Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karanacs (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 6 October 2010 (→WP Policies/Standards: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

First flying machine

Hi Roger. I was wondering what sources you used in your contributions to First flying machine last month. Specifically, this edit and this one which contain unexplained inline numbering. It looks suspiciously like a copy and paste job, which under most circumstances would be plagiarism. However I am prepared to assume good faith if you could explain what the numbers mean. Cheers. BigBlueFish (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

see the discussion page of the articleRoger491127 (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Roger. I noticed that you had made significant contribs to the Gustave Whitehead article. I was wondering if you would like to make a similar contrib to The Cold Hard Facts wiki on wikia.com (wikia was also founded by Misplaced Pages's Jimmy Wales). The address is tchf.wikia.com. This wiki is dedicated to correcting historical inaccuracies. An article about the Whitehead/Wright controversy has already been created and is accessible from the main page. However, I need your help in spreading the facts! Please reply to my talk page one way or another. Thanks!

Netmuzik (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aviation history. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BilCat (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the difference between me and the person who made big changes to the article. He blatantly removed big parts of carefully researched and properly referenced material and inserted a single reference to somebody who had said that Whitehead could not have flown. I copy the answer I wrote to this person on the Gustave Whitehead discussion page:

"Gibbs-Smith destroys the Whitehead claim. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think you can deny over 25 witness affidavits, an eyewitness article by a journalist, and successful flights of several replicas with some theoretical mumbo-jumbo by a single author?"

If you check up on my work in wikipedia you will surely realize that I am a serious editor, and if somebody should be blocked because of this controversy it is the person who calls himself Binksternet. Roger491127 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Whitehead section in History of aviation is still a lot shorter than the Wright brothers section, so the argument "too much detail" is not valid. Roger491127 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion regaring your edits to Aviation history on that talk page - that is where you need to respond, not here, and not on my talk page. Yhe issue here is tht you have engaged in a revert war, and you are at risk of being blocked. So if you want to be taken seriously, go th the article's talk page, and defend your edits there. But stop reverting to keep your material, or you will be blocked, at which point you won't be able to defend your edits. - BilCat (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you Bilcat have the habit of deleting my responses I put a copy here too:

Note that the Whitehead section is still a lot shorter than the Wright brothers section. Do you think there is far too much detail in that section too? You also say that the issue is in dispute. Yes, of course it is, because we all learned in school that the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903. But after studying the issue for two years I, and many others, think that this "truth" is in dispute. So I suggest we let the reader know enough to make up his own mind on this issue. Simply deleting the side you do not agree with is not a civilized way of handling historic issues.

Millions of people think that the Wright brothers invented the airplane in 1903, but millions of people think that Whitehead flew years before the Wright brothers. This controversy has even involved the politicians in Connecticut and North Carolina. This is not a dispute you simply can delete away. As I said before: let the reader know enough about both sides to make up his own mind on this issue. Simply deleting the side you do not agree with is not a civilized way of handling historic issues. Roger491127 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, at Misplaced Pages, we do not go by the so-called "truth" (as described in this essay), we go by mainstream sources. If you cannot show mainstream sources which place Whitehead as the first powered flight, then your goal here is foiled, the goal of rewriting history books through Misplaced Pages. Note that Misplaced Pages is not a platform for publishing ones own ideas, and it is not the place to advocate ideas which are in opposition to the mainstream. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, over on the Whitehead Discussion page, please state what it is you want to have happen with the Whitehead article. This is supposed to be a community effort. Join us over there on the Discussion page, please. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

You are the subject of a Wikiquette alert. You are free to respond at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Roger491127. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Roger491127! The WQA board is not for pasting large sections of talk pages onto: B7) "Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it at its original location. As long as your alert contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen." The page you posted this excerpt from is clearly linkable at the top of the thread. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a WP:POINT by deleting everyone else's comments from a discussion. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard incident

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. as you did here SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this warning aimed at me or Binksternet, who really deserves it and you placed the warning under his text? Study the discussion pages of Aviation history and Gustave Whitehead Roger491127 (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong venue

The Arbitration Enforcement board is for requesting assistance with issues that have already been ruled on by the Arbitration Committee, not for opening new issues. I've reverted your comments there. In addition, the ArbCom normally doesn't take cases unless all steps of Dispute resolution have been followed. I'd suggest opening an request for comment on the dispute as a next step.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Clarification is not the right page either. Reverted again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC

You didn't add the tags for the RFC bot, so I added them for you. In addition, I added a neutral header for the bot to pick up and list on the RFC page, per the instructions there, and removed your original heading.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aviation history. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This pair of edits you made to Aviation history demonstrate a continuation of edit warring. You are reverting to your preferred version against the consensus achieved by DonFB, Binksternet and Carroll F. Gray. Edit warring may result in your account being blocked, so please stop. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You are a part of this conflict, and you have made as many reverting changes as me, so I don't think you are suitable as arbitrator in this issue. I would like to see this issue determined by people who are impartial, people who have scientific education but do not have any preconceptions about aviation history. If they read the arguments from both sides in this issue I am certain that they would support me. Roger491127 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, I am part of the consensus. If you bring enough sympathetic editors to the discussion, you may be able to achieve a consensus that satisfies your viewpoint, but until then your reversions are considered edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

At Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, it is suggested that "you should exercise caution" in moving or refactoring comments made by others, and stop if there is an objection. I would say that the recommended way to make sure that your previously posted ideas get read in later discussion threads is to link back to them, such as "At Talk:Aviation history#Whitehead details, I wrote blah blah blah, and it is relevant because..."

At Misplaced Pages:Refactoring talk pages, the guideline suggests that moving talk page entries around to include them under another heading is not necessary for clarity and readability, the main goals of refactoring. It says that restructuring talk entries by moving other people's comments "should be done with care to avoid changing meanings", and implies that any lack of good will on the part of other editors indicates that restructuring will not be seen as a positive action.

Personally, I hate seeing any of my talk page entries get moved or copied and pasted elsewhere, especially if the whole entry is copied including the signature. It makes people think that I put it there. If you wish to respond to something specific in someone's talk page entry, copy just that phrase or sentence and quote it in your response. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP Policies/Standards

Hi Roger491127. I am an administrator who is completely uninvolved with any articles on aviation history, and I believe we have had no previous interaction. I've analyzed your contributions and read over Talk:Aviation history. You appear to be a single-purpose account, focused on Gustave Whitehead. While it is not forbidden that an editor specializes in a certain area, all editors are expected to comply with Misplaced Pages policies in regard to building an article. From reading through many of your contributions, I feel you do not have a solid understanding of the policies to which you are expected to comply. For absolute clarity, here's a shortlist of the expectations to which you should adhere:

• WP:NOTSOAPBOX - Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a medium for advocacy. Articles are not here to give "THE TRUTH", but to represent the consensus of reliable sources.
• WP:V - "All material in Misplaced Pages articles must be attributable to a reliable published source".
  • The policy specifies what is and is not a reliable source: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy...Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science". This means that scholarly books and journals are usually given greater weight than newspaper and magazine articles (as academic publishers tend to have higher editorial oversight). Please note also the word "independent" - in your particular case this means that any of Whitehead's notes or publications should not be used alone, and that personal observations/affadavits are likewise not independent.
  • The policy further states that "Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality sources" Exceptional claims include "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science ... history".
• WP:NOR - Editors are forbidden from inserting original research. Per the policy, "This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source". Editors should rely on secondary sources and cannot analyze, draw conclusions from, or interpret primary sources. Your talk page contributions show a focus on primary sources, and that needs to end ASAP. We are not here to debate the underlying points, but to present what reliable sources say.
• WP:UNDUE - Articles must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". The prominence of the viewpoint is not judged by the number of laymen who believe in the viewpoint, or contemporaries who might have believed it. The appropriate weight must be derived from the number of scholars and other reliable sources (not websites) which agree with that viewpoint. We should use the guidance in WP:V and WP:RS to determine which sources are most reliable - if the majority of newspapers give one viewpoint, but scholars overwhelmingly give a second, than the newspaper viewpoint should not be given as much weight in the article.

Your article editing and talk page arguments need to adhere to these policies. Single-purpose accounts which do not adhere to the policies generally end up blocked. Karanacs (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)