Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dunkmack9 (talk | contribs) at 08:49, 21 January 2013 (→Just the facts, ma'am: ignorant SOT ma'am). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Dunkmack9! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! -- DQ (t) (e) 21:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2011

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Nasal polyp, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Misplaced Pages pages

Dear Author/Dunkmack9

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Misplaced Pages pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Misplaced Pages pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Misplaced Pages and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Nasal polyps. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.Hydra Rain (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, J. Robert Oppenheimer, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! 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. Materialscientist (talk) 07:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess

Hello Dunkmack9. I have removed your recent unsourced additions to the article on Rudolf Hess. All additions to the encyclopedia require citations to reliable sources. The material you added also gives undue weight to fringe conspiracy theories, the type of material you would not find in a paper encyclopedia and the type of material that would be only briefly mentioned here, if at all. Some of the content you added appears to be your own conclusions; that's called WP:original research and should not be added to our articles. Please take a look at some of the links at the top of this page for more information on how to contribute effectively to the encyclopedia. -- Dianna (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Rudolf Hess. This contravenes Misplaced Pages's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. -- Dianna (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Rudolf Hess, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The article needs a major re-write, but adding further unsourced material is not helping; in fact it will hinder the needed work. Please stop now or you will be facing a block. -- Dianna (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Day of Deceit, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Day of Deceit. While Misplaced Pages welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just the facts, ma'am

Hey, Stupid--why don't you read the book Day of Deceit for some of the answers to your beligerent questions that are all about as ridiculous as the notion that FDR was an olympic athlete. go piss on our own page. By reading your arrogantly posed questions, I can see that you have not read any book ever, let alone Day of Deceit,and yet you are an expert on anything anyone would possibly want to know about. Do you really think anybody cares about what you were still wetting your bed at 12 years old? I was doing calculus when I was five, and speaking 14 languages by 10. And, yes, I did read those books you mentioned. So like I say, go piss on your own page if you can get your diapers out of the way first. Dunkmack9 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Since you appear to believe you know the "facts" about FDR's "responsibility" for the attack on Pearl Harbor, why don't we see just how little you really know, shall we?
• To begin with, nobody is disputing, AFAIK, MAGIC was Top Secret, nor that the secret had to be kept. I'm unaware of that ever being at issue. Nor, AFAIK, was it ever at issue the U.S. had, indeed, broken PURPLE. What's in dispute is the degree to which ONI & SIS were reading JN-25--which Stinnett, despite 17yr of supposedly meticulous research, is either ignorant of being the same as the "5-digit" cypher, or he's denying he knows better. This is something that's possible to learn reading just two books. I did it when I was 12.
• Did you read anything past Stinnett's fantasy? Did you read Prange's Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History? If you had, you'd realize he answers Stinnett's absurd allegations, tho he does ignore the ridiculous ones (like how lines of latitude somehow indicate Japan's objective: did Japan intend to invade Mexico, too?).
• Did you notice Stinnett relies on "decrypts" that weren't translated until after the war ended?
• Did you notice Stinnett relies on the content of messages sent before the Kido Butai ever sortied? He also neglects to mention these would have been sent by land line, not over the air, so they wouldn't be intercepted in any case. Nor does "radio silence" pertain to a fleet in harbor, contrary to what Stinnett says.
• Are all the Japanese, who say there were no radio signals while en route all lying? (Were they all in league with FDR?)
• Did you notice Stinnett fails to understand task forces have operated in heavy weather for centuries before the invention of radio, & have long since figured out how to keep station without it? (By all appearances, he has never heard of flag or blinker signals.)
• "there is and has been widespread belief in the McCullum "memo" as FDR's blueprint to get Japan to take provocative action" There's widespread stupidity, too. This denies what FDR had been doing in the Atlantic for more than a year.
• "why is that BS about Churchill not wanting America involved in the War allowed to be used as a fact" Because it ignores what Winston said. It also ignores common sense: if the U.S. was at war with Japan, the main beneficiary was Germany, not Britain. And McCollum, who Stinnett uses as his "source", just a few weeks before had written a second memo saying exactly that. Moreover, Hitler had come to the same conclusion. Unless McCollum, Marshall, Stark, FDR, & Churchill were all idiots, they knew provoking Japan was idiotic & counterproductive. Stinnett, however, can't grasp that. Evidently, neither can you.
• "that BS is so immensely lunatic" Really? Care to explain the benefit to Britain, then? How diversion of B-17s & B-24s & P-40s & ships from Britain to the Pacific was a good thing for Britain? How diversion of British & Australian manpower to fighting Japan was a good thing for Britain? Defending it is stupid.
• "The McCollum points worked, and that is what FDR wanted" Really? FDR wanted to help Britain. Churchill had expressly asked him to help Britain avoid war with Japan. How is war with Japan in any form "what FDR wanted"? Except in Stinnett's deluded & ignorant view?
• "so stupid as to totally disallow anything whatsoever to be added to this article that is positive on the author" Who are you calling stupid? If I thought for one instant Stinnett had a clue, I would be defending him He doesn't. The depth of his ignorance is astounding. The depth of his own deceit, in his characterization of "fixes"; of the nature of what FDR knew, or didn't know; of insisting on calling Yoshikawa by his cover name; on claiming decrypts not translated until after the war were "smoking gun" messages; among others calls in question the honesty of everything he says. Moreover, it's a fundamentally racist argument; it demands Japan be incompetent to achieve surprise on her own. You defend him.
• "Which set of facts are you referring to?" How about the ones that contradict Stinnett's nutty fantasy? All the ones collected over the last 70yr that say Stinnett is a nitwit & a liar? The one where Stinnett's own source (Whitlock, in note 8 to chapter 2) expressly contradicts Stinnett's thesis? How about them? TREKphiler 03:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to ignore these warnings you are almost certain to be blocked. And stop tagging all your edits as minor. You know perfectly well that a several thousand character insertion into an article isn't minor. Mangoe (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Day of Deceit, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Day of Deceit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dunkmack9. Please read and respond the criticisms of your editing that are being raised here on your talk page and at the administrators discussion board. If you continue to push fringe theories and ignore warnings you will likely be facing a block. -- Dianna (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Joe Knowland, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Dunkmack9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Binksternet has been completely untruthful in his reasons for warnings, etc. Binksternet insists that Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett and published by Harper and Row in 2000 is ficticious garbage and has absolutely no redeeming merits, and therefore will not allow any--and I do mean any, positive additions to the article. Although I am a beginner at editing I know that references need to be cited and well documented, and the additions I have tried to add included some newspaper reviews and a magazine review for which I was able to not only find the exact hard copy date of publication along with the Author's name and his newspaper name, etc. Through a service I subscribe to I first was able to read these 13 year old reviews in their intirety, and found them to be well sourced, despite having found them on the books dustjacket. The crux of this dispute with Binksternet, and I assure whoever reads this that it is indeed sour grapes and lies by Binksternet. Lies, yes a big word, but entirely verifiable in this case. Liar Binksternet first refused to allow me to add that the author of Day of Deceit, Robert Stinnett was a newspaper reporter of a newspaper I read as a child and youth--The Oakland Tribune. Binksternet wants people to think that Robert Stinnett is some crackpot lunatic who is in the business of making up crap to write books about. Binky got really pissed off when I figured out that he originated the Joe Knowland article on WP. Since bink will not allow anything to be added in favor of Day of Deceit on its own article, I added to his Joe Knowland article (under his Oakland Tribune days section) the fact that around when Joe Knowland was running The Oakland Tribune, quite well, Joe Stinnett began working for the Oakland Tribune, then gave a brief description of Joe Stinnett's 17 years of research into Day of Deceit. The big lie Binkster used to get me cut off is his totally false claim that I engaged in a personal attack on Joe Knowland. Well it just so happens that my family has been friendly with the Knowland family for many years and over several generations. I will not go into detail, but I would never, and did not, write anything in the least bit negative to Binksters rather imflammatory and demeaning article on the Knowlands, Including Joe Knowland (jr). It also just so happens that father has known Joe Stinnett since the 1960's when he was a journalist at The Oakland Tribune. I am quite familiar with the type of pond scum that would defame Joe Stinnett and his work. Apparently Binkster is not only an Oakland Tribune, Bob Stinnett, Knowland Family, and Oakland Tribune Journalist hater, but he is not afraid of anybody at[REDACTED] to just out and out lie when he gets caught. Why is Binkster, who is obviously radically opposed to the truth getting out about the past, as exposed by Oakland Tribune veteran journalist Bob Stinnett's book Day of Deceit, in any position to have my editing blocked indefinitely? He also has no business being able to junk well cited sources that do not agree with his antique beliefs. Anyone such as Binkster who can lie openly to[REDACTED] to get someone blocked indefinitely by claiming I said something nasty about someone, when you can look on the Joe Knowland article and see what I wrote nothing nasty or even slightly not nice, does not deserve to have anyone take him in the least bit seriously. He is a liar who will not allow anyone to tough his diatribe against Day of Deceit--and that includes the talk pages, too, by the way. No talk alllowed on Day of Deceit talk page by binky. ] (]) 07:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Binksternet has been completely untruthful in his reasons for warnings, etc. Binksternet insists that Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett and published by Harper and Row in 2000 is ficticious garbage and has absolutely no redeeming merits, and therefore will not allow any--and I do mean any, positive additions to the article. Although I am a beginner at editing I know that references need to be cited and well documented, and the additions I have tried to add included some newspaper reviews and a magazine review for which I was able to not only find the exact hard copy date of publication along with the Author's name and his newspaper name, etc. Through a service I subscribe to I first was able to read these 13 year old reviews in their intirety, and found them to be well sourced, despite having found them on the books dustjacket. The crux of this dispute with Binksternet, and I assure whoever reads this that it is indeed sour grapes and lies by Binksternet. Lies, yes a big word, but entirely verifiable in this case. Liar Binksternet first refused to allow me to add that the author of Day of Deceit, Robert Stinnett was a newspaper reporter of a newspaper I read as a child and youth--The Oakland Tribune. Binksternet wants people to think that Robert Stinnett is some crackpot lunatic who is in the business of making up crap to write books about. Binky got really pissed off when I figured out that he originated the Joe Knowland article on WP. Since bink will not allow anything to be added in favor of Day of Deceit on its own article, I added to his Joe Knowland article (under his Oakland Tribune days section) the fact that around when Joe Knowland was running The Oakland Tribune, quite well, Joe Stinnett began working for the Oakland Tribune, then gave a brief description of Joe Stinnett's 17 years of research into Day of Deceit. The big lie Binkster used to get me cut off is his totally false claim that I engaged in a personal attack on Joe Knowland. Well it just so happens that my family has been friendly with the Knowland family for many years and over several generations. I will not go into detail, but I would never, and did not, write anything in the least bit negative to Binksters rather imflammatory and demeaning article on the Knowlands, Including Joe Knowland (jr). It also just so happens that father has known Joe Stinnett since the 1960's when he was a journalist at The Oakland Tribune. I am quite familiar with the type of pond scum that would defame Joe Stinnett and his work. Apparently Binkster is not only an Oakland Tribune, Bob Stinnett, Knowland Family, and Oakland Tribune Journalist hater, but he is not afraid of anybody at[REDACTED] to just out and out lie when he gets caught. Why is Binkster, who is obviously radically opposed to the truth getting out about the past, as exposed by Oakland Tribune veteran journalist Bob Stinnett's book Day of Deceit, in any position to have my editing blocked indefinitely? He also has no business being able to junk well cited sources that do not agree with his antique beliefs. Anyone such as Binkster who can lie openly to[REDACTED] to get someone blocked indefinitely by claiming I said something nasty about someone, when you can look on the Joe Knowland article and see what I wrote nothing nasty or even slightly not nice, does not deserve to have anyone take him in the least bit seriously. He is a liar who will not allow anyone to tough his diatribe against Day of Deceit--and that includes the talk pages, too, by the way. No talk alllowed on Day of Deceit talk page by binky. ] (]) 07:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Binksternet has been completely untruthful in his reasons for warnings, etc. Binksternet insists that Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnett and published by Harper and Row in 2000 is ficticious garbage and has absolutely no redeeming merits, and therefore will not allow any--and I do mean any, positive additions to the article. Although I am a beginner at editing I know that references need to be cited and well documented, and the additions I have tried to add included some newspaper reviews and a magazine review for which I was able to not only find the exact hard copy date of publication along with the Author's name and his newspaper name, etc. Through a service I subscribe to I first was able to read these 13 year old reviews in their intirety, and found them to be well sourced, despite having found them on the books dustjacket. The crux of this dispute with Binksternet, and I assure whoever reads this that it is indeed sour grapes and lies by Binksternet. Lies, yes a big word, but entirely verifiable in this case. Liar Binksternet first refused to allow me to add that the author of Day of Deceit, Robert Stinnett was a newspaper reporter of a newspaper I read as a child and youth--The Oakland Tribune. Binksternet wants people to think that Robert Stinnett is some crackpot lunatic who is in the business of making up crap to write books about. Binky got really pissed off when I figured out that he originated the Joe Knowland article on WP. Since bink will not allow anything to be added in favor of Day of Deceit on its own article, I added to his Joe Knowland article (under his Oakland Tribune days section) the fact that around when Joe Knowland was running The Oakland Tribune, quite well, Joe Stinnett began working for the Oakland Tribune, then gave a brief description of Joe Stinnett's 17 years of research into Day of Deceit. The big lie Binkster used to get me cut off is his totally false claim that I engaged in a personal attack on Joe Knowland. Well it just so happens that my family has been friendly with the Knowland family for many years and over several generations. I will not go into detail, but I would never, and did not, write anything in the least bit negative to Binksters rather imflammatory and demeaning article on the Knowlands, Including Joe Knowland (jr). It also just so happens that father has known Joe Stinnett since the 1960's when he was a journalist at The Oakland Tribune. I am quite familiar with the type of pond scum that would defame Joe Stinnett and his work. Apparently Binkster is not only an Oakland Tribune, Bob Stinnett, Knowland Family, and Oakland Tribune Journalist hater, but he is not afraid of anybody at[REDACTED] to just out and out lie when he gets caught. Why is Binkster, who is obviously radically opposed to the truth getting out about the past, as exposed by Oakland Tribune veteran journalist Bob Stinnett's book Day of Deceit, in any position to have my editing blocked indefinitely? He also has no business being able to junk well cited sources that do not agree with his antique beliefs. Anyone such as Binkster who can lie openly to[REDACTED] to get someone blocked indefinitely by claiming I said something nasty about someone, when you can look on the Joe Knowland article and see what I wrote nothing nasty or even slightly not nice, does not deserve to have anyone take him in the least bit seriously. He is a liar who will not allow anyone to tough his diatribe against Day of Deceit--and that includes the talk pages, too, by the way. No talk alllowed on Day of Deceit talk page by binky. ] (]) 07:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock