Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:26, 23 February 2015

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 Archive28 – January–February 2014 Archive29 – March–April 2014 Archive30 – May–June 2014 Archive31 – July–August 2014 Archive32 – September–October 2014 Archive33 – November–December 2014 Archive34 – January–February 2015

Talk:Wright brothers

Revdel applied, email sent to oversight, and block applied. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Compiling evidence for Esoglou's article misbehavior

Hi Bink - I'm pinging the clerks and admins here to check if this is proper, but if they agree, would you consider splitting with me the task of looking through Esoglou's edits in the topic area and compiling diffs/explanations? I imagine the diffs you'd present in your section and the ones I will be presenting will overlap a lot, and time is short, so we could save ourselves some work by agreeing to break up articles/timeframes/whatever. @Dougweller: @Euryalus: @Lankiveil: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay.

Split by timeframe?

Together, the diffs should show WP:NOTHERE and demonstrate how he uses persistent re-opening of unfruitful arguments to drive away others. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, then maybe we aren't looking for the same things. I was going to show a small sample of misrepresentation of sources and insertion of POV language, although I suppose those do contribute to NOTHERE. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess we are working at different ends, which is useful anyway. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, We've granted a word limit extension to a couple of people, so feel free to post a note here or at the Evidence talkpage if you'd like to go up to 2000 words. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually never mind, I noted it on the Evidence talkpage myself. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sheesh, I should go cook myself something nice now. Anything obvious I've missed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything you've missed, but I consider myself much less able to determine all the things Esoglou has done wrong. You're the key to this case; the one with the most knowledge. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Any other principles it might be good to propose in workshop? You've also seen a lot of the disruption, especially in articles and talk pages. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me sort through my observations. This kind of arbitration is tedious, and the sun is shining here in Oakland. Grrrr... Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Viewing history of archived articles.

Is this possible? And how would I go about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

Do you mean deleted Misplaced Pages articles? You would have to be an administrator. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Nahh, archived stuff. The archives show the last edit; what about the previous ones?Anmccaff (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you are asking for, but here is a list of the last 500 versions of the article about the GM streetcar conspiracy. Binksternet (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Same thing, but for the talk pages?Anmccaff (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Right! So the talk page archives can be viewed one-at-a-time at the following three links:

• Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Archive 1
• Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Archive 2
• Talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy/Archive 3

Or you can look through the last 500 edits to the talk page here. That gets back to October 2011. The next older 500 talk page edits are here, which gets all the way back to January 2004 and the first talk page entry. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. You are a gentleman and a scholar and a judge of fine music.Anmccaff (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Email from you

I received an email today stating you had left me a message. I went to my page, no message. Could you please let me know if you sent a message, or if you made an edit to my talk page? I don't want to continue this fight, if that's what it's all about. Zabadu (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Today, I removed a comment by the San Diego hoaxer from your user page. That probably triggered an email to you, because of the way you have set up your user preferences. If you want to stop getting emailed like that you can go to your Special:Preferences and uncheck the bottom box.

I am not continuing any fight with you. I apologized to you at ANI and I am still sorry I assumed you were the hoaxer from San Diego. Best wishes, Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated, and thank you.Zabadu (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Another striving artist

Hiya Binkster, check out this one Mertim Gokalp; slightly light on references, found as usual from odd image uploads. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk)

I will look when I get a chance. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Our mutual friend

Hi Binskternet. This guy might be worth keeping an eye on. Regards. Scolaire (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Forewarned! Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Help for a discussion

Hello, I've started a discussion regarding the genres of Bull of Heaven. I thought that as a skilled editor, you would be able to help (and I'm intending to model the discussion after one you started on Iggy Pop.) Also, where can I also post this message to invite other editors for contribution to the discussion (other than Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Music) Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Music Project is the best place, I think, as there is no Experimental Music Project. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, Forleh is definitely trying to own the article. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Are Forfeh and Lagopodous the same person? If so, somebody's gonna get blocked. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is possible. They don't edit at the same time and Lagopodous account was created only after Forleh's bulk of genres were removed by an IP. 75.166.140.139 may also belong to one of them (or to both) While Forfeh has occasionally edited unrelated articles, all three users mainly edit on Bull of Heaven-related topics. And indeed, Forleh and Lagopodous look exactly like the same person in terms of their writings. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

JFK Conspiracy Theory

Why did you ignore the second source? It is a scanned government document released after the JFK Assassination Record Info Act of 1992, which supports Conolly's claim of Jack Lawrence's presence at the scene/suspect status. This scanned FBI document also mentions that Lawrence was questioned, and supports Conolly's claims of Lawrence's employment at the Dallas dealership and personal associations.

The more specific information comes from two published books that offer the details presented in Conolly's video: High Treason, a 1993 non-fiction by Robert J. Groden, who presented the first network showing of the Zapruder film; and Crossfire by Jim Marrs, a 1989 New York Times non-fiction bestseller.

So there are two government sources and two published NYT nonfiction bestsellers. I don't understand why the video is "not important": it contains interviews with people who were actually there (and as an eternal skeptic I was constantly fact checking the salient proof and key players while watching). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.136.7 (talk • contribs)

References

1. http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-272/605417-key-persons/pizzo_frank/pizzo_frank.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

You appear to be using the Conolly video as a reference, but I don't think the video qualifies as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, why didn't you just delete the last paragraph that uses his specific theory? There is nothing wrong with the two official sources, and the other two sources (Crossfire and High Treason) are already referenced multiple times on the page.

read this

Hello, do you know of instruments? something like guitars or bass ?? well I want to discuss the issue on the instruments used Sting especially the bass. I think two things happen here, or you've never seen a sting play live several times and know nothing about the bass, you will see each under this accredited in that section has been used frequently by sting, for example in the music video for "Demolition Man" appears using Fender Telecaster Bass, Fender even have a model in his honor, i have photos of sting using a Steinberger L-2 Bass. the Fender Precision Bass has always been used by Sting from his years with The Police until today there are in fact a story about it and if you see a video of Sting playing bass'll know which is that in most of the videos. Sting can be seen playing an Ibanez Musician in the original video to "Message in a Bottle." His image Also Appears in several Ibanez catalogs from the period. the Spector NS-2 was used in the synchronicity concert and other events. I reported this because Sting and Adam Clayton are the musicians that have inspired me to play bass, and offer a particularly about the instruments he has played and is on bass and guitar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josue10rfu15 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to find a published account of the instruments used by Sting. Your own observations are not enough, per WP:NOR, which says that information on Misplaced Pages must be previously published. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

okay, look at these articles where results confirmed in Section Users and watch some videos of sting playing, I'll give you some references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josue10rfu15 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC) this articles https://en.wikipedia.org/Fender_Telecaster_Bass https://en.wikipedia.org/Fender_Precision_Bass https://en.wikipedia.org/Ibanez_Musician_Bass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josue10rfu15 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

do not be obsessive or idolizes to Sting

these sources are used in on these bass models, perhaps put this section makes some wrong ?? learn about instruments and you can distinguish the uses, know nothing about it and can not distinguish or know where bass is where the use is no problem of wikipedia, check out the articles on other musicians who play and see Instrumnt provided the information on their instruments as it is normal in Wikipeadia, do not be obsessive and perfectionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josue10rfu15 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on Administrators' noticeboard

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that an IP user has started a discussion on Administrators' noticeboard regarding you. If you already knew that please ignore this message. Thanks.--Chamith (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

it's a draft, but

Some parts of this could be used as examples on the peacock page. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Does wiki have a Hagiography page? Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh heh...

Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Sex Type Thing, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --FourthLineGoon (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extended

Dear Binksternet, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil 13:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for the thanks regarding Train Vuia, I know you're a great crusader for neutrality & proper refs so I really appreciate your endorsement of my take on this. TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Back atcha! Thanks for your vigilance. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course this SPA has reverted me again. This is turning into a low-level edit war, of which I am getting very bored.TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Feminism article

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 Feminism seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The wording I used is more neutral than that used in the article itself. It's the same as the wording forced on the Men's Rights Movements. See talk page here. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to endorse the views of any group. The intro to the Feminism article is clearly written in a manner that presents the viewpoint of Feminism as fact, and does not have the neutrality necessary. BrentNewland (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that your wording was more neutral. The reliable sources do not go through the tortured wording you used. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Saying the wording I used was "tortured" could be construed as a personal insult or attack. Please be more careful with your wording in the future.

I see you have reverted my clarification tags. Please address this in the Feminism article talk page. BrentNewland (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Tortured" might have been better expressed as "tortuous". No personal attack intended. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, regarding the Spudst3r (talk · contribs) and BrentNewland (talk · contribs) accounts, I think that you and EvergreenFir should get a WP:CheckUser to look into that. I am certain that if it's not a WP:Sockpuppet matter, it is a WP:Meatpuppet matter.

Furthermore, BrentNewland's edit here and statement here are imprecise with regard to how to apply those templates. What I mean by that is the following:

Template:Who states: Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Misplaced Pages should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only "Some people..."—then Misplaced Pages must remain vague.

Template:Whom states: Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "According to whom?" in that circumstance.

WP:Weasel words states: The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Misplaced Pages articles.

And WP:CITELEAD states: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to have an administrator check my account. They will see that I have nothing to do with the other account referenced. As far as your other remarks, those should really be on the Feminism talk page, where discussion regarding edits to that article takes place. BrentNewland (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BrentNewland (talk · contribs), if you expect me to believe that you, a relatively dormant Misplaced Pages account that started editing Misplaced Pages again today only after the relatively dormant Spudst3r account started editing Misplaced Pages again a day ago, are unrelated to that account when both accounts edit the men's rights aspect in essentially the same way (including by their focus on WP:Words to watch), you have chosen the wrong person to believe you. But carry on as usual, I suppose. The truth usually comes out on matters such as these, especially in the obvious cases. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"if you expect me to believe" - I don't expect you to believe anything. If you have concerns that I am using multiple accounts, take it to the appropriate notice board https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations Your discussion here is not productive, serves no purpose, and I see it as an attempt to start an argument with me. Please refrain from such accusations and inflammatory discussions outside of their proper venues. BrentNewland (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If this discussion gets a WP:Disruptive WP:Sockpuppet or WP:Meatpuppet off Misplaced Pages, then it is productive. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm being brought up in this user talk page... but I might as well respond: In regards to the bad faith accusations from Flyer22 (talk · contribs): feel free to perform a WP:CheckUser on my account. You will see I have been editing wikipedia since 2006 on articles that interest me -- the latest Men's rights movement article being the most recent. Currently the men's rights movement subject is prominent and receiving significant public attention as of late -- so it's no surprise the article is receiving additional attention from newer editors like myself. Personally I should explain this article caught my attention after reading it due to its heavy use of Expressions of Doubt WP:ALLEGED and Undue focus WP:UNDUE on critiques vs. describing opinions within the movement "as they see it." As such, my concerns with the men's rights movement article are similar with BrentNewland (talk · contribs), (as I'm sure the opinions of Flyer22 (talk · contribs) are the same as other active editors on that page) -- but I should clarify that I differ from BrentNewland (talk · contribs) in that I see the resolution of this conflict coming from making the tone of men's rights movement article align better with the tone/balance of the feminism article, rather than vice versa. You will see that my efforts in this regard are already underway, and that during incidents of reverts I have appropriately explained my actions to promote consensus within the talk page. Spudst3r (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Spudst3r, you call my opinion that you are related to the BrentNewland account bad-faith accusations; I call it common sense. Yes, your Spudst3r account has been registered with Misplaced Pages since 2006, and that account has edited Misplaced Pages sparingly since then. Like I stated above, it is relatively dormant. You are wasting your time trying to convince me that you are unrelated to the relatively dormant BrentNewland account. Notice that I mentioned WP:Sockpuppet and WP:Meatpuppet above. Binksternet and others have dealt with a lot of editors like you concerning the men's rights pages, and very experienced editors often know when a WP:Duck is a WP:Duck. The Spudst3r and BrentNewland accounts are not applying the templates or other tags precisely, and the pages I pointed to above show why the templates or other tags are not precise. Both accounts also show a huge disregard for WP:Due weight; do read it and its subsections carefully. The men's rights topic does not get equal weight; WP:Valid is clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In this edit, BrentNewland stated, "Remove 'Expressions of doubt' which are only included to cast doubt on the claims of the Men's Rights Movement. This brings article more in line with article on Feminism, as far as neutrality is concerned. Wording is now neutral without changing intent."

Above, Spudst3r stated, "I should clarify that I differ from BrentNewland (talk · contribs) in that I see the resolution of this conflict coming from making the tone of men's rights movement article align better with the tone/balance of the feminism article, rather than vice versa."

Yeah, if you are going to claim you are unrelated, you might want to do a better job at not having the same, or essentially the same, wording. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Euryalus, do you feel that there is enough evidence here for you to run a WP:CheckUser in this case? Check for any attempts to avoid detection via WP:Proxy? Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Before you continue making baseless accusations rooted entirely with your disagreement with my edits and that of BrentNewland (talk · contribs), I will remind you of WP:FAITH, a principle I am still upholding in my interactions with you. What do you think it is more likely, that I am a WP:SOCKPUPPET, or rather, that significant attention exists on this article, which is causing it to receive an increase of contributers of like minds? My _possibly_ incorrect usage of tags, wherever that may be happening, I admit comes from my still gradual learning wikipedia editing rules and conventions since as you noted, I don't edit here enough (though I've slowly picked up more and more editing conventions). My recent edits to men's rights movement were made in the spirit of WP:CAREFUL and WP:SOFIXIT, and do not reflect unique concerns of just me nor BrentNewland (talk · contribs). In fact, if you check the men's rights movement article you will see many other people have raised similar objections within the talk page.

In terms of my use of wikipedia policies similar to BrentNewland (talk · contribs). I will admit to you last night I spent many hours reading over Misplaced Pages policies so that I could properly use them where appropriate to allow for proper, good faith improvements to this article. If you look at my recent edit history I believe you will see that I have used Misplaced Pages policies accurately in good faith to promote good NPOV edits. In fact last night I even made a recent contribution to the WP:NOR article to make it internally consistent with WP:CLAIM after my recent study of both! Anyways, back on point: while I can't speak for BrentNewland (talk · contribs), I believe the overlap of BrentNewland (talk · contribs) using wording of WP:ALLEGED (i.e. "expressions of doubt") almost certainly comes from my mention of that policy in previous edits I made before he starting editing the page, and by other users who pointed out similar issues of bias within the talk page. I don't see how the overlap of our agreement of the presence of a Misplaced Pages policy violation WP:ALLEGED is proof of anything suspicious or a sign of wrong doing. His use of the term likely comes from him his own independent conclusion (shared by many) that this article is biased. If not, then any specific language probably came from seeing what he saw he me wrote or what others wrote in the talk page before he made edits himself. I don't know, because I am not BrentNewland (talk · contribs).

Finally: Flyer22 (talk · contribs) on your use of WP:VALID it is clear that the source of our disagreement comes from our relative **opinions* and **perceptions** of the relative size, opinions, makeup and character of the "mens movement" relative to the women's movement, to the point where you are happy to treat it as a fringe belief when it is not. Currently this article heavily sources from feminist critiques to create the impression that WP:VALID compels this article to take a negative or critical stance in tone within the article about the men's movement. I would argue this tone is truly rooted in WP:CLAIM & WP:ALLEGED type biases due to academic disagreements by the parties about how to approach the movement's validity. Sources on the men's rights movement should be treated the same way sources on pro-sex feminism and anti-sex feminism are -- as ideological positions treated with balance in respect to their use of sources. Currently the article is skewed by its use of sources primarily due to the excessive attention one side of this academic position has given this article over the other. However, appropriate sources do exist (such as from Warren Farrell) to provide a more balanced NPOV of the mens rights movement than is given here, so that it can be accuratetly described "as they say it is" with fair consideration given to critiques without giving criticisms WP:UNDUE (afterall criticisms at a minimum should never be more than half of an article, according to the Proportionality guidelines of WP:CRIT -- and the men's rights movement article is dangerously close to exceeding that) Spudst3r (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you focusing so much on the WP:Sockpuppet aspect? I mentioned WP:Meatpuppet as well. And look, you two even show back up at the same time, or relatively the same time, as seen here and here; same exact time. Without reading much of your "23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)" comment (I'll read it later), I state that your comments are wasted on me. A Misplaced Pages editor who misuses Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, WP:Neutral (which WP:Due weight is a part of) especially in this case, and shows no sign of wanting to use them correctly, is an editor I have no interest in talking to. And in the future, you might want to consider someone who is dumb enough not to spot editors who are clearly related. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEATPUPPET implies a coordinated response. Sorry to break it to you, but my edits are not a coordinated response associated with any rallying of like minds. I could accuse you of similar WP:MEATPUPPET for the persistent action of a few editors with an aligned POV of this page going the other way, but I don't because I recognize they are just all passionate about this subject. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to say the same for you with your persistent (and arguably abusive) use of FUD against editors you do not agree with in your attempts to get them banned. Finally, you are not fooling anybody if you think you are dealing with this manner in a way that is NPOV or upholding WP:Neutral. Anyways, that's it. I'm done commenting here on your attempts to remove my ability to contribute to wikipedia unless one of the admins has something to say in regards to this matter. Spudst3r (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not fooling anyone? LOL. I apply WP:Due weight, which is a part of the WP:Neutral policy, exactly as it is supposed to be applied. You, on the other hand, try to give feminism and masculism the same weight when they do not have the same weight; that's your WP:Valid violation. But, anyway, you are done with this discussion, you say? Thank goodness if that's the case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing Mercedes W204

I received a warning from you saying that I may be blocked from editing, if I continue disrupting Misplaced Pages. First of all, lately I haven't edited Mercedes-Benz C-Class (W204) page, and what have I done something for this page? I am not trying to Vandalize this page like what you think, Why are you warning me for no reason? Forgive me but you are probably mistaken commenting on my page. Because lately I haven't even looked at this page. I appreciate your understanding. --86.99.26.165 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @86.99.26.165: this edit was from you IP, and deserving a warning as original research (from a quick inference of the circumstances), and keep in mind, warnings stack up. However, a quick check places your IP to belong to a corporation (Emirates Telecommunications Corporation), meaning that it is shared by multiple people, and these edits may not, in fact, be by you. -- Orduin 20:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator's notice board

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentNewland (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this to be on EvergreenFir's page. BrentNewland (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Commercial promotional material.

The Commando Jeep article has been aggressively crosslinked to...well, to just about anything with a remote , tiny, possible connection to it, and I've had a chance to go through most of the mostly spurious references. This really does look like marketing, and not even noteworthy marketing at that (although, truth be told, the Egypto-Israeli remilitarized jeep design page has a little of that, too. Part of it is the nature of the beast.) Where does one go to get this thing nuked or stubified? Or, perhaps, all of the re-militarized vehicles could be put on a single article?Anmccaff (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to nuke the most promotional articles about militarized vehicles such as the Commando Jeep and the Jeep J8, you would first have to write an article about the practice of taking a standard street-legal vehicle and turning it into a military light utility vehicle. Maybe you would call the article Militarization of consumer vehicles, or something less wordy. After that, you can argue for the lesser known examples to be merged into your article. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe add them to the Technical (vehicle) page? (or vice versa, of course.) You also have the stuff that isn't street legal, but is pretty civilianicated, like the John Deere Gator.Anmccaff (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I had never seen the technical article. You could expand that article to encompass every example you wish to merge. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm still just kinda batting this around, thinking out loud. I don't like the "technical" article much either; Recentism, I believe, is the barbarism used to describe this around here, a current journalistic neologism's use being expanded back in time and into new geography. Pfaugh. When and if I get through with the Streetcar mess I'd like to take a look at this one.Anmccaff (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

But back one of the original questions: who would I see about closing this off? Is there a method to block commercial spammers?Anmccaff (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of a mechanism for that. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Another one of these

Hiya ! https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Vesna_Wylde/Journey, seems like another user space page doing double duty as a promo piece for music. I am so glad you know enough about contemporary music to help me with these! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I just tagged it as a user draft, so readers don't confuse it with a real article. Binksternet (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Imitation

Hi I am deliberately not logged in for one simple reason. YOU have accused me of imitation - I don't use American terminology unless it is absolutely necessary.

I would like to know the basis for your accusation me of imitation. Then I shall respond properly with my identity I hope you understand.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.205.238 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sockpuppetry" appears to be the word you choose not to use. Your IP address is similar to those used by banned editor HarveyCarter who has persistently used both IPs and throwaway names to disrupt articles of interest. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word début.

I responded to you, the word debut is written without the accent in most pages, and as you can see in BRITISH encyclopedias, the word is written like that. Also, you say that it should be written with the accent in British articles, but I gave you examples of many BRITISH artists debut album, ALL OF THEM without the accent, so why should be The Piper at the Gates of Dawn be different? Just let it be without the accent. Puertagustavo99 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The UK is not monolithic in its spelling styles, for instance there is the Oxford spelling of recognize with a 'z' rather than recognise with an 's'. Misplaced Pages allows both sorts of styles in UK articles.

Generally, the UK retains the accents found in adopted French words and phrases, for instance vis-à-vis, fiancée, café, voilà, née, à la carte, à la mode, soupçon, fin de siècle, séance, naïve , entrée, attaché, garçon , bête noire, première, etc. Here's a list of French words in English.

The established style of an article should not be changed without strong reason to do so, and consensus from the involved editors. The article in question is a WP:Good article, which means it has been approved in its format. If you would like to change the spelling, you can start a discussion on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As you said it, the UK is not monolithic in its spelling styles, so why use an archaic form of the word, "debut" is written like that generally, actually, that's why I decided to change it in such article. You say that it's a good article and because of that the style is correct, while I don't agree. Take The Madcap Laughs debut by the ENGLISH artist Syd Barrett as an example; It's a good article and there it is, has no accent. I'd like the word in the Pink Floyd debut to be without the accent, and going to the talk page has no point, you're the only one that's rejecting the edit, so I ask you: If most of the instances of the word in the Misplaced Pages have no accent, even those that are mainly British articles, why'd you keep The Piper at the Gates of Dawn differently? Puertagustavo99 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There are many styles of English, but only one per article. Not one per Misplaced Pages; one per article. The style for this article uses the accent. --Yaush (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Puertagustavo99 the accent mark isn't needed for any reason. The article isn't written in French.104.173.225.10 (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's take this to the talk page of the article in question Puertagustavo99 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi. I had no idea that I was not allowed to write things while logged out. Typically, I do not even check to see if I am logged in. I apologize and will do better next time. I just read your comments about it for the first time. Indeed, I don't know how I was expected to know that was a rule.--Joemeservy (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Big Pun

Hello, Binksternet, I have an issue here. On the page of rapper Big Pun, an editor named Jamez Koutra has constantly been adding unsourced content- even after I repeatedly asked him to cite his sources. He continues to edit the page despite not providing any sources for his content. I wonder if there is something that can be done on that page. Thanks. Shallowharold (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep warning him on his user talk page, escalating the warning each time. If he continues after being warned a fourth time he can be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude are u retarded? U cleared half of his biography of his childhood which was important info. Like for fuck sake I'm adding facts here and u delete it... so fuckin stupid. Jamez koutra (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You have not cited a single published reference! Per WP:CITE, all you have to do is tell the reader where they can verify the stuff you wrote. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

SF edit-a-thons on March 7 and 8

ArtAndFeminism (3/7) and International Women's Day (3/8)!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, In celebration of WikiWomen's History Month, the SF Bay Area Misplaced Pages community has two events in early March -- please consider attending! First, we have an ArtAndFeminism edit-a-thon, which will take place at the Kadist Art Foundation from 12 noon to 6pm on Saturday, March 7. We'll be one of many sites worldwide participating in this edit-a-thon on March 7th. So join us as we help improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of women artists and their works! Second, we will be celebrating International Women's Day with the International Women's Day edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 8 from 1pm to 5pm at the Wikimedia Foundation. Our editing focus will be on women, of course! I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC) To opt out of future mailings about SF meetups, please remove your name from this list.

One more from the photos

Another artist's biography with no references. The mind boggles. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Using Misplaced Pages as a web host.

Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've prodded it. Bishonen | talk 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC).

You're tough! The first version is from December 2006, written without references (like much on Misplaced Pages at that time) by Ser Amantio di Nicolao. The biography is 8.2 years old! I wonder what the record is for the oldest article successfully prodded.

I would suggest that we are here at the deletion stage because Nadavangel who in 2009 took material from the 2008 www.marshallbaron.com website and pasted it in, text first, then images recently. Arguably, the additions by Special:Contributions/85.65.25.165 and Nhvguzhtk are also from the same person. And none of it was ever referenced. Note that an early version of the marshallbaron website is signed at the bottom "by Nadav Angel". Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Some guest book entries at the marshallbaron website lead me to believe that the person named Nadav Angel first put the memorial website together when he was 16–17. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there was a reference when I created the page. It seems to be dead now. At any rate, it was deleted and overridden by someone who added a bunch of information to the page...a problem which I have seen happen on a number of articles (mine and others), which were started with a proper reference which was then lost in some overzealous editing. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I developed the website (when i was 16) as part of family memorial project. One of the missions was to create a Misplaced Pages page, that represent his place as one of the Rhodesian modern art founders, and his importance to the Rhodesian community in Israel. The page does not intend to promote anything, but unfortunately there are lack of on line references of Marshall's work (for example: The National Gallery of Zimbabwe which holds some his paintings only recently added a reference page in their website, and did not bother to update the wikipedia page). There are few more references that can be added to the page, but as I mentioned the main context is from the Marshall Baron Website. I hope that more people will improve this page. . Nadavangel (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

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 review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

apology

I apologize for this edit The first sentence of Epoch Times doesn't concern me at all now. Aaabbb11 (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Married Women's Property Acts in the United States

Based on an edit you made to this entry on January 21, 2014, perhaps you can help with this detail: if Seneca Falls was not the first, then what earlier convention(s) was/were organized by women to discuss women's rights? A note and citation might be useful. Cf. the first ref in the entry for Seneca Falls Convention. thx. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot point to a specific first women's rights convention because the ones preceding Seneca Falls are not named by Lucretia Mott, who spoke of them in passing, nor by Paulina Wright Davis who wrote of them in passing. Both of these prominent ladies considered the 1848 meeting to be part of a general movement by local women's groups to hold local conventions about issues that concerned women, including women's rights. These sorts of meetings took place sporadically in various locations beginning in the 1840s, none with the kind of fanfare generated by Stanton. It was the 1850 National Women's Rights Convention at Worcester, Massachusetts, that was widely seen for the next three decades as the first real women's rights convention; that is, until 1881 when Stanton published her take on the history of the women's rights movement, History of Woman Suffrage, which placed her at center. Her convention in 1848 benefited greatly from the amount of reportage devoted to it, unlike previous ones. So hers is the first women's rights convention that we can identify by name, date and place, but it was nevertheless quite localized. The references are the ones you can see at Seneca_Falls_Convention#Historiography, that is, Isenberg, Kerr and McMillen. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Paulina Davis's 1871 compilation "A History of the National Woman's Rights Movement for Twenty Years" has been digitized, and confirms the same general outline you give. It's worth mentioning that, before (ob. unnecessarily pointed tendentious comment) excessive consolidation of federal power, attempts at influencing women's legal status had to proceed state by state: "until the Worcester Convention, none of these had risen to the dignity of national." (Matilda Joslyn Gage)Anmccaff (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi Binks – I've come to ask a question of you. You've made it clear in the past that you appreciate my timelines, so from what I know you've been able to observe, would you agree with me if I said that there is no consensus as to how a timeline's colour scheme should appear? Thanks – with regards, 4TheWynne 03:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, unfortunately. There is no consensus for timeline color schemes. Certainly not a consensus against you. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Then would you also agree with me if I said that someone else reverting my edits to what is deemed the "correct" colour scheme would be unfair? 4TheWynne 03:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to start a large, project-wide WP:RFC about this issue, and get a consensus established to stop the pointless edit warring. I will comment at such a discussion, but fighting the battle at individual band articles is not my thing. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've started one, and I'm not sure if I've done it right, but we'll see how it goes. You can find it here. Please let me know if I've done it correctly. Again, thanks! With regards, 4TheWynne 04:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Two things. The RFC discussion should be started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians, not the talk page of the RFC guideline. And you should make the RfC much, much simpler, for instance to decide between two or three color schemes. The RfC should have a super simple and neutral question at the top, for instance "Should we use color scheme A or B?" After that, in a subsection called "Discussion", you should make a very persuasive argument for your preference. Binksternet (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a post I made starting a Request for Comment. Notice how there's a neutral question at the top, and then some evidence for making a choice, also neutral. Underneath that I set up a Level 3 header for discussion, and I made my argument. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I was in the middle of adding this when I got your example. I won't have time to do it right now, but for the time being, is this better? 4TheWynne 05:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Go back and edit your post, to remove the word "my". You should also give examples of the same timeline in the two different schemes. Then make your argument about why a certain color combination is better. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Keith Wickham

Hello, could you please stop reverting my edits on Mr. Wickham's page? The Adventure Begins does exist By-The-Way!!!! And No Reference? There is no proof he voiced in anything then. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to re-read WP:Verifiability, one of Misplaced Pages's most important core content policies. If nothing is published about a certain True Fact then Misplaced Pages does not include it. That's why I insist the future film be left out until there is published confirmation. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am Sorry, Mr. Binks. The reason I know that it exists is because I have seen the Preview of the Movie and know his voices. Also Look it up on Google and you will find info about it :-) --ACase0000 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, there is your violation of WP:No original research. It doesn't matter that you know voices. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

But Still It exsits. I am sorry I caused you trouble! Have a Good Night/Day! :) --ACase0000 (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I appear to have acquired my very own Edit War-ior....

...not surprisingly, on the Streetcar Conspiracy page. Right now the thing is tied up on the DRN page, and I'd appreciate some advise on this one, all the better because you appear to be on the other side of the fence from me on the NCL Question. (There seem to be a couple of people on the Reliable Sources hit team that aren't above bringing their own beliefs in; the fact that I agree with their opinion doesn't make that any better. I'd rather not see them sweep through again) In fact, as I've GENTLY HINTED before, I wouldn't mind a look at the article by yerself and all the other old participants, Brother Peter and I have scared them off, I think. At what point does this become edit warring; the fellow is making changes apparently without reading the article, its history, or the talk page (or its history); never mind the references or sources given there.Anmccaff (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I dive in deep to examine a certain problem on Misplaced Pages, but it's rare because of my real life obligations. Today and the next few days my obligations are more involving than usual, so if I investigate the issue it won't be very soon. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's one of Wiki's central problems: people with lives have to live them. If you get a chance though... In the meantime, what should I do about the reverts without meaningful discussion? I think they are of the sort that deserve a block...but then, I would, wouldn't I, from my side of the fence? More importantly, I dunno who and how to ask. All three of us in the dispute have backed away from any major editing while the Snails of Judgement hammer it out. I'd hate to see the article made even worse while we are waiting.Anmccaff (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but I'm stealing the Snails of Judgement! Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Just give credit. As the Poor Man's Ashleigh Brilliant, the inventor of the "Whoosh Bird," scholar of the "Economonkey," discoverer of the "Soft, Absorbent Paper Printer Syndrome" and student of the "Bovine Urban Planner," I like acknowledgment of my work.Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Second request, please learn what an edit war is before posting warnings on Users's talk pages

Dude, PLEASE, stop posting edit war warnings on my talk page. This is the second time you've done it incorrectly in the last week. Do you understand the rule? Here it is for your reading convenience:

"There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

It says....are you ready.....MORE than 3 (NOT 3 total) reverts.

Be a little more careful and get some fresh air. Thank you. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems you stopped reading at just the point that suited you. It goes on to say "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

I would take the warning seriously. Chillum 20:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This editor is not an admin. He's done this twice. And I will post that back up. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@104.173.225.10: If you do that, you will be blocked. Edit warring is not only 3RR. Favonian (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am an admin and so is Favonian. Non-admins are allowed to give warnings. Take it seriously, we do not allow edit warring here. Chillum 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Listen, the editor Binksternet who posted the (useless) warning on my talk page did it twice in the last week. He's NOT an admin according to his talk page. He was clearly out of line by posting it in the first place. To quote what Chillum wrote above an Admin has this right (not Binksternet).

Quote -- "It seems you stopped reading at just the point that suited you. It goes on to say "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The template in question, the one warning about 3RR violations, may be delivered in advance of a brightline 3RR violation, as a way to inform somebody of the consequences, as a prevention of somebody being blocked. Think of it as a courtesy warning to get your attention. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

If that's true then the language you posted on my talk should be modified as follows instead of "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war" -- it should say something like "you currently have not YET engaged in an edit war -- but may be one step away from it". Forgive my inarticulate version of it but it could work. What do you think?104.173.225.10 (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Uh excuse me Binksternet but archiving a Millennials talk page discussion hardly rises to the level of "disrupting" Misplaced Pages. Let's go back to why you posted an illegitimate warning on my talk page this morning -- it was about archiving a completed discussion. So trying to make this about something bigger is a big stretch -- but nice try.104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I just posted a warning on User talk:104.173.225.10. It was promptly removed, so I'm just mentioning it here. To Binksternet: I think you're right. To 107.xx: further trolling and pestering on Binksternet's page isn't making you look any more as if you're here to help create an encyclopedia; on the contrary, it's bringing that block ever closer. To everybody else here: it might be a good idea to stop responding. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC).

Presenting logical reasons, supported by facts in my defense is not "pestering". 104.173.225.10 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, Binksternet treats noobs and IPs disrespectfully. The vast majority of his warnings go unheeded by admins. In my view, they are intimidation tactics with little grounding in policy (especially in view of WP:BITE). Despite this track record, and a remarkably block log, Bink fails to critically analyze his editing and question whether his methods are too heavy handed. That's a shame, because Bink has a lot to offer the project. Steeletrap (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation proposal for Wikimania 2015

How to pick up more women...

Hello to the members of WikiProject Women writers! Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Count Your Blessings

I got a message saying you claimed my edit to Count Your Blessings was unconstructive. My edit was that I added acoustic to the list of genres of the album. This is a deathcore album, but track 9, "Fifteen Fathoms, Counting", is wholly acoustic. Therefore, acoustic is one of the genres on this album. Maybe you should give it a listen. 98.114.44.239 (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)