User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

Removal of Edits

Hi, I added a citation that described the organization ALEC as a group of "libertarian" state legislators that uses identical language to the articles that refer to them as a "conservative" group, yet mine was removed and the conservative one stayed. Clearly they are both since numerous independent articles refer to them with both labels, so the main page article should reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregJohnson1 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources calling ALEC libertarian are mostly not WP:Reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. You can see blogs and forums like Reddit talking about ALEC as libertarian, and only one good source, a newsblog article by David Weigel for Slate: "ALEC: The Libertarian Powerhouse that No One Covers". Against this the sources calling ALEC conservative are much more numerous, and more reliable than Reddit, forums and blogs:

• The Atlantic: "Exposing ALEC: How Conservative-Backed State Laws Are All Connected"
• NPR: "How ALEC Serves As A 'Dating Service' For Politicians And Corporations" ("'ALEC is like an incubator of predominantly conservative legislation,' Guardian correspondent Ed Pilkington tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross.")
• Huffington Post: "Big Corporations Abandoning Conservative Group That Pushes Changes in State Laws "
• Slate: "Conservatives' Improbable New 'Convention of States' Project"
• Bill Moyers: "North Carolina’s Conservative Shift Good for ALEC"
• Mother Jones: "Conservative Group ALEC in 1985: S&M Accidents Cause 10 Percent of San Francisco's Homicides"
• The Guardian: "State conservative groups plan US-wide assault on education, health and tax"
• The New York Times: "Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist"
• The Guardian: "ALEC calls for penalties on 'freerider' homeowners in assault on clean energy" ("Documents reveal conservative group's anti-green agenda")
• Raleigh News-Observer: "Private conservative group ALEC carries sway in legislature"
• The Washington Post: "ALEC has tremendous influence in state legislatures. Here’s why." ("Last week, hundreds of state legislators, representatives of major international corporations and conservative policy experts gathered in Washington for a meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)... Unsurprisingly, conservatism matters: states with more conservative governments were more likely to pass ALEC bills.")
• The Progressive: "Inside the ALEC Dating Service" ("I really thought it would take more than five minutes in New Orleans before I realized the conservative movement had landed there... Corporations and conservative interests are in charge; after all, they fund the organization. They call the shots. They write the legislation. They vote on the legislation. And they give advice on how to pass their bills.")
• MinnPost: "Flurry of photo ID laws tied to conservative ALEC group "
• The Nation: "ALEC Opposed Divestment From South Africa’s Apartheid Regime" ("This is the inherent difference between right-leaning organizations and their counterparts on the left. Large corporations view their right-wing giving as a strong return on investment. For almost every major conservative issue campaign, at least on economic policy, the wealthy and powerful ultimately benefit, meaning their donations to groups like ALEC and their cohorts are well-served... During the course of my research on how the conservative movement rebuilt itself in the aftermath of the 2008 elections, I found myself digging through many historical files that show this dynamic repeating itself like an endless feedback loop... For more on how the recent history of the conservative movement, including the role of ALEC and SPN...")
• The Economist: "Smart ALEC: How left-wing protesters helped a conservative club that ghost-writes state laws"
• Los Angeles Times: "Coca-Cola, Kraft leave conservative ALEC after boycott launched"

That's pretty strong evidence. The weight of "conservative" is extremely strong. Also, though this doesn't count for a whole lot, ALEC self-identifies as a "Nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators which favors federalism and conservative public policy solutions." Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I provided an additional article that calls them libertarian in my citation.

Daily Caller: Report: Obama’s EPA power balloons ("A report by the libertarian American Legislative Exchange Council found...") This uses identical language as the current citations referring to it as a "conservative" group but instead calls it "libertarian." The label fits, is in widespread use, and should be included. GregJohnson1 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is an awful source, totally unreliable. That's why I did not mention it earlier. It is useless on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Should I remove the literal hundreds upon hundreds of citations that I have seen of it on Wikipiedia? GregJohnson1 (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, that would be helpful. Leave the ones that nobody would ever dispute, for instance a biography about a writer who writes for The Daily Caller needs a citation or two to support that fact. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I heartily support any effort to scrub the encyclopedia of even slightly controversial TDC citations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Charlie Chaplin

This is a note to let the main editors of Charlie Chaplin know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 2, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Charlie Chaplin (1889–1977) was a British comic actor, filmmaker, and composer who rose to fame in the silent era. Chaplin became a worldwide icon through his screen persona "the Tramp" and is considered one of the most important figures of the film industry. His first screen appearance came in February 1914, after which he produced the popular features The Kid (1921), The Gold Rush (1925), and The Circus (1928). Chaplin refused to move to sound films in the 1930s, instead producing City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936) without dialogue. He became increasingly political and his next film, The Great Dictator (1940), satirised Adolf Hitler. The 1940s was a decade marked with controversy for Chaplin, and his popularity declined rapidly. Accused of communist sympathies, he was forced to leave the United States. The Tramp was abandoned in his later films, which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), and A King in New York (1957). Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, edited, starred in, and composed the music for most of his films. His work is characterised by slapstick combined with pathos, and continues to be held in high regard. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Seneca Falls convention

I noticed a recent edit that you made to article on The Revolution (newspaper), saying that the Seneca Falls women's rights convention wasn't the first. I'm curious, when was there an earlier women's rights convention? Bilpen (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ann D. Gordon, the world's top authority on Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, says that the first convention organized by women to discuss women's rights was the Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women. As far as I know, women's suffrage was not discussed.

• Gordon, Ann D.; Collier-Thomas, Bettye (1997). "Introduction". African American women and the vote, 1837–1965. University of Massachusetts Press. pp. 2–9. ISBN 1-55849-059-0.

Regarding women's suffrage, the first convention to discuss the issue was organized by men of the Liberty Party, their national convention held in Buffalo, New York, on 14–15 June 1848. Presidential candidate Gerrit Smith argued for a party plank of women's suffrage, and the plank was established. As well, this convention put forward the name of Lucretia Mott for vice president, but this suggestion was voted down. The Liberty Party proved terribly unpopular at the polls, so none of its advances gained traction. In July 1848, Gerrit Smith's cousin Elizabeth Cady Stanton helped organize the Seneca Falls Convention. Author Judith Wellman offers the theory that Gerrit Smith and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, during a possible visit by Smith to Seneca Falls between June 2 and June 14, 1848, challenged or encouraged each other to introduce women's voting rights in their separate political and social spheres, as both subsequently did so, Smith taking the first shot.

• Wellman, Judith. The Road to Seneca Falls, University of Illinois Press, 2004, page 176. ISBN 0-252-02904-6

That makes the Seneca Falls Convention very likely the first one organized by women to discuss women's suffrage. Note that Stanton and Mott did not consider the Seneca Falls Convention to be very influential until they were writing about it in the late 1870s and 1880s. Before then, everybody in women's rights said that Lucy Stone/Paulina Davis National Women's Rights Convention of 1850 was the first national and international convention to discuss suffrage, and it had far-reaching influence. Even Stanton agreed: she said in 1870 in a speech to the NWSA that "The movement in England, as in America, may be dated from the first National Convention, held at Worcester, Mass., October, 1850."[1] Stanton changed to a more self-promotional tone when she began writing the history of the movement: History of Woman Suffrage. Since Lucy Stone elected to stay away from the history documentation project because of past differences with Stanton, Stanton placed herself at the center of two conventions which she portrayed as critically foundational to women's rights and women's suffrage. From that point forward Stanton and Anthony were pushed up in importance while Stone was sidelined and minimized. For more on this issue, see Sally Gregory McMillen, Seneca Falls and the origins of the women's rights movement, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 0-19-518265-0. Nancy Isenberg spends a lot of ink on the same issue in Sex and citizenship in antebellum America, University of North Carolina Press, 1998, ISBN 0-8078-2442-9. Isenberg shows that the Seneca Falls Convention was not so widely hailed in its day, and that other conventions influenced the issue of women's rights. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that aspect of the 1837 Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women. I have now read what Gordon had to say about it, and it's certainly intriguing.

But remember, the issue here is whether the article on the Revolution was correct in describing the Seneca Falls convention as the first women's rights convention (not whether Seneca Falls was first the convention at which women's rights was among the topics that were discussed).

If someone claimed that Seneca Falls was the first convention at which women's rights was discussed, they would be wrong, as you point out. The same would be true if someone claimed that the Seneca Falls was the first convention to discuss or advocate women's suffrage. But the issue here is: Do professional historians refer to the Seneca Falls convention as the first women's rights convention?

The answer definitely is yes. Of the books you referenced, the fact that Seneca Falls was the first women's rights convention is reflected the full name of Judy Wellman's book: The Road to Seneca Falls: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the First Woman's Rights Convention. Nancy Isenberg's book describes the Seneca Falls convention as "the first women's rights convention" on page 1. Sally McMillen's book describes Seneca Falls as "the first women's rights convention" on 115. The consensus of historians in general definitely is that Seneca Falls was the first women's rights convention.

McMillen, by the way, talks about the "momentous" place in history of the Seneca Falls convention on page 71. On pages 99-100 she presents a statistical analysis of newspaper reactions to the convention, noting that the greatest interest was in the Midwest and Northeast but that even in the South 23 newspapers commented on it.

It is worth noting that Lucretia Mott was at both the 1837 and the 1848 conventions, and she never disputed the assertion that Seneca Falls was the first women's rights convention. Stanton herself referred to Seneca Falls as the first women's rights convention in a note she wrote to Elizabeth McClintock just before that convention began. You can read it in Gordon, Volume 1, p. 69. That very short entry has three footnotes by Gordon, yet in none of those footnotes does Gordon tell the reader that Stanton was mistaken because Seneca Falls was not the first women's rights convention. If Gordon believed that Seneca Falls was not the first women's rights convention, she would say so clearly and unambiguously, and that would generate tons of controversy.

I think it is abundantly clear that professional historians do in fact describe the Seneca Falls convention as the first women's rights convention, and that it is therefore the obligation of Wikipedia to describe it just that way also. Bilpen (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that historians generally count the Seneca Falls Convention as the first convention on women's rights. The problem with that general label is that it is not correct. It was the first woman-organized convention to discuss women's rights, in the context of white women's rights, outside of the concerns about securing rights for enslaved black women, and the rights for free black women—the focus of the 1837 convention. That's why it is called the first, because most of American history is about whites. However, if Seneca is called the first, then that means African Americans did not count as women. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, your position here reminds me of the claim made by a teacher at the junior high I attended that Peyton Randolph was the first President of the United States. Enough of the original research pedantry which you usually have little patience for when it's not your own! YOUR truth doesn't trump Wikipedia policy. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, you remind me of Randy from Boise charging in to protect the misinformation he was taught. Bilpen and I are discussing what can be found by reading books by Ann D. Gordon, Joelle Million, Sally Gregory McMillen, Nancy Isenberg, the Worcester Women's History Project, Andrea Moore Kerr, Judith Wellman and others who discuss the primacy of the Seneca Falls Convention in terms of women's rights conventions and women's suffrage discussions. If you wish to take part in this discussion on my talk page you would be advised to read the books found in the reference section of the Seneca Falls article. You'll notice that modern writers do not accept Stanton's assertion on its face, that the Seneca Falls Convention was actually the first. Of course they acknowledge its importance in history, though a few authors note that the Lucy Stone and Paulina Wright Davis 1850 convention was considered much more important in its day, with much wider influence. So both primacy and importance are called into question by modern scholars. You'll see these themes when you dig into the reference books. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't need to consult those sources, Bink. Today I'm also busy with my singing, snow shoveling, and an Agatha Christie (Endless Night, one of her better late career efforts). It's enough to know that the 1837 convention focused on abolition. It was a convention of women but it was not a "women's rights" convention; at least no more than a contemporary all-female anti-abortion convention would be a "women's rights" convention if it discussed the issue of sex selective abortion. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of abolitionist American women in 1836–37 when researching the origin of the women's rights movement. The "woman question" was debated in the US newspapers in 1836—what was woman's proper role in society, should she assume an active and public role in the reform movements of the day? Introduced by Angelina Grimke, the mostly white women at the mixed race 1837 convention hotly debated then adopted, not unanimously, a resolution saying that no American women should be bound by traditional limits on what they were able to do in the political realm. Grimke wrote that women were quite properly concerned with political matters, and should exert whatever influence they could muster. This was a firebrand statement, very radical and exciting for its day. Gordon counts it highly as do many other historians. Jack Larkin talks about the interconnected issues of woman's rights and abolitionism which came to a head in 1840 with a split in the abolition movement, one faction deciding that these pushy women should be shut out. They were not shut up, though; the Grimke sisters and a small number of radicals continued to combine women's rights with abolitionism. Larking writes, "These women confronted a deeply ingrained tradition—the notion that women did not and should not speak in public. The first women lecturers were Sarah and Angelina Grimké. They began by addressing all-female audiences—itself a violation of custom—but soon went on to speaking before mixed groups of men and women, an even more serious offense." All of this was before the Seneca Falls convention. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. And antecedent women's meetings such as the Anti-Slavery Convention of 1837 paved the way for conclaves that explicitly focused on women's rights; the first being the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, let me be clear that I admire all the work you do for Wikipedia, and I also admire your determination to give proper recognition to groups that have been historically marginalized. But I think you should trust the judgment of professional historians on this issue. There aren't many academic groups that are more sensitive to issues of racial justice than historians of the women's movement, and they agree that Seneca Falls was the first women's rights convention (as distinct from a convention at which women's rights were among the topics that were discussed).

I think you are reading too much into what Gordon wrote. You reference a book that she co-edited, African American Women and the Vote, 1837–1965, which was published in 1997. In it she said the 1837 Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women replaced the Seneca Falls convention as the starting point for that book, but she didn't make any claims beyond that. No one within the community of professional historians of the women's movement believes that Ann Gordon has claimed that Seneca Falls was not the first women's rights convention. If Gordon wanted to claim that, she would do so plainly and unambiguously, and a vigorous debate would follow. None of that has happened. The entire community of professional historians of the women's movement, including Gordon herself, is acting as if she never made such a claim, and that's because she didn't.

The 1837 convention insisted on the right of women to fight on an equal basis with men against the oppression of another group, the slaves. That was definitely a necessary, admirable and historic step, but it still did not challenge a key social norm of that time, which was that the role of women was to serve others. The Seneca Falls convention, on the other hand, was called by women specifically to fight against their own oppression, and that was an earth-shaking step that is still reverberating. It was the first convention that was called specifically to fight for women's rights as such. And that characteristic is what made it a women's rights convention, which is a qualitatively different thing than a convention whose discussion included women's rights.

Because professional historians overwhelmingly (and unanimously, as far as I can discover) agree that Seneca Falls was "the first women's rights convention", generally using that exact phrasing, it is appropriate to describe it in Wikipedia just that way. Wikipedia's role is to accurately present the view of recognized experts.

I think I have provided ample evidence to show that I would be justified in restoring the phrase "the first women's rights convention at Seneca Falls" in the article on The Revolution (newspaper). Would it help if I provided a specific citation for that statement? Considering the overwhelming support for that statement by professional historians of the women's movement, I personally don't think that is really necessary, but it certainly wouldn't do any harm if that's what you would prefer. I would probably cite The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Social History, published in 2012, which describes Seneca Falls as "the first women's rights convention" on page 56. Bilpen (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I updated the Seneca Falls Convention article with documentation to show that it was the first women's convention. Bilpen (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

rfa

Any particular reason you think the ip notifying the fringe noticeboard about an RFA is inappropriate? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the note is a violation of WP:CANVASS, and the IP is obviously an experienced editor who is trying to avoid being connected to his or her main account. Even though I voted to oppose Keithbob's RFA, and the IP is also aiming for more people to oppose Keithbob, I still don't agree with the IP's methods. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hurt Locker

The review that I deleted from the Wikipedia for The Hurt Locker was a gross, unprofessional exaggeration of this film's merits. To include this review would be highly misleading to those considering watching this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:4123:15A3:9AE7:F9C2:943E (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The review was published by a reliable source. I think your dislike of it is out of bounds. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

please stop harrassing me

I believe your behaviour constitutes harassment and I would like to discuss it with you rather than involve other parties, unless you would like to bring in other parties which I am quite open to. We already had an extensive discussion here, on this Talk page, over your false allegations of edit warring, did we not? Yet you repeat the same false charge on my Talk page. Do you understand that the appropriate behaviour here is engage on the article Talk page? So why aren't you? Do you see, on that Talk page, where I produce the evidence that the material "received no objection" is false, and that my very clear objection received no response on the article Talk page? Just what is stopping you from expressing your opinion on the content matter there? Does the content issue matter to you? What exactly is your object here? Do you think I am ignorant of the fact that petrarchan47 wants the material included (in the introduction, if in the body it would be less problematic because what's wrong with it could potentially be filled out)? Please be advised that I am quite aware such that your posting notices on my Talk page does not inform me of anything, except that you evidently wish to aggravate another Wikipedia editor.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you, I'm acting to protect the Wiki. Your behavior is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere. Your arguments for your position are weak and not based on policy. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So, as self-appointed Defender of the Wiki, you are going to harass me until the Wiki is liberated, is that the plan? Here's news for you: the "Wiki" is not on my Talk page. re "your behaviour is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere", please consult the nearest mirror and then consider whether your go-to-war mentality is creating more heat than light. As for my arguments, you haven't been engaging them. This is your invitation to do so. You see the Talk page for the VENONA project? Why are you not making a comment there instead of on my Talk page? By the way, why do you refuse to answer my questions?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

History of Creationism

RE: Hi there, not sure I understood WP:Weight the same way you did? Why must a detailed description of the science go in the lead on an article that already makes it clear this is a religious belief? Not disagreeing just looking to learn further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you pretending not to know that this topic is one used by religious people to discredit scientific theories, and vice versa? Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even slightly. I'm simply saying that WP:Weight makes no mention of the lead. The lead of that article makes it clear that it is a belief. The paragraph doesn't read right at that location in the article is my only problem with it. I don't, in any way, want it to appear as if I'm saying we should make it look like creationism is right. But I don't think that paragraph adds to the readability of or usefulness of that page as a resource on the history of creationism (a topic I would suspect to be of more interest to people who don't believe in nonsense that to creationists) where it is. If you can't point to the specifics of the policy which require it to bein the lead I suggest we take this to the talk page rather than your user page.SPACKlick (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Article talk page, yes. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

work with me here...

Please work with me here. There are a lot of inaccuracies and plain wrong information on Stop Islamization of America. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't thwart my efforts to remove blank cites, cites from biased authors, and stuff like that. Your templating of me was uncalledfor. -- Frotz(talk) 03:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reversions are about to hit #4. If they do, I'm reporting you at WP:3RRN.

My edit to SIOA here included the edit summary statement "I will be adding more sources for the disputed label." That's what I have been trying to do. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You saw the evidence of that when you saw an empty book cite. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I will concede to breaking the link to SIOA's website. It still stands that you need to stop coatracking with irrelevant and unobjective citations and accusing people who call you out on it. -- Frotz(talk) 04:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that right? I'm adding good, solid sources to support the label of "Islamophobic".

Why are you fighting the label so hard? It's accurate, descriptive and widely known. For Chrissakes, SIOA is the poster child for Islamophobia in the USA. I didn't know blinders came in such an extra large size. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

RE:What Makes You Beautiful

Yeah but it's true!! Look up "What Makes "U" Useful", it's like right there on the Muppet Wiki. I am a true Muppet Master. I know when that kinda stuff happens. -- 173.76.124.124 (talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, that means I will have to be even more alert for 'facts' added to Wikipedia supported by nothing other than the Muppet wiki. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Sex-selective abortion, you may be blocked from editing.

If you have genuine concerns about the RS status of the material added, please engage on the talk page, If you continue disruptive editing you will be reported. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

i dare you

Block me. I will do it again, i dare you to reply to my discussions rather owning articles and issuing warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya301 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

.

oops, I saw blocking warning on your page as well.

Come on discussions. People like Sitush are owing articles unnecessarily. And i have given explanation to each of my word.

For Sitush (with proofs and evidence) Arrogant-believes, his arguments and references are best (look at his discussion on his talk page, where he writes people to fuck off), Illogical- he cant digest logical evidence- still trying to get the biology definition in Math book: Eg; has written about khatris origin from Dashrath Sharma on Rajputs book, idiot- cant understand references and read them, racist (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Racism) Sitush come under this definition, look at his all articles, he only writes articles which classify people based on their features https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&action=history.

Each word is true and has a evidence for it. Read it by yourself before issuing warnings....

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Behringer NPOV_dispute

The Behringer article reads a lot like marketing material. I notice that it used to have a Wikipedia:NPOVD tag, but that it has been removed. Do you thing it should be added back? Robert.Harker (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm done with that topic because that company makes me too angry from their past behavior as intellectual property pirates. Before you go back and start working on it, you should see this diff of all the changes that have been made to the article since I worked on it last a couple of years ago. What you should notice is that hardly anything has been changed. So to answer your question, no, I don't think it deserves a POV tag. If you have ideas about how to improve it, then what it deserves is your attention on improvement. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Robert.Harker (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

ECat Edits

Let's see ... I've reverted twice, WITH discussion, and you've reverted edits by TWO authors THREE times (twice -- 18:36, 19:36 -- without joining the existing discussion). Seems to me that YOU have the three edit-war strikes. Alanf777 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ask yourself who is pushing a viewpoint, and who is trying to hold the topic down such that it conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. One of us it deeply involved, even entrenched in the topic. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Terence McKenna

I was hoping you might help me with a situation I'm encountering on the Terence McKenna article. There is an editor who insists on inserting critical material that, IMO, is unsupported, into this article. For instance, he has inserted the line "which the scientific community considers to be pseudoscience" after his Novelty Theory AND in the lead paragraph, with no support but a book by a film producer (not a member of the scientific community, and with no poll or study cited) and an article from a blog that says nothing about what the scientific community thinks. He will neither accept the addition of the name of the author who said this nor the amendment "some members of the scientific community". He also has inserted a paragraph criticizing his Stoned Ape Theory from a high school student's essay. If you could, please review the discussion on the talk page and help or at least advise. The same editor has been admonished for aggressive editing on the Rupert Sheldrake article; IMO, he has an agenda concerning anything he sees as pseudoscience, and he is utilizing improper sources to support his editing. I don't want this to descend into edit warring.Rosencomet (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, he also slapped this notice of a DS on my talk page the moment I modified his edit: [2], even though I never edited the pages in the DS, IMO implying that I might be in trouble if I touched his edits. Rosencomet (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I will look into this issue. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Demonstration bomb information?

Do you believe that Hawkeye's removing of the demonstration info on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki article is valid? He kept on removing it without explaining. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's talk about this at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Proposed demonstration where Hawkeye7 has opened up a discussion. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Curtis LeMay

You restored my deletion of the two sentences concerning the atomic attack on the USSR that LeMay somewhat jokingly called "killing a nation." My deletion is based on it being misleading to the actual events. What actually occurred was Truman's Secretary of Defense Forrestal was asking the Joint Chiefs of Staff questions about the effectiveness of atomic bombs if the U.S. used them against the USSR. In response to these questions, the Harmon committee was created to study the effects of a nuclear strike against that country. Of course, the committee first needed to know the nature of such an attack. In response to the committee's request, LeMay and SAC then came up with the 133 atom bomb attack on 70 cities. Months later, in May, 1949, the Harmon committee presented its report to the the Joint Chiefs which stated that Soviet industry would quickly recover from such an attack. The Wikipedia text, among other things, seems to be implying that LeMay had come up with this plan for mass destruction on his own accord. The listed source, "The Bomb, A Life" is an entertaining but subjective read. The author, frequently writes with what I consider an omniscient point of view.

Later in the article, the Wikipedia text reads, "When Wallace announced his selection in October 1968, LeMay opined that he, unlike many Americans, clearly did not fear using nuclear weapons." If sources for such controversial passages as this can't be found, I certainly think they need deleting.TL36 (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A good solution would be to add context rather than delete text. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see adding content in most cases but for quotes like the "... LeMay opined that he, unlike many Americans, clearly did not fear using nuclear weapons," I don't see doing anything but deleting them unless someone comes up with a source for them.TL36 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

On the Curtis LeMay talk page where the Japanese firebombing was discussed, you stated, "the civilian deaths were not collateral; they were the purpose, the aim." Do you have a source for that belief?TL36 (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What source believes differently? LeMay had his bombers drop incendiaries on ten square miles of Tokyo in a giant X pattern centered on Tokyo's most populated area, the slums, if you will. The houses were made of wood, bamboo, plaster and paper, the population density was very high, more than 100,000 per square mile. I have no idea what sources there are which would support your implied position, ones that say LeMay was not trying to kill people. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

But for argument's sake, here are some sources discussing LeMay's intent to kill Japanese people in cities:

• Targeting Civilians in War, pages 131 to 137
• Bombing Civilians: A Twentieth-Century History – "According to Henry Arnold and Curtis LeMay, bombing civilians was essential in order to break Japanese morale."[3]
• World War II in the Pacific: An Encyclopedia, page 178
• Why They Die: Civilian Devastation in Violent Conflict, page 42, quoting LeMay saying "there are no innocent civilians," with analysis of the results.
• Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, pages 92 to 94
• Civilians and Modern War: Armed Conflict and the Ideology of Violence, page 72
• Dark Sun: The Making Of The Hydrogen Bomb, page 21. Quotes LeMay saying after the war, "Killing Japanese [civilians] didn't bother me very much at that time."
• A Companion to World War II, page 557. Discusses whether it was LeMay who was the architect of firebombing Japanese cities. Conclusion is that most historians say LeMay was the architect. The minor voices are Searle who says the idea was already present at USAAF and LeMay was merely the first great success story. Werrell says the pressure to firebomb Japan was put upon LeMay's predecessor. Downes says that leaders in Washington wanted Japan to be defeated without an invasion, so the firebombing would have happened with or without LeMay. Sherry and Frank, however, emphasize that LeMay was not a passive agent of the concept of firebombing civilians—he was enthusiastic, aggressive and inventive, and he was the first American to do it. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked the question because I wasn't aware of any mainstream source that states the only aim of the fire raids was to kill civilians[as many as possible] and that's how I interpreted what you wrote. The question wasn't meant to imply anything or be provocative, although it apparently was. Of the sources you listed, A Companion to World War II, seems to come close to saying killing people was the primary goal with Searle's "civilian casualties were one of the explicit objectives of area incendiary bombing." However, if one gets Searle's essay, The Firebombing of Tokyo in April 1945, the paragraph from which that was taken begins with "Japanese industry was the primary target of the area raids, as it was for precision raids." Searle's essay does lay out a convincing case that killing civilians was one of the primary objectives, although certainly not the only goal. I'll try to ask questions in the future more directly aimed toward improving an article.TL36 (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, cousin

Are we related? Are you related to Ruth Esther Knowles (Born - 13 Dec 1823 - Bladen County, North Carolina)? See Richard F. Lyon. Dicklyon (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My earliest known Knowles relative is Edmund Knowles, born in 1685 in Lancashire, England, who came to the American colonies as an indentured servant. After service, he prospered modestly, lived a long life, and died in what is now Delaware in 1762, before all that flap about King George. See the website KNOWLES/KNOLES/NOLES Family Association, even though you'll laugh at its Web 1.0 MS FrontPage appearance. The page "Edmund 'Old Silverhead' Knowles Line" has more detail on this guy. None of the pages list a Ruth Esther Knowles as far as I can tell, or any Ruth who was born in 1823. My dad's name is on that last link—Ronald Robert Knowles—but not his wives or his kids (or their kids). The list is not complete, by any stretch.

You know, we're all cousins if you go back far enough. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it shows a George married to Esther in Bladen County NC a few generations earlier, so that's probably her granddad. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's possible. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Name too close to official entity

Hiya! I know there's a rule about no official names but I don't know the method to report it. There's a User talk:City of Mt. Shasta making edits to the Mount Shasta, California webpage. Thanks for letting me know what to do or referring it to the right people. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a perfectly appropriate template for their talk page, one that asks them to change their name. It also calls an admin to come look at the issue, with the admin usually soft-blocking the account. I will go place that template. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done TPS-ing, noticed this. Bencherlite^Talk 20:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!! I don't know how to find all the templates for everything yet! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti

Hello again Binksternet, I've talked with you about a few things here and there, starting with that person who was trying to get the old map of the world into various articles about the Americas, plus upgrade the history of various cities in California. Actually, truth be told, I have a small backlog of questions for you, concerning more recent things, unrelated to that.  :-)

  But first things first. My *most* recent question for you, is from yesterday. You opened a new section at AN/I to propose there be enacted a "Site ban for Bladesmulti: After taking far too much time clicking on links, reading discussions and looking into this mess, I don't see any way out except to ban Bladesmulti from Wikipedia." — Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 27 Jan

  There is a slight possibility now, of a save at the last minute. Pending some SPI report coming back clean, and some vastly-improved-performance by the editor in question. So my request is, can you peek again at the AN/I thread, and see whether you would be willing to defer the question of a siteban, until a future time? Possibly in twelve hours, or possibly in a week, or with luck, maybe never, if Bladesmulti can shape up. My thinking is that, the current thread is long and vast... the diffs of poor behavior are spread throughout it... and therefore to save people from needing to spend *further* effort clicking and reading... maybe we can close the current thing as "no action this second but pending further developments swift justice may well occur" ... or if not actual close it, then {{collapse}} it temporarily, until events outside of AN/I have taken their course?

1. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Site_ban_for_Bladesmulti , the subthread you began at 22:59, 27 Jan (mentorship began at 19:38, 28 Jan)
2. User_talk:Bladesmulti#mentor , proposal accepted
3. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#OccultZone_and_Bladesmulti_Sockpuppet.3F , battleground stalled
4. User_talk:Bladesmulti#Dear_74. , attitude improves
5. User_talk:Tryptofish#Criticism_of_Jainism. , attitude improves further
6. WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Temporary_resolution , suggested cease-fire

Not sure if the hat/close/collapse/somesuch that I'm suggesting is obviously heretical, clearly sound, or somewhere in the middle.  :-)   Consider it a suggestion that you take a peek, and then tell me where on the spectrum my scheme falls. Thanks much. p.s. And of course, WP:REQUIRED applies as always, you need not peek if you would prefer to avoid the remainder of the sordid saga. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion I started at ANI is not mine in the sense that I can stop it if I think it should be stopped. I could try hatting it but plenty of people will want to continue. I think the best I can do along the lines of your request is to declare that I think Bladesmulti should be given a chance under mentorship. Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Bink, I had rather expected a little more help with the rape article so can only hope that my additions are OK. At any rate, nobody seems to be adding any discussion to the talk page, so I'd assume that it is ready for another try at a review. Gandydancer (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please renominate it for GAN. I will jump in and review it again. Looks like it is in much better position now with the new Legacy section. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio

		The Original Barnstar
		For some really great work on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio. Your efforts made a huge difference and really worked to save the article. Also done in a way that promoted civil discourse among editors; thanks for that! BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! What a lovely gesture. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Slavery

Let's stop deleting sourced materials and making bogus excuses for doing so (ie I'm going to delete this because the article is about something else, even though the heading states otherwise). Also, there's no need to hit a new low and start making personal attacks (ie accusing me of sock puppetry for creating a wiki account in order to enhance accountability). Lets bring the discussion to the talk page, please. Thanks!--Imbored2013 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not whitewash or conceal the history of comfort women. If you don't like something (ex. like the fact that they existed), please use the talk page, rather than deleting content with reliable sources. Also, if you disagree with it on a historical factual basis, please be prepared to provide opposing historical sources (preferably academic sources).

In the latter case, if you have opposing material, include that with my content to balance the material out and show that there are multiple viewpoints on the matter. Don't just simply delete. Thanks!--Imbored2013 (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you can work with me to put the South Korean stuff in perspective, I think the article will be improved. Especially needed are some hard numbers showing how many women were kidnapped versus hired.

My wish is that the Japanese comfort women program of WWII is not watered down by a direct comparison with a later system which was a lot less evil. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources I included are both "South Korean stuff," as both authors are South Korean women. It seems like you are defending the male-dominated Korean nationalist historical framework, in which it's a bad thing when Japanese men prostitute Korean women, but it's ok when Korean men prostitute Korean women. When you say things like, "My wish is that the Japanese comfort women program of WWII is not watered down by a direct comparison with a later system which was a lot less evil," you are already asking the wrong historical questions. How does talking about Korean men's violation of Korean women "water down" Japanese men's violation of Korean women? And how can you say one is "a lot less evil" than the other, when both women's experiences are very similar? This is the kind of thinking South Korean women in the academia are trying to refute, as they view the mistreatment of Korean women by any men as equally wrong.

Anyway, its unbecoming a senior editor on wiki to delete content that includes reliable sources because of your original thinking (that one form of exploitation is "less evil" when it is done by men of the same race). If you disagree with South Korean women who want to give voice to South Korea's comfort women, I suggest you at least find sources that corroborate your views, whatever they are.--Imbored2013 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

So you have no inclination to add hard numbers? This is an encyclopedia, where such things matter. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

As the third largest contributor to this article, would you be interested in cosponsoring it at FAC? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would be proud to help. Binksternet (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

why did you remove the sentence on the McCarthyism page?

Your comment about removing it says "revert... the paragraph is about myths about McCarthy, not about whether McCarthy was ever right)" It is a one word sentence in the introduction about McCarthyism. To say that it is a paragraph is being generous and to say that the "paragraph" can only be about one topic implies that the sentence should have gone somewhere else rather than been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought the addition was clumsy and unclear. The references you selected show that historians are mostly in agreement regarding whether Alger Hiss was really a Communist spy. Your visible text says Hiss was "likely" a spy. This assertion would be more solid if historians were not so split on the matter. You failed to bring references showing that Hiss is considered innocent of espionage by quite a few historians. At any rate, the McCarthyism article is not the place to argue the Hiss case, and the lead section of any article is not the place for new evidence. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be a summary of the arguments found in the article body. If you feel otherwise, you can ask for opinions on the McCarthyism talk page. Binksternet (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

GovLinks

as a participant in the discussion, you might be interested in this thread. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The 1993 Philadelphia Meeting

I have left a proposed rewrite of the 1993 Philadelphia Meeting on the talk page for the Holy Land Foundation Wikipedia page for your input. Livingengine1 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Last SIOA edit

Yo, the Anti-Muslim orgs category was removed because the category doesn't exist anymore. Poor decision, but leaving a redlink won't change that. Also, what's the deal with Expo as a source? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha, I have taken out the deleted category. The Expo.se source is not unreliable by itself, being a Swedish group working against hate. Its use in the article was not appropriate because Breivik's words were being quoted out of context, without analysis. His strategy appears to be one of confusing the media with contradictory motives. We cannot give the reader just one of his statements when others show it to be false or at least questionable. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I agree the bit doesn't belong in the article; I was just wondering at your suggestion that the source was unreliable, since it seemed fine to me. Looks like we're on the same page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Raising Caen

User_talk:Cynthiavictoria#Trying_to_give_the_fuller_picture -- EEng (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan

This puts me in an awkward position. You and I have worked well together in the past and I certainly don't want to spoil that. What policy or guideline gave you the right to do that? And what do I do now that Petrarchan told me I could contribute no more on his/her user talk? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed what I believe are the relevant guidelines (WP:TALK and WP:USER) and I don't see anything that entitled you to delete my comment on another editor's user talk. As such I believe WP:TPO applies. Please self-revert, or I'll ask an admin to do it. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

So you wish to violate Petrarchan's admonition to you to stay off her user page? What guideline allows that? Binksternet (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, he/she specifically asked me to answer his/her question and then stay off his/her user talk. It's up to him/her to decide whether my answer was acceptable or not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem you have with using "she" and "her" with regard to User Petrarchan47? Don't make her into a faceless enemy by keeping her gender a question. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

AGF. I call everyone "he/she" until I have evidence one way or the other. I try not to make assumptions. How do you know Petrarchan is female? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your last post on her page, it was not an answer. Do we both agree on this point? It was a reply, yes, but it did not answer her question, and instead became an accusation. She allowed you one final answer but you did not answer. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. "She" asked me to substantiate my accusation, so I did. You don't get to be the arbiter of what's an "answer" and what isn't. I'm done bickering. Two questions: Will you or won't you self revert? And if you don't, what do you suppose I should do? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

With this pair of posts, you severely misrepresented Petra's response to Brian. You said she "failed to address most of his arguments" yet you ignored the fact that she responded to Brian's accusation that Petra was pushing the "bullet-to-the-head" news source as a big news source. She explains that the Buzzfeed source was only used minimally, to explain why Snowden's lawyer was asking for more security, which was another of Brian's complaints.

The biggest problem I see is that you are following Brian's example by making this content argument a personal vendetta against Petra. Has her response been personal as well? Yes, it has, but I see Brian as the source problem, you as an enabler of Brian, and Petra as the victim despite her lashing back in kind. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been followed around by Bdell555 for over a month. Due to time constraints and a severe dislike for noticeboards, I have let it slide over and over. I first noticed that after an interaction with him at Snowden talk, Bdell555 was countering me on an entirely unrelated matter at Jimbo's, where I had made my most recent contribution. Next thing I knew, it seemed a regular occurrence. When I started to help with the WikiProject Mass Surveillance (the Day We Fight Back), there he was again, weighing in against it. I made a post there talking about an NSA whistleblower called Russ Tice. After his visit to TDWFB, Bdell555 next hit the Tice bio and essentially smeared the man, adding and wikilinking the word "psychotic" in the first paragraph of his article. I next spent days fighting with him at the BLP noticeboard, where I asked for help but was ignored. Then I tussled with him at the Tice page for a few days, all the while getting more exasperated since I had other things I needed to be doing. Bdell555 was meanwhile back at the Snowden article making long comments like this full of original research, and demanding that I read and respond to them all. I asked for the comments to be more concise and contain more RS, and said I would respond to readable, useable posts. The diatribes did not end, and I finally was exhausted, and admitted it. This was when Fleischman showed up and claimed that I was ignoring the good faith contributions of Bdell555, and complained about my behaviour. I was hoping this meant Dr F had actually read through the contributions and deemed them good faith (as opposed to using the opportunity to pile on), and that he would be able to re-write them in a way I could understand. If in fact, there was nothing to those posts I was being told to read, save for POV/ OR/ SYNTH, then my exhaustion was well-founded. I was asking for help and truly thought Dr F would respond in good faith. I believe the exact opposite happened. I am wondering if you have an idea of a course of action, Binksternet, for one who finds themselves in this position? petrarchan47tc 00:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Would WP:IBAN work for you? If so, I'll propose it. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so fast. IBAN is new to me. All of it makes sense to me except for the ban on reverting edits. I'm not that confident in my editing to claim I can't be reverted. What has happened feels to me like team-Wikihounding. Though it wasn't ever planned that way to begin with, there was a choice to oppose me in union with another editor, but without justification. Once it was shown that the reason for the opposition was invalid, there was a dance done to obfuscate this by starting new topics on the Snowden talk page and then hounding me at mine. Claims made against me about having a bad reaction when my POV is opposed are untrue. This can be shown by talk page. I tried to work with Bdell555 but I just couldn't understand what he was trying to say. I think if the Snowden talk page, and the edits at my talk and other articles I've worked on where I was followed over the past month, were thoroughly scanned, it would show a pattern of editing that should probably result in some topic bans. I'm not familiar with all of the guidelines and don't know exactly what has happened in WP:WIKITERMS, but it feels very wrong and has absolutely interfered with my ability to enjoy editing here. petrarchan47tc 02:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bink, I already understood your position about why you believe my answer was inappropriate. I disagree, but I don't think we will make progress discussing it further. But, you didn't answer my two questions, which I ask in good faith. Will you or won't you self revert? (Based on your response, I suspect the answer is no.) And if you don't, what do you suppose I should do? I ask the second question because Petrarchan clearly wanted me to answer. I could try to answer again to your satisfaction, or I could not (leaving Petrarchan's request unfulfilled? not sure), or I could leave a note on Petrarchan's page saying I tried to answer but you didn't approve (a violation of Petrarchan's request). I just want to know what you were/are expecting from me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is one of those times when any response on Petra's talk page will not be helpful; not to you, nor Petra, nor the project. I'm getting ready to post something about hounding and banning at AN, and I'll ping you about it so you can express your thoughts. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I can safely interpret that as no to the first question, nothing to the second question. Re your AN report, are you talking about me or about Brian Dell? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about Petrarchan47, and those who have either hounded her or interacted disruptively with her. The diffs I look at will determine who I bring to the discussion. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed Brian's interactions with Petrarchan, but I doubt you'll find much ammunition against me unless you consider "disagreement" to be disruption or hounding. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I truly don't think that this sudden urge to micro-manage the one article I've turned my attention to at the moment is the most reasonable response, Fleischman. petrarchan47tc 23:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• More chatter is here. petrarchan47tc 00:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

He is now breathing down my neck at The Day We Fight Back, at this point it is literally him or me. I am liking your original suggestion a lot right now, as well as the second one. I cannot edit here with this guy on the same articles. It seems obvious that if I am working on only one article, and have this guy reverting me even there for the past two days, of all articles that he could be editing - something needs to be done. I am not going to edit here any longer if this continues. petrarchan47tc 07:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you need to grow a thicker skin if you can't handle a few reversions. I've deleted a tiny fraction of your work. I'm not following you around; we simply have overlapping interests. There are lots of articles you've edited recently that I've never touched. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious if you saw this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"May we recommend"

(Since that big strong Bracketbot visited you recently...) User:EEng#.28thumbs_up.29 -- EEng (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That's funny! Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Owain Phyfe

Dear Binksternet, I was wondering if you could look over the article Owain Phyfe, which has just been nominated for deletion. Thanks in advance.Rosencomet (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor retention

So, you're not at all concerned that on the heels of a dispute about a file Doc starts a bizarre content dispute pushing a point that is physically impossible and disputed by higher quality sources on an article that passed FA last month? And if I did this to Doc I suppose you would take the exact opposite stance. You see yourself as a "bully fighter", but in your way you are as much a bully as anybody I know on Wikipedia. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not talking about Doc, nor am I concerned about him. I was watching your interaction with Cullen and responding to that alone. What did you intend to communicate with the heading "Editor retention"? Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Cullen has lied repeatedly to sway this debate. Remember those two books that discuss the image? They don't at all, even the one with it on the cover doesn't. I'm feeling ganged-up on for the last time and I'm not even sure why I waste my time here anymore. Thanks for always being there to remind me and everyone around how bad I am for the project. FTR, there are now 1400 words devoted to drugs and 1200 devoted to his three studio albums, and Cullen keeps pushing for more so that the mugshot is justified, since most of the article will be about his drug use and crimes, not his music or life. Its WP:UNDUE, and its revenge for opposing the mugshot. I can't believe that you can't see that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not talking about the content dispute, about drugs or whatever should have more text devoted. I'm talking about your personal style, Gabe. So quickly you jump in front of someone's face to make an argument personal, especially by switching to the person's talk page as you are doing now. It was a terrible decision of yours to take the mugshot argument to Cullen's talk page, as if it was Cullen's personal editing style that was the problem, since most of the resulting very long conversation would have been of interest to the other Hendrix editors. All of that should have stayed on the article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, but you called me the bully in a thread where Doc is insisting that we add an impossible factoid out of spite and you just look the other way. I'm not a big fan of your personal style either, but I don't judge you for it at every turn and attempt to humiliate you as often as I can. There are plenty of editors that are far worse than me and many of them are admins, so what's your point? Oh well, I wanted to write a book anyway, and I'll never get it done arguing with Doc about chronological impossibility. Why won't you at least weigh-in that we shouldn't include a falsehood just because two bad sources repeat it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• FTR, Cullen agrees with me about the drug issue and they apologized to me for misleading people. So next time that you go around calling people bullies on talk pages at least ask the person who you think is being bullied if they need your "help" before smearing the good name of a well-intentioned editor. Its not often that a bullied person apologizes to their bully. You should have stayed out of it, because you do not show good judgment about these things, IMO. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, this is the proper solution: Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial, and its exactly what I went to Cullen's talk page to discuss in the first place, before you jumped in five minutes later and side-tracked the whole thread trying to "put me in my place". Please stop acting like an admin assigned to watch me, because you do not possess the right skill-set. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bullying

I prefer not to discuss article content issues on my talk page. Such issues are for the article talk page.

Regarding the label "bully" as applied to you, take a look here:

• Your hounding accusation against Dubmill. You used strong-arm tactics to scare away another good faith editor who was interested in the same single article as you were—David Gilmour. You misrepresented to Dubmill that he was breaking the guideline at WP:HOUNDING; the truth is that there is no possibility of hounding at one single article. Hounding requires the following around of another editor to multiple articles. Dubmill backs off and apologises. You then showed one more intersection of interests, a change made by Dubmill at the Who a few hours after your change. Again, this is a misrepresentation of HOUNDING, since Dubmill was already interested in music articles, and in that page, and it was being changed by many other editors at the time. Note that "your" addition was flawed: " They subsequently earned achieved a number of further hit singles"; one too many words. Dubmill fixed it handily. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I know you have acted in a bullying manner before, and I can see several similar cases in your recent edit history. I don't care to list them all as it would take too much time for doubtful results. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dubmill corrected the exact same sentences that I had edited at two different articles five days in a row after I reverted him once (you missed it at the Who). That's hounding, and FTR I stopped editing David Gilmour to stay away from him. It would be FA right now if I had stayed there. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Will you at least acknowledge that you might not have seen all the right diffs regarding Dumill? Why do you think I havn't edited there in several months? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about, Bink. You can't go around "label bombing" people while also refusing to discuss the allegations; its cowardly, IMO. I never even saw Dubmill before I reverted them once (ironically, it was a "t" to a "T"), then they copyedited the exact same sentences that I wrote or edited for five days in a row at two different articles. Please, if you put into the permanent record that I bullied them by warning them about hounding at least do me the courtesy of explaining how that's not hounding? I'll bet you if I did that to you for the next five days you would take me to AN/I. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly interesting to see my editing discussed here in this way but I don't have any idea who is the subject of "editor retention". I did not lie if "lie" is defined as intentionally providing false information. My own Google searches produced some results that led me to believe that two books about mugshots probably discussed this particular mugshot. It does appear on the cover of one of those books, but the other mentions Hendrix only in passing. I apologized to GabeMc because I was wrong in my initial assessment of those books. But I never, ever pushed for more coverage of Hendrix's drug use, but I won't accuse anyone else of lying about me since that almost always accomplishes nothing, and apologies have already been offered and accepted all around. Instead, I observed that in my opinion, it would be good to integrate the alcohol and violence content into the narrative of his life, along with the drug use and the Toronto incident, and also observed that I felt that content about his life belonged before the section about his death for simple chronological reasons. Just because I offered that observation to another editor, that doesn't mean that I agree with that editor's or another editor's subsequent additions to the biography. I am not a ringleader. My goal here, as always, has been to try to improve the encyclopedia, and I have repeatedly said that I would accept consensus about the fate of the image, even if it went against my own view of the matter. During this dispute, I have always tried to acknowledge the validity of and understand the concerns of those I disagreed with on the immediate matter. This has been a learning experience for me on image use policy, and I do think that it is an interesting "edge case" that brings up tough questions and good arguments on both sides. Whenever I have been challenged, I have tried my best to answer honestly, and when I realized that some of my points had been weak, I conceded that. So, I regret the errors I have made, but do continue to believe that the substance of my position in this dispute has been sound and based on a reasonable interpretation of policies and guidelines. I hope that it is OK with you, Binksternet, for me to try to explain myself here. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Cullen328, as far as I am concerned me are fine; I know you were acting in good-faith. I am sorry that I used the wrong word above because misleading is much more accurate; you didn't lie because it wasn't intentional; you absolutely meant well for all. What I was trying to point out here is that Bink entered into the permanent record that I was bullying you, but you later gave me a barnstar and apologized, so I seriously doubt that you felt bullied. Its not right to label situations in such a way that the bullied isn't in on the supposed victimization. When you asked me to stop posting at your talk I stopped immediately and never edited it since. Editor retention? Well, this is just not worth it anymore and I am giving much more to the project than I am getting respect for. FTR, one of Binks best buddies is the biggest bully I've EVER seen on Wikipedia, and its not me. All I ask is that Binksternet leave me alone in that he stops intervening in content dispute and labels me. Take me to AN/I or stop smearing my name. I think that's perfectly within the spirit of Wikipedia, but what you are doing is pre-pubescent shaming like a child at school. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Advice going forward: Resist the urge to jump off the article talk page and take your discussions to a single user's talk page. That's what I'm talking about, Gabe. By doing so you make the argument personal, getting in that person's face. You do it a lot—it is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere. My respect for your editing ability has not flagged, not ever, but from the very beginning of you and me working on the same music articles, working on the same side of an argument, I have warned you about aggressive behavior. Now would be a good time to take an honest account of yourself. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I will say this. Accusations of bullying and whatnot roll right off my unusually thick hide. I do call a spade a spade, with no qualms. But I want it made clear that I had no Idea of the FUR for this image[4], or this image.[5] I am officially pissed off right now. Doc talk 08:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The timeline of the Dubmill HOUNDING case

• GabeMc and Dubmill have both been editing for years, with Dubmill the more veteran of the two. Here is a chart of their interactions on the same few pages. The chart says Dubmill was there before GabeMc on all the articles except David Gilmour's bio. Nevertheless, Dubmill had been working at the Gilmour article for years.
• At Donovan, Death of Ian Tomlinson, User talk:Diannaa, User talk:Soxwon, and User talk:Favonian, GabeMc and Dubmill were miles apart in terms of time—too far apart to count for hounding—but Dubmill was there first.
• At the Keith Moon bio, Dubmill was there first, GabeMc followed 11 days later, then Dubmill followed with more changes 28 days later. This is not hounding.
• So now we come to the meat of it: three articles with quick sequences of editor interaction.
• At the David Gilmour article, GabeMc had been editing it since October 2010 and Dubmill since July 2011. On October 14, 2013, GabeMc reverted an IP editor and restored lower case "t" in "the Orb" used mid-list.[6] A bit more than an hour later, Dubmill changed it to capital "T",[7] saying in his edit summary that (he thought) this was proper following of the Manual of Style. Nine minutes later, GabeMc puts the lower case 't' back,[8] saying that list case is the same as sentence case. Dubmill appears to accept this during a week in which GabeMc makes many changes (diff includes minor work by a few other editors) to the article without interference by Dubmill. On October 21 after seeing the article improved by a handful of changes by GabeMc, Dubmill made some innocuous improvements along the same lines. GabeMc continued with his series of changes. Dubmill corrected old, existing text not supported by reference, then made an innocuous improvement to old, existing text. This was followed an hour later by GabeMc touching up the exact same sentence that Dubmill had been working on. In a collegial atmosphere, this sort of interaction can be seen as teamwork, while in a combative atmosphere it can appear as WP:OWNership issues. So far, the interchange looks benign. GabeMc continues working through the next day. Dubmill joins in six hours later to make two edits. GabeMc continues to work on the article on October 22,[9], while Dubmill offered the odd, useful edit at 08:20, October 23.
• Meanwhile, at the Who article, Dubmill had been happily working at it since April 2009. Dubmill's most recent edit was October 1, 2013. GabeMc, after working fairly well with Dubmill on the Gilmour biography for two weeks, took a 16 hour break from editing, as we all do. Upon returning from his break he did not resume the Gilmour bio but instead chose to visit the Who article at 19:25, October 23, his very first visit, making six edits. About two hours later Dubmill corrected a flawed sentence which had been added by GabeMc in the second paragraph: "They subsequently earned achieved a number of further hit singles..." Dubmill could have removed earned or achieved to fix it, but he opted to reword it slightly to form the just-as-effective: "Several further hit singles followed...", accompanied by the edit summary, "Attempt at less awkward wording." Twelve minutes later GabeMc swoops in and changes the same sentence to read, "Several more hit singles followed...",[10] then another tweak to the same text 5 minutes after that to yield, "A string of hit singles followed..." This action effectively says "[even though I am new to the article which is your long-term interest] don't touch my stuff, not even to fix glaring flaws." The possible collegial teamwork has gone to a challenge of WP:OWN.
• So here's where it gets a lot warmer: GabeMc next makes a couple of small edits to the Gilmour and Hendrix biographies, then he goes to Joseph Costa (aviator) to "improve prose". This is GabeMc's very first visit to that page, and it arrives just six hours after Dubmill's very first edit to the article. The Costa biography was not part of a noticeboard discussion, nor part of a WikiProject discussion (it doesn't even have a talk page), so I have no idea what brought either editor to the article to edit it one time each. Neither editor's changes were problematic, but the presence of GabeMc following Dubmill to two articles on the same day (October 23) indicates WP:HOUNDING.
• Next, it appears that GabeMc is okay with Dubmill's work at the Gilmour biography. After a couple of small improvement edits each, at 18:02, October 24, GabeMc reverts a third editor's work back to the Dubmill version. All is not okay though, because the next interaction is this accusation by GabeMc of HOUNDING by Dubmill, the exact opposite of what just happened. Sequences like this are what caused me to call GabeMc a bully. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternate version

• I noticed a lot of "he was there first" or "he's been editing Wikipedia longer", which is embarrassingly irrelevant, Bink. Nice cherry-pick, but your timeline is off, or missing key data. Here's an alternate version. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• 21 October 2013: here Dubmill copyedited the exact passages I was editing just 17 minutes prior. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• 22 October 2013: here in Dubmill's first edits of the day thay copyedit the exact passage I had edited just 6.5 hours earlier. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• 23 October 2013: here in Dubmill's first edits of the day they correct my edit from 9 hours prior. Again, I appreciate that they fixed an error, but the closeness with which they followed my work is unsettling. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• FTR, on 23 October, in addition to editing my work at David Gilmour, Dubmill tweaked my work at the Who 2.5 hours after I made the edit. So that's confronting my work at two different pages within hours on the same day. They said this was not intended to hound me, so I'll WP:AGF for now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• 24 October 2013: here in Dubmill's first edits of the day they corrected my work on a passage I edited just hours earlier. Yes, I missed the redundant word, so I appreciated the correction, but the way that they were doing it is giving me the impression that they are following my work with the intent to cause me distress. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Like I said, please take me to AN/I if you think that my behaviours are so innappropriate, but by acting like prosecutor, judge, and jury you are really operating your own personal "judgement counsel". I did not bully Dubmill; at worst I misinterpreted his actions. Don't you see that you shouldn't be interpreting the actions of an editor that you no longer AGF for? Anyway, as far as I knew Dubmill and I worked it out and never bothered each other again. I havn't edited Gilmour since November, and the incident occurred 4 months ago!!!. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I get that you don't think you are a bully. I think you are one, that this one example clearly shows it, and that this example is one among many. I also respect your ability to edit articles. More than that I think you are a very sharp guy. Your one problem I have warned you about for more than a year now is that you are too aggressive when making arguments. So since you refuse to see it, or you refuse to admit it with others watching the discussion, I will stop trying to convince you of the rectitude of my observation. Go forth and edit: ultimately it's the reader who will benefit. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that your observations are most worthy of consideration, Binksternet, although I usually refrain from judgments so stark as "bully". That's just an aspect of my personality. GabeMc, I agree that you are a very useful contributor to this encyclopedia. But in recent weeks, I have noticed a tendency on your part to ascribe bad motives to editors with whom you are engaged in routine content disagreements. If I had a more sensitive personality, I would certainly have felt bullied by you. It got very stressful for me. There are a lot of very productive contributors who have more sensitive personalities. I know some who have been deeply hurt by interactions with aggressive personalities here, and have either stopped editing or greatly reduced their participation. The encyclopedia needs those contributors. So I encourage you to monitor and moderate your own behavior, and always consider the destructive impact that an aggressive response may have on a productive contributor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll take what you guys have said to heart. I don't want to bully anyone, but I get very passionate when I feel that people are treating me disrespectfully and/or misrepresenting facts. However, I need to be able to see how my actions might upset others, and be considerate about that; I get it and I'll work on it from here on out. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I'll try my best to take the high road. I will say that I have not once used profanity or name calling on Wikipedia, which I cannot say for many others. Also, to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever stood up for me when I was being bullied, especially by admins. I think that whole blow-up with Bwilkins altered my behavior a bit; nobody really held him accountable for his bulling of me, so it seemed like I was fair game and unprotected. Nonetheless, I'm sorry I was aggressive, Cullen328, but FTR you never actually said or implied that I was bothering you until right before the last time I edited your page. Had you asked me to stop sooner I would have, which is what I do when I think that people are being aggressive on my talk page, since there aren't any bully patrols protecting me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Cinematic techniques and Sound

Hi there, I noticed that the Sound section of the Cinematic techniques article is a bit light-weight in comparison to the visual area. Equally, there don't seem to be many articles covering the topic of sound with regards to film-making. You seem to have knowledge (and interest) in that area, and maybe you could expand it a bit? Having article-stubs for the important topics of film-sound would be a great start, as I currently don't even know where to link to. I'm a bit lost there, and it isn't quite my area of expertise… Tony Mach (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let me give it some thought. Sound for film and sound for video are not part of my primary career, but I often read about the concepts and practices. Binksternet (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, there is an opportunity for you to write an article about the technique of zooming in film. Articles exist for Zoom lens and Digital zoom but there is no discussion of common analog zoom techniques and practices. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Having a starting point would already be good IMHO. Maybe simply first creating a "break-out" from the Cinematic techniques article? One can find articles on shots in general, on the Dutch angle and trunk shots, and what not – but virtually nothing on film sound as far as I can see… Doesn't have to be fancy nor perfect nor exhaustive – but at the moment there doesn't even seem to be much to link to from the cinematic techniques template.

And I'll have a look into Zooming! Tony Mach (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Done a first version: Zooming (filmmaking). And after doing the Cinematic techniques template I urgently need to do something else… :-) Tony Mach (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Rock on! The wiki is improved because of you. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Biting one's tongue

I was surprised to see you go after BlueSalix at the Live Wire AFD after you cautioned me against it. While I can't say I blame you, I do suggest you let it go. That user thrives on conflict, and I don't see anything positive coming from continued dialogue with him. Levdr1lp / talk 20:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Good advice! I'll take it... Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

More Tyrone Hayes

After several hours spent on removing more bias from Tyrone Hayes, a comment claiming the article has poor timelining and no citations was added to Talk:Tyrone_Hayes. I'm not sure what their problem is, I know you went through the article and I just put two hours more into it yesterday. It seems significantly cited and with a valid timeline to me. Perhaps the commentator is another of the WP:COI types? Please let me know your thoughts? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lemme go there and look. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing serious, but I'm not letting down my guard. The Hayes biography is on my watchlist and I will see all the changes made to it. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced material

If the English is poor,you can help improve it.And why is some material directly related to the subject unhelpful?Victorkkd (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand what is being said, so I cannot correct the English. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It is simple.For the first part,Zhu Shiwei's recollection leads to the conclusion that not only Nanking Massacre didn't exist in his pupil textbook,but that speaking of it in public could cause unfavorable result so his teacher talked about it gingerly.For the second part,None of People's Daily's news,articles,from 1960 to 1982 mentioned Nanking massacre.That's it.Victorkkd (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What about Hundred Regiment Offensive now.Just because the sources are in Chinese so they are not sources?Victorkkd (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your sourcing is very poor quality. Not because it is in Chinese. Binksternet (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I want to know,if I will show you the picture of Mao Xinyu's birth article on 炎黄春秋 in my hand,and giving the same source,will you stop your stubborn claim that"it is a blog source"?---Victorkkd (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A little more than that is needed to satisfy the WP:V requirement. You gave me the name of the magazine, but it is best to have the title of the magazine article, the name of the author, and the date of the publication. Can you find a link to the article in this search results page? If so, that would be even better. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.yhcqw.com/html/wqhg/2013/910/13910104255G6K0J927321H1C3271D2ECFG.html Here is the article but I don't see the need to give it so detailed even to the date.So I would do as much as adding the name of the author to the source.And by the way this is how some Chinese are writing on zh.wikipedia's Korean War.And if possible,I don't doubt they would add them to the English entry.And certainly many of the sources will never pass your standard of sourcing:

例如黄海道信川郡的屠杀。朝鲜指控这个郡里美军屠杀了三万五千余人并说美第八军司令向士兵号召“朝鲜人，哪怕是个幼儿，老人，你们的手也不要打战，杀呀！”。[156][157][158] North Korea accused US of massacring 35000 people in the county and said US Eighth Army Commander ordered"Don't tremble your hand even if he is an infant or oldman"

指控仅1950年7月，美军在韩国的13个市、道共屠杀了42008人。 There is accusation that in July 1950 alone.US army massacred 42008 civilians in South Korean soil.

朝鲜、中国、苏联等国政府多次谴责美军对朝鲜无辜平民的轰炸，称其为“违反国际法与人类道德常规的罪行”[166]。NK and China and Russia and so on condemned US bombing of innocent civilians as war crime.

有美军将女战俘脱成半裸的照片留下。[]有原海军陆战队回忆了对战俘的屠杀 A photo of US soldier stripped female POW. Former US marine recalled they killed POWs.

环球网报道美国还把中国被俘人员当作动物一样进行解剖来医学试验。有人看到活体解剖而被美军挖去了双眼。[196]。 According to Huanqiu net,US used Chinese POWs as guineas pigs.Someone was cut out his eyes by Americans because he saw living anatomy.

据遣返的战俘控诉，反共战俘挖出了张子龙的心脏以恐吓希望回国的战俘。[141]虽然美国方面的宣传品极力否认此事，甚至将其反宣传为共产党的污蔑[142]，然而反共战俘制（according to denouncement of repatriated POWs,anti-communist POWs cut out Zhang Zilong's heart to make an example,though US propoganda used every means to deny it and claim it is communist slander,it is still true that~~）

And Li Daan's cutting heart out of a Lin Xuepu is still there(I hadn't been able to find proof to disprove it before entry is locked)And I already cut off a lot of sensational and colorful words like"Li Daan grinned and licked off blood from the dagger"before it was locked last year.Just letting you know since your are interested in the subject too.--Victorkkd (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, man. You are a long-term edit warrior on Chinese Wikipedia, currently serving a one-month block which started on February 11, 2014. This fact does not help your credibility on English Wikipedia.

You supplied one URL as a source here, but it is a landing page for the magazine issue, a page to let the reader choose which article to read. The URL is not just one article. You must supply the exact URL of the article. As well, you need to know the author of the piece. The hard policy of WP:Verifiability is not going to change to accommodate your wishes.

You added the above text to the Chinese Wikipedia article about the battle, and yet you come to my page apparently claiming that "some Chinese" are writing their references like this. "Some Chinese" in this case apparently means you, a blocked Chinese editor.

Everything you have added is based on misrepresentation of the cited source, or based on a poor quality source. For instance, the following text that you wrote, :

环球网报道美国还把中国被俘人员当作动物一样进行解剖来医学试验。有人看到活体解剖而被美军挖去了双眼。

...is based on an internet discussion board,[11] which is not considered a WP:Reliable source for English Wikipedia. You are wasting your time here with your non-neutral attempt to change the facts of the battle. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

huanqiu.com is of course considered source for English wikipedia.You can seethis and this.The latter is worth mentioning because the referenced article is named"解放西藏史"（L LIBERATION OF TIBET）.And by all means this is not a discussion board,this is a public artice by all means just like the one of Dogan_Penjor_Rabgye entry. and you can ask anyone who knows Chinese on this page whether there is any sign indicating"discussing board"Go ahead and assert sth is non-reliable and English wikipedia doesn't admit it.About my block is because of my edit war,never because I lied or faked source,you can check my edit record to see if I had deleted"Li Daan grinned and licked blood off dagger" Those words on Chinese Korean War,my friend,against all your hard wishes,is written,given source by anyone beside me,and some of them appear on Eng.wiki too.The date is right before the entry is locked.And in case you don't seem to know Chinese,I can tell you before the entry of Chinese Hundred Regiment Offensive is permanently locked,some one with some authority changed the version to My Version and locked it.and I tell you one more thing:I received a year's sentence last August and I pleaded saying the opponent is lying,and actually the entry he charged me with didn't appear 3rr,For 3 months no one replied.Finally some administrator accepted my plea,saying I had done edit war before so the punishment is rightly but he released me long before my due because of good faith assumption. Does that discredit me more?And please be more specific,I wanted to change what fact of what battle?As for the article,I said I would give the author's name,but the article is right there,any unblind man can see it on the cover so I don't think date is necessary,man.Here is the words I cut,they includes "归来的中朝战俘控诉，美国为了做医学上的试验，还把中国被俘人员当作动物一样进行解剖。有些伤病的被俘人员，被美军抬去当作医学实验的小白鼠，挖出内脏做医学研究，或者把皮肤一块块剥下来留做试验，最后把剥得血淋淋的烂尸用草席卷起来丢掉。朝鲜人民军被俘人员"(you can go machinetranslate it to see what they mean),now are you going to say I added those words again?-Victorkkd (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Now what? are you going to blabber your poor lie that"it is blog source"again?(talk) 08:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your edit on Max Hastings. It brought tears to my eyes. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Tears of laughter, tears of pain... ;^)

Thanks, man. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)