Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:59, 11 November 2013

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

MRM

Hi Binksternet, long time no see. I wrote something here and I hope that you'll reply. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I will comment when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

KAL 747 photo

I thought the WP:OP debate held that CGI photos of aircraft disasters not created by the Government could not be used and I recall a ton of CGI photos were removed for that reasons. Is there something I'm missing?

Besides, don't you think perhaps it would be a lot better to use a real photo of a KAL 747 rather than a CGI one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjnboy (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please link to the debate you describe.

I prefer the artist's rendering because it shows the aircraft as it would have appeared just before the tragedy. It includes the "I NY" phrase which has been noted. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I recall first seeing this debate on the Pan Am Flight 103 talk page. But saw it on other pages which had CGI photos of airplanes. The reason why CGI photos are not allowed have to do with them being considered "Original Research". All I know is that the end result was the vast majority of plane crash pages having CGI images not made by the NTSB or Government removed. That is until I hunted for free or licensed photos to replace them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pan_Am_Flight_103/Archive_8#Fantasy_infobox_image_-_remove.21

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjnboy (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The artist's representation is only a jet airliner flying quietly at night, straight and level. There is nothing remotely challenging about this image; it does not violate WP:NOR by having, say, rockets heading toward it from some direction, or showing it severely damaged and falling. It is not a "fantasy" image. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well what if I were to get permission to use a real photograph of the plane involved in the incident? I was able to get permission for use of a photo of the plane that became United Airlines Flight 173. I have no intention of butting heads and think that perhaps a photo of the real deal would be an amicable solution for everyone and would also give the article a greater degree of seriousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjnboy (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In that case both images could be used in the article. I still like the night flight image at the top. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How about we put the CGI image in either the "Flight deviation from assigned route" or "Shootdown" section and have the caption say "Artist's rendition of HL7442 as it would have looked just prior to the shootdown"?

Like the Japan Air Lines Flight 123 page, which has a real photo of the plane in the infobox and a CGI rendering of the earlier tailstrike incident down below. All the other plane crash pages that I've read have it like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Japan_Airlines_Flight_123

But then again, this is all dependent on if the man gives me permission to use the real photo. I've already messaged hime and am awaiting his reply. If he does grant permission, how about we give my suggestion a try and if it doesn't look good, we'll do your suggestion? Bjnboy (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Such a decision should be taken to the article's talk page. Without having seen the real photograph, I still like the idea of having the artist's version at the top of the article. What you want is more people looking at this question. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Removals

Hi Bink, why did you remove several posts in this edit? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The posts appeared to be disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be best in the future if you ask an uninvolved admin to handle talk page removals. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bink, your mass deletion of talk page comments is unacceptable and a flagrant violation of policy. Per WP:Talk, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." You made no argument for an exception (and no such exception existed).

Your brazen violations of policy are particularly inadvisable in view of the sanctions. Steeletrap (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mark. It's good to know there are eyes on the case. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Binksternet, just a small note. I have been asking Specifico and Steeletrap to start treating you with more respect, and I hope you will temper your approach as well. Also, I don't think the "Binkie" thing that happened here a few minutes ago was necessarily trolling, but most likely a good nature spinoff from a playful thread on Steeletrap's talk page. That's all, ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative; I hope it bears fruit. I still feel that the "playful" behavior was disrespectful trolling. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I respond to Bink, Binkster or Binksternet and no other permutations of my username. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, Bink. However, if you're up for it, provide a diff where you made this clarification. I honestly have no recollection of it at all. Steeletrap (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Steeletrap! Here's one example from Bink's Talk Page Archives but I know I've seen her/him mention it elsewhere. I'm only recently active but I remember reading about their nickname preference. Liz 19:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Impinge" vs "impugn"

Holy frickin' hell, THANK YOU. My interior English teacher (and I actually WAS one, so the interior one is REALLY intrusive sometimes) was going to explode my head if someone hadn't corrected the error. GJC 22:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha! Air kiss >mwah< ... ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Electricladymural.jpg

Hello, Binksternet! I usually don't check my Commons page much, but I was alarmed to see this image deleted. I was there, in the legendary studio, and I figured that my image would be included under "freedom of panorama" like a tourist taking a picture of the Empire State Building. After some research, I realized that you were quite correct in deleting my image. Lance Jost's work is copyrighted, and my image did not properly attribute his copyright. Thanks for correcting me on that. Cheers :> Doc talk 07:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The first time one of my photos was deleted for this reason I was hopping mad. :-)

I am not a fan of the USA's law describing no freedom of panorama for murals—it's quite restrictive. The UK allows photographs of outdoor/public art if the art is not temporary, which I think is fair, but the USA does not. In either country, an indoor mural is not free to photograph. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is Deepak Chopra. Thank you. ~ Matthewrbowker 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again

Additional thanks for your continued diligence in tracing the sockpuppets of that most disruptive editor. Great work. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. :-)

Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Larry Sanger

Could you have a look here? Thanks. Adam Cuerden 02:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)