User Talk:Benlisquare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

WKlogo niubi.png


MediaWiki message delivery[edit]

I was just looking at why I got a message and noticed your post at User talk:MediaWiki message delivery. You may want to remove that as it is not useful—if you really want a page in your user space deleted you would add {{db-user}} to it. The reason you received the message at User:Benlisquare/Userboxes is that that page is in Category:WikiProject Medicine members because {{User WPMed}} adds that category. I mentioned this at Template talk:Userbox#Should usercategory values be applied to templates? because some fix is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't notice that happened, Twinkle did it automatically and I forgot to double check. --benlisquareTCE 06:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Participate in discussion about Media Viewer follow-up study[edit]

I'm contacting you because of your involvement in the Media Viewer RfC. I understand that this is a bit awkward since the RfC has closed with consensus, but I have been tasked with helping the Multimedia team run a study to gather more feedback about Media Viewer preferences. I think the the write-up for the study could use your feedback. Would you take some time to review the study and share your thoughts on the talk page? Please feel free to invite others to participate as well. Thank you! --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


您好!我看到您在中文維基百科的福建省加上了它的旗幟。請問這面旗的檔案是您上傳的嗎?我對旗幟很有興趣,但從未看過這面旗,很好奇請問您是如何得知這面旗的呢?請在我的中文維基討論頁留言,謝謝。--Jitcji (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your zhwiki talkpage. --benlisquareTCE 18:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

謝謝您,我再向那位上傳者詢問看看。打擾了。--Jitcji (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to my article 感謝閣下爲在下條目所做貢獻[edit]

My English isn't very good ,it's kind of you for your contributions to my article...-- パンツァー VI-IIFu7ラジオ❂In the Republic of China 103rd.民國103年 07:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

沒問題。如果有什麼事需要問,請隨便來講。 --benlisquareTCE 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Providence(religious movement)[edit]

Hello! This message is for recent editors of the Providence(religious movement) article.

I just wanted to inform you all of some of the changes I was hoping to make to the page! I am actually studying theology, and have been spending a lot of time studying Modern East Asian Christian organizations in particular. You might have noticed the deletion tag I applied to the article--actually I am really new to Wikipedia, I created an account specifically to make edits to this article and am still a bit confused on the whole deletion/editing process ;)

Anyway, I came across this article while I was doing research and found a few discrepancies I thought might be good to address! I know the allegations against this group are quite serious, I was shocked by them, by I think it's important that we get the article right for the academic purposes of the encyclopedia :)

Mainly I just noticed that the article is missing information in a few crucial places, i.e. the details of the trial, an extended discussion of the philosophies of the group, etc. Also, at times the tone does feel a bit hostile--again, as scholars, we should do our best to remain neutral, especially when the topic is highly controversial.

Thank you all for your time, and hope that the article can really be well done!

GIOSCali (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Just wanted to say that I began a few of the edits I was mentioning in my earlier post regarding the Providence(religious movement article). I just made a small sample of some of the edits I want to make, namely changes that will make the language of the article neutral. Also, there are a lot of dead links for references and many references in foreign languages-- I will be deleting these and would appreciate some help! Also I think it would be good to include actual information on the trial and the Korean judicial system, as well as Joshua Jung's early background if any can be tracked down.

Thanks, and I'm sure the article will turn out great! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GIOSCali (talkcontribs) 23:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles about China[edit]

Including content about Taiwan in articles about China is not neutral. --Uaat (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I already explained on your talk page, but instead of discussing the issue, you revert all my edits by the same time telling me not to revert you.

--Uaat (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You cannot revert after simply posting on my talk page, you need to gain community consensus for your changes. --benlisquareTCE 11:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


我来自中国山东,请多关照。李郓梁 (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Greetings. I have reverted an edit you made at PlayStation 4. The revert was an edit you made that was a revert of an edit I made that added the PlayStation 4 is not capable of 4K for games. I wanted to apologize for not adding a citation to support it, but I have since added the proper citations. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Chambr (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Outpost Harry[edit]

Unlike other WP:Redflag claims I have been seeing with regards to Chinese casualties number during the Korean War, 4,500 casualties (killed + wounded + missing + captured) in a WWI style battlefield against a dug in position is actually pretty plausible. However, there are still few requirements:

  • The source must be cited to here with proper citation format (page 469).
  • Info box must highlight this is an UN estimate number only.
  • Info box must also state technically this is US 3rd Infantry Division operation.

As a side note, the most definitive source on the topic would be the Official History of Greek Armed Forces: The Greek Expeditionary Forces in Korea (1950-1955) published by Greek Ministry of Defence. Jim101 (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, here is a different take on the battle:
It's referred to as "The Battle for Hill 420, Cheolweon" within that document, right? 5 killed and 20 wounded vs approx. 500 killed seems like a huge difference to what the WP article is giving. Should one assume that the remainder of the figures would be covered by the United States forces? --benlisquareTCE 07:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
US 3rd Infantry Division inflicted rest of the Chinese losses would be my guess too. Jim101 (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I finally sort out the mess on that page. Cheers. Jim101 (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the effort. --benlisquareTCE 01:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Prevalence of circumcision Map[edit]

Hi, I think that you should edit your prevalence of circumcision map to show countries with the majority circumcised versus countries with a minority. I think the way you currently have it is misleading. Everyone with 20-80 percent gets turned red. I can edit it for you if you want. You can contact me at

JP 08/24/14

I don't have a circumcision map. You might have me confused with somebody else. --benlisquareTCE 10:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Organization of WW2 articles[edit]

Something really bugs me about Wikipedia's organization of its articles on the Second Sino-Japanese War. We have a separate article called Japanese invasion of Manchuria, from Japanese invasion of China. The latter redirects to "Second Sino-Japanese War", which has two separate section titles called "Invasion of Manchuria, interventions in China" and "Full scale invasion of China". So, somehow, despite worldwide contemporary condemnation of the seizure of Chinese territory, our history today treats "Manchuria" as something separate from "China".

If you'll look at the interwiki links for "Japanese invasion of Manchuria", you'll see some European languages (probably translations of the English), but no Chinese. Mukden Incident says that both the Japanese and Chinese names for the false flag event also refer to the aftermath. If we truly needed a separate article on the precise military operation and tactics—I don't think we do; most of the articles linking to "Japanese invasion of Manchuria" really refer to the political consequences—, we can link to Jinzhou Operation, right? So I think having a separate article called "Japanese invasion of Manchuria" is unnecessary and harmful. Let me know what you think. Shrigley (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but...[edit]

Just so you know, {{stub}} tags should have two blank lines between the categories and them. I think that's buried somewhere in MOS:LAYOUT or WP:STUB. I think I removed some "extra" whitespace before I figured that out. It's not exactly obvious or critically important, but it does arguably look a little better. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Phil Fish[edit]

Hi Benlisquare! I've had to remove your addition to Phil Fish, but I wanted to quickly stop by and let you know that this was because of things happening elsewhere. The site you referenced hadn't properly vetted the article, and since had it pulled. As there was no reliable source reporting it once that one was taken away, I've had to remove the addition. I believe that the source got it wrong - even the source they were basing it on has been removed by its author - but either way, you couldn't have known that when you made the change. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


You are a racist, and the only reason you still exist here is because you are the "safe" kind of racist. The kind that isn't white. You also have severe issues with insecurity, as you see the entire world against you and other Chinese, or Asians in general, and therefore you feel the need to constantly lash out at incorrectly perceived white and European "bias" and "pride" in all sorts of places where it is absent. If you were white and acting the exact same way against anything non-Western and/or non-white, you'd have been banned long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did I do this? Any links you can provide? Keep in mind that I don't remember anything I did on Wikipedia before 2009 since that's a long time ago, and that was probably my edgy period. --benlisquareTCE 05:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I find your accusations quite ironic since I've also been accused by others of being a "pro-white apologist", because I have a strong anti-immigration attitude, especially by those who identify to be among the left. Not entirely on this website in particular, but I've been quite vocal for my "Europe for Europeans" ideas for quite some time elsewhere. But yeah, keep chasing that victim complex of yours without any proper context or evidence. --benlisquareTCE 05:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL Victim complex? Your history shows you're the one with the victim complex. Listen, here's some good advice for you; go back to making stupid and asinine comments about ridiculous image board bullshit. At least your silly rants about that childishness wasn't as obnoxious as your racial crap. Years on and you're no more mature than you ever were here, and that is to say not very mature at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2014‎
You still haven't provided URLs or diff links demonstrating my alleged anti-white racism. All you've done is write more angry words at me, and I'm still confused as to why you're angry. --benlisquareTCE 05:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Suspicious" - wtf, man?[edit]

I strongly object to your characterization of my reviewer flag request as "suspicious" and request that you reconsider the use of that word. I have been entirely above-board and completely forthright with the request and everything related to it. In fact, it would have been perhaps "suspicious" had I not specifically mentioned why I want the flag at this particular moment and what I plan to do with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: - Alright, I'll eat my words. I hope you'll be fair in how you use your new powers. --benlisquareTCE 10:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, if you want to object to it, that's fine — I just feel kind of "jabbed at" by the use of that particular word. I took pains to be transparent in the request specifically because I wanted to be above-board with it. I have no qualms about my record defending the integrity of articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: - Given that you're currently involved in something, it feels strange to see you apply for new user rights. If this had been any other month, I wouldn't even have bat an eyelid. I hope you realise that this is likely going to be a long, lengthy and messy dispute right? The current environment is hardly far from toxic, and when things like this happen, I can't help but notice. --benlisquareTCE 10:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess I'm kind of confused. So I should basically not do anything for awhile, request rights, and then go to town with them? That seems kind of odd.
One would think that it would be easy enough to demonstrate that I have no interest in abusing the review flag by, well, me not abusing it. I've had rollback for umpteen months and never abused it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: - You can say it's probably a knee-jerk reaction on my behalf then, and that I'm thinking too much. I've only had a long look at the entire thing, so it may well be that I'm coming to wrong conclusions. I don't even want to touch that article for the sake of my sanity, the talk page has essentially people accusing people in all directions, I can't even wonder how everyone's going to keep it all together. --benlisquareTCE 10:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)