User talk:Theleopard

Yamamoto quotation

Please check out Talk:Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote#The 'Run wild' quotation. Noel (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

December 2012

Hello, Theleopard. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Mitsuo Fuchida, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Mitsuo Fuchida shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, Theleopard. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Mitsuo Fuchida, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on biased users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. I have also made mention of this at AN/I, as well. Ishdarian 00:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As you may have noticed on WP:ANI, I have removed your link to and quotation from an external site that attacks and outs Wikipedia editors. Here is the link to the related behavioural guideline: this behavioural guideline. Please do not re-add this content or attempt any more smears of Binksternet or any other Wikipedia editor. To do so could result in an immediate block. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I know why Wikipediocracy.com exists. Today's title article is a tongue in cheek on "How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps." I didn't know that references to quotes from Wikipedia that resided on other websites was forbidden. Had I known that, I would not have done so, and I apologize. Binksternet's reputation for POV pushing and edit warring is well known, so no "smears" there. I'll have to deal with the "block" thing later. Editors said I needed to find people to review the issue, so that's what I did to the best of my knowledge and ability. I never asked anyone to endorse or support any particular view. I did look for people who'd already had dealings with Binksternet and asked for advice on what to do.--TMartinBennett (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You were repeatedly given advice on what to do: Seek dispute resolution. That's the correct way to get other editors to review the issue. Please do not continue to attack Binksternet on this talk page or the privilege of access to is will likely be removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's patently false. You left messages on so many talk pages I lost count. They didn't ask for advice. The one you used the most often was this, in which you said, in part, "I'm looking for some third parties to review a problem editor who (in my opinion) continues to violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia on the page of a Pacific War aviator, Mitsuo Fuchida." Another model you used was far worse. In this latter model, under the guise of seeking advice, you said, "I saw your name on Binksternet's (rejected) RFA as "Oppose" and thought, if nothing else, you might have some advice or perhaps help." In other words, you deliberately picked editors you thought were Binksternet's enemies, or at least might be ill-disposed toward him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course I looked for people familiar with dealing with Binksternet. They would know best how to deal with this issue as they'd already dealt with it before. That's just logical. The 50 people who opposed his failed RFA speaks volumes. And nothing you've referenced contradicts my statement that "I never asked anyone to endorse or support any particular view," which is completely true. Stating known facts is not an "attack" contrary to your opinion. Speculation and conjecture, on the other hand, are. Wikipedia is a very, very complex system that I don't ever expect to master. As I've stated in my response to the "block," I'm a novice on Wikipedia and never heard of "canvassing," so that was my fault. I began with people on the Wikiproject Military History but had no luck. A simple Google search turned up the many problems experienced or produced by above mentioned editor, most within Wikipedia itself. I had no idea.--TMartinBennett (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing (including WP:Canvassing, WP:PROMOTION, and POV-pushing), as you did at Mitsuo Fuchida. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Request for Unblock as it is Unwarranted. I ask that the block be lifted for the following reasons: # I innocently and inadvertently "canvassed" having never heard the word before on Wikipedia. I am a researcher and writer by trade but am a novice on Wikipedia. I was trying to find others to help resolve the issue of POV-pushing and did not understand exactly how to bring editors to view the subject. I agree to fully abide by the appropriate notification guidelines of Wikipedia and I apologize. # I have not violated the WP:Promotion guidelines. You will not find in my edits a violation of the standard that, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." My interest is in history and in facts. There is a "Controversy" section at the end of the Mitsuo Fuchida page where, first, a paragraph is devoted to one side of the issue wherein the author quotes himself. Then there is a single sentence of my comments on the other side of the controversy. It was edited and reduced to a short sentence multiple times (by others) and I have found myself at a loss as to how to bring balance back to this section. I'm not even sure this "controversy" section belongs in Wikipedia as it is speculation and opinion and seems to violate WP:CONTROVERSIALFACT. # I have not in any way violated the Wikipedia standard of no POV-pushing: "POV pushing refers to the act (or attempt or intent) to evade, circumvent, and undermine Wikipedia's neutrality policy Wikipedia:NPOV by creating and editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view." On the contrary, I have left the critical point of view unedited and tried to present the balance of missing information on the other side of the "Controversy" section on the Fuchdia page. But I have found my factual content and references to objective academic journals immediately deleted. Even my comments on the talk page have been deleted by Binksternet. I was stunned. # In fear that the page may be forever presenting a distorted picture, I requested an article page ban to keep this particular editor from further damage to the page. The net result is that I have been blocked from editing for 72 hours. Part of that is my ignorance, part is a misunderstanding. For the record, I have written a screenplay and a book about Fuchida and have spent 8 years on them both. Neither are sold or published at this point and I have never received money for either. There are few, if any, in the world today who have a better understanding of his life and story. Because of my expertise in this area, I have been criticized by some (anti-Fuchida editors) for violating WP:Conflict. This is a false charge as I believe that Fuchida committed horrible deeds and I have no objective in presenting him as anything other than how and what he actually was. I cannot imagine that authors of books on Lincoln would be forbidden from editing simply because they knew much about him and had authored a book. My situation is even tamer as my material is still unpublished. A page block is the least of my concerns. Ensuring the accuracy and balance of a page on a historical figure is. I simply don't have the time to personally protect the page from being distorted. Thanks for your understanding

Decline reason:

You have clearly admitted above that you canvassed people who were "familiar with dealing with Binksternet". You don't need a Wikipedia rule to tell you that's wrong: it's ethically obvious. You also need to be aware that original research is not acceptable on Wikipedia - as much research as you claim to have done, you are not a published and recognized reliable source. Any discussion or interview you might have done is not permitted. Indeed, once published, you're going to be even further restricted due to wP:COI and WP:PROMO. Sorry that your supposed research on Fuchida will be useless on Wikipedia - the good news is, there's millions of other articles (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:23, 14 July 2013 (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.

.--TMartinBennett (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bwilkins. My bad and no worries. I've not used original research, just referenced material and since my book will be a nonfiction novel along the lines of In Cold Blood, it will most likely be of little value on the Fuchida page. Best to you.--TMartinBennett (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Comment on the content, not the contributor. Attempting to smear your fellow editors is not the path to collegiate editing. Please take the time to read through this and other basic Wikipedia behavioural guidelines whilst you are blocked. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Note to Bennett: I do not consider myself an "anti-Fuchida" editor. Instead, I consider myself a pro-truth editor who looks askance at Fuchida's lone assertion that he was on the Missouri battleship during the Japanese surrender ceremony. Fuchida's assertion goes against detailed Japanese military and government documents listing who was at the surrender, and it goes against modern scholarship from Japanese and American historians studying the matter. I am a pro-Fuchida editor who considers Fuchida to be an interesting historical character, interesting because of his fabrications which show his conflicted personality. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet. It doesn't sound like you've read the four exchanges between Parshall and myself in the U.S. Naval War College Review, so I encourage you to do so to be better informed. I've listed them below for you and others to read for themselves. Your use of Weasel Words like "modern scholarship" and "government documents" is not helpful. Please list sources with primary documents (not opinions). I'm not aware of any "detailed Japanese military and government documents listing who was at the surrender" as we only have a list of dignataries, not attachés or the hundreds aboard USS Missouri at the time. If you have access to such primary source documents, please post them on the appropriate pages. The truth of the matter is that there is no information, none whatsoever, contradicting Fuchida's consistent testimony regarding his work and presence on USS Missouri. To simply accuse him of dishonesty based on prejudice is the definition of being anti-Fuchida. Your failure to secure Administrator status earlier this year was partly due to your habit of being a POV-pusher and one who enjoys edit-warring as pointed out by the nearly 50 people opposing your nomination. Your behavior on Fuchida's page reflects this same behavior. You will not find me in such situations anywhere in Wikipedia, with the possible exception of dealing with your POV-pushing on the Fuchida page. Please stick to facts, not conjecture, theories, speculation, hearsay, or prejudice. Also, in the future, please direct your opinions regarding content re: Fuchida to his talk page, not here. Thanks.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Four Naval War College Review Exchanges Between Parshall and Bennett Regarding Fuchida

1. “Reflecting on Fuchida, or ‘A Tale of Three Whoppers,’” Jonathan Parshall, 2010, Spring, Naval War College Review, Vol. 63, No.2, pp. 127-138.

2. “Parshall’s ‘Whoppers’ Examined,” Martin Bennett, 2013, Winter, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 110-125.

3. “In My View” section, “Fuchida’s Whoppers,” Jonathan Parshall, 2013, Spring, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No.2, pp. 136-138.

4. “In My View” section, “Fireside Chats and Chasing Rabbits,” Martin Bennett, 2013, Summer, Naval War College Review, Vol. 66, No.3, pp. 155-157.

• Remain blocked. My advice to anyone who gets exercised by what happens in Wikipedia. Read WP:No angry mastodons. Just relax. Seventy-two hours away from this mish-mosh would do ANYONE good. As for Canvassing, well, we don't know about it until we do it, and then somebody tells us. Take a few days off. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk)

GeorgeLouis - Point well-stated and accepted. FYI, as of this writing, the "Controversy" section of Fuchida remains a cartoon version of the facts and is nearly useless to the serious inquirer. It was obviously shaped by anti-Fuchida writers. Oh well ... such is Wikipedia.--TMartinBennett (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Theleopard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Theleopard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)