User talk:Fb8cont

Hello! --Fb8cont (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Byte measurements

November 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Chelsea Manning‎ are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. -- Irn (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade: 35 years in prison under aggravated conditions for speaking out against torture is brutal injustice

@Irn:@Earthscent: Chelsea Manning got a sentence of 35 years in prison for speaking out against cruelty and is in turn treated in prison more harshly than a murderer. She didn't disclose military secrets, she didn't do it for money, didn't do it for glory, didn't do it for revenge. She did it as a service to humanity and was betrayed. I don't know whether she thinks that she is religious, but what she did is testimony of Jesus Christ and against oppression. (I hope that there is a little bit of sanity and her sentence will be reduced and the conditions improved.) In the articles of Erdogan and Putin, their actions are called violations of human rights, why not here? It's about the integrity of Wikipedia! --Fb8cont (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You're a vandal. Your opinions are unimportant. Don't clutter up useful talk pages with gibberish. Earthscent (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Earthscent: Please stay on topic! Do you acknowledge that 35 years in prison under aggravated conditions for effectively speaking out against torture is excessive? --Fb8cont (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Without hard facts everyone could have denounced it as mere g_bb_r_sh (Fill in your vowels!).

My opinions and your opinions of Chelsea Manning's sentence are off topic. Don't put your opinions in articles are on talk pages. But since we're not on either of those right now, of course I think it's excessive. But again, our opinions are NOT relevant to encyclopedias. Earthscent (talk) 13:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Earthscent: According to the NYT article Soldier to Face More Serious Charges in Leak (1 March 2013), Manning pleaded guilty "to 10 lesser charges that carry a maximum total sentence of 20 years." NYT further writes: "After the plea, prosecutors and their boss, the commanding general of the Washington Military District, had the option of settling for the 10 charges to which he had admitted his guilt and proceeding directly to sentencing." But they carried on and the article cites a law expert's comment on that: “They want to scare the daylights out of other people,” as a normal quotation. But it isn't! If that would be true, it would be contrary to the United States Bill of Rights, since the sentence should reflect the personal guilt. And what is she really guilty of? Isn't her foremost deed that her leak set an end to the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse?! If she wouldn't have leaked anything other than that, she would deserve the Presidential Medal of Freedom like none other among those on the List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients#Media, because she fixed the blind spot of the media after 9/11!

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

(Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution)

In the article there is no mention of the Eighth Amendment. Aren't there law experts or civil rights organizations that publicly criticize the long duration on that ground? --Fb8cont (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC) --Fb8cont (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, but Wikipedia can only add content based on what reliable sources say. Find a source that says what you think. Earthscent (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tried with Google, but I've only found www.chelseamanning.org/news/top-us-law-scholars-mannings-detention-violates-5th-and-8th-amendments and that site isn't independent. Therefore the question! --Fb8cont (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages such as talk:The Washington Post for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at United States v. Manning, you may be blocked from editing. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@RileyBugz:That was what the UN special rapporteur for torture said, and it was already integrated in another article, see Chelsea Manning#Detention (Dec. 28, UTC 22:28):

The detention conditions prompted national and international concern. Juan E. Mendez, United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, told The Guardian that the U.S. government's treatment of Manning was "cruel, inhuman and degrading."

Your accusation is completely unfounded. It was the official analysis of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, reported by The Guardian. (And bad conditions in pre-trial detention can reduce the validity of a trial, because the defendant is reduced in his capabilities to expound his doings.) How can you denounce that as disruptive editing? --Fb8cont (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fb8cont: I am going to ask an admin to take a look at your edits, I might have made this in error. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No thanks. --Fb8cont (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: As you refrain from apologizing or defending your action, but choose to circle around with "I might have made this in error" only in order to continue to threaten "I am going to ask an admin to take a look at your edits" please don't write on my talk page anymore after that topic. And BTW since when does one ping s.b. on his own talk page? --Fb8cont (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And why do write good faith edits when you obviously say the opposite in the by-text? see: history

And why do you, who accuses me of personal opinion, do insert your very personal opinion to Mr. Mendez's conclusion? See diff-log? It's NOT on you nor me to condition the conclusion of the UN rapporteur on torture in the same line. The Guardian didn't report that Mr. Mendez has softened his evaluation. On the contrary, he was very frank about it: "... that imposing seriously punitive conditions of detention on someone who has not been found guilty of any crime is a violation of his right to physical and psychological integrity as well as of his presumption of innocence," Mendez writes. And yes, my opinion is the same. If you don't agree, cite your experts, but I doubt there will be any. This treatment of Manning is indefensible. It's a shame! --Fb8cont (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, and I wanted an admin to check so they could decide which version was better. I wasn't threatening admin action. Also, my reasoning for editing (when I did edit it) was because I thought that the content you put in was unrelated. I'm sorry, I will revise it back to a version we can agree on. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Now I've to be ashamed more than a little bit, regarding what I a said to you. Excuse me! --Fb8cont (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand. I have definitely felt that way before. Also, I asked the admin I contacted, Oshwah, to remove the level 3 warning. Also, apology accepted. Just remember to be a bit more careful. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fb8cont. 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)