User talk:Binksternet/Archive18

Napoleon (1927)

From BladeRunner391 To Binksternet

Hello there, I appreciate the info, and if you must know it was from the IMDb. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not totally sure how to cite sources :P Anyways I look forward to your expansion. I'm glad you got some tickets, I wish I was attending but i cannot. But luckily, I found a five hour version on the web and I am looking forward to watching that! Thanks again :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by BladeRunner391 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, IMDb... I did not know you were using it as a source.

See you around... Binksternet (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor adding nonsense to the Air raids on Japan article

Jon21488‎ (talk · contribs) appears to be the editor behind this IP campaign. He started two articles with this nonsense today: I've deleted both of them and blocked him for a week. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. The worst ones are those who add falsehoods wrapped up in proper formatting and auxiliary truths. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MoMK article

Hi Binksternet. I've commented/replied on talk here and would value the input of some fresh pair of eyes that recently appeared on the subject.TMCk (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw your reply. I would like to see others comment before I jump back in. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sticking an oar in

Thanks for weighing in at Tod. If I reply to everything and revert every edit then it really is going to look like ownership. - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for Mar 2

Hi. When you recently edited Tangolates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tango (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Could you please help out at the Imidacloprid article? I was banned for edit warring (none to happy about that!) and have no idea how to handle this editor. See the talk page "Deleted/added information problems" section. As you will note, he seems to believe that I must be a competing business person attempting to bad mouth his product. He has asked me (on my talk page) to email him and has left his email on the talk page. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That article looks like a tar baby! Frankly, I'm afraid of it. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I don't see where you are "banned". You were blocked for a couple of days but you can now get back into the topic, easing up on the reversions, of course. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, banned, whatever... Bink, I am now retired but I had to remember so many things, for so many years, so as to not kill people by a mistake I made that I have avoided all the intricate Wikipedia policy rules and have instead just learned a few basics and try to have some fun here doing what best suits my nature. The imidacloprid article is not so bad because this guy obviously is not a mean-spirited know-it-all--he just does not understand what Wikipedia is about. But it was too much for just one editor and I am so grateful that you are helping.

If you want to see a real soap opera article of quite a different nature, see the clothianidin article that I've been involved with for some months. That editor wants to cleanup Wikipedia so that it will run as smoothly and be as trustworthy as our government agencies are. ;P Gandydancer (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Legolas

Hi, just letting you know that I have corresponded with Legolas re: sourcing issues. He says that he obtained many of his online sources from a Madonna fansite that would reprint articles from popular magazines. He had apparently conducted some cursory checks at first and found their reprints to be accurate, and at some point simply stopped checking. I'm inclined to believe him—I've interacted with him many times in the past and known him to be a straightforward person that helped a lot in dealing with some of the young and immature editors that frequented the topics he edited. He doesn't feel like returning at this time, mostly because he believes he will be the target of vitriol. I do think he was editing in good faith for the most part, although I can't explain the sources that seem to be completely made up. --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you two communicated. His explanation is surprising but it makes sense in that there are Madonna fansites that archive old interviews and articles, in a kind of gray market manner, flying under the copyright radar. I would like know which fansite he was relying on; clearly he would be able to tell us the URLs of the pages he drew upon, since they are online. I noticed that one of the recently published Madonna books cited such a fansite and I followed the URL to http://www.madonna-online.ch, an inactive fansite that is purposely configured to be unarchivable by The Wayback Machine. The fansite is not infallible in its transcriptions; right off the bat they get interviewer Becky Johnston's name spelled wrong at the May 1989 Interview article. There's also madonnatribe.com and drownedmadonna.com. I tried searching these three fansites for the Charlotte Rowsdoom article that Legolas cited in expanding "Express Yourself", but none of them carry it. I'm pretty sure that Legolas is correct in thinking that he will be questioned closely about his previous contributions, furthermore, I think that he will have to admit guilt in making stuff up before he can move forward. Binksternet (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The site he mentioned is AllaboutMadonna.com. I haven't had a chance to look through it yet, but I did use the site search to try to find Rowsdoom and came up empty. --Laser brain (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just now I thought maybe the Rowsdoom cite was taken by Legolas from the French Wikipedia article, but no, Legolas put it in the English article in early August 2011, and Pixelyoshi put it into the French article in mid-September. :(

Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been maddening so far. Because there are hundreds of citation templates in the article, it takes a full 5–10 seconds to save every edit. --Laser brain (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to figure out which ones to take out, though. So many sources have commented on Madonna. :/

Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Afro-Cuban jazz, Latin jazz, salsa music

If you do not know anything about salsa and Afro-Cuban jazz, please let others know about it, give a good contribution and put their references to let the world know the truth about Cuban music. Listen what says Bobby Sanabria about salsa. interview with Bobby Sanabria about what salsa music is. Interview to Tito Puentes listen what he said about latin jazz Learn from those who know and not obstruct the knowledge.

I am not interested in youtube links. I prefer books because when I am working on Wikipedia I am also listening to sounds as part of my career work. I am a sound engineer, a musician by education. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me which university you went, because if you were a musician by education like you said; You'd know that Mario Bauza was the creator of the Afro-Cuban jazz and that salsa is 100% Cuban music, and I think you do not know where is located the White House dear friend, We studied in college, and we've given you college books and you said to us that you do not have time for that, then why you ask me, for books of salsa, if you have not looked the Afro-Cuban jazz books that I already gave you. What you need is someone to sue you for lies and global misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.111.109 (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And I'm not that person you say archipelago, that was sure someone else saw how wrong you are and try to help you, as we doing right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.111.109 (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear friend: I all ready told you, this tree phrase it's the same thing Salsa gorda/Salsa dura/Salsa brava and this two other it's the same phrase too; Salsa romántica/Salsa monga why do you repeating yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.111.109 (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you do not know about music lets people know about it write and do not change the contributions of those who do know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.138.223 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I will make attempt to clean up the Salsa article this week. I have sufficient documentation in my library to support what I write. I'll try to balance the competing theories and claims of the music's ownership.Dr clave (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not easy. The literature is a mass of conflicting viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

do not delete what others cost work to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.138.223 (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll report you to vandalize the page 174.98.138.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

DR CLAVE explained to me what I wanted to hear, and he said the right thing, he knows what he says, he is not 100% well in history at all, but I can help it, but to you I tested and you don't know nothing about music or history, do not touch or change the article if you don't know what you put. I know that others are not happy with you, you are a stalker and vandalizes pages.174.98.138.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC).

You have no idea about my knowledge in music, so don't fool yourself by thinking I "know nothing". Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

those posters are pasted on the website of salsa music two years ago, and the other one a year. Salsa music has enough references at the end of the page. I'll put some other references. With regard to the the Cuban born Ed Morales says, Cuban music came to New York since 1920 and has Influences from Many Different branches of the Latin American. That's not true, Cuba took the influences of Jazz of United Stated but not influences of all Latin America music that's an exaggeration, in the 20's the only rhythms that Cuba had created was the Habanera, bolero, and Danzon and were created in Cuba were not influenced by music from other countries or Latin America music. But Cuba influenced the North American jazz, and all the music of the Americas. Ed Morales lived in Spain and all he said and wrote was from Spain and based on the book of the Venezuelan Cesar Miguel Rondon, who never lived among Cubans to know his music. If Cesar had known about the Cuban music had spoken in his book on the Cuban bands of the 50 as Conjunto Casino, Roberto Faz, Jose Curbelo, Machito, Cheo Marquetti, who played son montuno or guaracha in the 50 . Guaracha and son montuno are the same kind of music but the guaracha is faster than son montuno, and that is the same salsa that is played today. the Cesar's book does not speak of these Cubans. I hope that, with this explanation does not change what I write please, if you do not know ask me and I'll tell you because they change.174.98.138.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, but Ed Morales has published a book, and the book is one of our reliable sources. Just because you say he is wrong does not mean that Wikipedia will now ignore him. As well, the books published by Richie Unterberger and Sue Steward agree with the analysis of Morales. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If you agree with the analysis of Morales that's your personal opinion.174.98.138.223 (talk)

Sue Steward don't know about Cuban music, if you want to hear something credible about salsa, listening to Bobby Sanabria, Tito Puente, Papo Lucas, Many Oquendo. I can give you videos of Cuban music from the 50's playing salsa, while still not known by that name. I am a collector of Cuban music from the 40's and 50's, the discography does not lie. Please don't change what i do, ask me why i change it, and i will talk you why, you don't know Mario Bauza created the Afro-Cuban jazz, you told me gillespie did it, but you know now you was wrong because the other person is writing the page now and wrote the same thing i all ready told you before.have good day.174.98.138.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC).

The problem with all of your complaints is that you are not a reliable source, per WP:RS and WP:NOR. It does not matter what your personal opinion is, the article must be built with reliable sources. All of your personal experience is good for one thing: knowing where to go to find the best published sources. Videos or recordings are not the answer. You need to find books that say the things you believe to be true. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear friend i gave you the name of the book, page, where it says that Mario Bauza created the Afro-Cuban jazz and your answer was you did not have time to find those university books 174.98.138.223 (talk)

I will make attempt to clean up this article this week. I have sufficient documentation in my library to support what I write. I'll try to balance the competing theories and claims of the music's ownership.Dr clave (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good, I think. The phrase "to all intents and purposes" adds nothing. "Nuyorican" can be linked. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the latest, incorporating your suggestions. I removed my previous drafts because I wanted to get rid of their accompayning notes. Any other editorial feedback?Dr clave (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Salsa music is a general term referring to what is essentially Cuban popular dance music created outside of Cuba. Salsa was initially recorded, promoted and marketed in New York City during the 1970s. The various musical genres comprising salsa include the Cuban son montuno, guaracha, cha-cha-chá, mambo, and bolero, as well as occasional non-Cuban genres, such as the Puerto Rican bomba and plena, the Dominican merengue, and the Colombian cumbia. Latin jazz, which was also created in New York City, has had a significant influence on salsa arrangers and instrumental soloists. Salsa occasionally incorporates elements from North American rock, R&B, and funk. All of these non-Cuban elements are grafted onto the basic Cuban son montuno template when performed within the context of salsa.

The first salsa bands were predominantly “Nuyorican” (New Yorkers of Puerto Rican descent). The music eventually spread throughout the Western Hemisphere, becoming a pan-Latin American music and with its own cultural identity. Ultimately, salsa’s popularity spread globally. Some of the founding salsa artists include Johnny Pacheco—creator of the Fania All-Stars, Ray Barretto, Willie Colón, Larry Harlow, Roberto Roena, Bobby Valentín, and Eddie Palmieri.

The discussion aimed specifically at improving the article should have been taking place on the article's own talk page: Talk:Salsa music. Anyway, I have taken a BOLD approach and implemented your introduction with some changes. I have also zoomed through the article to try and clean it up a little, especially all the WP:overlinking. More work needs to be done. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I want to write section on the conflicting claims of cultural ownership. I'll post all drafts in the Talk:Salsa music page from now on.Dr clave (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Just read those guidelines you linked to. I guess I've been a bit of an over-linker in some cases.Dr clave (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You change the part where say that Tito Puente, Bobby Sanabria, Bobby Valentin and others said salsa always has been Cuban music if you don't know about music why you edit in salsa music, start to write about food brother maybe you can provide something good talking about food.174.98.138.223 (talk) .174.98.138.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

I changed some things, yes, especially the overemphasis on Cuban music. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Salsa's debt to Cuban music is addressed in the opening paragraph, with the accompanying notes:

^ Celia Cruz said, "salsa is Cuban music with another name. It's mambo, chachachá, rumba, son... all the Cuban rhythms under one name." Cruz quoted by Steward (2000). ^ Waxer (2002: 5) notes that it is generally agreed "that salsa's primary musical foundation is Cuban; in particular, salsa generally follows the same two-part structure and rhythmic base of son Cubano." ^ According to Hutchinson (2004: 116), salsa music and dance "both originated with Cuban rhythms that were brought to New York and adopted, adapted, by the Puerto Ricans living there." ^ According to Catapano (2011), "Although a great number of New York's stars and sidemen in the 1970s were Puerto Rican, the basic musical elements of salsa were derived mainly from Cuba."

Once this is established, the article should not continue to harp on the subject of Cuban origins, and continue arguing a point that has already been established. Although, I do want to move some of the issues of identity and ownership mentioned in "The word salsa" section into a section that deals exclusively with the conflict. Let's move this discussion over to the "Talk" page of "Salsa."Dr clave (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Stoker don't change the flag the son cubano is from Cuba and in the Wikipedia policy don't said in any place that i can't put the cuban flag don't change again.174.98.138.223 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Actually, flag icons are not appropriate to infoboxes about music styles per MOS:FLAG, especially Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Avoid flag icons in infoboxes. The flags are out. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "User talk:Liamfoley". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 March 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for the explanation of how to insert page references using the name ref tool. I didn't know if anyone really answers those talk page questions. I truly appreciate your help!

KFFOWLER (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You bet! I have the article on my watchlist and saw your question. Very few people are watching it so I thought if I did not offer advice then nobody might. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI on user:Liamfoley

I have started an ANI report on user:Liamfoley for sockpuppetry. Feel free to comment and expand. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Also reported him for edit-warring for violating 1rr. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Erich von Manstein

I note you have reverted an IP's edit (not mine) at Erich von Manstein
Could you please explain why inserting Erich von Manstein's real birth name - as clearly stated and sourced in the body of the article, constitutes "Vandalism"? Arjayay (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I pulled the trigger too quickly on that one, thinking that Lewinsky referred to President Clinton's aide. The IP was only half right, though, so I will not revert myself on the article. I am replacing the vandal warning on the IP talk page with a welcome message. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - Arjayay (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon

San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon! Who should come? You should. Really.
	The San Francisco Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon will be held on Saturday, March 17, 2012 at the the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco! Participate in editing subjects about women's history and beyond! Workshops will also be hosted. New and experienced editors of any gender are welcome! We look forward to seeing you there!

Sounds fun, but I am juggling two other plans for the day. Happy editing! Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for We Can Do It!

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Imidacloprid

Recently you accused me of using a copyrighted article. You did this even though you know it is not true. That document is not copyright protected. You are engaging in an unfair action by doing this. What is your agenda birksternet? You are a significant contributor here and it looks like some good work. Yet you are biased on this topic. You are not neutral. I request you put back the article and quote and revoke your charge towards me.Treeguyenvironmentalist (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You copied and pasted text from this FAQ published by three universities. I see no release to public domain on that four-page FAQ, do you? The best practice in adding information from sources like that is to paraphrase the source, not copy and paste. More to the point, you cherry-picked only the most positive aspects of that FAQ, completely avoiding its clear declaration: "Imidacloprid is fatal to honey bees when it reaches high enough concentrations, and can have harmful sublethal effects at lower concentrations." So who is not neutral here? I am interested in a wide variety of topics, but you are interested only in putting forward a positive picture of imidacloprid. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I will email the Author and ask him. So you and I are clashing. How do we reverse this direction and actually collaborate so as to have a complete neutral document? From reading your page I believe you mean well and are a good Samaritan type of person. I am of that ilk too. Thus we may get further by working together. Are you interested and if so any ideas on how?Treeguyenvironmentalist (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We have been collaborating from the very first moment we both took part in the same article. You're learning about Wikipedia's quirks and I'm learning about insecticide studies.

Regarding emailing Hahn: it does nothing for the article to have an unverifiable email from an author. We go by WP:Verifiable sources, not personal emails. If you are looking to use something from Hahn it must be published. Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have an agenda of WP:Neutral point of view. What is your agenda? Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

My agenda is an accurate and all sides included informational page. This includes the fact that pesticides such as this one are beneficial to society if used carefully and as directed. I am a research scientist and my background is tree pathology, chemistry, and some entomology / soils. I work for a large company that uses a variety of pesticides in our practice for tree health preservation. We use Imidacloprid as a highly effective tool for saving large old historic Oak trees from the two-lined chestnut borer and ash trees from Emerald Ash borer. The USDA would not have eradicated the Asian long horned beetle in Chicago and New Jersey with out it and many thousands of Hemlocks would be dead without this material. Luckily, the trees affected by these insects are not bee pollinated but are pollinated. There are a small handful of trees that are bee pollinated and we as a policy do not use this material on those. Many people look up imidacloprid and use it as a reference, when they read wikipedia, they often get fearful. This causes them to literally pay 6 times more to inject their tree with a more toxic substance that injures the tree called emamectin benzoate. Thus you can see a bit of my motivation and or attitude. The Imidacloprid wiki page is more balanced now - but there are a number of areas that could have more complete information. For instance to call it a neurotoxin in the first sentence makes it sound far worse than it is. It kills insects by interacting with organs in the insects head that mammals do not have. They stop feeding and then die at a later time (not sure the gap). Thus making this point occurs to me as more of a scare tactic then helping people understand and use this material properly. Does this make sense to you? If we are going to warn people, lets tell them exactly where not to use this and give them clear instructions to not put where there is a low water table, near lakes, streams, etc. Or on flowering plants. Before imidacloprid we had to spray trees with highly toxic carbamates and organophosphates and because of imidacloprid those insecticides are mostly gone now. Imidacloprid has helped clean up the environment from that aspect. I also want to say that people need to be careful with all insecticides. They are all deadly to bees and other pollinators. Imidacloprid should not be used on trees that are pollinated by bees. So how do we come to an agreement on how to move forward. I believe now that want the same thing - a neutral and balanced page. I had a long collaborative session with Gandy to get the imidacloprid page to where it is, how can you and I work together to make this topic excellent and represent all aspects and all information? Treeguyenvironmentalist (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the article you say is not published would you please explain exactly to me what is missing on this article that allows you to block it for copyright?Treeguyenvironmentalist (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

heads up

A user is accusing you of being a paid to disrupt the cold fusion article Talk:Cold_fusion#Binksternet. I would suggest taking it to ANI or an appropriate venue as it seems to be a very serious accusation for someone to throw around (WP:CONSPIRACY) IRWolfie- (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What a riot! I wonder who they think is the sponsor? Nobody who is skeptical of cold fusion would pay to push it down on Wikipedia; it's below consideration. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My username

• • diff - re to Rob

• - Hi - As I have, for quite a while, a new user name, Youreallycan ..please allow me the pleasure of referring to me by it, Youreallycan or YRC. If you object to this good faith request please explain your reasons here - I prefer it if you stop referring to me as Rob - thanks - Youreallycan 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Per your request I will stop calling you Rob in front of others. However, I will not stop thinking of you as Off2riorob, because your new name has not defined a new attitude on noticeboards, and you have not stopped contributing to Commons by that username, as recently as a week ago. You will always be Rob to me. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate that. Per your comment I agree about commons and will no longer edit under my previous username there - see - [[1]] - thanks Youreallycan 10:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Napoléon (1927 film)

The DYK project (nominate) 06:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Solano County, California

Hello. I want to request that you weigh in on the issue regarding placement or listing of Solano County, California within the sub-regions of the San Francisco Bay Area. It has been listed in the North Bay (San Francisco Bay Area), then partially removed, then placed back with a qualifier, and not listed in the East Bay as far as I can see. It is not clear at all, but what is clear is that it must be in one or more subregions. Norcalal (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be in North Bay as it is in San Francisco Bay Area. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at the North Bay (San Francisco Bay Area) article is getting a bit messy. I wanted to make you aware of it as you have been consistently watching over Bay Area articles for a long while. Norcalal (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawking (again)

Hey Binksternet,

A little while ago you were kind enough to review stephen_hawking for GA, and even kinder to leave a list of suggestions for further improvement afterwards... since then the article has had a peer review and is currently at FAC - where it's a little low on reviews (one support and one oppose that I'm addressing) - do you think you might have time to review from an FA perspective? I'm aware it's a fair amount of work... :( Fayedizard (talk)

Trade you! Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Santa Maria de Ovila/archive2. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oooh - are we allowed to do that? Surely there is some sort of ethical issue? (although I can certainly imagine doing things like spotcheck and imagine reviews, which are a bit less subjective...)Fayedizard (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Swapping reviews does not mean we will give favorable reviews! It will be the real thing... People do this all the time. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just finnished my comments - apologies for the delay, had a meatspace emergency - ping me when you need some strikethoughts... :( Fayedizard (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And I think I've now finnished responding to your comments on FAC. Let me know if I've missed anything though - I'll be working on the article for a while yet in any case… Fayedizard (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good to know, and thanks for your good work.

I am done with my extensive prose review at your FAC, which is all I intended to to do. SG brought up some damning points, though, looking at the forest rather than the trees like I was. It's going to be tough to address. :(

Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome - thank you for your review :) As long as it comes up to standard by your measure I'm quite happy… I'm also seriously impressed to get a review from SG - that's going to be a lot of fun responding and it should attract some other reviewers from Maths&Physics… Fayedizard (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Imidacloprid and Bees

Mr Binsternet - would you be willing to read the following article from the USDA regarding bee colony collapse? http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572 I was at a seminar on Wednesday in Boston and the speaker from the Connecticut agriculture research station brought up this article as well as others and said the following

An experiment that irradiated 1/2 of the hives and not the other half was carried out - then the bees were placed back in their hives. The irradiated hives had no CCD, while the control hives still had the issue. He says that this proved it was caused by a biological organism. He also said that despite certain european countries banning neonicatanoids over 10 years ago, there is no decrease in CCD in those countries. Then he added that in Australia - where there is no Verro Mite, there is no CCD.

I would like to begin citing this article - and I would like to do it cooperatively Tcpro52 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have some other things on my plate right now but I will get to it shortly. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Saqib Saleem/GA2

Now that no one has addressed the raised concerns, shouldn't the article be delisted of its GA status? Secret of success (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! One month is long enough for reassessment. I delisted the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda link deleted

Explain to me, how can a link to an issue covered by multiple news agencies another here concerning numerous complaints by BBC viewers to the effect that (in contravention of broadcasting rules) a specific instalment of a documentary was used as a vehicle for propaganda.. can be off topic when the article is entitled 'Propaganda' ..? --Anteaus (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The linked article is about climate change. Just because the word "propaganda" appears in the climate change article, that is no reason for it to be in the External links at Propaganda. If the article described how propaganda changed over time at the BBC then it would be about propaganda. Also, if the article were neutral about its topic it would be much more suitable for linking down at the bottom of an encyclopedia page without editorial oversight. Instead, it is an opinion piece on a subject full of dispute. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the linked article is principally about how the BBC used its position as a State broadcaster to disseminate propaganda to the public. Which, its charter forbids. The subject of the propaganda is incidental. Many thousands of viewers wrote-in to complain that this episode was propaganda, not documentary, in style. --Anteaus (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Lindbergh

Your recent editing history at Charles Lindbergh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Centpacrr (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

My friend, you are alone in your quest to put your preferred wording into the article. Multiple editors—Joefromrandb, Collect, Stihdjia, Writegeist, myself—have expressed to you that it is not appropriate. Nobody has expressed support; the closest you got was Bzuk saying the whole argument was ridiculous, which we all agree with. So one question: who is the edit warrior here? Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lindbergh's flight to Europe and the circumstances of his eventual return were highly charged and controversial events when they occurred and your pablumizing the language and deleting references only serves to misrepresent the verified facts, their interrelationships, and their significance in understanding this controversial period of Lindbergh's life. I gather from your comments here that you, Joefromrandb, Collect, Stihdjia, Writegeist have all failed to actually read any of the eight New York Times, one TIME magazine, and one LIFE magazine articles, and two later books on the Lindberghs which I have cited while creating this section. Unless and until any of you do as opposed to misrepresenting what is included in them, then I must observe that you as a group are the "edit warriors" here. Centpacrr (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Very much an expected response. Five editors oppose you but we are all wrong. Zero editors support your preferred wording. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The question I asked is "have you or any of the others read the sources? Without having done so, you have not provided any basis to support your claim. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not speculation. There is a difference in verifiability so please answer the question I have asked you. And I guess that Bzuk does not agree with you either as I see that he has reverted your last edit, not me. Centpacrr (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not answered your query because it simply does not matter. An encyclopedia uses calmer language than newspapers and magazines. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

So I gather, then, is that it is your position that sources don't matter to you and thus you are free to reject the substance of what they say in favor of "calmer language" even if that language materially alters or misrepresents the facts. Please define exactly what you mean by "calmer language" as opposed to "highly charged" wording, and how you determine the difference without referring to the sources. Pablumizing language that accurately relates what happened simply to make it "calmer" is, in fact, the opposite of being neutral when it materially misrepresents what happened. Claiming that what is referred to in the dozen sources cited in the section "simply does not matter" seems to me to be advocating that Wikipedia should be exclusively edited by ostriches. Without referring to the sources cited you have no basis on which to judge whether or not any of these words are "highly charged" or if they are just accurate, objective, and yes even "encyclopedic" reflections of happened.

Anyone who knows anything at all about how Lindbergh was treated by the public and press during this period, for instance, would understand that using the term "exasperated" (defined as: "to be irritated or provoked to a high degree; extremely annoyed and frustrated") as to how Lindbergh felt about it would not only not be a highly charged term but an understatement and thus "calm language" to related his stated feelings. (To understand that just read the extended quotation in the section of Lindbergh's own words on this to Deac Lyman.)

The term "sailed furtively" (defined as: "taken, done, used, etc., surreptitiously, by stealth, or in secret") is equally accurate, objective, and "calm" given the extreme lengths Lindbergh went to flee the country without detection by he and his family traveling under diplomatic passports and assumed names as the lone passengers on a freighter that left port at three in the morning after having arranged for Lyman to both withhold his story for a full day and then not disclosing any details of his means or time departure from his New York Times story in exchange for exclusivity.

Neither of these words are pejorative, "highly charged", or uncalm language, but accurate, objective, and appropriate terms that are well supported by the sources to describe the events.

The purpose of an encyclopedia biography is to provide an accurate reflection of the life and times of the subject without exaggerating them. But that does not mean that whitewashing them is acceptable either.

I am puzzled, therefore, as to why you take the position that knowing what cited sources say "simply does not matter". If that were the case then why cite sources at all?! At least I guess I know where you stand on this anyway. Centpacrr (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that you are making of your preferred wording at the Lindbergh article the same "must win" fight you battled and lost at the The High and the Mighty (film) article. Why? To protect the wording of newspapermen and magazine writers? We are writing from the viewpoint of many years later, and the scholarly tone is more appropriate. Your wording beats the reader repeatedly with extremes. I lessened but did not fully remove the kind of newspaper wording you wanted, but this was somehow unacceptable to you. I'm done trying to explain my position, as you dismiss it; the same way I dismiss your wish to retain the excitable mood that was present at the time. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The warning posted by Centpacrr for edit-warring is groundless and looks retaliatory.

I'm concerned to see that Centpacrr's entrenched WP:ownership behaviour at CL was preceded by the same at the film, as it implies a chronic, ongoing problem that affects more than one article. His "I have been working on developing and expanding [the article] for many years and have more contributions to it (800+) then any other editor over that time. I have long had a particular interest in this subject because of the large collection of "Lindberghiana" (postal history items, documents, artifacts, etc) I have built over the years many items from which now illustrate the article" and the claim to have been" a professional writer for more than 40 years" (!) speak volumes about his sense of entitlement to control even the tiniest detail of the article's substance and style. Elsewhere I ran into an almost identical situation with another editor. Like Centpacrr, he was a prolific contributor to - and "owner" of - articles that engaged his particular interest, and had a professional connection to the topics. Sadly it didn't end well for him. I'd like to see a more positive outcome in this instance but I'm not holding my breath. Writegeist (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the warning above is retaliatory. I got the same impression about expressions of article ownership from the Centpacrr quote you present above. From notes on his talk page I sense that he has been accused of article ownership at LZ 129 Hindenburg, LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin, Stephen E. Ambrose, Palace Hotel, San Francisco, Curtiss JN-4, List of Governors of New York and Transcontinental railroad. There may be others I have not come across. It's a long-standing problem. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review nearly done.

See Talk:Calafia/GA1. Looks pretty good. --Noleander (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ok.

good point actually. you know what i mean. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Musical instrument

Are you active in the GA process? I thought you might like to know that I put musical instrument up at GAN. I'm a little disappointed in the process thus far; see Talk:Musical instrument/GA1. It looks like I got a new editor who decided to do a GA review, got partway into building a table of some kind, and then got bored with it. I guess I wait for a while and then request a new review? --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You should wait a week before taking any action besides nudging the reviewer. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bose

Many thanks for your improvements to the Bose article, it is great to see someone else fighting the fanboys to make the articles NPOV. Also, good work in reporting Phoenix's poor behaviour, I'm not familiar enough with WP processes to have done this, it's great that this has been brought up at higher level now. Thanks again. 1292simon (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't think I convinced anyone that Phoenix has a conflict of interest, but I still believe it. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, although he is suspiciously positive and knowledgeable about Bose, I've found nothing to convince me he's associated with them. Always quick to defend Bose and shower them with praise, but I didn't see anything indicating inside knowledge. Still, your efforts to bring attention to his edit warring and ownership issues are much appreciated. 1292simon (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If I knew ahead of time that the COIN venue was not going to result in changes, I would have started an RFC on Phoenix. I will do so in the future if it seems timely. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Prostitution in Iran

Dear Binksternet, nearly two weeks ago a posted a suggestion how to include temporary marriage in the respective Article. So far, no-one has cared to answer. I think the solution may be found a strict differentiation between prostitution and temporaray marriage as the objects of legal agruments, and thier functional, "social science" relation. Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That may be the exact solution. I think you or the new user should start these changes and then discussion will most certainly pick up. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Check your mail

Hello, Binksternet. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sent you the article about pro-life feminism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Marvelous! I will read it when I get home from work today. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Arras Flying Services Memorial

Hi Binksternet. Your ALT looks fine; probably flows a little better. I am happy for either hook to be used. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay! Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What is an ALT? Dyerx (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It refers to an alternate hook for the "Did you know?" nomination. There's the original hook, then there may be further hooks suggested. The first suggested one is ALT1, the next is ALT2, etc. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Maya Angelou article

Hey there. Would you by any chance have the time and/or interest in helping to do a critical review of the Maya Angelou article for one of our editors? I happened to run across her request for help at Moni3's talk page and reading the article I was just stunned by the accomplishments of this unusual woman. The author of the article, Christine, clearly knows Angelou inside and out, backwards and forward, but to present so much information in a fairly easy-to-read article might present a challenge. I found the article a "hard read" even though I am fairly well-aware who's who, what's what, and so forth... For one thing, Christine has used a timeline approach going by Angelou's biographies - which may well be the best way to go - but may seen to make the article a little what I have called "jumpy and jerky" on the article talk page. I have been trying on the talk page to give my impressions, but knowing that I am speaking of an extremely important woman and a good editor who has the article very well-sourced, I am very uncomfortable to give feedback that may...or may not be... helpful. It would be helpful to have several other editors involved, but at least one other would be a godsend, especially a good and experienced editor such as you. Any thoughts, suggestions, or perhaps you are willing to help? Gandydancer (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I will see what's going on there and then I will determine whether I can help. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Legolas

I noticed that Legolas hasn't edited since Feb 12th. I had worked with Legolas on numerous occasions, it's the first case I've seen of an established editor doing such a thing. Anyhow, it seems highly likely that Legolas has started using another account/IP. Has this been looked into or have pages he used to edit been watched? Kin regards. — R² 07:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not been trying to prevent good editors from adding material to the various Madonna and Lady Gaga articles, and I have not noticed any particular touch or style that would remind me of Legolas.

I hope he is slowly coming to the conclusion that he will have to confess to his fabrication of sources before continuing to edit under the same account. I feel certain that he will be allowed to continue editing if he makes a strong case for behaving properly in the future and following the guidelines for sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I strongly suspect I owed you a beer for the PR - but this will have to do for both - thank you for every last comment on the on both the FAC and the PR and I look forward to working with you again soon. Fayedizard (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

MMmmm! That was perfect timing—quite refreshing. Thanks for spotting me a pint; we'll bump into each other again soon, I'm sure. Until then! Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: 25 DYK C/E Medal

Hallo Binksternet,

thanks a lot for the medal (the second in a week, I don't know where to put all this hardware... :-)). It is a pleasure for me to be hosted on the English Wikipedia, and I am always stunned to find patient Fellows having English as mother tongue and ready to wash in Thames my abstruse articles... :-) Thanks again, Alex2006 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wash in Thames"... nicely said! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thank you for giving me a DYK award! I'm actually surprised myself that I've done so many, especially seeing as my work has graced the DYK section only three times in the last 6 months. Your award might well give me the impetus to submit my articles again in future(!) SFB 18:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If you submit more in the future it will be a good thing. Unfortunately, the next medal (200 DYK) is much farther away now, relatively speaking. Hang in there! Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

please take a look at recent events about "pop culture" on USS Missouri article

March 2012 - it's creeping back in - ignoring the guideline via some "consensus" on the Talk Page HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The Cher video shoot involved the ship and its crew, so it is more significant than if it just mentioned the ship, or flashed a scene of the ship, or was filmed on another ship or sound stage pretending to be the Missouri. The bit of pop culture is worked into the ship's chronology, too, so it doesn't stick out as irrelevant trivia. I am not very worried about this issue; I think it is okay. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.87 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Imidacloprid and bees

Binkers - that was the other imidacloprid page. The bee one is very poorly written and not very accurate. Last time I made some corrections they were immideatly changed.Tcpro52 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for MSC Fabiola

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

willing to revert

Rosce was too fast for me to self-revert alas. You might warn him, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC) BTW, I can not find any 1RR warning on the talk or edit page for that article. Collect (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nor can I find you giving Rosce a 3RR warning - as that is where he is at. Warnings to be effective must be uniformly given, Binksternet. Collect (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I warned you not by accident, Collect. You are tendentious in your methods. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And you did not warn the clear edit warrior <g>. Your definition of "tendentious" is hereby called into question. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw very quickly that you were the only warring agent at the article. You were warring to put a novel and overly broad interpretation of Oaks into the article, one that was not only not correct but one which was pushing the activist O'Brien as a spokesperson for all Irish women, which she is not. Others have seen this to be the case, agreeing with me. This experience has diminished further the little faith I had in your judgement. It was a disappointing display—your running again to your favorite refuge, BLPN, which did not deliver what you wanted this time. You wasted everybody's time for no good reason. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bolero

The Spain bolero is really different from the Cuban bolero. In Spain they called with the name bolero in the late XVIII century, today, they called it fandango; Spain bolero used a pattern of 3/4 and Cuban bolero used the pattern 2/4, that means they are different genre with different musical structure. The person who wrote the bolero article, let it know very clear, that are two different type of bolero with the same name and different origin. The Cuban bolero is a popular genre in Latin America and the world. Which the Spain bolero is not.174.98.141.237 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

Right now the two types are both in the article even though they are not the same thing. I may split the article into two. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: PLF

I'm assuming that you got the talk page sanctions notice from another abortion-related talkpage, but it's superseded by the arb case now - both should be updated, I imagine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think I got it. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (Forgot that template existed! I linked it to my similar user warning template.) Also thanks for being on top of things there - it does flare up every so often, doesn't it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Every once in a while the loony bin inmates get loose and create a stir. It takes the warden a day or so to restore order. Binksternet (talk) 05:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Gordon P. Saville

The article is now passed as a GA. As I said in its review, I apologize for the long wait, but I've never made a secret of the fact that my schedule is hectic. Congratulations! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for your review. Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

salsa re-write

Hi, if you get a moment, I wonder if you might take a look at my recent re-write? I hope I have struck the appropriate neutral POV. Thanks.Dr clave (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for your series of changes to settle into place. I will look at it now. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I kept on refining it. It's up now in the main article. Please feel free to massage away. I'll take note of your refinements and hopefully save you the trouble for the next section.Dr clave (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

(Cross posting to everyone who commented in the JSTOR discussion on WT:FAC)

I have now created Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access. Feel free to sign up. Raul654 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Binksternet. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Charlesquebec

I don't want to be the conflict but Charles died on December 24th, 2011. --Lynx des sapins (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that Genevieve2 said that Charlesquebec died, but I am suspicious. I think that Gevevieve2 is Charlesquebec, and that the story is a cover for sockpuppeting. I think it is all fiction. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Audiography

You've misunderstood the purpose of my addition of the reference. This was not inteded as a promotion, despite your rather suspicious mind. It was indeded to show that courses on audiography do indeed exist and to verify the statement regarding the qualifications - given that an earlier link was no longer operative. It is a pity you have chosen misguidedly to remove it, but no doubt you have your own reasons for doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egrabczewski (talk • contribs)

Well, let's see, you have uploaded two photos of yourself only to have them deleted. You have started the CERIF article about a project that you are involved in, only to have it deleted. At the article Director of audiography, you inserted a link to Sound Manifesto which you co-founded. Oh, but that was not enough! You followed this with the addition of a biography link pointing to you. I think the wiki is wise to you; I can see that you have been promoting things related to you. Self-promotion is obviously part of your reason for being here.

The problem with your edit to audiography is that it gave only one course: a link to a college called City Pulse Institute of Film & Television in Gujarat, India. The sentence that the cite is supposedly supporting is this: "The responsibilities [of an audiographer] include production sound recording, dialogue editing, sound design, sound effects editing, ADR editing, Foley editing and sound mixing (dubbing)." The link does not say this; instead the link says that the college course teaches several things, not that those things are the responsibilities of the audiographer.

That audiographer article of yours is not referenced at all. Another unreferenced offering of yours is the image, File:TSM DirectorOfSound 02.pdf. These things appear to be original research, a violation of WP:NOR. I just trimmed the DoA article of excess overlinking and URLs that do not prove the topic. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You are indeed a very cynical person are you not? I have uploaded photos of myself for my profile and for no other reason, so please be careful of your insinuations. You are turning pefectly good people into demons and this is a ridiculous way to behave - even on Wikipedia. I am not self-promoting anything. I am simply passing on my professional knowledge to others. Knowledge that, in some cases, has been gained first-hand. As requested, I have supplied three references to the diagram in question. If you dislike the word Audiographer then that is an issue you must take up with the people who invented it in the Indian film industry. I have provided enought evidence of the existence of audiographers and director of audiography - you need only look at the IMdB database. Since you are removing links then you are ensuring that the articles don't link with one another, so please be careful to make these consistent. The filmmaking article links to both director of audiography and audiographer. The existence of the filmmaking article itself owes its existence to my contribution around the year 2000. Nobody complained when I made this contrbution as a result of knowledge gained during my teaching of multimedia and the article has stood the test of time, as have many other contributions I have made. So please restore your sense of balance. As for your objection to my reference to a course in audiography on the grounds of advertising, please remember that any reference to a movie is in fact the same thing! Egrabczewski (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Three more sections on Salsa ready for review

Looking forward to your editorial perspective. See the Salsa music talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salsa_music Dr clave (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction

Can you please advise as to how the information you have restored can be removed or edited to state Hell as opposed to an individual? The person this referring to is very unhappy that inaccurate information is being referenced directly to his name? I am new to Wikipedia & trying to help him. TTC 04:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah man der (talk • contribs)

The information about the unhappy person is well-referenced to a newspaper article. It stays in, even though he does not like it. Binksternet (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Full Sail University

Hi Binksternet, you may recall our previous conversations here. Thank you for your recent edits on the Full Sail University page. As you can see on the Talk Page, I've suggested revisions to the Criticism section here. I’ve reviewed the policies WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE, which states “try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.” In order to stay in line with this policy, I would like to propose that the criticism section's contents be moved to the existing "Academics" section of the article. Thank you for your assistance. --Tylergarner (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that people saying Full Sail is a "scam" are talking about academics? That's the trouble. The scam quote is difficult to position in any one section. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Academics section currently covers topics including degrees, loans, graduation rates and accreditation, as well as weighs the positives and negatives found in the New York Times article, therefore I saw it as a good argumentative addition to this section. However, I see your point, it is difficult to determine why people refer to Full Sail as a "scam." Do you feel that it would better fit in the History section alongside the other New York Times statement?--Tylergarner (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You pick. Academics works well enough as it encompasses other attributes of the university. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:STRUCTURE, I feel that moving this information to the Academics section would be the most beneficial to the reader, as it will more effectively fold debate into the article and illustrate both supporting and opposing narrative on the education offered by Full Sail University. Thank you for your insight and contributions to this article.--Tylergarner (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, will you be implementing this change, or would you like me to make the edit? Thank you again for your help! --Tylergarner (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

You were right about the Shah page.I was just a bit angry at the amount of rubbish there was about him being such a good man when he killed his own people to maintain his rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashz (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI for User Ronz

Concerning a pattern of behavior not suitable for Wikipedia, by a user you've had dealings with, please list examples Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ronz_behaviour Dream Focus 22:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Gender Inequality

What if I included a short sentence about why the wearing of the burqa shows inequality? I don't think it needs to be deleted, but explained. Thanks --User:KCognizione —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC).

You cited Half the Sky but I have not found the burqa passage in that book. What page number? Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, inquiring about potential COI?

I am fixing the edits and having reread them and the wiki guidelines, I am almost sure it's not a conflict of interest. Will address this with the editor in question. Thanks! :) Ongepotchket (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Salsaton

Hello. You recently reverted my edit on Salsaton that added the {{Reflist}}, tagging it as vandalism. Why did you do this? -- JJJ (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! Note on your talk page. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just did that on a different article myself. Whoops! -- JJJ (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

	Ahalya says Thanks
	Thanks for helping the article improve to FA standards by your constructive comments on the PR ! --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:NOM promotional image and Obama rally image comparison 300px.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NOM promotional image and Obama rally image comparison 300px.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Bryan Fischer

Noticed you deleted Bryan Fischer from the category of tax resisters. So his claim that the 16th Amendment exempts wages and salaries as income isn't enough to put him in that cat? HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 16:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not. He must be reported to withhold taxes to be a tax resister. Without that, he is merely a tax-resistance advocate. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack?

In this diff, you purport to remove a "personal attack on Rossi". I'm honestly not seeing the personal attack there. I would agree that the source has potential problems with respect to undue weight, bias, and just general self-publishedness, but not all critical commentary – even commentary potentially unsuitable for use as a Wikipedia source – rises to the level of a personal attack. (And realistically, these days, an observation that Rossi's different public statements about when, where, and how many devices he's building are inconsistent isn't particularly novel.) It's helpful to other editors that edit summaries accurately describe the contents and purpose of an edit; when I saw your summary, I presumed that it was just the removal of something like "Andrea Rossi is a jerk!" from the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I felt that the link to Rossi's personal cell phone number and address was a personal attack, one prohibited by BLP policy, specifically WP:BLPPRIVACY in which primary documents with revealing personal information are to be kept out of the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the personal attack. Revealing private personal information, while not generally desirable, isn't a personal attack; it's best not to confuse things by describing it that way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. The end result is the same—the post reverted per BLPPRIVACY—so I don't have any action to take to fix the past. I'll keep your advice in mind for the future. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for San Francisco plague of 1900–1904

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both Matthewedwards (submissions) and Grandiose (submissions), the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, Ealdgyth (submissions) earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank Jarry1250 (submissions) and Stone (submissions), for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)