Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:43, 19 January 2014

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Archives

Archive1 - August 2007 – June 2008, Archive2 - July–November 2008, Archive3 - November 2008 – May 2009, Archive4 - May–July 2009, Archive5 - July–August 2009, Archive6 - September–October 2009, Archive7 - October–December 2009, Archive8 - December 2009 – February 2010, Archive9 - March–April 2010, Archive10 - May–July 2010, Archive11 – July–October 2010, Archive12 – October 2010 – January 2011 Archive13 – January–March 2011 Archive14 – April–July 2011 Archive15 – August–October 2011 Archive16 – November–December 2011 Archive17 – January–February 2012 Archive18 – March–April 2012 Archive19 – May–July 2012 Archive20 – August–October 2012 Archive21 – November–December 2012 Archive22 – January–February 2013 Archive23 – March–April 2013 Archive24 – May–June 2013 Archive25 – July–August 2013 Archive26 – September–October 2013 Archive27 – November–December 2013

Happy New Year Binksternet!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Binksternet: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Misplaced Pages's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

I am confused

Hi Binksternet! Sorry to bother you again, but I found the oddest editing at Doctor of Divinity. There's piles of anon. changes, which seem fine, and a section has been added named "List Doctor of Divinity" which has the strangest contents. I really don't know where to start with this one, the anon. editor has made dozens of changes, I don't know if some or all of them are good or not. I'd appreciate your read on it! Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The offending section was removed by somebody else. Those IPs are all from the Burgundy region of France, so they are likely the same person. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Binksternet!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Binksternet: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Misplaced Pages's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

A personalized New Year greeting

Hi Binksternet, Happy New Year! It's been good to help you deal with sockpuppets for the past couple of months or so; I hope I can be of further help to you. :) Best. Acalamari 14:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! I hope your New Year is prosperous and fulfilling. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Argolla.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Germany map

Hello, you can simply add that map to another area of the article that deals with geography while the main location file would be the orthographic projection. Now with the one you decided to keep, that is on the Territorial evolution article, which in the geography section of Nazi Germany people can read, so I highly suggest we use orthographic projection. Then you also do not see other articles like Nazi Germany with a map like that--Micronationalist1999 (talk) Hi 19:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The orthographic projection makes Germany look too small, when the reality was that Germany was very dangerous and powerful at its height. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, it does not matter if it looks small, it is suppose too, geesh what do you want Nazi Germany to be large on a globe, what would you expect, countries look small on a globe.--Micronationalist1999 (talk) Hi 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The globe image does not help the reader understand how influential was Nazi Germany. It minimizes the size, even though the topic is about the danger. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither does the globe image on other pages but at least they learn it by quote on quote, "reading" the whole subject, afterall Misplaced Pages is for reading, not looking at a pretty picture and guessing how influential a place is. --Micronationalist1999 (talk) Hi 22:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The expression is "quote/unquote", not "quote on quote". Your wish to have an orthographic image has been rejected by the editors at that article. If you really want it there, you should start a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It has not been rejected by any other editor except yourself because you think you are correct in your actions. --Micronationalist1999 (talk) Hi 13:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits involving this issue and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." I'm going to give the actual answer this one purely on a procedural basis, then offer my opinion. Per this section of the Consensus policy, when an edit is made to an established part of an article and another editor objects then — barring some policy which requires the edit to be made — the result will be that the proposed edit will not be made unless consensus can be reached to make the edit. The non-orthographic map had been on the article map for a very long time prior to Micronationalist's edit so, now that an objection has been raised, consensus must be achieved to change the map. The status at this time is no consensus and, thus, no change. Having said that, and reminding everyone that opinions expressed in Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus, I believe that the non-orthographic map is preferable even though it is true that orthographic maps are ordinarily used in other similar articles in this instance. (And let me note in that regard that, saving a policy or guideline requiring uniformity that every article at Misplaced Pages stands on its own; uniformity is in general a good thing, but isn't mandatory.) This map avoids any arguments over whether occupied areas should or should not be included within the area identified as Nazi Germany and is preferable for that reason.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to examine the issue. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Lyon

User:Gloss does that sort of thing all the time. He and I have redirected articles in the past without any prior consensus. Does it really have to be done on every article? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Any article turned into a redirect, with the redirect disputed, requires an AFD to restore the redirect. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So consensus is only needed whenever it is disputed. Is that correct? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's go through the steps:

• 1) You decide to turn an article into a redirect.
• 2) Someone reverts you, restoring the article.
• 3) You start an "article for deletion" discussion, per instructions found at WP:AFD.

That's it! No edit warring, no back and forth, no accusations, no WP:ANI, no drama. People weigh in on whether the article should be kept or redirected. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Austrian economics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Better source request for File:B-52s chopped.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Misplaced Pages:

• File:B-52s chopped.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Survivor redirects

If you feel that way about Kim Spradlin, can we possibly try to get the Russell Hantz article revived? He has plenty of notability on Survivor and beyond, yet his article got redirected anyway for "notability" issues. I see no reason to keep Kim Spradlin, while leaving Hantz in the garbage. Any thoughts? Oh and BTW, I didn't mean to make it sound like the issue was "all about you" in that discussion. I apologize if I offended you :) Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have kept this article, but the AFD discussion strangely ended up as redirect, even though there were good arguments for keeping it. Hantz was on three Survivor series in 2009, 2010 and 2011, but he was also accused in 2011 of leaking secrets about the show. He was on Flipped Off in 2012, and he has been in the news by being arrested twice: for battery in 2010, and for drunk driving in 2012. He has persistence and wide media coverage.

FYI, not one television series has been watched in my house for about two decades. The only TV stuff that has been seen in my house is a couple of Olympics and the occasional presidential inauguration. When USA TV went digital in 2009, I gave it up completely. I have never watched a Survivor episode all the way through, not even once. You might say I'm particularly objective about this stuff, having no preconceived notions. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, is there any possible way, any possible way, to get that Hantz' article back without getting in trouble? If there is, I'm all in! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Lemme look into it. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I believe it was his brother arrested for drunk driving, not him. But yeah, I still think Russell should have his own article. He's still notable regardless. Thanks for agreeing to help me get it up and going again! If we can get it going, I know plenty of stuff about him to contribute to it. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've got the article over at my sandbox if you'd like to look at it more. Got any suggestions about how it could be improved? Survivorfan1995 (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait a second. Could you be a little more specific as to why "spouse" doesn't belong in the infobox? I don't understand. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. At Template:Infobox person, there used to be an instruction saying to keep the the spouse and relatives parameters empty unless they have a Misplaced Pages biography. The template does not say that now. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said on my edit summary comment, I think the way to keep the article from getting deleted is to emphasize the Flipped Off role, to show the persistence of his career. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I've still got a few more tweaks to do on the lead section and the stuff about his personal life and business career (which shouldn't take much longer), but I'm having a really tough time expanding the Flipped Off section like you suggested. It's tough when the only info is stuff like this, this, this, and this. They're obviously credible sources, but there's not much encyclopedic info to use. Do you happen to have any more ideas or suggestions on how I could make this better? I'm stuck! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, give me a day or two and I'll look for more sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know

The IP editing Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is banned User:Iloveandrea, who has probably used at least two different IPs since he quit creating sockpuppet accounts. The article was, and is, one of his most-edited pages.2602:30A:2ECA:C150:7CA0:A14D:52B1:8BB2 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morning zoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KFMB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about capitalization of parenthetical subtitles of songs

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Capitalization_of_song_parenthetical_subtitles. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Morning zoo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 9, 1985 |volume=97 |number=10 |issn=0006-2510 |publisher=Nielsen Business Media}}</ref> ] in ], by late 1984,<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://books.google.com/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is.

Frankly your blanket undoing of my edits and knee-jerk threats make me wonder if your editing previldges shouldn't be revoked. It seems like edit warring or at least disruptive editing.

You claim I added unsourced material even for Carl Ballantine. Excuse me but I gave the source of his parents which was his Chicago birth record and gave the source where it can be found. I added the name to the Monkees episode that a previous contributer failed to provide, thus giving a source to the existing statement that he was on the show (but you didn't delete what they wrote). What's the source? The episode itself. It is recorded media. The same is true of The Shakiest Gun in the West. Carl Ballantine's name is even listed as part of the cast in the Misplaced Pages page of the movie (and just as valid or invalid where Misplaced Pages is concerned).

For Edson Stroll, the Social Security Death Index gives his middle name as Roy. The birth and death dates match perfectly. I didn't cite it because it was just his middle name I was adding. As for the rest about his real name possibly being Edward Stroll (which was ALL I was saying leaving it for others to prove conclusively). Okay, fair enough, all you had to do is say you have a problem with it and ask me to remove it rather than giving me a warning about my editing privileges being revoted.

As for my edits of Jack Benny, the recordings of his show back up what I claim. You even undid the fact that I added "Gravel voiced" in front of Eddie Anderson. It was what he was famous for. Or do you still think adding these two words still needs to be referenced by itself? BTW it's even mentioned on his own Misplaced Pages webpage. You also removed what I added about Rodney Dangerfield. That name is mentioned as a character in quite a few recordings of the Jack Benny Show. It's also mentioned in the Misplaced Pages webpage for the comic Rodney Dangerfield who took his name from that very character (which is mentioned in his Misplaced Pages webpage).

But if all "unsourced" material must be removed from Misplaced Pages then start by removing the paragraphs (the entire paragraphs) on Jack Benny's Misplaced Pages webpage that I had edited. I couldn't find any source for what was posted in most of the paragraphs on that page. Then you can go through dozens and dozens of webpages in Misplaced Pages and remove them wholesale making threats along the way (rather than asking for verification).

Frankly your blanket undoing (twice in one case) of several of my unrelated edits seemed more vindictive than any concern for unsourced or incorrect information. I understand the need for verification and factuality, but what you did doesn't seem to have much to do with "getting it right". Tim Gruber (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My beef with you is that you are adding material to articles which has not been published before. Such edits are disallowed by the ironclad policy of WP:No original research. If you read that policy you will see that much of Misplaced Pages's articles about Jack Benny, McHale's Navy, Hogan's Heroes and so on are also unsourced. These articles were largely written in the early days of Misplaced Pages when the "no original research" policy was not strictly enforced. These sections should be trimmed down to conform to WP:NOR, or backed by published works. You are not helping when you add whole sections of unreferenced text, such as this controversy section you put into the Hogan's Heroes article. Same with paragraphs of personal analysis such as this material you added to the McHale's Navy article.

If you continue to add material to Misplaced Pages as if the WP:NOR policy did not exist, as if it was still the Wild West days of Misplaced Pages, I predict you will be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

By published do you mean recorded media? If you cannot use recorded media and must rely solely on published printed sources then that is like saying you cannot use the movie 'Gone With the Wind" as a source for the fact that Clark Gable was in the movie and must rely on a book or article written about the movie. Frankly that is an asinine standard especially when some facts have not been published in some book like who Carl Ballatine’s parents were. It is also not a standard held by the legal profession. No court in this country would take written sources about say a movie over the content of the movie itself (and where did those published sources get their information, from the movie itself). The information I sourced for Carl Ballantine’s parents would be accepted in any court and can be verified by anyone. In fact it would be accepted over most other sources especially something like a newspaper article which are notorious for having mistakes (but acceptable as a source by Misplaced Pages standards). Besides I’ve seen written books and articles that were just wrong including one I used as a source for Hogan’s Heroes. But isn’t it funny how Misplaced Pages accepts as sources articles and information written pretty much the same way I did it from other websites like www.imdb.com (if it doesn’t you have your job cut out for you having the material and sources removed including in the Wikipage about the movie The Shakiest Gun in the West that lists Carl Ballantine as part of the cast).

Yes, I’ve made edits and added material to Hogan’s Heroes, etc. I’ve also added in which episodes those things can be found and anyone who disputes the information can check the recorded media to verify or disprove the statements made (but by your standard nearly the entire Wikipage about Hogan’s Heroes would have to be deleted including stuff I never wrote). As far anything that I've written that cannot be verified by watching the shows I welcome verification and the editing of anything that needs improvement (as opposed outright deleting).

And isn’t it interesting how you have targeted my edits and know which ones I have made. I wasn’t sure how much I wanted to keep up my interest in Misplaced Pages but if this is the crap I have to put with you can keep Misplaced Pages and your asinine standards that even most college professors won’t accept. I’ll stick to where people want to get it right and have good information for people to read rather than play website Nazi.Tim Gruber (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Check out the guideline here: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. The TV episodes themselves can be used to add details to the articles, but secondary sources should be used in combination with primary sources to establish a relation to the real world. The guideline says "Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Misplaced Pages: avoid original research." Of course, 'original research' is totally required outside of Misplaced Pages, for instance by authors, journalists and scholars. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

On that basis Misplaced Pages would be only a fraction of what it is. Take for example Hogan’s Heroes. Remove all of what you say is 'original research' and the page would be chopped down to a handful paragraphs for the entire series which would reveal very little about the series and the people in it (I’d say at least 90% of the page would be totally gone including nearly all of the information about the characters). Some things about a series like that have not been published in written form particularly the historical inaccuracies. Most books about series like this usually deal with more trivial stuff like whether Colonel Klink wore his monocle while he slept (besides where did they get most of the information about the series, by watching the series). The same is true of a lot of stuff on Misplaced Pages and many of the articles would look like the old hardcover Encyclopedia Britannica entries in which only short condensed information about the subject is provided.

Start by writing the information and then improve, improve and improve. Add references and make corrections as you go along. Adding only what has been published in written form and only by some author, journalist or scholar is fine if you only want are authors, journalists and scholars using Misplaced Pages rather than seeing it as a source for everyone to learn about a subject. And if all anyone can find on Misplaced Pages is what was published in written form elsewhere and is online why bother with Misplaced Pages at all. Go read the original writing rather than a modified form of which often was rewritten and abridged simply to avoid copyright prohibitions. Hell, you could turn Misplaced Pages into a website with nothing but links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Gruber (talk • contribs) 12:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright note

Hi, this happened a long time ago so hopefully you understand of copyright and the interaction with wikipedia is a lot better now. But just in case, I should mention that the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence is incompatible with wikipedia's requirement for CC BY-SA compatibility. Both the NC and ND clauses, or any similar clauses in other licences ensure this.

This means that material copied from any external sites and releases under such a licence are a WP:Copyvio, the same as if the material is from a commercial work under a proprietary licence. Such copyvios should be removed, unless the material is a limited quotation or otherwise allowed under the limited non free content that we allow.

I'm mentioning this because of your comments Talk:The Vampire Diaries (novel series)#Theft of work from wiki.vampire-diaries.net as the licence you linked to was CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 (and a check of the source site appears to confirm the licence) but you suggested that using the material here was okay. (The material itself appears to be gone, I think it was remove due to sourcing and other such concerns.) As I mentioned above this was a long time ago and I'm not trying to cause you grief, but since I consider compliance with copyright very important, I wanted to make sure know in case you still don't.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, it seems you were right when you said "Retrohead, I don't think we are done here". Anyway, I wanted some help with paraphrasing the sentence "Killing is My Business... and Business Is Good! received strong reviews, not only in metal-oriented publications, but also in mainstream music magazines." I copied that from Allmusic, but I'm afraid that since the article is a GA nominee, I'll have to address this issue sooner or later. So, your help will be very appreciated.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I flipped the text around for you. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it always good to have a little chit chat with an editor with good sense of humor. And the name is Rattlehead, lol. Cheers and everything the best in 2014.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, man. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Warren article

I'm concerned about the Elizabeth Warren article that you worked on for a GA. You many remember that it took many months of discussion to find a compromise on the amount of copy devoted to the campaign issue about her Native American heritage. She had stated Native American lineage in a law directory used for hiring and Harvard then listed her as N.A. for years (to show that they were attempting to hire affirmative action instructors). We finally got it down to a para in the Senate run section till a couple of weeks ago an editor decided it needed to again have its own lengthy section. I don't feel that its appropriate for her bio, but I'm outnumbered and have been unable to make any progress with my hopes of returning to the stable version. Perhaps one solution would be to move the lengthy section to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 (which was suggested by MastCell on my talk page) where it would be more appropriate, and move the very reasonable para from that article to the Warren article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

PS: Do you like fado? Mariza and Amália Rodrigues? Gandydancer (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at the new difficulties at the Warren bio.

Regarding fado, I love that kind of music. I have one album of Amália Rodrigues and every time she sings loud there is annoying distortion, so I'm mad at the people who produced the recording, but of course the beauty of Amália is beyond all that. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Duane E. Tressler

This is becoming troublesome. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked for a Level 4 user warning which said something about adding too much detail, but there is no such thing. The guy keeps ruining the sleek reading flow with dumps of detail. I don't know what drives him, but it is not helping the reader to have a good experience. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

About the edits regarding David Irving's page.

I just received your message about some edits I made to the page regarding David Irving.

"Hello, I'm Binksternet. Misplaced Pages is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to David Irving seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now."

Honestly, the only reason it may have seemed less than neutral to you, was because I was removing attacks on Irving, who is a controversial figure. The attacks said that he was a Holocaust denier. Now whether or not Irving is a reputable historian can be up for debate. However, saying he's a Holocaust denier is flat-out wrong, and in no way debatable. In his book, Hitler's War, he talks about the Holocaust. He blatantly says Heinrich Himmler gave the orders to liquidate Jews in Eastern Europe, which were carried about by the SS. Yes, he does say that for most of the Holocaust, Hitler was unaware that these liquidations were going on. So he may have some non-mainstream views on the Holocaust, but he is most certainly not saying it didn't happen. If anything, he can be called a revisionist.

I agree that Misplaced Pages should be a place for neutrality. And if that's the case, then many of the articles about David Irving should be edited. The only people saying Irving is a Holocaust denier are either people who haven't read his work, or people who simply don't like him on a personal level. If you still disagree, I encourage you to read Hitler's War. Even if you disagree with Irving, you will surely see that he never once says the Holocaust didn't happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.166.5 (talk • contribs)

"Holocaust denial" includes biased attempts to diminish the number of Jews killed. Irving is guilty of this. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Irving's views shift considerably over his career. 'Holocaust denier' seems to be a fair description of his later views. See .TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite! Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Austrian economics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Rane Corporation

Hi Binksternet,

My name is Shaun Whitcher and I work for Rane Corporation. I am updating the Wiki page on behalf of Rane. Is the work I performed today lost?

Best Regards,

Shaun Whitcher Rane Corporation 10802 47th AVE W. Mukilteo, WA. 98275 T: 425-355-6000 --Shaunpinn (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Shaun. I like Rane and I am not trying to mess up the company's Misplaced Pages article. Your work today was faulty so I removed it. The problem—a big one—was that you copied and pasted text from Rane's website directly into the Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages cannot host this kind of text without Rane signing a release to give the text to the public domain. Even then, the best way to get the concepts into Misplaced Pages is to rewrite the text in a very spare manner appropriate to an encyclopedia, using the Rane website as a reference. A better way to expand the article would be to find WP:Secondary sources which talk about Rane, sources such as newspaper and magazine articles. Binksternet (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Tell Steve Macatee Bink says 'hi'. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D, Zawed and Hawkeye7 look at recent releases

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to undo my edits without giving proper explanation, as you have done at Elise_Andrew, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. wormatic (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you keep trying to slog Elise Andrew with edits like this and this, you will not last long on Misplaced Pages. Please follow the WP:NPOV guideline. If you are here just to put down Elise Andrew then you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is meant to be factual and not to be used as a tool for advertisement. You are in close association with the subject, and therefore, your disruptive editing and no interest in working collaboratively is not appreciated in Misplaced Pages. wormatic (talk) 5:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm in close association with Elise Andrew? That's news to me. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring Murphy etc.

Bink, please consider stepping back from the Murphy mess. What's the point of getting into a multiple revert situation with the comment "edit warring must stop"? I needn't say more. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk page consensus is clear, yet Steeletrap removed the agreed-upon text. That's the edit warring behavior. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a mess. It doesn't matter who's "right" at this point. It needs to stop steaming before we touch it again. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I notice that you have not asked your friend Steeletrap to step back. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll try again: The reason I posted to you and not to Steeletrap is that, unless I'm mistaken, she was doing a first revert of a recent "bold" addition and that you appeared to undo the revert precipitously and with a dismissive edit summary without "discussion" on talk. So you appeared to be edit-warring with a summary "don't edit war". If I misread the sequence, then shame on me. I would say, however, that Steeletrap is no more my "friend" than CMDC is yours. It's really civil to assert that an editor would base actions here on "friendship" rather than policy or content concerns. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Interested in a GA?

Would you be interested in reviewing the 2012 Delhi gang rape article for a GA? I think it's in pretty good shape and there are several good editors that I think would be willing to help. Khazar2 was going to do it but quite out of the blue he quit Misplaced Pages. There is a short discussion on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. It's been too long since I helped reduce the GAN backlog. I have never edited the article so I'm eligible to review the GAN. I did comment on the article talk page last year but that's not enough to disqualify. I really hate the tragic subject matter so it will probably make me a hard reviewer. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Martineau

Could you please check the references fro 1)Martineau family 2)James Martineau 3) Philip Greenhow Martineau

I am not good at doing this so thanks very much in advance Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.17.244 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you have asked several people to look at these. I'll wait to see if someone else picks it up. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

AN/EW time in Murphy article?

Per this talk page entry I just put in where I warned on edit warring over yet another removal of Capitol Theory section and mentioned your edit warring warning. Is it time to do a Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? I haven't done them much besides 3rr myself so thought I'd check. Will alert you if I do it and please alert me if you get there first. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I will look at that. Maybe there's a case. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of a case, but it's kind of hard to read with long strings of rapid editing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap just reverted another one. If you are familiar with the material, it is easier to see.

Why have a rule vs. reverting your material back over and over after different editors remove it for good reason if there's no way to report repeated incidents in a few days. Even though another admin recently again urged me to go to ANI on BLP issues, I am reluctant. And it was after that urging that another editor went to ArbCom, which I'd assumed you knew about, but maybe not.

I also have added last two reverts here to list of Murphy reverts at ArbCom that 2 other editors previously had alluded to. Might add this last one if necessary, though I think the pattern is pretty firmly established there by now. But will they bother to do anything about it in timely matter?

Hmmm, maybe WP:BLPN is better place to go with both the repeatedly reverted bad (or neutral) info and the new negative WP:OR primary sourced material. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap self-reverted, so that last problem is gone. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The only case is the difficult one of long-term disruptive edit warring against consensus.

• revert Jan 15 at 18:27, removing Capital Theory material.
• Revert Jan 15 at 18:31, regarding CPI bet, re-introducing DeLong blog BLP vio.
• revert Jan 15 at 21:23, removing Capital Theory material.
• revert Jan 15 at 21:25, restoring Murphy blaming Obama.
• revert Jan 16 at 22:33, restoring DeLong blog BLP vio.
• revert Jan 17 at 16:35, removing Capital Theory material.
• revert Jan 19 at 15:30, restoring Murphy blaming Obama.
• revert Jan 19 at 15:31, removing Capital Theory material.

It looks like there was a serious flurry of reverts on the 15th, but an argument can be made that the four separate reverts were just components of two reverting sequences or sessions. A real problem is the continued removal of Capital Theory stuff even though the talk page consensus supports it. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)