User talk:Binksternet

Binksternet	Articles created	Significant contributor	Images	Did you know	Awards

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012

Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Maus FA

Thanks, but actually, Maus was archived by GrahamColm as it only got one "support". CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no! I thought it was moved forward. There was the issue of your last call for a second opinion on wording of the synopsis, but that was not such a fatal flaw. I had no idea the FAC was running out of time. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. I've got a nomination for another article up now that's seems to be generating a lot more interest. When it's over, I'll copyedit Maus again and re-nominate it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Great work so far; good luck in the future. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

FTW ?

Free the whales ? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

maybe it means For The Win ? Redalert2fan (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the whales, particularly, but Redalert2fan has it right. Best! Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Hello. Please see WP:INFOBOXFLAG and Infobox Weapon documentation before re-adding further flags to Infobox Weapon. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see [1]. Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I was reverting vandalism at AK-47, not editing Infobox Weapon. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but with some collateral damage, as you reverted my correction too. Anyway, now you know why I came here. Bye. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Aliens Debunked

Binksternet,

I'll agree that from what I can gather Chris White has some pretty crazy beliefs. He may be doing it for the wrong reasons, but his methods of debunking Ancient Aliens appear sound to me. I strongly recommend for you to watch the documentary (even just the first section) before discrediting his movie based only on his other beliefs. In reviews of the movie, several people do note that he does bring in some of his crazy ideas near the end, and that is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I found it to be pretty damning of ancient aliens. Not only that but the movie does a really good job of explaining how many of these ancient structures were likely to be made. It is interesting even if you don't watch ancient aliens (which I don't). My only purpose is adding this link is to inform people who are trying to look into whether ancient aliens is total BS (it seems obvious to me, but not to a lot of people). Even the Skeptic Society has reviewed the movie and I can't imagine they often support Chris White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanwands (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I applaud the motive of telling the reader more about how Ancient Aliens is a TV show that puts forward completely wrong science. Chris White's debunking website and video must first be recognized by a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines before we can include it in the article. Hopefully it will get picked up soon by a magazine or newspaper. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the Skeptic Society not a reliable source? If not, what criteria does it not meet? Also, there is no actual claim being made by the statement I wrote. It merely says that a documentary was made which "attempts" to debunk the show. I don't think anyone can dispute that. I'm obviously new to the process so fill me in here.... Nathanwands (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was put off by the fact that Chris White, the producer of the film, wrote the Skeptic piece about the film, and that it was not a full-fledged criticism or review, just a promotional note of the "please look at my video and webpage" variety. I would have been fully convinced if a regular Skeptic writer reviewed the documentary and described its strengths and weaknesses. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

re We Can Do It! FA

Congratulations! — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great job getting the article We Can Do It! to Featured Article quality status, excellent work! The Wikipedia community values your contributions to this project. — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on We Can Do It!. LittleMountain5 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Great work! LittleMountain5 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oakland Skyline

I noticed you reverted my edit of the skyline photo. Your reason is the following: "Lake photo has more atmosphere"

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of atmosphere to an image that represents an economic juggernaut of 400,000 people. But I will not assume that my choice of images is better than yours. We both have our perspectives and ultimately a community should decide what image represents a city the size of Oakland.

What do you say we put this issue to a vote and let the Wikipedia community in the Bay Area decide which image should represent the City of Oakland.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

BDS2006 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Great idea! Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. I added an "Oakland Skyline Image - Vote" section to the talk page of the Oakland, CA article. If you have other methods for gathering the opinions of the Wikipedia community, I'm open to ideas!

Regards,

BDS2006 (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! Ada Lovelace Day San Francisco

October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited!

Come celebrate Ada Lovelace Day at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the Ada Initiative, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer. The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome! You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I will be at a nearby hotel working Day 2 of a three-day gig, so I must miss the event. Sounds like fun, though! Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Francis Ford Coppola

My changes were reverted by you in 11 minutes while I was still typing on the talk page. You have already reverted twice. Kindly refrain from doing so the thrid time without sufficient discussion on the talk page. I am sure you are aware of WP:3RR. I have no personal interest in "attacking" Coppola who happens to be one of my favourite directors. I came across this piece of information while reading the article Contact (film) and I think it is important that such a controversy is mentioned, as is the case in almost all other biography articles. I agree with you on the "emphasis", which I interpret as the length of the section. I have temporarily copied the text from the said Contact article. Please feel free to cut it to size as appropriate for the current article. Please note that on reading carefully you will find that the text itself is NPOV. The "attack" is actually the words of Carl Sagan's widow and his atternoy, quoting and citing reliable sources. Please discuss any further disagreements on the talk page where I have explained why I feel it is important to mention this. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Latino music articles

I watchlisted any of the Latino music articles that have not been protected yet and were edited by the IP block hopper. You probably should do the same, and any editing by the blockhopper means another RPP.--1966batfan (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have them all watchlisted. Thanks for the help! Good to have many eyes on the problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pink Sw.

PLease refrain from invoking "vandalism", per WP:NPA.--Galassi (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You wrote that the abominable book was well-researched and thoroughly cited. It is complete and utter garbage. Your contribution is harmful to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"We Can Do It!"

File:We Can Do It by Post-It notes, crowdsourced.jpg

Sticky notes photo op

Congrats on the FA, Mr. Bink! Hope you and Mrs. Bink are wonderful. Matthew (WMF) 20:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Me and the missus are well. We're looking forward to a visit from a Slovenian friend later in October, and a trip to Tucson in late November.

A few days ago Mrs. Bink sent me this image of a crowd-sourced image she saw at a software engineering meetup, thinking perhaps it would be a good fit for the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a great photo! Let me know if you ever want to head out again on a photo shoot or if there are any particular photos you'd like me to get for articles you're working on. Best Matthew (WMF) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You bet! Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Irony?

"I support Tvoz's right to speak her mind to reporters without any repercussions here". What repercussions? So you support her right to make sexist comments that disparage 90% of Wikipedia editors and perhaps even Wikipedia itself but you do not support my right to refute them? Why? Anyway, Coren agrees, and that's more than enough for me. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I say don't hound her about her opinion. That's all. Leave it alone. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, how original Bink. "Shut-up, stop it, leave it be, cut-it-out". Well, that approach may have worked well in pre-school and junior-high, but it's not going to work well on adults in general, just my opinion of which I think, I am still entitled. Also, you seem to be following mea round just as much as you think I am following Tvoz around, so why is it any different? Because you are "right" and I am "wrong"? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you are pressing the Streisand effect button, compounding the problem that Tvoz spoke to the reporter about. The WSJ article brings more eyes "backstage", looking at conversations between Wikipedians, and I am certain you are overreacting in a fashion that falls, almost comically, into the exact pattern Tvoz spoke against. If you keep going this direction, Wikipedia suffers, Tvoz feels WP:hounded, and your record is sullied. That's how I see it. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but FTR, I stopped posting to Tvoz's page, and I was having a conversation with Qwyrxian‎, not following her around. Qwyrxian‎ replied to me, implying that he thought the conversation at his talk page was fine. Your baseless accusations are unfounded and potentially damaging to that reputation you seem to be so concerned about. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You were interrupting a conversation between Tvoz and Qwyrxian, which means you were following Tvoz around. This looked to me like WP:HOUNDing behavior. I am not making "baseless accusations". I am warning you against making further hounding-type edits, for everybody's benefit including yours. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. How does this apply to your following me around acting as a personal advisor/Wikipedia cop? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of clarity, is this edit an example of someone following me around to conversations and wikihounding me, or is this perfectly not that for some reason I am unaware of? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw a great hole opening up underneath you and I thought you did not see it. I wanted to stop your movement along the hounding line so that you would not fall into the hole. I knew my interaction with you would be brief—just long enough to get your attention. Best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate your concern Binksternet, but you are not offering any clarification. Jburlinson is following me around, first to Tvoz's page, now at Jimbo's page. All I want to know is if his/her behaviour is also wikihounding? Or is it only wikihounding when you think I am doing it? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're a guy who is frequently aggressive in interactions. From that, I am guessing you have thick skin. I'm a guy with thick skin who likes to protect gals from excess aggression. I became concerned about Tvoz relative to your attention because of that. I figure you can handle Jburlinson. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that seems reasonably true overall. You're right, I can certainly handle Burlinson myself, and I wasn't looking for your protection from him, I was merely seeking a response to clarify if that's the kind of behaviour you were advising me to avoid. I do respect your chivalry greatly, and anyone who knows me in RL would concur. Maybe that's why I find this so frustrating, because in RL, I am a champion of women's rights, so to be accused of "an overabundance of testosterone" is insulting to me. If you are saying that men can abuse and wikihound other men but not women, then you are no longer about equality, its now more about protecting a gender you seem to deem in need of protection, a position some woman I know would find offensive.

IME, Tvoz is as hostile and aggresive as any male I have ever encountered here on Wikipedia or anywhere online, no question. I've been online for 25+ years. She also has a bit of a history with anti-male comments. Though, I had no idea until quite recently that she was female based on her interactions with me. As far as my own "aggression in interactions", I'll be working on that for sure, as one person making one step-toward improving this situation. I will say, at the risk of sounding like I'm making excuses, that my Wikipedia aggression was very much a learned behaviour, and that few if any could survive more than a few months editing Beatles related articles without learning to be somewhat forceful. That's not an excuse, but all the more reason for those of us who act aggresively to improve our behaviours ASAP. I see it all the time. New editors who start off quite nice and polite who quickly begin resorting to insults, snarky comments and one-up-personship.

Anyway, I'm babbling I know. I offer my sincere thanks for your efforts to dialogue this with me. Cheers! Also, if you think I pushed too hard at the mediation, well, you don't really know how hard I was pushed by them to have even taken that ridiculous dispute as far as I did. As it is, dozens of editors will not need to waste their precious time with this issue thanks to my efforts. So long-term, I am certain that my edits at the mediation will be a net positive, even if it takes a few months for that to become apparent. Also, no offense intended, but I brought up The Chicago Manual of Style long before you joined the mediation, just sayin'. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• On a more specific note, Tvoz made this comment to me yesterday, in reference to my need to make multiple edits for a single comment: "By the way - try using your sandbox to perfect your comments before posting them - it's a lot more considerate to other editors." True perhaps, but it is also completely ignoring the numerous possible biological causes for this, e.g. poor eyesight, dyslexia, dysgraphia, aphasia, etcetera. So, are we to believe that all women are more considerate and compassionate, and willing to work through potential biological difficulties of users? Or did Tvoz make a blatantly rude, and inconsiderate comment that is completely without gender distinction? And she made this inconsiderate and insulting remark in the same diff in which she chides me to be more considerate. Irony? Was Tvoz acting feminine here while I was acting aggressive and masculine? I think this insult is rude and inappropriate, the difference is I don't blame it on Tvoz's gender, I blame it on her lack of compassion and understanding for people with language difficulties. But aren't women supposed to be more considerate and nurturing? What gives? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Source

Adherents.com only lists the top 22 largest religions. Do u know a source listing the top 70 religions? Alternatively a source listing religions with 20,000 to 300,000 followers?

Not offhand, no. I'm working on some other research right now. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jan Wnek

I know from your work on Whitehead & Coanda that you have an interest in flaky aviation claims...I'm hacking the above article about, but have a problem. Wnek's claims are based on oral hand-downs, but somebody has claimed to have found records. However, he has not allowed any examination of these. So far, so good. However, if I say thse claims are unsubstantiated, I'm making a statement that needs citation. Help!TheLongTone (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It' a real curiosity. The man who is alleged to have made the claims seems fairly notble, there is an article on him on Polish wp & he published a number of works on folk art &c. I don't think the Polish wp article mentions Wnek, altho the machine translation was very hard going & I may have missed something. There seem to be no print sources cited anywhere, & all I have found on the net are dubious fansites and references which are clear cut n' pastes from WP. Complete with the dreadful clunky prose of the original. I'd get depressed, but life is too short to wonder at the general credulousness and illiteracy of people who write webpages. I'd be tempted to dismiss the whole thing as a hoax, but there is a photo of a memorial to him on the Polish WP Wnek article. Enjoy,if you can be bothered....I can see you are a busy manTheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm preparing comments for the article's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

How did you come up with all that?? I did a number of searches using various names & combinations, gave up looking on about the third page of each search...found zip.TheLongTone (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have always had good search mojo, and I am not certain why that is. Part of it may be the fact that I have been using Google for an extremely wide range of searches, for just about as long as they have been online. For other users of Google, they try and pick the displayed results using some algorithm to match that user's habits. I think they have given up on me in that regard—my search "pattern" does not fit into any of their algorithms. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UniversalAudio-Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:UniversalAudio-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Do me a favour?

Can you check this user for me? I noticed something about a banned editor, and this seems to be the same edit. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, suspicious behaviour. I will keep an eye on the user. Binksternet (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Could use some eyes on Australian Christian Lobby, where, like with the article on the American Third Position Party, schills have been trying to portray the movement as they describe themselves. The movement is an over-the-top extreme-right "Christian" organization that is rabidly anti-gay to the point where even other conservative Christian groups in Australia have distanced themselves from it. Would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Truman Committee

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User:LegrisKe

In regard to List of nude photo scandals, can you please explain why you said that LegrisKe created the page in violation of their ban or block? It looks like the page was created in 2011 and LegrisKe wasn't blocked until 2012. If there is more to the story that I'm not getting, please let me know. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking LegrisKe was created by another account to evade a block but I have no proof. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

You have been awarded the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award

Thumbs Up Award

for your recent post at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. I dissected the posting that you were responding to phrase by phrase, wrote impassioned responses to all of the component parts and then decided that you had said enough, that to get into an argument with the other editor would just reenforce that attitudes that he seems to hold. Thanks for doing it right. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha! What an appropriate award. Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey-- I added this to ANI.

Independent complaint

I found my way here after a clearly inappropriate deletion by binksternet popped up on my watchlist. Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite. And now I find out that he's been warned before, and the behavior is now spilling out onto articles only minorly connected to the Iranian Coup. This isn't a content dispute, it's a a series of deletion of useful content.

I wasn't involved in the earlier discussions on this subject, but it is "common knowledge" that the government was democratically elected-- a reliable source off the top of my head would be the US President Obama who explicitly said "democratically-elected" in his speech.

I understand it is a very contentious subject, but to continue editing here, you should confine your dispute to a single page, and only if you can generate consensus should you edit in a controversial way.

Good luck to you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied at ANI. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

dialogue

Well, I was hoping for dialogue, not discussion. I want to try to "understand" you, not try to argue with you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Request

Could you slow down on the removal of the "democratically elected" phrase? I know I suggested it as a compromise, but it was just that, a suggestion. Please don't be part of an edit war, especially citing the RfC closure. As you probably know, the closure of any RfC is really an unneeded formality because the next day the consensus can change. Any way, I'm not sure of the best way forward from here. I know I suggested mediation on my talk page. Would you be willing to try that? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You can see by my editing history that I'm working on other articles, not reverting the phrase "democratically elected". There is nothing for me to "slow down". Rather, I am waiting for a conclusive determination on the issue.

Usually I am very friendly to mediation. In this case I would not be willing to accept mediation as such a solution is always about behavior, not content. This is a content disagreement. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have edited 40 pages today removing democratically elected from all of them,are you denying this?Starting here I believe [2] and 40pages later you are here [3]. If you would like I can post links to the other 38 pages where you did the same thing that you seem to be denying above.Kabulbuddha (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Today" is a funny concept when Wikipedia runs on the UTC but individuals do not. Last night at my house, I edited a long string of pages in the way that I thought most appropriate. This morning and today I see the trouble it caused and I am completely hands-off until there is a conclusive determination. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your recent contributions, I was just basing my observations on the number of new orange bars per second I get. But I think you may be confusing the mediation committee with the arbitration committee. Mediation should be about reaching a consensus compromise that is agreeable to all parties and not about user conduct. Mediation is always voluntary, the results are not binding, and you can walk away at any time. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been reconsidering your closure of the RfC but I think it was very apt. I am sorry that you put yourself into this position—it takes great fortitude to stand up for the evidence presented by reliable sources in the face of such strong user opinion otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

In my years of dealing with Kurdo777 I have never seen him agree to mediation in a content dispute with me. I would be willing to participate, however. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A thanks

Hi Bink, I just want to say I'm sorry if I came off as "harsh". I try very hard to Asssume Good Faith, and my confidence in your good faith is reassured, seeing on talk that you've stepped back from those 40-some articles.  :)

I'm not going to get involved in the BIO dispute, but I just want to point out that democratically elected officials are often elected indirectly (As in the US Electoral College or the British Parliament). While constitutional monarchs do a ceremonial "appointment" ceremony, it's not as if Queen Elizabeth gets to pick who will become PM of the UK.

) I've enjoyed working with you and reaching consensus that the bulk of the articles should be left as-is. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not agreed that the 40+ articles should stay the way they were. I think the RfC will be upheld and the articles will once again need changing.

Saying that you have enjoyed working with me appears insincere in the face of you calling for the block button on me.

Just so you know, appointments in Iran are not elections. Queen Elizabeth was never the ruler of Iran; the UK is not Iran. In Iran before 1979, the king appointed the prime minister, period. See my sources at Talk:Mohammad Mosaddegh. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we can continue to discuss your confusion on the appointed/elected dichotomy as applied specifically to the Mossaddegh and can discuss on that talk. But this isn't a dispute to have in 40 different places, and seeing you indicate cooperation on that point to Nathan above is what I needed to hear. And it's not insincere-- I said your earlier 40-page edits were block-worthy, and I still think they were. But I don't believe in punitive blocking. You've said you've stopped reverting, so I can say I would no longer suggest blocking you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My enjoyment of this discussion is greatly reduced if my considered appreciation of a fact is termed "confusion" by you. Moving forward, I don't see any benefit in you and I hashing it out separately here on my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Pls be careful

Pls take your time when editing (preview perhaps) as blanking is not good!!Moxy (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't intend to do this, but I just wanted let you know so that you can do what you really intended. :). Cresix (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Amp71. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Beatles without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Not sure if it was intentional or not, but looks like a big chunk of stuff deleted from there. Amp71 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My best guess is that the article failed to completely load into the edit window, a failure I did not see. Thanks for correcting the problem. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No harm done obviously. You couldn't have picked a better article to make such a goof: thousands upon thousands of eyes on it every hour, as evidenced by all the messages you got. Cresix (talk) 00:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenaz (Berkeley)

Started that article tonight :) SarahStierch (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Madonna facts =

Who died and made you the decider of what is important enough to NOT censor? It's a part of her history. I don't see how just because it's not part of daily life conversations forbids us to mention it on her page. I find this ridiculous that you have to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.48.228 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a biography of Madonna's life and career, but only a summary of the main facts. Smaller facts of the sort that you wish to insert—that Madonna auditioned for a part and did not make it—are not part of the main facts. None of the major biography books mentions it, and they mention details we don't include. That makes me think it is much less important.

In an encyclopedia article the information presented to the reader should be essential. In many cases, less is more; addition by subtraction. I think the article is better suited to our readership if it can be trimmed of lesser facts. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter

The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009), Sturmvogel 66 (2010) and Hurricanehink (2011). Our final standings were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Sasata (submissions)
3. Grapple X (submissions)
4. Casliber (submissions)
5. Muboshgu (submissions)
6. Miyagawa (submissions)
7. Ruby2010 (submissions)
8. Dana Boomer (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

• The featured article award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for four featured articles in the final round.
• The good article award also goes to Grapple X (submissions), for 19 good articles in the second round.
• The list award goes to Muboshgu (submissions), for three featured lists in the final round.
• The topic award goes to Grapple X (submissions), for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
• The did you know award goes to Cwmhiraeth (submissions), for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
• The news award goes to ThaddeusB (submissions), for 10 in the news items in round 3.
• The picture award goes to Grandiose (submissions), for two featured pictures in round 2.
• The reviewer award goes to both Ruby2010 (submissions) (14 reviews in round 1) and Grandiose (submissions) (14 reviews in round 3).
• Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to Cwmhiraeth (submissions).

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sock?

This 'new' editor seems to have developed an instant dislike towards several of your edits. Do you know who it might be? Ankh.Morpork 18:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Instant dislike? I and another editor reverted his edits because he went to 40 plus articles and deleted sourced information on a false assumption that an admin in an RFC ruling had given him the right to.If you check his contributions then you will see what happened, you could also have followed the discussion about it on various talk pages. I think you should do some more research before trying to blemish my character. Thanks. Kabulbuddha (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork, you may have a point about the new user being a sockpuppet, but you would need to have an idea about which other user was the puppeteer. I don't see a correlation.

Regarding my 40+ edits that he was reverting, I was implementing the result of an RfC which said both "democratically elected" and "appointed" should be used to describe Mosaddegh's rise to prime minister of Iran, or neither of those terms. I saw that many articles which merely mentioned Iran or Mosaddegh in passing were not appropriate to have the both option so I implemented the neither option. I ran into a hailstorm of gunfire on that one. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Kabulbuddha was blocked as a sock. Ankh.Morpork 15:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR Warning , replacing well-sourced "democratically-elected" with OR phrase "legitimate"

Please refrain from inserting original research into Wikipedia articles. By doing so, you're knowingly undermining Wikipedia's integrity as a reliable source by ignoring consensus and clear scholarly clarification on this issue that was recently obtained. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

An overreaction, I think, to a reasonable rephrasing. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Strange Quote in Talk:Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor

Hi there. It may interest you to know that I found the book that weird quote that you removed from Results of the attack on Pearl Harbor came from, and it turns out that it is printed as "Seven out of two" in the source. However, that book quotes that text from a masters thesis held at UW Madison that I can't access easily. Unless the original quote can be found, it seems best to leave it out of the article, in my opinion at least. I left a note at the talk page describing the situation. Just thought you might be interested to hear what I found. Good day, Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's best to leave it out. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Request for Comment: An RFC about the Backlog Elimination Drives has been started this month. Go and voice your opinions! Featured editorial: A Matter of Time: The Future of Backlog Elimination Drives Project News: Over 345 unreviewed articles, 13 at reassessment Good Articles of the Month GA Task Forces: A calmed GA community awaiting for an RFC Member News: 223 members of the GA Wikiproject Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012

War on Women lede

Hello, I'm Nintendude64 and I noticed that you had reverted an edit I made to the War on Women article. I have reverted this edit here: [4]. The reason this edit was made is because there was discussion on the talk page to include reliable sources, and I was also requested by a visiting editor to provide citation before re-adding: [5]. Please refer to the article's talk page, as you've done before, to participate in the discussion. The particular topic is here: Talk:War on Women#RfC_-_Scope_of_Article. Thank you. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as the opening lede sentence, there isn't anything more to it from what I can see. There is Talk:War on Women#Balance_in_the_Lede but that is unrelated to this particular matter with the lede. If you do see more, please include it. I also think it'd probably be better to continue to discussion this on the article's talk page rather than you talk page. My post to your page was only to explain my actions. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 04:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF

Please don't ever template me again with such bogus claims of disruptive editing. Go poke elsewhere.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What template? Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for finding the sources to support the content about the Emmy Awards received for Amber Lyon. I had created the Awards section to hopefully be able to add the Emmy Awards once the sources could be located to verify the content. Your work is appreciated! Cindy(talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for the fun interaction. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Backatcha! I'm outta here for the day. Have fun! Cindy(talk to me) 21:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A People's History

Could you please explain what your problem is? I have thoroughly explained my changes, and you are reverting without giving any reason. If you think "others" is an appropriate word to describe detractors, especially when the sentence before that describes supporters as "reviewers from the left," then I think the article expresses a serious POV issue.

As for the summary of the one critic's opinion, I do not see how a quote about a particular opinion by one person is relevant for the opening header, especially when the actual quote by the critic is contained in the appropriate section. This too seems to raise POV issues.

Please explain before reverting reasoned, good faith changes, as is custom. Thanks 74.96.75.228 (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not just conservative critics who say negative things about the book, it is highly respected historians.

I have recast that particular paragraph, abiding by the guideline at WP:LEAD. I think you will like it better. Binksternet (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Your edit is excellent. Do you think you could come up with a better way to phrase the sentence before that? "Reviewers on the left have called it brilliant, moving, and a great tool for moving forward the cause of social activism through the teaching of history through the prism of class consciousness." The phrase "reviewers on the left" seems inappropriate for similar reasons for your change to the sentence that had succeeded it before your edit. There are certainly many respected historians who both support and detract from the book. The sentence in general also seems to be similarly biased, especially words such as "brilliant" and "moving." Indeed, a better idea might be to just scrap both sentences, and just put in a sentence stating that the book has been polarizing, especially as the critical reception section has a large quantity of quotes giving any perspectives in which a reader might be interested. 74.96.75.228 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I thought I should mention, since you felt the need to say something about reverting, that I was not reverting, but actually changing to different phrases each time, to try to find a better solution. You were the one reverting, and I think it is important that we all hold ourselves to the same standards. Thank you, and I appreciate your help 74.96.75.228 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)