User talk:Bobthefish2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:51, 1 February 2011 editQwyrxian (talk \| contribs)57,186 edits →Remin Ribao: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:59, 1 February 2011 edit undoBobthefish2 (talk \| contribs)2,027 edits →Remin Ribao Next edit →
Line 444:		Line 444:

	And, I know that even if I ask, no one has to listen, but I'd like to hear Bobthefish2's answer before hearing others (that's why I brought the question here, rather than the article talk page). I'm trying to understand this, and it's difficult for me since I read neither Japanese nor Chinese, and I'm trying to figure out what we ''know'' for sure as compare to what we can ''source'' for sure. ] (]) 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)		And, I know that even if I ask, no one has to listen, but I'd like to hear Bobthefish2's answer before hearing others (that's why I brought the question here, rather than the article talk page). I'm trying to understand this, and it's difficult for me since I read neither Japanese nor Chinese, and I'm trying to figure out what we ''know'' for sure as compare to what we can ''source'' for sure. ] (]) 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
			:I think this is more unambiguous than you think, Qwyrxian.
			:
			:The article mentioned the islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands and not the Okinawa Prefecture. Furthermore, it railed against Japanese-U.S. conspiracy of taking over the Ryukyu Islands. This is directly a contradiction to the references put up by ] and ].
			:
			:I doubt there is any reliable sources that refute the fraudulent translations because these are obscure arguments that are generally disregarded. You might think it is only proper to have such sources cited, but think of the amount of abuses an editor can make if he decides to add b.s. reported in Fox News (which almost nobody would care to pay attention to).
			:
			:Anyhow, the translation is totally wrong (with no room for ambiguity too!) and nobody objected when I settled the matter with ] (whom, interestingly enough, reneged on the agreement). We can always propose an RfC on what the article truly meant, but it's a waste of time. For the time being, I am content to simply get the admins involved. With some luck, I might either get the pages locked (which will make POV pushing much harder) or get certain users banned from the page (which is a better solution... since very few of them actually did anything constructive).

Revision as of 02:59, 1 February 2011

Welcome

Hello, Bobthefish2! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Misplaced Pages you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Akerans (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting Started
The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Nomination of DNA Codon Table for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article DNA Codon Table, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DNA Codon Table until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tagishsimon (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi Bob,

Sorry to see your first article was nominated for deletion, which is nothing to feel bad about – literally the majority of new articles do end up deleted. I've noticed many of Misplaced Pages's articles on molecular biology have room for improvement, so I think you'll find plenty to do here. I've left a couple of comments at Talk:Genetic code that might interest you. You might be interested in joining WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology if you haven't already.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter 12:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages 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) 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

順風相送

This is easy. The edit which disturbed your inline citation note was simply wrong here; and my error is corrected here. I am glad for the opportunity to explain. The edit summary notes will help to clarify.

Perhaps I should have posted a note on your talk page as soon as I noticed this error? --Tenmei (talk) 01:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's fine. Lately, some editors have been relentlessly sabotaging the contents I added/changed in that page. As a result, I mistook this as just another instance of vandalism. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Senkaku Islands dispute, you may be blocked from editing. (diff) ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about your baseless warnings. Please refrain from sending me another message. Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User_talk:San9663 in a language other than English. When on the English-language Misplaced Pages, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Also, be civil. We do not permit personal attacks in any language. Thank you. Chzz ► 05:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The word 蘿蔔頭 means "Turnip head" a derogatory term for Japanese people.Google translation ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

See this and this. Oda Mari (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' 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 Misplaced Pages's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Oda Mari (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Judging from your previous behaviour, I find it difficult to take your advice seriously. I filed a complaint and notified others who suffered from the same issue. It was a request for an admin judgement and not a consensus. If a community discussion is to take place, it will be on a separate page.

Also, if you are so against partisanship, then you wouldn't be engaging in that as well. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a strong case against phoenix666 based on him tendentious editing (WP:TE). STSC (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the admin I asked doesn't want to deal with edit-wars. So I guess we may have to find a different means of filing this complaint. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I knew phoenix666 would revert my edit, and he fell into my trap so that the administrators would notice how evil he is. STSC (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

He's not evil... just incredibly stubborn and unrelenting. Even though the admins think he hasn't done enough to deserve a ban, I do hope this will serve as a warning for certain editors. At the same time, the lack of condemnation of his actions from traditionally critical editors such as Oda Mari, Qwyxian, and John Smith does imply objectivity may only go so far among the pro-Japanese bloc. However, this doesn't mean the rest of us should not exercise objectivity in our edits and opinions (i.e. don't post personal essay, blog posts, etc as references). Otherwise, you will find yourself losing the moral high ground. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're too kind on them; I know how this organised gang of fanatics operates but I just don't have the time and energy to combat those bullies. As to Kiyoshi's quote, he was a very well-known Japanese historian and his finding on Diaoyutai is certainly not a personal essay or blog post; I'm actually starting an article about him. STSC (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If Kiyoshi is a good source, then that's very good.

As for those guys, they have been known to do similar things in the past. The best way of dealing with them is to make sure they are the only ones doing the things you accuse them of doing. However, it seems they aren't as active anymore after the page was locked, which is good. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Bobthefish2. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Senkaku Islands dispute. Thank you. —Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Bobthefish2. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kiyoshi Inoue

Please give some thought to my responses to the edits of STSC and San9663 at Talk:Senkaku Islands#Kiyoshi Inoue. I hope you construe my comments as thoughtful, practical, and forward-looking. --Tenmei (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You should post a 'diff' link next time, as I had to guess which were your additions. It may help if some Japanese users rent a copy of the book from a local library to see if it make sense at all. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy

In part, this is a follow-up to the problems you are helping to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Misplaced Pages settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words.

Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

This is nothing grand to ponder about - Open-mindedness is a norm of the Western world. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:

What on earth are you talking about? I haven't even touched an armpit hair of User:Tenmei. The link you posted was in regards to User:HighSpeed-X, and User:HighSpeed-X only. If you actually paid attention to what I wrote, the **** ********* was spamming my interwiki talkpages. And yes, I still am pretty mad about it. And I have a right to be upset when an arrogant **** keeps spamming my Chinese, Japanese and Russian Misplaced Pages user talkpages, even after repeatedly telling them to back the **** off. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I replied in your talk page. Throwing a rage at him accomplishes nothing. If he is that determined to be a pest, then a few angry comments wouldn't stop him. Bobthefish2 (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

so its not okay to criticize people for spouting ethnic hatred?

you seem to approve of User:Arilang1234's anti manchu edits, and personal attacks on living people, which break wikipedia policy regarding racism and etiquette, you don't seem to comprehend what exactly Arilang1234 has added to the Boxer Rebellion article

I'd advise to look at earlier threats at ANI in which Arilang1234 was warned for his vandalism on the Boxer Rebellion article again he was reported for his "bizarre" and "incoherent" edits

Quoted directly from User:Arilang1234- " when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face.

"Old Chinese communist education history text books blamed the western power on everything, is just like putting the horse behind the cart. Yes, western powers were evil, we all know that, but what about Manchus, have anyone really really have a closer examination and analysis on Manchus, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST 300 YEARS? Why didn't they adopt modern western weapons(or at least buy them, if they cannot manufacture them), Why did they stick to bows and arrows when fast loading rifles(Wincester) could be bought in international markets, instead they spend massive amounts of silver bars on garden building. My conclusion is the Manchus deserved every battle field defeats they got in the 2 opium wars"Дунгане (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races- accusing them of being savage and "Barbarian".

Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro

lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric

In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.

Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.

Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.

arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".Дунгане (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not said anything that resembled an endorsement of User:Arilang's edits. In fact, I've read only a small part of your disputes with him. However, this doesn't affect the validity of my opinions because they were directed at specific instances of complaints, which numerous editors (including myself) have dismissed as unnecessary.

Since you insist that your complaints are valid, I took some time to evaluate some of the issues you've brought up.

User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races- accusing them of being savage and "Barbarian".

The issue dealing with 阎崇年 is much more complicated. He published a book with very controversial views about the Manchus and the Hans. Since you don't seem to be familiar with Chinese history, I'd recommend you to read up on what 阎崇年 said and the relevant background information about the Qing and Ming dynasties. Suffice to say, the Han and all other racial minorities (including the Hui) suffered greatly under Qing rule. It was also a time when cultural identities of non-Manchus were strictly suppressed. Since the mismanagement and brutality of the Manchus was a direct reason for China to suffer a century-long period of bloodshed and poverty, it is not necessarily ridiculous to harbour a great deal of resentment towards 阎崇年's opinions.

'In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.'

The original quote did not link Qianlong's short-comings with his racial identity. I agree that Qianlong and many of the Qing emperors are intellectually-backward rulers. But so were/are Mao or George Bush. This has nothing to do with race.

'Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.'

The comment is somewhat lacking in tact, but it is also not invalid. The Manchus had committed large scale massacres when they conquered China. Would you call someone a racist if a Jew tells you "the barbaric German nazi's were evil people who committed massacres on us"?

My verdict on the complaints I spent time to evaluate is that they are ignorant and ignorable. Please refrain from making these childish allegations in the future. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have created an article, Miao Rebellions (Ming Dynasty). which is sourced extensively, and documents how the Ming dynasty commited mass genocide and castration of the Miao, Yao, and Bo peoples, but i do not see Miao editors coming onto wiki and calling us barbaric.Дунгане (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So? If they come in and say the "Han Chinese" had committed barbaric atrocities against the Miao, Yao, and Bo people during Ming dynasty, I don't think there's a problem with that. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

Hi Bobthefish2, thank you for your message. I support your endeavours and I still believe that the article should reside at the English name, with the Japanese and Chinese names prominently listed at the start. I do not have the time these days to be committed to the process like I would have a couple of years ago, however I will give my input where I can. All the best with your efforts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have briefly skimmed User:Qwyrxian/Senkaku name RfC draft and also your page. My first thought is that the name "Pinnacle Islands" should not be represented only as an archaic term with an imprecise meaning. It is this, but in addition it is also emerging as a neutral term with a precise definition (being equivalent to Senkaku/Diaoyu) in contemporary academic literature. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about Pinnacle Islands. While others have cited the Liancourt Rocks as a precedent, I am not familiar with the edit history of that page and I am not sure if I want to get into that mess. My inclination is to have the name changed to Senkaku/Diaoyu or Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. While it is not recommended by Misplaced Pages guidelines, I believe this case is unique enough to make it a suitable alternative as opposed to simply favouring one name over another. Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the guideline only says it is less preferred, the reason is mainly people start to argue about ordering. But there are solutions, e.g. if the title is 1-2, the in content can be 2-1, etc. Or one can again rely on google scholar search.San9663 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I think. What some people refuse to acknowledge is that having a title as 1-2 or 2-1 is better than simply having 1 or 2 as title even though none are perfect solutions. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to defend vandals

Complaints of Binesi by Дунгане
1. 208.64.63.176 edited the article, claiming to correct the user, "chin1976"'s bad english, in this edit- "Corrected chin1976's bad English and corrected prose to focus on facts given in cited references" yet anyone can see that User:chin1976 doesn't exist. Also I see no evidence of inocorrect english being used in the edits 208.64.63.176 reverted, would he mind pointing them out?Дунгане (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC) 2. in this edit, 208.64.63.176 removes cited information stating that all the forces except the Japanese commited rape and pillage, which was supported by the reference here, which pointed out specifically that all the forces except japan engaged in rape and pillage. 3. In this edit, 208.64.63.176 removed "but there is no evidence of rape", yet the refence used in the aritcle, says that for all the boxer atrocities there had been no incidents of chinese rape 4. Our friend 208.64.63.176 also struck again, he changed a section signifigantly, changing a previous paragraph, which was referenced, to The Imperial Army Muslim Kansu braves additionally slaughtered Christians near the legations while looting indiscriminately. The reference used, "The Atlantic monthly, Volume 113", pointed out that the kansu braves had tea with their hosts and apologized for intruding, and only took away several thousand dollars of valuables without killing any of their hosts, as long as they were not christian The reference clearly points at the the Kansu Braves spared non christians, and did not engage in "looting indiscriminately" 5. 208.64.63.176 changed "General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Eight-Nation Alliance. They were put into the rear division, and attacked the legations relentlessly" to ". General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Allies. However they where put into the rear division and mostly engaged in pillage and looting." 6. 208.64.63.176 claimed that "Corrected to match information given in citation. Corrected capitalization" yet none of the refences supplied, say that the Kansu braves engaged in pillaging and looting, only that they had attacked the legations 7. User:Benisi admitted to being the same person as this ip address 8. The ip was severely berated by an admin for his vandalism. 9. He refused to answer why he deleted cited info from the article without explanation when i confronted him, instead, he personally attacked me, the tone of his message was sarcastic , calling me " juvenile" Дунгане (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Also copyvio committed by Binesi This user Binesi does not appear to understand copyright rules on wiki. In this edit he copied directly from the book "Dragon lady: the life and legend of the last empress of China" It is clear that User:Binesi does not understand what close paraphrasing is, even when they don't look exactly alike, its still copyvio, see Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing First, we cannot copy any content that has been previously published outside of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC) It appears that Binesi did not even read references when he deleted content look at his comment- These were the edits in which he removed referenced information- These were the references- Дунгане (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC) binesi and similar accounts Binesi has displayed extreme similarity to a user who was inserting Anti Chinese POV on Second Sino Japanese War Articles, and got blocked indefinitely after i filed a sockpuppet investigation on him. This guy went around with various account names with the word "Pheonix" in them. these two accounts were Reconquista1492 and ScorchingPheonix ScorchingPheonix inserted pro Japanese POV many times on the Senkaku Islands article, which you are now dealing with. His language is nearly exactly the same as Binesi's, he goaded and provoked me in the same way, saying to the effect- "I don't want to edit war with you" "i don't want to be enemies, Дунгане but your chinese education is inferior to western education" "I'm sorry that you see it this way but your view sucks" Mr. Phoenix- 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. alk about the Suiyuan and Ningxia campaign, a seemingly insignificant campaign that I believe you've blown way out of proportion to create the image that the campaign was a tie. Nice independent research, though! Maybe someday you can change how history is written and write your own book and argue that the Winter Offensive was a tie (笑) (Note: 笑 means a form of snickering, an extremely insulting gesture by phoenix which was directed at me) Mr. Binesi Yes, I know you will also not understand what I just wrote. I'm wasting my time. Take care Дунгане. I'm tired of trying to empathize with you. Please have the Boxer article fixed up yourself over the next few days. I have no interest in edit wars. You will find that I can also play the rules and procedures game with you. Picking apart every paragraph in that article and comparing it to the Misplaced Pages rules and standards would become an article in itself. I'm not against you and I am quite willing to both try to understand your point of view and help you improve your articles to reflect a neutral point of view. Your viewpoint is as valid as anyone else and my only goal is to try to find the neutral ground so we can get the articles you have contributed to out of contention. If you find any errors that I have made, I only ask you help me fix them or at least point them out specifically without turning to diatribes and personal attacks. By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC) You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel this way Дунгане. I really am. However, honestly - I've stopped taking your personal attacks seriously and now find this whole thing to be more amusing than concerning. I don't mean this to belittle you, but I am not going to reply to your claims here as I already have on the Boxer Rebellion talk page and I don't want to clutter up your personal space (as I don't want you to clutter mine). But please, do give it a rest with the slander. It reads as transparently as your attempts at slanting Misplaced Pages articles do. It's more juvenile than effective. Дунгане (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I glance through a few of your allegations towards Binesi. You should note that some of his edits are not in line with ScorchingPhoenix's pro-Japanese views. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC) honestly, i don't think SchorchingPhoenix is Japanese. I just think he has an Anti China POV rather than a pro Japan POV, and he may have different opinions in different situations, for example, he might favor Japan over China in one case, and Europeans over Japan in another case. People have multiple views and POV, not nesesarily favoring one. And it is precisely his lack of interest in actually fixing the Boxer Rebellion article now which is disturbing, he seems more preoccupied in getting ready to argue with me on talk pages, Biseni might by phoenix coming back for revenge, by WP:BAIT (baiting me into insulting him and then getting me banned for doing so. He has already said he would stay off the article for a few days. It doesn't add up since the very "first" encounter he had with me was over the boxer article itself, and he suddenly isn't interested in it anymore?Дунгане (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) My impression is that you've always been insulting people in the Boxer Rebellion page. Last time I checked, you insulted Arilang over numerous small and stupid things. I've also shown in a thread above that at least some of your allegations towards other people are incorrect and ignorable. While I don't have the time to look through your flood of complaints, I've invited Binesi over to explain himself. I'll wait for what he says. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure if you are even paying attention to the difference between Binesi and Arilang1234. Arilang claimed that chinese wikipedia was controlled by pro CCP users who censored articles, and therefore it was unreliable, while Binesi claimed that the chinese wikipedia article was neutral. Arilang1234 is largely driven by an agenda against the CCP and Manchus, while Binesi has POV against Chinese in General. OK, scratch what I just said on my talk page - I made some time so we can get this wrapped up as I realize everyone's time is valuable. Amusing claim about my being anti-Chinese. If he only knew me. Anyway - you requested three so I will just take the first three as they are all the same. The references are already linked and I'll just do quotes and Дунгане can point out if he feels I quote wrong. Also I think I have discussed most of these both on the article talk page, my talk page, his talk page and the administrative complaint board if more information is needed. I also want to point again as I illustrated on the complaint page that Дунгане uses as his alias the name of the people he glorifies and defends in this article. I am guessing that this personal connection is the motive at play, but doesn't excuse the behavior. 1. I changed "Muslim braves" to "Kansu Braves" as that is what their name was. "Muslim braves" has a very general meaning that seems to make the article about Islam. I also changed "wipe out" to "remove all" and a few similar grammar adjustments to make this read more like an encyclopedia. I think it can all be viewed easily enough. This was the first day I was editing Misplaced Pages so I did not know who wrote the original. I noticed something about "chin1976" so I mistakenly believed he was the writer. It's a red herring anyway. 2. In the linked East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History it says "Japanese soldiers watched with amazement as Western troops ran amok for three days in a an orgy of looting, rape, and murder." It does not say that Japanese did not commit rape. What they did during and in between periods of amazement is not covered so I removed the unsupported assumption. 3. I think this is a language issue. Luella Miner remarks "that for all the Boxer atrocities there had been no incident of Chinese rape". She is already talking about the Boxers here, which are Chinese. Qualifying rape with "Chinese" in this sentence highly suggests she is referring to no incidents of Boxers raping other Chinese. However in this article Дунгане wants to attach this claim to refer to foreigners not being raped. A cursory check on Google shows numerous claims of Western women being raped in publication so this appears to be well supported (if I think such claims are necessary in the article I will source them). I deleted the unsubstantiated claim. Hopefully this is what you needed? Binesi (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, also - to clarify my intentions. It was my hope to spend chunks of time over the weeks to go through the article bit by bit and clean up referenced information. I didn't get very far before I noticed everything I try to add to the article - everything - gets undone out of hand. It seems whoever was twisting was on to the fact I was neutralizing each one. So now I get to participate in Misplaced Pages even more directly. My usual hobby is complaining to journalists that do it ;-) Binesi (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Binesi has just dug himself into a deeper hole, one of the references, right next to where it said there was no Japanese rape in the article, said "He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape" this was the edit in which he removed the part about japanese forces. The reference i mentioned above was right next to it. everything gets undone, because it is not the responsibility of the editor who undos the edits to look over every single one, and to see if there were good edits mixed in with vandalism. If you, Mr. Binesi, have a problem, and like to make grammar changes in between vandalising the article, you should make the grammar changes first so I only have to revert them up to the constructive edits. on the article Ninghai Army i added numerous instances of muslim forces killing Tibetans. I have not been partisan in any way regarding the alleged connection between my username and my edits.Дунгане (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Alright, let's try to understand Дунгане. So what I see is that you ignore that you commit serious misrepresentations of source like item 3 (and all others I have pointed out earlier) while you will remain unproductively belligerent and even quote a different publication, "China now", when I was referring to "East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History" in item 2? What you just linked talks about fires breaking out all over the city. Will you please link what to you are referring about? If you want to link a reference, do it properly so we can all check it. That could save everyone a lot of time and prevent your edits from being deleted for being unreferenced. That's on you. It really is disappointing to find that this is the kind of editor that wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I mean.. seriously - the people who write articles here are only interested in them because they have a personal POV they want to push? That makes me really sad, and I hope this is not indicative of the community at large. After years of using Misplaced Pages I finally look beyond the cover to see the ugly truth. Maybe it is because I usually only read science related articles? Is history what attracts this element? You know why I would offer edits here? Because I know my POV isn't compromised. That is my personal integrity. I don't believe in revisionism, although I recognize that reality is subjective. History is an unpopular subject and this article is barely read. There is nothing to gain in corrupting it. You want to pretend you didn't make many serious misrepresentations of source? You should go back in our conversation history and my edits and answer each claim that you have ignored. You should go back in the article and recheck every source and correct each mistake. You seem so steeped in paranoia and conspiracy theories about incarnations of personal tormentors and people hating Chinese or Dungan and whatever else you invent that you will continue to just fight blindly instead of fixing the article and giving up on personal POV crusades. There is nothing to win here and I am sure you have more important things in your real life to focus on. If you are proud of being a Dungan than just be a good person and people will see it. I really wish I had more time to do heavy researching on an article like this but I have a life and responsibilities. Sniffing out bias and propaganda is fast and easy so I will leave the reading of 400 page 200 year old journals to the unemployed history majors that have more time for it. I would rather expose the bad behavior that wasn't being addressed and encourage the community at large to pay more close attention to your edits (which it appears I have accomplished). I don't care if people use my edits as long as something is being done in the right direction. I have far less interest in the Senkaku Islands article because when I read it, it appears fairly balanced in presentation. I don't see a deliberate hijacking of it - probably because there is enough eyes on it. It would be out of character for me to offer anything on it even if after I read it I did form an opinion. As long as it's all clear and unbiased I'm happy to learn something new. Binesi (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) These things do happen in Misplaced Pages. I am pretty new myself and I've already encountered my share of bad editors and closet anti-WP:NPOV (pro-Japanese) crusaders. As for Senkaku Islands, most of the controversial stuff are moved to Senkaku Islands dispute, which is where the pro-Japanese slant is found. So yes, there are big fights going on in that topic as well. It's just that we don't have spams of relentless complaints like this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC) You either think we are blind or very stupid. Anyone can see "China Now" was the referenced used to support the fact that only the western forces in the 8 nation allianced looted and raped. It was right next to the sentence "All of the foreign troops, except the Japanese, raped women which you removed. China Now CLEALRY STATES THAT: "Despite what he himself had suffered in the Rising, Hart refused to share in the West's demands for revenge. He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape, Sir Robert Hart, 1st Baronet was a BRITISH man, not a Chinese or Japanese. Clicking on the "China Now", the the link i showed above, links directly to the link i already provided I invite everyone to investigate Binesi's contributions to see what claims he made about me twisting POV on sources, and to look at the sources themselves. If anyone actually checks it out, i tihnk they will find the majority of his comments to me consist of whining and insults, not once can he mention a specific twist of this alleged "POV twisting", while I, myself have posted dozens of links and quotes from him here and on ANI pointing toward HIS POV twisting of references.Дунгане (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with Binesi on #1 because the edit is reasonable and he did greatly improve the English usage in that paragraph. I can't say much about #2 because Google doesn't let me access the book. Please show me how to. At the same time, I am highly suspicious of China Now's account. I would be more convinced if there are more English sources that support the same claim... I agree with Binesi on #3 because: (a) This is the personal account of Luella Miner whose opinion and observations may not be reflective of the whole issue. (b) As Binesi pointed out, the source said "no evidence of Chinese rape by Boxers", which is quite different to what Дунган wrote. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Bob, did you look at the author of "China Now"? the "Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (London, England)" is listed as the author. It is an english source. The Guardian, a British newspaper, had an article written about the Boxer rebellion, in the ninth paragraph of the article, it says "When it lifted the siege on August 14, it proceeded to loot, kill and rape with as much ferocity as the Boxers had shown (with the difference that the Boxers looted and killed, but did not rape)." Дунгане (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, but I can't load the book from that link. If the Guardian article did say the Boxers did not rape (which I highly doubt), then you should've cited that article to Binesi. The original reference you used was problematic and he was right to make that change. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure if you understand the concept of google books is to provide excerpts", not give you the entire book which would defeat the purpose of bookstores- it clearly says on the link i gave you - "1 page matching He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape in this book" when it says "1 page matching", it means that the following quote is found on that page in the book. They don't allow you to see the entire page deliberately. you appeared to not even have looked at the guardian article, the part about rape is the ninth paragraph, and the author was british, not chinese.Дунгане (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Complaints of Binesi by Дунгане

1. 208.64.63.176 edited the article, claiming to correct the user, "chin1976"'s bad english, in this edit- "Corrected chin1976's bad English and corrected prose to focus on facts given in cited references" yet anyone can see that User:chin1976 doesn't exist. Also I see no evidence of inocorrect english being used in the edits 208.64.63.176 reverted, would he mind pointing them out?Дунгане (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

2. in this edit, 208.64.63.176 removes cited information stating that all the forces except the Japanese commited rape and pillage, which was supported by the reference here, which pointed out specifically that all the forces except japan engaged in rape and pillage.

3. In this edit, 208.64.63.176 removed "but there is no evidence of rape", yet the refence used in the aritcle, says that for all the boxer atrocities there had been no incidents of chinese rape

4. Our friend 208.64.63.176 also struck again, he changed a section signifigantly, changing a previous paragraph, which was referenced, to The Imperial Army Muslim Kansu braves additionally slaughtered Christians near the legations while looting indiscriminately. The reference used, "The Atlantic monthly, Volume 113", pointed out that the kansu braves had tea with their hosts and apologized for intruding, and only took away several thousand dollars of valuables without killing any of their hosts, as long as they were not christian The reference clearly points at the the Kansu Braves spared non christians, and did not engage in "looting indiscriminately"

5. 208.64.63.176 changed "General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Eight-Nation Alliance. They were put into the rear division, and attacked the legations relentlessly" to ". General Dong committed his Muslim troops to join the Boxers to attack the Allies. However they where put into the rear division and mostly engaged in pillage and looting."

6. 208.64.63.176 claimed that "Corrected to match information given in citation. Corrected capitalization" yet none of the refences supplied, say that the Kansu braves engaged in pillaging and looting, only that they had attacked the legations

7. User:Benisi admitted to being the same person as this ip address

8. The ip was severely berated by an admin for his vandalism.

9. He refused to answer why he deleted cited info from the article without explanation when i confronted him, instead, he personally attacked me, the tone of his message was sarcastic , calling me " juvenile" Дунгане (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Also copyvio committed by Binesi

This user Binesi does not appear to understand copyright rules on wiki. In this edit he copied directly from the book "Dragon lady: the life and legend of the last empress of China"

It is clear that User:Binesi does not understand what close paraphrasing is, even when they don't look exactly alike, its still copyvio, see Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing

First, we cannot copy any content that has been previously published outside of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages 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) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Binesi did not even read references when he deleted content look at his comment- These were the edits in which he removed referenced information- These were the references- Дунгане (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

binesi and similar accounts

Binesi has displayed extreme similarity to a user who was inserting Anti Chinese POV on Second Sino Japanese War Articles, and got blocked indefinitely after i filed a sockpuppet investigation on him. This guy went around with various account names with the word "Pheonix" in them.

these two accounts were Reconquista1492 and ScorchingPheonix

ScorchingPheonix inserted pro Japanese POV many times on the Senkaku Islands article, which you are now dealing with.

His language is nearly exactly the same as Binesi's, he goaded and provoked me in the same way, saying to the effect- "I don't want to edit war with you" "i don't want to be enemies, Дунгане but your chinese education is inferior to western education" "I'm sorry that you see it this way but your view sucks"

Mr. Phoenix- 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.

alk about the Suiyuan and Ningxia campaign, a seemingly insignificant campaign that I believe you've blown way out of proportion to create the image that the campaign was a tie. Nice independent research, though! Maybe someday you can change how history is written and write your own book and argue that the Winter Offensive was a tie (笑)

(Note: 笑 means a form of snickering, an extremely insulting gesture by phoenix which was directed at me)

Mr. Binesi Yes, I know you will also not understand what I just wrote. I'm wasting my time. Take care Дунгане. I'm tired of trying to empathize with you. Please have the Boxer article fixed up yourself over the next few days. I have no interest in edit wars. You will find that I can also play the rules and procedures game with you. Picking apart every paragraph in that article and comparing it to the Misplaced Pages rules and standards would become an article in itself.

I'm not against you and I am quite willing to both try to understand your point of view and help you improve your articles to reflect a neutral point of view. Your viewpoint is as valid as anyone else and my only goal is to try to find the neutral ground so we can get the articles you have contributed to out of contention. If you find any errors that I have made, I only ask you help me fix them or at least point them out specifically without turning to diatribes and personal attacks.

By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel this way Дунгане. I really am. However, honestly - I've stopped taking your personal attacks seriously and now find this whole thing to be more amusing than concerning. I don't mean this to belittle you, but I am not going to reply to your claims here as I already have on the Boxer Rebellion talk page and I don't want to clutter up your personal space (as I don't want you to clutter mine). But please, do give it a rest with the slander. It reads as transparently as your attempts at slanting Misplaced Pages articles do. It's more juvenile than effective. Дунгане (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I glance through a few of your allegations towards Binesi. You should note that some of his edits are not in line with ScorchingPhoenix's pro-Japanese views. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

honestly, i don't think SchorchingPhoenix is Japanese. I just think he has an Anti China POV rather than a pro Japan POV, and he may have different opinions in different situations, for example, he might favor Japan over China in one case, and Europeans over Japan in another case. People have multiple views and POV, not nesesarily favoring one.

And it is precisely his lack of interest in actually fixing the Boxer Rebellion article now which is disturbing, he seems more preoccupied in getting ready to argue with me on talk pages, Biseni might by phoenix coming back for revenge, by WP:BAIT (baiting me into insulting him and then getting me banned for doing so. He has already said he would stay off the article for a few days. It doesn't add up since the very "first" encounter he had with me was over the boxer article itself, and he suddenly isn't interested in it anymore?Дунгане (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that you've always been insulting people in the Boxer Rebellion page. Last time I checked, you insulted Arilang over numerous small and stupid things. I've also shown in a thread above that at least some of your allegations towards other people are incorrect and ignorable. While I don't have the time to look through your flood of complaints, I've invited Binesi over to explain himself. I'll wait for what he says. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are even paying attention to the difference between Binesi and Arilang1234. Arilang claimed that chinese wikipedia was controlled by pro CCP users who censored articles, and therefore it was unreliable, while Binesi claimed that the chinese wikipedia article was neutral. Arilang1234 is largely driven by an agenda against the CCP and Manchus, while Binesi has POV against Chinese in General.

OK, scratch what I just said on my talk page - I made some time so we can get this wrapped up as I realize everyone's time is valuable. Amusing claim about my being anti-Chinese. If he only knew me. Anyway - you requested three so I will just take the first three as they are all the same. The references are already linked and I'll just do quotes and Дунгане can point out if he feels I quote wrong. Also I think I have discussed most of these both on the article talk page, my talk page, his talk page and the administrative complaint board if more information is needed. I also want to point again as I illustrated on the complaint page that Дунгане uses as his alias the name of the people he glorifies and defends in this article. I am guessing that this personal connection is the motive at play, but doesn't excuse the behavior.

1. I changed "Muslim braves" to "Kansu Braves" as that is what their name was. "Muslim braves" has a very general meaning that seems to make the article about Islam. I also changed "wipe out" to "remove all" and a few similar grammar adjustments to make this read more like an encyclopedia. I think it can all be viewed easily enough. This was the first day I was editing Misplaced Pages so I did not know who wrote the original. I noticed something about "chin1976" so I mistakenly believed he was the writer. It's a red herring anyway.

2. In the linked East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History it says "Japanese soldiers watched with amazement as Western troops ran amok for three days in a an orgy of looting, rape, and murder." It does not say that Japanese did not commit rape. What they did during and in between periods of amazement is not covered so I removed the unsupported assumption.

3. I think this is a language issue. Luella Miner remarks "that for all the Boxer atrocities there had been no incident of Chinese rape". She is already talking about the Boxers here, which are Chinese. Qualifying rape with "Chinese" in this sentence highly suggests she is referring to no incidents of Boxers raping other Chinese. However in this article Дунгане wants to attach this claim to refer to foreigners not being raped. A cursory check on Google shows numerous claims of Western women being raped in publication so this appears to be well supported (if I think such claims are necessary in the article I will source them). I deleted the unsubstantiated claim.

Hopefully this is what you needed? Binesi (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, also - to clarify my intentions. It was my hope to spend chunks of time over the weeks to go through the article bit by bit and clean up referenced information. I didn't get very far before I noticed everything I try to add to the article - everything - gets undone out of hand. It seems whoever was twisting was on to the fact I was neutralizing each one. So now I get to participate in Misplaced Pages even more directly. My usual hobby is complaining to journalists that do it ;-) Binesi (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Binesi has just dug himself into a deeper hole, one of the references, right next to where it said there was no Japanese rape in the article, said "He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape"

this was the edit in which he removed the part about japanese forces. The reference i mentioned above was right next to it.

everything gets undone, because it is not the responsibility of the editor who undos the edits to look over every single one, and to see if there were good edits mixed in with vandalism. If you, Mr. Binesi, have a problem, and like to make grammar changes in between vandalising the article, you should make the grammar changes first so I only have to revert them up to the constructive edits.

on the article Ninghai Army i added numerous instances of muslim forces killing Tibetans. I have not been partisan in any way regarding the alleged connection between my username and my edits.Дунгане (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's try to understand Дунгане. So what I see is that you ignore that you commit serious misrepresentations of source like item 3 (and all others I have pointed out earlier) while you will remain unproductively belligerent and even quote a different publication, "China now", when I was referring to "East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History" in item 2? What you just linked talks about fires breaking out all over the city. Will you please link what to you are referring about? If you want to link a reference, do it properly so we can all check it. That could save everyone a lot of time and prevent your edits from being deleted for being unreferenced. That's on you.

It really is disappointing to find that this is the kind of editor that wants to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I mean.. seriously - the people who write articles here are only interested in them because they have a personal POV they want to push? That makes me really sad, and I hope this is not indicative of the community at large. After years of using Misplaced Pages I finally look beyond the cover to see the ugly truth. Maybe it is because I usually only read science related articles? Is history what attracts this element?

You know why I would offer edits here? Because I know my POV isn't compromised. That is my personal integrity. I don't believe in revisionism, although I recognize that reality is subjective. History is an unpopular subject and this article is barely read. There is nothing to gain in corrupting it. You want to pretend you didn't make many serious misrepresentations of source? You should go back in our conversation history and my edits and answer each claim that you have ignored. You should go back in the article and recheck every source and correct each mistake. You seem so steeped in paranoia and conspiracy theories about incarnations of personal tormentors and people hating Chinese or Dungan and whatever else you invent that you will continue to just fight blindly instead of fixing the article and giving up on personal POV crusades. There is nothing to win here and I am sure you have more important things in your real life to focus on. If you are proud of being a Dungan than just be a good person and people will see it.

I really wish I had more time to do heavy researching on an article like this but I have a life and responsibilities. Sniffing out bias and propaganda is fast and easy so I will leave the reading of 400 page 200 year old journals to the unemployed history majors that have more time for it. I would rather expose the bad behavior that wasn't being addressed and encourage the community at large to pay more close attention to your edits (which it appears I have accomplished). I don't care if people use my edits as long as something is being done in the right direction.

I have far less interest in the Senkaku Islands article because when I read it, it appears fairly balanced in presentation. I don't see a deliberate hijacking of it - probably because there is enough eyes on it. It would be out of character for me to offer anything on it even if after I read it I did form an opinion. As long as it's all clear and unbiased I'm happy to learn something new. Binesi (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

These things do happen in Misplaced Pages. I am pretty new myself and I've already encountered my share of bad editors and closet anti-WP:NPOV (pro-Japanese) crusaders. As for Senkaku Islands, most of the controversial stuff are moved to Senkaku Islands dispute, which is where the pro-Japanese slant is found. So yes, there are big fights going on in that topic as well. It's just that we don't have spams of relentless complaints like this. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You either think we are blind or very stupid. Anyone can see "China Now" was the referenced used to support the fact that only the western forces in the 8 nation allianced looted and raped. It was right next to the sentence "All of the foreign troops, except the Japanese, raped women which you removed.

China Now CLEALRY STATES THAT: "Despite what he himself had suffered in the Rising, Hart refused to share in the West's demands for revenge. He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape,

Sir Robert Hart, 1st Baronet was a BRITISH man, not a Chinese or Japanese.

Clicking on the "China Now", the the link i showed above, links directly to the link i already provided

I invite everyone to investigate Binesi's contributions to see what claims he made about me twisting POV on sources, and to look at the sources themselves. If anyone actually checks it out, i tihnk they will find the majority of his comments to me consist of whining and insults, not once can he mention a specific twist of this alleged "POV twisting", while I, myself have posted dozens of links and quotes from him here and on ANI pointing toward HIS POV twisting of references.Дунгане (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Binesi on #1 because the edit is reasonable and he did greatly improve the English usage in that paragraph.

I can't say much about #2 because Google doesn't let me access the book. Please show me how to. At the same time, I am highly suspicious of China Now's account. I would be more convinced if there are more English sources that support the same claim...

I agree with Binesi on #3 because:

(a) This is the personal account of Luella Miner whose opinion and observations may not be reflective of the whole issue.

(b) As Binesi pointed out, the source said "no evidence of Chinese rape by Boxers", which is quite different to what Дунган wrote.

Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bob, did you look at the author of "China Now"? the "Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding (London, England)" is listed as the author. It is an english source.

The Guardian, a British newspaper, had an article written about the Boxer rebellion, in the ninth paragraph of the article, it says "When it lifted the siege on August 14, it proceeded to loot, kill and rape with as much ferocity as the Boxers had shown (with the difference that the Boxers looted and killed, but did not rape)." Дунгане (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I can't load the book from that link.

If the Guardian article did say the Boxers did not rape (which I highly doubt), then you should've cited that article to Binesi. The original reference you used was problematic and he was right to make that change. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand the concept of google books is to provide excerpts", not give you the entire book which would defeat the purpose of bookstores- it clearly says on the link i gave you - "1 page matching He criticised the behaviour of the relief forces: all except the Japanese indulged in pillage and rape in this book"

when it says "1 page matching", it means that the following quote is found on that page in the book. They don't allow you to see the entire page deliberately.

you appeared to not even have looked at the guardian article, the part about rape is the ninth paragraph, and the author was british, not chinese.Дунгане (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Arilang1234

Complaints on Arilang1234 and Binesi by Дунгане
I urge you to take the time to read this message thoroughly, because it was not just me who had major disputes with Arilang1234, other Cantonese editors harshly criticized his edits, many of which were not only insulting manchus, but also insulting chinese. My impression is that you aren't taking into account that Arilang1234 was insulting me, #1, first claiming I can't speak Chinese properly, then suddenly making a 360 degree flip flop, and claiming that i couldn't speak english right and that chinese was my native language. He claimed i spoke "pidgin english", and "Chinglish", yet anyone taking a look at his earliest edits to the article in which he called Boxers "salvages", and said they were "Stupid to the extreme", will notice the irony in the situation. Finally, take a look at this deletion discussion for an article Arilang created- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. Arilang1234 was harsh criticized by User:HongQiGong, who is cantonese, like you, and Arilang. Arilang's comments on that page consisted mostly of insults towards the manchu and mongol ethnic groups. On Arilang's talk page, over here, Arilang insulted Chinese achievements, claiming that Chinese never invented anything worthwhile and that all civilization was due to the western world. And no, he did not just insult manchus, he said all chinese dynasties and people prior to Qing were failures and essentially pathetic. User:Benjwong, a cantonese editor, criticized Arilang1234's edits to the Boxer article here- Talk:Boxer Rebellion/Archive 2 when another chinese edito critizied the anti China POV arilang inserted into the article, Arilang1234 immeditely jumped and cried "Communist propaganda" On the other hand, i have displayed a neutral POV, using non chinese sources, and i harshly criticzed the used of communist sources before i had a dispute with arilang. Generally, when an editor like Arilang1234 posts over 100 times that my edits consist of CCP "textbook propaganda", when not a single communist source was used, i tend to get pissed off. Not only that, Arilang1234 decided he himself was an academic expert and a reliable source, and asserted that there are "two versions of the Boxer rebellion" ( he essentially said that version 1, that the Boxers were anti imperialist heros, was communist propaganda, even though no where in the article did i say that the Boxers were heros, and version 2, that "Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists."] Yet every single source of mine was a non chinese source.Дунгане (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC) lets get on the right footing and try to understand the origin of this conflict We may have started off the wrong foot here, as you came into the middle of the edit conflict rather than the beginning. Its understandable that you may have thought I was insulting Arilang, its difficult to go through Arilang1234's massive edit history to see what was really going on. For example, on the Yuan Weishi article, he added massive paragraphs criticizing Chinese Boxers for being "Savage" and "stupid", while he wrote nothing on european crimes in China. an Admin User:Nlu has deemed that most of Arilang's additions to that article were unsalvagble trash and he removed them In Arilang1234's talk page, Arilang calls Chinese civilization backward and stupid, and says all european civilization is superior. as i pointed out above, multiple cantonese users berated him and warned him about his edits, namely adding massive amounts of texts on how chinese boxer "savages" murdered europeans, and how manchus and mongols were all "savage barbaric tribal people". Since you seem to be defending the Chinese POV on senkaku islands, i'm personally shocked to see you defending Arilang who is a major fan of bashing chinese civilization, and has been critized by other chinese and cantonese editors. User:HongQiGong, and User:Benjwong, both cantonese, warned arilang about his edits. also i have evidence, in two short paragraphs this time so you can read them quickly, about Binesi claiming false accusations against me. I'm at a loss to explain why Binesi wrote insulting messages on the talk page accusing me of doing things which did not even happen. Binesi claimed that i accused him of legal threats, and that i claimed the word slander was a legal threat If anyone goes to see for themselves, i have posted no such claim. Binesi insults me, claiming i am copying other people's language- "I see your pattern of copying the language of others. Congratulations for repeating the term "ad hominem". If you continue to copy and learn maybe you could even understand my posts and stop being so defensive. I hope you have come to understand the real meaning of slander too while you are at it. You no longer accuse me of it, but you continue to commit it." Yet, I used the word ad hominem weeks before Binesi came onto the article, and before anyone else used the word, on the talk page of Boxer rebellion here Дунгане (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Okay, I will assume that I got the wrong impression just from reading the talk page at the wrong time. However, since I have not followed the Boxer Rebellion page closely, it's very difficult for me to judge who's right and who's not. This is why I've asked Binesi to reply above. It also means little to me if you say Arilang has been criticized by some Chinese editors - I get criticized by Japanese editors regularly as well and that doesn't mean I am wrong. Even though I am a Chinese, I don't blindly defend every aspect of Chinese history or the Chinese culture. The boxer rebellion is one of the things I find shameful, since it achieved nothing but further humiliation. I also agree with Arilang that China has a very primitive side and is still miles behind the Western countries in many ways. On the other hand, I also like many things about China and do sincerely wish it well. Lastly, since you have an ANI going with Binesi, I think it will be best to continue this discussion over there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC) The content dispute is separate from Binesi's personal insults. What Arilang1234 and editors like Binesi have been saying is that chinese forces were primitive and did not modernize, and never defeated european forces. The article Seymour Expedition is fully sourced, one of the sources "China in Convulsion Volum 2", contains eyewitness accounts from europeans in the Boxer Rebellion, and they testify that chinese forces used modern guns and defeated them numerous times. numerous historians note that the Empress Dowager Cixi and Ronglu, the Manchu commander in chief of all the Chinese imperial forces, issued orders for the protection of the foreigners, and Ronglu did his best to make sure chinese forces failed to destroy the legations and foreign armies. Only Prince Tuan and Dong Fuxiang hated the foreigners, Dong was commander of the Muslim Kansu braves, and they were the ones pressing the attack, but Ronglu denied them artillery, and refused to let them finish off the foreign armies. The sources for that is Chinese forces defeated an italian charge the Empress Dowager even ordered ceasefires, and sent gifts of food and supplies to the foreigners, when chinese forces were on the verge of defeating them European forces were held in check by chinese forces- Also, it was noted that the military success against the Seymour expedition by chinese forces destroyed a common Western proposition that they could defeated China easily and occupy it with no resistance- in addition, it was the chinese court itself which removed the Kansu braves from their guard positions against the foreigners, in order to let the Allied armies with their machine guns into the legations. Ronglu even gave fake orders to General Nie Shicheng, ordering Nie to protect the foreigners and the railroad and attack the Boxers, while in reality when the government learned of the invasion, the real orders were to stop hunting down the Boxers,(the troops were being brutal to the population in their crushing of the Boxers), and attack the foreign army. Given that i have well sourced references, Arilang1234 has not actually challenged this account, what he and Binesi are focused on is generally getting negative descriptions of the chinese forces into the article, like Arilang1234 edited the article to say that the Boxers were bandit mobs of arsonists, and Binesi is obsessed with editing the article to say the the Kansu braves were looters. Binesi removed facts that make chinese forces look better in comparison to western forces, such as that there were no cases of chinese Boxers raping women Дунгане (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC) I will look at his response in the ANI. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Complaints on Arilang1234 and Binesi by Дунгане

I urge you to take the time to read this message thoroughly, because it was not just me who had major disputes with Arilang1234, other Cantonese editors harshly criticized his edits, many of which were not only insulting manchus, but also insulting chinese.

My impression is that you aren't taking into account that Arilang1234 was insulting me, #1, first claiming I can't speak Chinese properly, then suddenly making a 360 degree flip flop, and claiming that i couldn't speak english right and that chinese was my native language. He claimed i spoke "pidgin english", and "Chinglish", yet anyone taking a look at his earliest edits to the article in which he called Boxers "salvages", and said they were "Stupid to the extreme", will notice the irony in the situation.

Finally, take a look at this deletion discussion for an article Arilang created- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. Arilang1234 was harsh criticized by User:HongQiGong, who is cantonese, like you, and Arilang. Arilang's comments on that page consisted mostly of insults towards the manchu and mongol ethnic groups.

On Arilang's talk page, over here, Arilang insulted Chinese achievements, claiming that Chinese never invented anything worthwhile and that all civilization was due to the western world. And no, he did not just insult manchus, he said all chinese dynasties and people prior to Qing were failures and essentially pathetic.

User:Benjwong, a cantonese editor, criticized Arilang1234's edits to the Boxer article here- Talk:Boxer Rebellion/Archive 2

when another chinese edito critizied the anti China POV arilang inserted into the article, Arilang1234 immeditely jumped and cried "Communist propaganda"

On the other hand, i have displayed a neutral POV, using non chinese sources, and i harshly criticzed the used of communist sources before i had a dispute with arilang.

Generally, when an editor like Arilang1234 posts over 100 times that my edits consist of CCP "textbook propaganda", when not a single communist source was used, i tend to get pissed off. Not only that, Arilang1234 decided he himself was an academic expert and a reliable source, and asserted that there are "two versions of the Boxer rebellion" ( he essentially said that version 1, that the Boxers were anti imperialist heros, was communist propaganda, even though no where in the article did i say that the Boxers were heros, and version 2, that "Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists."]

Yet every single source of mine was a non chinese source.Дунгане (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

lets get on the right footing and try to understand the origin of this conflict

We may have started off the wrong foot here, as you came into the middle of the edit conflict rather than the beginning. Its understandable that you may have thought I was insulting Arilang, its difficult to go through Arilang1234's massive edit history to see what was really going on. For example, on the Yuan Weishi article, he added massive paragraphs criticizing Chinese Boxers for being "Savage" and "stupid", while he wrote nothing on european crimes in China. an Admin User:Nlu has deemed that most of Arilang's additions to that article were unsalvagble trash and he removed them

In Arilang1234's talk page, Arilang calls Chinese civilization backward and stupid, and says all european civilization is superior. as i pointed out above, multiple cantonese users berated him and warned him about his edits, namely adding massive amounts of texts on how chinese boxer "savages" murdered europeans, and how manchus and mongols were all "savage barbaric tribal people".

Since you seem to be defending the Chinese POV on senkaku islands, i'm personally shocked to see you defending Arilang who is a major fan of bashing chinese civilization, and has been critized by other chinese and cantonese editors.

User:HongQiGong, and User:Benjwong, both cantonese, warned arilang about his edits.

also i have evidence, in two short paragraphs this time so you can read them quickly, about Binesi claiming false accusations against me.

I'm at a loss to explain why Binesi wrote insulting messages on the talk page accusing me of doing things which did not even happen. Binesi claimed that i accused him of legal threats, and that i claimed the word slander was a legal threat If anyone goes to see for themselves, i have posted no such claim. Binesi insults me, claiming i am copying other people's language- "I see your pattern of copying the language of others. Congratulations for repeating the term "ad hominem". If you continue to copy and learn maybe you could even understand my posts and stop being so defensive. I hope you have come to understand the real meaning of slander too while you are at it. You no longer accuse me of it, but you continue to commit it." Yet, I used the word ad hominem weeks before Binesi came onto the article, and before anyone else used the word, on the talk page of Boxer rebellion here Дунгане (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will assume that I got the wrong impression just from reading the talk page at the wrong time. However, since I have not followed the Boxer Rebellion page closely, it's very difficult for me to judge who's right and who's not. This is why I've asked Binesi to reply above. It also means little to me if you say Arilang has been criticized by some Chinese editors - I get criticized by Japanese editors regularly as well and that doesn't mean I am wrong.

Even though I am a Chinese, I don't blindly defend every aspect of Chinese history or the Chinese culture. The boxer rebellion is one of the things I find shameful, since it achieved nothing but further humiliation. I also agree with Arilang that China has a very primitive side and is still miles behind the Western countries in many ways. On the other hand, I also like many things about China and do sincerely wish it well.

Lastly, since you have an ANI going with Binesi, I think it will be best to continue this discussion over there. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The content dispute is separate from Binesi's personal insults. What Arilang1234 and editors like Binesi have been saying is that chinese forces were primitive and did not modernize, and never defeated european forces.

The article Seymour Expedition is fully sourced, one of the sources "China in Convulsion Volum 2", contains eyewitness accounts from europeans in the Boxer Rebellion, and they testify that chinese forces used modern guns and defeated them numerous times.

numerous historians note that the Empress Dowager Cixi and Ronglu, the Manchu commander in chief of all the Chinese imperial forces, issued orders for the protection of the foreigners, and Ronglu did his best to make sure chinese forces failed to destroy the legations and foreign armies. Only Prince Tuan and Dong Fuxiang hated the foreigners, Dong was commander of the Muslim Kansu braves, and they were the ones pressing the attack, but Ronglu denied them artillery, and refused to let them finish off the foreign armies. The sources for that is

Chinese forces defeated an italian charge

the Empress Dowager even ordered ceasefires, and sent gifts of food and supplies to the foreigners, when chinese forces were on the verge of defeating them

European forces were held in check by chinese forces-

Also, it was noted that the military success against the Seymour expedition by chinese forces destroyed a common Western proposition that they could defeated China easily and occupy it with no resistance-

in addition, it was the chinese court itself which removed the Kansu braves from their guard positions against the foreigners, in order to let the Allied armies with their machine guns into the legations.

Ronglu even gave fake orders to General Nie Shicheng, ordering Nie to protect the foreigners and the railroad and attack the Boxers, while in reality when the government learned of the invasion, the real orders were to stop hunting down the Boxers,(the troops were being brutal to the population in their crushing of the Boxers), and attack the foreign army.

Given that i have well sourced references, Arilang1234 has not actually challenged this account, what he and Binesi are focused on is generally getting negative descriptions of the chinese forces into the article, like Arilang1234 edited the article to say that the Boxers were bandit mobs of arsonists, and Binesi is obsessed with editing the article to say the the Kansu braves were looters. Binesi removed facts that make chinese forces look better in comparison to western forces, such as that there were no cases of chinese Boxers raping women Дунгане (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I will look at his response in the ANI. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Americanised Canadian

It depends in Canada, as there two types of Canadians - Americanised Canadian and a British Canadian - I am from Victoria and I am British Canadian - I see more influence from the UK than I do America - the differences between Victoria and Seattle or any other American city is QUITE notable...Bobthefish2 you must live on the American border/city for you to say that or from Ontario...so speak for your region!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMK71 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am from Ontario. How'd you define the difference between Americanized Canadians and Anglicized Canadians? I agree that Canadian cities generally have a different feel than American cities, but then they are also quite different to British cities.

I'd retract my generalization for Canadians in Quebec, since I often forget they are Canadians due to their irrational desire to cede from the confederation. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Americanised Canadians love Americans and live American culture and would make Canada an annex of America and haven't served Canada nor travelled extensively outside of Canada (the US doesn't count). To illustrate, A/C will say that we are the same as Americans and that there isn't any difference between the two nations. This couldn't be further from the truth! We have different spelling, government structure, different infrastructure, different history, different sayings, a monarchy, different views of environmental conservation, attitudes toward social issues, healthier living habits, we sing "God Save the Queen" and "Oh Canada", milieu, and medical care structure. We even use different date format in our federal and provincial governments and are a metric country. We're polite and cordial and tend to blend in when we abroad. A true Canadian loves the Queen, spells the Cdn way, turns their back on American culture to preserve the Cdn one, and has a more outward looking attitude toward social issues. A true Canadian is proud of the fact that hockey is our national sport and that going to Tim's to get a double/double at 10 am coffee break is the norm. A true Canadian KNOWS that America is a VERY different country and that when they are in the US they KNOW they are in a different country. A true Canadian KNOWS that we have one of the best trained, albeit underfunded, militaries in the world!! A true Canadian will take a Brit immigrating to Canada over an American one and will see England as our mothership. That is a true Canadian. All Americanised Canadians can just move to America as far as I am concerned!! I think NAFTA has to die a death and we need to have the EFTA to hurry up and take place. I would love to see our long, shared border closed. When is America going to build that 'fence' to keep us out...err...them out of Canada?? Ahem...SAMK71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

I forgot to mention - they use Z vice S for "ized" in respective words ie. Anglicized and Americanized and say ZEEE vice ZED. SAMK71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

Let me guess... you are one of those "patriotic Canadians". I said differences between Canada and America are not as significant as one would want to believe, but that doesn't mean differences do not exist. While there are slight variations in spellings and slangs, citizens from both countries basically speak the same language. At the same time, we and our American neighbours have very similar living styles, schooling systems, and choice of goods and services (by the way, Tim Hortons is now owned by an American company). In those same areas, we are quite different to the British.

On the other hand, if we compare say... Hong Kong to the rest of China - Now, there's a great deal of difference in almost every single aspect.

By the way, patriotism is kind of a minority belief in Canada (well... maybe not in Alberta). While a lot of us like our country, many of us don't really give a crap about the Queen or the national anthem. Cultural decentralization is a large part of what Canada different to the U.S., which you did not seem to realize. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You live in Ontario...southern Ontario near either Detroit, Buffalo, or Sault Ste Marie. That's okay...you can have your beliefs and think that you're speaking for all of Canada, but it's not reality. I've lived coast to coast in our country...you've lived in Ontario near the American border probably all your life and never really left to travel to see what is Canadian...and that is what you're deriving what is Canadian?? Canada is a very British country with some American influences - that's it, that's all. Our schooling system is so far advanced compared to the US and we are actually, if you did your research, is derived from the British system!!!! Any time I go to the UK, I see the similarities between Canada and the UK - you've probably have never been nor are British decent like I am...Maybe you should go live in the US if you love them so much! Erm...Canadians for the most part do love the Queen!!! So what if TH is owned by Americans?? It has been sustained as a Cdn entity - just HBC (which is now home), Club Monaco etc...if you don't love Canada, insist on putting my country down and want American way of life, please move to the US!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMK71 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I live in the largest city in Canada and have traveled to other Canadian cities in the past. The only stark differences I see are from the Maritimes and Quebec. But of course... since I have not been to the rural and barely inhabited regions of the west, I suppose your form of nationalism might be prominent there. In fact, I see more Americanism in you than any other Canadian I've known, since cultural narcissism and inability to reflect on one's culture are quite monopolized by right-winged Americans in this continent.

By the way. I hope you remember that the latest surveys about the monarchy showed unprecedented amount of apathy from we Canadians - Most of us don't care as much about the "Head of State" anymore especially after she passes on and is succeeded by her scandalous son in the future.

Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't mean to say traveLLed?? I don't speak or read American, just wanted to make sure that is what you meant!!?? SAMK71 (talk)

Do you come from one of those small towns in the prairies? Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside the box Elephant in the room

Collapsed -- unhelpful at this time, perhaps useful in future?
Thus far, the focal points of disagreement in the Senkaku Islands dispute have been somewhat narrowly confined. The serial threads have been concerned with differing versions of history in the East China Sea. For me, the justification for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here: "Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind will acquire enhanced, rather than diminished, importance as a result of the narrowing of the 'physical' rather than the 'legal' sources of right. It is important to remember that, although historical claims were not successful in the Gulf of Maine case, the identification of a 'status quo' or 'modus vivendi' line in Tunisia-Libya was of decisive importance in confirming the equitableness of the first stage of delimitation. States will scrupulously avoid, more than ever, any appearance of acquiescence where acquiescence is not intended; prudent coordination can be expected between petroleum and mining ministries and the legal advisers of foreign ministries." — Highet, Keith. (1989). "Whatever became of natural prolongation," in Rights to Oceanic Resources: Deciding and Drawing Maritime Boundaries, (Dorinda G. Dallmeyer et al., editors), pp. 97, p. 97, at Google Books. Please consider two related sentences at Strait of Juan de Fuca#Boundary dispute. A. "Resolution of the issue should be simple, but has been hindered because it might influence other unresolved maritime boundary issues which are in dispute between Canada and the United States" — see, e.g., Charney, Jonathan I. et al. (2005). International Maritime Boundaries, p. 3403., p. 3403, at Google Books B. "If Canada holds that the principle of natural prolongation applies to the Juan de Fuca Canyon on its Pacific Ocean coast, the assertion could undermine Canada's argument in the Gulf of Maine boundary dispute. In this Atlantic Ocean context, Canada favors an outcome based on the principle of equidistance" — see, e.g., McRae, Donald Malcolm et al. (1989) Canadian Oceans Policy: National Strategies and the New Law of the Sea, pp. 151-152., p. 151–152, at Google Books; and Johnston , Douglas M. et al. (1991). Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems: Status and Solutions, p. 102., p. 102, at Google Books Please consider this Canadian paradigm and paradox. It suggests an outside the box perspective which may assist us in further discussions about the Senkaku Islands dispute. When the questions about the article name are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved. Is it arguably useful to compare and contrast our best guesses about prospective negotiations between China and Japan with negotiations about a maritime boundary dispute between the US and Canada? Would it be helpful for this diff -- or some edited version of this diff -- to be posted at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and/or Talk:Spratly Islands dispute and/or Talk:Liancourt Rocks? --Tenmei (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Perhaps one paragraph from above needs to be revised and supplemented. For me, the ~~justification~~ perceived rationale for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here: {{quote\|"Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind ...}} This kind of perceived justification affects the development of many articles. It becomes an unstated factor in editing and in discussion threads. A meaningful step in a process of countering the effects of this kind of elephant in the room is to state it explicitly. I wonder if it bears repeating that when the questions about the name of our Senkaku Islands article are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved. --Tenmei (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed -- unhelpful at this time, perhaps useful in future?

Thus far, the focal points of disagreement in the Senkaku Islands dispute have been somewhat narrowly confined. The serial threads have been concerned with differing versions of history in the East China Sea.

For me, the justification for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here:

"Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind will acquire enhanced, rather than diminished, importance as a result of the narrowing of the 'physical' rather than the 'legal' sources of right. It is important to remember that, although historical claims were not successful in the Gulf of Maine case, the identification of a 'status quo' or 'modus vivendi' line in Tunisia-Libya was of decisive importance in confirming the equitableness of the first stage of delimitation. States will scrupulously avoid, more than ever, any appearance of acquiescence where acquiescence is not intended; prudent coordination can be expected between petroleum and mining ministries and the legal advisers of foreign ministries." — Highet, Keith. (1989). "Whatever became of natural prolongation," in Rights to Oceanic Resources: Deciding and Drawing Maritime Boundaries, (Dorinda G. Dallmeyer et al., editors), pp. 97, p. 97, at Google Books.

Please consider two related sentences at Strait of Juan de Fuca#Boundary dispute.

A. "Resolution of the issue should be simple, but has been hindered because it might influence other unresolved maritime boundary issues which are in dispute between Canada and the United States" — see, e.g., Charney, Jonathan I. et al. (2005). International Maritime Boundaries, p. 3403., p. 3403, at Google Books
B. "If Canada holds that the principle of natural prolongation applies to the Juan de Fuca Canyon on its Pacific Ocean coast, the assertion could undermine Canada's argument in the Gulf of Maine boundary dispute. In this Atlantic Ocean context, Canada favors an outcome based on the principle of equidistance" — see, e.g., McRae, Donald Malcolm et al. (1989) Canadian Oceans Policy: National Strategies and the New Law of the Sea, pp. 151-152., p. 151–152, at Google Books; and Johnston , Douglas M. et al. (1991). Pacific Ocean Boundary Problems: Status and Solutions, p. 102., p. 102, at Google Books

Please consider this Canadian paradigm and paradox. It suggests an outside the box perspective which may assist us in further discussions about the Senkaku Islands dispute. When the questions about the article name are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved.

Is it arguably useful to compare and contrast our best guesses about prospective negotiations between China and Japan with negotiations about a maritime boundary dispute between the US and Canada?

Would it be helpful for this diff -- or some edited version of this diff -- to be posted at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and/or Talk:Spratly Islands dispute and/or Talk:Liancourt Rocks? --Tenmei (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one paragraph from above needs to be revised and supplemented.

For me, the ~~justification~~ perceived rationale for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here:

{{quote|"Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind ...}}

This kind of perceived justification affects the development of many articles. It becomes an unstated factor in editing and in discussion threads. A meaningful step in a process of countering the effects of this kind of elephant in the room is to state it explicitly.

I wonder if it bears repeating that when the questions about the name of our Senkaku Islands article are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved. --Tenmei (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Methodology

Bobthefish2 -- You may have thought I overlooked a brief, obscure comment you wrote:

"You should be careful about supporting one's "questions about methodology" when he has yet to make any actual arguments to support such allegations."

I construed this sentence as being addressed to me and about San9663 because I used the word "methodology" in the immediately preceding diff. I wrote,

"Yes, I do not dispute that San9663's research was constructive, persuasive, appropriate; but there was also another significant factor which was given inadequate attention in the context of questions about methodology."

I don't fully understand this sentence. Perhaps it is unnecessary to dwell on it?

Could it be that you perceived a complaint where none was intended? Let's remove this from the list of things which might affect collaborative editing in the future.

The word "methodology" has nothing to do with anyone's individual searches. As far as I can tell, each search has been transparent. Rather, in the context of my sentence above, the methodology issue has to do with the Google search engine in general. Our common interests are united in parsing Google's relationship to Misplaced Pages's core principles and policies. Please see Misplaced Pages:Search engine test and my comments at Talk:Senkaku Islands today (here →here →here). --Tenmei (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that I've missed some details, but my impression was that there were complaints about "flaws" of the search methodologies where no background was provided. This is not to say search engine outputs are perfect, as I've already pointed out some of the short-comings of this approach in the past. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 -- Does the graphic at the right represent something about the goal towards which our collaborative editing of Senkaku Islands is trending? Is this potentially helpful?

Does this graphic representation help to describe our objectives?

Please see Candidate solution? Just a thought? --Tenmei (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Poisson Binomial Distribution

You said ...

"I recently have come across the "Poisson Binomial Distribution", which turns out to be something that greatly helps with a statistical problem I am currently dealing with. I know for a fact that a number of statistics textbooks do not have this distribution listed and Google does not really return hits that describe this distribution. When I showed the distribution to a few colleagues in the Math Department, they claimed they've never seen this distribution before as well (and they are pretty smart individuals). Since I am not a statistician myself, I don't exactly know how well-known this distribution is. Given that a paper about it was published in 1993 by Wang, I'd presume there would've been 17 years for statisticians to absorb this distribution into the fold. Do you think you can tell me how often this distribution is used in practice and whether or not it is accepted by the statistics community? If it is relatively obscure, then I might have to spend a bit of time to check over the math just to make sure I am not using something that's wrong (although on the surface, the pdf and mean equations look reasonable)."

There may be some confusion here. The prime source I have uses "Poisson Binomial Distribution" for a different distribution than that set out in Poisson binomial distribution. However, it does have that distribution under the name "Poissonian binomial sampling", but does say that has been known also under that "Poisson Binomial Distribution" and as the "binomial distribution of Poisson". References go back to Poisson in 1837. My source is: Johnson NL; Kotz, S.; Kemp, A.W.(1993) Univariate Discrete Distributions, 2nd edition. Wiley ISBN 0-471-54897-9 (page138 for "Poissonian binomial sampling"). I think that perhaps this hasn't been generally counted as a "distribution" because it has so many parameters, but it has certainly been studied. Melcombe (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears that this distribution does have a relatively long history (which it well-deserves given its fundamental nature). I am not sure if this distribution is dismissed due to its abundance of parameters, since any multivariate distribution can potentially have many parameters (such as the multinomial distribution for a biased 20-sided dice). Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku islands

Please compare tables at

Also, please take note of Talk:Senkaku Islands#Qwyrxian's comment --Tenmei (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with such changes. See thread. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Diaoyutai

I'd be just too busy to engage in any edit war because I'll be travelling. My arm is still not yet fully recovered from the accident but that's life! Thanks for asking. STSC (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's good. I was afraid you'd be baited into an edit-war. By the way, it appears that User:John Smith's and User:Tenmei are stalking our conversation and now accusing us of plotting an edit-war. For our interest, I guess we really should consider asking an admin to lock the page so that we wouldn't have certain idiots going wild in the two Diaoyu pages. After all, policing a Chinese-Japanese dispute page with a 1:7 Chinese-Japanese editor ratio is very hard especially when some appear to be die-hard right-winged nationalists. Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Senkaku Islands dispute has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Calling other editors idiots is not civil. And stop talking about other editors. Please talk about article contents. Oda Mari (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My dear Japanese editor, I'd advise you to properly read English before issuing warning. The edit summary said: "(→Arguments from Japan: Deleted a fraudulant claim + references regarding Remin Ribao article, as agreed with Oda Mari and others in Nov 2010.)". To my knowledge, there's no personal attack involved nor do I see any "idiot" labels being tagged onto anyone specifically.

I will expect a reply from you for further elaboration. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring

Bob, your behaviour is becoming disruptive. You keep edit-warring and it appears that you're doing this to try to keep getting the pages locked. If you persist I'm going to take this to the admin's thread. Just because you're not reverting 4 times in 24 hours doesn't mean you can't have sanctions passed on you. John Smith's (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do take this to the admin and we'll see who's edit-warring? By the way, at least use the proper template. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, despite Bob's comment to STSC, neither he nor STSC have edited the article since that time. While the tone of his comment was probably out of line, I can certainly understand the frustration; heck, I even find the comments of some of the editors on what (Bob perceives as) "our side" to be frustrating. It's a difficult environment to work in when even changes of 2 or 3 words are argued over ad nauseum. So even though the comment was inappropriate, since Bob hasn't edited Senkaku Islands since that point, I don't think it's right to level charges of Edit Warring against him. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Cartoon europe 1914.jpg

Two issues are present:

If you can prove that it's a free image, then reupload it. I deleted it because it was marked as permitted for use only on Misplaced Pages, and we don't permit such images. If you have proof, when you reupload it, please mark it with the appropriate free license tag.
Technical restrictions prevent us from displaying any image that's not on the Wikimedia servers: there's no possible way to get the image to display by using such techniques as hyperlinks or <img src> tags.

Hope this helps; if not, leave me another question. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what you mean. Everything on Misplaced Pages, aside from a few exceptions (for which your image didn't qualify), must be available for anyone to use for any purpose: not just non-commercially, and not just Misplaced Pages users. Therefore, every image that's not one of the exceptions must be available for anyone to download, modify, copy, sell, etc. as much as they want. If we permitted images that were only allowed for use on Misplaced Pages, people wouldn't be able to make copies legally. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. I'm sorry, but I don't know what to do to resolve the situation — I suggest that you post a request for help at the help desk. Please be aware that the tag you'd like to use will still result in the image's deletion after a few days. If the owner is willing to grant explicit permission to use the image under a free license, it will work best to get that permission via email and then to follow the instructions laid out at OTRS. Nyttend (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just sleepy, but I can't understand your meaning: it's past 1AM for me, and I need to get to sleep in time to be awake for church in the morning. Please accept my apology for not understanding you. Your best option is to go to the help desk, where there are people in different time zones who will be awake enough to give you a useful answer. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Rolls eyes*. I basically said: Suppose someone claims he has obtained permission from an author to use the image or that he actually owned the image itself, how can any of you Misplaced Pages bureaucrats even verify that? Honour system? Anyway, have fun with church. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Remin Ribao

Quick question; I tried to read the archive section on the Remin Ribao article, but I totally can't follow it, because there's a mix between talking about the old Ribao article whose translation is in doubt, and the newer article about the protests. I totally believe that you believe that the article was mistranslated by the Japanese press, and I further believe that your belief may be correct (ugh, I feel like I'm starting to sound like another editor...). Anyway, my question is, I see both you and San9663 asserting that the translation is error, and I trust that your or xyr translation ability is accurate, but I'm wondering if there is a reliable source that says explicitly that the original article was mistranslated? Or at least questions the translation? If there was, I think there should be a way to work something into the article. Something like "RR published an article, which Japanese sources claimed meant "this",(refrefref) but which other Chinese sources said actually meant "this"(refrefref)." Without such a source, it seems hard for us to say "Reliable sources say this, but they mistranslated RR." That last part sounds like OR.

And, I know that even if I ask, no one has to listen, but I'd like to hear Bobthefish2's answer before hearing others (that's why I brought the question here, rather than the article talk page). I'm trying to understand this, and it's difficult for me since I read neither Japanese nor Chinese, and I'm trying to figure out what we know for sure as compare to what we can source for sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is more unambiguous than you think, Qwyrxian.

The article mentioned the islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands and not the Okinawa Prefecture. Furthermore, it railed against Japanese-U.S. conspiracy of taking over the Ryukyu Islands. This is directly a contradiction to the references put up by User:Phoenix7777 and User:Oda Mari.

I doubt there is any reliable sources that refute the fraudulent translations because these are obscure arguments that are generally disregarded. You might think it is only proper to have such sources cited, but think of the amount of abuses an editor can make if he decides to add b.s. reported in Fox News (which almost nobody would care to pay attention to).

Anyhow, the translation is totally wrong (with no room for ambiguity too!) and nobody objected when I settled the matter with User:Oda Mari (whom, interestingly enough, reneged on the agreement). We can always propose an RfC on what the article truly meant, but it's a waste of time. For the time being, I am content to simply get the admins involved. With some luck, I might either get the pages locked (which will make POV pushing much harder) or get certain users banned from the page (which is a better solution... since very few of them actually did anything constructive).