Raisinpie
Welcome
edit
|
Brabham BT46 (non fan car) Pic
edit | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have been soliciting thoughts on the BT46 article talk page (Brabham BT46) about adding a pic of an actual BT46--as opposed to the already pictured BT46B which was an altered BT46 with a fan and skirt added so it would suck down on the ground and handle like on rails. (I think it would be most appropriate, as it really does look different than that fan car, and even has a different color scheme, etc.) It did, but they only got away with using it once at the Sweden F1 GP where it won. All the other races (except the first 2) used the regular BT46 of which Brabham had two entered in each race. He won the Italian F1 GP in this car. I have a picture I took of Niki Lauda driving his BT46 at long Beach in '78. It is a good pic, and many will remember it because it was numbered 1 because he won the prior season. Also he had just recently come back from his fiery death defying crash. As I took the pic there should be no copyright issues putting it on WP, right? I have never posted it anywhere else. Maybe that is my main concern. Also, any link on how to add pics would be appreciated. Also, there are other F1 related articles where this pic would be valuable (at least one other article, anyway) and pics of this car, not the fan car, seem to be hard to track down- that do not have "do not copy" written across them, etc. Also, any thoughts. Thank you- Raisinpie (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for offering to contribute content! A picture you took yourself is fine to contribute, but you must agree to release it under a free license (we suggest CC-BY-SA-3.0). If you do agree to release your image under a free license, we suggest uploading it directly to Wikimedia Commons, so that the picture can be used on any Wikimedia project such as other languages of Wikipedia as well. To do so, see Commons:First steps/Uploading files for instructions.
- Once you've uploaded the picture, see the picture tutorial for instructions on how to insert the picture into an article. —Darkwind (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
November 2013
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Military–industrial complex, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Ricoh, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Nikkormat, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Home roasting coffee, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
edit
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prince George, Duke of Kent may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Use British English|date=June 2011}}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Army Pearl Harbor Board (February 1)
edit
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Army Pearl Harbor Board.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .
contributions to Wikipedia!
- Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Dunkmack9 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC) |
Raisinpie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reason is because when I was searching the web recently on appreciation of various modern era Indian artists I repeatedly came across what I knew to be incorrect information regarding MF Hussain. This artist who has died recently has had very large gains in prices of his pieces. I first became aware of MF during the aftermath of the Partition of India after WW2. The erroneous fact all over the internet I recently discovered involved a date for MF's one and only exhibition in the US at India house in '64. All of the sources on the internet claimed india house 1982. It was only then that I began to try and track down the source of the error. Big surprise, everybody was copying WP article on MF Husain. Of all the sockpuppets you claim I am of Dunkmack9 the only overlap really is MF and our correction of the 1964 date from 1982 under the career heading 1940-1965. I find it interesting that 40 or so edits occurred after it was changed to 1982 (wrong) (anonymous ip 122.183.65.2 in India on 15 March 2013 changed 1964 to 19982 and on 19 March 2013 anonymous ip 168.187.108.89 in Kuwait changed 19982 to 1982) until I Raisinpie tracked down the source of so much internet confusion on that date to WP--and corrected it. I also added some info on the Partition and the PAG. Binksternet has been subverting a certain article I have recently been trying to edit, and he claims I'm a sockpuppet because of an imagined interest in the Knowland family. A perusal of my edits will show that the only reason they were mentioned was when I was inspired from the Admiral (Fuzzy) Theobald article with no reference for the nickname, to see if an old friend of the family and family member classmate at Boalt Hall Justice Earl Warren had a nickname I knew existed since about when he became DA of Alameda County. The nickname is "Pinky" I have read it mentioned somewhere in the past but could not find it, so I just added it without reference like no reference to Fuzzy Theobald, and etc., so mush other stuff on WP like MF Husain in 1982 at India House! While at the Earl Pinky Warren page BTW, he was a republican, and by the time he got to be DA his hair was thin and fuzzy, and his red hair of younger days had greyed to a sort of pink...aka pinky. Anyway it was only at Pinkys article that I noticed it said he had help winning the DA election, after already been Oakland City Attorney, with the help of Oakland Tribune Publisher Knowland. Check my order of edits, it is after I added Pinky that I went to Oakland Tribune link to see if the "link" between Tribune (knowland publisher) was reflected on the Oak Trib article. It was not, so I added it. I had no interest in "knowland family" until after reading and editing Pinky's article. Before that I was checking into another Supreme court justice (which got me thinking about Pinky) when apparently pissing off Binksternet about insisting Purple was the only relevant code prior to pearl harbor, and it had been broken completely well before PH. To prove this I began a process of filling in info on the Roberts Commission (Justice Roberts, the other Supreme Court Judge) Binksternet has deleted all my edits on the Roberts COmmission, even though they were well referenced and quite true, and introduced in a neutral way. This is only the beginning of the SERIOUS MISCONDUCaT of Binksternet on the WP article Pearl Harbor Advance-knowledge conspiracy theory. So what if Dunkmack9 or one of his sockpuppets also edited this article--I only needed my Theobald Book, which apparently none of the sockpuppets knew about. They used Stinnetts book, which I found unconvincing and showboaty. The SERIOUS MISCONDUCT of Binksternet coincides with my wrapping up the fallacy of "10 Official US Investigations into Pearl Harbor." Like I say, he deleted my Roberts Commission edits, then he went on to destroy anything that would endanger his crackpot idea that Washington new nothing about any Purple intercepts from Japan. I wrote the article on the next #3 investigation "Hart Inquiry" which was just a legal post-dating of potential actions that could take place in case the statute of limitations ran out. It investigated nothing, really. Next I wrote WP article "Army Pearl Harbor Board" using well cited references and conducting myself in its creation in a very neutral POV. About the same time I also wrote about the next "Naval Court of Inquiry (1944)" which did not exist yet on WP. TO make a long story short, these two Official Inquiries found Kimmel and Short not really quilty of much, but finally placed blame on very high ups in the Roosevelt administration. Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Chief of Staff General Marshall, General Gerow and Admiral Stark were singled out as having not ever informed the Hawaiian Command (Short and Kimmel) of a Purple diplomatic decrypt from mid 1941 where Tokyo asked the diplomats ONLY at HAWAII for continued updates on the exact locations, descriptions, movements, dispositions, etc. of each and every ship at Pearl Harbor. This proves Washington had broken Purple well before the attack, and for whatever reason failed to tell Kimmel and Short anything about it. Suddenly, while I was awaiting approval to requested additions to the article on either the Army or Naval Court of Inquiry, Binksternet darted into action and found some lame links to shut me down destroying his pet project of maintaining lies about Pearl Harbor that were shown to be lies in 1944. He has wiped out all of my edits about purple and Admiral Theobald's book, much of which was just a brilliant Naval Officer putting many things into a clear context and in an orderly fashion. He claimed all along Washington contributed to the Japanese attack, and he was right. Binskternet could not allow that so he found these very shakey reasons I believe I have explained away pretty well--and if you look at all my edits you will see in the order of things that I explain truthfully about those things that have been brought into evidence for me being a sockpuppet of Dunkmack9, which I am not. I noticed that Dunkmack and the 10 or so other sockpuppets all have Retired from a while ago across their talk page. What does that mean? And I think I am being pretty calm and gentle to Binksternet considering the serious breach of WP intent to allow truth to be brought into discussions and articles. I truly believe the timing of all this shows a very serious breach of standards by Binksternet, and think that you people whould read what I have written a few times again before you ask me anything you wish to know regarding this. I do believe Roosevelt intentionally brought the US into the war. I think he did the right thing; except in making Short and Kimmel scapegoats. That was not necessary. I also think this was the beginning of Wars for profit in the US, and that the British Peace Movement did not stand a chance against Rossevelt and Churchill. Is that why I am being shut-up? Sorry, but I am not going to kiss any arse here. I feel I have been severely wronged, and the only way to tell my story is to let it all hang out. Do you people really feel you had a legit reason to launch this investigation, and use all of your weapons of mass destruction available to you at WP to destroy all of my careful and respectful work, edits, and article creation here at WP? You folks need to take this one very seriously, because you are wrong about me on so many levels it really makes you all look like a bunch of malicious book burners if you go for the garbage Binksternet is trying to peddle you. Oh yes, one more thing, my family has 6 generations that have grown up and lived and is still living in the bay area and east bay. I was born in Oakland; and that was one of the things used against me. Now only do I not know or care about the knowland family (no offense) but as I have stated Earl Warren was a classmate of a close family member at Boalt Hall, another family member was greatly admired by Warren, and our family also knew Admiral Nimitz, another bay arean, and Admiral Theobald was from SF. Yes, well, shall I go on? One more thing, WP claims I sound like the sockpuppet responding to Binksternet' skullduggery, Binsksternet is a pretty mouthy offensive guy, how do you expect people to respond to his blatant wanton behavior, with flowery prose and kisses? I imagine anyone Binksternet pulls this garbage on is going to sound pretty much the same in their response
Decline reason:
Looks like a pretty obvious block and sock case to me. The personal attacks certainly don't help either. only (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Raisinpie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
an unsigned response claiming personal attacks when all I did was state the facts and point out Binksternet appears to be in very serious violation of all things sacred to WP, unbelievable! Diannaa ? Only responses by actual administrators who actually sign their response, please!
Please include a decline or accept reason.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Raisinpie (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note An appeal was made via UTRS where I have again declined to unblock based on CU evidence.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Naval Court of Inquiry (1944)
editHello Raisinpie,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Naval Court of Inquiry (1944) for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Hart Inquiry
editHello Raisinpie,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Hart Inquiry for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)