User talk:Binksternet/Archive26

A very odd biography

This page came to my attention two ways. First was when it was vandalized, and the vandal left a comment alleging criminal wrongdoing against the subject. The comment was of course, instantly removed. About a week later it came up again through a comment from a neighbor about the real-life issues surrounding its subject, none of which unfortunately have made citable press. So I went to look up Mr. Doss and found that his article was very strange. It looks more like an advertisement for his odd little products than a wiki article. I tried to get the article deleted and found that its page maintainer believes that two short articles about ready-made junk assembled in this guy's barn is enough to keep him on Wiki. I really don't. I've sat and stared at this page. Knowing the gossip that the subject uses the wiki article to establish credibility and to attempt to take advantage of others, I can't leave this without asking for help. There are a pile of other pages on the www about him which are not cited in the wiki article.[1][2][3][4] Please take a look at the links. Search "Doyle Doss Eureka" for more. Thank you for your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to touch this one, despite the guy being listed in the federal government-operated National Sex Offender Public Registry for two violations against children. That listing is a primary source, so it is not allowed for controversial information about a living person. If it were allowed, it would add to the fame of Doss—the opposite effect you want. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, that I'm not sure his products are notable enough to have a wiki page in the first place. Reading the New York Times article I read that Mr. Doss sent the info to the NYT, which would mean that the article was press-release driven. Wiki is not supposed to be used for self-promotion, I don't think this guy is notable enough to have a page from a "kandle heeter" and a modified motorcycle helmet. I don't want to list his official federal stuff on the page, I am hoping for help getting the page removed for non-notability entirely. Thanks, even if you don't want to do something about it, I wanted to explain better. 17:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ellin, the New York Times does not print just anything. For whatever reason (sales?) they gave the nod to the article about Doss which is partly why he is rewarded with notability on Wikipedia. It sucks, but that's how it works. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald

Hi. You might want to take a look at the article. Paavo273 is plastering 'citation needed' tags on stuff that appears very well sourced to me. However, I'm no expert on the matter and since your name showed up in the article's history a lot.... Cheers, Yintan  21:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Zack Norman bio revisited

Hi Binksternet! I know it's been a while, but I just rediscovered this communication with you and wanted to ask again if you would please help me get my article on actor Zack Norman published. It seems as if no matter what I do, no matter how hard I try to address each and every one of the Wikipedia editors' notes and comments, there's always something new wrong, or the same old things are causing problems in new ways, or the new corrected version is somehow more egregious than the previous draft! In addition, there still seems to be an issue with Zack Norman's notability, which you yourself affirmed months ago. In any event, could you please put the article up for me, as you offered to do so back at the end of March of this year? That would be wonderful. Thanks again so much! All the best, Matthew Matzohboy (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Matzohboy (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet -- just wondering if you'd had time to give any consideration to my above letter. Please let me know if there's anything you need to know or that I can do etc. Thanks!! Matthew Matzohboy (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Matzohboy, I will take a run through the article and bring it into mainspace with sufficient sourcing. I may cut a lot of it, or add new text—we'll see how it goes. Do you have a photo or two you can upload? Something from a few decades ago and something more recent. At least one of the photos should be able to serve as a portrait. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet!Thank you so much! I will try and find a couple photos; how do I go about uploading them? All the best, MatthewMatzohboy (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

Thank you for your message about citations.

What citation would you suggest, when I was reporting my own experience of receiving unsolicited phone calls from them? There must be a way to include descriptions of an organization's behavior that may not have made a citable source. There is more to life than gets put in the papers (and lots of what is in the papers is not quite right).

I do understand the need for citations and reliability, I am a trained scientist. But requiring a citation may be a smokescreen for removing information the organization prefers not to advertise.

Thanks. Adam (Papaloquelites) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papaloquelites (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia policy WP:No original research. Scientists especially are put off by this hard-and-fast requirement which says that no unpublished conclusions, no matter how well researched, may be put into a Wikipedia article. Only previously published ones can. You should write or encourage someone to write about the issue in a newspaper or magazine, or hunt down such an article. After it is published in a reliable source, the issue may be mentioned on the Planned Parenthood page. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson talk...

I have the Zen Garden award, two 'Resilient Barn Stars', and an 'Anti-Flame Barnstar' on my user page. I didn't earn them at TJ, but I might as well have. It's not always easy. Just a hint ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Like. ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with your revert

I saw that you reverted my edit to Ender's Game, and I think that your reasons for doing so were incorrect. Firstly, even if the first paragraph was badly formatted, and I redundantly mentioned the first and second invasions, I feel that the other paragraphs that I edited were substantially better than the old ones. I'd appreciate if you could undo your revert, or at least make it more selective to only encompass the first paragraph of the synopsis. --Kangaroopowah 21:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You are 100% free to take another stab at the article's plot section, especially now that you see what was the earlier problem. Best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem? You really haven't explained it. --Kangaroopowah 20:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You got it already: the redundancy was poor composition. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Was only the first paragraph bad? --Kangaroopowah 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's as far as I looked. I saw the redundancy and stopped reading, started reverting. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TFAR nomination of Whaam!

Given your active participation in the first of two recent WP:FACs that resulted in the recent WP:FA promotion of Whaam!, I am informing you of a discussion that you may want to take part in at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Whaam.21.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		Thank you for your attention to the Whaam! WP:FAC discussion. Neutral eyes were important in this promotion.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Opinion request

Hi there Binksternet, I am requesting outside opinion for the Asaram Bapu article. The talk page section in question is "Edit warring on the "potency test". I have read Wikipedia:Canvassing to be certain that I am within WP policy guidelines, and it is my understanding that my request is not considered canvassing, but if I'm wrong just let me know. I left the following edit on the article talk page:

I believe that the arguments offered here have not shown reasonable rational for inclusion of a few early reports that stated that the girl's hymen was intact, while refusing to allow very widely reported information regarding the fact that, contrary to to a statement that he was impotent, a test has confirmed his potency. Since it appears that the editors here believe that they have offered adequate argument and are reverting any attempts to add any mention of the potency test, I wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same or closely related topics. User:Binksternet has done a lot of work with women's issues, User:MastCell has medical-related knowledge, and User:Roscelese has worked on rape-related articles. I will place an invitation to comment on their talk pages. Of course, other editors are welcome to ask for other opinions as well.

Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Setback

The article originally contained mostly information of setback on skyscrapers / metropolitan areas which is not where people are mostly affected. If you feel some comments to be NPOV, I have revised that as this was not my intension. Setbacks in rural areas are mostly set by the jurisdiction without owners consent and need in mind. Furthermore it must be noted that there are more exceptions to static setbacks and that criticism arises from drawback of wasted space. It is also noted that other countries respect mutual agreement between people whereas most jurisdictions in the US don't allow such agreements when it comes to setbacks. It is my understanding that jurisdictions should use their given powers with sense of proportion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VillaGorilla (talk • contribs) 18:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design

The article Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eliel Saarinen's Tribune Tower design for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the National Right to Life Committee

Wouldn't a note section be more appropriate than a footnote? I can attempt that but you seem more skilled at editing so have a go if you want to do so. Thanks 172.56.10.73 (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC) I did make a footnote section but I just noticed a post of yours which I placed below. I have made good faith edits and have no control over my IP changing (it just changed today). Roscolese stalked my edits and changed all my edits made yesterday and made accusations on my talk page related to abortion issues. Roscelese clearly is agenda driven and did in fact edit stalk my posts and edit warred on them. Do not feed her please. Thanks again.

Discretionary sanctions on all abortion topics[edit source]

I am taking this opportunity to tell you that Wikipedia has enabled administrators to make discretionary sanctions against any editor who appears to be acting against the purposes of Wikipedia. An editor who is adding biased text or who is promoting a cause may be blocked. Your actions at National Pro-Life Religious Council include the repeated addition of text without bringing the issue up at the talk page, an extension of your other IP address Special:Contributions/208.54.40.220. Make certain you are able to win consensus on the talk page if your text is reverted. Using multiple IP addresses is not a protection from the rules against edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

New Concern

I noticed you reverted another edit to Concerned Women for America that Roscoelese stalked. You undid POV based revert performed by Roscoelese as I mentioned above. You state your reason as: 03:17, 14 September 2013‎ Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,159 bytes) (-566)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 572760445 by Roscelese: Revert POV changes. (TW)) (undo) How is breaking the article into logical sections POV, or quoting the founder of the movement and paraphrasing the long existing sources comments POV. The source is even in opposition to the organization. The founder's quote as to why she started the organization is entirely relevant and even essential. How can that be POV pushing? Taking the founder's quote out would demonstrate poor judgment and some other possible concerns. I will assume good faith and ask you to have a better look at the full revert you made. I see some history with Roscoelese that does cause me some concern but I look forward to working with you in a non-adversarial manner. Please have a better look so as to improve the article which I believe my edit achieved. I believe reverts are often misused for many reasons. It takes much more effort to improve an article than to injure an article. Please respect other editors efforts that meet the Wiki guidelines and correct the area you have an issue with and avoid frequent use of reverts whenever possible. It is my belief the vast majority of editors have something to add. Correct the errors you have documentation to prove. Because you do not like IP's that is no reason to use less discretion and discernment if that is the case. I am unsure why you reverted the whole thing based on your vague reason. So I would also ask you to be more specific especially when reverting so it does not appear suspicious. Thanks for looking into this matter and considering my concerns. 172.56.10.73 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Nobody likes dynamic IPs, as they make it difficult to communicate with the user. As an alternative to pointing out on your (momentary) talkpage that you use different IP's, have you considered creating an account, so you can more easily take ownership of your editing? As for your "possible concerns" and "suspicions", they constitute a passive-aggressive attack, however much you talk of assuming good faith, so you might want to consider retracting them. Binksternet's revert was correct and his edit summary quite adequate. Bishonen | talk 09:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC).

Please Do Not Add Frivolous Accusations to My Talk Page

Adding to an article that I was working on before is not reverting. Please look up revert for a clear definition. I will still assume good faith but my concern of other intentions has grown. Please remember false accusations can result in adverse action towards the accuser.

What do you think of this?

What are your thoughts on this closure? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that was a poorly considered interference in the the normal process of consensus based on a mistaken assumption that the ArbCom case already covered the question. The closure stinks. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bink. Perhaps you would consider weighing-in at the ongoing closure discussion. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:IMOS

Please dont give warnings to other editors when you misunderstand guidelines. This is disruptive.

• Use "Ireland" for the state except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context
• An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating to states, politics or governance) where "Ireland" should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the "island of Ireland"
• Per the Linking guideline of the Manual of Style, the names of major geographic features and locations should not be linked. If it is thought necessary to link, in order to establish context or for any other reason, the name of the state should be pipelinked as Ireland

I left an appropriate note on the editors talkpage, when his edits didnt follow these, I am leave a note on your talkpage when your edits havent followed these. The first point, second point and third point above all apply against your edits. If you can show what guidelines support your edits I would be happy to self-revert. Murry1975 (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding "this article is about one legal jurisdiction, not multiple", please again read the guidelines and understand ther is only one legal jurisdiction and state called Ireland- thats its full, long short, formal and commonname. Please dont confuse an article title with what the subject of the article is called. Murry1975 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are referring to in IMOS. Thanks for pulling the appropriate quotes out for me.

There is one little issue regarding MOS:BOLDTITLE, though. The guideline says "links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead" but the following articles violate this directive:

• Education in the Republic of Ireland
• Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland
• Local government in the Republic of Ireland and
• Abortion in the Republic of Ireland. These instances of a wikilinked/piped linked "Ireland" ought to be unlinked to comply with BOLDTITLE. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

All four now conforming to WP:MOSBOLDTITLE as pointed out. Cheers for the help. Murry1975 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Your revert earlier this year of reasonably useful-looking content supplied by MarkWest1

Greetings Binksternet -- I am trying to broker a peace agreement, or at least a consensus on what should be included in the article, over here. Contact me via my talkpage if you have comments/complaints/questions/whatever. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding latest revert on Aam Aadmi Party page

Hello Binksternet, I suggest inclusion of agitation of battery operated rickshaw drivers in 'protests' section because: The issue of e-rikshaws is not a minor issue as it has a definite history even before AAP supported demands of drivers. In Delhi these rickshaws run between Delhi Metro stations & nearby areas. Delhi government had decided to come down hard on the operators of the battery operated rickshaws last year. There is also a PIL in Delhi Highcourt seeking ban on e-rickshaws due to reasons mentioned in following link for which Delhi High Court has asked government to respond. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-12/delhi/42007556_1_e-rickshaws-pil-seeking-ban-sugriv-dubey In the backdrop of these updates, AAP has supported the cause of battery-operated rickshaw drivers & instead of banning them they have demanded a concrete policy for them. While checking the AAP website, I came across an entire article dedicated to this cause as below: http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/news/stop-targeting-battery-rickshaw-operators-arvind-kejriwal This makes it an issue of considerable weight. Moreover the 'protest' section of AAP includes its support to auto rickshaw driver on 10 June 2013 which is similar in its impact to the battery operated rickshaw drivers demand. So if agitation of 10 June 2013 stays, agitation of 16 September should also stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Times of India article you link to does not mention the Aam Aadmi Party, so it cannot be used at the Aam Aadmi Party article. The aamaadmiparty.org link you provide is a primary source, so it does not establish the importance of the issue. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The 'Times of India' article was given to highlight the importance & existance of the issue even before Aam Aadmi Party supported it. To highlight importance of Aam Aadmi Party's stand on it please see below the links which are not primary sources. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/now-erickshaw-drivers-join-aam-aadmi-party/article5133817.ece http://post.jagran.com/lack-of-proper-policy-hurting-erickshaw-operators-in-delhi-says-aap-1379317880. Furthermore I am not interested in 'edit war' & only trying to highlight necessity of uniform standards on the article under discussion.--ratastro 14:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet, Following the support of AAM to the demand of e-rickshaw drivers to draft a concrete policy, Delhi government constituted a committee to come up with report & guidelines on these type of vehicles. Following are the references http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Govt-plans-panel-on-e-rickshaw-after-Aam-Aadmi-Party-backs-them/articleshow/22672524.cms http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/committee-on-status-of-erickshaws-in-delhi/article5140942.ece & http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-appoints-committee-to-lay-down-guidelines-for-erickshaws/1170516/ I think this proves that the issue is not minor & can be included in the article.--ratastro 11:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Your recent edit to Hans-Hermann Hoppe (1), viewed in the larger context of numerous false accusations and flagrant misunderstanding of content, many examples of which were detailed meticulously by Stalwart (2), raises concerns of WP:Competence. In reverting my title which (per the specific and explicit focus of the secondary RS which discussed the passage) indicated Hoppe's views on physically removing homosexuals, you say that "The complaints include reference to Jews, Blacks, etc." Hoppe says nothing whasoever about jews and blacks in the quoted passage, and in their response to the relevant passage, none of the RS say he talked about them either. That Hoppe has been criticized for anti-Semitic or racist remarks in some contexts does not mean every passage he wrote is (or has been considered) racist or anti-Semitic. It is highly concerning that you appear to accept this wildly illogical inference as fact.

A crucial part of competence is reading comprehension. Text needs to be read carefully to be comprehended. Please redouble your efforts in this regard moving forward. Steeletrap (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Did you completely miss the reference to yellow stars? Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In the bigger picture, I think it is pretty lame of you to avoid the Hans-Hermann Hoppe talk page to tell interested editors your reasoning for your repeated reverts even after Srich started the discussion for you. (You were supposed to start that discussion yourself per WP:BRD.) Instead, you send this determinedly half-context note to my talk page, obstinately mischaracterizing the issue. This behavior does not win any arguments. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Typically that would be the case. This is special circumstances, given that your flagrantly erroneous assertions are of a piece with a much wider pattern of behavior which raises WP:Competence concerns, as noted above. Steeletrap (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You can say I'm incompetent all day long and I will ignore that portion of your communication as ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I don't have a horse in this race, but if you'll review WP:COMPETENCE you'll see that your post immediately above this could be interpreted as a sign of "social" incompetence as described there. Good luck to you and Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You started me laughing at "I don't have a horse in this race". Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Unintentional. I presume you thought it amusing I would compare the two of you to horses, or stubborn mules, or whatever. Purely unintentional. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Binksternet. I don't know if you remember me, but I was one half of a WP:3O discussion that you oversaw at "List of fictional badgers". If you remember you basically opined in favor of the other editor and then based on this I expanded the article quite a bit - giving it a proper lede and adding several further list members on top of restoring all of the original list members. Since this time the list article has been noted in an article by The Guardian as "a thing of beauty" - a fact for which you share partial credit.

Anyway I'm currently writing a feature for the WikiProject Video Games Newsletter on the topic of list article management. I'm seeking to include in this article a variety of different list topics (including non video game lists) and different editorial perspectives, and I was wondering if you would be able to help me by writing a brief paragraph or two on the topic of the "list of fictional badgers". Specifically I'd be interest in some discussion of how our inclusion of a lede worked so well and if possible it might be nice to mention the praise we've received from The Guardian (linked at the article's talk page). The newsletter is due by October 3 so there are 2 weeks to write something if you have the time. You can find the working draft of the article and where your contributions would be needed at User:Thibbs/Sandbox7 (just text search your username). Please don't feel obliged. If you can help me then great, but if not that's fine too. Either way, thanks in advance. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a fun project. I'll look at the old versions to refresh my memory and then I'll think about what I might write. No promises at this point. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Feel free to edit the draft directly if you get a chance. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah I just saw the draft update. Thank you, good sir! I really appreciate it! Feel free to bug me for favors any time. -Thibbs (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove PA on 3RR

Are you able to keep straight the difference between me and Steeletrap? If yes, please fix. If no, that's a problem. As you know this is not the first time you've done this with me, Steeletrap, Stalwart and others. It is very important you not repeat such misstatements. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Will I correct my misdirected comment confusing you with Steeletrap? Yes.

Technically you two are different persons, however Steeletrap follows your lead, and you were the first to use COMPETENCE against those arguing with you about Austrian School economists. On August 2, you called Carolmooredc incompetent at a BLPN discussion about Walter Block's bio, linking to the essay. On August 7, Steeletrap pointed to WP:COMPETENCE at the same thread, following a post by Carolmooredc to infer incompetence on her part. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive182#Walter_Block_etc.3B_On_adding_WP:OR_material. Since then, both of you have been repeatedly hammering on that essay in your debates.

This kind of attack is weak—if you cannot win a debate with well-founded arguments then the skill level of your opponent does not matter. When you bring up the COMPETENCE essay it tells others you have run out of good arguments, that you have failed. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

I don't know if you are watching Arvind Kejriwal but since that article is subject to similar goings-on as Aam Aadmi Party, of which he is the de facto leader, I'd be grateful if you could add to your list. At least until the elections are over. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

and please go through my edits and added citations. You'll find thy are infact improvement to the article. 59.177.9.105 (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I will approach the article using whatever method I deem fitting. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Sitush, I will watch that bio. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Only two more months to go! - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Semibaseless revert - Antifeminism

The complaint was: "I noticed that you made a change to an article, Antifeminism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so!" My sources were BBC news, the New Scientist and YouGOV. These are reliable sources. These were cited. I cannot see how a blanket revert was the most practical option, there was 1 unsourced bullet point, but should that have received a [source?] badge instead. This was an impractical revert, I cannot see why it was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacrts (talk • contribs)

I agree with your assessment that the warning template was poorly worded. Instead I should have selected the warning template which says to stop using original research and synthesis of sources, which you did with the New Scientist source. See how the New Scientist says absolutely nothing about antifeminism? Yeah, that's the whole point. You made a connection which was not made in the source. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The citation was used to back up the bioogical vs social example, not the initial claim (is this where/how to respond to a response?)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacrts (talk • contribs)

Even the initial claim must be based on a reference which makes that specific claim. Wikipedia is not written like a book or newspaper article or research paper where you make a claim and then support it with facts, connecting the dots with logic. Instead, Wikipedia tells the reader about already published claims. See WP:No original research for further information. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Hans Langsdorff

Limefrost Spiral (talk) 01:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So, do you want to talk about it, or just lash back at me? Yes, I said some of your article additions were poorly written. Yes, I have been reverting some of your lowest quality work, especially that which has no references at all. Let's talk about referencing first. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You really went out of line when you went back to my previous contributions that had been fine for a week and reverted them in spite. The other editor was okay with my edition of Hans Langsdorff. Therefore you can't claim to be above it all. Limefrost Spiral (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no spite involved. I saw poor quality contributions and I went checking for others. I looked through your contributions and found that some were perfectly good, and some needed to be reverted because they were not good. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

When you went through my own contributions and made reverts at two articles you had never before seen, reverts that restored poor sources,[5][6] I knew you were reacting angrily. A really good idea right now would be for you to discuss your proposed text on the talk pages of the articles you are interested in, such as Main battle tank and Second London Naval Treaty. See you there! Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Transistor Hammonds

Thanks for spotting that. The odd one does exist out there on the internet, though my sources clearly state from no less an authority than Dennis Capiga, CEO of Hammond US and working for the old Hammond since the mid 70s, states in no uncertain terms that Hammond didn't have the slightest clue what customers wanted when they built the transistor spinets. Now, to be fair, put through a valve preamp and into a cranked up Leslie, they're not too bad, but then again you could get the same, if not better, sound through a Vox continental. Rant off ;-) I suppose the next thing to do is to think about getting the article to FAC ... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh... Yeah, just about anything sounds good through a tube-powered Leslie. ;^)

Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Marie Curie". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 20:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Day of Deceit

I don't know if you use robot ms's or what, but your reference to Stinnet's "Day of Deceit" as being neutral remind me of Animal Farm by George Orwell. I have only seen a few wikipedia articles as thoroughly biased and censored--and apparently you are the censor. Congratulations Boris and Natashia! Where is squirrel? For instance why have attempts to point out that Stinnet is actually a real Journalist with First Amendment rights of a real Journalist not allowed to be mentioned??? I see in the history that even the fact which newspaper he worked for (Oakland Tribune) is strictly verboten on this horribly censored article. In case you missed the boat across the river, all the "Historians of the day" mentioned in the article are dead, and have been for a while. As are most of the Naval Intelligence people who were sworn to secrecy. Where do you imagine Stinnet's material for this book come from? You really believe the pap fed to you by current spooks? Don't you comprendo that his sources only gave him Ultra Secret info because they knew he (as a real journalist) would not betray their confidentiality, or it was given out to him after they had died? Are you so lame to not understand that a vast majority of WW2 veterans alive when this book came out agreed with Stinnet and the fact that we were intentionally drawn into the war by Roosevelt? You are really a disturbed person if you believe the Day of Deceit article is in any way fair and balanced. What is wrong with you, really? You make an absolute mokery of Wikipedia> Fair and balanced ha ha ha ha Just noticed, thanks for the obscenity on my talk page. Grapestomper9 (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(Stalker.) I note you thank Binksternet for the word you yourself posted on your talk page. Irrationality doesn't help your argument—which may or may not have merit (I don't know). Writegeist (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Stinnett made a bunch of serious mistakes that serious historians have pointed out. One of the most damning criticisms is that Stinnett makes his conclusion before the evidence is assembled, that he ignores any evidence to the contrary (of which there is a considerable amount.) The Wikipedia article you do not like is one where Stinnett's shortcomings are held up to the light. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you thank?

I see you thanked me for an edit to Youssou N'Dour that I made. How do you thank someone for an edit? Confused :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a message to Hammer which I hope helps. – S. Rich (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's a new feature described at WP:Notifications. When you are looking at an article's edit history, or when you are examining a diff, there is a new word "thank" following the name of individual contributors, this being a link to the thanking procedure. Click on the word "thank" and then click on "yes" to confirm. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting. I'm not seeing it. I tried finding it on several diffs, the last one [7], searching for the word "thank" within the browser. It's not finding it and I'm not seeing it. Bizarre. I guess I'm just the kinda guy who not only won't thank someone, but I can't do it :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hammersoft, you need to be looking at View History for the page. I'm not sure if you have to have something set up in your Preferences/Settings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Please stop edit-warring on Murray Rothbard. You made a bold change, it was reverted. Now you need to go talk about it, not revert back. MilesMoney (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Disputed material should remain out of the article until consensus is achieved to put it in. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And I note a discussion was opened before you made the Bold edit. And I agreed that it was a good edit, but didn't go far enough. When a discussion is opened, is based on Manual of Style policy, and has support, the burden is on any editor who disagrees to achieve consensus to restore it. – S. Rich (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Reported for WP:Harassment

See the ANI posting here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I suggest you offer a {{Peace pipe}}, or other bit of WikiLove to Steeletrap. (As I recall, Steele is a vegetarian, so meat related offers are a no-no.) Doing so might put that ANI to bed, which would be the best for everyone. From your sweet buddy in crime – S. Rich (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Albert Herter

Hello,

Feel free to revert the categoy I've added but it says at the beginning of the article (in English) that he studied in Paris. Since I have some difficulties to imagine his studies lasted just a few weeks I gather he didn't reside in the U.S. all of his life as you say. Also, I was at the gare de l'Est this afternoon only to try to have some more information and a plaque indicates he realised the painting, which image is to be seen at the bottom of the article in English (while given more prominence in the French one), in an empty hall of the château de Versailles. So, which is which? Also, I am interested to know where you get your information from; sincerely yours, LouisAlain (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a book which calls Herter and his wife "expatriate" Americans [8] so you are correct and I am not. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bernard McNulty

If you think that you can make a legitimate argument for blocking my editing, go ahead and try. One of you will, actually, however, have to find a statement that I have made that is really not supported by one of the copious verifying sources that I provide. Even if you could do this and you can't, it would require that at least one of you actually acquires and reads and understands the source. I'm not greatly concerned, in any event. You, Uncle Milty and Soink are building a nice e history here anyway though, aren't you? Albiet (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Albiet

I already said WP:PEACOCK covers it. The guy lived for 50 years in the 19th century. He is barely known today but you want to say he is widely known. This is not the case. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not make a personal comment on McNulty's notoriety. I simply relay information from contemporary sources, including the Boston Evening Transcript December 29, 1892, p 5. This is not "Peacock" anything. While you may have no interest in the U.S. Fenian history, that so impacted the course of its (the U.S.'s) political and martial development, other Wikipedians may and other scholars certainly do, as noted by the fact that the Patriot Chief is still in print to this day from several publishers. If you have no interest, regard, or in depth knowledge of a subject, why bother to attempt to edit articles on subject anyway? Something to prove? As to Bernard Nulty's only living some 50 years, Augustin Fresnel lived for only 39 years, his work is now similarly arcane, yet there still exists extraordinary interest in him and his work in some circles.

If editors like you and Soink, on basis of whatever psychodynamic processes may be impelling you, didn't try to baselessly tear down the work of other editors to thwart its nascent development(early as with Bernard McNulty plastering articles with unwarranted "notoriety" tags, knit picking every little word and adjective, threatening and attempting to intimidate and cow),didn't try to baselessly tear down the article's subject historical figures, who have made real contributions, because you either don't appreciate those contibutions and/or understand those contributions and didn't make caustic and baselessly demeaning comments about other editors and their talents and characters, other editors might not overcompensate in attempt to shore their articles in anticipation of such malicious assaults. Why don't you attempt to actually be helpful and supportive of your colleagues instead and to develop both their talents and contributions? In addition to the Fresnel lens, there is another very innovative optical instrument that has been developed. Its called a mirror. Ever tried to use one?

Finally, removing verifying historical sources from articles without sound reason is VANDALISM. This is not just my opinion. Another editor besides me had to go and restore the citation that you without warrant, explanation or reason removed from the Bernard Nulty article. Consider this a statement of concern about these of your activities, if not a first and last warning. From my reconnoiter of your talk page, you seem to already have enough complaint procedure ongoing against you as a result of such and other of your harassing activities without my now wasting my time to compound them. Seems like other Wikipedians are already quite tired of your nonsense antics and hollow threats.Albiet (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Albiet

Albeit, as you know I restored the source (Boston Evening Transcript) but we must keep in mind that this is one article from 120 years ago. It does not show that McNulty is famous today. When writing WP, we must be WP:TERSE, so we keep the text as simple and clean as possible. Descriptive terms like "close" friend, etc. are not helpful. These guys IMcNulty, Fresnell, etc., may be interesting and worthwhile, but please don't get offended when other editors clean up some of the material in the articles. Also, please don't accuse other editors of vandalism. That term has a particular meaning in WP. It does not apply when there are disagreements. Rather, bring up your concerns on the article talk page. When you want to WP:PRESERVE sources, that is a good place to do so – and you can justify/defend your contributions there too. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I find the Boston Evening Transcript reference insufficient by itself; it has no article title. Even better would be a quote. I suspect that the long-ago reporter wrote something like "the well-known figure"; if that's the case then it is not enough for us to conclude McNulty was well known, even in his time. Lots of newspaper articles say "well known" without much basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The presence online of a plaintive request such as this one looking for more information—anything, really—about McNulty makes me think he was not so well known in his life. There is precious little available about him in digitally scanned books and newspaper articles, which is pretty damning now in 2013, after so many of our print materials have been digitally archived. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Insufficient to establish "well known" is true. But it does verify he was around and doing something worthy of newspaper notice at the time. So let's tag reference improvement rather than removing. (And Albiet should check this out: [9].) I'm not seeking to debate with you, Binksternet; rather, I posted comments more for Albiet's benefit. Let's see if Albiet takes this advice to heart. – S. Rich (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare

The Cassandra Clare article has some bruhaha over the proposed 'Controversy' section. Someone keeps deleting it...Saintvlas22 (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation on that article's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Randy Rhoads infobox

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit on Randy Rhoads article because there were no sources. If you actually read the beginning sentence of the article, there is a source supporting his name as Randall William Rhoads. Please actually take the time to read and find the source before you go ahead and decide to revert and/or delete. It'll save a lot of trouble.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.38.97 (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The CSU Northridge source you have been using says "Born Randall William Rhoads on December 6, 1956 at St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica CA, Randy Rhoads lead a life that centered around music until his untimely death on March 19, 1982.". You changed the article to say he was born William Randall Rhoads, which is not in the cited source. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No no no you have it all wrong. Please take a look at the Rhoads talk page, first, and scroll down to birth name, then go to the last entries. The CSUN source is no longer being used to support the claim of his birth name. I found a source, a book actually, that supports his birth name as Randall William Rhoads and it also supports his birth dates and death dates. That book source, is now being used to support his actual birth name, Randall William Rhoads. Take a look at Source #1 in the article, that is the book source we are using. That is why the infobox was updated to Randall William Rhoads, because the book source was found and is now being used to support the claim that his name is Randall William Rhoads. 172.249.38.97 (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)172.249.38.97

Harvey Whittemore

Thanks for correcting my date error. Ward20 (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing! Binksternet (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I've gotten several of those thanks messages from you and other editors. How do you send those? Is there a way I can acknowledge receipt? Thanks for your thanks! Yopienso (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The page WP:Notifications talks about it a little bit. Some editors have said they are unable to send the new "thank" notification. If you are able to do so, you would see in a diff the new "thank" option following the time stamp. For instance, in this Bgwhite diff at the TJ article, you would see the word "thank" in parentheses after "edit" and "undo". To me it looks like this:

Revision as of 08:17, October 2, 2013 (edit) (undo) (thank).

Clicking the "thank" link brings up one more confirmation window asking if you really want to do that. :)

Hope that helps! Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh! It was right there the whole time. I'll have to try it out. Thanks! Yopienso (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yay. There is no special way to acknowledge receipt of this sort of thanks—you can just comment somewhere to say thank you back, or you're welcome, or whatever. I guess you could thank that person for some other edit they made if it seems likely that they would understand it means something like "backatcha". Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you can just go to the Edit Summary for the article and, you pick out the edit, and both (undo) and (thanks) should be by each one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Trimming Captions

Hi, I notice that you have just trimmed a caption to a file I just uploaded which deleted information including the copywright logo. I don't know much about use of copywright material but I was asked by the copywright owner not to change the description they provided to be used. I have therefore undone your change. Should you know better, I would welcome your explanation. Graemp (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright owners of images can direct Wikipedia to put specific text on the image page but they cannot direct the captions. Our guideline at WP:CREDITS says "do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article" unless it is relevant to the article.

At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, the guideline says "do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar", as much as possible. The copyright symbol falls under "similar" and should not be used. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Blast from the past.

Hello Binksternet, I don't know if you remember me or not but if you do please accept this apology for causing an edit war with you or anyone else. I'm sorry I was acting like a child. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see your Wikipedia experience is building. Best— Binksternet (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

be a part of something

Hi Binksternet:

Can you please review and fix "Fluorine". If it's too long, just hit bio and hazard sections.-TCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Elements are not my area of expertise. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Punk Singer

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dick Dale talk page removals

Yes, I removed all of the items with my ip address from the talk page now that the article refers to his original place of birth. Under the wiki guidelines I can remove talk page comments as long as they are my own comments. I think I removed one by mistake the first time with a similar ip address, that was not mine. I left it there this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.103.74 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove talk page posts from your user talk page which you do not have because you are editing as an IP address. Please do not delete talk page posts from article talk pages. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not true. As long as they are my posts on any talk page I can remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.103.74 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Taken from the Wikipedia Talk Page Guidelines " The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Furthermore, it is recommended to not remove your own comments, but the person who originally placed those comments still has the ultimate right to remove them from any talk page. So please don't revert it again or I will report it as abuse. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.103.74 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And please don't use the crossout method, I've reverted to what I originally removed. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.103.74 (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I notice that you failed to quote any part of the talk page guidelines. That is probably because there is no support for the removal of one's own comments after they have generated responses and further discussion. Such removal leaves orphaned responses and makes it impossible for new readers to understand what was discussed in the past. That kind of removal is deprecated at WP:REDACT. Check it out. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Then you didn't read my comment here because I did quote the talk page guideline and now I will quote it again, it is very clear, "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Again it specifically indicates "other editors". Otherwise if it was meant to include my own edits it would state something completely different. And it specifically states that this is the "basic" rule here. The fundamental rule is that people should not edit or delete the comments of other editors for the talk page. And then it goes on to state the guidelines concerning your own edits. It says they "recommend" not removing your own edits. This is not a basic rule, it is a recommendation. I understand your point, but ultimately I wish to remove my own edits and thats my final decision. Others can remove their own edits as well if they feel that the removal of my edits affects their original wording. Thats their choice and this is why the talk page was created. It allows some freedom in discussing the article and nobody is locked in to their original statements here. If I want I could have gone back and edited my statements as well, and make them different from what they originally were, or I could have left them the same. Instead I deleted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.103.74 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts about who this sock might be

Hello B. Thanks for the thanks re: The Great Race. I am not sure that it is Bambifan. Per this Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101 I thought BambiFan edited from the southern US. I could be out of date on that info though. This problem editor edits in and around LA. I have noticed IPs from that area leaving unsourced info in film article for sometime but I hadn't thought they might be the same person until I saw your edit summaries on that article. Ah well whoever it is many thanks for your vigilance. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Bambifan101 moved to L.A.

At any rate, the editor is combative and disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciated your note about my brief copy edit at "Atomic Bombings"—especially considering it comes from someone with 103,000 edits! SeoMac (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! :-)

Binksternet (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No thanks...

...for reverting my addition to the Precedence effect article, without first consulting me. I'd wondered whether I should include a reference to commercial products using this effect, but decided not to. I now have to redo my work, thanks to your uncalled-for intrusion.

The principle described is in no way novel, nor does it represent OR on my part. There has been at least one commercial product using it, from a company called Benchmark Acoustics -- which I reviewed in Stereophile magazine 30 years ago.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Benchmark-Acoustics-Model-ARU-ambience-access-system-review-Stereo-Review-1982-/231045809355 https://www.google.com/patents/US7076071

I am a degreed electrical engineer, and a member of the AES. (My membership was sponsored by Saul Marantz and Jon Dahlquist.) This is not the first time I've had my contributions questioned by someone who hasn't bothered to do their homework. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and clues to the prior works. I found Bob Katz's 1988 review to be particularly helpful: "Extraction vs Generation". I will bring the information back into the article with references. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for explaining why you reverted my edit. We are editing the page for a class project at Cornell University and were a little nervous about making edits. Thanks for not "jumping" on me for an incorrect edit and bearing with us as we learn the ropes of the Wikipedia community. J grider65 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool project. Let me know if you have any questions about Wikipedia's arcana. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Barun De

What other source is reliable then?Bikramjit De (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Dick Dale

Are you sure archiving Talk:Dick Dale was a good idea? Isn't that kind of giving in to ReadTheGuidelines's trolling? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I wasn't trying to win a contest against him, I was just trying to keep the edit war in check. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for filing that sockpuppet report/investigation on the disruptive editor. I had been tracking and digging into his multitudinous socks for some time, but didn't know whether to file an ANI on his continuous and interminable disruptive editing and lack of competence plus sockpuppetry, or what. I'm glad you dug all those socks out yourself and filed an SPI. Thanks again! Softlavender (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! Sockpuppets are one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia, the other being outright vandalism. I enjoy hunting down socks. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnson

The IP has a point. I did say "concludes her account of Johnson's life" and yet I cut off the final sentence. I will massage my phrasing. Hope you are well.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Good job. I didn't bother trying to think through the IP's concern—when I noticed the quote had been changed, that fact was all-consuming. Your rephrase works. Binksternet (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Myers Photo

Is there a problem with the photo: Myers plays the pocket trumpet?

The previous photo - Myers plays the flugel horn - has problems with the copyright. The owner of this photo does not agree to with Wikipedia allowing free use.

Myers plays the pocket trumprt - belongs to me (Myers)! I own it! I have no problems with the free use of the phot by Wikipedia.

Why did you remove it?

JuneteenthDOC (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)JuneteenthDOC

I saw two photos and I thought the previous one was a much better representation of the man. The second one was practically anonymous with the horn blocking the face. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP Violation on Mises Institute.

The reinsertion of the AS template is a BLP violation due to its listing of living individuals not affiliated with vMI. As such, policy demands it be removed from the article. You appear to be editing outside your expertise in this matter. Although the vMI claims to be "the world center of Austrian Eocnomics" in its promotional material, that view is limited to the Institute and its affiliates. Please undo your replacement of the template. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The BLP guideline is not applicable. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Drummer for Heart

Hi,

I see you just reverted an edition by an IP user regarding a drummer in Heart. If you look at the reverted edit closely, it looks like the original was just an error, listing Howard Leese twice. As far as I know, he's never played drums and the IP user edit was correct. If you agree with me, please undo your edit.--Gorpik (talk) 07:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Thanks for the note! Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome :) --Gorpik (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Binksternet, I've seen the sockpuppeteer I reverted on Sheryl Crow use several different IPs on that article and on others. Do you know who the sockpuppeteer is? I'd be happy to block the IPs when they pop up if you think that would be helpful. (Thanks for the "thanks", by the way!) Best. Acalamari 14:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the IPs from Hong Kong are certainly Chowkatsun9. He focuses on music articles and biographies. His style is to change the infobox format, the list of instruments, the list of what an artist is known for, etc. See the list of IP editors which I have linked to the sockpuppet investigation page as suspects. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Just blocked a sock right now. Acalamari 11:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for taking your time to keep this guy honest. Binksternet (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. :) If you need any of this person's socks blocking, feel free to let me know and I'll block them for you; I only see the ones affecting Sheryl Crow because she's on my watchlist. Best. Acalamari 14:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Do mediation on Austrian economics??

Too soon for arbitration. But Mediation would be helpful, though I'm too burnt out to initiate it myself. A few of us did it once with a couple editors vs. a very powerful and squirrely admin who knew how to game the system. Nevertheless, even with with a less than perfectly skilled mediator, it worked really well and the squirrely admin definitely stopped dominating the article. Would be even better with a good mediator. It just seems to me the next few times I asked for mediation, requests were ignored. But with all others complaining and all these ANIs I listed, the request might be rapidly accepted. Do you want to initiate it? cc. SRich. User:Carolmooredc 17:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. Not right now, though, because I am concentrating on a professional conference I am attending. Note that mediation only works if the parties agree to it and abide by it. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not willing to do it. 1. I've got lots of experience in real world mediations, but none here. (So what do I know?) 2. Even without WP mediation experience, I'm pessimistic about editors joining in a collaborative state of mind. – S. Rich (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually really like this proposal, Carol. I would however insist on an editor that is 1) neutral with respect to the subject matter and 2) knowledgeable about mainstream economics (Which, per WP:RS, is what economics-related articles should reflect). I do not believe that any of you understand my perspective on the LvMI articles, and instead misattribute it to bias (rather than concern for accurately representing the views of mainstream scholarship, and discerning between mainstream and fringe scholarship). A meditation process would hopefully change that. We could also establish some civility ground rules; I would for instance be willing to agree to not mentioning (or alluding to) WP:competence if you (I mean Carol, not Bink or Rich, as it's only been a problem for the former) do not make reference to my sexual orientation. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Medcom -- mediation before a panel of Admins, would be the way to go. Steeletrap is correct that there must be no misogynist, anti-Transgender, or racial remarks, and of course the Admins need no help from us on competence or other policy issues. I'm not sure, but this could be a good chance to consolidate the recent improvements and maybe add a lot more detail. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless this proposal makes it unnecessary?? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal.2C_general_sanctions? User:Carolmooredc 23:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rin Tin Tin categories

Category:20th-century American actors is a subcat of Category:20th-century American people. Dogs do not go in categories that are sub-cats of people categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not accept this argument. Somebody has arbitrarily cut off all animal actors by assigning that subcat, or by not allowing several subcats at the same time. So fix the larger problem, internal to Wikipedia, instead of trying to change external reality.

It is a surprise to me, seeing you still able to work in categories after the women writers PR disaster you caused. I would have guessed you to have been topic-banned. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(stalker) - that was uncalled for. While JPL did make some mistakes, he corrected them, and is the person largely responsible for having fixed the categorization of several thousand novelists. There were calls for topic banning JPL during the whole brouhaha, but they were shot down and never close to passing. Please do not lay the blame of category-gate on JPL's shoulders, it was a much more broadly shared responsibility. I will respond on rin-tin-tin separately.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was not in the thick of that dispute so all I have is the media account of it. I will strike my comments. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Even Filipacchi pointed this out [10]; but the broader question of people not understanding non-diffusing sub-categories for gender/sexuality/race/etc and the resultant ghettoization is the work of thousands of editors, across hundreds of thousands of biographies - a problem which is still far from being fixed. I myself have fixed at least several hundred such ghettoizations, in domains such as mathematics, poetry, architecture, etc. JPL was a bit of a scapegoat and media punching bag, but if you see his homepage, he has admitted his mistakes and has likely done more to fix such ghettoization than anyone else I can think of. At the time of Filipacchi's article there were ~500 women novelists, categorized as such; now there are 1800, and none are ghettoized as far as we know. I would caution you, in general, to be very wary of press accounts of what happens on wikipedia; I have yet to see a single one that is very close to the truth. They are generally written to make some salacious point, but if you look closely enough, you can make any point you want with the edits at wikipedia - wonderful stories of editors collaborating to bring an obscure article to feature status, or vicious articles about paid shills tweaking the truth. "The Universe is made of stories, not of atoms." - and all stories can be found in wikipedia - but the ones they tell you aren't always "true".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

Thanks for commenting on this: It's good to know you're not crazy after a while of someone doing their best to throw stuff at you until you give up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't give up! QuackGuru is on thin ice because of past disruption. Your position is best for the reader thus it is best for Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

List of conspiracy theories

I just wanted to note that this :

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&diff=556645673&oldid=556639943

Here you are just annoying. You cant expect me or anyone else to stick around for this.

I'm not going to have a discussion about linking to disambiguation pages.

Why would you think it would be necessary to use my time for this?

I think it is just not worth any discussion?

We see this all over the wiki.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think your changes to the article were useful. As well, Dougweller disagreed with your changes and reverted them. You should take your case to the article's talk page and discuss your concerns. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

CCA

I see your point about tone and have revised my edit accordingly, though if the harshness you mentioned referred to the description of the divorce proceedings as "ugly", I would only point out that those were never my words and existed in the article prior to the most recent wave of vandalism. However, given what the actual cited source says, I think the relevant section of the Wikipedia article should have more than just the mere fact of the divorce itself. If not the summary that was there borders on misleading. That was actually the only thing my most recent edits was intended to add to the article. Cheers!Reigndog (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Counters

Hi, nice to see your editing of my contributions. Please note that there is no intention of any kind of spamming. I thought my editing will help many readers. As I get many emails, I though it would be appropriate to put this links. I have seen many such links which are about products & companies and that is why I thought these links may be helpful. Anyway thanks for retaining edit about computer based counters. Iknowvator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

14.139.187.130

Always a good idea to click on WHOIS before reporting an IP, this one is Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham University. I've used Twinkle to give it an IP header. It helps Admins decide what the best course of action is going to be. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Sitush filed that 3RRN report. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I told Sitush also. It's on my Watchlist now. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yda Addis link to website

Dear Sir, when you removed the external link to the Yda Addis website, I believe you acted a little too hasty. I spent 5 yrs researching & writing about Yda Addis-- there is no one more informed about the Life & Times of Yda Addis than me. I have attempted numerous times to expand her Wikipedia page, but the "editors," like you, seem to find a reason to tear down what I have added. So, I created an external website where I can show photographs, records pertaining to her life, & offer the viewers "Free" downloads to her stories. No one, but a very few people, have ever read her stories because they have been buried for 100 yrs in the page of The Argonaut, The Harpers Bazaar, The Californian & many more periodicals. Because she was a woman, many publishers, who were males, did not allow her work to be collected & anthologized in book form. And now, another male, has decided that the external link to an informative website is “tut, tut,” unacceptable. If you go to the website, you will see that there are NO offers that make money. It is an educational website ---that’s all. So I ask you to reconsider your decision. Chaos4tu (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You have a WP:Conflict of interest with regard to that website, so you should not put it into the article. You created the article in October 2006 and should be congratulated for that, but since then you have demonstrated petty and willful ownership issues such as complete blanking of the article on September 1, 2008, when User:Pigman was challenging it, followed by repeated blanking against restoration by other editors, which resulted in page protection to stop your disruption. In March 2010 you repeatedly reverted my edits which were attempts to stop various Las Vegas IP editors from removing information and a photo. These Las Vegas IPs appear to have the same interests as you do, and the same style in their edit summaries.

I would be more sympathetic to your argument about others tearing down the article if you yourself had not been the most vigorous in tearing it down (blanking it.)

In light of all that, I don't think you are able to approach this article with an objective outlook. You should limit yourself to suggestions proposed on the talk page, in accordance with the WP:Conflict of interest guideline. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Montclair District Notable Residents

Since you have shown an interest I wondered if I handled this edit - https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Montclair,_Oakland,_California&diff=578572186&oldid=578193180 properly. I know this is trivial but so is my experience as a wiki editor :) If this is not the correct way to handle it (or to add a section to your talk page) advice is welcome. Thanks. Tfcallahan1 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The piped link is not needed, see the two examples below:

• [[Barbara_Lee|Barbara Lee]]
• [[Barbara Lee]]

The first one works fine but it is larger than it needs to be.

Your fact tag is properly formatted, and your hidden comment is clear.

Finally, the question about Lee's residence in Montclair is very hard to answer. I looked and looked online but found no hint of where Lee lives in the Bay Area. I think the entry should be removed very soon if nobody comes up with a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I too did an extensive internet search and found no reference for where Lee resides. I will remove the link. If someone knows of a reference, please add back.

Also, as a relatively inexperienced editor, should additions to a talk page be added at the bottom? 10x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfcallahan1 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, new discussions go at the bottom of a talk page. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)