Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 06:41, 18 April 2014 (Signing comment by Arkatakor - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Guideline conflict notification

Hello - I wanted to let you know I have posted a question regarding the possible conflict between WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS I believe we uncovered in the Syngenta edit war. You will find it on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I did mention you as part of this but not in any derogatory way - it was only to establish the background of the possible conflict for the admins' understanding. I am encouraged that everyone involved is attempting to resolve this issue amicably, and again apologize if I have done anything wrong. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Kate O'Mara

How is the Daily Mail any more or less reliable than any other newspaper? (92.11.196.56 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC))

Really. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbolt manufacture costs

Thanks for your edit. I, too, prefer the Air Force museum as a source and $85K as the 1945 cost. The other figure is not entirely wrong, though: Air enthusiast Warren Bodie reports in one of his books that the cost of production droppped from $105,594 in 1942 to $83,001 in 1945. FWIW. --Yaush (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Varsity Trip

Binksternet, whilst I appreciate that your editing of the Varsity Trip page has improved several sections, and you are technically correct to remove the section naming those who have received Discretionary Blues as it has no source cited (I am in the process of getting the Blues committee at Oxford to update their list of skiing Blues), I can guarantee that those named did in fact receive Discretionary Full Blues, as I was present at the Blues Committee meetings where they were awarded, and would appreciate it if you did not remove the edit re-instating this section 90.221.39.170 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a curious requirement that anything published in the encyclopedia be previously published somewhere else in a verifiable form. See the policy page WP:No original research. (You'll notice that the Misplaced Pages rules contrast markedly with normal authorship and research methods.) If you can tell us where the information has been published, its title and author, then you can back the desired text with a reference naming the published source. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI for Duct tape

Regarding this revert, I believe the addition of the picture of the duct-taped girl was meant in good faith.

Although I agree it was inappropriate for the page Duct tape, for the record I don't think it had anything to do with abuse of any sort: Gagged222 often adds similar pictures (including that one) to the page Bondage (BDSM) in order to portray consenting adults who enjoy the activity. It helps readers visualize the material on the page, and is constructive. I do believe context matters, and might give a softer warning if Gagged222 does something similar again. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tangled with that guy previously, getting some of his photographs deleted from commons, one that looked like it was taken from another online source, and one that appeared to have no permission from the subject. I don't have a lot of compassion for this contributor. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"No evidence that this image has the approval of the person depicted." (from the latter).

I see what you mean now, and will be a little more careful next time I see them editing. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Harvey Whittemore

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harvey_Whittemore&diff=602338769&oldid=602338096

I put quotes around "Harvey" (even though it's his middle name) because I wanted to show that the name he goes by and is known by is Harvey, not Frederick. How can I show that without quotes? ... Frederick Harvey Whittemore, known as Harvey Whittemore,....? 24.97.201.230 (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The biography page is named "Harvey Whittemore", and the infobox also says "Harvey Whittemore" at the top. If you wanted to describe how, when or why Mr. Whittemore goes by his middle name, you would need a source.

So that is a crab-wise response, not really an answer to your exact question. I don't know the exact answer. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks :) 24.97.201.230 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Misplaced Pages Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

First of all, I would like to say thank you for responding to my "Rock" section of the Talk:Led Zeppelin page. Secondly, I would like to ask you a quick question: Do you think the change I proposed for Zeppelin's infobox (simplifying the genres) should be used for all artists' infoboxes, and if so, could you see if it is something you could bring up on, say, a Wikiproject on this subject when you get the chance (if its not too much to ask)? (the reason for that last question is that you seem to be quite experienced with Misplaced Pages, and people would probably take your advise more seriously than mine, due to the fact that I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages) Thanks! Twyfan714 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that the infobox parameter for the genre of a musical artist should be as succinct as possible, broad and general rather than an exhaustive list. I think the article body is the proper place for describing complexity, while the infobox should be simple.

My past tangle with the community of musical editors turned out not very fruitful, and so I don't expect different results if I propose a simplification of the genre parameter. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think that the more general the infobox, the less opportunity there is for "genre wars" to ensue. This particularly happens with artists like, say, Queen, who played in a wide variety of styles. If we tried to put down every possible genre they did in the infobox, it would become very confusing. I also agree that the proper place for getting more in depth is in the musical style section. Thanks for your time! I'll try introducing this on several other bands' talk pages to see if our idea can spread. Twyfan714 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Queen is a great example of a rock band that played songs in many genres. I would put them in the rock genre, then explain their variety in the article body.

The actual guideline supports the idea of using broad and general genres: See Template:Infobox musical artist where it says "Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)." It does not, however, advise that a laudable goal might be to have as few genres as possible in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't place spurious templates then others will not have to remove them. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining yourself. I don't suppose you could explain how it was determined that they were "spurious"? --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your templates are not based on the current condition of the biography. You apparently wish to have the biography tagged with maintenance templates despite the fact that the indicated issues have been fixed. You seem to want the article tagged for a while longer, though how much longer is not clear. You apparently wish to have a drawn-out discussion about the templates, so that the templates can remain on the article for the duration of the discussion. To me this looks like wikilawyering, some kind of wish to make the biography look bad. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine

No, it wasn't a mistake. The reason for the change was that on the iTunes entry of Yellow Submarine, the album is presented as a work of "The Beatles", not "The Beatles and George Martin". Also, the cover itself states "The Beatles". I know George Martin is the author and artist of the whole second side of the album, but he isn't credited as the album artist. 186.47.111.23 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate that iTunes might be considered a reliable source, though it is impossible to determine how Apple arrived at their designation. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sony

Thanks for the notice about my failing to provide references. Changes to Sony article have been applied but this time with references. Please let me know if there is any additional mistakes that need to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.44.118 (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll probably take 15 minutes and watch the film online today.

Sony's complaint will likely get more specific in the next day or so, as they get their spokespeople on the case. We should tell the reader what was Sony's exact gripe, if there is one. Otherwise, we should tell the reader that Sony had no specific complaint. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

EarwigBot  15:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long!TheLongTone (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

height of hypocrisy

What did I tell you a month ago, on this page? "these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome and you are hereby instructed to keep them off my Talk page. Any questions?" Could that have been any clearer? I think not. You then proceed to ignore that, which is one thing, but you then insist I stay off the Talk pages of others. Do I need to lock my Talk page? Seriously.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your wish to be free of such formal reminders is not a guarantee that you will actually be free of them. They are a required element in WP:3RRN cases. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If that was a "formal reminder" then where is the case? There is no case because your reminder was simply intended to harass. Your effort to address anything substantive about the edits was, of course, again nil. I take your response here as a refusal to respect my request and that I must accordingly approach an admin to request assistance with respect to dealing with your harassment if it happens again. Is that right? I remind you that I have always remained open to any discussion on my Talk page or elsewhere that constitutes a good faith effort to resolve content issues.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The formal reminder comes before the case, and is not automatically followed by the case. I will file a case if you take 3RR to 4RR, just like I said in my warning. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So you did not have to harass me, then, because it remains to be seen what you will do. You said earlier you were compelled by the rules ("required element"). Apparently there was no "requirement" because the thing generating the requirement isn't there. You appear to be saying that you reserve the right to "formally remind" me even if you have no case and never intend to to try and make one until you do have a case. It would go over just fine with you were I to routinely remind Petrachan on her Talk page of edit warring policy, would it? Let me be perfectly clear: if there is any such "reminder" and there is no case then as far as I am concerned that is harassment and I will have to ask for community/administrative help in dealing with your harassment. Any questions? By the way, you can consider this a "formal reminder" from me to you to cease edit warring since you evidently think you cannot solve a problem without a prior "formal" step, even when it is quite obviously pointless to "remind" an editor of what any reasonable person would believe that editor is already be aware of. If you spent half as much time defending your removal of all those reliable sources as you do preparing your "case" or otherwise trying to wiki-lawyer, perhaps the encyclopaedia would start taking more priority with you.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen, most admins working reports at the 3RR noticeboard look for several things in the report. First, is there technically four reverts in 24 hours. Second, is there an attempt at discussion over the edits. Third, were the user(s) being reported warned that they are edit-warring and at risk of breaching the 3RR limit PRIOR to the final revert. If the report doesn't include those, the admin will often refer to what was missing. For example, close the report warning the reported user they are past 3RR and another revert would cause a block. Ravensfire (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true, Ravensfire. Binksternet's last filing against me got me blocked (the only time since I joined Misplaced Pages in 2005) despite BOTH the second ("attempt to discuss" was only present with respect to me) AND third elements (my Talk page notice was that the prosecution was already under way) you identify being conspicuously absent. It ONLY turns on technicalities (there is nothing in the 3RR section that imposes any requirement to discuss) and I would refer you to my comments about this on the WP:EDIT WARRING Talk page.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"...AND third elements (my Talk page notice was that the prosecution was already under way)..."
Prior warnings were given as one can see from the 3RR filing page. First one here and two days before your block which you removed as "trolling and second one here, one day before your block which you removed with the folloowing edit summary: (delete, an exception to my practice made for hypocrites who remove my comments from their own Talk pages, especially when what they know full well I am already aware of what they put here (and so are not coming here to advise me of anything in good faith).
So much for honesty. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're going to presume to lecture me about what I remove from my Talk page after you've removed three of my comments from your Talk page just today? It isn't "trolling" to tell ME to "consider using the article's Talk page" when I had used it more than anyone? Binksternet reverted my addition of Soldatov's comment twice (a content objection he apparently no longer holds because that comment has now been in the article for weeks!) and sprung the trap on me for, without an intervening edit by another, making minor changes that, as you can also see from my edit summary, amounted to little more than changing "officials" in the plural to the singular, a change I had good reason to believe Petrarchan (and therefore Binksternet) would not object to given developments on the Talk page about using Masnick as a source. Had I been tipped off that I was offside 3RR on what was incidental to the Soldatov add, I would have self-reverted. But that would have allowed me to escape the block and thus it was that I had to be blindsided with the case already underway. You "honest" believe that that warning from Petrarchan concerned adding an "s" to Pentagon official and not a different content dispute, do you?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The 3RRN process includes the filling out of a standard form containing various diffs and links. One of these diffs or links is supposed to be a link to the 3RR warning. Another one is supposed to point to a good-faith attempt to talk about the dispute. Since you are discussing the disputed material on the article talk page, the requirement for discussion is met.

You can also be blocked for general tendentiousness, and for edit warring even if there are not four reverts a 24-hr period. Such blocks are at the discretion of the blocking admin, who should in any case tell you why you were blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A "form" you filled out by throwing in old diffs because you were unable to substantively make your case by pointing to any edits of yours within the 24 hour period at issue except your reverts of me. Of course the admin just let that slide. The "form" matters more than the substance. At least you admit here with "YOU are discussing the disputed material on the article talk page, the requirement for discussion is met" that the party who satisfied the "requirement for discussion" was ME. How about heading over to the edit warring policy Talk page and taking a look at that comment by a relatively prominent Wikipedian which denounces the wiki-lawyering mentality and to which I respond "hear, hear"? Do you have anything to say about that? I was blocked because I removed "s" from "Pentagon officials" four times in 24 hours (the only source for the plural being Mike Masnick's hyperventilating blog) and you caught me on that. Petrachan then conceded the point for unanimous agreement with me on the content issue. But you got your block, didn't you? Take a bow.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ri-ight. You got blocked because I was a bad person. <rolling of eyes> Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you successfully used a warning to not perform more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours to prosecute a case that you initiated more than 50 hours after that warning suggests that you could just trot out one of your old warnings next time instead of making a new one (that you've been clearly told would be unwelcome), does it not? I think you've given notice enough times already to do you for quite a while.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You were warned at 08:28, February 22, then you made a text revert at 00:45, February 23. It looks more like 16 hours than 50.

You also seem to think that edit warring is okay if you're right, which when combined with the feeling that you are always right should make you immune to blocks. Since you got blocked anyway, you hold on to the feeling of righteous indignation, without acknowledging that you had a hand in it. I think it's time to examine that guy in the mirror and admit your guilt. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you stop trying to mislead any readers here into concluding that this was consistent with the spirit of "issued before the 4th revert." If you are going to rest your case on the contention that "before" is not qualified (what was YOUR 50 hour old diff doing there in the "form" if you weren't using it? The admin never complained that that one was dated, did he?) then, again, you've already got a stable of warnings to choose from that were "issued before the 4th revert" without needing any new ones.

Do you see the part in the admin instructions where it says "Administrators are only recommended to make blocks where it will prevent damage to Misplaced Pages"? In this diff that you present as my "text revert", pretty much all of what I moved the article to in that edit is now part of the article. Looks like this block failed to prevent the supposed damage from sticking, doesn't it? But then defending the Wiki was never the object, was it?

There's another element here that you are supposed to satisfy before litigating and that's an effort to discuss. How about first satisfying that element before heading over to my Talk page to issue the umpteenth threat to Wiki-sue?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You will have noticed, of course, that my edit warring report started several days in advance of your 4RR violation, to establish how the content was introduced by you, and that you had been reverting earlier, but only at the level of two reverts in a 24hr period. I put my 50-hour warning in there to show that you had been warned twice in that particular 57-hour sequence of events, yet you broke 4RR anyway. Regarding content, edit warring is not made legal if the content is later accepted by consensus (or the non-response of sheer exhaustion). Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated content, you mean, that you threw in in order to create the misleading impression of a continuous "sequence", while conveniently ignoring all my simultaneous interaction on the article Talk page. The only common element to the full "sequence" that had any substance beyond style considerations was whether "officials" should be plural or not. A point which appeared to have been conceded on the Talk page when Petrarchan suggested Masnick was not being used to support any claims. Meanwhile, you could not be bothered to reply to my many comments on the article Talk page. Why are you trying to defend your stunt here anyway (as opposed to on the Edit Warring Talk page or my Talk page or the blocking admin's Talk page or any other place where I called attention to it)? Is your conscience bothering you? As for "legal", that's all that matters to you, isn't it? More than once you have "legally" edit warred with me without even bothering to look at the content you were reverting.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be under the misapprehension that a series of reverts must be about the same text in order to be considered for 3RR/4RR. That is not the case. Any revert counts. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because that makes sense. Not. I refer you again to DGG's comment on the WP:Edit warring Talk page where he demolishes pretty much everything you stand for. Why don't you jump in there and defend your tactics if they are so honourable? Petrarchan just went 6RR in less than two and a half hours about the same block of text. THAT is edit warring. Yet you stand ready to spit venom at anyone who takes exception to either her edit warring or her continuous baseless accusations of COI. You two are clearly not about to stopped by anything like a conscience, are you?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that after I called attention to the 6RR here, she self-reverted back to 5RR. So John V and I (temporarily at least) get the content result we think is better without prosecuting anyone. And I didn't need to post a "formal reminder" on her Talk page in order to tip her off (or give her time to figure out) that she was (well) into prosecutable territory. Why didn't I pin her at 6RR with another revert that I was "legally" allowed in order to maximize the case against her (and possibly even bait her into 7RR) and then prosecute that case? Because I'm not you.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So from now on you are going to give editors an opportunity to self-revert and only seek a block if they fail to do so. I approve!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Slight change in the White Album move discussion

The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik| 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well...

Edit: Maybe I got indignant over nothing, it could be a DHCP issue. I still reference the one time I edited the Concord California page of some racist vandalism as my positive experience editing wikipedia. Came here and saw this.

"Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Misplaced Pages pages, as you did to Concord, California. Advertising and using Misplaced Pages as a "soapbox" are against Misplaced Pages policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)" However can't find what I changed in accordance with those dates. So I probably messed up on this and apologize. Uh... Oh dear.

147896321586359l (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How did you just come to Misplaced Pages and receive a message from 2010? Possibly a really, really slow internet connection. Also: what are "pieces of fuck"? I've heard of pieces of shit, but not pieces of fuck. What would a piece of fuck actually look like? A stain cannot accurately be called a piece, for the record. Doc talk 09:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it looks like a dynamic IP assignment issue. Your removal of a abusive text is to be praised, not punished. That message from me is four years old and was intended for some anonymous person, not you.

My 2010 message was sparked by a promotional addition which can be seen removed by me here—the addition of a link to the Claycord blog, which has since been acknowledged as a legitimate news site. So it looks like my removal in 2010 was premature. You win on two counts. Binksternet (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I have not abused multiple accounts and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. What am I suppose to do about this anon user that keeps trolling me? Brimspark (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You have certainly violated the block of your main account, GoldDragon, because of the abuse of multiple accounts. To continue editing Misplaced Pages in any form, you must return to the GoldDragon account and try to convince the community that you should have editing rights restored. Because of your extensive sockpuppeting, such a request will likely be refused. Nevertheless, it is your only option. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I set this up, and are you willing to vouch for me, or are you just going to follow the same procedure based on that anon tip? I do believe that I am a productive editor (although I still have work to engage in discussion more often), but I should feel that I otherwise should be left alone except for vandalism or edit warring incidents. And doesn't constitute harassment or trolling? Brimspark (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

To start over, you will need to wait six months without socking, then appeal to the community. See Misplaced Pages:Standard offer.

Regarding the reversion of your edits by myself or the anonymous Ottawa IP editor, these are allowed by policy:

• At Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#What edit warring is, the policy says that "reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring."
• At Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#3RR exemptions, the policy says that "reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users" is not a 3RR violation.
• At Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors, the policy says that "anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."
• At Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks, the policy says that "edits by the editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question".

So all of these policy statements support the actions of myself and the IP from Ottawa to remove all the work you performed over the last two months. Basically, anything you do on Misplaced Pages can be reverted until you follow the procedure for regaining your GoldDragon account. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the Ottawa IP behavior constitute trolling? Once they jump onto me, they just revert and alert you guys. Their whole edit history here is just revert, revert, revert, nothing productive though technically legal, and because they stay anon then there isn't any point in using the talk page. Isn't there any way that admins can just tell the anon to back off, so the onus is not solely on me to wait it out in order to get into the community? Brimspark (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The onus is fully on you. The Ottawa IP has policy on his side, since anyone can revert the work of a blocked editor. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If this battle with the Ottawa IP to keep continuing, a lot of legit contributions will just go down the drain. Is there any way to get it to end, or does that mean that I have to wave the white flag? I don't feel that option is fair as I haven't done anything that bad to merit a lifetime ban. Brimspark (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Technically, none of your edits were "legit" since they were performed in violation of the block placed on GoldDragon. Naturally, you are concerned that valuable improvements to the encyclopedia are being rolled back. The way to correct this is to adopt the long-range view and follow my previous advice: do not touch Misplaced Pages in any form for six months and then make a plea to the community per WP:Standard offer. That's all the advice I've got for you. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Collapse or descent of the WTC

Hi Binksternet. Re: Collapse of the World Trade Center: Yes, as you'll see from my comments, my edits were to promote factual and neutral information -- the same thing you value. There was also a large amount of outdated information on this page. Unless you can show that the information posted is incorrect, please just leave the edits as are. It is factual information, backed up by the references I provide. Much of the information I removed was not sourced or was sourced incorrectly. Please let's try to keep Misplaced Pages factual and neutral. Thanks. jasne9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasne9 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You wrote that the building descended rather than collapsed. That concept is not found in the cited source. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The word "descended" is not a concept. It is a factual description of the building's movements. The word "collapse", however, is a concept. I won't quibble at length over this, however, you do need to revert to my edits regarding collapse initiation. What was there is a confused and outdated description. Nor does NIST claim this is what happened. They are presenting their best hypothesis; you cannot claim it as fact. The section on progressive collapse is also now moot. It is not supported in the NIST reports. Please read them. Some of that information also is redundant, as it has been stated elsewhere.

Please help keep Misplaced Pages neutral and factual. jasne9

If the whole building "descended" it would have submerged into the mud and bedrock of Manhattan. The top descended, but the more apt wording is that the building collapsed. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I will defer to the use of "collapse", since that is what most people understand it as. Please note my comments about the other edits, though. Some of that information is outdated and incorrect. It is also presenting hypothesis as fact. In academic writing and discourse, viewpoints and theories must be credited to their respective proponents. This has not been done here. --Jasne9 (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Apr 16: Corrections made: I will do these piece by piece so potential editors can verify for factuality. Removed: "In both cases, the portion of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the section above the airplane impacts to fall onto the undamaged structure below." Unsourced and incorrect. In the case of WTC 1, perimeter failure initiated on the south face, according to NIST. Edited the rest for clarity, factuality and neutrality. Updated citation. --Jasne9 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Black genocide

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Black genocide. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Black genocide. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Antony Booth

I thought that a wriiten reference to his birth registration would have been sufficient. How can I improve on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Axton (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Your first series of edits included a contradiction of a commonly reported fact, and an "allegedly" assertion. You added no reference for this stuff. Your restoration of these assertions also included no citation to a reliable source. Please reade WP:CITE for some instructions. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

IPs from Lima, Peru

Hello B. I noticed that you had to revert yet another IP from Peru who was altering wikiproject banners on various actor talkpages. This has been going on for, at least, a few weeks now and I am wondering if this has been brought to the attention of any noticeboards/admins? If not no worries we will keep reverting whenever they pop up. Thanks for your vigilance and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. At Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#A_different_case:_genre_warrior_working_from_Peru_IPs, the general assessment was that nothing could be done without too much collateral damage. So the task of reverting this guy has become part of my Sisyphean regimen of vandal fighting. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and the info. Yep, Sisyphus is among the pantheon of Misplaced Pages mascots :-)

BTW you might enjoy this. I remember seeing it at an animation festival many moons ago. I'm glad that the net now allows me to share it with others. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Kelseys

Hiya Binkster! Didn't know you knew the Kelseys! If you liked the first wee edit to Benjamin Kelsey, you may like the new addition - a photo of the mad man himself. Plus I added information to Nancy Kelsey, I am thinking of DYK-ing that page, what do you think? With best wishes! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff! I don't know the Kelseys, but I appreciate your work on California history. A while back I put the hatnote at the top of the biography, to disambiguate between the Cali Kelseys and an airman. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My edits

Hey I was wondering why you took off my edits? I just wanted some clarification on why you thought my edits were "Joke" edits. I am editing the unmanned aerial vehicle page for a college class. I am very interested in this page. I've made about 7 edits and you have taken off 3 of them. i would love to hear your point of view on my edits. please respond back.

Thanks, Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPicasso (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The first problem you created was that you copied and pasted text from your source, which is a copyright violation. The second problem is that high-speed internet in remote parts of the world is impossible. Instead, fairly slow satellite internet is available, with speeds of 2 to 20 kbps, but usually less than 3 kbps. That is super crawling slow, compared to Starbucks. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there Binkster, I need some advise. The To Kill a Mockingbird article, a featured article by Moni, is going through a series of edits, mostly related to style or punctuation, but other small edits as well. When you have time would you please take a look and note my edit on talk also. I'd like to revert all of his edits but don't know if I dare... I had hoped to leave a few of his changes but he's just going on and on and I'm starting to get angry that anyone would be so arrogant as to make so many changes to a featured article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course a Featured Article may still have room for improvement, but I will look at the situation. If you think the improvements are not worth keeping, they probably aren't. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw that the new changes were largely for the better. I restored the unspaced em dashes which had been longstanding article style. Otherwise, I don't have any adverse reaction to the grammar improvements.

The article's history shows that big chunks of text were recently removed. That means it was not such high quality as the FA label would suggest. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Report on ANI

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 Arkatakor (talk • contribs) 06:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)