User talk:Theleopard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:28, 13 July 2013

Yamamoto quotation

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Ish dar ian 00:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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 |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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 |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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

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)[reply]