Misplaced Pages

User talk:Binksternet: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:32, 20 November 2011 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers493,948 edits I hope this wasn't intentional: replies← Previous edit Revision as of 21:14, 20 November 2011 edit undoSpinningspark (talk | contribs)89,216 edits I hope this wasn't intentional: Unblocked per 0RR agreementNext edit →
Line 255: Line 255:
::::I did not "defiantly" acknowledge any intentional gaming; instead, I snidely responded with another rhetorical question, the irony of my own rhetorical-to-rhetorical response noted by the following emoticon: ^_^ . I guess that wordless emoticon has now served as seed for a wide variety of responses. For me, though, it was only expressing the irony of responding to a rhetorical question with another rhetorical question. Whatever defiant acknowldedgement you thought you observed was absent on my end of things. ] (]) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC) ::::I did not "defiantly" acknowledge any intentional gaming; instead, I snidely responded with another rhetorical question, the irony of my own rhetorical-to-rhetorical response noted by the following emoticon: ^_^ . I guess that wordless emoticon has now served as seed for a wide variety of responses. For me, though, it was only expressing the irony of responding to a rhetorical question with another rhetorical question. Whatever defiant acknowldedgement you thought you observed was absent on my end of things. ] (]) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


{{unblock|reason=I see now and fully understand that I have been unhelpful in my work on the ''Maafa 21'' article, specifically in making content reversions on November 16, 17 and 19; all without support from article talk page consensus. In fact there is no consensus at this point on the talk page. I promise to refrain from further reversions in the article until and unless a clear consensus develops on the talk page or on noticeboards. With this promise of mine, I will not be able to game the system (though that was never my intent) nor will I be able to perform the 1RR-style edits that other editors will continue to enjoy. I promise to work toward consensus as necessary on the talk page or elsewhere. With this promise of mine, the block is no longer necessary to protect Misplaced Pages from my hand. Per blocking policy, the block is a preventative measure, not a punitive one, and I have shown the worthiness of my word in the past when I promised a self-imposed 1RR limitation for six months from January to July 2011. That voluntary 1RR promise was kept to the letter, and so will this promise of 0RR at ''Maafa 21'' until consensus is clear. ] (]) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)}} {{unblock reviewed | 1=I see now and fully understand that I have been unhelpful in my work on the ''Maafa 21'' article, specifically in making content reversions on November 16, 17 and 19; all without support from article talk page consensus. In fact there is no consensus at this point on the talk page. I promise to refrain from further reversions in the article until and unless a clear consensus develops on the talk page or on noticeboards. With this promise of mine, I will not be able to game the system (though that was never my intent) nor will I be able to perform the 1RR-style edits that other editors will continue to enjoy. I promise to work toward consensus as necessary on the talk page or elsewhere. With this promise of mine, the block is no longer necessary to protect Misplaced Pages from my hand. Per blocking policy, the block is a preventative measure, not a punitive one, and I have shown the worthiness of my word in the past when I promised a self-imposed 1RR limitation for six months from January to July 2011. That voluntary 1RR promise was kept to the letter, and so will this promise of 0RR at ''Maafa 21'' until consensus is clear. ] (]) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC) | accept=Your offer of 0RR at ] is accepted in good faith, please do not breach it. ''']]''' 21:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)}}

Revision as of 21:14, 20 November 2011

    Binksternet     Articles created     Significant contributor     Images     Did you know     Awards
Binksternet Articles created Significant contributor Images Did you know Awards

Archives

Cue Cat suggestions

Hello Binksternet I see you have made comments and changes to the cue cat record. I have put up for review suggestions for relevant changes to the cue cat record. Would you please join in with the rest of us on the suggested changes? Thank you (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talkcontribs)

Thank each of you, wiki editors and such, for giving me such great pointers and also for the direct emails of encouragement in learning this process. Shabbat Shalom - and since it's Friday I plan to make my additions and updates to the record on Monday. ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) (ProofPlus Professional Researcher 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talkcontribs)

Edit To Classical Music

Hi there. Please help me understand why you had removed my edit for vandalism and copyrighted material.

I posted no copyrighted material, just a link. I thought it was a shame that the only external link was available to EU members.

All the same, just trying to help. Cheers!

--Winkinblinkinnod (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the site and it appeared to me to use copyrighted recordings. Misplaced Pages cannot link readers to websites that violate copyright laws.
Other than that, I did not see any specific encyclopedic information about classical music. The link only listed the top 100 classical songs by some unstated algorithm of how much the songs were used in popular media such as TV and movies. It's a list but it is not educational. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the supportive comment at my talk. I didn't want to spend my Saturday editing Misplaced Pages, anyway! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

A day and a half of sanity to prepare once again for Misplaced Pages. ^_^
Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

grand lake theater edit

Hello Binksternet,

I've only done a few Misplaced Pages edits. I just saw you remove most of the addition I did for the Oakland Grand Lake theater Politics section.

There is a reason for putting down the full transcript from Rachel Maddow's brief coverage which you deleted.

The Oakland Grand Lake Theater has not been given preferential treatment by the City of Oakland as an important landmark. If anything Oakland Mayor Quan has deliberately introduced anti-small business measures to starve small businesses Oakland and has particularly ignored the owner of the Grand Lake Theater when she was just a councilmember.

The full transcript of Rachel's comments I think is really important for anyone who is looking at the wiki entry for the GrandLake theater because it will give readers a really good idea of just why the Oakland grand lake theater is such a gem.

Frankly I know that Allen Michaan would really appreciate having the full transcript included in the wiki entry, I just spoke with him tonight.

Is there some reason why you took out the text? I currently live in SF and I grew up about a mile away from the Grand Lake theater and as such really appreciate Allen's guts to post the messages on his marquee.

I can give you my cell ph if that helps you.

Best regards,

Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katt123 (talkcontribs) 04:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

oops--this is the first Talk post I've ever done, so didn't realize I had to sign off with the four tildas. Katt123 (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First, you would want to know that I love the Grand Lake—I am a loyal theater customer as well as a neighbor. When I look out of my living room window I see the big rooftop sign backwards spelling DNARG. Second you might want to know I am just trying to keep the article neutral and fact-based rather than promotional. Misplaced Pages is not here to help local organizations gain notice, it is here to document such notice as gained by other means. Michaan has options open to him, avenues of promotion, but Misplaced Pages cannot be one of them. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not more than that. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

A belated thank you for taking the time to fully explain the review process to me. I first saw Warren on the Now PBS program several years ago and was impressed with her intelligence and clear thinking. You really did a great job on her article.

I lived in CA for several years - Palo Colorado Canyon just up from Garapata Beach, just north of the Rainbow Bridge. I spent some time at Esalen as well. It is a beautiful place and I have very fond memories of that area.

Also, it is good to see you at the OWS article - it needs good editors like you and I hope you continue to spend a little time there. Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's some of the best looking area of California. Did you see sea otters? I love Big Sur but I get there too infrequently. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I sure did. I also saw sea sailors, and luminescent sand fleas. Each step in the wet sand brought out hundreds of sparkles - it was one of the most beautiful experiences that one could have... I spent a lot of time near the ocean and used to work the 3 - 11 shift so that I drove home, down the coast, each night. On moonlit nights...well, you can just imagine... I used to drive the old coast road that takes off above Rainbow Bridge...beautiful rolling hills of California poppies and lupine... I lived right in the redwood forest in a dome with windows all around. I was there for the...was it '89?...quake. The dome was on stilts and it used to sway back and forth all night as the many aftershocks rolled through... In some ways I regret leaving, but my two girls were starting their families and I missed them. Gandydancer (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet can you help me?

Binksternet can you help?

I posted to Cue cat as I said I would. Once again Bbb23 undid my work as he has done to all other. But in the process of dismantleing my work he left out the Codie Ward for cue cat. Would you look over my links for the award and consider improving the file of cue cat on my behalf for the codie award? Seems, me being new and female is hurting me. Can you help improve the cue cat file? I have left the links and info in the discussion page. Thanks ProofPlus Professional Researcher 16:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proofplus (talkcontribs)

Being insistently promotional is hurting you, not being female. I have not yet decided to jump into the article which frankly looks like a quagmire to me. I have no previous experience in the topic, only a strong notion of what a good encyclopedia article looks like. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Random request

I've run into your name a few places and I have a random request due to your GA experience. I have listed death panel as my first GAN. I'm slightly concerned it may be rejected due to a lack of a formal copy-edit. (I've tried my best to copy-edit and compress the physician/academics/politicians reaction and analysis, as the peer review suggested.) Might you take a quick look and give a bit of feedback on the article in case there are some potentially deal-breaking changes I can make before it is reviewed? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look when I get time. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts: The very first sentence makes no sense. Not a promising start! The rest of the article is not neutral in tone, that is, too much promotion for HR 3200. The word "reform" is used to beat the reader over the head, even though it refers to a proposed bill. There are three dead URLs. The article is too repetitious about the concept of death panels being false. Once established, the point does not have to be continually repeated. I don't like the two horizontal galleries of influential parties. If they are not major actors such as Palin and Gingrich then their presence is undue weight. Why is there a wikilink to job-killing? Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Buster Keaton

Thanks for going in and rectifying the addition of "stuntman" to Keaton's résumé. Actually I think he did stunts on occasion, but I have no citation for that at present. Maybe it is in one of his bios or an interview, but I'm certain he did work as a stuntman now and again. He is simply not notable for it. Good catch. Djathinkimacowboy 20:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm curious about his stunt work for others. ^_^
Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks as though I abandoned you... all I can do is make mention of stuff I have known since childhood. All I know is Arbuckle and Schenck naturally found him to be the best stuntman available. He was generally kept from wasting his time that way, but he'd do it if he liked the project.

This reminds me of Ebert, just writing last Friday. He asked stars why they did cruddy films, when they were stars and it was embarrassing. They said because they needed the money for something or other, and because no one would ever really 'see' them in the lousy films anyway....

Sorry, I just never had enough time to read enough about Buster, but I got to see him when I was a kid with my parents and that has always been more than enough for me! Djathinkimacowboy 10:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

The information i added from this site http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-03/politics/30353835_1_tea-party-movement-unfavorable-view-positive-views is not copyrighted. I will not allow you to do damage control to the occupy movement, I am re-adding the information because it IS NOT copyrighted, do not revert it again.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to also ask that you quit lying. The Business Insider article was not copyrighted. There were two sources for that information not one, so at the very most it merited deleting one of the references and not the entire edit. You have been disruptive and I ask that you get consensus before further editing the Occupy pages.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You have reverted my edit a second time under false pretenses, this time I added the information under a separate source and not even the one you reverted it for. If you do this again I will ask an admin to block you from editing the article, you have been warned.--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting your copyvio edits per Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria. I am not limited in the number of removals of copyrighted text under that rule. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
How is that polling information copyrighted?--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I just saw it hidden at the very bottom, apologies. But I find it odd that you were so distraught by that information that you took the time and effort to look through the entire page to find that little thing that said copyright (I'm still not sure if it was specifically copyrighting that information).--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyright notices generally appear at the bottom of webpages. Next time, look there before you accuse other editors of lying. MastCell  05:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla query

While I refrain from editing at Nikola Tesla, I've noted a lot of activity from this Slushy user. Is Slushy going to be a problem? I think you ought to be more careful who gets in to work on the article. There were lots of facts and citations I wanted to correct, but I declined due to personal differences with a separate editor. Anyway, just a question - and maybe a heads up too.

Did you see my reply about Buster Keaton? Please drop a line at my talk page, will ya? Djathinkimacowboy 10:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

AND:

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For work on Nikola Tesla, Buster Keaton and other valiant deeds. Djathinkimacowboy 10:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Well deserved and my pleasure to do so. They speak of overuse of the stars; no one addresses underuse! Well here I stand! Djathinkimacowboy 01:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street GA

In regard to your comments on my talk page, "You should never have started the review". I didn't start the GA review, it was started by Amadscientist, I was simply the first person to make any observations. I would also like to point out that only 1 of my edits to the article has not been reverted so I am not the "nominator" nor have I "made significant contributions to it prior to the review".--Jacksoncw (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You are so deeply involved with the article that you have been blocked for edit warring. 'Nuff said. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough with Nikola Tesla?

I've noticed some minor back-and-forth at the article. Should it not be protected for the time being? It is in good shape and I see no reason why certain editors are allowed into it only to make silly changes. I myself do not venture into the article at all. Djathinkimacowboy 06:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Latin music

There's a new editor making what I think are poor changes to various Latin music articles such as Afro-Cuban jazz which I know you have worked on. Care to check in and see what can be done? No need to reply here... Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Yes. I see the user has been temporarily blocked. I am going to be away in France for a week, running in the Nice-Cannes Marathon. I'll take a look at that user when I get back to see if they have improved. Thanks for letting me know. And thanks for dealing with the situation. SilkTork 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, have fun in France... as they say on stage, break a leg! Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Dear Binksternet Thank so much for the barnstar! Much appreciated, and it is wonderful to see that someone else here sees that there is something very disturbing about that page. Unfortunately, there is still much work to be done with that page, especially the passage that seems to imply that all Soviet Jews were Communists, which is why they did not deserve "lenient" treatment, which is deeply troubling. I'm going to attach a neurality tag on that article until that matter is sorted out. But in the meantime, thank so much and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Nothing worth doing is ever easy... ^_^
Binksternet (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Buster Keaton's pic

THANKS! I love that photo and have never seen it before, frankly. I have a BK file where I keep my favorite images. Djathinkimacowboy 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just a perfect shot, 100% Keaton. :D
Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


Robin Olds

Binkster, I made the original edit directly from the book in question (The 479th Fighter Group in World War II: in Action over Europe with the P-38 and P-51), which is of course why it was in block quotes. Your reversion was in order since the text was/is accurate.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. Google books was not giving me the slightest hint of what was inside the book. Binksternet (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your participation in the Dispute Resolution forum-- — KeithbobTalk15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Cheers! Glug, glug... :D
Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla help

If you will not be too alarmed, I'd like to enquire whether I might be able to count on you for mediation. There is an editor - I'm sure you know DIREKTOR - causing problems at the talk page. It is the section dealing with Tesla's photo. I have at the moment asked another editor to help, but I can never be sure whether that editor will reply to me or not. I'd be grateful for a fresh set of eyes on this and a discreet assistance! Djathinkimacowboy 19:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a silly argument. I'll chime in but mostly I think the situation will best be fixed by backing away. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, and I have agreed to your post at Tesla and have apologised - which I hope you'll accept here also. What I regret most of course is that so much of what I wrote was taken to be hostile and unnecessary. And I agree that it was.... Djathinkimacowboy 20:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion

You told me not to get lost in this or that primary source. And I agree, but except perhaps yourself no one was lost. We were discussing inclusion of both studies. DMSBel (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I considered the various aspects of the discussion and I thought you were driving it in a toxic direction which is why I said what I did. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Phase equalization

In most non-audio applications the actual waveform of the transmitted signal must be preserved, not just its frequency content. Thus these equalizing filters must also cancel out any phase shifts (unequal delay) between different frequency components.

You deleted the above from equalization stating that it was "unlikely". The article already explains why this is necessary in analogue television. It is also important in digital communications (which probably justifies "most" but "many" might be better). In fact dispersion was the limiting factor of early submarine telegraph cables. SpinningSpark 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're seeing in the article body. The bit about dispersion is not very clear, if that's supposed to explain the concept.
Sounds like you are describing a system that pre-equalizes a signal prior to the signal traveling through an all-pass sort of medium in which the phases are smeared. If so, it's not just television: there are audio tools for this same purpose because air does not affect all sound waves equally. Air attenuates high frequency sound waves more than low and it smears the phase. Some loudspeaker management tools for large concerts have a way to counteract this condition. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Dispersion is referred to in the body at Equalization#Television lines. I was not particularly referring to pre-equalization. Whether it is pre or post equalization is irrelevant to this discussion (obviously it has to be pre for a loudpeaker system). Phase distortion is a cause of intersymbol interference in digital communications.
Your comment Air attenuates high frequency sound waves more than low and it smears the phase is a little confused. The differential attenuation of frequencies is not dispersion, it is rather, the differential delay of frequencies. Dispersion of sound in air is a relatively minor effect (see speed of sound) and does not have a hugely detrimental result. In digital communications, on the other hand, it has the potential to completely destroy reception. SpinningSpark 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
A ref explaining the need for digital phase eq]. SpinningSpark 07:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope this wasn't intentional

Did you really make a second revert 24 hours and 1 minute after the first? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question? ^_^
Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violation of the 1RR restriction at Maafa 21. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Swarm 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
See my comments at WP:AN3 for a detailed explanation for the block. Swarm 01:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed explanation you gave at AN3. My above response to NYyankees51 was something you called a snide admission that I was gaming the system. It was snide, yes, but no admission. I looked at the two links he provided and I saw there was absolutely a minute more than 24 hours, so I could only conclude that there was no answer NYyankees51 was looking for from me which he did not already know. I have a friction-filled history with NYY so I did not provide him with more details such as what I was intending or thinking. In that respect it was a snide answer. I'm sorry my snide answer formed a part of your response to the situation. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I didn't take that comment as an "admission" (though you acknowledged the situation); the 1RR vio is obvious enough by itself. Don't think that the block was in any way influenced by a comment that I may have misunderstood. Swarm 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Swarm, the 24:01 difference was simple chance. I have made more than 68,000 edits on Misplaced Pages so naturally two article reversions might be 24:01 apart. I happened to be sitting down at the computer at about the same time on two successive nights, looking at the Maafa 21 article to see what was useful and what needed changing. As always, I had multiple browser windows open, all relating to articles I have on my watchlist, ones that had changed recently. One was the Maafa 21 article contribution history. Another was the article talk page. I added the abortion sanctions 1RR template to the talk page, hit 'save page' at 04:27, and then I closed that browser window, revealing the revision history of Maafa 21 which I examined for past editors, to see if there had been any useful prior content contributions that had been subsequently deleted, or whether there were earlier contributors worth talking to. I noticed that User:Lifedynamics was already warned and blocked for username violations, being the same name as the film production company. The next edit I made was to click on User:Maafa21 and give him a similar warning about username policy. The next handful of open browser windows that I dealt with took about 45 minutes of my time but I was getting sleepier, and after removing a possibly misleading inflation number from the Mark Twain biography I was about to shut the computer off for the night. Before doing so I remembered the Maafa 21 article, opened it up and examined it for anything worth keeping, made the now fateful revert, and went to bed. There was no sense of gaming the system on my end, no drumming of fingers and watching the clock to make sure I was not breaking 1RR. There was only, oh, hey, I forgot to actually edit the article after sifting through its page history.
When NYyankees51 showed me the diffs on my talk page it was the first time I saw the 24:01 time span. I thought, oh, it looks like I got lucky and missed 1RR by a minute. I thought that, because of the minute leeway, I would not have to take any remediating action—would not have to defend myself. If I had felt guilty of gaming at that point I would have done something about it. Let me reiterate that I held no intention of gaming the system. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet, I was on the edit warring noticeboard filing a report when I figured it must have been a mistake (I've violated 1RR because I didn't check the history and hated getting blocked for it) since I couldn't believe that you would go down to the minute. I was giving you an opportunity to self-revert and remedy the situation. Instead, you defiantly acknowledged that the 1 minute was intentional. I was trying to assuage our "friction-filled history" by giving you a chance instead of going straight to AN/EW, and you responded in this manner. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a lovely story for the children, but the adults among us will notice that in the very same minute I was examining and responding to the two diffs you offered above, you were making further changes to the Maafa 21 article such that any reversion by myself would be impossible. There was already no opportunity for self-revert after changes by Uncle Dick and by Roscelese; all before your changes. Instead of offering me a chance of self reversion you were hammering one more nail into the coffin.
I did not "defiantly" acknowledge any intentional gaming; instead, I snidely responded with another rhetorical question, the irony of my own rhetorical-to-rhetorical response noted by the following emoticon: ^_^ . I guess that wordless emoticon has now served as seed for a wide variety of responses. For me, though, it was only expressing the irony of responding to a rhetorical question with another rhetorical question. Whatever defiant acknowldedgement you thought you observed was absent on my end of things. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Binksternet (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I see now and fully understand that I have been unhelpful in my work on the Maafa 21 article, specifically in making content reversions on November 16, 17 and 19; all without support from article talk page consensus. In fact there is no consensus at this point on the talk page. I promise to refrain from further reversions in the article until and unless a clear consensus develops on the talk page or on noticeboards. With this promise of mine, I will not be able to game the system (though that was never my intent) nor will I be able to perform the 1RR-style edits that other editors will continue to enjoy. I promise to work toward consensus as necessary on the talk page or elsewhere. With this promise of mine, the block is no longer necessary to protect Misplaced Pages from my hand. Per blocking policy, the block is a preventative measure, not a punitive one, and I have shown the worthiness of my word in the past when I promised a self-imposed 1RR limitation for six months from January to July 2011. That voluntary 1RR promise was kept to the letter, and so will this promise of 0RR at Maafa 21 until consensus is clear. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Your offer of 0RR at Maafa 21 is accepted in good faith, please do not breach it. SpinningSpark 21:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)