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 15:49, 14 July 2014 editGo Phightins! (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators21,768 edits →Jen Psaki protection: re← Previous edit Revision as of 18:59, 14 July 2014 edit undoSteeletrap (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,937 edits policy violations on List of Conspiracy TheoriesNext edit →
Line 415: Line 415:
Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than engage in revert warring. Thank you. '''] ]]''' 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than engage in revert warring. Thank you. '''] ]]''' 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
:My mistake. Please see my comment on ANEW. '''] ]]''' 15:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC) :My mistake. Please see my comment on ANEW. '''] ]]''' 15:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

==]==

Anti-Serb conspiracy theories are well documented and prominent through much of Eastern Europe. They deserve a place on the conspiracy theories page. you are trying to revert are documented by first-rate academic sources; the (second-day) noob who added them deserves credit. Why do you insist on reverting them? You should direct your energy to adding more sources and making the prose more lucid.

I agree that anon shouldn't have violated 3RR. But it appears to be her/his second day here. Name-calling ("edit-warrior") is highly inappropriate, particularly when it's directed at someone who doesn't yet know all the rules. Ironically, you yourself violated two policies by calling him/her an edit warrior: WP:BITE and WP:NPA. ] (]) 18:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:59, 14 July 2014

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

Archives

IP adding "(all)" to air crash reports

They're quite busy. I hope this isn't going to be an ongoing thing... Pinkbeast (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Input

If you've got the chance, some commentary here (by July 11th if possible) would be much appreciated. Given your work in bringing articles to FA, figured you'd have good insight/advice. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty tough on FA reviews! But if you want me to come look at it, I will. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that while looking at Madonna's 2010 FAC :P. In the words of Pat Benatar, Hit Me with Your Best Shot. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Not a necessity, but would appreciate your 2¢. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 19:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've responded to all your suggestions, and have a question on one of them. If you've got further comments, please do give them. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

5 Seconds of Summer

Hi Binksternet. In regards to removing my edit from the 5 Seconds of Summer page, I understand what you are saying about neutrality, but Misplaced Pages also strives for accuracy, does it not? It is inaccurate to call them a "boy band" because by definition, a boy band is a group who sing while at the same time performing choreographed dancing (for example One Direction, Backstreet Boys). This is not an accurate description of 5 Seconds of Summer. Each member plays his own instrument on stage, and they do not dance. For each reference that can be found calling them a boy band, references can be found to say they are not a boy band :) Sharkywoo (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of "boy band" is too narrow; there are exceptions. You must admit that 5SOS has been called a boy band in the media, despite any preference stated by the band itself. If you would like to write a section in the article about how the "boy band" label has been applied by some and denied by others, then feel free to do so. Just don't remove references, which is why I sent you the note. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI question

SPI isn't my forte, so can you help me out. I see a CSD on Chinatowns in the Southern United States, starting it is a banned or blocked user. The article was created by User:Djdjjtd, but I do not see that name in {{:Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of D62943]]. So how did you conclude it is the same editor?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The sockpuppet case has recently concluded, which is probably why the category you looked at was not populated yet. Take a gander at the huge list of socks recently found at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/D62943. I have a shipload of articles I have been nominating for deletion for the same reason, that a banned user created them, all based on the recent SPI. To be specific, User:Djdjjtd created the article about Chinatowns in the Southern U.S., and this account is one of the many listed at the above-linked SPI. Good hunting! Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw the huge pile of CSDs, but wanted to be sure before deleting.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Régie Malagache

As noted by the previous edit to this page that you reverted, by performing a cut-and-paste page move of this article you are claiming that it is your own work, which it blatantly is not. This is a violation of the CC-BY-SA license under which Misplaced Pages operates, as well as unethical. Work is REQUIRED to be attributed to it's creator by entries in the page history log.

It is also inappropriate for the person who entered material into Misplaced Pages (in this case, you) to remove a copyright violation notice. It is REQUIRED that allegations of copyright violation are investigated by OTRS.

You are also edit warring in an attempt to remove the copyright violation notice, and are at this point way past 3RR. Stop. Revent 04:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting you! I was busy denying the sockpuppet of banned user Russavia. The same banned user was the one who placed the copyvio tag, so removing his tag is allowed without any discussion—he's banned. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Binksternet, could you possibly tell us if you are the author of the work in its entirety? 183.62.37.35 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm well aware that Russavia is banned. I'm also well aware that you were assuming that the person who posted the copyvio notice was Russavia prior to any 'proof' that he was a banned user. You are not entitled to editwar simply because you 'think' the other person is a sock of a banned user, and you are NOT allowed to take down a copyviolation notice. You are not the only person in the world capable of reverting an edit, 3RR exists for a reason, and you had reported it to ANI. The world was not going to end if the copyvio notice sat on the page for ten minutes until an admin looked at the issue. I'm not upset that you reverted me, but the simple fact that you were hitting the revert button so fast that you did so shows that you were not thinking through your actions. Revent 07:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I was operating under the exception listed at Misplaced Pages:Reverting#Exceptions which allows any number of reverts of a banned editor, outside of the limits of 3RR. You're right, I was so deep in the conflict that I was not thinking as clearly as usual, but I did take time to post to SPI and ANI to try and get the sock under control. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Revent, I had never seen the guideline WP:RUD until it was pointed out to me by Stefan2 at Talk:Régie_Malagache a few hours ago. I wish I had completely rewritten the article in my own words so that there was no question of copyvio. It would have taken me only a few minutes longer. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Annoyed: Centennial District, Philadelphia and so on

Hi Binksternet.

I'm annoyed that good encyclopedia articles like Centennial District, Philadelphia, Arch Street (Philadelphia) and so on will be deleted under WP:G5. I think they should be kept. I really do not like WP:G5 tags for worthwhile articles that would otherwise be uncontentious.

Whew. I feel much better now, having got that off my chest.

That's all. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the G5 deletion is going to make someone else have to write the article anew. I'm sorry that you are annoyed about the whole deal. More than that, I'm sorry that a fairly useful editor has also been so disruptive that he was banned. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: US Census edits on San Jose, California Wiki page

Do you think it is your personal responsibility to police other Misplaced Pages editors? The U.S. Census issues annual population estimate updates and updates for certain other data/criteria. They only do a full Census every decade. Regardless, the changes I made are correct and you should have researched the data itself before reverting my edit. The previous CSA population estimate of 8,371,000 was the 2012 Census estimate data. That CSA population was not referenced either, because a link to the Census page cannot be cited, because of their script based "Factfinder" search tool/database. The current U.S. Census estimate of 8,469,854 is the 2013 (current) Census update for the SJ/SF/OAK CSA. The information is correct and you can check these Misplaced Pages pages to see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_United_States_combined_statistical_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/San_Jose-San_Francisco-Oakland,_CA_Combined_Statistical_Area I did not create or edit either of these pages. You can also use the U.S. Census Factfinder tool yourself to verify current population estimates. Furthermore, I don't appreciate your condescending attitude in the comments you left on my talk page and therefore I have deleted them. You should know by now that there are a lot of morons on Misplaced Pages. Everyone who "corrected" me in the past was wrong, -as were you. There is extensive discussion (and consensus) about the issues they "corrected" me on, in Misplaced Pages editor forums (many of those who agreed with me were Misplaced Pages Administrators). I suggest you read (on my talk page), my response to some of these people. I can't reprimand everyone on Misplaced Pages that made an error, or did something wrong. I will simply make an edit or correction and move on. I have been at this for years, and am no fool. If I wasn't so busy, I would devote more time to it. I work full time though (on average 60 hours a week). I hold a masters degree in engineering and have worked as both a software engineer and systems administrator for more than 20 years in Silicon Valley. I'm 46 years old and not some punk kid. Jcheckler (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to piss you off; I never thought you were a child. You will admit that this edit of yours carried the summary "Updated CSA information to current 2014 U.S. Census Data" which was not true. The San Jose city article's population estimates are based on updates from the California Department of Finance rather than on the US Census. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
If one were trying to update the CSA page using the estimates from the California Department of Finance, from data on the page linked above, the following is what they would calculate:
			
	County	        Total Population	
		        1/1/2013	1/1/2014
1	Alameda	        1,550,119	1,573,254
2	Contra Costa	1,076,429	1,087,008
3	Marin	          254,696	  255,846
4	Napa	          138,754	  139,255
5	San Benito	   57,079	   57,517
6	San Francisco	  826,003	  836,620
7	San Joaquin	  701,745	  710,731
8	San Mateo	  736,647	  745,193
9	Santa Clara	1,840,895	1,868,558
10	Santa Cruz	  268,189	  271,595
11	Solano	          420,339	  424,233
12	Sonoma	          488,580	  490,486
	Total CSA	8,359,475	8,460,296
That gives different results than what is currently shown. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

You clearly didn't read my explanation. The U.S. Census Bureau is a permanent agency of the U.S. government. They have permanent (daily) full-time employees. They update estimates for a lot of the same data they accumulate in the decennial census, on an annual basis, and release that information to the public. It is also (obviously) updated in their database (American Factfinder tool). They work with the OMB also, to provide data to them for budget purposes (among other reasons). The current listed CSA population of "8,469,854", comes directly from the U.S. Census Bureau, not the CADOF. Only the city population (I believe) comes from the CADOF.

I didn't update or change any other information in the San Jose article except for the CSA. I don't care about the CA Dept of Finance, with the exception that in editor/administrator discussions in the past, the consensus was that it was a legitimate source to use for updating current population information (since city/town populations are one of the data that the Census Bureau only updates every full census (decade). The only data in that article (I'm aware of) which uses the CA Dept. of Finance estimates, is the City population.

If you look at the https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:USCITIES Guideline, you will see this: "City proper population (US Census figures should be used. When appropriate, "other reliable estimates" may be included as a supplement to Census figures.)" -. In my discussions in the forums (and on talk pages), there has been a consensus that the only "other reliable estimates", would/could be from the state agencies who are responsible for compiling state data/estimates. In the state of California, that agency is the California Department of Finance. Certain individuals would argue that CADOF estimates are not legitimate. I will not debate or argue that point here except to say, -Prove It. The DOF uses Census data, BOE tax records, and all kinds of other demographic data, to compile their estimates. Also, it could be noted that, the Bay Area is the fastest growing region in California per capita, and Santa Clara County is the fastest growing county in the state (for the last several years.) https://www.google.com/#q=Santa+Clara+County+fastest+growing+county+california&safe=off

I want to point out that I was not intending to be harsh in my response to you. I'm just sick of people who feel the need to "correct" others, without doing their own due diligence beforehand. That is where I was coming from. I have no desire to be contentious. To the contrary, I want to work with others to make WP better. Misplaced Pages is one of the greatest tools ever created. I have made thousands of contributions to it (no matter how large or small), and I donate money every time they have a funding drive. I have gleaned so much knowledge from WP that I felt compelled to contribute. I think that's why we all do it. Anyway, have a happy Thursday. -John Jcheckler (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Banned User:D62943

Hello Binksternet. The content of articles you nominated for deletion under {{db-banned}} seems to be non-problematic, enriching Misplaced Pages. Why to destroy the articles? Yesterday, I noticed many articles on US Chinatowns. I guess they are gone. Is it a revenge to D62943? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly a tension between the G5 deletion policy which is not at all lenient, and the wish to improve and expand the encyclopedia. Most of the time I am sympathetic to the expansion of the encyclopedia but this time I started checking into the disruption caused by this blocked editor, and I determined that a line had to be drawn, that the blocked editor had to stop socking. Ideally, the guy will follow the advice of WP:OFFER and eventually return to Misplaced Pages as a legitimate contributor.
In the interim, the various Chinatown articles, and a bunch of other articles he created, have been deleted. None of them were very complicated or complete, so it will not be difficult to replace them. The encyclopedia will survive. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll trust your instincts in this case. I've learned to judge content nad originators separately, in most cases, so that's why I asked. Thanks for your response. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Backside of Beachgoer – a strange little wiki tale

Starting on 6 January 2011, an IP editor posted 14 photos over 23 hours, the photos showing somebody standing at a California beach, facing away from the camera. The only image that survived deletion was one taken on the Palos Verdes Hills with a Canon EOS 40D camera on 26 December 2009, with a little bit of post-processing done on 5 January 2011 as shown on the EXIF data.

On 15 January 2011, four of the same kinds of photos were posted by a different IP. None of these survived deletion. This session was the first I became aware of what I will call the "Backside of Beachgoer" photos. A few hours after one of the photos was posted to Pebble Beach, California, (which was on my watchlist), I reverted the image, saying "rv photo of unknown person".

Fast forward to 26 June 2014. A new user account, Andeverywhereand, uploaded two of the same sorts of photos into Commons and added them to Misplaced Pages. One of them was added to the Pebble Beach article, which was still on my watchlist, so I reverted it again, saying "rv... no need for anonymous person posing in beach photos". The photo was also taken with a Canon EOS 40D, and it was also post-processed in early January 2011, but the original snapshot was listed as 3 January 2010, so this was probably the same seacoast road trip by the camera owner. I also reverted the other photo placed at the same session.

A few days later the account Andforevery uploaded two of the same kinds of photos to Commons and added them to Misplaced Pages. The Backside-of-Beachgoer guy was shown in Pebble Beach again, and in Crescent City, California; the camera was a Canon EOS 40D. These two were taken in January 2010 and slightly post-processed in January 2011. By now I'm getting a little annoyed; my edit summary was "delete attempt at spamming the backside of some person looking out over the ocean... at multiple beach articles".

One day later, the account Andthethethe added two similar photos, which I removed with edit summaries about the spamming of photos. It's all the same series, same camera, same dates.

Caspar David Friedrich often included the backside of a person in his paintings.

This persistent effort which has been carried forward for years always shows some kind of desolate beach scene, with a lone figure. The composition appears to be modeled after the work of Caspar David Friedrich who placed in his paintings figures facing away from the viewer. Friedrich's idea was that it would make the viewer sympathize with the figure and the work, as if they were all part of the work. All I can say about Backside of Beachgoer is that it's not working for me. Binksternet (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not notice until just now that more accounts and photos were involved.

The account Rainingreenpoint added two photos on 22 June 2012, but one of these was taken by a different camera—a Canon PowerShot G10—and it was shot on 7 January 2011, a day after the first uploading session.

The account Forcaliforniaforcalifornia added only one photo from the same series.

Inintoinininto added two of the same photo series on 12 June 2014, and he also added the surviving photo by Sfcamerawork to an article, the file that was uploaded way back in January 2011.

Somewhereoutsideoftime added two of the same photo series on 17 June 2014.

The account Thunderstormsandlightningflashes had uploaded three more images to Commons on 22 June 2014, and added them to four Misplaced Pages articles.

There are probably a few more out there. Binksternet (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's more.

Okinawanusername uploaded three photos, all from the same December 2009 – January 2010 roadtrip as above.

Demiannaimed uploaded three photos, all from the same December 2009 – January 2010 roadtrip as above. That makes for two Stinson photos.

Andthethe uploaded three photos, one with a different camera.

Andthespace uploaded two photos, one completely outside the California series, taken in Howth, Ireland, with a different camera.

Pinging Tillman, McGhiever, Stepheng3, Invertzoo, Ellin Beltz, Asiaticus, WPPilot, Killiondude, Look2See1, WCCasey and LFaraone who have all worked on various California images and beach articles. I removed some of this person's photos but not the majority of them. I will leave it up to the community to decide what is to be done, if anything, about the remainder of the Backside of Beachgoer series. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I as well in the past have ran across this, and never really thought anything of it. Backside of Beachgoer showed up on the 17 mile drive pages a while ago and I replaced it with one from my personal collection but never really thought anything of it. Good eye, and it seems like some kind of game if you if you will to see how many of these profile shots can be included here, its someone's idea of joke, but not in any way productive. Perhaps you have links to other wikis that the users pops up on and lets maintain that list. In most of them, IMHO it is the same user, the stance, the outfit, the long rambling user names, I bet it is just some college kid with nothing better to do Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system. Starting at the bottom, I have removed a few, replacing them with files from the commons, and in at least 1 case I cropped out the rear side of the person and uploaded it to the replace the users pic. These are all over the place to, as many of them are laced upon a number of pages. Cropping and re uploading is really the quickest way to deal with this IMHO. Too bad as some of the pics would be nice if the persons rear side was not in them. talk→ WPPilot  19:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about this. I have not come across any of these myself. However, I have only recently been working on, and adding images to, articles on California beaches. I agree that this seems to be a game, or perhaps someone's (or some people's) little "art project". Either way I think it is inappropriate to do this in an encyclopedia. I suppose one person might innocently upload one image of a beach with someone's back in it, thinking that the picture looked great, atmospheric, and not understanding that this is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery. When one user uploads several with the same format, I would say it is either a major misunderstanding or a deliberate ploy of some sort. Have you been able to contact any of the users who have been doing this? I am willing to try to talk to anyone who needs a little chat about this. Invertzoo (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I have not tried to contact this person, because the accounts are used for just a day or two. I agree it would be helpful to have a conversation. This photo series appears to be someone's conceptual art project. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you on that. As soon as I feel a bit better (I injured myself today) I will see about leaving a friendly but firm note on these user's pages, just so they/he/she knows that we are aware of this. Well done Binksternet for sleuthing this. Invertzoo (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Get well soon, Invertzoo!
Thanks Bink. Invertzoo (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
So, wow, apparently there was a big deletion brouhaha on Commons, initiated by Ryulong: Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. It looks like all these images were previously uploaded by User:Albianmoonlight who is a sockpuppet of User:Superbrightidea, as can be seen in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Superbrightidea/Archive. So a photo series that seemed harmless or annoying or even kind of interesting is now the activity of a banned editor and should be removed. I will ping Eeekster, Delicious carbuncle, Antandrus, Gavia immer, HelloAnnyong and Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry since they all took part in the SPI. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Here you go. I had mixed feelings about this from the beginning. On one hand, I liked the photos -- I thought they were quite good -- but Misplaced Pages just isn't the right venue for this kind of project and wanted to convince the artist not do it this way. But if they're making sockpuppets and putting them back, they're going to have to go. Antandrus (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, some of them are nice shots (others aren't) but the guy is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. I have just nominated all of the photos for deletion on Commons. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
After reading the story above, I agree, this guy is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. The sockpuppet technique makes it hard to have a conversation with him, perhaps a total block on all the users accounts and just keep an open eye to assure that he does not popup again under yet another name. Here is the users website: http://www.davidhorvitz.com/ providing further conformation of his "project" (game) - I support the nomination. Pinging Ryūlóng, whom had nominated these in 2011 this deletion request.. talk→ WPPilot  06:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
When you say "I support the nomination", what nomination are you supporting? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 10:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Binksternet nonimated all these photos for deletion. Invertzoo (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the research, now we know what is going on. I think it's important to rigorously quell any behavior of this type as best as we can, because it is quite disruptive to the encyclopedia. This is not a playground, and we really don't need people exploiting the open nature of Misplaced Pages in order to serve their own purposes. That kind of thing is selfish and disrespectful to the overall project, and to the community of volunteers who work so hard to create good content here, content that is extremely useful to people worldwide and provides to some what amounts to a free education, a very noble goal. Whether or not someone else may believe this other stuff could be conceptualized as "art" is really irrelevant under the circumstances. Invertzoo (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been busy most of the day and I'm just seeing all of this now. Yeah, this is exactly what happened a few years ago but no one at the commons apparently bothers to keep people away like this. We should keep an eye on these various beach articles to prevent further disruption in the future and to identify this guy when he shows up after his latest slew of uploaded photos is deleted, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I've also discovered other accounts that had been active in 2012 through postings on Horvitz's blog. We should contact WMF and have them send a cease and decist to Horvitz.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree on the cease and desist, but it might be hard to track him. His site is registered at Tocows, behind a proxy. The address in in Canada, and his website site looks like he might even be in Europe? The who is data at least provides a e mail, via proxy never the less perhaps a universal sockpuppet block on every account, he might figure it out before WMF has to expend valuable resources on Mr. Horvitz's stunt. talk→ WPPilot  13:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
There's probably some attorney to contact because checkuser's not going to be of any use to these two year old accounts I keep finding. And he's gone international with his disruption too. I found File:石澳村.jpg which is him in Hong Kong. And a self-portrait has been on mood disorder and melancholic depression for years and was copied across several projects, not to mention File:Sacco vanzetti sculpture.JPG which preceeds his original spate of disruption.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Brought this up at WP:ANI#David Horvitz.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Links to relevant discussions and pages:
I now have every one of his previously targeted articles on my watchlist, and I intend to revert any obvious Horvitz photos I see posted to them. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
As an absurdist art project, Horvitz tried to delete his own Misplaced Pages biography in September, 2013. You will probably find Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Horvitz to be interesting reading. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

One more to look at

Regarding our buddy with the buem at the beach:

  1. See ... "In December 2010 and January 2011, Horvitz drove the whole California coast up the Pacific Coast Highway, starting at Border Field State Park on the Mexican Border, and ending at Pelican State Beach on the Oregon Border. At each of 50 chosen locations, Horvitz took pictures of the ocean view, standing with the frame of the shot. All of these images were then placed onto the Misplaced Pages articles about the different locations.

During the exhibition of this work at at San Francisco Camerawork in San Francisco, this work began to generate controversy on Misplaced Pages, with some editors removing his images. Horvtiz then incorporated this material into the documentation of the work." Note: this pdf *& this about the efforts.

  1. Also see this page which seems to be a different bio, and orphaned.

I found two more images and nominated them as well. I was sad to see that someone on the talk thread felt that commons editors don't care to root this kind of thing out... We care a lot. Thank you for letting me know. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha! It looks like you're on it. I will take a look at your nominated-for-deletion files of today and vote in support if I think they are related. Can you go look at the ones I nominated yesterday? I think they call that quid pro quo. ;^)
I see you have initiated a discussion with Jim Woodward. The more eyes the better. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
QPQ done and here's four more
Greetings again! Please see: here for more on the beach buem. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! Those four are obviously the same sockpuppeter. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages, as you did to Godzilla (2014 film). It is considered spamming and Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Misplaced Pages

Sooo, how is a review of the film innapropriate? I see IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.. all have reviews listed. I am fully aware of the nofollow tags and how they work so thank you for your explanation. The content is non-promotional as I am not selling any products or affiliate program, just honest reviews and thought on the film that I feel Is relevant. Perhaps you should be less heavy handed or remove the other movie review sites.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.208.22 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This removal of your link was not by me, it was by STATicVapor. I agree with the removal, because the film review is from your blog, not from an established film review website. Looking at your contributions, it is clear that you do nothing on Misplaced Pages except add links to your blog. It looks like you are not here to help build the encyclopedia; instead you are here to promote your blog. Binksternet (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping me, I'am new on here and having a hard time learing how to post. Need to read more how to do. I did post on wrong page, was trying to post to other page. I read your page on you; Awsome!

American's for Independence (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for the input on Stevie Nicks. Jonel469 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

B.T.W. did You have anything to do with the Bink video on Sid Meier's Railroads! ? Jonel469 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That was not me helping with the Bink video for Sid. Some other Bink, of which there are several. Thanks for the cheeseburger! Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Disappearing carriage" for the gun itself?

I say again...where, when? Doesn't seem to be too common at all in my experience, except from cloned sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I searched Google Books in the 19th century and found a slew of results. See this link. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I haven't gone through all of 'em, but the first 3 pages seem to be -all- references to the carriage itself, not the gun. Anmccaff (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Went through the first 50, one of the last 10 was arguably a metathesistic usage. The rest were all references to the carriage proper, and quite often used the word "gun" or "rifle" (usually abbreviated) in the same sentence, or nearby. Anmccaff (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. The article Disappearing gun is not really about the gun, it is about the technology for having the gun hide from the enemy while reloading. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem I see is that it is factually incorrect. "Disappearing guns" weren't often called "disappearing carriages" in their day, as the cites you just gave show. I'm moving this discussion to the talk page for disappearing gun, to see if there is any other objection to cleaning up the intro sentence.Anmccaff (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Stop icon
Your recent editing history at Anarcho-capitalism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Mister Wallace

Another one: 5.81.230.52 - once again, Let it Be and Gorillaz, and once again the IP resolves to Cambridgeshire.

I've been tagging the user pages of the suspect IPs with {{Sock|Mrwallace05}}, and that adds him to this list.

You might want to add this the the SPI. Cheers. Radiopathy •talk• 23:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some IPs from elsewhere, for instance Israel and Serbia, that appear to be controlled briefly by our socker dude. It's a tedious case. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Palmer

With no respect intended Binknsternet, kiss my ass. Your Mary Ambrose lies are just that. Lies. How you continue to get to be an editor here is beyond me. You're a bully and a liar. I have loads of back up for my information, unlike you. I am reporting your for bullying and harassment and posting false information. Mary Ambrose is the hoax, no matter how you spin in. Consider yourself reported. Zabadu (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Your continuation of a hoax puts you in line for a block. This edit of yours is supported by nothing in the way of reliable sources, and is an extension of this nonsense hoax stuff you wrote five months ago, and this egregious fabrication of a hoax which followed it. You wrote back then that a certain "Geraldine Edwards" was Robert Palmer's girlfriend, your assertion supported by no good references. In fact, fake hoax references were created by IPs from San Diego, as I documented at Mark Arsten's user page: User_talk:Mark_Arsten/Archive_the_sixth#Geraldine_Edwards_hoax. A later post on Mark's talk page by San Diego IP 174.xx covers the same hoax and complains about my 'slanderous, defamatory' interference. Yet another IP from San Diego posted to your talk page the exact same stuff, as if you were pretending to be someone else, supporting your own position.
You should know I will interfere in every hoax I discover on Misplaced Pages! Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen 00:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome. Best! Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Walhberg

Sorry about that revert. I hit the wrong button.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No sweat! I do that, too, from time to time (he said sheepishly.) Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

MedCom case update: Schiller Institute

Dear Binksternet: Hello. I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Schiller Institute.

I have written an initial analysis, and requested contribution from all mediation parties. Please read what I've written and participate at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute. Thank you.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the case, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Tristessa (talk) 00:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Notification

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Jen Psaki protection

Please discuss the issue on the talk page rather than engage in revert warring. Thank you. Go Phightins! 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. Please see my comment on ANEW. Go Phightins! 15:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

Anti-Serb conspiracy theories are well documented and prominent through much of Eastern Europe. They deserve a place on the conspiracy theories page. The edits you are trying to revert are documented by first-rate academic sources; the (second-day) noob who added them deserves credit. Why do you insist on reverting them? You should direct your energy to adding more sources and making the prose more lucid.

I agree that anon shouldn't have violated 3RR. But it appears to be her/his second day here. Name-calling ("edit-warrior") is highly inappropriate, particularly when it's directed at someone who doesn't yet know all the rules. Ironically, you yourself violated two policies by calling him/her an edit warrior: WP:BITE and WP:NPA. Steeletrap (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)