User talk:Binksternet/Archive12

Crist

Please don't stuff it in like that, there is objections to you addition from multiple editors, and no one even wanted to comment to you RFC at all, I suggest that is reflective of the value of the content, as before, seek consensus on the talkpage, there are multiple objections. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you not consider the tame version ? perhaps there can be consensus for that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage, a Tribeca Film Festival feature about politicians who the film claims are "closeted" homosexuals and who vote against gay rights. Crist denied the allegations.

Why would the "tame version" have a reference to a 2006 news article when it only mentions 2009? I do not like this version as it is not accurate. The version I put into the article is clearer about what the film says, and it is clearer about the fact that Crist was already subject to that kind of accusation three years earlier. In my opinion, the small paragraph I restored is already the tame version—the larger version I prefer has much more explication, delivering arguments, proof and denials chronologically. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

2006 - 2009 - its hair splitting, I am open to accepting a simple comment about it, but that is not enough for you, presently there is nothing, the tame version is plenty, and reports it in a uninvolved manner. I urge you to accept it and if more is revealed we can perhaps add it. Please remember that there were also objections to the tame version but as a compromise I can support it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the chipping away process has already compromised the paragraph I inserted today, compromise in the negative sense. What I inserted:

In April 2009, Kirby Dick's documentary film Outrage stated that Crist was a "closeted" homosexual who voted against gay rights. In the film, Crist denied allegations of homosexuality, just as he denied them in 2006 when asked by Florida-based reporter Bob Norman.

...already presented the issue in an uninvolved manner. Your version has Crist denying allegations that are not made. The reader wonders what it is that Crist denies. An encyclopedia should not be opaque like this; should not answer questions that are not asked. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP policy requires us to take care with such claims. Christ denies all the allegations, all of them, simple. I have to say, your version is not written neutrally and leans towards asserting the claims as fact. Anyway, if you are not willing to consider my good faith offer to include some mention of the issue then all I can say is seek consensus on the talkpage for your desired edit. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot even write the allegations here on a talk page? Crist denies allegations of homosexuality, not other allegations, "all of them", whatever those are. It is homosexuality he denies. Your version of the paragraph does not say so. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Portrait

Please stop the edit war, just leave the picture with Crist with the Florida flag and emblem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.146.148 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You do not have anything close to consensus, with most other editors preferring the cropped closeup for its greater detail. Another editor has called your action "the lamest edit war"... don't you see how unimportant it is in the larger scheme? Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help

Without it I doubt I would have been unblocked. It may take me a while to get back up to speed. Any particular course of action you recommend to fix the 1953 coup article? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A series of narrowly defined RfCs, one at a time. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice efforts

Nice efforts at Outrage (2009 film)! ;) I added an Awards sect there, and also at Kirby Dick. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate stub articles that deserve to be bigger. :)

Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we could get it to GA? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot on my plate but I will keep an eye on it. The local video rental only has one copy of the DVD and it is frequently out (not to pun)... Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1945 Japan–Washington flight

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill Flores

Hey, just wanted to give you a heads up that I updated our conversation at Talk:Bill Flores Arbor832466 (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Just wanted to let you know that I've started a review of your article at Talk:Caleb V. Haynes/GA1--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR Ronald Skirth

I have nominated Ronald Skirth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwab3 (talk • contribs)

Certainly! I will take a look at the FAR listing. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It was accidentally listed as an FAR so I have moved it to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ronald Skirth/archive1. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite Block of BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block for abusing multiple accounts. [1] This editor has had many socks and is likely to return under a new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I will keep an eye out. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Medal

Thanks! That's very sweet of you :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! Thanks for helping the wiki be as good as it is. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Winter's account on Coanda-1910

Can I get the Winter's full account by e-mail? The format does not matter.--Lsorin (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

1. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardMDkzYTljODktMDc5NS00NjdmLTgwNGMtMzIyMzZmY2Q0M2Ni&hl=en&authkey=CIqt7KgF
2. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardNjI3NmE2MTMtM2MwNC00YjU3LTgzN2YtZTVkZjQ2YTlmZjgz&hl=en&authkey=CPT3qc0L
3. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardYmVkZDg3ZmItNTU1Yy00ODhmLWIxYzctMTBhZTJmZDgyZGI4&hl=en&authkey=CI_Wu4MM
4. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardYTViMGFiZDktZThjZi00YTM1LWI3Y2EtZGNjN2M2MWVlZDk4&hl=en&authkey=CMPo6JwJ
5. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardNGU3OGRkNjktNzEyZi00ZDY5LWI4MmEtOGMxMjQxYmQxOWU5&hl=en&authkey=CPnFjrUN
6. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardZjJjNWEyNDctZWQwOC00YjhkLWEwNDMtYWJjZDZmNDI1NmRi&hl=en&authkey=CPjanPQJ
7. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardZDdhZThhMWEtNGI0Ni00YzRiLWI0NjktNjJiYTJjNzcxMDMx&hl=en&authkey=CNWMoMEH
8. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardZjc2ZjNkZjUtNGU2NS00ZDhhLThkMWItYTc1MzI0MWVmMzMx&hl=en&authkey=CKmYmKkI
9. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardMzhjMDZiMTItMTBlZS00ZWI1LTk0OGYtYzM2YTRhZmYyOGNi&hl=en&authkey=CPiZh2s
10. https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9o4-Fyl3ardYWMyOWMwZjAtMDU0ZS00N2Y2LTg1MjMtOTMzNmE5YTQ0OTM1&hl=en&authkey=COPlruYL

Perhaps these will work for you... I have never tried this method to see. Binksternet (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Whistling

Thanks for replying; i've chopped around a bit ~ if you like take a gander & see if you reckon it's all right. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 10:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

compromise

Hi, adding the compromise like that isn't really correct, we are looking for agreement. The issue is back at the BLPN. If you accept the compromise addition that I created then you should have said that on the talkpage and seen if there was support to add it, as you know there are other users that object to the mention of the issue at all. For your comment you added the compromise but don't support it, which is strange, anyways, we are looking for a discussed agreement, so perhaps we can work it out this time, but while we do, the issue is better out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I reverted your addition to the Crist page. I generally agree with it, but I don't want this to turn into another edit war. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Understood. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin's Kitten

As it was a redlink in the Coanda-1910 article I thought I'd investigate. this (referring to Port Victoria P.V.8) together with this make me think it might be this: Martin KF-1. Do you have anything to confirm or deny the link?GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You have found the Kitten article, I am sure. Since the model numbers K-III or K-3 changed to K-IV or K-4, then to KF-1, I think the article should be moved to Martin Kitten, a name which I believe captures the series. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the naming conventions are pretty much for service designations and a redirect and addition to the lede would probably handle it. The design/influence link to the PV8 could also be made in the article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to participate!

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across User Talk pages to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 18:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jelly Roll

Thanks for cleaning up and citing Schuller's actual statements about Jelly Roll. My copy is in storage during a remodel, so I couldn't do it. Josephbyrd (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You bet! You're welcome. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Dreamboat Link

Sorry for the error. You were perfectly correct in removing that ex link. But in my defence, I did a search and there is a redirect to that page. Again, sorry for the inconvenience I caused. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all, no inconvenience. Again, I encourage you to write the article about Colonel Irvine's record-breaking flight. Binksternet (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My edit to The Mosquito

I personally have had physical pain inflicted on me by these devices and bad cathode ray tube televisions and monitors. Unlike poor quality CRTs which make such noise as a side effect, The Mosquito was designed to make this noise. I was smart enough not to listen to lots of loud music and noises when I was young, so I can still hear many high-frequency noises that many people in my age range cannot hear. That is why I consider The Mosquito a weapon. See http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/articles.aspx?page=independentarticle&ID=210372 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/20/teenager-repellent-mosquito-banned-europe for more evidence that shows that these things cause pain and therefore are weapons. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NOR which says "no original research". Your experiences do not define The Mosquito and its characteristics—what defines it are verifiable sources that call it a weapon. The ones I can find call it an irritant. Only non-experts with an axe to grind have called it a weapon, such as Shami Chakrabarti of the human rights group Liberty. The threshold for pain in hearing is generally set at somewhere between 120 dB and 140 dB, but some individuals have hyper-sensitive hearing, and can experience pain just from listening to a lorry drive by. These people are not what the device is aimed at. It's intention is to annoy and irritate, not to cause pain. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have found research by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe showing that this is not just me. See http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc10/EDOC12186.htm . Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your source says The Mosquito is well below the threshold of pain, well below 120 dB. The fact that some groups call the device a weapon is already in the article, but their opinion is countered by others who say it is an annoying irritant, not a weapon. Wikipedia articles cannot declare as fact any assertion upon which differing opinions have been stated. If some experts say that it is not a weapon, we cannot say that it is a weapon as a fact. Instead, we can say which groups or which critics call it a weapon. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nilsson Sings Newman

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK medal

Thanks for the 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal, and for the words of encouragement. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

CD history

You consider my report on the birth place of the CD too detailed. I do not agree. Who gives you the authority to decide? It would be more polite to send me your opinion instead of just deleting my addition. If I undo your deletion I would behave in the same way.

An unpleasant encounter with the mores of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan de Vries Underhill (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The authority I based my decision on is my experience in writing encyclopedia articles. I immediately saw that you were writing about the birth of the Laserdisc, not the CD. Your words were an exultant avowal of the early Philips team's success in making visual media cheap for teaching. Is visual media history crucial to the Compact Disc? Is the CD about making film more viewable by putting it into a digital form? No... the CD is about sound only. Wrong article. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey user Jan de Vries Underhill, anyone would have reverted your edit to that article 'cause you cant sign your name on Wikipedia articles. That's not allowed and it potentially violates WP:COI rules. You also need to provide references per WP:RS. Jrod2 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Namman Muay

Thanks for removing the links on Namman Muay. I was blocked for edit warring for doing the same thing, so I didn't want to touch them. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. I also put three of the promotional images up for deletion on Commons. I don't like to see sales pitches on WP. :( Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, hence my edits. Anyways, thanks for catching it! I thought the images were questionable as well, but I'm not terrible familiar with Commons stuff. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Coanda 1910 talkpage

You may not care for the anonymous editors contributions to the talk page, but I feel they should not be deleted. a) there are certain occasions when material ought to be deleted and having a contrary opinion (malformed, ignorant, badly expressed or whathaveyou as it is) is not one of them. b) in the forceful debate going on it is best to be extra careful with the ettiquette lest it give the wrong impression to others. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Gunston book question

Do you know if Gunston, in the books mentioned in the Coanda-1910 article which do not include Coanda, specifically credits others with the first jet engine developments? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I will have to schedule another trip to UC Berkeley's Engineering library to find out. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if you could find out, hopefully it's not too onerous. I was thinking there might be a counter argument to Coanda's omission in that the two later works might have concentrated on engines that were used successfully, rather than being a treatment of the development of the jet and related engines. Trying to think how best to word this - I would expect Coanda's powerplant to appear in books "alongside" the Napier Oryx, rather than a trainspotter's guide for use at an airport if you see what I mean. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not onerous, it's just scheduling around my work assignments. Can't go today—maybe tomorrow. I'll look for Lorin in those books, and I'll see what they say about Napier's Oryx, for grins. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It didn't work out the other day... I'll schedule another trip soon. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No rush, hopefully you're not getting the weather we are :{ GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The San Francisco Bay Area is getting some rain and overcast the past few days, and some brisk temperatures, so it is normal December fare. No freezing. Hang in there in Norfolk! Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

Communicat has a case before the ArbCom and, in discussion prior to the case being accepted by ArbCom, I mentioned that you had experienced negative interactions with Communicat. Let me start by naming others with whom Communicat has had similar negative interactions, as the Committee may wish to either involve them or review the interactions: Arnoutf, Parsecboy, Binksternet, Paul Siebert, Moxy, and White Shadows. Those interactions have not been universally negative, though mostly so.

This prompted Communicat to write the onus is on Habap to inform those editors that he has involved them, so that they may speak for themselves, if at all. at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II. In the arbitration case, Communicat alleges anti-Soviet bias by the members of the WikiProject Military History, specifically naming Edward321, Hohum, Nick-D, Georgewilliamherbert and me. If you would like to present evidence, you would do so on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence page. If you disagree with my characterization of your interactions as being "mostly negative", it would be appreciated if you would state that on the evidence page to clarify the matter.

I apologize for involving you in this process as I am sure you have more enjoyable things to do. --Habap (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I already knew of the case. Your characterization of my interactions is accurate. I may chime in, I may not. I feel certain Communicat is Winer, and that the whole case should be approached with that in mind. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've had the tragic discovery that Communicat has been copying directly from Between the Lies in some of his talk page remarks and some of his article contributions. Ugh! --Habap (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Saves time spent thinking or typing... ^_^

Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The California Star

Hi Binksternet, Thank you for the California Star, it was (in August) and continually is (by moving down...) very appreciated, and so kind and thoughtful of you.---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 04:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome! You certainly deserved (and deserve) the star. Great work! Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Challenge

I gladly accept ! I haven't made use of a sandbox previously but I'll try to figure it out then will alert you. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Just click on the red link and copy some text in and save it. Done! One caution is that your sandbox version should not include any categories or interwiki links, nothing below the external links section. Those bits would otherwise lead readers to your work-in-progress before it was placed in mainspace. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Yawata

Hi, I hope that you don't mind me reverting your edit here. While it's obviously the case that B-25s were land-based bombers, the key feature of the Doolittle Raid was that they flew off an aircraft carrier as Japan was outside the range of any of the US' land-based aircraft at the time and as a result it was basically a one-off 'hit and run' operation. Conversely, the key feature of the attack on Yawata was that it was the first time that bombers flying from a permanent base attacked Japan, signaling the start of a long-running campaign. I hope that this isn't over-complicating things, and I'd be very happy to discuss it. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We're both reading from the same program: I wrote strategic bombers in place of "land-based" aircraft because this attack was surely the first strategic bombing of Japan, a significant step in the war. The term "land-based" was much less important to the lead section, and debatable anyway because B-25s are land-based aircraft generally, so their carrier launch with Doolittle was arguably done with land-based aircraft. Your point, that the Yawata strike sounded the bell for the beginning of the strategic air war on Japan was answered perfectly by my edit. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's a very good point. I've just reverted back to your version. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Straight up! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

William P. Gottlieb photo credits

I reversed your removal of the credit in the Kai Winding article. Although I understand the intention, it appears that there is a standard for including credits for notable photographers with links back to their articles. WP:CREDITS references this. As you can see by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/William_Paul_Gottlieb, giving him credit for his photographs spans quite a few Jazz musician articles. I think in these cases the credit is earned. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking along the same lines as Uncle Milty, after having noticed that you did the same on a few articles on my watchlist. I haven't reverted anything yet, because I thought it might help if I understood your rationale, if you care to give it. Uncle Milty makes a point, that William Gottlieb is notable in his own right. And I see that, in the Billy Strayhorn article, while you removed the Gottlieb credit from one photo, there is another photo that leaves in the photo credit. This is to Carl Van Vechten. If the reason for leaving the credit is that, with a Wikipedia article, he is notable in his own right, well, then what about Gottlieb? Was there some reason you thought they should be treated differently? --Alan W (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have gotten to every Gottlieb photo credit in Wikipedia but I had to attend to real life for eight hours, which is why you can find articles I did not touch.

The way I see the issue is that Gottlieb's relationship to each jazz artist should be made plain in the article body so that the relevance of the photo credit it brought to the fore. Otherwise, the photo credit has no apparent connection. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that does sound reasonable. Probably the Van Vechten credit should go too, but leaving the date which places the period of the Strayhorn photo, which I think is relevant. Maybe I'll get to that myself eventually, but, here too, life intervenes, and right now I have other things to attend to. Thanks for the explanation. --Alan W (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I see why there needs to be a specific connection between the article subject and the photographer. Since WP:CREDITS states "If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate", and Gottlieb is a noted photographer specifically of jazz subjects, it seems quite reasonable to me to include a credit to him; certainly I see no need why they must be removed. Chubbles (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no need why the must be placed. The guideline allows for the image credit if appropriate, but does not demand it. For some of the smaller jazz artist articles, ones with just one Gottlieb photo and no others, I think the image credit takes away from the artist, as if the artist is only important because Gottlieb snapped a shot.

We have another option, which is to credit Gottlieb in a footnote. This solution puts Gottlieb on the page but does not have his link so prominent that the artist loses so many readers to clicks. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

T. S. Elliot talk page—thanks

Thanks for cleaning up there; as I fixed the article I should have checked the talk page as well—sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No sweat. VWBot was pooping all over the place, requiring a lot of dustpan work. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Amelia Earhart - warning

You have reverted sourced content from the article three times in the span of a few minutes, that's only wanton edit warring. If you do that again within the next day or so, you will be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed the sparring, but thanks for the reminder. Ask yourself why you reverted me twice in 12 minutes... You'll have to recuse yourself from using admin tools here. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're the one reverting sourced content. I didn't say I'd block you. 3rr is the bright line and you will be blocked if you breach it. Please undo your edit warring now and wait for input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Storage format

You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:Feministsforlifeposter.jpg. Tomdo08 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Removal of sourced material by IP from American exceptionalism

Hi Binkster. In this edit 24.126.172.165 has removed sourced info. Article is way from something I can make content comment on. Could you possibly look into this? Thank you!--Shirt58 (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

VW bot revert

Hi Binksternet, I see you have been doing good work trying to clean up the VW bot mess of Dec 10. I have been working backwards from the last bot edit and have got to here. I'm not sure editors have covered even half of the mal-edits as yet and with more days are more edits added to the articles. I wonder, if you are still working on this, it might make sense, as I am working backwards, for you to move forwards from the earliest change, so we don't wind up going over each others changes needlessly. It does seem like a priority as so much good work was frustratingly lost. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Best wishes Span (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got another time-sensitive project on my plate at the moment, so I'm leaving the VWBot reversions to others. The bot owner should have written his own reverting bot. :(

Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, no worries. good luck Span (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio

If you're going to "examine" articles for copyvio - make sure you actually do. You reintroduced translation copyvio here. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Graham Blyth

Materialscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

proposed changes in lead of 1953 Iran coup article

I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue revising two sentences in the article lead.

• Changing the first sentence from:
  • The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.
  • to: The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (and called the 28 Mordad coup d'état in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.

(NOTE: a new book (Iran and the CIA) provides some scholarly evidence that this sentence should be changed further but for now this is more accurate.)

• changing this phrase (which talks about an element in the motivation for US involvement in the coup):
  • from ... resolute prevention of the slim possibility that the Iranian government might align itself with the Soviet Union, although the latter motivation produces controversy among historians as to the seriousness of the threat.
  • to: the ... resolute prevention of Iran falling under the influence of the expansionist Soviet Communist "empire".

The change is discussed here and reasons for the change also here --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bayandor book

At Talk:Darioush_Bayandor#Favorable_review you say that you found a review by Steven Simon in the publication Survival. How did you find that? Is it online? I would like to quote from the review.

No, not on the web. Only from a paid database searched from a library website. What I posted is the search result in it's entirety, i.e. no text of the review, just that word "favorable". I'm trying to get a photocopy of the review though. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sure I'll see it cited in the relevant article when and if you get it. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

2 weeks

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for tendentious editing in Iranian political articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not edit summaries to obscure contentious edits. Use "wording" to change tone, not substance. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I request to be unblocked. I will never use the edit summary "wording" to make substantial content changes. I definitely will not hide any of my edits which may be disputed or which are the subject of talk page discussions. I do not wish to conduct cause problems for other editors seeking to understand my edits. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not trying to hide edits is only part of the problem. Tendentious editing is unacceptable anyway. In addition, you have promised in the past to behave from now on if you are not blocked, and unfortunately this makes it difficult to accept such an undertaking this time. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JamesBWatson, that is a serious accusation, that I have made promises and not kept them. On what do you base your assertion? Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Reviewing admins please read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Kurdo777_reverting_Binksternet. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have my sincere sympathy for all the good it does you. Let's hope no mysterious obscene anon posts appear on Xavexgoem's talk pages saying "this is Binksternet"! --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2010 (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:

I wish to be unblocked. I promise I will not take part in tendentious editing in Iran political articles. Specifically, I will from now on restrict myself to one revert per day per Iran topic article with the requirement of including the code "rv" (for revert) in the edit summary accompanied by a simultaneous talk page entry about the reversion, in the same manner that I followed to perfection after the 1 October locking of the Coandă-1910 article. I will not hide the nature of my edits from other editors—I wish to engage them about the content of the edits, not avoid discussion (or detection!) What I aim to do regarding the Iran 1953 coup article is to compose a sandbox version of the article so that editors can discuss the differences between it and the mainspace one. Another thing I wish to do is help put together a timeline of events leading up to the August 1953 coup in Iran, one in table format with columns for different sources, so editors can more clearly see how the expert sources differ on the topic. If this unblock request is granted, it will be the first time that a promise of mine has been formally accepted and put into practice on Wikipedia. This is in rebuttal to JamesBWatson's above assertion that I made promises in the past and did not keep them; to this date there has never been an offer of mine which has been accepted by reviewing administrators, so I cannot have broken any promises. I am true to my word—keeping promises is very important to me—and will hold to all that I have described here if unblocked. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Sounds good (1RR, rv if revert, etc). Good editing! Xavexgoem (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• If I have wrongly accused you then I apologise. Certainly at the time I wrote my message above I believed it was justified. At the moment I don't have time to check where I got that impression from, but I will try to do so within 24 hours. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • No sweat... thanks for the note back. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you so much for my barnstar. Let's keep up the good work. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You bet! With your 46 DYKs, you will earn the 50 DYK Medal fairly soon. :)

Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand your intention but the problem created by the revert is that it leaves the inappropriate prior condition unaddressed

Yes, although I have the book on the shelf which would present the proper verification, I don't have the book available in proximity to a computer and won't likely be home to retrieve it until after the inter-semester break. I am not necessarily objecting that the revert is bad, but I think that on balance it is a bit heavy handed in that the deleted statement is almost a tautology. Anyone who has taken a history course at any level, in fact any academic work, should regard it as almost self evident that such a contentious topic would have gone through an evolution of historical opinion. And everybody knows intuitively that history - History - implies some distance in the past, such as a full century.

So to delete as unverified or unsourced the statement that the perspective on the Hiroshima Nagasaki bombing has evolved or gone through phases is a tad bit spurious, wouldn't you agree? As if that could possibly be not so.

A look at your award winning article on the entymologist indicates that it is possible to go no further than the second or third paragraph to find un-sourced statements. So it seems that you are applying a heavy hand at deleting others' work than you are taking on your own work.

I am not necessarily getting riled over that but I think that the point warrants being stated. I think that if you also have a problem with the statement that the discovery of the Truman papers caused a shift in historical opinion, that it would have been better to delete that phrase and let the summary stand, to wit, that opinions have evolved.

This may seem unecessary and self evident and it would be if the article were properly written in the first place. But the article is imperfect in that it unduly highlights the one Walker opinion given excessive prominence. My final edit just rectified that somewhat sophomoric error by putting an almost standard bit of perspective setting and foundation. Do you doubt that there has been evolution in the thinking on the topic.

But yes, there is no "proof" that opinion shifted. It would be more credible though to spend some time googling and add citations or details than to delete them when they are correct and almost self evident.

If you refute them, that is a different matter, but where is your citation?

I am not at all convinced that the revert, although legal, makes the article any better. You seem to be into working fast and it is so much easier to scan something, find an uncited statement, and delete whole chunks or writing. It is much harder to find out if it is true.

So I will be off line for a few weeks and the article may sit as written, warts and all. I think that maybe you revert it because you can, and it would speak well for your tier of wikipedians if you would perhaps contribute something to help shape that article up, with respect if not to the issues I am addressing, then to some other.

Maybe I will find a scrap of time to try out a few edits and would be interested to see if there is ever any assistance in adding good constructive content available from the higher echelons of wikipedians, or if there is only the bleak landscape of deletions and reversions and legalistic enforcement of new layers of rules with no connection to the underlying truth or falsity...do you doubt that there were new Truman papers that came out after 1945? Why not just put in that a citation is ommitted or a citation is needed? Why nuke the thing? Wikidgood (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad Romance

Dear Binksternet, how are you? You might not remember me, but you helped me a great deal with the FA promotion of Madonna. I never got to thank you for that *shame on me*. I plan to nominate the above article for FAC, can you just take a brief look and see how close is it to being a smooth FA? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Between holiday activities and other wiki projects I will look at your article and see what it might be needing. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a good long look and I can tell you I don't have any suggestions for improvement. Nice work! Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING

"Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Read it carefully. You have been warned this type of behavior in the past. Prior to today, you had never edited Kurdish people, or shown any interest whatsoever about this topic. You're clearly following me around, to topics outside of your area of expertise or interest , "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress" in me. Consider this your first and last warning to cease and desist. Kurdo777 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What a wild claim! Take a look at how the article is improved right now, and see if what I did there is anywhere near an attempt to irritate or annoy you. What I did was to correct the English, to make it say exactly what you wanted it to say, and to correct a copy/paste error. How I got there? I saw this warning by Sharisna against your possible 3RR edit warring and so I went to the page to see if Wikipedia was being damaged by edit warring. If it was not being damaged, I would have left everything alone. After reading the article's lead paragraph, I saw an obvious need for a fix. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't " improve" the article at all. As a matter of fact, your wording made no sense, grammatically or otherwise. ("which form a branch of the Indo-European languages"!?) The fact that you removed the word "continuum" is further proof that you had no idea what you were doing. You totally missed the context that sentence, which was meant to clarify that while Kurdish is sometimes classified as one language, and a member of the Iranian branch of Indo-European languages, it is really a collection or a continuum of several closely-related Iranian dialects. This is what happens when you wonder into topics, in which you have no expertise or interest , with the sole purpose of annoying me. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you are annoyed right now is a complete surprise to me, and an unintended consequence. Just now you "corrected" the Kurdish people article to repeat the nonsense that "Indo-European ... is also classified by linguists as a continuum of closely related Iranian dialects"! Can you not see the problem with this? Binksternet (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another observation: You did not bring your concerns to Talk:Kurdish people—not for me, and not for Sharisna. If you contribute to discussions on talk pages, you will be able to shape consensus, and your level of annoyance may go down. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Continuum" refers to Kurdish language, not the Indo-European family. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Kurdish people, where this discussion should have been all along. You misinterpreted my actions as hounding. I did not intend to confront you or inhibit you, I intended to correct the English, to make the sentence say what you wanted it to say. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Who gave you permission to move my comments and copy/paste my signature? Kurdo777 (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are free to reformat to your satisfaction the copied and pasted text at Talk:Kurdish people. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, do not move my comments around without my permission. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit of mine to the RfC I started. I stand by that movement of your discussion entry which is not part of my RfC. Your discussion entry should go in a discussion section, or you can start your own RfC. In this edit I have returned your comments to the discussion section. Please do not move them again. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't "own" an RFC request. A RFC description should be neutral in wording. Other parties in a dispute can contribute with their own descriptions or additions to the RFC description, if they feel that wording is not satisfactory, or neutral. So once again, you have no right to move or remove my description or comments. Please don't do it again. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "interference". My description, is signed by me, properly attributed to me. I also feel that your description is loaded and contains your own POV assertions (You call Bayandor a "reliable source" when that's disputed. You attribute Shaban's claim to these authors, when they're just quoting Shaban. You call Shaban's claim a "minority view point" , when that assertion is what the dispute is all about). But you're entitled to your description of the dispute, as I am to mine. Nobody owns a RFC request. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Xmas

Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

CPCs

Here you said that you favored a more condensed selection of sources for the last paragraph in the lead, 2 or 3, but then reinserted the mass of them. Whats up with that? - Schrandit (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not see that a consensus was reached regarding how many and which ones. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree that there was a consensus (you, I and Kevin) and trim down those 14 sources to a more manageable (though yet to be determined) number? - Schrandit (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We three did not form a consensus. Kevin provided no argument to support his position. Strong arguments were heard to support the opposing position. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much, for your helpful input in the GA Review for The Most Hated Family in America. I have made several edits in efforts to address your suggested improvements to the page, I believe the bulk of your recommendations have now been directly implemented. Perhaps if you have copyediting ideas, it would be appreciated if you wish to make additional modifications. ;) Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

GA pass! Congratulations on tackling an ugly subject. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinking Surrender of Japan

Hey Binksternet,
I've just removed those two links because of their irrelevancy for the article; why have you added them back? They do not seem to be related to the surrender of Japan or Japan itself at all. According to WP:OVERLINK, "an article is said to be overlinked if it links to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia." – and I think phrases to save face and the word leaflet are understood by most readers. odder (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think those two wikilinks are borderline, and can go either way. I won't lose any sleep over it. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Radar museum at Neatishead etc

As a volunteer run outfit with, at the moment, uncertainty about the fire safety works and its lease/ site ownership I wouldn't be surprised if the re-opening slipped. Here's the latest news wein the local paper. You might want to check the paper's site as well as the museum's website closer to your travel date. If your were to trek into East Anglia - there is Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum. I'm trying to think if there are any WWII airfields (that haven't been ploughed under or built over) worth dropping by at for a flavour of the past. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Binksternet and missus tour of May is a certainty but is still in the planning stage regarding details; Mrs. Bink insists on outdoor activities such as biking and hiking. I am lobbying for a brief stay in Norwich after viewing Cambridge architecture and my possibly solo run through IWM Duxford—she could care less for aviation. If the RAF Radar museum in Nutishead is not ready, Flixton appears to be a fine visit. Thanks for the tips! Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing she's not into land warfare either otherwise she could spend time in the Land Warfare Hall and East Anglian Regiment Museum at Duxford, but she should find some shopping in Cambridge and Norwich compensation. Cambridge and the area should be reasonable cycling - its flat enough. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Land warfare interests her only if its suitably distant in time; she suggested seeing the battle site of Hastings! Roman ruins are on the list, and she's holding out for a long stay at Bath prior to spending time in London. Bicycling on hills does not daunt; in going up hills she drops me like a prom dress, whereas I speed past her downhill because I am more fearless. Flat biking will be fine for all concerned.

We both appreciate architecture which is why I can push for Norwich after Cambridge. I think it would be good to get off the main routes for a bit. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning - Tendentious editing

You're once again engaged in edit-warring on an Iran-related page, Abadan Crisis timeline, citing a non-existent consensus in your edit summaries. You were recently blocked for this type of Tendentious editing behavior. You were told previously by several editors and administrators that Bayandor is not an acceptable source for 1953-related pages. But you're once again trying to introduce a disputed fringe theory by him into one of these articles, which goes against the academic consensus on the issue, and violate our polices on WP:UNDUE, and WP:AUTO. Please stop trying to force this material onto the page, without getting a clear consensus. Kurdo777 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Stevie Wonder re: Gibson

Unlike you, I'm doing this the right way and discussing the reverts that people seem to want to continue to do and in the process create edit wars over. How is it possibly too much "promotion" of Gibson? I shrunk that down to nothing. The above section about "Impact" also includes additional sentences about other artists to express a point. I think showing how Stevie was his idol (not mentioned by the other artists) and that the voices are similar (it's apparent you're not familiar with Gibson's work) is noteworthy. That's the only other thing I included. I can take this to the talk page or discuss with other admin to get a concensus but it's not worth removing just because someone doesn't like it. The other problem is that you removed two other good edits I made with that change that are acceptable. I'm not trying to "showboat" Gibson. I'm trying to expand and improve the articles with facts. Originally I just copied the entire mention about him working with Wonder from his article then reduced it and then again just down to the source. So there is no way it's too much. The other explanations was already there about him. I think you're not looking at the big picture here. Many articles still discuss other artists if they pertain to the person the article is about, and there was definitely a relationship worth mentioning in the article. Just because you're not aware of it perhaps, doesn't make it wrong. It's sourced. It should stay. It's a minor thing here, and according to Wiki, we aren't looking for perfection and the edit doesn't "hurt anyone" and is still "productive and correct". Thanks! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If I removed two good edits along with the Gibson promotion, I'm sorry. I took a look at the other edits and did not see any significant improvements, just the moving around of sentences, a debatable improvement.

Regarding Gibson, if I Google "Stevie Wonder"+Gibson, I get mostly references to Gibson guitars, precious little about Jon Gibson, showing how unimportant he is to the topic. If I Google "Stevie Wonder"+"Jon Gibson", the sources that appear are mainly self-published ones deemed less worthy by the guideline at WP:RS. The only good source that showed up was Uncloudy days: the gospel music encyclopedia, page 155, by Bil Carpenter. Such a mention in one gospel work is in keeping with a very, very short mention in the Stevie Wonder article, per WP:WEIGHT. Any attempt by you to expand it will be opposed by me and by others who follow Wikipedia's guidelines. The main point is that Stevie Wonder is crucial to the story of Jon Gibson but not vice versa. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See talk page for my response and these added points (you are trying to "sufficate" something minor for the "promotion" of Stevie Wonder and in this case your reverts are wrong):

Do you "guys" realize the only thing you're not "approving" is the last sentence after the song collaboration/cover between Gibson and Wonder? Gibson's sound and style had a canny resemblance to Wonder's voice. How can that not be what you're approving???? In the meanwhile, you're undoing two other important edits made within that change. "since birth" not "from birth" and the two CNN transcripts from Larry King that sourced a cite request that wasn't present. Now, I have spent all this time to defend my edits instead of [you] really checking into it physically/manually and not just going with the Wiki "established user" or "level protection alert" thingamabobbers. My IP may get your attention, but that doesn't mean my edits aren't reliable. I resent that I've had to do all this just to prove that what I've done is not wrong. You seriously are incorrect here, sorry if that upsets you, but my edits are acceptable and reliable. In the meantime, I could have been being productive on another edit/article. I did most, if not nearly all of Gibson's, Hammer's, Meece's and many other articles in the past (different places, accounts, pc's, etc. over time) and I think this is "profiling" and not assuming good faith or even investigating the actual edits and sources. The same sources on Gibson's article were used here (see his page). They're fine. I'm out of breath and energy over this. Ugh. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, don't know if you realize this (go back several/many edits), but the actual mention of Gibson was already in the article. I just moved it from the 80s portion to the cover section and added sources. I included the record label info that wasn't approved originally, then just mentioned how their voices sound the same that is overly sourced. So not to accept it is very petty. I did nothing but improve it. I don't care at this point if it's mentioned or not, but I think involving other Admin to have a concensus is important. I don't care to get my way, just think it's the principle of the matter. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI: You can view Gibson's article to see all the many sources I found. Maybe the way you do searches don't yield many results. For instance: [2] I would say Billboard is more than adequate, among the others. I've never searched the way you claim, with " " and +'s. So saying that he's unimportant is your opinion and shouldn't have affected the edit regardless. Hope next time you are more mindful and neutral with individual's input/contributions. Good luck... 63.131.4.149 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You have reversed the edit again after discussion and closure was made on the talk pages. I will take this up with the other two who approved it. At this point, it appears you are vandalizing intentionally. It is sourced and you are just not wanting it there, which holds no merit. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Please stop your disruptive editing. I'm considering this harrassment. It is you who is not doing the right thing, and your warning on my page is not justified. I have contacted other editors involved who approved it and stated in the talk page it was acceptable. Your decision to be disrepectful and to monopolize the article is what may get someone blocked. Consider not reverting good faith edits that are sourced for your own agenda, purpose and preference. Controlling articles is not acceptable, especially when it's well within the appropriate topic/section and extremely sourced. You can not remove it just because you don't like it or didn't think of it. Nor have you had a productive conversation about it in the talk pages, so your contribution isn't warranted. Have a good day! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a good day, indeed! Best wishes. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's it? Ok, someone else can take care of this then. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't know or read, here are what other editors said, not to mention the ones that approved it, shown on the history page. There is a concensus and you are violating policy/procedures:

Thank you, and it's my pleasure - your edits were constructive and beneficial; I'm unsure as to why others would have rejected it. Please let me know if I can ever be of any other assistance. Nick Wilson (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I responded to the issue on Talk:Stevie_Wonder, BLPs are a particularly sensitive issue with Wikipedia:No_original_research, but your point on Gibson was mentioned in your sources and appears to be valid. Have you considered making an account on wikipedia? If you do register, please let me know! Nick Wilson (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are sourced, in good faith, and constructive. I'll remain neutral with regards to whether Gibson should be mentioned in a BLP in this respect, but because it is sourced and there is a clear relationship between the two, I feel matters should be discussed and debated here. I strongly feel the pending changes system was put in place to prevent nonconstructive or highly controversial edits to notable articles, and not to prevent or obstruct users from making good faith contributions. This absolutely isn't highly controversial, and I hope fellow wikipedians will respect equality and debate the topic here instead of rejecting further edits by you. On the same token, you are arguably tiptoeing around the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule on this article so please tread carefully! Nick Wilson (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I certainly understand your point and I sympathize and apologize that you've been through so much red tape, but want to echo Nick's point: registering for an account is a good way to avoid some of the issues that you've encountered. Personally, much of my wiki work is in the area of "RC patrol," or looking through recent changes and reverting vandalism. Many editors are naturally more suspicious of changes made by users without accounts, because as unfair as it is, a lot of vandalism comes from anonymous editors. A lot of good edits come from anonymous editors too, and you're certainly one of those, but when you're wading through page after page of vandalism, it's very easy for something to "look wrong" and be too quick on the revert button. Again, this isn't your fault, in fact you're one of the more rare exceptions: an anonymous editor who cites sources and discusses controversial edits. But I think registering might help other editors better assume good faith in your edits and help you get farther around here. It's certainly your option not to register, but just something to keep in mind. Zachlipton (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You certainly know know how to copy and paste text... My response to this tempest in a teapot is the same as before: "The main point is that Stevie Wonder is crucial to the story of Jon Gibson but not vice versa." Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please be respectful. I am covering myself because you are playing games. That is a weak "argument". If that's the case, other mentioning of people in his and many other articles should be removed. Like about other artists he worked with. You just don't like it and that's why you are reverting it. It DOES involve both artists and explains an early relationship they had in music. It is related to the section and person. Those are his songs, used/covered just like the section says, and explains him backing vocals and working together on albums. That is just as much legit as any other text put within articles about people's work together. You know it. I am contacting an admin who blocked you previously to discuss this further, I'm not resolving it with you anymore. You are not cooperating properly. You must think I'm an idiot because I use an IP and not logged into an account or something. You are profiling and not following proper guidelines based on your seemingly selfish ego. Good bye! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm perfectly fine with you editing anonymously, from an IP address. I have no problem with that. Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See bottom of Wonder talk page for other issues since you are questioning mine which isn't any more wrong than those within the article. I only listed a few, there are many more. Gotta be consistant here or else you're doing it based on prejudice and preference. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I know now what I have to do and will go as far up as possible because it's these little issues, lies and discripencies that lead to bigger problems and vandals. You may be stroking your pride/ego because you got your way but we both know you're wrong in this situation and you don't want to admit that. Nonetheless, I'll be the bigger man but not before removing text that you claim, like mine, do not meet the guidelines. For instance, this will be deleted from the article: Contrary to popular belief, Minnie Riperton didn't start her career with Wonderlove, since she began her professional career as lead singer of the girl group The Gems in the '60s and later found critical success with the psychedelic soul band Rotary Connection before leaving the group for her acclaimed solo career in 1970. Riperton did provide background vocal work for some of Wonder's albums after they became friends following the production of Perfect Angel in 1974. Wonder wrote a song dedicated to Riperton that he presented near her hospital bed prior to her death in July 1979. Goodbye... 63.131.4.149 (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Binksternet/Archive12! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You bet. I'll just keep an eye on progress for now. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Coanda part II

Do you know anything about the claim that Ştefan Odobleja anticipated Norbert Wiener's very famous and influential work on cybernetics? I half-remember this as being weird and crankish, and the Romanian nationalist angle reminds me of the recent Coanda thing. I don't remember Odobleja mentioned in some Wiener biographies I read a while back. I'm not sure whether to try cleaning it up from WP's Wiener-related articles. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Every bit of that is outside my experience. Good luck with it. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hossein Fatemi article

check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hossein_Fatemi#recent_edits --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a problem. The cited sources do not agree with Kurdo777's edits. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pertaining to the edit on the Palm Springs page

Gavin Servelle is indeed a prominent member of the Palm Springs gay rights community, as well as a gay rights activist. I'm quite appalled by your gross negligence in deleting his name. He deserves to be credited on Wikipedia for all of the work he has done for the community.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robotic Seahorses (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So... write an article about him. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and see if he qualifies under any of the criteria. Binksternet (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology

On December 20th I said that I would check back and see whether a comment I had left here was justified or not. At the time I was too busy to deal with it immediately, and unfortunately it then got left and forgotten. I am sorry not to have followed this up. It has now been so long that I don't remember the background of the case fully, so I have spent a little while looking back through your editing history. I cannot now find a specific undertaking that you made that you then directly broke the letter of, but there are various things you have said that are in the general spirit of promising to hold back from edit-warring, but you subsequently continued to edit-war. For example, in this edit you gave an undertaking to hold back. This was very probably meant to apply only to the particular article in issue at that time, and that you did not actually breach the undertaking in this case. However, I think that when I wrote "you have promised in the past to behave from now on if you are not blocked" I had in mind that your history of being blocked for edit-warring, together with statements such as the one I have referred to, indicated that you were well aware of the need to avoid edit-warring, and had indicated a willing to do so, but had repeatedly slipped back into edit-warring, rather than that you had made a specific promise which you had broken. I apologise that I did not make that clearer at the time, and also that it has taken me so long to make this response.

What brought this back to mind was something quite different. I have received a request on my talk page to intervene against you in the dispute you are involved in at Stevie Wonder. I have declined to do so, as you will see if you care to look at the relevant discussion. However, I thought it a matter of courtesy to let you know the approach had been made. The user has also asked another admin to support their case and received a refusal, and has indicated the intention of trying to find another one. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about the December 20 comment, and thanks for letting me know about the discussion you had with the IP editor who is concerned about Stevie Wonder. Best wishes – Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gardel & Obama Birthers

The only birth certificate for Carlos Gardel is fr/ Toulouse in France, 1890. There are photos showing Gardel w/, oddly enough, his birth family, oddly enough, in France. Do you know Orly Taitz? This is reminiscent of Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate 'dispute.' Quite candidly, it's boring. But I have a strong attachment to factual accuracy, and I think a good way to improve Wikipedia is NOT to let people inflict non-existent disputes here. Forewarned. Tapered (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NPOV, where it says "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." The Uruguayan birth texts—Gardel. Páginas Abiertas, Repatriación de Gardel and Carlos Gardel: A La Luz De La Historia—are serious. Both sides hold that the evidence of the other side is fabricated. What Wikipedia does in these kinds of cases is document who thinks which version is the truth. We do not try to figure out which one is absolutely true. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Calafia

Hello! Your submission of Calafia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? In Loudness War....

Dear Binksternet: I just discovered that you removed a portion of an entry I made under the article "Loudness War" solely under the grounds that I as the editor created the entry as a "conflict of interest". Personally I think it is a meaningful omission from this article to not include references to a book chapter which covers the loudness war or the AES workshop which preceded it. Furthermore, my entry was made in a neutral style, was not self-promotional and anyone could look up the name of the editor who made the post. If it is suitable or sufficient to declare a possible conflict of interest in order to restore the entry, I'll be happy to do so, but obviously I did not attempt to hide my identity as an editor as you detected a "conflict". However, by omission you've reduced the power of the article. The article, to which you substantially contributed, may be very thorough and accurate, but it is disrespectful to excise this entry on the grounds of conflict of interest without a) communicating with the editor (myself) to discuss it further and/or b) recognizing the validity of this entry and rewriting it as another editor (either choice would be suitable). You should also note that in the context of this edit I cited a book by Greg Milner which you chose not to remove. So that by removing the portion of my edit which cites my book, you've made a judgment on your part which book is "more important".

It is the experts themselves who often can best contribute to a specific topic. So it should not be necessary to qualify an entry as "neutral" by expurgating the contributions of the editor to that article. Viz: Encyclopedia Britannica, which often employs editors on a topic who are experts and contributors to that topic themselves and sometimes cite their own contributions. Would you exclude an edit by Richard Branson about balloon flights which cited his own record-breaking balloon flight on the grounds of conflict of interest?

Sincerely,

Bobkatz24bit (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Bobkatz24bit Since this is my first edit in Wikipedia I am floundering at the methods used to contact editors, do not know how to return to this page, and it is likely I will not see your reply unless you also cc me directly at my email, bobkatz[atsign]digido.com. Thanks.

Bob, I'm sympathetic to the points you make. I'm a fellow member of AES; I helped plan the recent San Francisco convention. In taking your book cite out yesterday I thought I was following the Wikipedia guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself. However, a fresh look at that guideline tells me that it allows self cites under some conditions. It appears to me that your contribution was in line with Wikipedia's requirements, so I am returning it to the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Great! Sorry I missed you at SF! BK Bobkatz24bit (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Bobkatz24bit

Formal Warning - Personal attacks in edit summaries

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: "a boy in school". If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Kurdo777 to remove the warning as I cant see any obvious personal attack on other editors. In the edit refered to Binksternet is discussing the source Baynador and as far as I can tell makes no mention of other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Kurdo777 made a simple mistake in applying the edit summary to Aliwiki (who I was responding to) when it was applied to the 1950s life of Darioush Bayandor as can be seen in my talk page entry. I did not intend any personal attack. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I mistook the edit summary with another one of Binksternet's comments addressing Ali which wasn't about Bayandor, and assumed that he was calling Ali a "school boy". Kurdo777 (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I knew right away that some kind of misunderstanding was happening, and that it could easily be sorted. Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Prostitution article

Just so you know, "my esteemed colleague" is not used ironically! --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No sweat. I understood, and understand. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. You know more about Wikipedia than I, but I'm going to presume to try and give some advice, which I hope will not be offensive. I think it might be useful to think of these issues as somewhat akin to WP:BLP, in that just as you have to be more careful what you say about a living person than a dead one, so you have to have to be more careful with a country and its culture than with ... a lot of other stuff in wikipedia. If you do editing that is percieved as anti-Iran by Iranian editors I don't think you are going to like what happens. Kurdo can push buttons like no one else but whatever you do please don't get an attitude about Iran. -- Sincerely BoogaLouie (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean don't immolate myself in the flames of the consortium of pro-Iran Wikipedians? Okay, I will try not to. I'm not anti-Iran, not at all. I'm pro-truth and pro-NPOV. If emotional reactions are keeping pro-Iran editors from allowing a neutral portrayal, one that includes unfavorable viewpoints from reliable published sources, then those emotions are not conducive to good Wikipedia practices. It would be a mistake to let those emotions reign over intellectual objectivity.

Be assured I do not think your advice is offensive. I'll try not to fall on my sword. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This comment by Xavexgoem gives me hope in an eventual solution. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for continued tendentious editing and wikihounding. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admins:

• Editor did not archive their previous block and related material, as suggested in this summary: [3]. [fixed] Previous uw-block is at [4], per AN/I thread here: [5]. Brought to my attention, and for context, here: [6]

Binksternet, either you:

• followed Kurdo to Prostitution in Iran (Kurdo's first appearance on Jan 3 [7], yours 4 hours later on Jan 4[8])
• read Irredentism, saw Munci at the top of that page's history – despite your not editing that page – scrolled through several of Munci's contribs – despite there being other editors for that article – found Prostitution in Iran, which Kurdo was editing for the first time not 4 hours prior to your editing it, and covering an area for which you've had trouble in the past.

Either way, it's tendentious, which you've been warned and blocked against for more than enough times. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I was notified about Bink's behavior as well. I endorse this block - it is long overdue. The whole thing turned from a content dispute into outright harassment a long time ago. Khoikhoi 22:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

This is a bad block based on a pair of faulty premises: a) that my editing since December 20 has been tendentious at Iran-topic articles and b) that I lied to User:Kurdo777, hounding him in violation of the guideline at WP:Harassment.

a) Per agreement at my recent block I have been editing Iran-topic articles with a self-imposed 1RR limit, agreed to by Xavexgoem, with reversions labeled 'rv' and every reversion accompanied by a talk page entry explaining it. I have not broken that agreement. At WP:Disruptive editing, the guideline about tendentiousness warns against disruptive edits which inhibit progress toward building an article or building the encyclopedia. It enjoins editors to follow WP:NPOV, to achieve consensus to build the encyclopedia. I must say that NPOV is my guiding light! At Prostitution in Iran I am aiming to bring a significant minority idea into the article, following NPOV so that the article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." In all the Iran-topic articles I touch, I seek to build the articles by holding to NPOV, to introduce significant, reliably sourced minority opinions which were absent or poorly represented. Frustrated in this effort at 1953 Iranian coup d'état, I asked for mediation on March 11, 2010 but the request was rejected by Xavexgoem because three of seven named parties did not respond. A month later I initiated an ArbCom request which was just barely rejected, the declining arbitrators recommending lower level mediation. I want this matter to be solved, not extended forever with so much time and energy wasted in argument. Last December, I started an RfC at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_23#1953 Iranian coup d'état but no clear consensus was reached. Next, I tried to get the advice of some administrators on what to do about the ongoing problems but was blocked instead. When that was lifted, I started an image-related RfC at Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état#Image text, which helped build a clear consensus and led to the cessation of image text edit warring. Similarly, I started an RfC at Talk:Abadan Crisis timeline#Shaban the Brainless in jail August 19 but no clear consensus resulted (so far). Since then I filed another formal mediation request between just myself and Kurdo777 but he did not accept mediation and so the request was closed down. I also initiated an RfC at Talk:Prostitution in Iran#Request for comment, one that is still collecting comments. In all my dealings with Iran topics, I try to adopt the NPOV stance of there being several conflicting expert interpretations of the material, with all significant views presented in proper proportion. I have participated in consensus building, initiating RfCs and talk page discussions, and the Iran articles have been improved by my interaction even if my preferred version is not adopted in full. I am not here to prevent the encyclopedia from being built, or to inhibit the building of articles. On the contrary, I am working to build articles, to add information from reliable sources.

If must be, I volunteer for a self-imposed 0RR (zero reversion) limitation on Iran articles, so that there will never be the impression that I am a POV-pushing and biased editor, which I am not.

b) Regarding the accusation that I hounded Kurdo777, I have three responses: 1) Yes, I often examine his edit history, and take a look at articles he is involved with. 2) No, I do not intend any kind of harassment by following him, nor do I practice any kind of harassment. 3) Yes, I really did follow User:Munci to the article about prostitution in Iran. I did not lie about that.

1) I have examined Kurdo777's edit history a great number of times since late June 2009 when I began interacting with him at 1953 Iranian coup d'état. The vast majority of times that I looked at his edits, I had no reason to respond; they were fair edits, or ones I could not judge. The number of articles that he is involved in which I do not ever touch is far, far greater than the six articles in which we interact: 1953 Iranian coup d'état, Abadan Crisis timeline, Mohammad Mosaddegh, Prostitution in Iran, Darioush Bayandor and Hossein Fatemi. We follow each other to user talk pages including those of User talk:Skywriter, User talk:BoogaLouie and of course our own two talk pages. I followed BoogaLouie to Darioush Bayandor and Abadan timeline, and at Hossein Fatemi both Kurdo777 and I co-existed peacefully for months on the page until recently when I initiated a 2k expansion. I followed Kurdo777 to Kurdish people where I helped him make his point with one single edit to that article, but the assistance netted me only drama on the talk page rather than thanks for helping. Kurdo777, BoogaLouie and I keep track of each other but it is not harassment, it is collegial and not meant to inhibit the person.

2) At WP:Harassment, the despicable practice is described as "a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person". I would never do this to anybody here. In the subsection Wikihounding, the guideline allows any editor to follow the edits of other users for collegial purposes, for "correcting related problems on multiple articles". This is exactly what I have done. I do not intend to create "irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", nor do I follow Kurdo777 everywhere he goes to stop his enjoyment or to stop his contribution. I am not trying to inhibit his work. I am only concerned with helping out with a small number of Iran-related articles, ones at which I see problems of omission, where NPOV is not being followed fully.

3) When I was looking at the Kurdish people article, I was puzzled about one of the pipe links in the lead section which looked like "irredentist movement" but was piped to Kurdish nationalism. I looked up Irredentism, read the article and then examined its edit history. Curiously, the article did not include anything about a Kurdish nationalist movement, which I saw as an omission. I saw User:Munci was the last person to have edited the article, so I examined Munci's edit history, looking at 500 edits at a time. I wanted to see if Munci would be a good editor to recommend adding something about Kurdish nationalism, because I knew I was not. Using my browser's text string search function, I searched Munci's edits for the strings "kurd" and "Iran" and came up empty, tried again in 500 older edits and saw this edit at Kurdish language, but I could not get from this a sense of Munci's level of expertise. I examined a third batch of 500 older edits and found Prostitution in Iran, an article I had never seen but a subject I have some interest in, having recently finished the book Half The Sky by Kristof and WuDunn. The article's edit history showed my colleague Kurdo777 had just removed a bit of poorly written and poorly integrated information about temporary marriage in Iran. From this point, in the way that often happens when surfing the web, I forgot to ask Munci (or somebody else) to add a bit about Kurdish nationalism to the Irredentism article, and instead looked to help better integrate the disputed concept at Prostitution in Iran. I knew something of the dispute already, and following some searching on the web I added an extensive list of sources to the talk page, so that User:Darwinsbulldogs and User:Chrono1084 might be inspired to build a better basis for their text additions, and so Kurdo777 could see that there was, in fact, a valid basis for the poor text addition. After two days of talk page discussion I undertook the task myself, expanding the stub article by more than 5x in readable prose. I still have not contacted Munci, but when I'm unblocked I will add something about Kurdish nationalism at Talk:Irredentism to attract more editors.

In conclusion, I would like to find out from seasoned administrators how best to approach Iran-topic subjects in the future, and how best to preserve my record in building good articles. I very much want to continue adding value to Wikipedia as I have recently at Smaart, Sony MDR-V6, Nilsson Sings Newman, Calafia, Graham Blyth, Coandă-1910 and many more, and I will follow whatever path is recommended, including 0RR limitation on Iran articles. I am willing to listen to other suggestions as my goal is to help the project. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Not a bad block. If you agree to 0rr on all topics and moreover, not to wikihound other editors, an admin may be willing to shorten your block. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

0rr is a tad excessive, imo. (Of course, people'll say I'm one to talk). He's not blocked for 3RR issues (or even 1RR, in the case of Iranian articles), only the hounding. I don't even think that Bink and Kurdo shouldn't edit the same articles. That'd be a ban on too huge a swath of Iran-related articles. Bink's edits on Iran related articles aren't bad, really, just WP:COATs (or not, but the view is that they're slippery slopes towards that, given Bink's current reputation). What I'd like to see is Bink editing an area Kurdo edits and have them both edit towards a common goal. Prostitution in Iran, for instance: from the lede (and the geography), it's obvious that human trafficking is a huge issue over there. It's not something I think anyone will reasonably disagree with. That article needs a lot of help anyway, and on more immediately pertinent information. Bink's a good researcher, so this shouldn't be a problem, and it's more beneficial to an article.

Things like that. Bink, my suggestion - especially for articles where nationalism and religion are going to be problems (e.g., Iran) - is that you first edit an article to include and clarify the more immediately relevant information (and therefore less controversial) until that's good and clean and informative, and then the more controversial aspects. If you bear in mind due weight, it'll be hard to make a coatrack article if you've already added the more relevant information. You'll have gained a good reputation, and you'll have more capital to work with for later. Finally, it will appear less tendentious if you go about things that way. Taking a contrarian stance on the outset against the majority of Iranian (and in the case of Prostitution in Iran, Shia) editors and their supporters is ultimately fruitless anyway.

So: Make good with Kurdo, edit towards the pre-established consensus before going controversial (consensus building on articles that relate to one's identity is massively different than on other pages), continue to respect 1RR. If you do it right, your reputation as a contrarian with an axe to grind will slowly melt away and you can build from there (as a matter of fact, you'll likely come out looking on top). Of course, if you are a contrarian with an axe to grind... <shrug> Xavexgoem (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC) You mentioned earlier "intellectual objectivity". You know that Wikipedia values neutrality and due weight above objectivity and WP:The Truth, right?

Struck out the "make good with Kurdo" thing. But don't follow his edits. No good will come of it. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reduced to 1 month. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the background of (and blocks for) edit warring, along with this latest block having been for "continued tendentious editing" along with wikihounding, I would think an unblock agreement to stick with 1rr for a few months would be worth a try, along with the tips Xavexgoem gives above, understanding that en.WP is about verifiability as to sources (with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT handled through consensus) and indeed not a seamless narrative following anyone's notions of truth. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2011 (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:

I wish to be unblocked. I promise to keep to 1RR for six months in all content-related disputes, allowing for more frequent reversions of vandalism. I promise not to follow Kurdo777 at all, and I promise to uphold the best editing guidelines at WP:Harassment—no hounding. Under these self-imposed restrictions I will not be a harm to the project; rather, I will continue to add to and build the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Done. Only so you know, straightforward vandalism never falls under Xrr. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Excessive_block_on_user:Binksternet

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:AN/I#Excessive_block_on_user:Binksternet. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy, for the kind words in my defense. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a bit excessive too. You may try appealing for a reduction, but if you do, be sure to make it clear that you understand the reasons for the block and avoid WP:NOTTHEM comments. The Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks is good reading, and something few blockees seem to do before making an appeal, in my observation.

Or, you can just take a break. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll like to echo Amatulic's comments. Take heart from the fact that the blocking admin did say you were a "good editor" GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, folks. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Calafia at DYK

If some kind soul wants to help me save a DYK nomination, please go to Template_talk:Did_you_know#Calafia and add a new hook, one that involves the real world. I have never submitted a fictional DYK before, so I did not know of the C6 rule. Some choices:

• ALT1: ... that fictional Queen Calafia may have been named around 1500 by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo from the Spanish word for caliph?

• ALT2: ... that Queen Calafia, fictional ruler of the Island of California, was the subject of a sculpture garden designed by Niki de Saint Phalle?

...or make one up on your own. You are welcome to claim co-creation credit for this. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you to Xavexgoem! Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)