User talk:Binesi

Copyright concerns

Hello. After reviewing your contributions to Boxer Rebellion, it seems that you may have misunderstood Wikipedia's policies regarding non-free text. We have very specific rules about reuse of text on Wikipedia that we take seriously. I'd like to go over those briefly to be sure that you are aware of them.

First, we cannot copy any content that has been previously published outside of Wikipedia unless we can prove that this content is public domain or we can verify that has been licensed compatibly for our use. (See copyright policy and our site's Terms of Use. It doesn't matter if the content does not bear a copyright notice; under the U.S. law that governs Wikipedia, content is automatically protected by copyright. You are allowed to use brief excerpts of non-free content, but only if you clearly mark these by quotation marks or block quotations and only if you use them for good reason. Some reasons can be found at the non-free content guidelines.

Otherwise, all content that you place on Wikipedia must be written completely in your own words. You cannot follow too closely on other sources for fear of creative a derivative work. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism"..Дунгане (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Дунгане. However it is much more helpful to show exactly which text you feel is too closely matching the source rather than making vague accusations. It is even more helpful if you make appropriate corrections.Binesi (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation

In this edit you copied directly from the book "Dragon lady: the life and legend of the last empress of China"

It appears you have also confused Pingyuan County, Shandong, with Pingyuan County, Guangdong in this edit. If you look at the source, it says Shandong several times before it mentions the falsified lawsuits.

that being said, since you made the mistake, i reverted your error, and if you want your other constructive edits to go back into the article, its your job to do it, not mine.Дунгане (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

see - Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, you clearly violated copyvio, do not use the excuse "it wasn't exactly alike" to get away.Дунгане (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I already stated I was willing to improve this sentence or was open to suggestions if you have one? Binesi (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an admin that works in copyright areas and Дунгане asked me about this particular edit. I agree that your edit was too close to the source and a problem under our copyright policy and so was correctly reverted. I would like to thank you for engaging in discussion about it on the article's talk page. Please note that I am unfamiliar with the subject matter so I don't see why the previous text in that sentence was problematic and don't have any firm suggestions for how to rewrite the sentence without paraphrasing the source at this time, nor do I have any opinion about POVs in the article, I am solely interested in the copyright aspect. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

your false accusations against me

you accuse me here of being a wu mao dang, a communist agent, yet I have criticized communist viewpoints on the Empress Dowager Cixi, and repeatedly warned against using CCP websites. Its clear you have a political axe to grind, if you make off base accusations about alleged "communist" sources. etc., it will not be taken lightly as it constitutes a personaly attack.Дунгане (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Binesi (talk)I'm sorry you feel that way Дунгане. If you could copy and past or please otherwise show where I accused _you_ of something I would be more than happy to apologize. If you also feel I have an axe to grind would you please demonstrate where I have contributed coloured or slanted content so I can improve my neutrality in the future?Binesi (talk)

Vandalism (including removing content) is not taken lightly

You arrogantly claim that you have brushed off and "shoot" down my accusations, yet you totally ignored the fact when i pointed out in these two edits [1] [2] you removed' information you didn't like, with no justification at all. It seems that you have a pro western POV and is hellbent on removing information unfavorable to them. i would also like to remind him that you got slammed by an admin for your vandalismДунгане (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, fine - let me take a look at what you are talking about. OK first one - no evidence of rape. Well - what is the point of including this, they already committed murder. Rape is a bit less fatal I think. Why say they didn't commit a more minor crime when they committed a much more serious one? Secondly - how can you prove there was no rape? How do you prove there is no evidence? Did you do original research or are you relying on an opinion given in a single source? Proving something didn't happen is difficult and should require a consensus of opinions. Second one - all armies except Japanese raped women. Well first - I don't see the point of this information but really it's just that you provided no evidence that Japanese did not ever, even in a single case commit rape. Have you searched for references that accuse the Japanese of rape and found there is none? Would that again be original research? Proving something happened is much easier than proving it didn't so I think this should just be left out of the article. Why so much focus on who raped who? It's very odd. Is there a point?

By the way, supposing I "don't like" what you wrote is a pretty wild supposition. I can see now why you cannot read my posts very clearly but continue to interpret what you think I am saying. Please stop that. You don't know me, and understand that you are wildly off the mark. I think you will find I am pretty neutral over all and very open to whatever your view point is as long as the article itself is fairly presented and shows all sides without bias. I believe you are on a path of futility with these attempts to discredit me. It's not my first rodeo as they say, and my intentions are 100% inline with the spirit of Wikipedia (or tell me how it isn't and I will try to correct). Binesi (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

judging from your comments, it appears that you did not even read the sources given in the article - [3] [4] I am absolutely disgusted.Дунгане (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Boxers

I commend you for remaining cool headed in response to Дунгане's comments. I agree, there are POV concerns with the article. There are a lot of "words to avoid" that need to go in order for the article to be neutral.--resident (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for encouragement. I am really trying to improve this aspect of my character - remaining cool headed and neutral that is. I was fairly disgusted at first that someone would slant this article so blatantly and cherry pick from the given references fragments which suited a particular viewpoint. I have to remind myself that there is reason someone would have this viewpoint and I am trying to understand it and see how it can fit into the wider picture. Hopefully a consensus can be reached and the Wikipedia process can be proven out again. I have always been a huge fan even if I wasn't contributing previously. Binesi (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

hello, phoenix.

Long time no see, after that little dispute on Second Sino Japanese war? Nice try phoenix, but you aren't a new user, if you want to fool me into thinking you are another person at least change your language first, from using cliche terms like "edit war", and "i don't want to be enemies, Дунгане".

Also, Дунгане, let's not get into any edit wars here. I would like us to both respect our positions, even if they differ. I think it would be interesting if somebody with a Western education can discuss differences in historiography with somebody with a Chinese education. Let's take the time to hear each others' opinions and provide criticisms. I just want you to realize that what you may have been taught in Taiwan can be significantly different from what is taught in the US. Notice that I haven't used any Japanese sources, so not everything you disagree with is Japanese propaganda.

Please don't start an edit war, and provide reliable sources so that we can compare the two.

lest i remind you that your account was banned indefinitely after i filed a sockpuppet report on you- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScorchingPheonix/Archive, do you really want this ugly dispute to happen again?Дунгане (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this your next attempt at attack? Give it up. OK, so I see you have made a lot of enemies in the past. Not surprising. I take back any nice things I said about your research btw. You are really quite horrible - or maybe is it just devious attempts to discredit anyone who disagrees with you? I wonder if that guy really had a sock puppet or you engineered it? Someone really needs to investigate you more closely now that I see what kind of person you really are. Either way - speaking of banning, you are obviously a big enough dick I think you might actually go past the limit.

If you truly, honestly, believe that I am this guy than I will just tell you no, I'm not. Maybe you should consider how many enemies you make and if that is normal? Also have you considered that you might be paranoid? Binesi (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)