User talk:Binksternet/Archive30

Suggestion?

An anonymous editor messed with the Mendocino County, California election results for the last presidential election, but didn't provide a source, so I reverted the edit and warned them. Their edit summary used the great word "Fix" which so often is used by POV editors. I left them the standard level 2 warning because their numbers did not match the numbers that were there and they didn't cite anything. I get back from work to find a threat on my talk page; not much of one but still someone not clear on the concept. I found the official county of Mendocino numbers and added the citation so that no one goes to the citation at the bottom and readds the wrong numbers. I would have been just as happy to do that without the threat. What do you suggest? Should I just ignore them, or do something, and if the latter what? Thank you for your advice. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignore them. I consider this level of friction an unfortunate part of editing Wikipedia articles. You did the right thing at the article and your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at Battle of Berlin

Hi User:Binksternet: I noticed you reverted my revision (reverting to the stable version) about mass rapes by Soviet soldiers following the Battle of Berlin "per talk page consensus." Could you please POINT OUT what consensus you are referring to. In fact I see no participation by you on that article or the talk page any time recently. I have been following this page for some time, and prior to my edit finished a careful reading of the protracted discussions of the last couple months, during which a single editor appears to have insisted, without gaining traction, on parity for a disfavored minority view. In any case, given your long and distinguished history with the project, do you really think it proper to revert an edit without any prior participation in the subject? My apologies in advance if I'm missing something here. Paavo273 (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to the article's talk page. Binksternet (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That'd be fine. IMO It would have been logically more appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia procedure to have read and understood what was happening there AND participated there prior to becoming involved on the article page. Paavo273 (talk)

Russell Targ

If you would be so kind as to provide full citations (hopefully with links) for some of the discussion of Targ in the press they could be used to improve the article. BTW some of the publications you are referring to as journals are magazines but they may still (most likely) be considered reliable sources. The more info you can provide the better I can format them as references, verify the content and propose paraphrased content (or evaluate proposals from others). Thanks for your research and contributions to WP. I think it is appropriate that Targ gets a fair encyclopedic article and your efforts will make that more possible. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, when I get a chance I'll push some of the most relevant stuff into the Targ bio—not so much press, though, more likely his papers in scholarly journals. Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Tripoli Monument

Hi Bink - If I may, I'm in need of a small bit of Wiki-guru help, please. I have written an article on the Tripoli Monument, but such a page already exists as a redirect to a short paragraph of the First Barbary War. I don't know how to break a redirect. Presumably my article will become the main article, and the link will go backwards. That I do know how to do. ☺ My page is here for now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JMOprof/sandbox thanks. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 19:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you took the article live... good going. I removed the word "ballast" since finely carved marble sculptures are never thrown down into the bilge or keel. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bink — your judgement is undoubtedly correct. Lesson learned for me. Thank you. If you would, please kill the redirect page Tripoli Monument and I think the pot will be right. I put a "main article" tag on the First Barbary War page. Thank you again. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 23:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Charles R. Blyth

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

About the necessity for the linkages in Comfort women

I have written my opinion about the necessity for the linkages at Talk:Comfort women#About the necessity for the linkages. So please read them and let me know your opinion there.NiceDay (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I will not entertain your wish to diminish Japan's crime in establishing the comfort women system. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please write your opinion again

I have written my opinion which points out the mistake in your opinion in Talk:comfort women. Please read it. Judging from your opinion, it seems to me that you do not have read Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military in detail. Please read Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military again and write your opinion again. Thank you.NiceDay (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

PS:I cannot distinguish the reason why you consider it relates to the valuation of the event to tell readers about the term being used in different meaning from your opinions. Please write a little more analytically how you think and assert so. Thank you. NiceDay (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Editing Anti-Abortion Movements

Hi, I have been editing the Anti-abortion movements article to include the new movement called the abolitionist movement. The website I reference is that of Abolish Human Abortion the organization that started the abolitionist movement. Would it be better if I cited a news organization in addition to their site? What makes my edits original research? I only quote their site. I do not wish to be disruptive or inappropriate in any way. T.alphageek (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please use WP:SECONDARY sources only. Such sources will show that the abolitionist movement is being discussed in the media. If there is no discussion, then the abolitionist movement is unimportant. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Blinksternet So for instance http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/meet-the-rebels-the-anti-abortion-movement would be a legitimate reference T.alphageek (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a legitimate WP:SECONDARY reference. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Phantom power

Hey, I think there must be a mistake because I have never been on the Phantom Power page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.77.51 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Somebody else was on that page a year ago, using the same IP address you are on now. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Con

What in your view constitutes a consensus? Please describe in detail how a consensus could be reached to remove the honorary members of Bohemian Grove. It seems to me that you disregard each consensus in conflict to your views. Steeletrap (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand what are the different types of honorary member. There are the types such as playwright Clay M. Greene who were so very important to the club that they were rewarded with honorary membership. (Greene wrote the 1921 Grove Play John of Nepomuk, the patron saint of Bohemia, and he edited the 1930 volume 4 of The Annals of the Bohemian Club). There were the types such as Ina Coolbrith who took every advantage of honorary membership—for Coolbrith, the fact is presented in her various biographies. And there are others who had an important intersection with the club, but not so much afterward, such as British actor Henry Irving who was present at the Bohemian Club banquet in his honor, and he responded by giving certain club members lifetime passes to his Lyceum shows in London, but then had little occasion to visit the club in the following years. Finally, there is honorary member Mark Twain for whom there is no recorded interaction between him and the club. Note that the RfC regarding Twain was closed with no consensus.

Inexplicably, all of these different types of honorary member were lumped together in your removal. The later RfC initiated by Collect, the one that is not yet closed, is not asking whether honorary members in general should be included in the list. Instead, Collect is quite positive that it is about whether honorary members should be included in the list if regular biographies of each honored person do not include anything about the Bohemian Club. The RfC is aimed, once again, at Mark Twain, since no regular biographies of him discuss his honorary membership.

So your question about what I consider to be consensus hinges instead around your misunderstanding of the RfC. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

sockpuppet

Just to warn you that User:YavinEight is another sockpuppet of User:GoldDragon. I don't know how to open a request, so brought this to your attention. Limefrostfriend (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

How shameless can this guy get, first he is using Monkeygolde and then Limefrostfriend, all accounts created solely for attack purposes. Two sockpuppets in one day! YavinEight (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

As for no original research, wasn't the original article devoid of sources anyway? YavinEight (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor, it isn't original research, I actually got the info from this source: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/austin-police-ask-for-45-million-to-stock-up-on-cr/nRZHc/ YavinEight (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Who are You?

Link would be here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7CXXDBn_l4 Thanx for wasting my time. I won't fix errors anymore on wikipedia. If you are somebody, remove my account. If you are not, please ignore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrfrench61 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

My point was that if Palmer playing harmonica on a few songs is not an important part of his career then Wikipedia does not need to mention it. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Chip Bertlet

The pages is broke. I was going to undo it before 55 gators last change but it won't let me go that far back. His actual argument about it's removal really doesn't stand to well on it's own. And he didn't actually much time reviewing the changes made or conversation taking place. First a blog wasn't used. I switched from the blog spot source to Chip Bertlet's website when I made my change. The use of that as a source lines up with WP:BLPSELFPUB. While the news sources you found call for an addition of information there is no reason to remove any. And well the page is broke.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I was caught in some network error where I thought the whole page had loaded when it was actually incomplete. So when I saved it again, the bottom half was gone. I've seen that before a couple of times, but it's quite rare. Binksternet (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Left-handed

Hi there. Why do we have a [Category:Left-handed people] if we are not supposed to use it? Or for whom should we use it? For example for a painter but not a president? Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:Categorization, we should use a category if it tells the reader about a defining characteristic of a topic. People who were famously left-handed count, but people who were not widely known as left-handed do not count, especially if their life and career had little to do with their handedness. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

SPA

I'm at a stumbling block in finding a relevent policy. On the Chip Berlet page a Editor Waalkes moved to label Berlet as a advocacy journalist and then an activist. This in itself wouldn't be much. However it seems that waalkes is a SPA. The particular change seems to tie into discussion on the Schiller Institute talk page where the same user mentions that Bertlet is an advocacy journalist. The user seems to be implying that would make him an unreliable source. It's really hard to assume good faith in this situation. Your comments in the schiller institute page lead me to believe you have come accross this apparent disruptive editing by this editor before. I'm just wondering if you think something should be done and what.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no past interaction with Waalkes, but even the briefest glance at his contributions confirms that he is a single-purpose account, focused on attenuating the negative coverage of LaRouche, and emphasizing the positive coverage. I don't know what the next step is in dealing with him, though Waalkes' contributions of this sort can be dismissed out of hand as laughably biased. He's his own worst enemy. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Dodge Durango

Please be more careful when reverting edits such as this one in the Dodge Durango article. That edit actually reverted a series of bad-faith edits by known vandal 68.45.208.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). DES (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Looks like one vandal from Peru was fixing the problems caused by another vandal from New Jersey. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Magic (Coldplay song)

Can you take care of the page if contributor(s) doing any unsourced genres or citation/source removal. 183.171.176.177 (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You say "pop", per Rolling Stone. I get it. However, the Telegraph calls it a ballad, so maybe there's room for both pop and ballad. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Why aren't you an admin? Bearian (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha! You don't have to be an admin to wield a mop around here. I just can't push the mop.

Thanks for noticing! Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 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: Nick-D looks at The Lost Boys of Anzac Op-ed: Peacemaker67 on Featured Articles involving Yugoslavia in World War II

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

re: whitewashing edward furlong

i warned you, you didn't stop, & now you have this:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Bite

Your accusations of "vandalism" against a new user are not only erroneous, but in violation of WP:Bite. S/He is not engaged in "vandalism." Rather, s/he is unfamiliar with WP's sourcing policy. The content s/he added appears to be true; Stanhope has spoken of his friendship with Manson and seems to be collaborating with Johnny Depp on a future project. Moreover, neither of these claims are disparaging or particularly controversial. You should have taken 30 seconds to Google the claims this new user was making before hurling (ironically, unsourced) accusations. Steeletrap (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I should get some reading glasses, as I glanced quickly and thought I saw Marilyn Monroe, rather than Manson. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concession. But frankly, your tendency to render highly critical and heavy-handed judgments, based only on 'quick glances' at sources and articles, is a problem for the project. Here, in a very cut-and-dry case, it's easy to point out your error. But in other cases -- particularly your summary of sources -- it is an onerous task. (E.G.: On Multiple occasions, you referred to Brian Doherty as an economist and an economic history book as a book on contemporary economic theory.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views.

I noticed that you have never edited the Doug Stanhope biography, nor have you participated on the article talk page, nor have you commented about Stanhope at any noticeboard or project page. So you clearly navigated to the above diff by watching my edits. I suggest that you will not want to violate WP:HOUNDING by continuing to comment on my various activities here. Sincerely, Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, my "hounding" was justified because it showed that that your drive-by edit and allegation of "vandalism" was erroneous. I hope you will learn from your misconduct. Steeletrap (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Bink, if a user has a good faith reason to believe you are prone to policy violations, there would be valid cause to follow your edits. Ironically, the policy you link states as much while also presenting the irony that you appear to have inserted that link without regard for the content it contains. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is at an end. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Tornadoes in Denver

Hi there. I see you added some details about an area in east Denver that seems tornado-prone. Yet the sentence before the one you added says that tornadoes are rare in Denver. I'm not familiar with the city, but the two sentences seem contradictory. Would you be able to clarify this on the article? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Did I do better this time? Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Cited Sources - Stop Islamization of America

Please note that the majority of cited sources do not use "islamophobia". They use "Anti-islam" or "anti-muslim". Please review the sources before you attempt to revert the edit and add political commentary. GrinSudan (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In relation to recent BLP/N thread in which you made a comment

If you have the time, please comment on [1] and [2]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no point in asking you to stay off my Talk page, is there? Since you've refused every time I have made that request

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, please don't template the other user anymore. You don't need to warn them each time, they've indicated they're well aware of WP:EW and WP:3RR. Just go to WP:ANEW next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Binksternet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thanks for the reality check, Floquenbeam. I certainly will not template the other user anymore; instead, I will go directly to ANEW if the situation calls for it. My previous understanding—that a warning on the user's talk page was a prerequisite for a report at ANEW—is now amended. I would like to offer a 1RR self-imposed restriction on the Edward Snowden biography for six months. And for the next week, I will hold entirely to the talk page to discuss issues, as I initiated at Talk:Edward Snowden#Hathaway's analysis about airport transit lounges. This promise will remove me as an element of disruption and I can be unblocked. Binksternet (talk) 4:10 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

User:Vianello, I and the Administrator who originally placed the block have agreed to an unblock under the conditions above. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Floquenbeam, Vianello and Dougweller. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute

I've opened a request for mediation. I think it could help having an impartial mediator. Please cosnider going there and signing up.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Both Waalkes and Joe have agreen to the mediation. I was just wondering if you would consider it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I will consider it. Let me chug through some conflict-free article creation to clear my head, then I'll put in my two cents at the mediation page. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Schiller Institute". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 31 May 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Stuff that needs to be fixed

Acalamari, could you block Special:Contributions/203.218.169.106 as you have done earlier this month? Our friend the Hong Kong sock is at it again, and his edits need to be reverted.

Somebody please revert the false information entered at Carlos Gardel in this diff.

Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and did both. Sorry Acalamari! → Call me Hahc21 07:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it, Hahc21! Acalamari 09:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you fine folk. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with article Glossary of Belly Dance Terms

Hi! I saw that you had contributed to the article on Belly Dance. I have created an article “Glossary of Belly Dance Terms” because many of my dance students have been asking for it. I am new to Wikipedia and I was hoping that you would be able to help out by contributing or helping with formatting (I need that!) or adding citations. Thanks! MonicaDance (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I will look at that when I get a bit of free time. I have only a passing interest in belly dancing, but it's true I have been active at that article, to reduce the promotion of various dance schools, teachers, performers, and troupes. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A little help

Binksternet, a user is refusing to accept that when there are no reliable sources to support a genre on a certain album, the genre infobox stays empty. As I heard this info first from you, would it be possible for you to tell which Wiki guideline notes this rule? Thanks. MetalicMadness (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a common problem—some people feel that all parameters of the infobox should be filled up. I don't think there is a specific guideline covering just empty parameters, but we already have WP:V as a "pillar" of Wikipedia. All information should be verifiable. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Some other users are on the case now as well, so hopefully the offender sees that he's/she's wrong. MetalicMadness (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you link to the case you were talking about? Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A couple of users have resolved it now, and the unsourced genres on the article have now been replaced by one with an AllMusic review supporting it. MetalicMadness (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A-class Rock Music reviews

Hi. I'm seeing if there's an interest in doing A-class reviews for rock related articles to help bridge the gap between Good and Featured status. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music#A class reviews and I'd be grateful if you had any comments. Thankyou. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've never been fond of the A-Class designation, despite its frequent use by the Military History WikiProject. I'd rather see peer reviews turn up the heat to vet possible FAs. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Scenic photos

Hi Binksternet, the two photos on the album page were added as locations relevant to the album's promotion; one for a televised special filming and the other where a tour special was filmed. There doesn't seem to be many freely licensed photos of her available, which is why relevant location photos were added to compensate. User5482 (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

However scenic they may be, the problem is that photos are irrelevant. You can't fix that. Binksternet (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

How are the photos irrelevant to where its main promotion took place (a film studio where a televised special occurred and location where a tour was filmed for broadcast)? User5482 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Your promotion of Jackson is very tiring. Stop putting fluff into articles about her. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if you find it tiring or 'promotion', that wasn't my intention. The photos were relevant to its promotion as stated before, they weren't added as fluff. Similar usage of relevant location photos are used in other music articles to go along with the text and remain there, I was only saying that those seemed to meet the same criteria and didn't cause any harm to the article. User5482 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you tell me where the other "relevant location photos" are in other articles I will go to those articles and assess whether they really are relevant. No image should stay in an article if it is not directly relevant. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The images I've seen were of tour venues or recording locations, but not the artists themselves. I feel that the images there were directly relevant, but I won't argue. I'll see if there's a different image which could be more suitable to its promotion. User5482 (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked for, and found, the other articles you were talking about. You have apparently been adding lots and lots and lots and lots of Janet Jackson fluff to Wikipedia. It pains me to have to remove all of the fluff, since you are clearly able to add useful material, too. It looks like it will be a big job. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The articles I was referring to were from pages from artists such as Rihanna and various bands, I can't recall which in specific. I never intend to add any fluff but only related content, even if it pertains to the artist in question. User5482 (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fluff

I understand your reasoning for some edits but I think some were unnecessary, not everything you disagree with can be dismissed as 'fluff'. A free photo of a location pertaining to an artist's recording or filming is relevant, it doesn't always have to be a photo of the artist themselves. I know you'll try to revert any edits that restores them, but some are justifiable and can be placed back. For example, a photo of a black cat was included as it's the song's title and a huge part of its composition. A Grammy photo was included as it was nominated for a Grammy award which is significant, it doesn't have to be a photo of her actual Grammy to warrant inclusion. None of these are disruptive or fluff, they pertain to the article. In the 1990s article, a short sentence was added from a sourced reference, yet you said it was 'padding' (another word for fluff) although it was factual and notable to that year in music. A reference to a film was considered 'unimportant' although it had a source, while the other references there didn't. Reverting the main Jackson page because of the word "replicate" (although you said she "referenced" it instead, which was the original word used there), restoring your critical edit and calling it 'promo fluff' seems a bit controlling and unreasonable. I know this is probably unintentional, but some (not all) of your edits seem like WP:Bias. I don't want to argue or cause any edit wars, as you clearly seem to be a great contributor at times and it does get tiring. However, I don't agree with some of your reversions and I'd like to alter some reasonably without drama. User5482 (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Pardon my French, but no fucking way. If something interesting happened at the Aloha Stadium then the only photo you should use is a photo of the thing happening, not a general photo of the ocean nearby. If a recording was made in a city, then the only photo you should have would be one taken at the recording session, not some promotional shot of the city. If a song lyric talks about a celestial body, you cannot simply choose some celestial body image as the portrayal. If a specific black cat inspired Jackson, then a picture of that exact cat would be appropriate, not a stock photo of some black feline. If a song actually won a Grammy, then a picture of that Grammy would be fine, but definitely not if the song was nominated then did not win. (In that case, the picture of a Grammy gives false authority to a non-winner.) Your wish to portray the Perry video as a positive "reference" to Jackson, instead of a parody, is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, so that's not going to fly. I could go on, but you get the point. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

By now I've seen your edits very often violate WP:NPOV by pushing up Janet Jackson, and occasionally pushing down others such as Madonna and Michael Jackson as you did here, removing an easily referenced fact about sampling MJ, along with you added a low-quality source pushing a Janet Jackson comparison. Did I mention this is a violation of WP:NPOV?

You may not be hired by Janet Jackson to fluff her Wikipedia presence, but you are effectively serving that role. I will work with you but I will not tolerate promotion. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your response was uncalled for, there's no reason to be rude. I see your point, but I also don't see any harm in placing a photo of a city where something was recorded if no photo of the studio is available. There isn't a specific rule which says this can't be done. As for the Grammy photo, there are many other pages using it for nominated works which is where the idea came from, but I understand your point there. The photo of the black cat actually is the type of leopard which inspired the song, though obviously not the exact one. And for the Perry reference, it wasn't to portray it as positively but just saying what happened - she 'replicated' the event during the climax of her video. And the other edits still seemed to be done without valid reason. User5482 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

My edits don't intend to do that. However, I could make a similar argument for you removing any reference to Jackson being superior to her contemporaries in her article, except one which you seemed to reluctantly allow, only to add negative commentary right after it was included. That seems like WP:Bias and a violation of WP:NPOV, but I don't want to criticize or assume things that are likely not true.

I removed the reference on the Whitney song as it's not true. The site referenced is one where anyone can submit a song they think is sampled if they feel it sounds similar, it's not always accurate. There's never been any mention of an MJ sample in the song's actual credits, though you can correct me if I'm mistaken.

Editing some of her pages is not 'fluff', some could use an update. I'd like to work with you as well but it's frustrating with hostility or everything accused of 'promotion'. User5482 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that whosampled.com is a low quality source, but I find it funny how the same website repeatedly used by you to push a Janet Jackson connection[3][4][5][6][7][8] is suddenly not good enough to reference a Michael Jackson connection. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It was used as a source since they also list the samples in their liner notes or credits. Just to point out the fourth one (since it seems to be the rarest), it's also on more credible sources such as this one. Not saying that site isn't sometimes credible (most of the time it is), but if the Whitney song actually did use a big sample like that I'd assume it would definitely have to be credited in the album notes for legal reasons and would be more well known. User5482 (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the sample of "Dirty Diana" was used by CJ Mackintosh for the widely heard remix of "Queen of the Night".[9] Also interesting.[10] Hard to say. It certainly does not make me trust the whosample site any more than before. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's possible but it's still not credited or confirmed. I'd be really surprised if it did actually use it but didn't cite it. I'd imagine an MJ sample wouldn't go under the radar like that. User5482 (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Your ANI posting is not going well. The first seven votes were in your favor, but all but one of the last six have gone for me. This improbable shift is not coincidental. The early voters were mostly involved editors: people with good relationships with you and/or bad relationships with me. This is in contrast to the votes in my favor, which (mostly) came from uninvolved users who evaluated the evidence without prejudice.

Your claim that this is a clear-cut, "textbook" case of hounding is not credible; if it were, disinterested (uninvolved) editors wouldn't be overwhelmingly against you and an admin would have intervened by now. On the other hand, your complaints about the jokes about your nickname do have merit. But they do not rise to the level of administrator action. For these reasons, I propose that you withdraw your complaint and that we focus on finding a way to interact more effectively in the future. I am willing to make a lot of concessions to you. But I am not willing to rule out tracking or reverting your edits in the future.

In the meantime, why don't you admit to and apologize for your harassment of other users (e.g. threatening blocks because new users added unsourced but accurate song genres), as uninvolved user 98 asked you to do? You were recently blocked in response to a complaint that alleged harassment, and you seemed contrite afterwards. If you apologized and changed your behavior in this regard, my desire to follow you would dissipate. (And in any case, I would swiftly be IBanned if I were to follow you without a legitimate motive.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for you to track my edits and revert any errors you find. The percentage of errors is extremely small, and the sheer number of my edits is very large. Tracking my edits will remove you as an effective editor, and it will piss me off.

You have asked a leading question, one that assumes I harass other editors. I do not intend to harass editors, but I do intend to keep templating vandals when I find them. Vandal reversion is a respected (and necessary) practice on Wikipedia. I notice that you have little experience in fighting vandals, so it's likely that you do not understand the challenge.

Adjwilley correctly noted that any apology I offered to the IP user, the one who wrote that Doug Stanhope and Marilyn Manson are friends, the one who has never taken part in a talk page discussion, would likely not be read. There's no point in revisiting that interaction now. At the time, I would have simply reverted my erroneous vandal warning had you not already done so, removing my opportunity in the process. In fact, you issued your own apology for my actions, then you removed it in the next edit. So I don't get why you want me to replace an apology. It makes no sense. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's leave aside the question as to whether you are mistake prone. I (and other, uninvolved users) object to your threats against new users for good-faith errors. Much of Wikipedia -- including the articles you've created -- is unsourced. Threatening a noob (who presumably does not know RS standards) with blocks for adding an accurate but unsourced song genre is harassment. So is templating people's pages who ask you to stay off. Steeletrap (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Much of Wikipedia is unsourced, but none of the articles I have created can be described that way. Don't lump me in with the lumpen masses.

No Wikipedia editor in good standing objects to the practice of vandal reversion, so you'll get no traction with that argument—you won't have any support if you try to stop me from fighting vandalism. The standard templates for vandal-reversion have been designed to give an escalating sense of the seriousness of the vandalism. I use these templates quite a lot. If you think they are "threatening" to new editors then perhaps you should work on getting the templates changed. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with threatening to block vandals. Bur a noobs addition of accurate material to an article without a source is not vandalism. Vandalism requires bad faith. Please familiarize yourself with wp:vandalism. Steeletrap (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Time to drop it, Steeletrap. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Black genocide

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Continued and consecutive reversals of content I edited

Only after I replied to you I noticed you had already reverted two of my recent edits: Quadraphonic sound and Azimuth Co-ordinator, both based on the allegation that "a fansite discussion board is not a reliable source". However, the edits were based on articles published by the Sound of Stage magazine, with full reference given.

Pardon me, but the article I used as source is not a "fansite discussion board", even though the website that hosts the article has a discussion board, in addition to other content. I couldn't help noticing, however, that you didn't seem to care that Neptune's website is/has also a "fansite discussion board" when you discussed the David Gilmour edits. Why the double standards now? Please care to explain your reasons to me, as now more than ever I am considering this to be harassing behaviour. E.Goldstein (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I only pointed out the Neptune website because I saw you had switched the reference to what is apparently your favorite Pink Floyd fansite, one that you put into many, many articles. I agree that the two websites may possibly be violating Mojo magazine's copyright, but at least the Neptune one published an editorial note saying they had permission from the writer, and at least the Neptune one is not publishing scans taken straight out of Mojo.

As you can see here, the real reference is Mojo. That's what should have been placed. The same should be done with the magazine Sound On Stage, despite you linking to www.pinkfloydfan.net: [11][12][13][14][15][16]

Sean.hoyland may be seeing the same thing I am; he removed your link to www.pinkfloydfan.net and put in a proper archive link pointing back to the original.

It's difficult for me to believe you are knowledgeable or concerned about copyright violations after you very closely paraphrased the source here:

• Your text: "Keyboard player Jon Carin allegedly helped Wright renew his skills as a musician after succumbing to Waters's autocratic behavior during the The Wall project."[17]
• Original text: "...keyboard player Jon Carin, who helped Wright renew his skills as a musician after succumbing to Waters's autocratic behavior during the "Wall" project."[18]

I'm glad you came forward to discuss this further. I was going to take the matter to WP:ANI after you indicated you were done discussing at your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edit is now acceptable, in face of WP:LINKVIO which Sean pointed out below, and I agree with it.

However, your statement "It's difficult for me to believe you are knowledgeable or concerned about copyright violations" is clearly offensive, especially after I stated my academic background and legal experience in the area and clearly explained to you that there is no legal validity of a mere statement on a website saying that the author allegedly allowed reproduction of the interview there (an argument which I believe you agreed upon, since you made the edit above, removing the link to the potentially copyright infringing website). I have a very clear understanding of what fair use is, as I pointed out to you. Nonetheless, it has now become clear that Wikipedia's policies are quite strict even in that sense. One thing is Law, the other is the application of Law by a collective entity as Wikipedia, which prefers to be cautious so as to not be held responsible for copyright infringement, something I can agree with (actually, legally something we MUST agree with since we are bound by Wikipedia's terms and conditions). See, we are discussing ideas and Wikipedia policies here, and offensive personal remarks such as yours are utterly unnecessary, uncalled for and unacceptable.

Therefore, I will not discuss with you any further until I receive a public apology here. I have been respectful to you and I deserve the same kind of respect. Furthermore, if you pursue this sort of aggressive behaviour towards myself or any other users, I am going to take the matter to WP:ANI and any other necessary and competent instances myself. I despise bullies, which is part of the reason why I became a Lawyer, so you can be sure of that. Good day. E.Goldstein (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I notice here that you did not explain your duplication of copyrighted text ("...Waters's autocratic behavior..."), which was the context for me saying that "It's difficult for me to believe you are knowledgeable or concerned about copyright violations". If you are truly a holder of the LLM degree, then I'm sorry for implying that you were not. If you are not holding an LLM degree, you would not be the first person on Wikipedia to claim greater authority: See the Essjay controversy. At any rate, there is a widely held stereotype of the lawyer who considers the law beneath him. You demonstrably did not follow Wikipedia's copyright guidelines in several different ways.

Now that you know the guideline WP:LINKVIO, you might want to see WP:Close paraphrasing and WP:Plagiarism which will be applicable to the "Waters's autocratic behavior" instance. I hope that will help guide your future additions to Pink Floyd-related articles. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read my text again, in which I wrote "I will not discuss with you any further until a receive a public apology here", which is why I did not explain my paraphrasing of copyrighted text before. I am truly a holder of the LL.M. in Intellectual Property degree, in which case I believe you have apologised, and I accept your apology.

Now, onto your inquire: you seem to be confusing Wikipedia's policies, rules and guidelines with Law (and particularly Copyright Law) itself. While the former is "only" an agreement between two private entities, the latter, well, is Law itself. What I did in that article (close paraphrasing, as Wikipedia defines it) would never be considered copyright infringement and would certainly fall in the realms of fair use, not only because of the extent (a phrase, whereas in Law not even a whole paragraph copied is necessarily a copyright infringement), but also because of the purpose of the reproduction (study and research, with no commercial intent), the negligible effect on the original work's value (as in, nobody would decide not to buy the original article because they saw that phrase in Wikipedia) and the fact that I clearly referenced the original source. Nonetheless, it is clearly against Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, which you failed to refer to (I could say here that I believe you were ignorant of these rules, but I do not want to sound offensive like you) and, thankfully for both of us, Sean came to our rescue.

Now, I never claimed to know all of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines - actually, I am quite a new editor, but I do claim to be an expert on Copyright Law for reasons I already explained. I do not consider the Law beneath me, which you imply that I do, once again adopting an arrogant and offensive attitude. I could say that all live audio engineers are frustrated musicians and stoners, but that would once again be offensive and disrespectful, wouldn't it? That would only be a personal attack to you, not an argument against your ideas. And we are both adults here, so we should refrain from personal bickering, shouldn't we?

By the way, as soon as Sean pointed out WP:LINKVIO I also educated myself with WP:Close paraphrasing and WP:Plagiarism, among many others guidelines pages. But thanks you very much for pointing those out to me, that was very nice of you. <sarcasm mode off> E.Goldstein (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding citing www.pinkfloydfan.net for the Independent article, please see WP:LINKVIO. We can't link to what appears to be an infringement of the Independent's copyright. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sean. The WP:LINKVIO guide is the exact one pertaining to this issue. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. I was unaware of the WP:LINKVIO guidelines, which are very clear in this case, and I will adhere to them, so thank you very much for politely pointing those out to me, Sean. I only hope Mr. Knowles here would be as responsible and considerate as you. E.Goldstein (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad Dirt: Wyoming Stories 2

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on We Will Rock You

Hello! Would you like to comment on this discussion on whether arena rock should be in the infobox for We Will Rock You? If not, then feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

BLPN

Your input at the Michael Wines section of WP:BLPN would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Cited Sources - Stop Islamization of America - Again

Hi Binksternet,

As mentioned in my earlier comment ony our talk page, please note that the sources in the "Stop Islamization of America" page do NOT use "Islamophobic". They do use "anti-Islamic" or "Anti-muslim". The change to "anti-Islamist" by DougWeller does not appear to meet consensus or the sources so I have removed that change. Changes to include "islamophobic" are NOT appropriate to the article or sources though. GrinSudan (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Schiller Institute, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Reference Errors on 5 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 5 Seconds of Summer discography page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

LP

I left proofs at the pages of both LP and vinyl record probing the connections I made on the articles. Please proceed with further discussion there. 83.13.239.255 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hiya!

Hi Binksternet! I have a couple things that I would appreciate your opinion about: one is Blackhouse (band), the other is an orphan Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/H._Craig_Hanna. Thanking you for all your contributions to the Wikiprojects! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What are your questions? The Blackhouse article is an orphan, or nearly so. It's pretty well referenced, but a few of the cited reviews seem to like the band more than the article represents, so perhaps the band is too negatively portrayed. Regarding Hanna, he looks notable enough to me, having his work exhibited, and discussed in periodicals. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; both had problem uploads with Commons and I don't have the "wikipedia" viewpoint anymore, so I ask you and several other editors for opinions when confused. The Hanna fellow hasn't a solid 3rd party non-press release article other than in a blog; my major concern with him was all his uploads of other people's photos to illustrate his page. Usually when people misunderstand the system that badly, the misunderstanding can come to the article space as well. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me voting to keep the Hanna biography; I saw your vote was to delete! Best wishes - Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Arena rock discussion

Hi Binksternet! I would first like to take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions to Talk:We Will Rock You. Secondly, I have noticed that there is a lot of confusion over whether or not arena rock constitutes a genre. Since consistency is good, I have brought the issue up here. If you are not interested in weighing in, then feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Link

Hi Binksternet, Did you mean to link to a Wikipedia article rather than a news storing in the Irving article? ([19]). I suspect not ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your suspicion is correct! Thanks for the note; I've fixed my gaffe. Binksternet (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

HocolPrarum

Hi, I see you've been having some dealings with user HocolPrarum in recent days. FYI, this account appears to be a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Caper454 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are correct. There are a number of genre warriors who disrupt the music articles, that that guy is certainly one of them. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The genre warriors are annoying for sure. This particular guy/gal is quite persistent, it's a game waiting for the next new account to pop up. Anyways, enjoy your day my friend. Caper454 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Gotta go offline,

for tonight, but - someone (not you) edit warring in several articles? At some point it's got to be ANI. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Judy Malloy

Do you have a quote from Malloy where she says she will be moving back to El Sobrante? Because as it stands right now, she seems to have been in Jersey for months, her personal Twitter makes no mention of El Sobrante or the Bay Area, she refers to Princeton as "home" and she posted the Fall schedule that shows her teaching there(https://www.princeton.edu/ams/undergraduate_program/seminars_1/). Even if she comes back to El Sobrante periodically, her place of residence sounds to be Princeton.98.207.61.240 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Her online resume appears to list her address as New Jersey as well - http://www.well.com/~jmalloy/malloy_cv_2013.pdf98.207.61.240 (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting editor

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Mosfetfaser (talk · contribs); I'm struck by this edit, especially the phrase "attacking opinionated biased sources". Redolent of YRC/O2RR, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

DYK nomination of Little David Records

Hello! Your submission of Little David Records 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! Storye book (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for approving the DYK nomination! I know that a 3-way nom involves a lot of effort to review, so kudos to you. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Persian people

Sorry, I boldly reverted a long way back due to editing by a banned editor but also because the Tajiks suddenly disappeared with no reason given. As they are a Persian speaking people I don't understand why this happened. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The page of Iran

Dear Binksternet, I extremely agree with you!

I'm only 18 years old and I believe that I'm still so new and amateur here. I'm just so obsessed with the article of Iran, because I believe my country and people are under so many covers that the people like Qizilbash have created. I've tried to improve the page of Iran, and I've tried to include more information to improve the sections about the culture and history, in order to show the truth, and show the events that have happened and are still happening, but now I suddenly felt really weak in front of the astonishing bigotry of this person. Please help me to stop them and save this page. Thank you for your attention. Arvid Qasemy (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I like your youthful energy, and I like your devotion to portraying Iran as you see it. I think that some of our Iranian-heritage editors are too happy to push down the accomplishments of women. Most of the English-speaking world is very interested to hear about women's rights in Iran. This is the English version of Wikipedia, and I think the viewpoint of the English-language media is especially important. I applaud your efforts to brighten the Iran article, even though I might not agree with so many images added. Please tell me any time you are having trouble, and I will try to help. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to help, but we can't make something constructive if guy above continue to force edit wars. I have to apologize for my harsh words on talk page, but you also need to understand that it's very frustrating when someone spends time and energy to explain things, bring reliable sources and engage in civilized discussion, and then someone cames and simply revert everything by one click. If you're dubious of anything which I've said I can provide even more sources - Western and academic. And regarding section about women, I can write it at talkpage and we can insert it by mutual census agreed. Greetings. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

SPI?

I thought you were taking Salar100b to SPI? However, he isn't related to LouisofAragon - Louis didn't remove Tajik material, these 2 have. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Farshidvard. Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for sorting it out. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Binksternet, you're a good egg. Wanted to say to say that it hasn't escaped my notice that you're an extremely gracious and generous editor. Atlantictire (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Atlantictire; your message is awfully sweet for me to see first thing in the morning when I log on. There are those here who enjoy working with me, and those who do not. I'm glad you land in the first group! Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Little David Records

Allen3 ^talk 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Devil Made Me Buy This Dress

Allen3 ^talk 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Geraldine Jones (character)

Allen3 ^talk 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Book Club of California

Hi Binksternet, (I think we may have met at the Berkeley Edit-a-thon in April.) I've drafted an article on the Book Club of California--see Draft:Book Club of California. I can't prove its notability through online secondary sources, but its publications are certainly referenced a lot, and I think the fact that it's been in existence over 100 years is notable in itself. Can you upgrade it from draft status? (I know I could have created it directly in the first place, but I feel new enough that I should go through channels.) HarZim (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There's gotta be a way to bring that article into mainspace! I'm working on birthing another article right now, but I promise I will look at your draft and see if I can crank it up a notch.

I was unable to attend the April Women's Edit-A-Thon but you probably remember me from my eight suggestions for content improvement (none of which were touched!) Coincidentally, today I am working on Heather Willauer's biography—another instance of an ass-kicking woman who ought to be represented on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Traian Vuia

You restored a modified page claiming that my modification was not neutral. I will show here that your restoring was a lot less neutral. First, you had a copy of the previous version, so I suppose you had a connection with it. Second, my change consisted in removing a non-pertinent add (a comment) in favor of Wright broders, as if it were a competition. The page is about Vuia, not Wright and we are here to document, not to compete. It is obvious to everybody that the -limited- accomplishment of Vuia is not in the favor of the opinion that first fully-autonomous flight was made by Wright. Any non-certified argument (mainly addressing others, previous to Wright) is used, though it "damages" Wrights exploit, too. But since that was not Wright's page, it has a limited effect. I explained the change in the talk section but since you asked I'll repeat here.

I cancelled "At the time Europe was aware but skeptical of the efforts of the Wright brothers who on December 17, 1903, had flown their Wright Flyer from level ground using a rail only to guide the wheeled truck that their Flyer rested on until take off was achieved. The Wrights had made sustained and controlled flights in a complete circuit by September 1904".

The insert refers to some collective "Europe" lack of precise knwledge (unlike "America"?). What "Europe" has to do with? Journal editors knew about Wright brothers. And many others in Europe, we don't count here population info. Then, it starts to speak about Wright brothers just to contradict -though impossible, because of evidence- the previous reference to take off helpers. We are not speaking about them in this article, let the people read the original one on Wright and decide. Moreover, it is self-controversial: the rail mentioned by the previous phrase is aknowledged, while "only to guide the wheeled truck" indicates that part of the take-off mechanism (the truck) was not lifted in air with the plane, which had a sled as landing gear and could not take off alone from a flat surface. In addition, the rail was downslope, which helped the takeoff, therefore not autonomous. So the Wright plane was as nice as you want, it just leaves behind a rail and a truck, which are a big deal of weight to carry and extra-force to take off. Nobody takes from them the merit of the first sustained and controlled flight, but it was not the first fully-autonomous one. Vuia's one was not the first sustained because it wasn't sustained at all, so nobody was perfect but let's accept the things as they are and avoid subjective competition.

The very begining of the article (he -Vuia- said that) is non-professional and tries to minimize both the result and the credibility. Ok, he said that, but there was an official demo too (few months after), which the article mentioned too far below, so some people may not read till there due to the first phrase impact. I changed it with "he aknowledged" + the reference to the second exploit, which is certified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.81.47 (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You are under a couple of wrong assumptions, which prevent you from assessing the previous wording with proper accuracy. The first assumption is that the Wright brothers used a downslope launch on their first day of flight. They did not—the launch was on flat ground with a rail to guide the undercarriage. So the Wrights were definitely first to fly a heavier-than-air machine with a man aboard, fully autonomous, making more than a powered hop. Vuia made only a powered hop, per Gibbs-Smith, so that's why I restored the Gibbs-Smith reference.

The second thing you could not know is that Vuia biography has been subject to the attentions of many Romanian nationalists, or Wright brothers haters, and the text which explains the accomplishment of Vuia with regard to the Wrights is there because of so many efforts to portray Vuia as being first to fly. He was not. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Heather Willauer

Hello! Your submission of Heather Willauer 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! Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me.

Well excuse me their is no reason to be so ANAL at me, since some of the other article pages I've been looking at such as Greg Weisman, Robert Zemeckis, Tim Burton etc... have a table for the list of Collaborators they collaborated, if they were able to have that list why can't Christopher Nolan?50.171.11.116 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The collaboration must be prefaced by a few sentences describing how the director prefers a familiar group of collaborators, the sentences supported by a reliable source or two. See Joss Whedon for an idea of how this can work. If the table of collaborators has no supporting references then it violates WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

hell pizza

Hi Bink. I am one of the owners of HELL pizza and recently made a change to the wiki page for hell pizza. I have edited the history page and updated it with the number of stores now open in New Zealand and also overseas and removed some of the other text that was incorrect and redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.240.133 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The negative but well-cited information should not be removed, per WP:Neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Silly

Since I already had noticed my mistake, and re-signed my talk-page contribution. Makes me think Your message to the IP-adress indeed was silly. I already had explained and appologized. And by the way, please show me a source that gives Halder anything more than minor contribution at a tactical - not strategical level. Just because he held the traditional possition used by von Moltke , the younger, Falkenhayn and Hindenburg during WWI, doesn't give him any automatical credit. And please show me a source that gives Halder a noteworthy contribution to the plan that was used. Shall we entirelly rely on you interpretation of Dilby's timeline.

Melvin (at http://www.thehistoryreader.com/modern-history/manstein-sichelschnitt/ ) finishes with

"There can be little doubt that the Fuhrer’s discussions with Jodl and Schmundt on 13 February had already primed his coincidental thinking about Sedan as the easiest place to cross the Meuse. In contrast, Manstein, as Frieser has rightly pointed out, was ‘thinking all the way to the Channel Coast’. Hence if Manstein shares with Halder and Hitler the credit for the adoption of Sichelschnitt in its final form, the original operational concept was very much his alone. As General Graf von Kielmansegg has made perfectly clear: ‘The idea was entirely and totally Manstein’s.’ Halder’s contribution thereafter from March to May 1940, whilst Manstein remained banished in Stettin, lay in defending the new plan against all objections." I.o.w. the stategy was von Manstein's alone, Halder may have possible have done some tactical approvements. But without von Mantein the plan never had been invented. Boeing720 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It won't be so "silly" if somebody counts up your reverts and arrives at a violation of WP:3RR, which is why I sent a message to your IP address. Editors often get blocked for such behavior. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop your incessant edit-warring on the 1953 Iran Coup page

For several years now you have been obsessed with removing the phrase "democratically elected government" from the 1953 coup page. In numerous debates and RFCs it has been made clear to you that the notion that Iran's democratically elected government as overthrown by the CIA in 1953, is an academic consensus. Yet every few days you pop back up again to delete the phrase. Please cease and desist from vandalizing the coup page. Poyani (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hyperbole or exaggeration will not carry your point. Yesterday's version of the article contained the phrases "democratically elected prime minister", "overthrow a democratically elected government", "overthrow a democratically elected, civil government", "overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government" and "democratic Prime Minister of Iran", so I don't know what you are complaining about. So much repetition beats the reader over the head. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Golden Ratio on Architecture

For some reason, a good image showing the use of the golden ratio as a proportion rule in modern architecture has been removed twice by you. Though at first you removed it under the pretence that the architect himself had nothing much to do with the page, it was once again removed after your suggestions were met.

The topic of the GR in Modern Architecture is very well discussed on the page, and after a talk with David Eppstein, it was provided strong reference backing up the image. I think it is DISGRACEFUL that you are so arrogant as to prevent people to CONTRIBUTE to the page. Your reasoning of 'original research' can only be an excuse for your large ego, since the reference I provided, being a doctoral dissertation, is the most reliable. Anyone with basic knowledge on Mid-Century modernism would know about the use of proportion rules, and if you want, I can provide many more

It's not because you don't know the facts that its untrue. Go study and stop being a child.

I am a new editor, and your actions are discouraging me from contributing or even trying to learn on how to improve. RPFigueiredo (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

RP, I have posted some encouraging advice on the article talk page where you repeated this same rant; one place is usually enough (more than enough in this case). Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 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: Nick-D looks at life aboard a US aircraft carrier and Hawkeye7 considers the role of food in World War II

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) 15:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

MedCom case update: Schiller Institute

Dear Binksternet: Hello. I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Schiller Institute.

My name is Tristessa de St Ange (talk · contribs), and I'll be your mediator for this case. It's good to meet you! I'm currently in the process of researching the content issue regarding this article (and the wider dispute) in some detail, and I hope I'll be able to assist in bringing some consensus to this editing dispute. I would like to ask all parties to bear with me while I complete this research, and am extremely grateful for your patience whilst I get things underway. I will let you know as soon as things are underway.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the case, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Tristessa (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Need of a new LTA

Thanks for your contributions to wikipedia!

As you have remained active in investigating activities of Harvey Carter on en.wiki. I think we should make a WP:LTA. You know that I still remember using youtube, yahoo answer, during 2005-2011, almost every week. Harvey Carter was available at times with new sock puppets. Maybe it would be easy to say that he has misused many websites. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a good idea to list him at LTA. How would you describe him? Hardly any of the LTA entries are very descriptive; they are instead short and general. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We shall summarize later, but first this page has to be developed. I have added a bit for now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I'm aware that right now there's a discussion going on right now regarding voice actors and WP:ENTERTAINER, but next time, before nominating voice actors (or any "entertainer") for deletion, be sure to make a thorough search for sources, especially on American or Japanese voice actors. Happy editing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Paramount

Can you please stop removing films from the List of Paramount Pictures films? They all have corresponding articles that confirm they are being released by Paramount, I have no idea why you even keep doing it. Koala15 (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy WP:Verifiability says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." If the list entry has no inline citation then the entry can be challenged or removed. Future film projects are what I'm concerned about – so many things can change with them. An inline citation should be included. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Every film on the page doesn't have a source, so i don't know why you are picking on those specific films. There are sources in the corresponding articles. Koala15 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The policy WP:Verifiability does not say that inline citations can be left out if they can be found at another article. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello! Sorry to bother you again, but would you be interested in this discussion regarding the issues on the Wagnerian rock article? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I will look at it. Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Heather Willauer

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits of Commander Bios

I don't think that your creation of red links on 50th Space Wing and 442d Fighter Wing complies with WP:RED as your undoing of my addition of to the previous edit states.

The pertinent criteria are "The link is broken and no longer leads to an article (perhaps because the underlying article was deleted). In such a case, the link usually needs to be removed or renamed to point to an existing article." and "Red links to personal names should be avoided."

It's not unusual for the ten year old bios of colonels to be removed from the net and I doubt there is a new article unless some of them are general officers. However, it is certainly possible that an archived version exists, which is why I undid your edit that created a red link and added the dead link template. The alternative is to remove the link altogether in this case, not to created a red link by removing the URL and leaving brackets around the name. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The first guideline I was following was WP:Embedded citations which says that embedded URLs are deprecated. There should be no linked URL at all, let alone one with a dead link tag. I thought it might be useful to replace the embedded URL with a wikilink, but if you think otherwise then there should be no link at all. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

My preference would be a look at the Wayback Machine to see if the bio is archived, but I'm doing other stuff. so I agree removing the link altogether is the best option under the circumstances. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove the redlinks.

this paper

http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/mh10111161404h76/ for example makes the point that gendered violence is defining of genocidal events. There are a number of scholars who have built on the work of Jones, so your dismissal of his work isn't really fair frankly. I posted a question at the RS noticeboard and the response was that Jones was a reliable source. What would it take to get you to reconsider your !vote in light of this kind of scholarship?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Watch that you don't violate WP:CANVASS by going to various editors' pages and urging them to change or reinforce their votes. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not a violation. Discussion and compromise and understanding other eds positions is fine, non-neutrally bringing new !voters to the discussion is not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Portal:San Francisco Bay Area

Its the Panoramic image size. I shrunk them down to 1000px. that may be more than your computer will handle. if its still too large for most, i may shrink it down more. however, the California portal has 800px images, and thats featured. thanks for the feedback. i love big images, but ease of use is important.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla

I'm tired of attempting to reign in a certain editor's owniness with regards to Tesla related articles. Any advice?--Atlantictire (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are the short-term answer. Hang in there, at least you have numerical superiority. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Hoping it won't come to that.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

War of Currents

Per your edit, WP:BURDEN is on you to find references for what seem to be paragraphs of un-referenced materiel (labeled analysis no less), not the other way around. Again per WP:BURDEN, no consensus is needed to remove this material. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)