User talk:Binksternet/Archive22

Happy New Year!

Would you mind talking a look at my comment here and seeing if you're OK with what I've done. Thanks! Location (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to say but I said it. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sexism

When you deleted the OR in the sexism article, you left the bizarre table in the introduction. Did you mean to do this, or did you misread the code some how? 88.114.154.216 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I had intended to look into reliable sources about the table and see if it had a reasonable basis. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December! GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

Would you mind explaining why a review of the governance of Wikimedia UK, which will not be looking at anything to do with DYK, is a reason for extending restrictions on Gibraltar-related articles which were put in place well before the review had even been announced? And to put it on a more personal note, would you mind explaining why you think my 100th DYK nomination needs to be reviewed for "COI" and "promotionalism" when the topic means there isn't the slightest possibility of either being an issue? Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would mind. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're not going to explain. Well, it's a genuine question. I simply don't see the logical connection between an internal matter for WMUK and how we manage DYK. It looks like I'm not going to be any the wiser until you or someone else explains it to me. Prioryman (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You put me off right away with an aggressive demand, changing the venue from WT:DYK to my talk page even though discussion is currently underway there, and pushing onto my plate the matter of your 100th DYK in which I have no interest or involvement or even awareness. You made the matter immediately personal, which it is not, with terms such as "COI" and "promotionalism" in quotes that I did not write myself in this singe entry of mine. So, no, I will not reply to this request of yours. Binksternet (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gravity Bone

I was wondering whether you were satisfied with the changes that Hahc21 has made to his nomination in response to your review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is okay now. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks on the Legolas2186 talk page, with the additional links. Those were entirely appropriate to add to the record/context for any future admins or editors trying to help untangle it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for your fortitude in blocking to protect Wikipedia's integrity. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bink, are you going to talk to me now or not?

Just wondering because you seem to be very active around here and i want to let you know. Just because you have strong contradictory sources about Hiroshima leaflet date doesn't meant it's OK you come to the automatically conclusion you have to put it "No Leaflet dropped" side like it was one-sided as it was the actual facts the leaflets was NOT dropped at all. And it had been for like 9 hours since you left your comment on the article page so can you please reply to it? Because you didn't left reply to some of my comments on the article page XXzoonamiXX (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything worth responding to. You are complaining that the article says leaflets were not dropped, but that is wrong. The article says plainly "It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July or early August". We have contradictory sources saying 27 July, 30 July, 1 August, 4 August, and even one survivor saying 5 August. That means we do not settle on one particular date. Binksternet (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

right so you're not going to respond to my comments, even though i had to dumbed it down for you? And the word "likely" means it was not an actual but it makes as it was probably true or not but doesn't that mean you had to put out that the leaflets in Hiroshima were NOT dropped at all such as the last sentence where the Peace Museum as it was an actual fact to the reader. All i wanted to put out i this, Author Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai didn't really stated in this book about the Peace Museum at all. He said that 12 Japanese cities were pelted with leaflets, none being in Hiroshima. However, other account said that within a few days prior to an atomic bomb attack on early August, leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima, along with several other Japanese cities, warning that they would be firebombed and advised residents to evacuate the city. The leaflets dropped on Hiroshima and other Japanese cities were displayed on the Hiroshima Peace Museum." And you would not let me make changes to the article either you did this just to maintain that one-sided POV or not as long you try to make it as it was actual proof. This is good just to maintain the WP:UNDUE, what i see now in the current "leaflet" section is not. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

When you read something you seem to get a different interpretation than when I read it. For instance, I see that Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai says "On 30 July, also, American planes dropped leaflets over the city of Hiroshima." The author talks about 12 cities that were mentioned in the leaflet's own text, none being Hiroshima. That is, Hiroshima was warned on 30 July that 12 other cities were to be destroyed, perhaps other cities, too, and that Japan will be destroyed. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an average reader on Wikipedia would get that. If the leaflets were indeed warned on the 30th of July, then why don't you put on the "leaflet" section there was no leaflet sorties by the U.S. planes on the 30 of July according to the USAAF official which written in the "Matterhorn" book? The "Matterhorn" was just a book written by an author in 1983 who had a also different perspectives as well the others do based on strong evidences and factual experiences. And just because they are contradictory sources (As we talked about earlier) doesn't MEAN let's go to the conclusion or go down the road with the "No leaflet dropped" side and make it appear as it was an actual fact. A lot of folks who were in the Hiroshima Peace Museum stated the city was warned with leaflets drops in few days saying that city and others would be destroyed prior to an actual A-bomb yet did only mentioned about the carpetbombings. To not say that would be like saying the one such part of the Gassing of the Jews was just a bunch of lies as well. Another problem I had on the last sentence of the "Leaflet article" as i said again and again, that you mixed those two links together in the last sentence of the "Leaflet section" to make it appear that Hiroshima was NOT warned with leaflets at all DISPLAYED at the Hiroshima Peace Museum. Which is why i wanted to add the "F.J Bradley" statement saying that it was dropped on a few days prior to the A-bomb attack. That goes against the facts and twist them to make it appear as it was actual fact. You also the use the world "likely" as it was dropped or not but other like the "leaflets were not dropped" on Hiroshima. You said it yourself some weeks ago that you rather think the fact the leaflets were not dropped at all when they are other sources counters that. True, they were contradicting the actual dates it was dropped which is why i wanted to add the rest of the last two sentence in as i mentioned above. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the reader understands that the leaflets were really dropped on Hiroshima, even though the USAAF did not document it. If you can suggest a few word changes to make it clearer, let me know. Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, The "Matterhorn" was just a book who had a different perspective as rest of the sources here even though it is published by the U.S. Air Force. As for the reader to understand it the “fact” it was dropped, it is not when you use the word "likely" that it was dropped on Hiroshima and even not so when it says the last sentence that the one leaflet were displayed in the Museum that 12 cities were listed for firebombings and Hiroshima was not (and you mixed those two links like the Japanese author and F.J. Bradley author books, together when both sources did not say any of them), it gives a bad impression to the reader that Hiroshima wasn't targeted with warning leaflets at all. It's not just for intelligent reader but also an average reader as well. The Hiroshima Peace Museum is well regarded internationally and is the major museum which covers this topic that Hiroshima was warned with leaflet drops within a few days that they themselves would be firebombed. And it does not make any sense that Hiroshima was warned with leaflets drops that 12 other cities were to be destroyed by firebombings when he only mentioned about the country as a whole will be destroyed on page 219 (the "12 cities" part were mentioned on Page 215) and that he did not say the exact date this was BEFORE the 30 of July (which is on page 219). Stanley Weintraub did not mention the "12 cities" part so the whole thing about Hiroshima being warned that 12 cities would b e destroyed and leaflet does not mentioned Hiroshima does not make sense to me whatsoever as it may refuted the August 1st, and 4th the same thing. Also, noticed i do not mixed those two links together as they appear the same when both sources do not state this. Also, as you said, we do not settle on with the date so i put it out there. It's not much of a change but here it is. I also took out July 30th because the "Matterhorn" book didn't say anything of it unless you provided the source for it. A read will not understand that the word "likely" means it appears it could be true or not but the last sentence made it appear it was. BTW, I was a little late, I was busy but fine here it is i don't think it's much of a change but is this good for you?

"For several months, the U.S. had dropped more than 63 million leaflets across Japan warning civilians of air raids. The Japanese cities suffered terrible damage from massive bombing raids, some even 97% destruction. In general, the Japanese regarded the leaflet messages as truthful, however, anyone who was caught in possession of a leaflet was arrested by the Japanese government. In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the U.S. military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation. No warning was given to Hiroshima that a new and much more destructive bomb was going to be dropped. Various history books give conflicting information about when the last leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima prior to the atomic bomb: Robert Jay Lifton writes that it was 27 July but the USAAF history notes 11 cities targeted with leaflets on that date, none being Hiroshima. Author Bungei Shunjū Senshi Kenkyūkai also wrote in his book that 12 cities in Japan were targeted with leaflets listed for firebombing somewhere in late July, none being Hiroshima. However, other leaflet sorties were undertaken on 1 and 4 August, according to the official USAAF chronology. It is very likely that Hiroshima was leafleted in late July and early August, as survivor accounts talk about a delivery of leaflets a few days before the atomic bomb was dropped. . One account said that a few days on early August before an A-bomb attack, more leaflets were dropped on Hiroshima and several other Japanese cities, warning they would be firebombed and urged civilians to evacuate the city. The leaflets were displayed in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you talking on my talk page? Many editors are interested in this topic. The article talk page is the best place for this discussion. Anyway, you continue to believe that the wording of the article is somehow misleading but I don't think it is. I think the reader is led to understand that the leaflets were indeed dropped on Hiroshima but the date is not known exactly because the sources are in contradiction. Binksternet (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello...

...Binksternet. Está bien esta respuesta tuya, pero quisiera invitarte aquí, ya que veo que tu eres bastante imparcial y justo. Por favor, pasa pero si no tienes tiempo o no quieres, no te preocupes. Piedo disculpas anticipadas por mi inglés tan terrible, pero creo que se entiendo mi punto. Gracias. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no expertise in the various methods of quantifying album sales. I am hoping that some industry expert will take over the List of best-selling music artists, List of best-selling singles and List of best-selling albums to fix the terrible problems of over-estimation. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We Can Do It!

Just to let you know, in case you don't spot it, that someone has suggested that We Can Do It! appears as TFA on 15th February. The discussion is at WP:TFAR; feel free to join in. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I suggested the date here: Talk:We_Can_Do_It!#Proposed_date_for_Main_Page_appearance, and I put the suggestion on the long term forecast at TFA. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your help needed

Hi. I noticed you have commented at Juan Manuel de Rosas. There is a DRN case related to that article. I'm trying to help out as a neutral Third Opinion-giver, to achieve a resolution. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look at it. It seems plain that some pro-Rosas views are dominating to the detriment of a more balanced view. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Every single book in English says that Rosas was a dictator who ruled through Terrorist tactics. There isn't any that says otherwise. Cambalachero has failed to provide one source that might back his claims. Not one. And even if he had done, why should the prevailing, overwhelming view among historians be given the same weight as one or two Revisionist historians? --Lecen (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why you should come to my talk page with this argument when it applies to the whole discussion, and should be seen by all discussion participants. I will not discuss the topic on my own talk page when a lively discussion is taking place elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you posting there as another commentator or you're filling the position of volunteer who will arbiter the dispute? --Lecen (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Only as another commentator. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Legolas hoaxes

Hi Binksternet, could I invite you to have a look at the discussion I started here, and indeed invite you to take part if you feel that way inclined? It seems to me you are the editor who has the best handle on this, and on the types of falsifications that occurred. Could you point me to some of the worst instances in addition to the ones I mentioned over there? And is anyone still working on cleaning up the relevant FAs and GAs? Best, Andreas JN466 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never participated at Wikipediocracy and I don't think this issue is important enough for me to start right now.

Regarding Legolas2186, I am pretty sure the "worst" stuff is already listed at the Legolas workpage and the WP hoax page you have been quoting from. Whatever was found was brought to light by myself, Laser brain, SunCreator, Sitush, Giants2008, Frcm1988, and anonymous IP 86.186.68.76 from Bradford UK. I doubt that there are unseen problems, at least not large or obvious ones. A lot of eyes were pointed at Legolas2186's contributions, which were mostly good, for most of his WP career. Only in his drive to amass a charm bracelet of green GA plus signs did he start to bend and then severely twist the rules. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. So in your view, he didn't start out as a hoaxster, and took no pleasure from falsification per se, but only falsified sources and content to increase his chances of getting a GA or FA credit for the article? Andreas JN466 02:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do not think he started out as a hoaxster. Regarding pleasure gained thereby, I have no comment. Just about all of his WP:V policy violations were introduced under edit summaries which said that GA was the goal; for instance, this September 2011 "Major expansion for GA of the article" which inserted the fabricated persons Rana Sachdeva (who supposedly wrote the notional article "The Immortals of Meluha") and Preetika Mathew Sahay (who supposedly wrote the nonexistent article "Mythical Magic"). He put his own words into the mouths of living persons, which to me is an extremely serious violation. His contributions from November 2010 and later have been examined, but there are remaining issues about prior contributions such as this expansion from August 2010 which includes a cite to Andy Downing of the Sunday Times who supposedly wrote an article called "Madonna's book a coveted success". The notional Downing article cannot be verified online; not even by searching the Sunday Times website. Andy Downing does a lot of A&E work for the Chicago Tribune but nothing about Madonna's book. So, yes, there are outstanding problems. And no, there is no continuing investigation of citation problems. I guess I should pick up the editorial machete once again and start hacking around the Legolas contributions. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I note you nominated the Madonna FA which he had written for a Featured Article Review [1], and it was duly demoted. Quite something. Andreas JN466 01:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet

Do you have an interest in Gerald Ford?

Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.

We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!

You received this invitation in view of your significant contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic sentence

Hey Binksternet - did you mean to revert my addition of a topic sentence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not. Edit conflict. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Mind restoring it so it's not counted as a revert to me? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm dropping these templates on the talk pages of every user who has posted at Talk:Men's rights in the last two sections. This is not meant to imply that I necessarily find any of your edits problematic, and is simply meant to inform you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Madonna in Spanish Wikipedia

Hola, te revirtieron, pero ya lo arreglé. Cualquier cosa que esté a mi alcance, no dudes en decirmelo. Un saludo, Chrishonduras (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I am very new to this, so I hope that I am doing this correctly...

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.

Justified edits?

Salutations,

I take cause with your changes to my edits (regarding RFK and Mody Kidon). Your claim is that my edit was politically motivated (not true).

I removed the word Palestinian - as their can be no such combination as Palestinian Jordanian (the original text) or Jordanian Palestinian as you reinserted. This is like stating a Palestinian American or Jordanian Israeli. You might be an Arab Israeli or Jewish American - but unless you hold dual-citizenship, you could not be labeled in this fashion. Furthermore, Sirhan Sirhan held Jordanian Citizenship only - there was no country named Palestine which could confer citizenship. So I stand behind this removal of the adjective Palestinian. (and your change "back" to Jordanian Palestinian is certainly incorrect.)

Following this, you immediately proceeded search for and edit an article of mine - for no reason other than to be vindictive. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to educate me on why my article doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards - I would like to learn how I may improve on my writing style. However, if you cannot provide constructive criticism, I would prefer you refrain from subjective edits. You are a veteran, experienced, and award winning Wikipedian - the standards you need to adhere to are higher than to others.

KundaDesign (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Sirhan Sirhan, the books about him say that he "was a Jerusalem-born Palestinian with Jordanian citizenship" (James Stuart Olson, Historical Dictionary of the 1960s, 1999.), or "a Jordanian-born Palestinian who had immigrated to the United States with his family some years earlier" (James Pierson, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, 2011), or a "Palestinian-born Jordanian" (e-Study Guide for: Criminal Courts, 2012), or a "Palestinian Arab immigrant from Jordan" (Ray Hanania, I'm Glad I Look Like Terrorist: Growing Up Arab in America, 1996), or "a Palestinian" (Marie-Helen Maras, Counterterrorism, 2012). Loren Coleman wrote that "Sirhan Bishara Sirhan saw himself as a Palestinian militant" (The Copycat Effect, 2004, page 28.) Coleman continues by saying "Sirhan and his family had been uprooted from their home in Jordan by the Arab-Israeli war in 1948" and that he was a Christian Arab.

You can see there are apparent contradictions in what has been written about Sirhan. The facts are that Sirhan was born in Jerusalem when it was within the British Mandate of Palestine, in March 1944 during World War II. The area was embroiled in war in 1948. Of course, Jordan annexed East Jerusalem in April 1950, so it is accurate to say the Sirhan family lived in Palestine and Jordan, both; first under one polity and then under a new polity. In 1956, Sirhan's father moved the family to the USA, but he hated America and moved back to Jordan, leaving Sirhan's mother and the children in Southern California.

So how do we describe this complexity in English? We are certainly able to say that he was a Palestinian/Jordanian Arab. I think your removal of "Palestinian" was faulty.

Regarding Mody Kidon, after determining that your change to the RFK death article was not helpful, I wondered if you had harmed other parts of the encyclopedia. I did what I nearly always do when I revert a change made by an editor unfamiliar to me: I looked at your other contributions to see if they were generally good or not. This series of edits made by you to the Kidon article start off on a bad note: you commented out the maintenance tags at the top of the article rather than fix the issues described there. Next you added promotional text and over 20 URLs to primary source websites rather than the preferred WP:SECONDARY sources which assure the reader that the subject has been noticed. That is why I went to your talk page and asked you not to add text "without verifying it by citing reliable sources." Doing so is exactly the high standard to which I hold myself. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Abe Vigoda

No, we didn't "go through it", actually - you decided to give undue weight and notability to a less-than notable site. You forced my hand. We don't need it in the damned lead of the article. I'll go the RfC route if I have to: but this man's life and work does not need to include the mention of that ridiculous website in the lead section. I don't edit war: but this is not over by a long shot. Doc talk 03:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I welcome your proposal to bring the issue to RfC. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Funny how you had no problem with me removing the other utter bullshit on the page about "cameo appearances". This issue is personal: I get it. I'll drop the template on the page in due course... Doc talk 03:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your recent cleanup at the article—it needed it. I don't appreciate any violation of WP:LEAD. The lead section should tell the reader all the main points discussed in the article body. The website is a main point, widely reported at the time. Really, there is nothing personal about this. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But it really wasn't widely reported at the time. Not like the actual false reports of his death. It's an unbelievably stupid, low-budget, copyright infringing, copycat thing based solely on the prior gaffes of others falsely reporting his death. It's not worthy of being mentioned in the lead, but it's still mentioned in the article. Why does it have to be in the lead? That website does not aid the reader in their understanding of the subject enough to be mentioned in the lead. Doc talk 03:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am losing my patience with you, Binksternet. According to the policy of consensus, you have no right to insist on your changes in spite of objections, sticking your fingers in your ears and challenging me to do something about it. I don't care how many articles you've written: you don't get to force your decisions in just because you like them. No one besides me speaks up? That does not mean you have consensus for your addition. If I revert you for the second time since 2011 on this, it is not edit-warring. Your addition was Bold, I Reverted it, and now you are supposed to Discuss it. Not reinsert it. See WP:BRD. You've already ignored that guideline by reverting my revert, but you want to play the LEAD guideline now. On a lead that was solely your creation. I am perfectly within policy to revert your addition to the lead - so talking more on the talk page might help. Get consensus or it has no consensus to begin with. Doc talk 07:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing essential has changed for Vigoda or Wikipedia since last time we discussed. I see no reason to open it back up and hash the same the same issue out a second time, especially since your reasoning was "I don't like it" and my reasoning was policy based. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not policy based. WP:LEAD is a guideline, which does not automatically trump WP:BRD or WP:CONSENSUS (a policy), which you assume to have but in reality do not. Your position that it will stay in the lead because you like it is not going to happen without consensus being there for your edit. Doc talk 14:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at the talk page, at this moment, is to remove your bit from the lead. It's 3:1 against your addition. I'm not going to let consensus be thwarted in favor of your preferred addition; but you can keep dragging this out if you like. Are you going to delay the inevitable, or "allow" me with your unneeded "permission" to remove your contested edit without you edit-warring about it? I'm very tired of your stonewalling and insistence that you are right on this issue, despite other opinions. I will remove your edit very soon if it has no consensus to be there (which it clearly does not), and I have policy to back me up on it. You are pretty much out of time here, Binksternet. Doc talk 14:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are arguing against WP:LEAD then you've chosen a difficult path. The LEAD guideline must be followed for an article to attain good article status. Thus, it must be followed for featured article status. LEAD is recognized as vital to the structure and readability of an article. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus policy is more important than what you feel your lead should include in the article. The consensus is to not keep it there. The lead can be expanded/rewritten if and when this article ever reaches the GA or FA status. But LEAD does not ever trump CONSENSUS. Doc talk 18:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Audio engineering

Hello Binksternet. My intentions are honest and I did talk to Uncle Milty about it, before re-adding this link: A list of Audio Engineers. The only reason I put that link is because I thought is very useful. It is an open network for audio engineers that every professional audio engineer in the world can join. People can get in touch with professional audio engineers, ask them a question, they can even send them their audio material and ask them for suggestions and advises for FREE. The purpose of that site is to become online directory for all Audio Engineers in the world. I thought if I put link on Wiki it would help.

I apologize if I did something bad. I am new to this, still learning about wiki but I am old musician and I know how hard is to get help or advise from a professional Audio Engineer without you need to pay first. And this network of Audio Engineers do exactly that. Have a nice day. Fr3eStyleR-Mk (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the link is commercial and not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Two Steps from the Blues

Hello,

I think even if Examiner is not reliable, the author has worked for Daily Collegian and Los Angeles Times [www.examiner.com/art-in-los-angeles/william-phoenix], which I think is a prove that he is notable. What do you think? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

For the Two Steps from the Blues article, the review by William Phoenix in the Examiner—"Bobby 'Blue' Bland: Five-Star Flashback (Photos)"—is not noticeably different from other articles on that blacklisted website, so I don't see why it should be treated differently. If William Phoenix was so notable that he had a Wikipedia article, or could have one, then I would consider the matter differently. Basically, this Examiner post by Phoenix is just as authoritative as it would be if he had blogged about the album on Tumblr or Wordpress or his own website.

If you want some more sources to replace Phoenix, try the following... Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• The New Rolling Stone Album Guide: Completely Revised and Updated, page 83. "Among the non-greatest hits albums, the one absolute must-have is Two Steps from the Blues, one of the most powerful R&B albums ever recorded. From the raw-boned confessional blues of the opening title song to the final, touching 'I've Been Wrong So Long,' Bland constructs a concept album devoted to intimate reflections on love and longing so personal and atmospheric it comes off as R&B's answer to Sinatra's brilliant forays into thematic unity, Only the Lonely and In the Wee Small Hours. B.B. [King] makes no bones about his regard for Bland's artistry." (establishes concept album as a fact)
• Farley, Soul of the Man: Bobby "Blue" Bland, page 90]
• Texas Monthly, Oct 1992, page 134. "...quintessential Duke-Peacock record, as well as the finest recording ever made in the state of Texas..."
• Martin Scorsese Presents The Blues: A Musical Journey
• The Music Lover's Guide to Record Collecting, page 181. "One especially popular Bland album is Two Steps from the Blues (DLPS 74), a 1961 electronic stereo issue that exists in red vinyl (with the orange label; original issues have the purple-and-yellow label)."
• Encyclopedia of the Blues, page 245. "A good compilation of Bland's titles recorded for the Texas Duke label with many blues and other good things."
• B.B. King: There Is Always One More Time, page 52, "...indisputably monumental... one of the most powerful R&B albums ever recorded."

Re: Userfy request

I've userfied the article as per your request. As you can see, the article's author is a banned sockpuppeteer, hence the G5. What you can't see is that user's bio, which identified him as owning a music business PR firm, hence the G11. As the notability was not a concern I see nothing wrong with the article's re-creation. However I'd like to ask you to please leave out the banned user's edits. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ad Council edits

Hi, there. I'm sorry to hear that you didn't find my edits to the Ad Council wiki page to be neutral. Could please let me know what the specific areas of concern are and I will work to correct? I added a significant amount of information to the article making it more current and complete notably in the Famous Campaigns and Organizations who work the with Ad Council sections. Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aq123 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I assessed your changes as not neutral because you greatly reduced the negative information about an Ad Council initiative based on the Ad Council's faulty understanding of the "We Can Do It!" poster. The negative information was well-sourced.

Here's what I had (references have been removed):

The "We Can Do It!" poster was used by the Ad Council for its 70th anniversary celebration, through a Facebook app called "Rosify Yourself". The historic image was not produced by the War Advertising Council.

The Ad Council claimed the 1943 "We Can Do It!" poster (associated with Rosie the Riveter after 1982) was developed by the WAC as part of its "Women in War Jobs" campaign. In February 2012 during the Ad Council's 70th anniversary celebration, an interactive application designed by Animax's HelpsGood digital agency was linked to the Ad Council's Facebook page. The Facebook app was called "Rosify Yourself" and it allowed viewers to upload images of their faces to be incorporated into the "We Can Do It!" poster, then saved to be shared with friends. Ad Council President and CEO Peggy Conlon posted her own "Rosified" face on Huffington Post in an article about the Ad Council's past 70 years of public service. The staff of the TV show Today posted two "Rosified" images on their website, using the faces of news anchors Matt Lauer and Ann Curry. However, the now-famous poster was actually produced by an internal Westinghouse corporate program as part of a series of posters shown to Westinghouse employees for two weeks then discarded. It was not produced by the Ad Council nor was it used for recruiting women workers.

Here's what you changed it to:

Although widely thought to be an Ad Council campaign, the “We Can Do It!” Rosie the Riveter poster was actually created by the Westinghouse Company’s corporate War Production Coordinating Committee.

See how you removed the widely seen "Rosify Yourself" initiative? See how you removed the fact that Peggy Conlon posted a "rosified" version of her photo? Hence my referring you to the WP:Neutral point of view guideline. Cutting negative information is not neutral. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Warren/GA2#GA_Reassessment - Youreallycan 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bay Lights article

Hi Bink!

I hope you're doing really well and happy new year. This is Matthew Roth, from the WLM photo ride, under my volunteer user account. I want to let you know about an article I created today on The Bay Lights art installation. I'd love your feedback on it and please feel free to edit or offer suggestions. My first new article. I also impulsively WP:BOLD nominated it for a DYK, but now I'm doubting that I did the template right (had to add some things afterwards). If you have any comments on that part of things too, please send them at me! Thanks, Almonroth 23:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Very neatly done! I can just imagine the fine photos that will be brought to the article... I noticed that one source says "almost" 25k LEDs but the article drops that imprecision to state the number straight, without a softening modifier. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think 25k LEDs is a very safe number, given the source. Only one report says "almost" 25k, but almost all the others say it exactly, as does the project page. My feeling is the preponderance of sources saying the same is sufficient. Almonroth 07:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't get hung up on it, as rounding certainly applies in a situation like this. Looking forward to the lighting! Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they're going to do a test lighting on Jan 24th. If I hear otherwise, I'll let you know. Also, should I do anything with the DYK nom now, or will someone put it in the prep queue? I'm unfamiliar with the process, happy to do whatever is expected, but don't want to mess up and have someone yell at me ;) Almonroth 19:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing more for you to do. Somebody will choose the DYK nom and put it into play for some day during some time period. Typically, they try not to run American topics at 3 am USA time. If the nomination is on your watchlist you will see when it is brought to the DYK prep area. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, Bink! Hope to see you around soon. Almonroth 20:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification about reliable sources for Waldorf education

I am requesting clarification of the arbitration ruling on reliable sources at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. You may want to add any thoughts on the subject there. hgilbert (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for David Gunness

KTC (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look?

I'm not sure what's going on here, but I thought I'd drop you a note in case you missed it in your watchlist. Whatever it was you warned him about, I think he's done it again, after the final warning. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks okay for now. I'll keep an eye out for further disruption. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been unfairly accused by this user of spamming external links, which I have not been doing.

I was over on the "Misandry" page for a definition I was looking up. While checking out the article's history, I noticed that a user, Jim1138, had removed a bunch of relevant links in the "See Also" section, so I undid the revision to restore the links. They were helpful links to other Wikipedia articles.

I return a few minutes ago, to find that user Binksternet has undone my revisions and flagged me twice for "vandalism" and "inappropriate external links" when not a single one of those links on the "See Also" section goes anywhere BUT to different, relevant Wikipedia articles.

WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.208.51 (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit that you first performed, the one that Jim1138 reverted. You removed the true sentence that "misandry" is a backformation of "misogyny", which was a poor move. You added a bunch of tangential or unrelated "See also" entries such as "Sharon Osbourne", which is an attack on a living person. You added two "External links": "A Voice For Men" and "Register Her. A Voice For Men". These links are supposed to bring the reader to the blacklisted website www.avoice formen.com, which is a lame maneuver to try and get around the blacklist process. Finally, you added the attack URL www.register-her.com which is an egregious violation. I see your involvement as purely disruptive rather than constructive. I consider you a vandal who should be blocked on sight in the future. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't add "A Voice For Men" or "Register Her". I was trying to restore the "See Also" list that you and Jim1138 removed. I found it quite useful. Then I tried to go back, restore the list, and remove the two external links that made you angry. Apparently that wasn't good enough for you because you sent me another warning. I consider this harassment. I am trying to improve the article's "See Also" listing; you are welcome to help me do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.208.51 (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You are disruptive, adding www.register-her.com, an attack site, and trying to work around Wikipedia's spam blacklist. Your "See also" additions include attacks. These kinds of contributions are not wanted at Wikipedia, and will be removed as soon as they are noticed. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

My contribution adding the category '2012-2013 protests' to the 'abortion in the Rep. of Ireland' page was an appropriate, relevant, worthy and balnced contribution to the article.

Could you please explain how it was unbalanced?

Just because it is a matter of fact that there were more pro-life protests than there were pro-choice protests does not make the section unbalanced.

Removal of the entire section is unwarranted and will be reinstated in full should this message not receive a satisfactory response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis100 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant to reverse Wikley's change from 21 January. I am removing the warning I placed on your talk page. Please accept my apologies. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

John Lurie article

Hello Binksternet,

I'm writing in regard to some "restoring" you've done to the John Lurie article. Please not that the Basquiat "bit" was an off-handed joke Lurie made during an interview, and has no real relevance to this article. Also, the Russian bear meme is included in the Painting section, but is not important enough to include in the lead.

Thanks, (Reverend Eccles (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC))

I disagree about the importance of the internet meme relative to Lurie's career. It's huge, and must be in the lead section. Basquiat staying at Lurie's apartment from time to time is a fact; the joke about Basquiat's leavings being worth some money is something I put in there for color, as an example of Lurie's wit. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please explain why Bear Surprise is "huge." The lead section is supposed to summarize the key points in the article, and Bear Surprise is not a key point. Reverend Eccles (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Anything in a person's life that made a big splash cannot be kept from being mentioned in the lead section. I have to ask you in return, why is Bear Surprise to be avoided? Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my talk page

Hi Binksternet,

You wrote:

Nice work on the Clifford A. Henricksen biography. One more audio giant is brought to Wikipedia! Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate the encouragement. In replying here, I'm hoping that I understood User Talk Page Basics correctly. ST (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are being heard here.

I think that more audio engineers (and more audio engineering achievements) deserve to have a page on Wikipedia. Thank you for your good contributions. Binksternet (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Multiple entry horn.png

Thanks for uploading File:Multiple entry horn.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Nice to meet you. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy wikiing! Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your diligence in reverting vandalism at the Rush Limbaugh article, I hereby present to you this barnstar. Your reversion reflected great credit upon yourself and upholds the highest quality of Wikipedia and pillars of the Wikipedia community. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "John Lurie".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 22:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Dahlin Do you realize that what you removed in this edit is all from peer-reviewed journals? The arbitration explicitly referred to anthroposophically-published work (reread it if you don't believe me), not independent, peer-reviewed journals. Please restore this. hgilbert (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Hello, from a DR/N volunteer This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Clarification request regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion has been passed regarding an Arbitration clarification request which named you as a party. Please view the wording of the motion, feel free to discuss the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Main page appearance: We Can Do It! This is a note to let the main editors of We Can Do It! know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 15, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 15, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below: "We Can Do It!" is an American wartime propaganda poster produced by J. Howard Miller in 1943 for Westinghouse Electric to boost worker morale. The poster is generally thought to be based on a black-and-white wire service photograph taken of a Michigan factory worker named Geraldine Hoff. During World War II the image was strictly internal to Westinghouse, displayed only during February 1943, and was not for recruitment but to exhort already-hired women to work harder. It was rediscovered in the early 1980s and widely reproduced in many forms, often called "We Can Do It!" but also called "Rosie the Riveter" after the iconic figure of a strong female war production worker. The "We Can Do It!" image was used to promote feminism and other political issues beginning in the 1980s. The image made the cover of the Smithsonian magazine in 1994 and was fashioned into a US first-class mail stamp in 1999. It was incorporated in 2008 into campaign materials for several US politicians, and was reworked by an artist in 2010 to celebrate the first woman becoming prime minister of Australia. The poster is one of the ten most-requested images at the National Archives and Records Administration. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Excellent! Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC) WikiCup 2013 January newsletter Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts: 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year! Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers. Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede. Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists. Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg. Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition. This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points: Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article. Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score. HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias. Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it? If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is 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 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) 00:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Stop deleting or changing my contributs Hello, I'm Gian piero milanetti. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Malarkey. You're talking about the same absolute statement based on the same unconfirmed kill, so of course I would change it. Binksternet (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Note I was wondering if you could do me a favor and propose an indefinite interaction ban in article space between myself and User:Adjwilley please? We have differing interpretations on wiki policy so our edit conflicts has now surpassed scores of articles. In January alone roughly 90% of his article edits are either reverting me or amending my edits. These edit wars have been raging since the summer of 2012 and its starting to get ridiculous. Please be careful to word it narrowly because we edit similar religion-related areas. I contacted you because i recall we had positive interactions previously and you also sucessfully interaction banned roscelese and belchfire previously. Thanks Pass a Method talk 13:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I just spent an hour beginning the ANI thread proposing an IBAN and looking through the edit history of you and Adjwilley. To me, the interaction looks fairly bad for you throughout 2012; that is, I would have done as Adjwilley did. I cannot in good conscience propose an interaction ban. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you yourself would be the best choice to propose an interaction ban. You would be able to point to the best example diffs to explain your position. Best wishes! Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Rosas I do believe that adding quotes taken out of context is harmful for a discussion, and even worse when the ones added are soley by people who share your views. I could have added the opinion of Noleander, the editor who volunteered to act as "third opinion", but I did not: "The other editors (MarshalN20 and Cambalachero) claim that the 'he is not a dictator' viewpoint is equally well represented by historians (and thus that the encyclopedia's voice should not be used per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) but when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)" I don't believe it will be useful and it will not help neutral and newer editors who show up. These editors should rely on sources given, not on personal opinions. Thus, I came here to ask you to remove those quotes, taken out of context, or add all views (Noleander, for example). Or else, it will be an unfair bias toward one side of the dispute. --Lecen (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC) A "Request for Comment" is exactly that. You cannot control the comments of others who are commenting in good faith and abiding by other Wikipedia guidelines. I restored the comments by putting them into a new "Discussion" section because I recognized that they were interfering with the RfC question. (The RfC should have had a discussion section anyway.) What you can do is reply to comments, not remove them. I think it is a good idea for you to quote Noleander and anyone else that you feel supports your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I rather prefer to use books as sources, not editors' opinions. I still think it's unhelpful and even disruptive to place those quotes taken out of context. But I won't engage in an unnecessary discussion with two editors. --Lecen (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Montclair, Oakland You sure are a busy beaver. I think your edits to the Montclair, Oakland page are good and at least you transferred *some* content to the linked pages. Might be polite when you delete in-line urls to find the matching ones on wiki. Also, would be nice if explained *all* of your edits. Btw, do you even live in Oaktown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Tfcallahan1 (talk • contribs) Yes, I live in Oakland. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry about the misplaced creation, my fault, wrong page. Glad you at least live in Oaktown. But my comments about the politeness and commenting on *major* updates remain. Ya kinda removed a lot of stuff. Not that I disagree with the changes but wholesale edits like that? Ok, I guess you're a wikimaniac. Wikimaniac (yes, it's an inline url) Oh, p.s. do you have a better picture of Montclair? That one they show is not that good. I'm thinking of something from the top of Luckys or the garage :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Tfcallahan1 (talk • contribs) The good thing about my camera is that its quality is nothing to write home about, so that makes it very easy for me to donate my photos to the public domain. Regarding a better shot of Montclair, there is another choice: add more photos (plural). Some of the iconic buildings and views ought to be considered, for instance the 1927 firehouse with "fire" pediments standing up on the "snow"-covered roof. Your suggestions for views are good. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC) At the Montclair, Oakland, California, article, I took out lots of URLs, yes, and also text about Adrian Jean-Felipe Hunter that had been fact-challenged for almost two years. I also removed bits about a guy who like Colonial Donuts and a blog that is not notable. I trimmed back the text associated with Jerry Brown and Dave Brubeck, because these guys have their own biography articles. I think the article is better now. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I agree it's cleaner and have no objection about the edits. But when you delete a URL that someone (like me, a novice :) ) puts in you should see if there is a wiki link that replaces it. I will not make the embedded url error again so I appreciate the learning experience. I like that you moved the JB stuff to his page as I think it is relevant info. Re more photos, would it be better if they were in wikicommons or should they go on the page? I have a pretty good camera :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.99.243 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC) P.S. I was not logged in, sorry. This was tfcallahan1. Is there a way to autosign a talk comment (I know, RTFM but thought I'd ask :) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.99.243 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC) P.P.S Ok, I RTFM'd it. Tildas Tildas Tildas... :) Since I've been developing software for MANY years I usually ask before reading but... Tfcallahan1 (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Father's Rights Movement You have undone my edits twice now. You state: "Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Fathers' rights movement. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you." These contributions are editorial analysis' on par with the other the political categorization of the different men's rights groups. There is no particular reliable source for those assertions, but are in situ reporting. For you to claim that liberal and conservative viewpoints on this movement exist, yet constantly delete the equally valid, albeit newer, libertarian viewpoints, show political discrimination. Please do not delete my contributions, or at least be very explicit as to what you are complaining about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyonthenet (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for bringing your concerns to my talk page. Wikipedia does not allow "editorial analysis" which has not been previously published. If you point to a WP:Reliable source which has published the analysis you want to include, then the published source can be used as a citation. Otherwise, the analysis cannot be inserted per Wikipedia's foundational rule: WP:No original research. Best - Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Would you point out the reliable source that states that: "The fathers' rights movement has both liberal and conservative branches, with different viewpoints about how men and women compare. Though both groups agree on the victimization and discrimination against men, they disagree on why men and women differ (nature versus nurture) and traditional gender roles. The liberal version believes differences between the sexes are due to culture and supports equality between men and women; in contrast the conservative branch believes in traditional patriarchal/complementary families and that the differences between genders are due to biology" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyonthenet (talk • contribs) 02:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC) I did not add that text, but here are the cited sources for it: Williams, GI (2002). "Fathers' Rights Movement". Historical and Multicultural Encyclopedia of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States. Greenwood Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 978-0-313-30644-0. Gavanas, A (2004). Fatherhood Politics in the United States. University of Illinois Press. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0-252-02884-7. Williams, GI (2003). "Framing in the Fathers' Rights Movement". In Loseke DR & Best J (ed.). Social Problems: Constructionist Readings. Aldine Transaction. pp. 93–100. ISBN 978-0-202-30703-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) These books are listed in the footnotes following the text in question. I have not read these sources to see if they support the preceding text. Have you? Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Although I do not have bibliography at hand, I do have more evidence/examples of exactly what I talk about, essentially several libertarian based Fathers Rights Movements; would this satisfy your exceedingly rigorous standards for your interpretation of Wikipedia rules ? I will comment that if you make the requirements so strictly formal, you will accomplish omitting valid and pertinent information by raising the bar far higher than is warranted and render it less informational than more, unless of course you have another agenda in censoring such information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyonthenet (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC) It's very simple: you need the bibliography. The WP:NOR requirement is not optional at Wikipedia; indeed, it is considered a pillar of the encyclopedia. You must find previously published sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC) I have noticed that you haven't struck the following, that must be similarly non-optionally removed, that is part of the same article- "Others[who?] contest these conclusions, stating that family courts are biased in favor of fathers[citation needed] and that the lower percentage of separated fathers as custodial parents is a result of choices made by fathers rather than bias of family courts.[45] According to sociologist Michael Flood, father's rights activists have exaggerating the disparity in custody awards between mothers and fathers, and ignored the fact that in the vast majority of cases, fathers voluntarily relinquish custody of their children through private arrangements; either because they are willing to do so, or because they do not expect a favorable court ruling." Please explain why this has passed your censoring filter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyonthenet (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Would it surprise you to learn I have not read the whole article? I only came in to help sort out some recent political activism there. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC) blogtalkradio please stop--------------magarhour i would wish for you to let me learn on this site so i can be a good editor, if you constantly keep reverting my edits and having your powertrips oti. the only thing you are doing is making it harder for you . do some research and see we are who we say we are or what we are typing is the truth i see many people complaining about you. please stop .http://www.blogtalkradio.com/magarhour/2013/02/10/the-magar-hour-with-old-greg-n-chazz-razz# we have been the head promoters and info kings for the site since 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.58.52.236 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Please read the foundational Wikipedia guideline: WP:No original research. This is where it says that you cannot use Wikipedia to tell the reader things that have not been previously published. In other words, the facts must be published in a reliable source before they can be added to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC) RIN TIN TIN Many of the references in Susan Orlean's unauthorized biography about RIN TIN TIN are historically incorrect. Correct data about the first RIN TIN TIN can be found in The Rin Tin Tin Story by James English (1941). In addition correct information about subsequent RIN TIN TIN'S can be found in the published book, RIN TIN TIN The Lineage and Legacy by Daphne Hereford, ISBN 9781468114980 as well as RIN TIN TIN'S LEGACY [copyright 1998 - TX4-092-249]. We would sincerely appreciate the errors that exist being corrected. For example, RIN TIN TIN III was in fact sired by the first RIN TIN TIN - you have it as him being his father's grandson. The first RIN TIN TIN was born on Sept. 10, 1918 - this is verified in the book RIN TIN TIN'S LEGACY Library of Congress copyright 1998 - TX4-092-249 and RIN TIN TIN The Lineage and Legacy, ISBN 9781468114980. You indicate that Rin Tin Tin IV was not used in the series The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin based on the inaccurate statements made in Orleans' book. Another inaccurate statement made by Orlean which is verified in the RIN TIN TIN The Lineage and Legacy as well as RIN TIN TIN'S LEGACY [copyright 1998 - TX4-092-249]. You make no mention that RIN TIN TIN VIII made a personal appearance tour across the country in 1999. This data is confirmed in the RIN TIN TIN the Lineage and Legacy Book as well as Orlean's book. You indicate that James Tierney made a movie in 2007 - The film Finding Rin Tin Tin was actually made and released by First Look Films. Tierney merely served as one of the producers. You mention that in the Finding Rin Tin Tin lawsuit that the court ruled in the studios favor to allow the use of the words rin tin Tin in the title. What you failed to mention was that the title was never the subject of the case. The case was about the dogs used in the film and not the title. This information can be verified in PACER (the access to Federal Court documents search Rin Tin Tin) http://www.pacer.gov You indicate that Daphne Hereford purchased two domains when in fact she owns 30 domains related to Rin Tin Tin. In addition you mention the Rin Tin Tin trademarks but fail to mention there are a total of 10 trademarks related to Rin Tin Tin. You make mention of the special presentation in June 2012 at the Academy of Arts and Sciences, but you fail to include that the presentation was actually made to RIN TIN TIN XII. Photos of the presentation are available on the official website. http://RinTinTin.com It appears that your entire article is primarily based on Orlean's unauthorized biography. Please correct the historical inaccuracies and to ensure that actual facts are published and that history is not inappropriately altered. RTTXII (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC) 173.184.26.68 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC) The James W. English book is flawed because of "facts" made up by Lee Duncan which English did not check out. In 1947, English wrote "Dogdom's Royal Family" for Boy's Life, then in 1949 he wrote The Rin Tin Tin Story for Dodd, Mead & Co. The problematic "facts" start with Duncan saying he found Rin Tin Tin in a German dugout and implying that he had to shoot his way into it. Duncan told English that Rin Tin Tin's mother was dead when he found the litter. The story changes with each telling, and English fails to keep up. The dog's birthdate cannot be known exactly. What is known is that Rin Tin Tin was born somewhere in the approximate range of September 6 to 13. Nobody was around to witness the birth. The Orlean biography is a book published by a respectable publisher: Simon & Schuster. Your characterization of it as "unauthorized" is laughable. Of course I am using it for the article—it is the best and most complete biography of Rin Tin Tin. The Daphne Hereford book is flawed because it tries to promote the point of view that there is only one lineage of Rin Tin Tin when in fact he sired 48 pups. The Hereford book is self-published by CreateSpace, so Wikipedia considers it an inferior source, per the WP:SPS guideline. I will not use a self-serving book as a source. Duncan's daughter says Rin Tin Tin III was not directly related to Rin Tin Tin; rather, he was born outside of the bloodline and secretly bought from another breeder. However, Duncan told people that Rin Tin Tin III was the grandson of Rin Tin Tin. Public appearances of various Rin Tin Tin descendant dogs are usually fairly trivial matters and not important to the biography. They would have to be somehow special to gain notice. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC) There is absolutely no evidence to support that the first RIN TIN TIN only had 48 puppies. Please provide that evidence. In addition, please provide evidence that RIN TIN TIN III was not sired by the first RIN TIN TIN. do you know wherer III is buried? We do and if you like we can check DNA. I find it terrible that you would suggest that Duncan made up stories that English could not keep up with. Have you read Duncan's writings that are available at the Riverside Museum> Perhaps you should. Have you listened to or watched the hours of videotaped depositions of Herbert B Leonard that support Duncan's account of the dogs and his participation in the daily filming of the series The Adventures of Rin Tin Tin. You say you cannot make reference to a Create Space book - yet that is Exactly what you did with the Perry Cooper book. The fact is he licensed use of the Trademark from Daphne Hereford to do his book with Create Space. So if you can make reference to his book why can you not reference a book written by someone who has spent 50 years with the bloodline? Double standard because you are friends with Orlean and not interested in fairness or the truth? Apparently you are not familiar with breeding dogs or bloodlines - when you say that there cannot be one "lineage" when in fact pedigrees disagree with that. Lineage describes a line of dogs - not individuals. As far as the date the pups were born, if you refer to Duncan's writings he says the pups eyes opened on the fifth day after he found them - anyone knows that puppies eyes open at age 10 days. Perhaps you should check with dog breeders to gather correct information. It is unfortunate that Orlean became angry with Hereford and decided to include such incorrect facts in her book. And if you want to discuss self serving - she was paid $1.25 million to do the book - that would seem to be pretty self serving to many. It is sad that you would find the reference to the Orlean book as unauthorized as laughable - she did meet with Hereford and then became angry over a single email. And that is sad because history will be altered by her and your refusal to research the actual facts. A great place to start would be with discussions with breeders who know what lineage and bloodlines means. You might also make inquiry regarding line-breeding - that will help a lot in the research. Another inaccuracy in your writings are references to the Museum - you call it "short lived" when it was completely in tact and open to the public for more than 10 years and only a portion of it was sold in 2009 with the majority of it still in tact and STILL available to the public. The intentional snubbing of the current RIN TIN TIN is another sad situation especially since the dog is very much alive and well and continues to make appearances, work in films, endorse products, participate in dog shows and sire progeny. You say the current RIN TIN TIN would have to gain special notice - in June 2012 The Academy of Arts and Sciences recognized RIN TIN TIN XII in a Special presentation and in October 2011 American Humane Association presented the first ever Legacy Award to him apparently they thought he was special enough for Notice. It is as though you have totally dismissed the 50 years that Hereford and her family have invested in preserving the RIN TIN TIN bloodline - and we are not sure why you would do that and more importantly intentionally attempt to rob the public of the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTTXII (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC) German Shepherd puppies generally open their eyes at about 1.5 weeks of age (usually ten to eleven days), but the exact day is not precise, and there is some variation. Rin Tin Tin the newborn puppy was stressed out from the war and from his mother's lack of food, so the timing of opening the eyes could have been affected. September 10 is as good a guess as any for the birthday but there is no way to know for sure. Susan Orlean writes on page 109 that Rinty and Nanette had at least 48 puppies, but that Duncan only kept two, giving the others away. Anybody knows that the other 46+ puppies are just as capable of continuing the bloodline as Rin Tin Tin II. Orlean lets the reader decide who to believe: Duncan or his daughter. The daughter says Rin Tin Tin III was from an outside bloodline. Duncan said Rin Tin Tin III was the grandson of Rinty. Both of them have an ulterior motive; Duncan to promote his dogs and the daughter to vent her anger. Nowhere in the Orlean book is Rin Tin Tin III said to be the son of Rinty. James W. English flexed with Duncan's various versions of the dog's history. For the Boy's Life article he wrote one version, then for the biography book he wrote another. Which version is the truth? Orlean determined that neither one holds the complete truth, but that both have kernels of truth. I don't think your modern Rin Tin Tin dogs have done much to write about. They have not been in major films or syndicated TV shows. They have not captured the nation's (or the world's) attention. Writing about minor publicity appearances is too promotional for an encyclopedia. When Rin Tin Tin XII does something worth relating then it will be a good candidate for the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC) I am sorry but because Susan Orlean writes RIN TIN TIN and Nanette had 48 puppies that makes it gospel? Where is the proof of that please? On what research is this "statement" made? You publishing something like this obviously inaccurate statement speaks to other inaccuracies that exist in the article. And apparently you are not interested in acquiring the actual facts. I am not quite sure what you have against RIN TIN TIN or Daphne Hereford or her family but it is sad that you would willingly participate in an obvious effort to make their contribution so insignificant. You find it appropriate to make one of your pages for GSD breeder Fred Lanting - but not a breeder of 50 years such as Hereford. Again, you display a double standard which is obvious. I truly wish you would take the time to interview Hereford and allow her to provide you with any documentation or pedigrees that would substantiate the accurate history. I note that you did not address your statement that because Orlean alleged there were 48 puppies from the first RIN TIN TIN that the '"lineage" could not be continuous. Please talk to a qualified - long-time GSD breeder, one who has been breeding dogs for at least 35 years. I do appreciate you confirming that puppies do open their eyes at 10 - 11 days - so if Duncan found the pups on Sept. 15, 1918 - and their eyes opened 5 days later - that would be Sept. 10, just as I said. And for the record, newborn puppies do not get stressed by things such as war. We have developed a cutting edge temperament test that is administered to week-old puppies that aids (not only our kennel but other breeds as well) in determining what stress levels are exactly experienced by puppies at that age. Again, ask any qualified breeder and you will find out that stress does not contribute to a puppies eyes opening. Please understand we are not trying to be argumentative - we just want the public to have TRUTHFUL information. We have no personal gain in wanting the public to have the information. We do not mass produce puppies, in fact we have one (or less) litters in a year and many of the puppies are donated as service dogs for special needs children to A Rinty for Kids Foundation, Incorporated - a 501(c)3 non-profit. In fact, in the last year we have only sold one puppy - so financial gain is not our motivation. Our motivation is supplying the correct information to the public And providing correct information about the German Shepherd Dog in general to interested parties. And for the record, Hereford's dog, RIN TIN TIN VI did star in the film Adam, which even by your standards would be considered a major film. I do wish you would go tot he Riverside Museum and see for yourself the documentation, and I wish you would visit the Museum so you can see it is NOT "short-lived" and I wish that you would attend a few AKC sanctioned dog shows and speak to members of the German Shepherd Dog Club of America and learn that Duncan made huge contributions to the breed and that he is celebrated int eh dog world for those contributions. In fact, he was co-owner of C. Tasso of Villa Marina, ROM and that dog remains on the GSDCA Register of merit sire list to this day. There are people still alive who knew Duncan and showed dogs with him - he was very dedicated to the GSD and your article desperately fails to even acknowledge that fact because you are so focused on a single source for your information in Orlean. Expand your database and you will learn a lot. It won't take you long to find out Orlean missed an enormous amount of the history in her book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTTXII (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Your dog Rin Tin Tin VI is not listed on IMDb. I could not find such a role in any film by the name Adam. In fact, IMDb does not list any Rin Tin Tin legacy dog past the 1950s TV show. The Wikipedia article Rin Tin Tin is primarily about the first Rin Tin Tin dog star, and about subsequent but lesser dogs which carried on the Rin Tin Tin legacy in film and TV. Dogs that are not major stars are not very important to the encyclopedia article. You are recommending that I perform my own research, but Wikipedia has rules against that. Wikipedia goes by WP:Reliable sources, and is based on WP:No original research. That means the Orlean book is a good source, but your self-published website rintintin.com is not. I am definitely not encouraged by Wikipedia to go to Riverside and look up the Duncan papers. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC) It is indeed a sad day when you contribute to providing the public with less than truthful information. It is also a sad day when you claim that a book which contains obvious errors, some you have acknowledged, is a trusted source for information on ANY subject. It is also a sad day when you openly exhibit double standards because you, for what ever reason, have a predetermined opinion of someone you have never met and because of that discount their entire lives and contributions to the existence of an icon such as RIN TIN TIN. It is a sad day when a business such as yours and their co-conspirators are allowed to change history with articles such as what you represent to the public. Perhaps Wikipedia does not encourage you to do any research, but in the quest of honesty and the TRUTH you should want to right this terrible wrong. It is sad that Susan Orlean set out to destroy lives and you aided in that quest. Shame on you both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTTXII (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Since you are so interested in my signature we will certainly add that. In addition we have added a disclaimer to our website indicating the inaccuracies that you insist on promoting. Perhaps one day some writer out to make a million dollars will do to you what has been done to RIN TIN TIN. Shame on you all. 173.184.26.68 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC) We would appreciate you clarifying the 48 puppy issue and define where the actual data can be verified besides in a single book. We also would like to know why you do not cite other books about RIN TIN TIN and chose to insist that Orlean's book is the ONLY one that you will make reference to? RTTXII (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC) The imperious "we" and the peremptory demand turn me off. Your insistence that the Orlean book is my only source is wrong: the Rin Tin Tin Wikipedia article is based on books by Susan Orlean, James W. English, David Rothel, Jan-Christopher Horak, Gertrude Orr, John Dunning and Jeanine Basinger. It is also based on news articles by Jennifer Schuessler, Richard Eder and Mary Flood. I think it is fairly written. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Nobody demanded anything form you. And the "we" was not imperious - rather it was a vernacular "we." In your own responses you discount the English book and yet now use it as a reference. The errors in the article are those cited by the Orlean book and not the other articles or authors you refer to. There seems to be a double standard here - ie - on the Finding Rin tin Tin page you say that the movie was by Danny Lerner (which it in fact was) yet in the Rin Tin Tin article you say movie was by James Tierney, which it was NOT. Your own information in contradictory. You also say that the first Rin tin tin had 48 puppies with one female, but yet you offer nothing to substantiate it not even a reference to Orlean's book. Since the first Rin Tin Tin was not registered with American kennel Club there are no AKC records to support that claim. You also say that the Rin tin tin Museum was "short lived" and make not reference as to where this information is substantiated and yet the Museum still exists today. You also say that Jsannettia Brodsgaaard Propps amassed a collection of memorabilia which she did not. She never collected Anything. It was Edythe Shepard of Tucson, Arizona who collected a large part of the pieces in the museum and donated them to Rin tin tin. There are other issues with other pages such as the Lassie page - you apparently did not follow the "conflict" rules with them (Carol, Joan and Chelsea - yes they are friends of ours and in fact have one of our dogs)and allowed their "version" of facts that surrounded the events associated with Weatherwax. Yet you will not make corrections to things in the Rin Tin Tin article that are incorrect and that are not as self-serving as the statements in the Lassie article. Honestly it appears that you do maintain a double standard. I now see that you have arbitrarily added that a dog name Rin Tin Tin Smith attended the American Humane hero Dog Award Show in 2011 - there is no dog registered as Rin tin tin Smith and there has never been a dog called Rin Tin tin Smith. Not sure where you got your information but that too is incorrect. The call name of the dog is indeed "Smith" but that is not his registered name. He is Rin Tin tin XII. I do not understand why you seem to be so rude with your comments like "turn me off." All we (the vernacular we) want is to correct misinformation. And if you will notice, we are not asking for the entire article to be corrected - only those portions which we know are wrong. We would hope that would be your goal as well - to provide correct information to people and to do it in a consistent manner. RTTXII (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Regarding "at least 48 puppies": Susan Orlean writes on page 109 in her book that "Rin Tin Tin and Nanette had had at least forty-eight puppies, but Lee hadn't trained any of them for a career in the movies. He sold or gave away all but two youngsters." I don't need to prove anything except that the information is verifiable; that it is found in the Orlean book. Regarding Finding Rin Tin Tin, the IMDb page for Jim Tierney says he was an executive producers for the film. The IMDb page for the film says Danny Lerner directed it and Jim Tierney was co-writer (with David Rolland) and also one of 11 producers. With writer and producer credits, Tierney can fairly be said to have "made" the film, just as Danny Lerner or any of the producers can be said to have "made" the film. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Once again you are selective in your responses and totally ignore important issues. for example: You also say that the Rin tin tin Museum was "short lived" and make not reference as to where this information is substantiated and yet the Museum still exists today. You also say that Jannettia Brodsgaaard Propps amassed a collection of memorabilia which she did not. She never collected Anything. It was Edythe Shepard of Tucson, Arizona who collected a large part of the pieces in the museum and donated them to Rin tin tin. There are other issues with other pages such as the Lassie page - you apparently did not follow the "conflict" rules with them (Carol, Joan and Chelsea - yes they are friends of ours and in fact have one of our dogs)and allowed their "version" of facts that surrounded the events associated with Weatherwax. Yet you will not make corrections to things in the Rin Tin Tin article that are incorrect and that are not as self-serving as the statements in the Lassie article. Honestly it appears that you do maintain a double standard. I now see that you have arbitrarily added that a dog name Rin Tin Tin Smith attended the American Humane hero Dog Award Show in 2011 - there is no dog registered as Rin tin tin Smith and there has never been a dog called Rin Tin tin Smith. Not sure where you got your information but that too is incorrect. The call name of the dog is indeed "Smith" but that is not his registered name. He is Rin Tin tin XII. We would still like to know who gave you this bogus information and it should be corrected. And again regarding Finding Rin Tin tin - if you have Tierney on one page should he not also be on the Finding Rin tin tin page and shouldn't you put Danny Lerner on the Rin Tin tin page.? I am sure Danny Lerner would appreciate that. If you would like a copy of the contract between First Look and Tierney we can certainly provide that to you. It specifically outlines Tierney's involvement as being only limited to a "mention." He had no direct involvment in the "making" of the film. I would hope that you would research further to substantiate the 48 puppy issue. Your argument is that because someone "mentions" it is a book that it is absolutely true. If that is the case then why do you discount other authors, books and writings? You defend Orlean's writings as though they were your own and discount anyone else's, including English. That is surely a double standard and certainly NOT professional in any manner. We would hope that your goal would be to provide correct information to people and to do it in a consistent manner. Apparently that is not your goal as evidenced by your self righteous indignation. In a lawsuit you could be described as having unclean hands. Shame on you. RTTXII (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC) WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013 The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012 Harvey page Hi Binksternet; I saw the draft for Jerry Harvey from the merge discussion, and was wondering if I can pop in and help incorporate it back into the live page. I could either do it in a separate draft and run it by you first, do it in that one, whatever works. AudioJunker (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, you can help. I was hoping I could find more JH Audio cites to expand the latter part of his career. This one from CNET is pretty good. Maybe there are others. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC) There's something in Time magazine (volume 175, issue 14, page 62) about earbuds. The article is called "Custom-Made Headphones: Listen Up Before It's Too Late", from April 26, 2010. The only brand mentioned is JH Audio. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Right on, I'll make it my wiki job of the afternoon. AudioJunker (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC) Notification of discussion A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC) I participated. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC) We Can Do It! Congratulations on this fine article's main page appearance. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you! I credit the fine sources else the poster would still be mired in hearsay. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Lists of people Please note that WP:LISTPEOPLE only applies to articles that are stand-alone lists and not to lists within articles. In particular, remember that WP:N only applies to the subject of an article and not to content within that article. ElKevbo (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, I am aware that LISTPEOPLE appears in a guideline related to list-type articles rather than regular articles. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have a guideline for lists that occur within a regular article, such as sections listing "Notable alumni" or "Notable residents". Without such a guideline I consider the LISTPEOPLE guideline to be the closest applicable example. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Al Gore Gosh, I thought the policy was Bold (you were), Revert (I did), Discuss (I started a discussion on talk page). I don't think it is Bold, Revert, Revert. Perhaps you could self-revert and help reach consensus on the talk page. This is a highly controversial article, extra care is needed. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Your words seem to follow policy but your actions do not. Why in the world would you remove from the article the widely reported observation of a prominent politician? It does not matter whether he is politically against the Tea Party; his opinion is important. It does not matter whether you think he is wrong, either. What matters is that a prominent person wrote something in a prominent media piece which was noticed by many others and commented upon widely. I don't think it is necessary to discuss whether to include it. At most, I would be interested in discussing how to include it. We can discuss how to summarize it or what Gore quotes to include, or even whether to quote him. If you are willing to leave it in and discuss how to summarize it, then we have ourselves a conversation. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I am of course willing to leave it in. I said as much on the talk page before you responded here. I have, in fact, now left it in. I agree that Al Gore is a prominent politician whose comments are notable. His opinion may be included, somewhere. I would have moved it perhaps to the end of the history section as an opinion or theory of the founding of the Tea Party movement. I can't cut and paste however, I'm editing on an iPad.Capitalismojo (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC) As to policy. I followed policy precisely because there is a big warning at the top of the edit page. How in the world do you suggest that my actions didn't follow BRD to the letter? I'd really like to know. I've made less than 2000 edits, you've made tens of thousands, maybe I have been misunderstanding the policy.Capitalismojo (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC) There is a disconnect between the WP:BRD advice page and the big warning over the edit window. BRD is not policy or even an official Wikipedia guideline; it is simply a consensual practice which helps editors work together. The big warning, on the other hand, allows for one revert per user per day, which is exactly what you referred to above as B–R–R. It could even be B–R–R–R–R–R–R if there were enough users involved, though in that case the article would likely get locked down by an administrator to force discussion. I opted to exercise my right to one (1) revert because I could see that the talk page was a morass of illogic, as opposed to the RSN discussion which was cool and reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Great. Thanks for the reasonable and thoughtful response. I am taking a long break from Tea Party article...too much drama. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) CITEVAR again Hello Binksternet. A similar case to what happened at Talk:Syd Barrett: A user at David Gilmour changed the citation style, I reverted linking to CITEVAR, but the user simply undid my edit. Could you help? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 01:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Falco looks like he is aiding GeezerB in the change to sfn references. GeezerB should not have initiated the change but with Falco's apparent support you should start a talk page thread about it before it goes too far. The citations can be rolled back to what they were if the talk page consensus is for that to happen. Note that GeezerB is being investigated as a sockpuppet of Plant's Strider, who also did this kind of CITEVAR disruption. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Hello Based on past experience it seems to me that you have a clear understanding of policies and guidelines and also a clear way of expressing them to others. Could you take a look at User talk:West Horizon and see if you can help? No worries if you don't have the time or the energy. --Slp1 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Stacey Kent albums It might have been better to encourage User:OrdiCoach.fr to create articles for the Stacey Kent albums they were linking to. We all have to start somewhere. I wandered in off the internet as an unregistred ip in 2005 to edit Ella Fitzgerald albums, and I've been here ever since. Anyho, thanks for all the other stellar work with crazy editors you do here :) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) You're probably right. I don't have anything against the lovely and talented Stacey Kent nor do I have anything against the new editor User:OrdiCoach.fr. Rather, I think that song articles should tell the reader what are the most important cover versions. I do not think they should list every little instance the song appeared as filler on someone's album, or a snippet of the song used in someone's film or TV show. This is my Tantalus task, as there are legions of editors who seem to want exactly what I do not. Me, I wandered in as an IP editor adding something about the film Mad Hot Ballroom to a list article. That was in July 2007 and I've been here ever since. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Ha! I totally agree. Articles on standards that label all recordings since Fred Astaire as "covers" really wind me up. People don't really understand the nature of the jazz canon. Good look with your noble endeavour. A few years ago I attempted to clean up "Summertime", it still gives me cold sweats. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC) February 2013 Hi, I received your message in reference to Mountain House, San Joaquin County, California. A significant amount of development has occurred since the 2008 crash, and I think it is fair to include this information (residential construction, new school construction). What edits did you take issue with? I'm new at this and open to your suggestions. Please message me via my talk page. --Roxstar245 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Significant new development does not remove or erase significant bad news such as Mountain House being the worst place in the USA for negative equity in November 2008. You cannot remove such prominent news items and wrap them in spin. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Try adding to the article rather than taking away. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I’ve revised edits based on your feedback. The most significant edit was moving the mention of having the ‘highest percentage of underwater mortgages’ from introduction to expand entry in Notable Dates section. This is an important part of this community’s history, however it should not completely define it. Moving it to a more appropriate place in the article is not spin. Its negative history is mentioned in several sections, including Mountain House Plan, Notable Dates and Financial Downturn.Roxstar245 (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC) If I retain the negative information in the intro, will you stop reverting my edits? Roxstar245 (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Retaining important and prominently reported information, negative or not, is a key factor. There are other factors, too, such as cutting out the booster-style language you were using to make Mountain House seem more attractive: "taking shape as it was envisioned", "satisfy residents’ needs", "an equally diverse group of homebuyers, who include young couples and small families, move-up and maturing families and active empty nesters", "well underway", "diverse new", "helping to rejuvenate the community", "highly ranked", "expanding resident access to a broad array", "faith appears to be justified", "steady and rising new home sales", and "San Francisco is the major media market for Mountain House". This kind of spin is wa-a-ay over the top for an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Thank you Binksternet, for expertly sorting out those issues with the Flavio Briatore article and, more importantly, doing the hard work for me! I appreciate your help WormTT(talk) 08:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the shout out! Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Crosbie Castle That's very helpful. The problem will arise when it's not from a book. I used to copy past and then reword factual info - not as much as required I have discovered. Rosser Gruffydd 09:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC) It is very good that you are looking into this matter, and it is even better that the problem is not as extensive as initially thought. Binksternet (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC) How does one find where text is too closely paraphrased? I was relying on the 'bot' to pick it up. Is there another automatic way of checking for paraphrasing. Rosser Gruffydd 12:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC) You might have to ask someone else about automatic tools. I check by hand, taking strings of article words and making them into a web search. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Chaplin article Hey Binksternet. Ages ago when I first proposed overhauling the Charlie Chaplin article, you said that you'd be happy to keep an eye on the project. I know that you worked on the page in the past, so you obviously have an interest in it. Me and TrueHeartSusie have now rewritten pretty much the whole thing. I don't consider it "finished" yet, there's certainly more perfecting that can be done, but I was just wondering if you have any immediate thoughts on this new version of the article? You don't have to undertake a full review (unless you want to?), but I'd greatly appreciate any comments/suggestions you may have at this point. Obviously I'm aware that it's very long...I don't think there's any way it can't be a long article, heh, but I'm interested to know if it feels "too" long. I hope you like what we've done any way. Get back to me if you can (here or on the article talk page I guess). Thanks --Lobo (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Right now I'm working pretty hard on another article, but if you take Chaplin to WP:Peer review I will be able to add my thoughts there in a few days. Otherwise, I'll just comment casually in a few days. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC) That's very kind. I'm not sure if I should put it up for a formal review quite yet, since there's still a few things I know I want to work on. Maybe if I get those done in the next few days I will take that step. I'd be fine with just some casual comments for the time being though, ie if any of the sections look too detailed, any structural things you would change...Probably the main thing I want, actually, is some feedback on the lead, since it's obviously very important. Make the comments whenever you have the time, no rush. :) --Lobo (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Fellini What is the problem about "influenced" title in Fellini page. Ingmar Bergman and Kubrick are clearly influenced by Fellini and stop deleting my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akincibey (talk • contribs) 22:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Just one reference enough to show this clear influence on Bergman. "He showed it (Hour of the Wolf) to me when he came to Rome. Its fantasy is completely different from mine, more Nordic. I would call Hour of the Wolf Bergman's 8 1/2. Indeed, he confesses candidly that he has seen all my films and cites them in his own. Being a rich, an authentic artist, he can borrow from others without any guilt of plagiarism. I value Bergman a lot. He is a real man of spectacle and images, one of the best." - Federico Fellini - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.145.190 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC) At the same time, Kubrick was influenced by Fellini. Not just about Kubrick said that Fellini one of his favourite directors. "Kubrick never visited many people; he never had very many friends. One of his chances to see them was November 5, Guy Fawkes' Day and a national holiday that the town-area of St. Albans celebrates with fantastic fireworks. "Stanley heard very often from just a few people: Jack Nicholson and Ryan O'Neal, whose daughter Tatum played with Kubrick's daughters. When he made 2001: A Space Odyssey, he saw both George C. Scott and Peter Sellars quite often. And he also really liked Ennio Morricone and Nino Rota. At that point he became friends with George Lucas and then there was Steven Spielberg. Lately Tom Cruise... I repeat, when he had to check in with someone, he did it over the telephone. He and Federico Fellini, for example, heard from each other very frequently, but because Kubrick didn't speak a word of Italian I served as interpreter. Kubrick was curious. He would have me ask Fellini how he had filmed a specific scene, and then he'd want to know how on Earth Nino Rota had settled on that particular music; and Fellini would respond to me. They shared their opinions on Italian films..." (http://www.archiviokubrick.it/english/onsk/people/dalessandro.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akincibey (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC) I would like to see published opinions saying that Fellini influenced Bergman and Kubrick. Something that has appeared in a WP:Reliable source. It is a very simple request, simply answered. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Drama boards Hi, Binksternet. Did you intend to lump me in with the others you mentioned when you said "a six-month US right-wing politics topic ban would be useful"? I'm hoping that was a mistake; I expect (and ignore) similar rhetoric when it comes from several of the other folks mentioned in your comment, as it is always unsubstantiated and rather routine when editing articles in common with them. However, when I see it in a comment of yours, from someone who's remarks I've found to be more reasoned and thoughtful, I am prompted to take pause and look into this more thoroughly. Could I trouble you for a more thorough explanation of my inclusion in your comment? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry! When I get a moment I will look more carefully at your contributions at that article. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Somebody bumped the discussion upstairs, and in the process you were dropped from the list of those accused of tendentious editing. If the subject comes up again I will make certain to analyze your contributions very carefully and not accidentally lump you in with a group of obstructionists. Binksternet (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Oakland, California You have been edit warring at Oakland, California for quite a long time. I have seen your attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page, but that does not make edit warring acceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry; I got turned around by one user who changed from User:Fashionbaby90 to Special:Contributions/108.79.54.52 and Special:Contributions/208.121.64.2 in order to keep his favorite image in the infobox. I do so much vandal reverting that I have developed a short temper for IP-hopping editors. Binksternet (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Note that 208.121.64.2 and Fashionbaby90 both !voted on the image question at Talk:Oakland,_California#Oakland_Skyline_Image_-_Vote.21, which shows that there was sockpuppeting by this user: voting twice on the same issue. Binksternet (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC) What is the evidence that these are the same person? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC) 208.121.64.2 appears to be used by several people because the chosen topics are so eclectic; it is registered to the San Francisco Department of Telecommunications. I think it is a computer at SF City Hall. 108.79.54.52 is a residential IP address in Hercules, California, a bedroom community to San Francisco within the normal commuter radius. 108.79.54.52 is mostly interested in East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area) topics such as Hercules, Pinole, Richmond, Oakland, and California State University, East Bay. At the city articles, 108.79.54.52 was mostly interested in reverting infobox images. Fashionbaby90 was interested in the same general East Bay city topics as 108.79.54.52. The user first participated on Wikipedia by adding a fine image of Pinole, uploaded by Fashionbaby90. Timeline: Feb 5: Fashionbaby90 changes the main photo at Pinole, California Feb 5: Fashionbaby90 changes some text at Hercules, California, adding something about Pinole Feb 6: 108.79.54.52 slightly tweaks the same Pinole-related text at Hercules, California Feb 6: Fashionbaby90 changes the main photo at Berkeley, California. (This photo was later deleted on Commons for some reason.) Feb 6, 09:19: Fashionbaby90 changes the main photo at Oakland, California, to OAKLAND901.JPG, but four minutes later self-reverts. Feb 8, 03:51: Fashionbaby90 changes the main photo at Oakland, California, to OAKLAND901.JPG. Feb 8, 04:49: Fashionbaby90 changes a lot of text and the main image at Richmond, California. (The edit removed crime facts.) Feb 8, 08:49: 108.79.54.52 changes the main photo at Oakland, California, to OAKLAND901.JPG, five hours after identical action by Fashionbaby90. Feb 8, 08:58: 108.79.54.52 slightly tweaks the same text at Richmond, California four hours after Fashionbaby90. Feb 8, 17:24: 208.121.64.2 changes the main photo at Oakland, California, to OAKLAND901.JPG, 13.5 hours after identical action by Fashionbaby90 and 8.5 hours after 108.79.54.52. Feb 8, 23:22: 208.121.64.2 !votes for photo #2 at Talk:Oakland, California#Oakland Skyline Image - Vote! Feb 8, 23:32: Fashionbaby90 !votes for photo #2 at Talk:Oakland, California#Oakland Skyline Image - Vote! (ten minutes after 208.121.64.2) Feb 8, 23:36: Fashionbaby90 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2, saying "most users" prefer this photo. This is the final WP contribution by Fashionbaby90. Feb 12, 04:04: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2, three days after identical change by Fashionbaby90. Feb 12, 05:58: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2. Feb 12, 06:33: 108.79.54.52 changes the Reno, Nevada, infobox image to skyline, not arch. Feb 12, 06:56: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2. Feb 12, 07:49: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to OAKLAND901.JPG. Feb 12, 09:37: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to OAKLAND901.JPG. Feb 15, 04:47: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2. Feb 15, 04:59: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to OAKLAND901.JPG. Feb 16, 02:54: 208.121.64.2 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2. Feb 16, 05:15: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2. Feb 16, 05:35: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2. Feb 22, 18:37: 208.121.64.2 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2. Feb 22, 18:38: 208.121.64.2 changes the Reno infobox image to skyline, not arch. Feb 22, 23:06: 208.121.64.2 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2. Feb 22, 23:37: 208.121.64.2 changes the Reno infobox image to skyline, not arch. Feb 23, 00:33: 208.121.64.2 changes the Oakland infobox image to photo #2. Feb 23, 00:36: 208.121.64.2 changes the Reno infobox image to skyline, not arch. Feb 25, 05:37: 108.79.54.52 changes the Oakland infobox image to File:OaklandCASkyline.jpg, a new choice that has San Francisco in the background. Feb 25, 05:40: 108.79.54.52 changes the Reno infobox image to skyline, not arch. The three users appear to be interested in the same material. Fashionbaby90 was soon followed by 108.79.54.52 in Hercules to support Fashionbaby90's changes to the Richmond and Oakland articles. These two look like the same editor. Then 208.121.64.2 in San Francisco appears and reverts to the same Oakland infobox images that 108.79.54.52 and Fashionbaby90 preferred, and the same Reno infobox image that 108.79.54.52 preferred. At a fast driving speed, it would take 30 minutes to drive from SF City Hall to Hercules. None of the 208.121.64.2 and 108.79.54.52 contributions are closer together than 2 hours 21 minutes, so they cannot be proven to be different people using that method. I think all three of these are the same person. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC) You made a mistake by deleting the "border protection" section in UAV You mentioned the initial entry seemed promotional. I changed it. The information is important and relevant to this topic. Why did you delete again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.182.233 (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC) At the Unmanned aerial vehicle article, I made this deletion because the facts came from http://www.marketinfogroup.com/unmanned-aerial-vehicles-border-security-market/ which is a public relations firm, not what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Please use a reliable source such as a newspaper or magazine. Furthermore, DexDor deleted this same material because it is composed of conjecture about the future. The text is all about boosting UAV sales, and is not appropriate to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. I understand your comments regarding the market predictions. The firm in question is not PR firm but rather a market research firm. The individual who wrote this specific report is a recognized expert in the field. In addition, border protection is a new and growing use for UAV, as is revealed by this firm. That is a very important information that should be made public, and the reference is valid. Now, assuming I omit the market forecasts, would the entry be permitted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.210.182.233 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Who is the author? No name is attached to the report. Wikipedia usually describes what has happened. Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia editors are advised that "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." The point of view of the market research group is far too promotional, aimed at pushing sales of UAVs. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Otis Redding Hello, I have responded to your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Otis Redding/archive5. I would like to hear clarification regarding that anyone else should pick it. I find your first comment rather nasty, but, as I stated, it depends how you meant it. Also the fact that you haven't explained your final decision is quite odd. I removed my former name because I don't like it, and I don't want it to be mentioned. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Your former name is relevant in regard to your history of nominating the article for FAC, which I was bringing up as a critical point. Otherwise I would not have used it. I don't think my review was nasty. I would characterize it as severe, but appropriately so. I think you are mistaken in bringing this article, or any article, to FAC. You are too busy working on GANs for WikiCup points to have any hope of entering the sort of deep concentration necessary to craft an article for FA status. You are working on the bibliography of Fyodor Dostoyevsky and you are reviewing a handful of FACs and GANs. I don't see any evidence that you have checked out one or more of the Redding biographies so that you have a fresh take on the subject; your recent changes are all of the copyediting type, not in article development. You have apparently done nothing to look for new sources. But here's the most serious point: From past interaction with you, I think your English prose skills are fair but not engaging or inspired. At WP:WIAFA it says of FA: "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." That "brilliant" bit is why I think someone else should take articles from GA to FA. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC) DYK for Phase plug Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! Barnstar of Integrity and Diligence Please accept this long-overdue recognition of your exemplary contributions to Wikipedia. Your efforts to create and improve content, and fend off the rapscallions who would undue it, are truly transformational. I can't say enough about how much of an inspiration you are to myself and others. - MrX 17:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Those sneaky rapscallions! Sounds like a band of hip-hop sous-chefs. They should be fended off at every opportunity! Many thanks for the recognition. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)