User talk:Binksternet/Archive29

DYK nomination of Saguache Crescent

Hello! Your submission of Saguache Crescent at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop removing content from Joey Sturgis

There is no official credible source for album credits. Taking images or scans from cd liner notes is illegal. There is no national database because distributors are private companies that aren't required to disclose album details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.24.75 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If there is no published source to back up the fact then the fact does not belong in the biography. See WP:No original research. Wikipedia says it is not enough that your text is true or correct, it must also be previously published.

You can WP:Cite album liner notes even if you don't scan them. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You must have missed the fact that the first reference is a link to all the credits -> http://www.allmusic.com/artist/joey-sturgis-mn0000938432 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.24.75 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a great source. Thanks for the link. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ramped up

Binksternet, the activity at Snowden has ramped up to the point that I think some action is needed. It is a battlefield where even the simplest work is being disrupted. The long standing Lede is being used to retell the story, and a team has formed. No amount of sense from other editors seems to bring about more sensible editing behaviour nor good communication on the talk page. The talk page is all we've got, if that doesn't work, is there some sort of RfC, or...? Thanks again, petrarchan47tc 23:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I will look at what's going on. I've been preoccupied with another biography. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But you have enough time to keep templating my user Talk page with "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period... Please consider using the article's talk page..."? Let's leave aside the fact I am obviously aware of this advice such that the only remaining explanation is that you are trolling me. Let's also leave aside the fact that you templated me the minute JohnValeron removed what I added and then Petrarchan stepped in to restore exactly what I added down to the last punctuation point (how does it help Petrarchan if when I add material she wants you template ME instead of the guy she's warring with?) For a user to have performed four reverts within 24 hours, he or she would have had to have edited FOUR times, no? I've edited TWICE in 24 hours (note that policy counts "...edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user..." as a single edit for counting purposes). And in these two edits, there is nothing at all in common between these two edits, either in terms of including something or excluding something. In other words, in no sense have I returned even just twice to some preferred version. If you are going to say that I edited twice to move the article to my preferred version, well of course every edit is a move towards a preferred version in the eyes of the editor. It makes no sense to call this ordinary editing edit warring, however.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The template I put on your page required almost no time on my part. I put it there after seeing that you had reverted several times in the last 24 hours at the Snowden article. The template is a reminder for you to keep from breaking the 3RR brightline rule, as you recently learned from your first block. If you have a problem with any future appearance of that template of that sort you can remove it. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating an opportunity to wag your finger and toot your horn like this about getting me blocked was, of course, the whole rationale behind your successful effort to get me blocked by gaming the system. When I pointed out on the policy Talk page that its wording allowed this gaming of yours, you had nothing to say in defence of your behaviour and neither did the blocking admin. As for this instance, I edited TWICE, not "several times," the second time to add material I had never added before to my recollection, and you didn't template me "after seeing" this, you templated me after JohnValeron reverted my addition! What is "required almost no time on my part" supposed to mean? That you simply don't care if your templating of other users is devoid of justification? You can only hit user pages on a drive-by basis because you are too busy to slow down? May I suggest that you start to care? As for "reminding" me, I should think the fact I felt compelled to remove this exact same Template from my Talk page in the recent past is obvious evidence that these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome. Since you refuse to look at that obvious evidence, apparently I must spell it out for you here: these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome and you are hereby instructed to keep them off my Talk page. Any questions? You continue to remain welcome to actually discuss any good faith concerns of yours on my Talk page (ie no drive-by templating).--Brian Dell (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of social sites in Political parties articles

Hi Binksternet, thanks for the reply in talk page. But still i have a query, if adding social sites in indian political parties is not a concern in wikipedia then in the edit section of External_links a message is displayed "ATTENTION! Please do not add links without discussion and consensus on the talk page. Undiscussed links will be removed" but no such restriction in the edit section of INC can you please throw some light on it? Although this may seem a trivial thing, but i think it will be useful in protecting from vandalism of indian political parties and politicians articles. Work2win (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I will add that message to the INC article, though you could have added it yourself. Be WP:Bold. Binksternet (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, thanks for the reply.

I didn't know that i as a autoconfirmed user could add a message there. Even then i believe in consensus in editing articles. Work2win (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be willing to have a critical view on Impalement once I have achieved a major size reduction of it?

Hi, Binksternet! First off, thanks for your previous comments on egregious length of article (those comments have lingered in my mind..). Secondly, the way I personally work is that I need to have the "full overview" of a topic before I can crystallize the topic into those elements I regard as truly essential/representative. That means loads of work that afterwards is deleted (although I do not think that, then, has been a waste). I need time to mull over the full topic, until my brain gradually sorts out the principal sub-topics that I can justify to myself to represent the whole.

I believe that I have reached that matured overview now, and have a plan to make a 60-70% reduction of the article, bringing it down, I guess, into the 80-90k range. But, before beginning that trimming process, it would be nice to know if another editor might, after the reduction, take a look at it. Furthermore, should I delist the article from "Good Article" once I've done so, and instead renominate it? (It's not terribly important to me to get that badge, but it is important to me that a badge awarded on different premises is not transferred to a substantially changed article!! The latter would be a sort of dishonesty, I think..)

Now, whether or not you are willing to look over it, I'll give a brief sketch here of what I am going to retain:

On methods, I will include one vivid description of longitudinal impalement, and one description of transversal impalement. I will also retain a discussion of survival time for longitudinal impalement. That should suffice for the general reader!

On historical topics, I will retain the following:

• Ancient Middle East (because that is where it developed, will probably cut out Egypt, Persia and Rome as marginal, relative to notable Babylonia, (Neo-)Assyrians and Biblical evidence). Reason for retaining? That's where it all "began" (Babylonia for earliest, Neo-Assyrians for fiercest, Biblical for independently extremely notable culturally)!
• Due to his notoriousness, Vlad Tepes (Dracula) has to be retained.
• Foci on just two medieval/early modern societies practicing impalement, Holy Roman Empire (Germany) and Ottoman Empire. This fits nicely with the distinction between transversal/longitudinal impalement as well, with predominantly transversal in HRE and predominantly longitudinal in OE.

And that's basically what I wish to retain.

The subtopic of gaunching, i.e, throwing people onto hooks in some way, is more profitably split out as an independent article, which can be be briefly mentioned in Impalement, with link to main article on "gaunching", in the manner already done with bamboo torture.

Lastly, would it break Wikipedia norms to include in "See also" a link to an earlier, more comprehensive version of the same article, only to be accessed for readers truly "obsessed" with the topic???

Ok, it would be nice to hear if you think that such a major size reduction is ideally needed, and furthermore, if my proposed sketch initially strikes you as a good plan! Cheers, Arildnordby (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I have begun size reduction; if you disagree with the necessity of doing so, please say so. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Even your note here is too long! You could have just signed your name under the header. ;^)

Ping me again when you think you are ready for a review. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that!Arildnordby (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your fix on the Ronan page.

I was going to revert your change because of the lack of talk page discussion until I saw you were obviously a neutral and experienced editor. I have no disagreement with the edit, and suspect that it is better simply because someone like you made it. There was an accusation of synthesis on my original content, which is not true. [1] search for the text "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester in blistering tweet". I shortened this to four words to make it more encyclopedic. I do believe my changes were accurate and relevant. I am not qualified to know what the right balance within WP on bold language is, and would love your casual insights. Woody Allen is accused by Ronan of Sexual molestation per a reliable second source, and this is a key part of Ronan's biography. Worth four words or a sentence.

Thanks for your involvement on this issue.

Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the goodwin (talk • contribs) 22:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think discussion of this sort is best conducted on the article talk page, or on noticeboards, but not on individual talk pages. I took part in the WP:BLPN discussion about this issue. There is still the matter of context: should the reader be told that Farrow's accusation has not resulted in any legal or civil suit? Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

agreed. I came here to thank you and ask for perspective which you gave. I have been directed against using talk pages for anything except discussing content changes, and I am satisfied with the content discussions. Bob the goodwin (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan redux

Frankly Bink I see this comment as both sexist and disruptive. Sexist because Petrarchan has been around the horn long enough to take care of herself. Disruptive because you're blindly defending a serial disruptor. Your effort at chivalry gallantry is contrary to the aims of the project.

I request that we make a good-faith effort to resolve this dispute now. Is that something you're interested in? Please lay out all of the evidence of "harassment" and "hounding" you have against me in the forum of your choice, and the community can discuss it. If you refuse to do so then I can only assume you only want to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and perpetuate problems. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope that this doesn't happen. You are both good editors as is Petrarchan. Bink should not be fighting her battles. DrF is correct, it is sexist and reinforces the belief that women are not able to stand up for themselves and need a protector to speak for them. What I would like to see is to have DrF and Petrar come here and discuss. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gandy. I would love that. Seriously. Get it all out in the open in the hopes of moving on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: When I say "the forum of [Bink's] choice," that could include my user talk, Bink's user talk, someone else's user talk (with their permission of course), or even a user sub-page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DrF, you do not know what I know about Petra. In this case my sexism is not assumed, it is the result of observation and calculation. I don't intend to protect Petra from answering to whatever notional "serial disruption" she might have caused, but I do intend to try and keep her constructive edits, which I value.

As far as the time frame for my "laying out all of the evidence", I have many other concerns not the least of which is my real life job. As well, I have been overdosing on wikidrama lately. Whenever this happens, to keep myself from burning out I return to building relatively uncontroversial articles. Whenever it is that I choose to lay out all of the evidence it will require most of my time and attention for a whole day, probably two for responses. I don't know when such an opportunity will arise. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Three things:

• "DrF, you do not know what I know about Petra." Tell me what you know about her then, instead of keeping it a secret. It's intellectually dishonest to justify your actions by referring to information that you refuse to disclose. You might as well have written, "You're wrong but I can't tell you why." That's just what the federal government does, and it doesn't build trust.
• "Whenever it is that I choose to lay out all of the evidence it will require most of my time and attention for a whole day, probably two for responses. I don't know when such an opportunity will arise." So you will continue to cast aspersions while withholding the basis for doing so indefinitely, eh? Somewhere I saw a policy against that. In any case it's just not nice.
• "I don't intend to protect Petra from answering to whatever notional "serial disruption" she might have caused." Then join Gandy and ask her to answer to them. Actions speak louder than words. You are simply not acting as if you want to resolve this dispute.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I find your response hostile and intrusive. Please see my previous post. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? So it's "end of discussion"? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If you cut off this discussion then you're a numpty. :-) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

So true! (if the truth be known, until this moment, DrF, I really did not like you one bit!) why are those words, "we can work it out, we can work it out" in my head over and over...what song is that? Gandydancer (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Bink, I really hope you're not WP:GAMING here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This saddens me. My gender has nothing to do with anything. Nor does Binksternet's. I did everything I could to try and continue editing at the Snowden page peacefully, and it only got worse and worse. Including the last day I edited there, trying to add the well documented "Snowden Effect" without Fleischman, who knows nothing of the subject and proved it by his complaints, kicking my shins the whole time. I have been calling out for help on that talk page, and Binksternet stepped in in the way that was needed. That talk page was, and is, taken over by hostile forces in my opinion, who aren't there to build an article, at least no evidence would support that idea, but are there to bother editors who are, and perhaps stop that process. I know that Fleischman did the same at Sam Adams Award, The Day We Fight Back, just like Bdell555 did at Russ Tice. For the most part, these are articles where I was the sole editor and forced to then deal with them. They seemed happy to toy with me endlessly, daily. Their edit histories show that indeed their days were dedicated to articles I worked on since early January. From my POV, this was beyond exhausting. When I called out for help with Bdell555, it was after a week dealing with him at the Tice article. This was when Fleischman stepped in. At that point, the Snowden talk page was completely taken over, and Fleischman was joined by his ALEC buddy, Captioljsmo, then a new guy who now repeats and agrees with his every word at the Snowden page. This is a loosing battle, but with Binksternet on the scene it didn't seem completely desperate to me.

Binksternet was the first person to respond to my early calls for help at Wikipedia years ago, with regard to some spin-doctoring going on at the BP page. He was the only person, after 2 noticeboards about the BP situation, who came and helped and stuck around. (Gandydancer was a huge help too, though knew about it from the BP oil spill page, not the noticeboards). His contributions there were priceless.

People, whether male or female, have different personality types. Wikipedians in general are a little too politically correct and nice to successfully handle the situation we find ourselves in: a talk page and article has been highjacked by people who won't listen to reason, aren't moved by community consensus and who act like complete jerks. I think the two months of repeating myself to Bdell555 along with the help of other volunteers, which brought about no changes whatsoever, proves that. I don't see any hope for that page without Binksternet - or - a larger group of independent editors willing to stick around, do reverts, do research, check their watchlist - every day - at least, with the amount of activity there lately, that's what is required. But that is not happening.

I am stunned that the one person who seems willing and able to help is being bashed by all sides. He is now experiencing what I was when he came in and 'saved' me. He, without my asking, reverted incredibly hostile comments from one energetic editor who was dedicated to bothering me, and I am forever grateful. There were many comments I never saw because of him. It is a proven fact that online comments can affect a person, and they certainly do me. I have crossed over into territory here at Wikipedia that has ruined my taste for the place entirely. I know there are editors who not only don't care if I am hurt, but who would like to see that reality, based solely on the content of the articles i've been working on. I wish more people here would lend a hand to help fellow editors who are being bashed, whether they are asked to do it or not. And Binksternet was not. Frankly, from a personal standpoint, this was one of the most touching things that has happened to me in a long while - that someone would go to such lengths to help a stranger (and to help the Pedia) has left me speechless. I have a feeling the rest of the community does know what a gem Binksternet is.

It is sad that in one's normal editing experience here, one can come across people who intend only to protect a certain ideology or special interest, and finds little to no support for overturning this wave. People have stated unambiguously a disdain for whistleblowers, yet are allowed to continue editing pages of people who have been given the label. Wikipedia seems to operate with almost zero common sense. If our number one rule is NPOV, then those who've stated their bias should be barred from fucking with articles and editors working in that area. I bring this up and... *crickets*. Binksternet is the only one who seems to know how to respond to the BS at Wikipedia, and who has offered to help. He gets spit in the face. Nice. I have no hope for this place. petrarchan47tc 18:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

At least Bink and Gandy are civil most of the time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What you are doing is far from civil, whether you have a smile behind your words or a growl. petrarchan47tc 23:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Too wrongs don't make a right. Rise above, bodhisattva aspirant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Saguache Crescent

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your work on Jane Kim. Chisme (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome! I had been intending for some time to rework the biography. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just want things to be clear

In yet another ANI report this evening I was accused of calling you a numpty. I'd like to make it very clear to you and to everyone else that I did no such thing, and would be very unlikely ever to do so. Eric Corbett 23:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's too bad, because the word is so delightfully quirky. I give you permission to call me numpty in the future if it strikes you as appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick look makes me realize the accusation was about targeting Bencherlite, not me. You still have my permission. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure you know that if I ever thought you were behaving like a numpty I'd tell you so. But these interminable ANI reports just merge into one for me, so apologies for confusing you with Bencherlite. Eric Corbett 00:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ronan Farrow

Just a head's up that Bob the goodwin has said something about you that appears to be false here, which I addressed in my follow-up comment here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Well, that's a 48 hour break but I suspect that over the weekend we'll be right back in the same spot and probably putting a similar post on the 3RR noticeboard. I hope I wrong, but from their attitude today ... Ravensfire (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Albright Article Revert Issue

In the Charlie Albright article, it seems that you are reverting every possible edit and addition that is made, upon looking at the history. I am a long-time follower of Charlie Albright and was physically at the concert that the review in the Cortez Journal.

You erased two edits/additions that I created with only the explanation that "prose not suitable for encyclopedia. Albright is not known for being a composer, though he certainly has composed."

It is very clear that the prose is indeed suitable for an encyclopedia, as it is consistent with other quotes from reviews/reception in many other articles. Furthermore, this addition is significant because it not only discusses Albright's technical and emotional ability at the piano, but that he "transcends" that and is on a different level...as well as discusses his compositions being significant and important as well.

...Which leads to the issue of why you seem to revert anyone's addition of "composer" to his title. In your opinion, you claim that he is not known for being a composer, but searches on the internet show that he is just as avid a composer as pianist and is internationally known for such as well (just read the entire review in the Cortez Journal if you do not have the time.)

Please do not needlessly revert entire edits simply with non-descript explanations such as "prose not suitable" but it is consistent with similar articles across Wikipedia. The wording was not biased and was factual from primary sources (newspapers).

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwsmith3228 (talk • contribs)

Tell me one composition of Albright's that has gained recognition of its own. The answer: none. If Albright is hired as a composer, if he gets composer credits on a film, for instance, then he will be a composer on Wikipedia. Until then, he is known as a pianist.

I removed your text which I called "purple prose" because it was far too laudatory. Please see the guideline WP:PEACOCK which discusses proper wording. If you can reword the addition such that the praise is dialed way down, then you will have found the proper balance for an encyclopedia.

I reworked the whole biography last December because it had been developed by Jdanieloh who does nothing but write about Albright and upload photos of Albright, some of which have been deleted because of no permission. Jdanieloh had made the biography into a hagiography. I tried to make it more encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, user:binksternet, for your input. I suppose that using your reasoning, nobody on YouTube is a true "composer." If you go on iTunes, Amazon, CDBaby, or anywhere else online and see his CD "Vivace," you will see that he is a credited composer on that album. Furthermore, check his YouTube channel (http://youtube.com/pianomanca) and you will see that he has tens of thousands of views on many of his self-composed pieces. If that is not a "composer," I do not know what is.

I have trimmed my previous addition from the Cortez Journal as per your request and resubmitted it with the above information.

POV pushing

So, you don't see what I'm talking about at all? Dan56 edits jazz and R&B articles for GA and FA, but he only edits classic rock and metal articles to add negative critical commentary and genre war. He does not improve these articles beyond making sure that there is disparaging critical commentary included. What if I found a critic who hated hip-hop, then I went around to articles about hip-hop music and added negative commentary from said critic? What if I also kept all of those articles on my watchlist even though I was not editing or improving them just so that I could monitor if any of the negative stuff is removed, at which point I cry wolf and call whoever removed it a bully and accuse them of attempting to whitewash the material. For someone as skilled as you are at picking out tells and patterns I'm really surprised that you don't see this. I could point you to 6-8 articles that Dan has done this at this year. Now he's complaining that I removed a bit from Christgau that claimed that Rubber Soul is a better concept album than Pepper; I've never even heard anyone refer to RS as a concept album, but Dan insists that it needs to be included because Christgau said it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to try and sort through everybody's edit histories, nor am I going to try and figure out how well the various articles reflect the sources. My few comments about this issue have been general, not specific. I think that with Dan56 training his notional beam of negativity at various articles, other editors such as yourself will be more motivated to work the material into them to form a well-rounded reference. Our readers ultimately benefit. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Bink. Its not a bad thing to add balanced or negative comments, but to add ridiculous negative stuff only to articles about music that you do not like is inappropriate POV pushing. Are you really stating on the record that you think its a good thing for an editor to add negative commentary to articles about music that they do not like because they do not like it? Really? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just take 15 minutes to glance at these talk pages: Talk:News of the World (album)#Rock, Talk:Led Zeppelin IV#Rock and roll / blues, Talk:The Game (Queen album)#IMMEDIATE REMOVAL OF "POMP ROCK", Talk:Babel (album)#Genre, Talk:...And Justice for All (album), and Talk:All Things Must Pass#To soul or not to soul. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, thanks.

I do not accept your assessment of the situation as fact, because I have not and choose not to investigate it myself. Nor do I think it is useful to complain about negative reviews if such reviews are indeed reliably sourced. The situation you say you are in, one in which another editor purposely puts negative material into articles, is a question of balance, a management of the sources. The negative material should be relevant, sufficiently high quality and represented in proper balance with regard to the general literature on the topic. If you think Dan56 should stop doing what you say he's doing, start an RFCU against him, accusing him of violating NPOV, the section about undue weight. Such an argument is difficult to carry forward if it is not extreme.

I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like. I also remove puffery from such articles for the same reason, but in my defense, my motive is to establish a proper balance, not to push a proper balance into the negative. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it your position that we should include the quote of Christgau calling Rubber Soul a better concept album than Pepper just because it can be reliable sourced? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Christgau is wa-a-ay out in the weeds here. Rubber Soul is not said to be a concept album by anybody else. Even Sgt Pepper has people saying it is not a concept album. So the comment by Christgau is not appropriate per WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I of course agree that Christgau is "wa-a-ay out in the weeds", but I would extend that to almost any topic related to rock music, especially music that is at all heavy. That's part of the issue with Dan, who has gone around and pushed Christagu's massively biased opinions on numerous rock topics. Christgau is a self-avowed jazz enthusiast who said that Hendrix was "a terrible Uncle Tom" after Monterey. He also expresses dislike for metal and Dan pushes his ignorant views on metal articles. Thanks for agreeing on that point at least, but I'm a little surprised that you are okay with an editor aggressively pushing bias in the guise of balance on articles that he shows no interest in beyond that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

I found Alexander Rivkin's bio while searching something else and was wondering - with those references and etc., does the subject look notable to you? It looks to be more self-promotion but after I was shot down for saying that a man who uses his Wikipedia notice about some flower pots he rearranged to play himself up to local kids simply isn't notable for getting one press release into the New York Times, I no longer trust my Notable/Non-notable filter. What say you about this one? Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Same cleanup, found another show-biz orphan Mahasti. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(friendly stalker) If I may speak out here, the Rivkin article is a free Wikipedia advertisement if I ever saw one. I note that the editor that put the article in was a sock. The refs are far from acceptable. Thanks for bringing this up Ellin. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it's helpful to limit the time frame of Google searches so that Wikipedia's own influence is minimized. Doing so shows that Mahasti was listed in 1999 in the book World Music on page 360, along with her sister Hadeyeh. The 2003 version of Encyclopedia Iranica lists Mahasti and her sister. The 1991 Virgin Directory of World Music describes Mahasti as being overtaken in fame by her sister. All of these are brief mentions in passing, not dedicated coverage. It's likely that dedicated coverage could be found in Persian language sources.

Regarding Rivkin, the article is a blatant advertisement. The guy has been mentioned in passing in Elle and Los Angeles Magazine but his notability is not high enough to meet WP:BASIC. I'm gonna nominate the thing for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

When is a conflagration not a conflagration

You recently made the same edit to 19th Operations Group and XXI Bomber Command. I have no idea how strong the wind was (there is no reference), and firestorm doesn't help, but your edit leaves both articles with a sentence that says a conflagration is called a conflagration. It would be helpful if you edited the sentence in the articles--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the note! I must have been moving too quickly through the various articles which were saying that Tokyo was a firestorm. The reference is "Exploratory Analysis of Firestorms" published by Stanford Research Institute in May 1965. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is a discussion here in which you might like to participate. Radiopathy •talk• 17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Clapton = God

Concerning your removal of my Eric Clapton edit, citing bias, I must state that in addition to a plethora of magazine/newspaper/Internet articles/interviews, I've found numerous other Wiki articles that refer to him as such (eg, "Honorific nicknames in popular music"). Therefore, I find it only fitting to include it in his list of aliases. This edit isn't intended as a troll, nor petty vandalism, but as acknowledgement towards his extraordinary ability and the names people bestow upon him in respect and admiration as a result. Just because some people may not agree with the "Honest Abe" moniker, does that not mean Abraham Lincoln can be listed as such on his entry? Not everyone necessarily sees Michael Jackson as the King of Pop, but that doesn't stop Wiki from listing him as such. Food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.145.96 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You had me at "troll". Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Way to keep an open mind. All I'm saying is, you guys at Wikipedia are pretty anal about consistency and proof and whatnot; yet I present to you an entry that doesn't jive with the other corresponding information on PLENTY of other entries, and I'm the one dismissed as a troll. Integrity: not your strong suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.145.96 (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody calls Clapton "God" alone, using "God" by itself as a nickname. Nobody puts up a newspaper headline saying "God Slays Wembley" or whatnot, when reviewing a Clapton performance. Rather, the term "God" is used in combination with Clapton's surname. This is discussed sufficiently in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. But whatever, you guys really aren't worth the time anymore. There's a whole world outside, with reasonable people. You just have fun with your little crusade to be the best darn Internet moderator that you can be. That'll show 'em. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.145.96 (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Binkster, have you ever noticed how "Peace" is a big flapping red flag of insincerity in almost any Internet conversation? --Yaush (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Haha! Excellent observation. Remind me to buy you a beer if we ever meet. For reals.

You know the joke about faking sincerity? I understand that the quote has been traced by blogger "Garson O’Toole" to Celeste Holm quoting someone else to Leonard Lyons in 1962, but without naming the originator.[2] How about this bit from 1955? Milton Hindus of Brandeis University analyzed the poetry classic Leaves of Grass:

"Our Walt Whitman is the slyest of artificers, the artificer of 'sincerity,' and if this sounds like a joke, there is no reason why even the greatest poetry cannot be a joke on someone, not excluding its author."

From Leaves of Grass One Hundred Years After, page 72. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Question

I found that another not particularly active user [3] made comment on the last Alexander Rivkin discussion. Their editing appearance and name would seem to fit into the sort of behavior exhibited by the person who resurrected Rivkin, see particularly en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MusicLover650. I don't know where to point this out, so please point me in right direction, or ?? Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That one from 2009 is stale and inactive; no administrator will agree to block the account. Sparkzilla99 will have to start up with new disruption before a block can be considered.

The account which created the first Rivkin bio is Watermeloniris. I can tell because of a talk page message about the first Afd. Sparkzilla99 was probably a sock of Watermeloniris. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My best efforts will be directed at the Core Contest during the next few days, doing a sort of peer review of 14 articles in my role as co-judge. If there's any wind in my sails after that, I will look your Monk article. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice regarding Thargor Orlando thread

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You are quite an inspiration

If everything you say on your user page is correct you are quite the Wikipedian. Thank you so much I'm so glad to know you. And I appreciate all you've done for Wikipedia. Thanks! Your friend Rainbowofpeace or as my friends call me Angel.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! Yes, everything on my user page is correct.

Best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

HarveyCarter socks

Hi. Just thought I'd run this by you. I know the edit summary here is the exact opposite of the edit summary here, but nevertheless I have reason to believe it is the same editor. He has a history of inconsistency, and often makes "reasonable" edits as well as / before making outlandish ones. Scolaire (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm suspicious, too, but I have not yet found a smoking gun edit of his. I'll keep an eye out, but this IP will soon be discarded for another if he's HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What?

So when do we have to provide citations for comments made on a Talk page, sir?72.188.178.14 (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The edit you deleted was on a Discussion page, Binksternet, not on a content page. I call bullshit.JackFloridian (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Check out the policy page WP:BLP which says "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That's what guided my action. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You meant to quote this part of that page; "material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" (my emphasis). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Jane Kim

The DYK project (nominate) 01:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

California

I started a discussion on Talk:California about your revert of my edits. I would be very appreciative if you could respond to my comments. (BTW your half-edit revert was reverted by another editor.) Int21h (talk) 05:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps tomorrow when I get a chance. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Carson

Exactly what's wrong with this edit [4] ? The Squirrel's Nest clearly redirects to Johnny Carson, just as clearly drey is the article on squirrels' nests. And why is this deserving of a level-2 warning? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Binksternet, there is currently a related Redirects for Discussion ... discussion for Squirrel Nest in progress. I reverted your revert of the hatnote edit on Johnny Carson due to the current state of the discussion for Squirrel Nest (and since the "Early life and career" section on Johnny Carson explains why the The Squirrel's Nest redirect exists.) Hope this information helps. Steel1943 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to discussion. I had not known about that. Binksternet (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So, what's wrong with my addition, and why is it worth a level-2 warning? (which is still on my talk page) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the edit has been reinstated, and you've read my messages to you, if the warning is in error, please remove the warning from my talk page. If the warning is not in error, then please explain it, because obviously, you haven't removed the reinstatement of my edit by Steel1943. What made you think it was/is vandalism, as another user does not think it so. How are we to improve ourselves if we don't get explanations on these things? I'd especially like to know why my warning appears at level-2, as something must make you think the edit was especially egregious. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you've replied to the notice I'll let you remove it from your talk page. I don't want to remove your own replies, but you are free to remove my warning. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I meant to put citation references in for Charlie Watts. I thought I did. I will now. Sorry about that. Thank-you for the correction. (120.149.124.83 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC))

You're invited! WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley

Saturday, April 5 - WikiWomen's Edit-a-thon at the University of California, Berkeley - You are invited!

The University of California, Berkeley's Berkeley Center for New Media is hosting our first edit-a-thon, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, on April 5! This event, focused on engaging women to contribute to Wikipedia, will feature a brief Wikipedia policy and tips overview, followed by a fast-paced energetic edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend. Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is April 5, from 1-5 PM, at the Berkeley Center for New Media Commons at Moffitt Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dang, I'd love to join but I have a previous engagement. Enjoy yourselves! Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Head, meet wall

A follow up to you earlier question about IBANs and the like... So, I kind of feel like I'm banging my head against a wall at the Snowden page. I walked away for a few days and the exact same edit war over Snowden's asylum seeking and over his Russian lawyer, deemed by BDell555 as an unreliable source based on a TIME magazine (that bastion of RS) blurb, is continuing as if we haven't already gone over this (ad nauseam) on the talk page. This edit war has been ongoing for over three months. It is clearly a game and not in alignment in any way with the guidelines of Wikipedia. It is absolutely insane to expect people to work with this ongoing nonsense. I am very clear now about what actions I would like to take. BDell555 has been too disruptive for far too long, and unwilling to communicate in an understandable way, or to listen to reason or consensus, to be allowed to edit the Snowden page any longer. And Dr F is following me around, watching for other 'enemies' I might have, and literally trying to entice them into ganging up on me - for the good of the Pedia, of course. He hooked up with a couple of people from my March Against Monsanto days, where I made a few enemies, and with someone from the BP articles. He has gone to two administrators for help in dealing with my horrible behaviour, supposedly because my behaviour is keeping him from editing the Snowden article. However, when I walked away from it, so did he. What did he do with his time? This. This feels like harassment. I think because there has been talk about a noticeboard for him, there is now one being held over my head as ransom, or revenge... or something. Either way, I would like to act on these two issues as Wikipedia has become very unpleasant and in some respects ridiculous as of late. Ban and IBAN, in that order petrarchan47tc 01:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I have a bunch of work in my way, but I'll get cracking on the IBAN. Your feelings of harassment and hounding are not healthy. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Guadalcanal and air power projection

Since you're usually a very sensible editor, I have to assume you misunderstood my edit. Guadalcanal was far outside air range of the home islands of Japan even for the USAAF flying the B-29. It was the capture of the Marianas that put the home islands in range of Allied air power, not Guadalcanal, not even close. --Yaush (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, you are right. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Notable?

I don't stay up with popular music/culture, but I found Marius Black perhaps not as notable as whoever created that page thinks he is. What do you think? Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Also, the somewhat related bio, Alfred Galura. Looks like a group of young artists is promoting the work of friends. Binksternet (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And another, but this one is in the User space. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Old, abandoned userspace drafts can be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Mass BLP violation, potential libel on List of List of Bohemian Club Members

See here. Steeletrap (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sousa Mendes

I really appreciate any assistance you can provide there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's on my to-do list today. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. I will be quite busy with paying work most of the afternoon, but will look at recent developments this evening. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

DRV for GovLinks

Since you were a participant in the original discussion, see here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please reply to my questions on comforｔ women

Hello!

I would like to make you two questions in relation to attaching a disambiguation template to the article comfort women.

The first is the question whether you know the fact that the word "comfort women"(慰安婦,i-an-fu) was used even after WWII in Japan and South Korea. This fact can be checked in Recreation and Amusement Association, Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military　( or ja:特殊慰安施設協会, ja:韓国軍慰安婦 or ko:특수위안시설협회, ko:양공주 ).

And the second is the reason why you don't need a disambiguation template.

Please reply to my questions.

Thank you! NiceDay (talk) 07;54, 20 March, 2014 add signiture after

In English, the use of the term "comfort women" is limited to the Japanese during their wars in Asia before and during WWII. Thus there is no need to help the notional reader who might be confused—the reader is not at all confused. In fact, your proposed disambiguation template is inappropriate because it would sow confusion. I get the impression that sowing confusion is your goal, that is, weakening the case against the Japanese. Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.

I sent the upper questions to two persons, you and Mr/Ms Zmflavius.

Mr/Ms Zmflavius proposed me that continuous discussion should be held at Talk:Comfort women .

Would you agree to post the contents of this section to Talk:Comfort women ?

If you can agree, I would like to continue to discuss at Talk:Comfort women .NiceDay (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Talk:Comfort women is where this discussion should take place. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement. Mr/Ms Zmflavius has agreed too. I will make a new section there. Please wait. NiceDay (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize having forgotten the signature by the message the other day.

I created Talk:Comfort women#Proposal about ambiguity evasion, Please join. NiceDay (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your participating in Talk:Comfort women.

Since the talk in Talk:Comfort women is quick, there seems nothing I can do there.

Since the user name was changed, I fix the old signatures.NiceDay (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

links

I suggest that simply not having a link, ergo a redlink, might make sense until a stub is created. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	For your efforts to illuminate the Bohemian Club, including the ones who "run around naked in the woods together and are homosexuals." From my understanding all homosexuals were born naked so I'm not sure what the fuss it about. Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh heh heh... Yeah, I've heard that about homosexuals. Hardly any of them are born naked inside the Bohemian Grove, from what I know. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes.......I can confirm that I was indeed......born naked. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Just because your efforts at the Bohemian Grove article were the catalyst for me to further my understanding of Wikipedia and helped to inspire my User:Mark Miller/Camp Wikipedia, which I still think should be encouraged to other newbies to get over the learning curve here! Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What a great information page, Mark! It is you who deserves the barnstar. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

walmart edit

I reverted it back to it's original form after I examined it. I only did it to see what the page looked like 10 years ago. I am sorry but I meant no harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEJ88DP10 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You can see what it looked like thirteen years ago by clicking on this link. You do not have to return the article to its earliest state to view it in that state. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Vassaloe1

Thanks for your edits. I assume you've seen his 'discussion' with me on his talk page. And perhaps his WP:DRN post. He's been reading up on the many attacks on me on the internet or someone is feeding him junk. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not worried about you. I am responding only to the fluffing of his mother's biography. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for providing good references for Acacia Winery. I added several of them to the article, and I have withdrawn the AfD nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Syngenta

Hi! We need to talk about this. Hayes' own statements are defamatory, and my entire intent was to include a defense of the people he is defaming (including some of his colleagues) by calling his statements into question. I am not intending, in turn, to defame him, so perhaps I could have worded it better. (And to be honest, I didn't know that Gawker was...ahem...a questionable source. I see your point on that now.) At any rate, I would at least like to see the statement regarding Syngenta's response reinstated, as their response is intended to defend the persons they see Hayes as defaming. Or, perhaps it would be best to remove any reference to The New Yorker article entirely. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I just saw that Jytdog restored that statement. I can live with the article as it currently stands and agree it uses better (non-inflammatory) language than my version did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Talk:Syngenta. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Moved there (though I did also respond to Jytdog's comments below). Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The Beatles

Hello,

I am not new to Wikipedia - I just didn't sign in for my minor edit. Regardless of what the Manual of Style (which I didn't read) may say, the name of the music group is "The Beatles", not "Beatles". Look at your copy of the (so-called) White Album if you have any doubts.

Regards, Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treplag (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue was discussed at great length, with many people weighing in. The result of the debate was that the Beatles would have lower case 't' in running prose. Not The Beatles but the Beatles. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. The majority is seldom right about anything. Speaking of debates, what is your opinion as an audio engineer: does vinyl or CD sound better? Treplag (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)treplag

Wow, now THAT's a can of worms. Especially if you don't take into account what the master source is for each, what compression etc. was applied to either, etc. I've been a member of the hydrogenaudio forums for years, and people WAY smarter than me when it comes to audio don't have a consensus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input (and humor). As much of an audiophile that I am, I should have realized it was a naive (I prefer that to "stupid") question, given all the variables in recording and remastering methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treplag (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm practical, first and foremost. I have no problem working with digital audio in my career or at home. I consider CD bit rate (44.1 kHz sampling × 16 bits × 2 channels) to be quite adequate and enjoyable. That said, I also have a special turntable that can accept 33/45/78/80 rpm discs, from crackly shellac to virgin vinyl. Horses for courses. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Aristides de Sousa Mendes article

Hi there. Please chime in soon on the Talk page of the above, so that we can achieve closure. We need and appreciate your help. Thank you so much! Beebop211 (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Telegraph Berkeley

Hiya Bink. If you have some free time, perhaps you can take a gander at this submission rotting away in Articles for Creation, it's East Bay related. If you feel bold please review it. Thanks :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The AFC process is too cumbersome for me to use, or I would be contributing there all the time.

Note that the Telegraph Berkeley article-for-creation was apparently copied and pasted to mainspace by the creator, Miss Wasky, some time between 16:00 and 19:00 on 22 February 2014, shortly after Miss Wasky stopped improving the AFC page. There is a trace of that action in edits such as this one in which Miss Wasky adds a wikilink to related articles. So in this case the AFC process was bypassed, probably out of frustration—which wouldn't be the first time that's happened. The new article was very quickly nominated for deletion, at 20:00 on 22 February 2014. The result of the discussion was delete; a result with which I agree because the name "Telegraph Berkeley" was not in common usage, and the subject matter was little different than part of Telegraph Avenue and most of Southside, Berkeley, California. The best idea I have for Miss Wasky going forward is to create an article about the Telegraph Business Improvement District, which "is a non-profit organization that helps sponsor special events, provides sidewalk cleaning and other services, and advocates for positive change in the Telegraph area." The problem Miss Wasky will have to overcome is the dearth of good sources. It will be difficult to prove the WP:Notability of the TBID.

Sarah, if you are familiar with the byzantine AFC process then you might want to close out this AFC offering. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography Deletion on Fuchida Page

Bink, we all know you don't like Fuchida, but deleting a bonafide bibliography reference because you don't like the author supposedly based on COI is not the right use of that rule. If you're saying I need to ask someone else to post the book, then I'm asking you, by undoing the deletion. I don't have time to run around the mulberry bush, so I'm asking for help from the start on the Dispute Resolution page. Please view so you are aware of the matter. Thanks TMartinBennett (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the Fuchida story; I can only guess how you arrived at the idea that I don't like him. The most likely guess of mine is that anyone who opposes Fuchida's assertion that he was on the battleship Missouri during the signing of the surrender must be against Fuchida. That is not the case with me; I can accept that the man Fuchida was an imperfect human being, just like all the rest of us. I can accept with equanimity that he lied about being aboard the battleship. You, however, cannot vary from your film script, or else the effort already spent on the film will have been wasted.

Regarding this book of yours, it's a freaking "non-fiction novel", whatever that means. A novel of any sort is not a good source for encyclopedic facts about a person. The reader will never know what part of the text was fictionalized and what part was a straight portrayal. You have no leg to stand on here; you cannot insist that Wikipedia help you sell copies of your book. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. If you'd read the full exchanges between me and Jonathan Parshall in the Naval War College Reviews (tedious, I know) you'd know that, although Parshall has gone to great lengths to try to discredit Fuchida's consistent testimony of his being on USS Missouri during the surrender ceremonies, he has yet to find a single piece of information contradicting it. Nothing. There is not record of 90% of those on board USS Missouri as the records have been lost, so, no surprise that Fuchida is not listed. So all Parshall has is conjecture, which has no place in an article of a historic figure, any more than a "controversy" section on the moon belongs there because someone thinks it's made of green cheese. No facts, no data, only speculation and conjecture, does not constitute a controversy.<pPRegarding my work "Wounded Tiger," it is a nonfiction novel, but as stated in the intro, the essence of every element of the story is true. You may have heard of a book called, "In Cold Blood," by Truman Capote, also a nonfiction novel, and "Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara. Both of these award-winning authors recounted the facts of true stories in the form of a novel, that's all.

However, perhaps we need a new section on this page, like many others, entitled "Further Reading" or "In Popular Media," as that's where you'll find "Killer Angels" in the Battle of Gettysburg page. Does that make sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleopard (talk • contribs)

You are comparing your writing to that of Capote, or Shaara? Wow. Your book is self-published, it is unimportant, it is fictionalized, and it promotes your version of who was Fuchida the man. I'm done arguing about it. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014

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: Hawkeye7 on military command and Nick-D on F-111s in combat

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) 12:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Apophasis

I saw that you removed an inartful phrase as "not an example" in the edit summary. A simple Google search reveals dozens of such examples and potential citations. If a rumour or character trait is already known, then mentioning its supposed opposite would be an example of apophasis. May I add in the offending quote, if I can source it well, and re-word it to explain how it is an example? Bearian (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried Googling myself and had no luck coming up with similar examples. What are the best one or two sources you found? Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The closest I got was Jane Austen's "I will not say that your Mulberry trees are dead, but I am afraid they are not alive." From The Politics of Humour: Laughter, Inclusion, and Exclusion in the Twentieth Century, University of Toronto Press, 2012. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Earhart

Binksternet, User:Kitsunedawn has inserted a new section into Amelia Earhart which is redundant to the paragraph on Gardner Island. The new section also seems to have a bit of a WP:POV issue. I’d rectify the situation myself, but the page is protected. I understand you have some history with the article so I thought you might want to know about it. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The added material is far too promotional for TIGHAR. I would like to ask why you, the IP editor from Northern Mississippi, did not remove the text yourself. It is plainly counter to the nominal purpose of putting forward the best available information about Earhart. Nevertheless, I am happy to do so despite the fact that you did not do so. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see the reason now. I'm striking my pointed comments. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Snowden

I keep giving up on Snowden, then coming back. It's like a bad car crash where you want to look away but can't.

But wait a minute, are you the guy behind the Bink Audio Test CD? "Left, Right. Left, Right. Left, Right." Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Behind, yes. That's not my voice, though! It's a woman's voice, almost embarrassingly sultry. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jtrevor99 Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Guideline conflict notification

Hello - I wanted to let you know I have posted a question regarding the possible conflict between WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS I believe we uncovered in the Syngenta edit war. You will find it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I did mention you as part of this but not in any derogatory way - it was only to establish the background of the possible conflict for the admins' understanding. I am encouraged that everyone involved is attempting to resolve this issue amicably, and again apologize if I have done anything wrong. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Kate O'Mara

How is the Daily Mail any more or less reliable than any other newspaper? (92.11.196.56 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC))

Really. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbolt manufacture costs

Thanks for your edit. I, too, prefer the Air Force museum as a source and $85K as the 1945 cost. The other figure is not entirely wrong, though: Air enthusiast Warren Bodie reports in one of his books that the cost of production droppped from $105,594 in 1942 to $83,001 in 1945. FWIW. --Yaush (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Varsity Trip

Binksternet, whilst I appreciate that your editing of the Varsity Trip page has improved several sections, and you are technically correct to remove the section naming those who have received Discretionary Blues as it has no source cited (I am in the process of getting the Blues committee at Oxford to update their list of skiing Blues), I can guarantee that those named did in fact receive Discretionary Full Blues, as I was present at the Blues Committee meetings where they were awarded, and would appreciate it if you did not remove the edit re-instating this section 90.221.39.170 (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a curious requirement that anything published in the encyclopedia be previously published somewhere else in a verifiable form. See the policy page WP:No original research. (You'll notice that the Wikipedia rules contrast markedly with normal authorship and research methods.) If you can tell us where the information has been published, its title and author, then you can back the desired text with a reference naming the published source. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI for Duct tape

Regarding this revert, I believe the addition of the picture of the duct-taped girl was meant in good faith.

Although I agree it was inappropriate for the page Duct tape, for the record I don't think it had anything to do with abuse of any sort: Gagged222 often adds similar pictures (including that one) to the page Bondage (BDSM) in order to portray consenting adults who enjoy the activity. It helps readers visualize the material on the page, and is constructive. I do believe context matters, and might give a softer warning if Gagged222 does something similar again. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tangled with that guy previously, getting some of his photographs deleted from commons, one that looked like it was taken from another online source,[5] and one that appeared to have no permission from the subject.[6] I don't have a lot of compassion for this contributor. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"No evidence that this image has the approval of the person depicted." (from the latter).

I see what you mean now, and will be a little more careful next time I see them editing. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Harvey Whittemore

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Harvey_Whittemore&diff=602338769&oldid=602338096

I put quotes around "Harvey" (even though it's his middle name) because I wanted to show that the name he goes by and is known by is Harvey, not Frederick. How can I show that without quotes? ... Frederick Harvey Whittemore, known as Harvey Whittemore,....? 24.97.201.230 (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The biography page is named "Harvey Whittemore", and the infobox also says "Harvey Whittemore" at the top. If you wanted to describe how, when or why Mr. Whittemore goes by his middle name, you would need a source.

So that is a crab-wise response, not really an answer to your exact question. I don't know the exact answer. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks :) 24.97.201.230 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

First of all, I would like to say thank you for responding to my "Rock" section of the Talk:Led Zeppelin page. Secondly, I would like to ask you a quick question: Do you think the change I proposed for Zeppelin's infobox (simplifying the genres) should be used for all artists' infoboxes, and if so, could you see if it is something you could bring up on, say, a Wikiproject on this subject when you get the chance (if its not too much to ask)? (the reason for that last question is that you seem to be quite experienced with Wikipedia, and people would probably take your advise more seriously than mine, due to the fact that I am relatively new to Wikipedia) Thanks! Twyfan714 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that the infobox parameter for the genre of a musical artist should be as succinct as possible, broad and general rather than an exhaustive list. I think the article body is the proper place for describing complexity, while the infobox should be simple.

My past tangle with the community of musical editors turned out not very fruitful, and so I don't expect different results if I propose a simplification of the genre parameter. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think that the more general the infobox, the less opportunity there is for "genre wars" to ensue. This particularly happens with artists like, say, Queen, who played in a wide variety of styles. If we tried to put down every possible genre they did in the infobox, it would become very confusing. I also agree that the proper place for getting more in depth is in the musical style section. Thanks for your time! I'll try introducing this on several other bands' talk pages to see if our idea can spread. Twyfan714 (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Queen is a great example of a rock band that played songs in many genres. I would put them in the rock genre, then explain their variety in the article body.

The actual guideline supports the idea of using broad and general genres: See Template:Infobox musical artist where it says "Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)." It does not, however, advise that a laudable goal might be to have as few genres as possible in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you don't place spurious templates then others will not have to remove them. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining yourself. I don't suppose you could explain how it was determined that they were "spurious"? --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your templates are not based on the current condition of the biography. You apparently wish to have the biography tagged with maintenance templates despite the fact that the indicated issues have been fixed. You seem to want the article tagged for a while longer, though how much longer is not clear. You apparently wish to have a drawn-out discussion about the templates, so that the templates can remain on the article for the duration of the discussion. To me this looks like wikilawyering, some kind of wish to make the biography look bad. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you WP:FOC? --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Submarine

No, it wasn't a mistake. The reason for the change was that on the iTunes entry of Yellow Submarine, the album is presented as a work of "The Beatles", not "The Beatles and George Martin". Also, the cover itself states "The Beatles". I know George Martin is the author and artist of the whole second side of the album, but he isn't credited as the album artist. 186.47.111.23 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate that iTunes might be considered a reliable source, though it is impossible to determine how Apple arrived at their designation. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sony

Thanks for the notice about my failing to provide references. Changes to Sony article have been applied but this time with references. Please let me know if there is any additional mistakes that need to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.44.118 (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll probably take 15 minutes and watch the film online today.

Sony's complaint will likely get more specific in the next day or so, as they get their spokespeople on the case. We should tell the reader what was Sony's exact gripe, if there is one. Otherwise, we should tell the reader that Sony had no specific complaint. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

EarwigBot operator / talk 15:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long!TheLongTone (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

height of hypocrisy

What did I tell you a month ago, on this page? "these "reminders" of yours are unwelcome and you are hereby instructed to keep them off my Talk page. Any questions?" Could that have been any clearer? I think not. You then proceed to ignore that, which is one thing, but you then insist I stay off the Talk pages of others. Do I need to lock my Talk page? Seriously.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your wish to be free of such formal reminders is not a guarantee that you will actually be free of them. They are a required element in WP:3RRN cases. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If that was a "formal reminder" then where is the case? There is no case because your reminder was simply intended to harass. Your effort to address anything substantive about the edits was, of course, again nil. I take your response here as a refusal to respect my request and that I must accordingly approach an admin to request assistance with respect to dealing with your harassment if it happens again. Is that right? I remind you that I have always remained open to any discussion on my Talk page or elsewhere that constitutes a good faith effort to resolve content issues.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The formal reminder comes before the case, and is not automatically followed by the case. I will file a case if you take 3RR to 4RR, just like I said in my warning. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So you did not have to harass me, then, because it remains to be seen what you will do. You said earlier you were compelled by the rules ("required element"). Apparently there was no "requirement" because the thing generating the requirement isn't there. You appear to be saying that you reserve the right to "formally remind" me even if you have no case and never intend to to try and make one until you do have a case. It would go over just fine with you were I to routinely remind Petrachan on her Talk page of edit warring policy, would it? Let me be perfectly clear: if there is any such "reminder" and there is no case then as far as I am concerned that is harassment and I will have to ask for community/administrative help in dealing with your harassment. Any questions? By the way, you can consider this a "formal reminder" from me to you to cease edit warring since you evidently think you cannot solve a problem without a prior "formal" step, even when it is quite obviously pointless to "remind" an editor of what any reasonable person would believe that editor is already be aware of. If you spent half as much time defending your removal of all those reliable sources as you do preparing your "case" or otherwise trying to wiki-lawyer, perhaps the encyclopaedia would start taking more priority with you.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen, most admins working reports at the 3RR noticeboard look for several things in the report. First, is there technically four reverts in 24 hours. Second, is there an attempt at discussion over the edits. Third, were the user(s) being reported warned that they are edit-warring and at risk of breaching the 3RR limit PRIOR to the final revert. If the report doesn't include those, the admin will often refer to what was missing. For example, close the report warning the reported user they are past 3RR and another revert would cause a block. Ravensfire (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's simply not true, Ravensfire. Binksternet's last filing against me got me blocked (the only time since I joined Wikipedia in 2005) despite BOTH the second ("attempt to discuss" was only present with respect to me) AND third elements (my Talk page notice was that the prosecution was already under way) you identify being conspicuously absent. It ONLY turns on technicalities (there is nothing in the 3RR section that imposes any requirement to discuss) and I would refer you to my comments about this on the WP:EDIT WARRING Talk page.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"...AND third elements (my Talk page notice was that the prosecution was already under way)..."
Prior warnings were given as one can see from the 3RR filing page. First one here and two days before your block which you removed as "trolling and second one here, one day before your block which you removed with the folloowing edit summary: (delete, an exception to my practice made for hypocrites who remove my comments from their own Talk pages, especially when what they know full well I am already aware of what they put here (and so are not coming here to advise me of anything in good faith).
So much for honesty. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're going to presume to lecture me about what I remove from my Talk page after you've removed three of my comments from your Talk page just today? It isn't "trolling" to tell ME to "consider using the article's Talk page" when I had used it more than anyone? Binksternet reverted my addition of Soldatov's comment twice (a content objection he apparently no longer holds because that comment has now been in the article for weeks!) and sprung the trap on me for, without an intervening edit by another, making minor changes that, as you can also see from my edit summary, amounted to little more than changing "officials" in the plural to the singular, a change I had good reason to believe Petrarchan (and therefore Binksternet) would not object to given developments on the Talk page about using Masnick as a source. Had I been tipped off that I was offside 3RR on what was incidental to the Soldatov add, I would have self-reverted. But that would have allowed me to escape the block and thus it was that I had to be blindsided with the case already underway. You "honest[ly]" believe that that warning from Petrarchan concerned adding an "s" to Pentagon official and not a different content dispute, do you?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The 3RRN process includes the filling out of a standard form containing various diffs and links. One of these diffs or links is supposed to be a link to the 3RR warning. Another one is supposed to point to a good-faith attempt to talk about the dispute. Since you are discussing the disputed material on the article talk page, the requirement for discussion is met.

You can also be blocked for general tendentiousness, and for edit warring even if there are not four reverts a 24-hr period. Such blocks are at the discretion of the blocking admin, who should in any case tell you why you were blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A "form" you filled out by throwing in old diffs because you were unable to substantively make your case by pointing to any edits of yours within the 24 hour period at issue except your reverts of me. Of course the admin just let that slide. The "form" matters more than the substance. At least you admit here with "YOU are discussing the disputed material on the article talk page, the requirement for discussion is met" that the party who satisfied the "requirement for discussion" was ME. How about heading over to the edit warring policy Talk page and taking a look at that comment by a relatively prominent Wikipedian which denounces the wiki-lawyering mentality and to which I respond "hear, hear"? Do you have anything to say about that? I was blocked because I removed "s" from "Pentagon officials" four times in 24 hours (the only source for the plural being Mike Masnick's hyperventilating blog) and you caught me on that. Petrachan then conceded the point for unanimous agreement with me on the content issue. But you got your block, didn't you? Take a bow.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ri-ight. You got blocked because I was a bad person. <rolling of eyes> Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you successfully used a warning to not perform more than three reverts on a single page within 24 hours to prosecute a case that you initiated more than 50 hours after that warning suggests that you could just trot out one of your old warnings next time instead of making a new one (that you've been clearly told would be unwelcome), does it not? I think you've given notice enough times already to do you for quite a while.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You were warned at 08:28, February 22, then you made a text revert at 00:45, February 23. It looks more like 16 hours than 50.

You also seem to think that edit warring is okay if you're right, which when combined with the feeling that you are always right should make you immune to blocks. Since you got blocked anyway, you hold on to the feeling of righteous indignation, without acknowledging that you had a hand in it. I think it's time to examine that guy in the mirror and admit your guilt. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you stop trying to mislead any readers here into concluding that this was consistent with the spirit of "issued before the 4th revert." If you are going to rest your case on the contention that "before" is not qualified (what was YOUR 50 hour old diff doing there in the "form" if you weren't using it? The admin never complained that that one was dated, did he?) then, again, you've already got a stable of warnings to choose from that were "issued before the 4th revert" without needing any new ones.

Do you see the part in the admin instructions where it says "Administrators are only recommended to make blocks where it will prevent damage to Wikipedia"? In this diff that you present as my "text revert", pretty much all of what I moved the article to in that edit is now part of the article. Looks like this block failed to prevent the supposed damage from sticking, doesn't it? But then defending the Wiki was never the object, was it?

There's another element here that you are supposed to satisfy before litigating and that's an effort to discuss. How about first satisfying that element before heading over to my Talk page to issue the umpteenth threat to Wiki-sue?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You will have noticed, of course, that my edit warring report started several days in advance of your 4RR violation, to establish how the content was introduced by you, and that you had been reverting earlier, but only at the level of two reverts in a 24hr period. I put my 50-hour warning in there to show that you had been warned twice in that particular 57-hour sequence of events, yet you broke 4RR anyway. Regarding content, edit warring is not made legal if the content is later accepted by consensus (or the non-response of sheer exhaustion). Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated content, you mean, that you threw in in order to create the misleading impression of a continuous "sequence", while conveniently ignoring all my simultaneous interaction on the article Talk page. The only common element to the full "sequence" that had any substance beyond style considerations was whether "officials" should be plural or not. A point which appeared to have been conceded on the Talk page when Petrarchan suggested Masnick was not being used to support any claims. Meanwhile, you could not be bothered to reply to my many comments on the article Talk page. Why are you trying to defend your stunt here anyway (as opposed to on the Edit Warring Talk page or my Talk page or the blocking admin's Talk page or any other place where I called attention to it)? Is your conscience bothering you? As for "legal", that's all that matters to you, isn't it? More than once you have "legally" edit warred with me without even bothering to look at the content you were reverting.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be under the misapprehension that a series of reverts must be about the same text in order to be considered for 3RR/4RR. That is not the case. Any revert counts. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because that makes sense. Not. I refer you again to DGG's comment on the WP:Edit warring Talk page where he demolishes pretty much everything you stand for. Why don't you jump in there and defend your tactics if they are so honourable? Petrarchan just went 6RR in less than two and a half hours about the same block of text. THAT is edit warring. Yet you stand ready to spit venom at anyone who takes exception to either her edit warring or her continuous baseless accusations of COI. You two are clearly not about to stopped by anything like a conscience, are you?--Brian Dell (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that after I called attention to the 6RR here, she self-reverted back to 5RR. So John V and I (temporarily at least) get the content result we think is better without prosecuting anyone. And I didn't need to post a "formal reminder" on her Talk page in order to tip her off (or give her time to figure out) that she was (well) into prosecutable territory. Why didn't I pin her at 6RR with another revert that I was "legally" allowed in order to maximize the case against her (and possibly even bait her into 7RR) and then prosecute that case? Because I'm not you.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was busy away from the keyboard for a little while, but then I found some time to rework the lead section using the safe passage document from the Ecuadorian consulate in London. I can see now that Petra hit 6RR but she self-reverted, so now a blocking admin can see that she is aware of the problem and no longer presents a disruption problem—no longer requires a block. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So from now on you are going to give editors an opportunity to self-revert and only seek a block if they fail to do so. I approve!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Slight change in the White Album move discussion

The proposed move of The Beatles (album) to The White Album has been altered slightly, to the simpler White Album. I'm letting you know in case you'd like to review your vote. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well...

Edit: Maybe I got indignant over nothing, it could be a DHCP issue. I still reference the one time I edited the Concord California page of some racist vandalism as my positive experience editing wikipedia. Came here and saw this.

"Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Concord, California. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)" However can't find what I changed in accordance with those dates. So I probably messed up on this and apologize. Uh... Oh dear.

147896321586359l (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How did you just come to Wikipedia and receive a message from 2010? Possibly a really, really slow internet connection. Also: what are "pieces of fuck"? I've heard of pieces of shit, but not pieces of fuck. What would a piece of fuck actually look like? A stain cannot accurately be called a piece, for the record. Doc talk 09:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it looks like a dynamic IP assignment issue. Your removal of a abusive text is to be praised, not punished. That message from me is four years old and was intended for some anonymous person, not you.

My 2010 message was sparked by a promotional addition which can be seen removed by me here—the addition of a link to the Claycord blog, which has since been acknowledged as a legitimate news site. So it looks like my removal in 2010 was premature. You win on two counts. Binksternet (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I have not abused multiple accounts and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. What am I suppose to do about this anon user [7] that keeps trolling me? Brimspark (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You have certainly violated the block of your main account, GoldDragon, because of the abuse of multiple accounts. To continue editing Wikipedia in any form, you must return to the GoldDragon account and try to convince the community that you should have editing rights restored. Because of your extensive sockpuppeting, such a request will likely be refused. Nevertheless, it is your only option. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I set this up, and are you willing to vouch for me, or are you just going to follow the same procedure based on that anon tip? I do believe that I am a productive editor (although I still have work to engage in discussion more often), but I should feel that I otherwise should be left alone except for vandalism or edit warring incidents. And doesn't [8] constitute harassment or trolling? Brimspark (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

To start over, you will need to wait six months without socking, then appeal to the community. See Wikipedia:Standard offer.

Regarding the reversion of your edits by myself or the anonymous Ottawa IP editor, these are allowed by policy:

• At Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is, the policy says that "reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring."
• At Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions, the policy says that "reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users" is not a 3RR violation.
• At Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors, the policy says that "anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."
• At Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks, the policy says that "edits by the [blocked or banned] editor or on his or her behalf may be reverted without question".

So all of these policy statements support the actions of myself and the IP from Ottawa to remove all the work you performed over the last two months. Basically, anything you do on Wikipedia can be reverted until you follow the procedure for regaining your GoldDragon account. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the Ottawa IP behavior constitute trolling?[9] Once they jump onto me, they just revert and alert you guys. Their whole edit history here is just revert, revert, revert, nothing productive though technically legal, and because they stay anon then there isn't any point in using the talk page. Isn't there any way that admins can just tell the anon to back off, so the onus is not solely on me to wait it out in order to get into the community? Brimspark (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The onus is fully on you. The Ottawa IP has policy on his side, since anyone can revert the work of a blocked editor. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If this battle with the Ottawa IP to keep continuing, a lot of legit contributions will just go down the drain. Is there any way to get it to end, or does that mean that I have to wave the white flag? I don't feel that option is fair as I haven't done anything that bad to merit a lifetime ban. Brimspark (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Technically, none of your edits were "legit" since they were performed in violation of the block placed on GoldDragon. Naturally, you are concerned that valuable improvements to the encyclopedia are being rolled back. The way to correct this is to adopt the long-range view and follow my previous advice: do not touch Wikipedia in any form for six months and then make a plea to the community per WP:Standard offer. That's all the advice I've got for you. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Collapse or descent of the WTC

Hi Binksternet. Re: Collapse of the World Trade Center: Yes, as you'll see from my comments, my edits were to promote factual and neutral information -- the same thing you value. There was also a large amount of outdated information on this page. Unless you can show that the information posted is incorrect, please just leave the edits as are. It is factual information, backed up by the references I provide. Much of the information I removed was not sourced or was sourced incorrectly. Please let's try to keep Wikipedia factual and neutral. Thanks. jasne9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasne9 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You wrote that the building descended rather than collapsed. That concept is not found in the cited source. Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The word "descended" is not a concept. It is a factual description of the building's movements. The word "collapse", however, is a concept. I won't quibble at length over this, however, you do need to revert to my edits regarding collapse initiation. What was there is a confused and outdated description. Nor does NIST claim this is what happened. They are presenting their best hypothesis; you cannot claim it as fact. The section on progressive collapse is also now moot. It is not supported in the NIST reports. Please read them. Some of that information also is redundant, as it has been stated elsewhere.

Please help keep Wikipedia neutral and factual. jasne9

If the whole building "descended" it would have submerged into the mud and bedrock of Manhattan. The top descended, but the more apt wording is that the building collapsed. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I will defer to the use of "collapse", since that is what most people understand it as. Please note my comments about the other edits, though. Some of that information is outdated and incorrect. It is also presenting hypothesis as fact. In academic writing and discourse, viewpoints and theories must be credited to their respective proponents. This has not been done here. --Jasne9 (talk) 00:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Apr 16: Corrections made: I will do these piece by piece so potential editors can verify for factuality. Removed: "In both cases, the portion of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the section above the airplane impacts to fall onto the undamaged structure below." Unsourced and incorrect. In the case of WTC 1, perimeter failure initiated on the south face, according to NIST. Edited the rest for clarity, factuality and neutrality. Updated citation. --Jasne9 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Black genocide

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Black genocide. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Black genocide. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#A dispute over whether to history-merge a user's sandbox to a main-space article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Antony Booth

I thought that a wriiten reference to his birth registration would have been sufficient. How can I improve on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Axton (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Your first series of edits included a contradiction of a commonly reported fact, and an "allegedly" assertion. You added no reference for this stuff. Your restoration of these assertions also included no citation to a reliable source. Please reade WP:CITE for some instructions. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

IPs from Lima, Peru

Hello B. I noticed that you had to revert yet another IP from Peru who was altering wikiproject banners on various actor talkpages. This has been going on for, at least, a few weeks now and I am wondering if this has been brought to the attention of any noticeboards/admins? If not no worries we will keep reverting whenever they pop up. Thanks for your vigilance and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#A_different_case:_genre_warrior_working_from_Peru_IPs, the general assessment was that nothing could be done without too much collateral damage. So the task of reverting this guy has become part of my Sisyphean regimen of vandal fighting. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and the info. Yep, Sisyphus is among the pantheon of Wikipedia mascots :-)

BTW you might enjoy this. I remember seeing it at an animation festival many moons ago. I'm glad that the net now allows me to share it with others. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Kelseys

Hiya Binkster! Didn't know you knew the Kelseys! If you liked the first wee edit to Benjamin Kelsey, you may like the new addition - a photo of the mad man himself. Plus I added information to Nancy Kelsey, I am thinking of DYK-ing that page, what do you think? With best wishes! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Good stuff! I don't know the Kelseys, but I appreciate your work on California history. A while back I put the hatnote at the top of the biography, to disambiguate between the Cali Kelseys and an airman. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My edits

Hey I was wondering why you took off my edits? I just wanted some clarification on why you thought my edits were "Joke" edits. I am editing the unmanned aerial vehicle page for a college class. I am very interested in this page. I've made about 7 edits and you have taken off 3 of them. i would love to hear your point of view on my edits. please respond back.

Thanks, Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPicasso (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The first problem you created was that you copied and pasted text from your source, which is a copyright violation. The second problem is that high-speed internet in remote parts of the world is impossible. Instead, fairly slow satellite internet is available, with speeds of 2 to 20 kbps, but usually less than 3 kbps. That is super crawling slow, compared to Starbucks. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there Binkster, I need some advise. The To Kill a Mockingbird article, a featured article by Moni, is going through a series of edits, mostly related to style or punctuation, but other small edits as well. When you have time would you please take a look and note my edit on talk also. I'd like to revert all of his edits but don't know if I dare... I had hoped to leave a few of his changes but he's just going on and on and I'm starting to get angry that anyone would be so arrogant as to make so many changes to a featured article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course a Featured Article may still have room for improvement, but I will look at the situation. If you think the improvements are not worth keeping, they probably aren't. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw that the new changes were largely for the better. I restored the unspaced em dashes which had been longstanding article style. Otherwise, I don't have any adverse reaction to the grammar improvements.

The article's history shows that big chunks of text were recently removed. That means it was not such high quality as the FA label would suggest. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where any big chunks were removed--it seemed to me to be pretty much the way Moni had left it. As for "grammar improvements" you may both be technically correct and I note that his improvements were in the Plot section only (unless, of course, he continues to go through the entire article). Since I don't write very well myself this is just a guess, but I would guess that a talented writer would use a particular style to "paint a picture" of the emotional content of the plot and the characters and to me, it seems a goddamn shame for a perfectionist to come along and "improve" it. On the other hand, I do trust your judgement. I reverted a few things but am wondering if I should walk away from the article rather than fight a losing battle which really did cause me to become angry, something I very seldom do. I think the whole thing sort of struck a nerve in me as I do love wikipedia, but I worry that it is losing its soul sometimes... Gandydancer (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend you step away. I don't see any harm done by Doc's grammar improvements, not even to the supposedly "engaging, even brilliant" prose that should be part and parcel of FA quality.

The "big chunks" I mentioned were removed by Indopug in this series of edits in late March, removing a couple of bits about Finch family connections, removing a genre section, and removing a large section called "Structure" containing what appears to be analysis unsupported by reference. Nikkimaria restored the genre section a few weeks later. That's why I approached the article not as a monolith of polished and perfected prose, but as a radically changing entity. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the section that was removed was a recently added, poorly written section. The section that Nikkimaria restored was a section that had been written by Moni. Comparing the way the article read when Moni retired, I think it was around April 2012, there had been very few changes prior to the recent string of changes that brought about my reaction. Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Bink:

I'm the one whom Gandydancer has described (above) as "arrogant" and a "perfectionist", the one who has committed what he regards as a "[bleep] shame" – by daring to correct several errors in the facts and even more errors in the grammar and composition in the plot summary in the article about the novel entitled To Kill a Mockingbird (TKaM).

Kindly allow me to provide some background:  Several weeks ago my attention turned again to TKaM, and I carefully reread the book (after first reading it in 1971) and twice watched the movie again.  During that process I read the two respective articles at the Wikipedia about the book and the flick.  Sadly, I saw a large number of errors in the facts and in the grammar and composition in the plot summaries in those articles.  Since I've served as an active and productive participant at the Wikipedia since 2008, since I have the requisite qualifications and experience to enable me to recognize and repair those errors, and since I feel a duty and obligation to do my part to improve the Wikipedia, I undertook to correct those mistakes, starting with the plot summary of the novel.  When I began to fix the problems, I noticed that the page is a "featured article", but I did not stand in awe of that label, and I did not regard it as holy or untouchable.  Also, I did not know, and I still do not care, who had rewritten the plot summary (in 2007, I think), who Moni3 is, or what other accomplishments she has achieved.  I simply saw a plot summary containing a number of errors, many of which related to basic high-school grammar, and I started repairing them.

Please note that every one of my corrections relies on one or more of the generally accepted principles of grammar or composition, not merely personal preference.

Unfortunately, as Gandydancer has told you, he saw my edits (28 days after I made them), then "the whole thing sort of struck a nerve in [him]", and he became "angry that anyone would be so arrogant as to make so many changes to a featured article".

Look carefully at Gandy's own words:  At no point has he objected to the nature of my edits (that is, the correctness of them).  Instead his only gripe, according to his own words, is that I've dared to change what he seems to regard as holy, consecrated, untouchable, or inviolable – because Moni3 rewrote the summary, and because the page is a "featured article".

Indeed, Dancer has conceded to you – truthfully – that he does not "write very well [him]self", and that he must merely "guess" about what the text should contain.

On the talk page at TKaM I've patiently explained to him about the need and the desirability of corrections to the errors in the previous summary, and I've invited and urged him to discuss any of his objections to my edits – but only "by presenting clearly articulated explanations based on accepted professional standards rather than personal beliefs or feelings".  Further, to appease Gandy and settle his nerves, when I reinserted my corrections (after he had reverted them), I painstakingly gave a brief but informative explanation in each edit summary.

Of course, I feel grateful that you've written (above) that you do not object to my corrections.  Thank you for that.

Naturally, I regret that Gandydancer has chosen to react in such an emotional and immature way, and that he feels angry and offended.

However, I remain persuaded that what matters is that qualified users should continue to improve anything about this website in need of improvement, in part by fixing the errors and deficiencies, regardless of where the problems lie, and regardless of who committed them or allowed them to continue.

Please know that I've acted in good faith and only with the highest intentions, and that I've done so in a highly professional way and in compliance with highly professional standards.

Thanks for your attention.

Best wishes,

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Gandydancer said you were arrogant; I notice you changed Gandydancer's header from "Help please" to "Help, please!", adding a comma and an exclamation point. This is indeed an arrogant action. I am restoring the header to its initial state.

You have also made an incorrect guess about the gender of Gandydancer.

Regarding TKaM, I approve of your copyediting work. The only thing I changed was to return the article to its established usage of the unspaced em dash for sentence interruption, per WP:DASH.

I'm not here to get between you and Gandydancer and mediate the conflict. Instead, I advised Gandydancer to step away. That's where I'm leaving it. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Bink:

Thanks for the speedy answer.

While gandy dancers still existed and still did the work of gandy dancing, those people uniformly were men (because of the harsh physical demands of the nature of the work) – as in an image of a railway work site on Gandydancer's user page – so, as you pointed out, yes, I naïvely assumed that that user also is a man.  Sorry 'bout that!  Everyone is imperfect, and I make at least my fair share of mistakes.

On the matter of my having inserted the missing comma and bang (or full stop, if one prefers), as on everything else, you too, of course, have a right to your own personal opinion.

In any event, best wishes, including a happy Easter, to all!

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Well Bink, I am stumped at your stance here. I have written my reasoning to the DrRushing's edits that I have reverted but will make no more changes till he has the time to answer what I have done so far. I am not trying to convince you and don't expect you to have any further interest here--it's just that we have worked together so many times and seemed to be mostly of like mind that I feel compelled to reply to your position that DrRushing's edits improved the article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I just think that the prose was improved. My position no more complex than that. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Report on ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Arkatakor (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Academics without a clue

I think you might find Humboldt State University in need of your amazing cleanup skills. The thing is primary sourced to the school's websites, they had 7 or 8 photos scattered around making the text impossible to read and a pile of "headers" that really were click links to their own departments! Tut tut! Please help? I live in the county and lack NPOV after insults that were thrown at our community by the outgoing president. Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014

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: Hawkeye7 looks at Britain's War Machine Interview: Article writers discuss German military history

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) 14:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Naveen Jaihind Page Deletion

Hi Binksternet, May i know how do you calculate popularity of any new politician? Naveen Jaihind didn't win any election as he is fighting election first time from Aam Aadmi Party in Haryana. If you need news or other coverage about Naveen Jaihind, We can provide you easily.

Please let us know next step from our side to restore this page.

Thanks Naveen Jaihind — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaveenJaihind (talk • contribs) 11:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Some bias issues on a page you had been tracking

A Mother Jones reference has been removed from the Americans United for Life page related a topic you were involved in discussing before.KochFiend (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please just revert your question

Please revert this. Read a bit more of the talk page to see why. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated.

Have you looked at the talk page a bit more? While I try not to base my contributions to the article on my personal opinions, I think I've been pretty clear that from all I've read that there clearly are no pyramids or any attempts to make the hills look like pyramids in any manner, other than the work currently done by the foundation. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

ColonelHenry, Brad Vice, and R. C. Young

Thanks for cleaning that up. When the discussion opened up on AN I thought I remembered the name from somewhere but couldn't bother to check back. Lo! and behold, that's where it was from.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange RfC...with you as its focus

Ran across this. Seems to be some kind of RFC/U? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not surprising in the least. The promoters of Vassula are very persistent. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Pages related to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.
2. Steeletrap (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Steeletrap may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
3. SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
4. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased. Carolmooredc may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case.
5. Editors who have not previously been involved in editing the articles at issue in this case are urged to review these articles to ensure that they are in compliance with the applicable policies and best practices, including neutrality and the policies governing biographical content.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Sgt. Pepper peer review

Howdy, Bink. I've put Sgt. Pepper up at peer review and I would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions you have for improving the article in preparation for FAC. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll review the article when I get some quality time. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked the article over but I did not have any suggestions. Consider it good news. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

AN/I

The elision of a question at an RfC is noted at AN/I Collect (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)