the extremely poor grammar and other obvious problems that most of your edits suffer. You, however, don't want our help. Which is too bad: with this behavior you are making it clear that you are not interested in cooperating with your fellow editors to develop a properly encyclopedic, NPOV article.

Let me say it again: there is no "third version". There is only the content you want to include. I am perfectly willing to help you work it up into something that everyone can be proud of, but unless you are willing to cooperate i obviously can't manage it. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The version you proposed here [15] is very different from the my proposal and the current one in the article. You wanted a sandbox in order to discuss my proposal before making major changes. Logic requires another sandbox if there is yet another different proposal. "you are not interested in cooperating with your fellow editors to develop a properly encyclopedic, NPOV article." False statement.Ultramarine (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You altered the material in question to a single, irrelevant sentence that provided none of the necessary context or information to link the statement back to the original article in a meaningful fashion. Unless you allow me to make suggestions about what should be included you are necessarily limiting my commentary only to whether or not i approve of your suggested changes.

For my part, i am quite happy with the material as it currently stands. You are the one who wants it changed, not me. You made a suggestion about what you think would be useful. If you want detailed suggestions then i will need to work with you to edit your sandbox. If you want only approval or disapproval, i am willing to do that. I will not, however, attempt to read your mind guess at a version that you would prefer.

Once again: you have made it clear through your actions here that you are not interested in working cooperatively towards a final version that will satisfy all the editors. Fine. You don't want to work cooperatively -- fine. My point is only that you should expect to be reverted often when introducing your proposed changes, because so far you have proven yourself unable to grasp basics like proper grammar and syntax, WP:OR and WP:SYN, and other concepts like relevance and proper sourcing. I am quite willing to help you with these things, but since you insist on attempting to force others to accept your skewed, poorly composed and even more poorly conceived edits i suppose the only thing i can do is stand by and point out when your proposals will fail.

I am sad that you've decided on this path, but it is your decision to make. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved the material to the main article. A summary should be concise. But lets try it again. You can edit this sandbox. What do you propose? Also provide explanations for changes please.Ultramarine (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to cooperate on the sandbox then i suggest we take this discussion there. My proposed edit should still be in the history section. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean the talk page of the US and state terrorism article? Please provide an explanation for your version.Ultramarine (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I mean in the history section of the sandbox we are talking about. The discussion we are having can be posted either on the article's discussion page or on the sandbox discussion page. I have no problem either way. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article discussion page is better since there other people can also find it and participate.Ultramarine (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revert

You write "Reasons already given: POV language, Inaccurate text, improper linking"[16]

However, these are not mentioned in the sections where these changes were discussed. See "Misrepresentation of US position restored" "Counter-arguments regarding Gladio report deleted". Also, you restored the material moved to Wikiquote. Why?Ultramarine (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute. Take it to the discussion page, not here. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do.Ultramarine (talk) 10:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It will do you no good

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.wiki.x.io/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)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

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 .

Hi Stone. I'm not inclined to believe the sock charges, and you have used a public computer at your school that you have explained are used by students of yours, and others. That could explain the user check match. We should all assume good faith. I think a solution to become unblocked is simply to grant the conditions requested by the blocking admin: "your account has been disabled until such time as you provide suitable assurances that no such thing will ever happen again.I think you can give such an assurance while still saving face and not admitting any wrong doing. Simply assure this will never happen again because you will now user computers that are not publicly assessable by others, thus keeping your own IP address secure to your account. Would this be acceptable to you? I think your contributions are valuable and I would like you to return to the community in good standing. Jehochman, while not perfect, has demonstrated a good faith assumptions in unblocking. I hope it works out.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To the administrator who may review this case, please do not unblock without discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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).

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. — Blueboy96 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.