User talk:Custerwest

My source

American Military History intends to provide the United States Army—in particular, its young officers, NCOs, and cadets—with a comprehensive but brief account of its past. The Center of Military History first published the book in 1956 as a textbook for senior ROTC courses. It has gone through a number of updates and revisions since then, but the primary intent has remained the same. Support for military history education has always been a principal mission of the Center, and this new edition of an invaluable history furthers that purpose.

The history of an active organization tends to expand rapidly as the organization grows larger and more complex. The period since the Vietnam War, at which point the most recent edition ended, has been a significant one for the Army, a busy period of expanding roles and missions and of fundamental organizational changes. In planning an update, it became clear that trying to wedge this additional sweep of history into the previous single-volume format would yield a cumbersome book. We are thus publishing a revised and expanded edition in two volumes.

This first volume covers the Army’s history from its birth in 1775 to the eve of World War I. By 1917 the United States was already a world power. The Army had sent large expeditionary forces beyond the American hemisphere, and at the beginning of the new century Secretary of War Elihu Root had proposed changes and reforms that within a generation would shape the Army of the future. But world war—global war—was still to come. The second volume of this new edition will take up that story and extend it into the twenty-first century.

We have developed a new design to reflect the often highly visual nature of contemporary textbooks. Our primary audience is still the young officer and NCO, but by adopting a more illustrated format we also hope to promote a greater awareness of the Army’s history within the American public. In so doing, we remain mindful of the Center’s responsibility to publish an accurate and objective account. We owe no less to the soldier and the veteran, to the student and the teacher, and to those pursuing a personal interest in learning more about the Army’s campaigns—and about its role in the larger history of the nation.

Washington, D.C. 22 July 2004 JOHN S. BROWN Brigadier General, USA Chief of Military History[1]

And that's it. You know where you can put your little blog? Yes, you guessed. Have a nice day. --HanzoHattori 16:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of Washita River. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Andrew_pmk | Talk 18:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:HanzoHattori. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Smaug123 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK Custerwest, I didn't know the circumstances. But you probably should still issue a deletion warning rather than using the language you used. Sorry if I seem pushy or anything. Smaug123 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Little Big Horn

Enjoy being banned. --HanzoHattori 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on Talk:Battle of Washita River: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Yksin 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that a Requests for Discussion (RfD) for HanzoHattori has been opened up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori in part because of his incivility to you. But you're also being uncivil to him, especially on his talk page. The no personal attacks policy applies whether to you even if he is also violating that policy too. --Yksin 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

... and no sooner do I write that then his RfD is deleted, apparently hadn't been done right. So I'm off to issue the same warnings to him that I've already issued to you. --Yksin 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion

FYI, see WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest. --Yksin 00:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary box

I would kindly suggest that you use the Edit Summary box, especially if you're going to do dozens of edits in a row to a single article. Cheers! Murderbike 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, seriously, you're still doing multiple edits in a row of Battle of Washita River without using the Edit Summary box. Please start using it, it really helps other editors. Murderbike 18:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Murderbike, is "edit summary box" giving me the opportunity to say what I changed on the page ? Where is it? I am adding quotes and pages from historical books, but I hope the article will be protected from vandalism. Custerwest 19:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary box is right above the button you push that says "Save Page". It says "edit summary" above it. It is most definitely used for letting other editors know what you have changed. as to the neutrality tag, it isn't just about the debate between you and HH, I absolutely agree that the sources you are giving are sketchy, that the official (modern) US gov't sources are good, but that maybe your fringe theories can be give a bit of space, along with a statement like "So and so believes X, contrary to the public record." The tag will remain until the article is in satisfactory condition. Murderbike 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Killed vs. Murdered

Custerwest, you are now in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:3RR. I have explained to you why the term "killed" is preferred (not by me, but by Wikipedia), and you have reverted a 3rd time, in violation of Wikipedia policy. You will be reported. Murderbike 00:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Murderbike, they were not killed, they were executed. I put the word executed. Do you know how they were killed? Clara was shot in the neck and scalped. Her two-years-old son Willie was shmashed against a tree (his little face was totally broken. He was taken by the feet and smashed against the tree). It's an execution, and the worst kind of an execution. Richard Blinn, the father, received a lock of his son because the body was too broken to be shown to him... Watch: http://custer.over-blog.com/categorie-10018053.html Custerwest 00:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you canNOT alter the 3RR violation page. I don't have any power over it, but that is a serious violation, and probably get you banned. Good luck. Murderbike 00:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Try to read a book on Washita - where are your sources ? That's very, very tiresome... Custerwest 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

vandal warning of 3RR report

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Murderbike 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll find any administrator alive on this encyclopedia and report that every editor on this page isn't doing his job. 95% of the sources quoted are mine, and you put the word "killed" because you didn't know how these captives had been killed. Your decision was based on ignorance and your attacks don't impress me much. It's a scandal that real sources are discussed by people who haven't the necessary knowledge to challenge them. Read books on the battle and come back. Custerwest 00:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. You are very much in violation of this policy. Murderbike 00:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove your misplaced complaint on the 3RR page, another user did. Murderbike 00:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Read a book on the Washita - that's the subject of my editing, all the sources I posted (where are yours?)... And this whole, useless warfare with editors who don't know the subject but change facts (HanzoHattori even put the campaign under the "Comanche Campaigns")... Can this article be serious ? Can we discuss sources? Custerwest 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Comrade Custerwest! It's possible your glorious charge ends right here. Any last words so we may remember you fondly? You know, like "Custer's luck! The biggest Indian village on the internet!"? This stuff? --HanzoHattori 01:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

mockery reported. Troll reported. Custerwest 01:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah nyet, my dear Comrade. I'm just getting into my role of the "extreme left clown". --HanzoHattori 01:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

95% of the sources, the quotes, the historical material searched, rewritten for the Web and posted on the article Battle of the Washita have been my work. I've been attacked, my work taken off, my footnotes taken off, without any reason, and now I am blocked because the change the editor did wasn't accurate ? Is it a joke? That's completely amazing. Wikipedia is blocking historians and is allowing trolls to destroy the work they put on the encyclopedia. Custerwest 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC) (author of historical books) see http://www.custerwest.org (historical portal with doctors in history)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

95% of the sources, the quotes, the historical material searched, rewritten for the Web and posted on the article Battle of the Washita have been my work. I've been attacked, my work taken off, my footnotes taken off, without any reason, and now I am blocked because the change the editor did wasn't accurate ? Is it a joke? That's completely amazing. Wikipedia is blocking historians and is allowing trolls to destroy the work they put on the encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

Revert warring is unacceptable and you broke the WP:3RR rule. Whatever your views of other editors you need to enter into discussions and accept the consensus that results. Also deleting reports from noticeboards as you did here is inappropriate. Please also avoid making attacks on fellow editors. When your block expires you are welcome to resume editing, but please pay closer attention to Wikipedia's polcies. — WjBscribe 01:24, 30 June 2007 (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.

Consensus with who? The 3RR was made by someone who didn't know the story he/she was talking about. It was an historical inaccuracy. I just see that Wikipedia is working for the innacuracies and falsehoods. Congratulations. Custerwest 01:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking further into the matter I also see think you should familiarise yourself with our policies on conflict of interest - you seem to be adding a lot of links to sites you are clearly affiliated with. Stop throwing around attacks, you made the decision to simply keep forcing your prefered version rather than entering into discussion with those who disagreed with your editorial decisions. I hope in future you will adopt a more collegiate approach. WjBscribe 01:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"you seem to be adding a lot of links to sites you are clearly affiliated with" I put every one of the quotes, books, historical material that can be found on the Battle of the Washita. The only thing I can see is that opinions without facts, ideology without proof or evidences are as important as prooves on Wikipedia. Your so-called "collegiate" approach is mixing specialists, strong historical cases with newcomers without any evidences. Evidences don't count. There is but no footnote added on the Washita that wasn't because I made researchs on with Chief Historian Mary Davis and others. Being collegiate means acceptation of historical falsehoods, no-evidence-quotes, ideological fantasies and so on. I am sorry, sir, but it's totally ruining the credibility of Wikipedia. If you cannot see (and it's easy, all the quotes and material are also posted on the custerwest portal) that the whole article was built by me with every one of the material, and that the "discussions" and "editing" that followed was but pure vandalism, ... well, I don't know what Wikipedia is. So Wikipedia doesn't stand for facts, but for opinions and consensus of opinions (even false one without evidences) on historical facts? Is that what you're saying? Custerwest 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a communist community. We in North Korea took over it when everyone thought we have no Internet access. (Haha! sirry imperiarists!) If you can't accept this, you can always found some Custeropedia in the style of Wookiepedia but for "doctors in history". --HanzoHattori 01:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

How old are you? Custerwest 01:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My political officer says this is a classified information. --HanzoHattori 01:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, boy, go to bed, you've enough bored the world today. Wikipedia isn't what I thought - it's mostly a party of immature teenagers. I am off. Custerwest 01:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Block clarification

As the blocking admin, let me take a moment and explain clearly why you were blocked, and what needs to be changed.

• You changed "killed" to "murdered" and/or "executed" four times. This is the difference between a neutral term and a POV term. We prefer a neutral term. It was explained to you clearly above that you should not do that, and you did it anyway. I'm not involved in the content dispute, and do not care about your reasons. You breached our process, regardless of the reasons, that's not acceptable. Please read WP:CONSENSUS as it discusses how you should have handled this situation.
• The following are comments/observations that did not have a direct bearing on the block:
  • Going and removing reports about you from admin notice boards is a huge no-no. That is blatant vandalism, and will not be tolerated. If you disagree with the report, you may respond to it with a reasoned, respectful, dignified explanation.
  • You have some conflict of interest issues. The fact that your username is the same as the blog/forum name seriously concerns me.
  • You go on and on about being an academic and a professional historian, and yet your grammar is far from what I'd expect from a published author. I, too, am a historian and published author, and you won't find me throwing my weight around in those terms, I suggest you consider quieting down on that. You are not the only expert around here, and you need to show some respect for the other editors in this project, regardless of your personal feelings about them.
  • You need to realize that you do not own the article in question, and that regardless of how much you've contributed to it, this whole encyclopedia is a community exercise, and you need to work with the community, and you need to be willing to defer to others who might have more knowledge than you in how we need to have things on the encyclopedia.
  • One of the things that's most likely to lead to friction is pushing a particular non-neutral point of view (referred to simply as POV). We are not here to refight the Washita, nor any of the battles of that era, and we are not taking sides as to who was right and who murdered whom. There's plenty of blood on hands all around. This is not the place for you to be arguing who you think was in the wrong.

Once your block is over, please be more careful, more circumspect about what you say, more respectful of those around you, and more respectful of our institutions and conventions. Gentlemen and women scholars can disagree bitterly but still show the utmost respect for each other. Since you're the one claiming to be the professional historian, it's up to you to lead by example in how respect is displayed.

And yes, for the record, I have taken note of the unacceptable comments by HanzoHattori and have warned him, and he, too, faces a block if such behavior continues. You are not being singled out in this endeavor by any means.

So, please, once your block is over, don't come out fighting, come out cooperating. You are on an editorial team here. Please, sir, try to work together to find some common ground. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

1. 1 Thanks for your message
2. 2 Most of the footnotes were removed by HHT - it's hard to find what's the good in the "consensus" area with people gathering without any care of accuracy and making the decision to rewrite an entire chapter of history with their own opinion.
3. 3 Im' published in France.
4. 4 I tried to write to HHT to find the holy consensus, but it's what he wrote:

""Troubles with army", yeah. What a troublemakers... I don't know if you noticed (you seem to have hard times to understand many things), but you are actually in minority here (and no one really cares who you proclaim to be, "doctor in history" or the king of Scotland), it's not really about how much you agree to be changed or added to "your article" (no such thing, and we agreed to start with the other version), original research is right out, and you was blocked specifically for the repeated disrupting of this article (came back for more?). If you don't understand, read again. --HanzoHattori 09:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)" (see Battle of the Washita discussions)

It's obvious that his only concern is a fight and not the article.Custerwest 10:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Im' published in North Korea. Also, nice try with 3RR report on me. Oh, the irony.

Well, Custer. I guess you learned nothing, and so it's the bye-bye time. I only can guess if just for a time being, or forever? --HanzoHattori 11:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Cw is back as anon ip

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Washita_River&diff=141767010&oldid=141766174 --HanzoHattori 08:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we find a common ground as requested by the Wiki laws?Custerwest 09:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The first thing you after the unblock did was an anonymous revert to the version you was blocked for, and now you play a nice guy? Oh, boy. --HanzoHattori 11:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to be anonymous, I just forgot to log in. But I did it right after that. You've been blocked right now (thanks administrator) and I will be able to improve the article once more. Sorry, but your article wasn't accurate at all and, worse, was deleting footnotes. Custerwest 12:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Copy of my comments to Hanzo as posted on my talk page:

I researched this lates round of accusations and the resulting diffs:

1. This has already been posted at 3RR, and Hanzo has already been blocked for 3RR for 72 hours, an action to which I concur (I probably would have added some time for incivility, but them's the breaks).
2. The diffs provided by Hanzo are culled through, and actually represent a series of edits to footnote and source the text. I don't see a 3RR violation here.
3. Once Hanzo's block is up, if there's a massive removal of material by him, without first detailed discussion of why each of the items is removed, I will protect the page and I will issue vandalism blocks.
4. There's no hurry in writing this or any article. You can take the time to discuss the points with civility like professional academics.

These comments, besides being posted here, are being posted at the users' pages and the article page. Please stop fighting the Battle of the Washita and start cooperating about its article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"removing footnotes" "vandalism"

OK, what you're calling "removing footnotes" is a lot more than that. You reverted the article to a previous version that HAS NOT BEEN CONSENSED UPON. That whole section on the solomon massacre, and so much other stuff. I'll remove the contentious info, leaving your footnotes, as I can't check them right now. Murderbike 18:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Solomon massacres are historical facts that cannot be denied, it's in National Park Service's book, called "Solomon Depredations". I really don't see why I should accept that entire pieces of history should be removed because some Wiki users don't like them. Sorry, but you don't know anything about the battle, how could you judge the sources? You haven't read any of them. This has been reported. Custerwest 18:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, please don't suggest that I would remove your "vandal" report from that page without doing the work to find out if it's true. Murderbike 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I let you think that I was interested in you. I am actually interested in the Battle of Washita River and I hope you'll give evidences to support your attacks and your vandalism on the page. If you haven't any evidence, please go bother another editor. Have a nice day.Custerwest 18:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing content from Talk:Battle of Washita River

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Battle of Washita River. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Referring to this edit. Please also see Talk:Battle of Washita River#Removing content from talk page. Yksin 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Battle of Washita River. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Referring to this edit (second removal of material). Please also see Talk:Battle of Washita River#Removing content from talk page. Yksin 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made proposals to delete two nontopical discussions from the article talk page, both related to Sand Creek. I am seeking consensus to remove them (which is the more proper way to do it, rather than simply removing them as you did). One of them is one of the discussions you removed; the other is not. I also made comments on the other one about HanzoHattori's titling of it, which I agree was a method of personal attack on you, if slightly (but only just) subtler than outright namecalling. --Yksin 20:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Per my comments at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Removing content from talk page, I'm putting user warning templates (as any other user can also do if there is cause) on user talk pages where they're warranted from here on out. You may notice that I've placed a level 4 (final) warning using templated from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace on HH's talk page. I gave him a level 4 warning rather than a lower level warning because of the several warnings I've also given him on the article talk page, which he has ignored, gave him a full record of those warnings, & told him I will report him if he makes another personal attack.

I am not placing a templated warning against personal attacks on your user page because you haven't said anything today that I'd regard as a personal attack -- just complained that Murderbike hadn't warned HanzoHattori as well as you (even though I've warned HH in plenty). But I'm supplying you with a list of recent warnings against personal attacks that both I & Murderbike have directed at you on the article talk page.

• Yksin: 23:11, 22 July 2007 - ":I would want to publicly register my disappointment with the continuous and seemingly endless carping by HanzoHattori about Custerwest, and Custerwest about HanzoHattori, and to ask both of you to please stop it. Even now, even under this header [Offer for Mediation], you both are engaging in personal attacks on each other."
• Murderbike: 19:19, 29 July 2007 - "CW, I would like to take this moment to point you to WP:CIVIL, and request that you read it, understand it, and agree with it before you come back and start throwing insults around again. For your own sake, it could get you banned. I would personally rather you contribute productively than slinging insults, making false claims, and generally being UNCIVIL."
• Yksin: 21:09, 29 July 2007 - "First to note that User:Felix c is a different individual than User:HanzoHattori. Second to ask, yet again, for users -- notably HanzoHattori, Felix c, and Custerwest -- to please stop using this user page to make personal attacks on one another."
• Yksin: 18:05, 1 August 2007 - "HanzoHattori has received numerous such warnings from me, if not from Murderbike. He continues to ignore them, just as you have tended to ignore such warnings. In fact, your most recent personal attack on HanzoHattori, the one that Murderbike was cautioning you about, attacked HanzoHattori for comments that weren't even made by him, but rather by Felix c. Regardless, I told you awhile ago on your talk page that even when someone else makes personal attacks on you, that is no excuse for you yourself making personal attacks or being uncivil. I wish both you & HanzoHattori (& Felix c besides) would read WP:CIVIL -- even better, that any of you would make the slightest attempt to abide by it. But miracles seem to be in scarce supply at the moment."

The above record shows that you have been warned now in plenty. Although I'm not using a templated warning message, consider this also to be a final warning against making personal attacks, & the next time you make a personal attack on HanzoHattori or anyone, I will report at WP:AIV. I'm with Murderbike that I would much rather that you, as well as HanzoHattori, contribute productively, but your mutual hostility, as well as your particular incivility and contempt for other editors who have not read the same sources you have, continue to be disruptive, not to mention highly unpleasant to anyone who might otherwise be interested in helping improve the article. --Yksin 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment - user-conducts RfCs on you & HanzoHattori

This is to inform you of two user-conduct RfCs relating to the disputes at Battle of Washita River. One is on you, one on HanzoHattori. See:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Custerwest

-- Yksin 20:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. --Yksin 02:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll notification

There is a straw poll being conducted on the content dispute over the Battle of Washita River, your vote is welcome at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Straw poll. – Dreadstar † 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

hello - no time for that right now, sorry. Hope to get there in the future Custerwest 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Custer's revolvers

"General Custer carried ... two Bulldog selfcocking, English, white-handled pistols, with a ring in the butt for a lanyard" custer.over-blog

Please check this concerning the guns:

"Most sources claim that General Custer used a pair of Webley British Bulldog Revolvers at the Little Bighorn (see for instance John Walter 'The Guns That Won The West'. 1999). This idea is probably based on a report given by Brigadier-General (then Major) E.S. Godfrey on January 16, 1896 (in Graham p345) that Custer carried 'two Bulldog self-cocking, English, white-handled pistols, with a ring in the butt for a lanyard.' The problem with this is that the Webley British Bulldog was not made until 1878." westernerspublications Felix c 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Felixc, you're correct about the controversy on Custer's revolvers. In Arthur Unger's book "The ABC", it's said that Custer probably carried pistols which were longer than the Bulldogs ones (those were Webley Western pistols). We cannot know if Godfrey was right (Custer often used pistols given by the industry before the weapon was on sale - a gift) or wrong. Regards, custerwest Custerwest 10:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I know we've addressed this before, so I'm saying this one last time: adding links to your own website, i.e., the website which is the same as your user name, is a conflict of interest. As you have been told this before, I am considering this a last warning, and any further attempts to promote your own site will be grounds for yet another block. I really don't want to go there, so please don't go there yourself. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for removal of cited material, making major changes without first discussing, as required by the RfC resolution, and ignoring previous warnings to do so. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Block explanation

You have been advised numerous times to not remove sourced/cited material without first discussing your proposed changes and obtaining consensus. You've also been advised that the resolution of the RfC for this page requires all such changes to be discussed first. As you've been blocked twice for 24 hours and this hasn't resulted in a change of editing behavior, I'm upping the block length to 1 week. When the block expires, you are more than welcome to come back but be sure to obtain consensus before making such edits. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And who's making the "consensus"? Yskin alone. The story of Clara Blinn, Black Kettle's hostage, has been related by Historian Gregory Michno with evidences shown on the discussion. Yet, Yskin doesn't like it and it doesn't appear on the article. General Sheridan's report? She doesn't like it either. So it doesn't appear on the article. And so on. So stop talking about your "consensus" and try to read the discussion. It could be useful. Custerwest 09:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Consensus" is achieved when you post a proposal and it is first discussed. If you had participated in the discussion during the time of the article lock down, you would understand that. You've been repeated told this, as well. Post your proposal, and allow everyone else involved to discuss the merits of it before you post the material to the article. You complain about Yskin? You should realize that Yskin has a heck of a lot more credibility around here than you do simply based on behavior. If you insist on things being your way, act so disruptively that a lengthy RfC is built against you, have a clear POV agenda, violate COI rules, it's no wonder that your edits aren't taken seriously. Take the time off that you've been given and read through the RfC and consider how you can change your editing behavior and work as a part of the community. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't evade your ban, yo. --HanzoHattori 09:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Per our policy that frowns significantly on block evasion attempts, your block has now been extended to the next interval, one month. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

LBH Again

Hello again Custerwest - I have to say that I appreciate the edited version of your comments on my user page as opposed to the apparent original.

In an earlier note on the talk page of one of the Custer articles, I praised your site for its professionalism in creation and for the fact that it's enjoyable to wander around in.

However, I just don't understand why you do not see that your site does what you maintain your critics do - espouse a point of view rather than a balanced assessment. Are there sources and scholars on your site who are critical of GAC and his tactics, strategy, and motivation at Washita and LBH? Does your site present both sides of the battle vs. massacre question for Washita - which is a question of debate today and was in the immediate aftermath of the battle? Is there an examination of the question that at LBH the Indians were in the moral and legal right?

I do not endorse all of these positions myself, but they are recognized points of view by academics in the US and other countries who have published sourced and supported works to advance these perspectives.

Your note to me seems to suggest that "history" has but one interpretation possible - that there is only one way to look at Washita and LBH. That is non-encyclopedic in intent (and contradictory of the very meaning of the term) and in contravention to Wiki policy which states (as I have had to remind editors of those articles that want to make them about genocide and butchery, maintaining that THOSE are the only supportable "truths" and "facts") that when a controversy exists, both sides need to be fairly and accurately represented.

Custerwest.org does not do so, and it does not intend to do so, and that's fine - as I said, I enjoy the site. But advocacy is not objectivity, regardless of its source. Plenty of academics think Custer a blowhard fool and US policy toward Indians genocidal. When your site examines those perspectives or even accurately represents them, then I'd say you can put yourself in as a source.

I note that another regular editor today has removed your links as spam - again.

And what would be wrong with my earlier suggestion - identifying your site as something like "Custerwest.org:Site For Traditional Scholarship" - since you are taking the historically traditional perspective on GAC/LBH as opposed to the revisionist history one you deplore?

regards, Sensei48 (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

ps: Administrator ARaedecki wrote you "adding links to your own website, i.e., the website which is the same as your user name, is a conflict of interest." I'm trying to give you a way to keep those links in tact in the article by identifying them in a way that maybe your critics will find acceptable. Sensei48 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Custerwest.org:Site For Traditional Scholarship". Agreed with that one, thank you. But protect it from vandalism. Moreover, if you want to talk to any specialist on the website to add information on Wikipedia pages, just ask. I still deplore the censorship of Clara Blinn's story on the Battle of the Washita page. Custerwest (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Custerwest, my feeling here is that most disputes of this sort can be worked out with reasonable good faith. To reiterate, I for one like your site (the videos are extremely well-produced especially) and the content and POV and I believe can add significantly to a student's understanding of LBH, especially as noted the traditional view. Might I venture a suggestion or two?

A. The problem with the link to Custerwest.org goes beyond the title, and I'm glad you find my suggestion for that acceptable. The problem the administrators seem to have is that it is your own site, and that to some of them constitutes linkspam. Would it be possible to have one of your recognized scholars post it as a resource instead of you? That would seem to me to obviate the "conflict of interest" COI problem.

The problem on Washita with Clara Blinn that kept getting the poor lady thrown out of the article was, I believe, that you insisted on using the words "murdered" or "massacred" instead of "killed." Now, I am not here to debate the concept. I'm sure both you and I and anyone reasonable would find the fact and manner of her death appalling. But I think other editors take offense at the non-neutral tone of your word choice. So - how about this? Let Clara Blinn be "killed" at the point of dispute - but introduce the concept of brutality and even "massacre" of white captives in the section "Battle or Massacre?" It seemes to me on the one hand that a) as per my observations on Elliott and his men, 2 dead troopers of 500 storming a hostile village SEEMS to lend credence to the latter term, but on the other hand that b) your points about the manner and death of Blinn suggest an armed camp of dangerous, armed, hostile people - supporting the former term. The trick, as I see it, is to get your supported interpretation in without excluding the others with which you do not agree. Just some thoughts. regards Sensei48 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Edit summaries such as these are unacceptable. Edit warring to force a link to an organization you are affiliated with is unacceptable. Knowingly reporting good faith users to WP:AIV is not acceptable either. You have been around long enough for you to know this, which is why these actions now has earned you a two week timeout, which frankly is lenient considering your block log. Please consider changing your approach to editing wikipedia when you return. Regards, henrik•talk 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Custerwest for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Spiesr (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Speisr - whom I recognize from good edits on LBH and other pages - this may not be sockpuppetry. If you look at the "LBH Again" section above, I suggested that Custerwest avoid Wikipedia: COI by having an independent scholar nominate his site as an external link.. and perhaps this address is that.

I realize that Custerwest's comments have often been somewhat too assertive and that not all editors approve of his site. However, I believe that if you take the time to look through Custerwest.org you'll find much of value there beyond simple advocacy.

Additionally, as you can see above, it was I who suggested that Custerwest identify his site as "Custerwest.org: Site For traditional Scholarship" since he is advocating what had been a mainstream point of view on LBH, Washita, and the Black Hills War for about 90 years. I do not agree with his view point in many regards, but that is beside the point. CW has marshalled some interesting commentaries and evidence that I believe have a place as a link for further study at least.

Moreover, I'd point out that Custerwest's agreement to identify his site in the link both by its name and with an accurately descriptive title indicates ,I think, a willingness on CW's part to collaborate in a reasonable fashion so long as his/her voice is heard, and I think that that should be encouraged.

I don't know if this goes to the point of sockpuppetry, and I'm not sure how one would ascertain that, especially given (as noted) that CW may in fact simply be following my suggestion.

If this doesn't satisfy you and the other regular and responsible editors on LBH, then how would it be if I myself appended the site as a link? My edits across Wiki have been measured and responsible, and I for one feel that there is merit as a link in CW's site. Just wondering - I'd like to see this resolved amicably by all concerned if possible. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Links

Hello Cuserwest - I am glad to see that you have had links to your site uploaded by scholars to the appropriate pages. I think you have correctly identified them as having the "traditional perspective." Now I believe we might be able to represent some of your ideas (e.g., the Clara Blinn incident) in some of the articles. I have some ideas for some edits that I think other Wiki editors might accept, and I'd like your feedback on them. regards Sensei48 (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2008 (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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)